Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature 9783666354076, 9783525354070, 9783647354071

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam

Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabrück), Ester Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St Andrews), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University) Volume 9

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Miryam T. Brand

Evil Within and Without The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

For my mother and father No verse can express what I owe you, and no quote conveys what you mean to me. ‫שלי – שלכם הוא‬ is the simple truth.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-35407-0 ISBN 978-3-647-35407-1 (E-Book) Cover image: M. C. Escher’s “Circle Limit IV” © 2013 The M. C. Escher Company-The Netherlands. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.com © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A. Internet: www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typeset, printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Acknowledgments I would like to thank a number of people who played important roles in the completion of this work. I am tremendously grateful to my advisor, Professor Lawrence Schiffman, who introduced me to the world of Second Temple literature, giving generously of his valuable time and knowledge. More than this, his personal encouragement and support enabled me to complete this project, as did his thoughtful direction in all phases of my research. His impact on this work is inestimable. Professor Mark Smith provided detailed guidance and advice that ranged from how to address topics of wide theoretical importance to the nitty-gritty of writing academic English. He taught me the meaning of constructive criticism. Professor Frank Peters assisted me with the theoretical framework of this study and continued to support me throughout the years of writing that followed. Professor Daniel Fleming and Professor Robert Chazan shared their experience as scholars and teachers with me, providing directions for the future course of my research. They have each provided a personal example of scholarship and menschlichkeit that I hope to emulate. I have benefited from many guides and helpful traveling companions on the long path from dissertation to book. From the day my work was accepted until I wrote my concluding paragraph, Professor Maxine Grossman has given generously of her time and knowledge, providing me with invaluable feedback and advice that enabled me to transform my dissertation into a work that is more accessible to the interested reader. Dr. Shani Berrin Tzoref, despite her own busy schedule, took the time to comment on chapters, answer my questions, and encourage me when I needed it. I am grateful for her friendship. Of course, special thanks go to Professor Armin Lange for accepting my book for publication. I could not have reached this point without my fellow writers. Dr. Katja Vehlow has spent countless hours with me in the cafés of Jerusalem, writing side-by-side and sharing advice and feedback. Dr. Tali Berner has been a faithful writing and library companion. It was a pleasure to be accountable to her. This book was completed with the financial support of the National Endowment of the Humanities and the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. The Albright Institute also provided the perfect environment for academic study and inquiry. I am grateful to Prof. Seymour (Sy) Gitin for a wonderful and productive year. Thanks also go to Helena Flusfeder for her friendship and encouragement, to Sarah Sussman for her advice from a librarian’s point-of-view, and to the entire Albright team for their warmth and support.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

6

Acknowledgments

I have benefited from the generous financial support of several other institutions in completing this project. Doctoral research grants were provided by Targum Shlishi, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature at the Hebrew University. I also received a Henry H. McCracken graduate fellowship from New York University, which made my doctoral studies possible. I thank each of these fine institutions for generously supporting my research. There are many who devoted time to discussing my work with me, sharing their own expertise and suggesting possible avenues for research. These include Professor Loren Stuckenbruck, Professor James Kugel, Professor Menahem Kister, Dr. Shai Secunda, Professor Michael Segal, and Dr. Esther Chazon. Their generosity and collegiality continue to hearten me. The majority of the dissertation on which this book is based was completed with the help of the substantial resources of the National Library of Israel at Givat Ram, Jerusalem. I am grateful to the wonderful librarians of the National Library, who consistently provided assistance and a warm feeling of belonging to all library regulars, myself included. This project would never have been completed without the enthusiastic support and encouragement of my family. My sister, Menucha Wilk, and my brothers, Reuven and Shlomo Brand, provided constant support and relevant input. There are no words to express my gratitude to my parents, Don and Peninah Brand, with whom I have been truly blessed. Their feedback, love, and constant belief in me have sustained me throughout this process. My mother deserves special acknowledgment. With her unstinting work, support, and always intelligent comments and corrections, she made this book possible and loved me despite it all. As she reads these acknowledgments, I hope that she can understand the depth of my gratitude.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Table of Contents Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Symbols Employed in Text Transcriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Ben Sira (Hebrew) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chapter One. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sin, Religious Thought, and the State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Source of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Determinism and Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Definition of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Rationale and Method of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Texts Included in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Sectarian” and “Non-Sectarian” Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determinism, “Fate,” and the Qumran Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors and Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angels and Demons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 30 30 30

The Plan of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Theoretical Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Qumran Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Reading Gender in Second Temple Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Textual Editions and Translations Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Part I: The Human Inclination to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chapter Two. Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11QPsa col. XXIV (Syriac Psalm 155): Divine Assistance against the Desire to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4QBarkhi Nafshi: Direct Intervention in the Human Condition . . . . . . . 42

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

8

Table of Contents

The Words of the Luminaries: Divine Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4QCommunal Confession: God’s Responsibility for Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Psalms of Solomon: Prayer and the Need for Divine Assistance . . . . . . . . 54 The Road Not Travelled: Prayers without an Inclination to Sin . . . . . . . . 55 Conclusion: Innate Inclination to Sin and Inevitability in Nonsectarian Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Chapter Three. Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer . 59 The Hodayot: The Physical Dimension of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The “Hymn of Praise”: Ongoing Sin and Chosenness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sectarian Prayer: Hodayot and the Community Rule Hymn . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Conclusion: Second Temple Prayer and the Innate Inclination to Sin . . 72 Chapter Four. Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts . . . 74 The Damascus Document (CD) II.14-III.12a: Freedom of Choice and the Inclination to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CD II.14-III.12a: A History of Sinners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminology of Sin and Choice in CD III.2–12a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freedom in the Context of Predestination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 75 78 82

The Community Rule: A “Free Choice” Redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter Five. The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira and the Writings of Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 The Book of Ben Sira: Textual History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Ben Sira 15: 11–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 The Medieval Gloss in Sir 15: 14: Rewriting of a Theological Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 The Meaning of yēṣ er in the Book of Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 The Choice between Good and Evil in Sir 15: 11–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Sir 33: 7–15: Election and the Evildoer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Other References to the Source of Sin in the Book of Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . 113 Sir 25: 24: Original Sin or a Wicked Wife? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Sir 17: 31: Pondering Evil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Sir 21: 11: Controlling One’s Inclination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Sir 23: 2–6: Prayer and Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Ben Sira’s Approach to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Table of Contents

9

Conclusion: Ben Sira and Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Chapter Six. After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Inevitable Sinfulness in 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Angel and 4 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Adam’s Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Conclusion: the Choice to Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Excursus: Inclination to Sin and the Gentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Part II: Demonic Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Chapter Seven. Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Genres and Provenance of “Demonic” Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 The Watchers Myth and 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 The Watchers in 1 Enoch: The Book of the Watchers (Chapters 1–36) . 154 1 Enoch 6–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 The Role of Sin in the Three Traditions of 1 Enoch 6–11 . . . . . . . . . . . 158 The Watchers Myth in 1 Enoch 12–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Forbidden Knowledge in 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 1 Enoch 19: 1–2: Worship of Demons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Summary: Watchers in 1 Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Chapter Eight. Jubilees and Demonic Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 The Book of Jubilees: Textual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 The Watchers in Jubilees 4 and 5: Reflection of Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 10–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Jub. 7: Watchers, the Law, and Human Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Jub. 10: 1–6: Prayer and Human Helplessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Mastema: Bringing Demons into the Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Mastema and his Role in the Book of Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Summary: Mastema in Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Mastema in the Damascus Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Belial and the Nations: A Complex View of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Abram’s Prayer: A Complex Demonic Reference in Jub. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

10

Table of Contents

Summary and Conclusion: Jubilees and the Demonic Source of Sin . . . . 195 Chapter Nine. Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence . . . . . . 198 The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sectarian Apotropaic Prayer . 198 The Watchers and Other Demons of Influence in Sectarian Apotropaic Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 4QIncantation (4Q444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 11Qapocryphal Psalms (11Q11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 The Plea for Deliverance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Levi’s Prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 The Rule of Demons in the Plea and Levi’s Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian Apotropaic Prayers . . . . . . . 215 Chapter Ten. Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll . . . . . . . 218 Belial in the Damascus Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 “Angels of Hostility” and Belial in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah . . . . . . . . 229 Summary: Belial in the Damascus Document and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Belial in the War Scroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Conclusion: Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll . . . . . 237 Chapter Eleven. Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule . 239 4QBerakhot: Periodization of Demonic Evil and Evildoers . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Belial in the Community Rule: Demonic Presence and Absence in a Covenantal Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 4QCurses (4Q280): An Integrative Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 4QFlorilegium: A pesher View of Belial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Conclusion: Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Chapter Twelve. Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits . . . . . 257 1QS III.13–18a: Introduction to the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 1QS III.18b–25a: A Central (Secondary?) Crux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 The Visions of Amram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 1QS III.25b–IV.14: The Spirits of Light and Darkness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Table of Contents

11

1QS IV.15–23: Predestination and the Eschaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 1QS IV.23–26: The Two Spirits and Predestination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 The Redacted Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Sources of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Connection to Wisdom Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Conclusion: “Purpose” of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Chapter Thirteen. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Genre, Free Will, and the Source of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Covenantal Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Wisdom and Philosophical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Demonic Influence and the Periodization of Evil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 The Law versus Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Gentiles and Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 The Treatise of the Two Spirits and Views of Sin at Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Adam and “Original Sin” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Implications for Post-Second Temple Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Modern Authors Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Abbreviations AARSR AB ABD AGJU AGPh AJEC ALGHJ AnBib ANRW

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Analecta biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATDan Acta theologica danica Aug Augustinianum BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et orientalia Bijdr Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie BJS Brown Judaic Studies BLE Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique BRS The Biblical Resource Series BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CJAS Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series CQS Companion to the Qumran Scrolls CREJ Collection de la Revue des études juives CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium CSRT Cambridge Studies in Religious Traditions DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EBib Etudes bibliques EDSS Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. EgT Eglise et théologie EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

14 FRLANT GAP GCS Hen HR HSAT HSM HTR HUCA ICC IEJ IOS JAJSup JBL JCTCRS JJS JJTP JLCRS JSHRZ-St JQR JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSS JTS KUSATU LCL LNTS LSJ LSTS MLBS MScRel NJPS NovT NRSV NTL NTS Numen OBO OLA OTL OtSt PAAJR

Abbreviations Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Henoch History of Religions Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Israel Oriental Society Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Journal of Jewish Studies The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion Series Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996. Library of Second Temple Studies Mercer Library of Biblical Studies Mélanges de science religieuse Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Testament Library New Testament Studies Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Abbreviations PACS PTSDSSP PVTG QC RB RelSoc RevQ RRJ RStB SAACT SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSymS SBLTT SBT SC ScrHier SDSSRL SGRR SJLA SJOT SJT SPhilo SR SSN STAC STDJ StPB SubBi SUNT SVTP TBN TSAJ TUGAL TZ VCSup VD VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT YJS ZA ZAW ZTK

Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Qumran Chronicle Revue biblique Religion and Society Revue de Qumran Review of Rabbinic Judaism Ricerche storico bibliche State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chrétiennes Scripta hierosolymitana Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studies in Greek and Roman Religion Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Studia philonica Studies in Religion Studia semitica neerlandica Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia post-biblica Subsidia biblica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Themes in Biblical Narrative Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Supplements Verbum domini Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Judaica Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

15

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Symbols Employed in Text Transcriptions Dead Sea Scrolls ‫א‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֯ ‫א‬

certain letter probable letter in most texts: possible letter; in 1QHa: damaged letter (mid-line circlet) remnant of an undetermined letter ° reconstructed text [‫]א‬ […] lacuna; does not indicate length … text not cited

a modern editorial correction > a modern editorial deletion erased letter(s) or surface {‫}א‬, {a} ‫אמתו‬, truth crossing out a letter or word with a line ‫מעל‬ ׄ deletion dot(s) above, below, or around letters alternative or uncertain reconstruction (‫)א‬ (saying) in the translation: words added for clarity ‫שזעקתם‬ ׄ , six months supralinear insertion ‫יהוה‬ Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew vacat interval (usually: writing space intentionally left blank) word 1/ word 2 (in translation) alternative translations

Ben Sira (Hebrew) ֗ ‫א‬

15add (‫)א‬ * [‫]א‬ {‫}א‬

probable reading verses/stichs that do not appear in the Septuagint version insertion in the original manuscript marginal notations and additions in the original manuscript reconstructions by the editor reconstructions by Segal based on LXX

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter One Introduction In the Second Temple period, the nexus between sin and human existence became a subject of considerable thought and debate. Earlier biblical texts contained statements regarding sin (such as the sin that crouches at the door in Gen 4: 7), but did not address sin as a problem that must be solved. This study investigates the manner in which the “problem” of sin was addressed, in particular through three interacting issues that are evident in the texts themselves: the source of sin, determinism and free will, and identity. The object of this study is to investigate all Second Temple works that reflect ideas regarding the source of sin and to outline the views of sin that these texts reflect. The study distinguishes between texts that are specific to the Qumran community and more generally attributed Second Temple works and notes the significant differences between them. At the same time, this study aims to explore these texts on their own terms and to maintain their rich diversity, making no assumptions regarding what aspects of sin “must” accompany each other or “should” be expressed in various works due to an assumed Qumran theology.

Sin, Religious Thought, and the State of Research Sin at its most basic is a transgression of the divine will. As such, it defines the relationship between human and God. On the one hand, the concept of sin implies that God expects specific behavior of human beings. On the other, the fact that humans are able to sin marks a limit to divine influence and indicates the disparity between human will and divine will. As such, sin, its nature and origins, has become a major locus of religious thought, particularly in the two Western religions that developed during the Second Temple period: Judaism and Christianity. The way that sin is presented in Second Temple texts has for the most part been filtered through the later understandings of sin prominent in these two religions, and in particular, through the debates regarding sin and its nature that have formed an important part of religious thought. The approaches of these two religions to sin and its origin took specific forms. In Judaism, sin originates with “the evil inclination” (yṣ r hr‘, sometimes simply called “the inclination,” hyṣ r), a personified version of the human

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

20

Introduction

desire to sin. The concept of the evil inclination is evident in Tannaitic sources and is developed further in the Talmud.1 This nearly demonic entity, as it appears in the Talmud, is part of the human condition and explains the human desire to sin.2 Consequently, many studies have searched for the source of this concept in Second Temple texts. An early work by F. Porter explored the rabbinic view of the evil inclination and searched for possible sources of this idea in Sirach, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 2 Enoch.3 Numerous studies have focused on terminological surveys of the use of the term yṣ r in Second Temple texts. For example, R. Murphy explored the appearance of the term yēṣ er in the Hebrew Bible, Sirach, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Hodayot.4 A later terminological study by Lichtenberger focused specifically on the use of the term yēṣ er in Jubilees and in Qumran texts.5 A more extensive terminological study by G. Cohen Stuart, like the earlier study by Porter, attempted to find the source of the rabbinic yēṣ er hāra‘ in Second Temple texts.6 The search for the origins of the rabbinic “evil inclination” was further colored by the widespread assumption that the “evil inclination” functioned solely within a dualistic framework and was always opposed by a “good incli-

1 On the nature of the “evil inclination” in Tannaitic literature, see I. Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–39 and I. Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011), 14–35. On its development in the Talmud, see Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 65–86. 2 See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 84. 3 F. C. Porter, “The Yeçer HaRa: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,” in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University (Yale Bicentennial Publications; New York: Scribner’s, 1901), 93– 156. 4 R. E. Murphy, “Yēṣ er in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39 (1958): 334–44. His findings distinguished between the “non-individualized” tendency to evil found in the Hebrew Bible, the “individualization” of the yēṣ er in Sir 15: 14, and the more dualistic associations found in the Testaments and at Qumran. Murphy’s study of yēṣ er in the Hodayot did not distinguish fully between yēṣ er as creature and yēṣ er as inclination, for example, citing yēṣ er ḥ ēmār (‫)יצר חמר‬ as an example of both human weakness and sinfulness. Murphy concluded that while yēṣ er is sometimes used in the Hodayot (or as Murphy puts it, “in the Qumran literature”) to reflect a neutral tendency, it usually refers to the inclination to sin. 5 H. Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von ‫ יצר‬im Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14 (1983): 1–10. Lichtenberger determined that the use of yēṣ er in these texts was closer to the neutral biblical use than it was to the later negative rabbinic use of the term. 6 G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: an Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣ er Hara’ (Kampen: Kok, 1984). Cohen Stuart understood yēṣ er in Sirach 15 as “freedom of choice” and, like Lichtenberger, found that yēṣ er in the Dead Sea Scrolls is principally a neutral term.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sin, Religious Thought, and the State of Research

21

nation” (yṣ r hṭ wb),7 or that the “evil inclination” was sexual in nature.8 Thus J. Cook argues that the source of the idea of two inclinations can be found in the Septuagint translations of Prov 2: 11 and 2: 17 and in Sir 15: 14.9 A recent study by E. Tigchelaar also seeks out traces of a “sexual” evil inclination as well as the opposition of a positive counterpart to the evil inclination as signs of a precursor to the rabbinic “evil inclination.”10 However, the association of the rabbinic evil inclination with sexual desire and dualism has been vigorously refuted by I. Rosen-Zvi.11 Furthermore, as M. Kister has observed, while 7 This opposition is evident in m. Ber. 9: 5; t. Ber. 6: 7; Sifre Deut. 32 and in multiple sources in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud. However, this dualistic framework is far from ubiquitous; see Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations.” 8 This assumption was supported by D. Boyarin’s influential study claiming that the rabbinic view of the inclination was both sexual and opposed by a good inclination; see D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 61–76. The assumption that the evil inclination (yēṣ er hārā‘) in rabbinic literature principally expresses sexual desire was later adopted in several studies, such as those of E. S. Alexander, “Art, Argument, and Ambiguity in the Talmud: Conflicting Conceptions of the Evil Impulse in b. Sukkah 51b–52a,” HUCA 73 (2002): 97–132, J. Schofer, “The Redaction of Desire: Structure and Editing of Rabbinic Teachings Concerning Yeṣ er (‘Inclination’),” JJTP 12 (2003): 19–53, and P. W. van der Horst, “A Note on the Evil Inclination and Sexual Desire in Talmudic Literature,” in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity (WUNT 1/196; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 59–65. 9 J. Cook, “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬,” JSJ 38 (2007): 80–91. 10 E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-van de Weg; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347–57. Tigchelaar finds suggestions of these ideas in the connection between an evil inclination and “lecherous eyes” in the Damascus Document (CD II.16) and in the “ethical dualism” he sees in the Barkhi Nafshi text. In addition, Tigchelaar considers the juxtaposition of a śāṭ ān and an “evil inclination” in the Plea for Deliverance to be parallel to the identification of Satan with the evil inclination in the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. B. 16a). 11 In two separate studies, Rosen-Zvi has argued that the “good inclination” is barely present in Tannaitic texts and is marginal even in later Amoraic literature (Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations”) and that the sexualization of the yēṣ er lacks textual evidence even in the Amoraic period, occurring only afterwards (idem, “Sexualising the Evil Inclination: Rabbinic ‘Yetzer’ and Modern Scholarship,” JJS 60 [2009]: 264–81). In his recent work focusing nearly exclusively on the term yēṣ er, Rosen-Zvi argues that the rabbinic idea of the evil inclination was part of a move to psychologize evil and demonic forces. Rosen-Zvi points to specific texts in the Qumran corpus as evidence of the early reification and internalization of the yēṣ er; see Demonic Desires, 52. He also sees these texts as evidence of an early association of demonic forces with the yēṣ er. However, Rosen-Zvi’s exclusive focus on the term yēṣ er slants the results of his study to overemphasize the association of the yēṣ er with demonic forces in Qumran texts. While his argument for an association between the term yēṣ er and terms of a demonic nature is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

22

Introduction

phrases including yṣ r do appear in Qumran texts, they are not particularly central at Qumran.12 Thus terminological studies frequently give undue emphasis to particular texts and ignore other relevant passages that deal with similar concepts or themes. The study of sin is, of course, central to Christian theology, particularly because of Pauline statements regarding the power of sin, the sinfulness of the flesh, and Paul’s dichotomy of “flesh” and “spirit” in Rom 5–8 and his representation of sin as originating with Adam in Rom 7. Later theologians developed Paul’s ideas. Augustine in his reading of Rom 7 propagated the doctrine of “original sin”: all humans sinned through Adam and are therefore damned. Luther through his doctrine of “totus homo peccator, totus homo justus” declared the ubiquity and inevitability of human sinfulness alongside human righteousness. As a result of these ideas, many studies of Second Temple texts have focused on the anthropology of sin.13 For example, an important study by H. Lichtenberger examined views of sin in Qumran literature in the course of an anthropological analysis of these texts.14 This approach was particularly fruitful in analyzing the Hodayot, and produced an early study by J. P. Hyatt.15 Studies by W. Davies and H. Hübner focused on finding possible links between Qumran ideas and the Pauline anthropology contrasting “flesh” and “spirit.”16 valid, it does not follow that the yēṣ er was a central and demonic figure at Qumran and that it impacted Qumran thought as such. 12 M. Kister, “‘Inclination of the Heart of Man,’ the Body and Purification from Evil,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VIII (ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2010), 256. 13 While the term “theological anthropology” can be applied in the wider sense to the study of the relationship between God and human, it frequently denotes the examination of the “spiritual makeup” of human beings and how this makeup affects the human ability or tendency to sin. 14 H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980). While Lichtenberger noted the diversity of approaches found in different Qumran texts regarding determinism and free will, his aim was to reconstruct a single, unified anthropological view reflected in Qumran texts (ibid., 237–9). He concluded that the basic belief revealed in Qumran texts is that, as creatures, humans require divine assistance to choose the right path and keep the law. In his view this belief is a reflection of the anthropology set forth in the Hebrew Bible. Lichtenberger posited that, following the influence of dualism on Qumran thought, the basic belief in obedience to the law was impacted by questions of determination and predestination, resulting in the variety of views reflected in Qumran texts. He noted that some of these clearly reflect the possibility of human choice. 15 J. P. Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” NTS 2 (1955–1956): 276–84. 16 W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Flesh and the Spirit,” in Christian Origins and Judaism (The Jewish People: History Religion Literature; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 145–78; repr. from The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sin, Religious Thought, and the State of Research

23

Another approach to using Second Temple texts to explain later Jewish and Christian thought has been taken by G. Anderson, who has explored the nature of sin through the metaphor of “sin as debt” in biblical and post-biblical texts.17 In his study Anderson investigates rabbinic passages that discuss earning “merits” with God and the early Christian emphasis on “salvation through works” by tracing the evolution of this metaphor. Adam’s fall as an explanation of human sinfulness is generally absent in most Second Temple texts, but has sometimes been sought by researchers.18 More importantly, the significance of this idea in Christian thought has caused many to assume that a historical origin of sin was important to Second Temple writers. This assumed prominence has in turn led to the centrality of a demonic origin of sin in the studies of P. Sacchi.19 Sacchi paired this etiology of sin with a theory of salvation, in an echo of comparable pairings in Pauline

York: Harper & Brothers, 1957); H. Hübner, “Anthropologischer Dualismus in den Hodayot?” NTS 18 (1971–2), 268–84. Davies concluded that while the terms “flesh” and “spirit” are shared by the Pauline epistles and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pauline epistles are more in line with both Old Testament and rabbinic thought than the Scrolls. More recent studies of “spirit” or ruaḥ terminology at Qumran have suffered from severe methodological deficiencies. An example is a study by A. E. Sekki, who concluded that, apart from the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III.13-IV.26), one column of the Hodayot (1QHa XV) and 4QHoroscope (4Q186), rûaḥ in the Scrolls reflects biblical categories (A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran [SBLDS 110; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989]). The drawbacks of Sekki’s study “ranging from assumptions and methodology to clarity and expression” were identified at length by M. P. Horgan, review of Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, CBQ 54 (1992): 544–6. A later survey of nonbiblical Qumran texts by R. Kvalvaag, “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 159–80, relied heavily on Sekki’s conclusions while at the same time recognizing the range of views reflected in Qumran texts. Kvalvaag proposed a division between body and spirit in Qumran texts that was influenced more by Pauline thought than by Qumran approaches. 17 G. A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 18 See I. Lévi, Le péché originel dans les anciennes sources juives (Paris: Leroux, 1909); G-H. Baudry, “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie,” MScRel 50 (1993): 99–115; idem, “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel,” BLE 95 (1994): 271–301. For a study assuming that Adam’s fall was a prominent explanation of sin rejected by certain groups in the Second Temple period, see M. W. Elliott, “Origins and Functions of the Watchers Theodicy,” Hen 24 (2002): 63–75. 19 P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (trans. W. J. Short; JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); P. Sacchi, “The Theology of Early Enochism and Apocalyptic: the Problem of the Relation between Form and Content of the Apocalypses; the Worldview of Apocalypses,” Hen 24 (2002): 77–85. Sacchi posits an apocalyptic “Enochic Judaism” that had a theology centered on the idea that evil derives from a contamination of the natural and human sphere through the disorder that angels brought into God’s cosmic order, based on the Enochic Book of the Watchers (BW).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

24

Introduction

thought and in Augustine’s theological arguments.20 While most scholars have not accepted the idea of an apocalyptic “Enochic Judaism,”21 Sacchi’s student G. Boccaccini has developed Sacchi’s theories in order to explore the possible origins of the Qumran community, proposing that this community resulted from a schism within “Enochic Judaism” due to differing ideas regarding evil and soteriology.22 The prominence of demons and exorcism in the New Testament and early Christian literature has also been a motivating force in studies of Second Temple works. Studies have frequently focused on specific demonic figures or the possible context of the exorcisms depicted in the Gospels.23 These studies have generally avoided the trap of reading these Second Temple works through the prism of the New Testament; they explore the nature of the demons and angels depicted in their own terms. The study of Qumran texts has continued to focus on certain of their features that became prominent following the transcription of the earliest-discov20 According to Sacchi, the Book of the Watchers reflects the conviction that evil derives from a contamination of the natural and human sphere through the disorder that angels brought into God’s cosmic order. Therefore, salvation cannot be effected by human beings, but only by God’s influence on the “in-between,” angelic sphere. 21 See, for example, the discussion in J. J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in HellenisticRoman Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2001), 287–99. 22 G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: the Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 119–62. 23 Examples of the former include P. S. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; vol. 2, 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 331–53; D. Dimant, “Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 235–56; A. Steudel, “God and Belial,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947–1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 332–40. For examples of the latter, see E. Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period” (Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1999 [Hebrew]); E. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNTSup 231; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); A. Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 377–435; A. T. Wright, “Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism: the ‘Watcher Tradition’ as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels,” Hen 28, no. 1 (2006): 141–59. On the differences between exorcisms in the Gospels and approaches to demonic possession in earlier Jewish texts, see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry,” in Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth; JCTCRS 4; New York: T & T Clark International, 2008), 68–84.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Source of Sin

25

ered scrolls. There has been a trend to define a single “theology” for Qumran texts, particularly regarding their approach to sin. In fact, Second Temple texts, including those found at Qumran, display a variability that is frequently unremarked in modern studies, which usually focus on creating a single harmonized view of sin that can be used to explain later theological developments. In particular, texts do not fall into easy categories of righteous versus sinner and determinism versus free will. This has been increasingly recognized in recent studies, although many surveys continue to ignore important differences between texts. Recent nuanced approaches to the issues explored in this study include L. Stuckenbruck’s study of dualism and the degree to which the Treatise of the Two Spirits differs from other Second Temple texts24 and J. Klawans’ recognition that in ancient Judaism, neither free will nor determinism was absolute.25 Yet the expectation of theological consistency within and between ancient texts remains a noticeable feature of modern research. A close study of these texts demonstrates just how anachronistic such an expectation is when applied to Second Temple literature.

The Source of Sin In attempting to solve the “problem” of sin, and through the manner in which they reflect already accepted “solutions,” Second Temple works address the issue of where sin originates. The source of sin is not necessarily a historical point in time. Rather, these texts reflect the idea that sin is inherent to the human, originates from external influences, or is a combination of these two factors. Attempts to “explain” sin sometimes seek to justify the existence of sin despite a benevolent Deity. If God does not want humans to sin, why do they have this capability? Furthermore, why do humans, the creations of God, actually desire to sin? The centrality of these questions in Second Temple literature lies behind my decision to focus this study on the portrayal of the source of sin in Second Temple texts. The examination of these works, however, has high-

24 L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III: 13-IV: 26) in its Tradition-Historical Context,” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (ed. A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 145–68. 25 J. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90, esp. 64; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 264–83.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

26

Introduction

lighted two other aspects that interact with the question of “where sin comes from”: identity and the conflict between determinism and free will.

Identity Beyond the basic problem of theodicy, the idea of sin and sinning forms an important part of Jewish identity in this period. Jews may identify themselves as “righteous” or “God-fearing,” decry the “wicked” and anticipate their imminent demise, and also define their own community as the only group that fulfills the law correctly and is therefore not guilty of transgressions. These selfdefinitions, however, allow a great degree of flexibility. A “righteous” person may yet be guilty of a transgression, but she is confident that she will be forgiven. In eschatological texts, the eschaton will provide the final proof of who is righteous and who is wicked by sealing the doom of all evildoers.

Determinism and Free Will In essence, the human capability to sin is the strongest declaration of freedom of action within a religious system. As such, however, it presents a theological problem. Accordingly, perspectives on sin in the Second Temple period differed in their approach to this issue. While some emphasized human agency and free will, others declared that God had determined who would be righteous and who would be a sinner. By portraying sin as completely determined by God, freedom of action is denied to the human being, while the weight of responsibility for sin remains with the Deity.

Definition of Sin For the purposes of this study, “sin” is defined as a transgression against God’s will, whether this will is made explicit or not. Most Jewish texts of this period view sin through halakic eyes. Any action opposed to God’s (understood) desire is a sin, with no substantive distinction between “ethical” infractions and transgressions of ritual law. Sinfulness, a concept not found in every Second Temple text, is a state of the human being in which the human is perceived (by herself or others) as “tainted” with the desire to sin. This state has not necessarily been caused by past actions. Sin, or moral evil, is distinguished from natural evil. Natural evil includes negative factors present in the universe and not explicitly caused by human action, such as earthquakes, disease and famine, although it is sometimes

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Rationale and Method of the Present Study

27

viewed as a punishment for moral evil. Sources of moral evil, not natural evil, are the principal subject of this study.

Rationale and Method of the Present Study The present study is the first to address the “source of sin” as it is reflected in Second Temple literature within a single comprehensive analysis. This broad analysis has enabled both the identification of broad trends in Second Temple thought and a precise analysis of differences between approaches in “general” Second Temple literature and those found in works attributed to the Qumran community. However, the extensive range of this study has necessitated a preliminary categorization of the texts for organizational reasons, based on an initial survey. The texts have been categorized first according to their general approach to sin: whether they depict the source of sin as internal and human or external and demonic. The categories of “internal” or “external” sources of human action are drawn from the philosophy of action.26 These have been useful as a means of categorization and are instrumental in the analysis of Second Temple works without defining how a text “must” be read. For example, as will be demonstrated, not all “demonic” texts are completely “external” in perspective. Texts that depict sin as stemming from an inherent human inclination have been divided according to the genre they represent: prayer, covenantal, or wisdom texts. Texts that portray a demonic source of sin require a different approach, as many texts reflect the development of a demonic figure based on another, earlier text or a common tradition. Therefore, the second section of this study is not divided principally according to genre, but first traces the development of certain demonic figures thought to be responsible for human sin in Enoch, Jubilees, and afterward in Qumran texts. Certain groups of texts that share generic features, such as apotropaic prayers, are analyzed together within this framework.

26 For example, see A. Haddock, “Bodily Movements,” in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action (ed. T. O’Connor and C. Sandis; Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 46; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 26–31 and T. Pink, “Thomas Hobbes,” in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action, 473–80 at 475.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

28

Introduction

Texts Included in This Study Second Temple works included in this study vary in their original language and geographic provenance, but share a Jewish origin. These works include the Apocrypha, selected Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the works of Philo.27 For the purposes of this study, “Second Temple literature” will include works composed from approximately 400 B. C. E. to 100 C. E. in order to explore developments in Jewish thought shortly after the destruction of the Temple. Works for which the possibility of a Jewish origin remains in serious doubt, such as 2 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, will not be dealt with as primary texts.28 In an ideal world, all Pauline works would be within the purview of this study; after all, Paul himself was a Jew living during the Second Temple period. However, the unique nature of Paul’s thought and the rivers of ink that have been spilled exploring Pauline views of sin preclude a truly in-depth study of Paul’s approach to sin within the framework of the present work. I have nevertheless attempted to point out specific conclusions that shed light on Pauline thought when they arise in the study.

Terminology This study is not solely terminology-driven, but pays close attention to the manner in which terms are used in each case. The meaning of specific terminology used in the texts differs according to context. For example, bly‘l may be used to indicate the angel/demon “Belial” or an abstract notion of wickedness, and an “evil heart” may describe what would elsewhere be termed an “evil 27 The works of Josephus also fall within the scope of this study, but Josephus does not directly discuss the ongoing source of sin. The works of Josephus are referred to when they are relevant to the discussion at hand. 28 According to M. de Jonge, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, while it draws from Jewish sources, is in its current form a Christian work; see de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Van Gorcum’s theologische Bibliotheek 25; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953); idem, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (ed. M. de Jonge; SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193–246. His finding are supported by R. A. Kugler, “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the,” EDSS 2: 952, and the recent study by V. Hillel, “Structure, Source and Composition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), particularly 232–3. For the view that the Testaments are Jewish in origin with identifiable Christian interpolations, see J. Kugel’s commentary, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis Feldman, James Kugel, and Lawrence Schiffman (New York: Jewish Publication Society), forthcoming.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Terminology

29

inclination.” This study encompasses a wide range of terms for sin and its cause, while distinguishing between the various meanings of these terms according to their context. “Sectarian” and “Non-Sectarian” Texts The Dead Sea Scrolls of necessity form a large part of the present study, although they represent the library of a relatively small group with very specific beliefs. This study relies on previous scholarship in distinguishing between those texts that are purely sectarian and those that may reflect a wider use among Second Temple Jewry. The terms “sect,” “sectarian,” and “nonsectarian” are not intended to indicate the existence of a religious orthodoxy; rather, they are used here in a social sense, as elucidated by P. R. Davies: “I define sect in terms of social behavior…In other words, I understand the ‘Damascus community’ (or communities) to have constituted a sect because they separated from their surrounding society and regarded themselves as an alternative to it, not merely a part of it. It is this ideological and physical separation that makes them a sect, regardless of the beliefs that provoke such separation.”29 This “sectarian” mindset of the Qumran community, as it is represented in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule among other Qumran texts, has been explored at length by J. J. Collins, among others.30 “Nonsectarian” texts are those not considered exclusive to the Qumran group. In general, texts are classified as “nonsectarian” because (a) they display distinctively nonsectarian features, (b) they lack sectarian features, or (c) they have been found outside of Qumran as well.31

P. R. Davies, “Who Can Join the ‘Damascus Covenant’?,” JJS 46 (1995): 134. J. J. Collins, “Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 177–92, particularly 181–4. Collins notes the sectarian nature of the yaḥ ad as it is expressed in both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule; according to Collins, these texts reflect a separatist and exclusivist movement. 31 See E. G. Chazon, “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications,” DSD 1 (1994): 272; D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 27–28 and 28 n. 14; and C. A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman; Biblical and Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 177. 29 30

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

30

Introduction

Determinism, “Fate,” and the Qumran Community While Josephus presented the distinctions between Jewish beliefs in terms of “fate” and “free will,” these terms do not define the present study. This study examines the manner in which each text addresses questions of human choice or lack of human choice in its own terms. As J. Klawans has argued, it is almost impossible for a monotheistic religion to be completely deterministic in all its aspects.32 This study examines the extent of the determinism found in various sectarian texts while recognizing that a group can be deterministic and still, for example, pray to God for forgiveness. In this study determinism denotes the belief that all future actions have been predetermined by God while predestination expresses the election (or rejection) of a chosen few by God from the beginning of time.

Authors and Audiences Many of the works included in this study have been redacted, some in several stages. Unless the redaction itself is a matter for discussion, the term “author” or “composer” is used to denote the person responsible for the particular text, whether or not that person was, in fact, “merely” the final redactor. At the same time, the Sitz im Leben of many works is not clear. While many works were clearly meant to be read, some could also have been read aloud to larger groups. For this reason “audience” is preferred over “reader” when discussing the possible impact of these works.

Angels and Demons This study does not distinguish between evil angels and evil demons unless this distinction is implicit in the text. In general, specific nomenclature for the type of demon (as opposed to the demon’s identity) is not central to the approaches found in these works.33

See J. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate,” and idem, “Dead Sea Scrolls.” See A. M. Reimer, “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran,” DSD 7 (2000): 334–53, contra P. S. Alexander, “Demonology,” 331–53. 32 33

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Plan of the Present Study

31

The Plan of the Present Study As noted above, the range of the present study has required a preliminary categorization of Second Temple works. Consequently, the body of this study is divided into two principal sections. The first section of this study, Chapters 2–6 (with Excursus), explores texts that portray sin as resulting from an inherent human inclination toward sin. These texts are further categorized according to their genre: prayer (nonsectarian and sectarian), covenantal texts (i. e., introductions to legal texts found at Qumran), wisdom and philosophical texts, and finally apocalypses composed shortly after the Temple’s destruction, namely 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The second section of this study, Chapters 7–12, focuses on the view that sin is caused by demonic forces. This section is not divided according to genre, but rather traces the development of traditions regarding demonic influences and their role in human sin. It begins with the portrayal of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, continues with the book of Jubilees’ depiction of the Watchers, Mastema, and Belial, and finally explores how these various figures (and others) are depicted in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The section ends with an analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits, a work that combines multiple views of sin.

Theoretical Concerns The Qumran Community The Qumran community itself was a dynamic one, and has a long and complicated history. Due to the disputed nature of this history, this study will not attempt to place different sectarian texts in a timeline.34 In the case of works that are the result of widely acknowledged stages of redaction, such as the War Scroll and the Treatise of the Two Spirits, this study will rely on previous research regarding these texts’ redactional history. However, this analysis will also address the meaning of these works as they would have been read in their final form. There is a long-standing debate regarding the identity of the Qumran community. While most scholars today assume the Essene identity of this group,

34 See, for example, the opposing opinions of C. Hempel and E. Regev regarding whether the stage of the community reflected in the Damascus Document preceded that described in the Community Rule or vice versa; C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 149–51; E. Regev, “The Yaḥ ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship,” RevQ 21 (2003): 233–62.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

32

Introduction

several have acknowledged that such an identity is not linear.35 The exact identification of the Qumran community lies outside the scope of the present study. The term “the Qumran community” is used as a general term to refer to the various stages of the larger community whose beliefs are reflected in the sectarian texts.

Reading Gender in Second Temple Works The use of gender-inclusive language presents a challenge when discussing Second Temple works. I have attempted to be sensitive to the historical reality of the texts under discussion; these works were generally written by men and intended for men. However, as noted by M. Grossman, underneath the androcentric language of these texts there is frequently an assumption that women are included in their audience.36 Consequently, when possible, gendered pronouns have been avoided. I have chosen to use masculine pronouns when the subject is clearly a member of the Qumran community or a composer of a Second Temple text. This choice has been made in order to avoid implications regarding the inclusion of women in the Qumran community, which lie outside the scope of this work. In other instances, the feminine pronoun is used, as long as such use does not contribute to the historically problematic gendering of sin.

35 For examples of the former see the overviews in T. S. Beall, “Essenes,” EDSS, 1: 262–9 and J. J. Collins, “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 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), 97–98. For the latter, see the connection between the Qumran and Zadokite halakah and the consequent implications for the community’s identity explored by L. H. Schiffman, “Miqṣ at Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” RQ 14 (1989–1990): 435– 57; repr. in The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll (ed. F. García Martínez; STDJ 75; Leiden: Brill, 2008) and idem, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 75–6, 273–87, A. I. Baumgarten’s proposal that while scholars should acknowledge what the Essenes and the Dead Sea sectarians had in common, it is counter-productive to assert total identity between these two groups, in “Who Cares and Why Does It Matter? Qumran and the Essenes, Once Again!” DSD 11 (2004): 174–90, and the nuanced study of the Scrolls and the different groups they reflect by E. Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (RelSoc 45; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). 36 M. Grossman, “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,” DSD 11 (2004): 212– 39 (in particular, see her references to the Deuteronomic covenant at 223); eadem, “Rethinking Gender in the Community Rule: An Experiment in Sociology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 502–8.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Textual Editions and Translations Used

33

Textual Editions and Translations Used The texts cited in this study are the latest critical editions available. Citations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are drawn from the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) series, with the exception of the Damascus Document and the Community Rule; the exact location is noted for each text that appears. The numbering of lines in the Hodayot follows the latest edition by E. M. Schuller in DJD 40. The translation of Hebrew Bible verses in this study follows that of Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985) (NJPS) unless otherwise noted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Part I: The Human Inclination to Sin

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Two Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin Prayers from the Second Temple period are prime examples of the connection between a text’s genre and how that text portrays sin.1 These prayers reflect a common idea that the inclination to sin is innate to the human being and that divine assistance is required to thwart it. However, they vary in their presentations of sin. In particular, prayers may portray a human condition of sinfulness or they may depict sin simply as an act performed by the person. This variance demonstrates the variability of concepts of sin in this period, despite the influence of genre. The prayers explored in this chapter are those not composed within the Qumran community. It is crucial to distinguish between prayer that is connected to the Qumran community (or its predecessors) and prayer that reflects thought prevalent in wider circles. Only by first examining the more widely practiced prayer of the Second Temple period is it possible to determine what is truly unique to the prayer and thought of the Qumran community. It goes without saying that not all prayer portrays sin as the result of a wholly human inclination. Prayers that address sin as the result of a demonic influence are examined in the second part of this study.

1 Prayer as it is defined here includes both individual prayer and communal or liturgical texts. The formal definition used is that of J. H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 6–7: “Prayer is address to God that is initiated by humans; it is not conversational in nature; and it includes address to God in the second person, although it can include third person description of God.” C. A. Newsom has used a similar approach when she defines prayer as “language addressed to God” (Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran [STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 204). “Nonsectarian” refers to prayers not considered exclusive to the Qumran group; see the previous chapter and n. 31 ad loc. In the taxonomy proposed by C. A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” 172–3, texts here called nonsectarian also include those that fall into her second category, texts composed outside the community but used by the community. It is the authorship of the text that is the focus in the present study, not only the text’s subsequent use.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

38

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

11QPsa col. XXIV (Syriac Psalm 155): Divine Assistance against the Desire to Sin The psalm found in the Psalms Scroll (11Q5=11QPsa) col. XXIV represents the Hebrew Vorlage of Syriac Psalm 155 of the Peshiṭta.2 This psalm’s inclusion in the Syriac collection of psalms indicates that it reflects Second Temple practice beyond that of a specific group. In Psalm 155, the speaker appeals for understanding of God’s law (11QPsa XXIV.8–9) and for rescue from hardship (XXIV.10). Following these requests, the speaker asks God to eliminate his past sins and to assist him in fighting his inclination to sin (XXIV.11–13a). The inclination to sin is described metaphorically.3 ‫( טהרני יהוה מנגע רע‬12) ‫( חטאת נעורי הרחק ממני ופשעי אל יזכרו לי‬11) …‫( שורשיו ממני ואל ינצו ע]ל[יו בי‬13) ‫ואל יוסף לשוב אלי יבש‬

(11) The sins of my youth cast far from me, and may my transgressions not be remembered against me. (12) Purify me, O Lord, from (the) evil affliction,4 and let it not return again to me.5 Dry up (13) its roots from me, and let its le[av]es not flourish within me…(11QPsa XXIV.11–13a)

Sin is here represented in two ways: as previous acts that the speaker hopes will be distanced, and as an “affliction” that has roots deep within the speaker and must be prevented from returning in the future. Hence, the speaker concurrently describes past sins as individual acts and the potential for sin as a human condition. That the “evil affliction” refers to the speaker’s inclination to sin is evident from its context. In its literal sense, ng‘, here translated “affliction,” simply means “pain” or “disease.”6 However, the parallelism of “evil affliction”

2 Psalm 155 is part of a collection of five apocryphal psalms that have survived in the Peshiṭ ta (the Syriac translation of the Bible), for which the earliest manuscript has been dated to the twelfth century. For an overview of the Syriac manuscripts and their dating, see Willem Baars, “Apocryphal Psalms,” in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭ ta Version (part 4 fasc. 6, ed. the Peshiṭ ta Institute Leiden; Leiden: Brill, 1972), i–x. 3 Text and translation follow J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 71, except where otherwise noted. 4 Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 71 translates “scourge.” However, nega‘ in its biblical sense does not denote a plague; nega‘ is used to denote disease or general pain (see discussion below). Hence, “affliction” seems the best translation here. 5 Sanders translates “let it not turn again upon me.” The translation chosen here reflects the more common meaning of ‫לשוב‬, “to return.” 6 The biblical semantic range of nega‘ includes its use to indicate leprosy (in Lev 13–14), disease (e. g. 1 K 8: 37), pain (as in 1 K 8: 38) or punishment for sins committed (e. g. 2 Sam 7: 14, Is 53: 8, Ps 89: 33). At Qumran nega‘ is found in reference to disease or impurity, in clear echoes or parallels of Biblical use. (See, for example, CD XIII.5; 4Q270 [4QDe] 2 ii.12; 4Q274 [4QTohorot A] 1 i.4; 11Q19 XLVIII.15, XLIX.4, LVIII.4.) In the Hodayot, nega‘ is used for gen-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

11QPsa col. XXIV (Syriac Psalm 155)

39

(ng‘ r‘)7 with the “sins of my youth” (ḥ ṭ ’t n‘wry) in the previous line, as well as the subsequent extended metaphor of a plant that takes over the speaker from within, implies that the “evil affliction” from which the speaker must be purified is metaphysical: the desire to sin. Moreover, this desire is an “evil affliction” for which the speaker must request purification by God, both for the speaker’s own present good and to prevent future sins or maladies (“and let its le[av]es not flourish within me”). The choice of the term ng‘, “affliction,” is significant; the desire to sin is, like a disease, an infection within the speaker that is inimical to him.8 Its growth is a frightening prospect, and one that divine help may prevent. In this psalm, the source of the desire to sin is internal and part of the human condition but requires divine aid to be completely defeated.9 The sinner’s past actions and present inclination are not obstacles to his plea. Rather, the speaker’s self-description as sinning and sinful is the justification for the petitioner’s appeal to God. In XXIV.14b the speaker declares, “To whom else might I cry to have (my request) granted?” Only God can help a person who has sinned in the past and suffers from an inclination to sin in the future. Therefore God will surely listen and grant the speaker’s petition: “I

eral pain or trouble; see 1QHa VIII.24, IX.11, XII.36, XVI.27, XVII.6, XVII.12, XXII.6, and J. Licht, Megillat ha-Hodayot mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: ‘im Mavo, Perush u-Milon be-Tseruf Qeta‘im mi-Sefer ha-Razim umi-Pesher Tehilim (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 250, “‫נגע‬.” Two exceptions may be Hodayot XIII.28, where nega‘ is used in leprosy imagery (and is therefore coupled with ‫ ;נמאר‬see Lev 13: 51,52; 14: 44) to denote the pain caused by the speaker’s enemies, and in Hodayot IX.32, where the term nega‘ may be referring to sin, due to a possible parallel with ‫“( מרוב עוון‬from the abundance of iniquity”). However, the text in IX.32 is too fragmentary for such a possibility to be established beyond conjecture. D. Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” IEJ 16 (1966): 201, has noted the parallel between nega‘ ra‘ “evil affliction” in the psalm under discussion and pega‘ ra‘ “evil occurrence/affliction/plague” in the rabbinic apotropaic prayers found in b. Ber 16b and 17a. This is useful in understanding the background of these rabbinic prayers, but does not illuminate the use of nega‘ in this psalm. 7 The Syriac translation is “evil leprosy”; see J. A. Sanders, “Non-Masoretic Psalms (4Q88=4QPsf, 11Q5=11QPsa, 11Q6=11QPsb),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 185. This translation is apparently based on the biblical use of nega‘ (specifically nega‘ ṣ āra‘at) in Leviticus 13– 14. 8 Compare the rabbinic presentation of the evil inclination as a wound that must be “bandaged” with Torah study in b. Qidd. 30b. 9 On the need for divine intervention to combat sin, compare the rabbinic prayers requesting divine help against the evil inclination in b. Ber. 16b and 60b, and the assertion by R. Shimeon b. Laqish that divine help is required to successfully fight the evil inclination in b. Sukkah 52b. See also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chapman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 339–43 and Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 198–9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

40

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

cried out, ‘Oh Lord!’ and he answered” (XXIV.16). The petitioner speaks from a position of weakness, confident that strength will be granted by the Deity. The psalm’s description of the human desire to sin as a disease and as a parasitic plant reflects the perception of this tendency as an internal toxin. The inclination to sin is a “condition” of sinfulness from which the human must be freed, as opposed to merely a desire to perform acts of sin. This approach to sin is not universal to prayers of this period. It draws from the idea that sin may cause moral impurity. This idea is biblical in origin (see Lev 17: 17; Ezek 14: 11, 37: 23), and is evident in Ps 51.10 Psalm 51 is an early example of an appeal to God for purification from sin and therefore an important precursor to the prayers in this section. Language of ritual purity appears in Ps 51: 4–5, 9: “Wash me thoroughly of my iniquity, and purify me of my sin; for I recognize my transgressions, and am ever conscious of my sin…Purge me with hyssop till I am pure; wash me till I am whiter than snow.” In Ps 51: 1–11, the repeating references to past sins imply that this “purification” represents the atonement for these sins, and thus reflects the idea that metaphorical impurity results from one’s sins. Syriac Psalm 155 similarly connects a condition of sinfulness to biblical impurity through the use of a term typically associated with ritual impurity: ng‘, “affliction/blemish.” This term occurs most frequently in the context of biblical leprosy (see Lev 13–14).11 However, like the purification described in Ps 51, the “blemish” in this psalm is purely metaphorical. In contrast to biblical leprosy, no cleansing ritual is required to be free of this “evil affliction”; only the assistance of God is needed. The understanding of impurity in this

10 This idea was first noted by D. Z. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (2 vols.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905), esp. 1: 315; it has recently been discussed by J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21– 42 and idem, “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” JJS 48 (1997): 1–7. It has also been explored by, among others, A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (London: Oxford University, 1928), 212–69; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 253–92; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414; and D. P. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 150–81; on previous research in this area (particularly regarding impurity caused by sin), see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 4–19. Most of these studies are concerned with the consequences of sin or ritual impurity in a ritual or legal context. No evidence has been found that ritual impurity was thought to be the actual source or reason for sin or sinfulness at Qumran or elsewhere. Hence, for the purposes of this study, the possible connections between sin and ritual impurity are not directly relevant. They will be revisited tangentially in the discussion of the Hodayot. 11 See notes 6 and 7 above. This connection is what lies behind the Syriac translation of this term.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

11QPsa col. XXIV (Syriac Psalm 155)

41

context is similar to the use of the term “impure” in Isa 64: 4b–5:12 “…It is because you are angry that we have sinned; we have been steeped in them from of old, and can we be saved? We have all become like a (ritually) impure person (‫ )כטמא‬and all our virtues like a filthy rag.”13 Here the sins of the speaker(s) have caused them to be “like a (ritually) impure person.” Similarly, Syriac Psalm 155 describes the inclination to sin in terms that recall ritual impurity for purely evocative purposes. The flow of the psalm itself testifies to how close the speaker feels to God. The ritually impure, in contrast, are distanced from ritual worship. In Psalm 155, the petitioner does not express any alienation from the divine, ending with a statement of assurance that God will answer his pleas, as only God is able to. The expression of distance from God so eloquently expressed in numerous biblical psalms is nowhere to be found.14 The metaphorical implication of the purification requested in Syriac Psalm 155 differs from that in Ps 51, where purity indicates atonement. In Psalm 155, purification will immunize the speaker from future sin. In fact, the “affliction” that grows within the speaker like a weed is no longer connected to specific sins at all; it represents a general condition of sinfulness which in itself must be removed and prevented from growing again. This removal and prevention must and will be accomplished by God. The prayer expresses both fear of an internal inclination to sin and the assurance that divine help will be forthcoming when it is requested. While the prayer expresses human weakness in the face of sin, the prayer as a whole expresses an overwhelming sense of connection to the divine. Thus, sin in this prayer is addressed both as grievous acts to be distanced from the speaker and as the underlying desire to sin, an “affliction” that causes moral impurity. In the latter instance, the penitent turns to God to cleanse her of this affliction, a request that has its parallels in biblical sources. In neither case does sin form an insurmountable barrier between the speaker and God,

12 This verse and Ps 51, cited below, are mentioned by Klawans as an example of metaphorical use of ritual impurity in the Hebrew Bible (Impurity and Sin, 36). 13 The NJPS translation “an impure thing” in Isa 64: 5 has been changed to “a (ritually) impure person” to convey the meaning of the text more closely. 14 This conclusion parallels the findings of M. Himmelfarb and H. Birenboim regarding sectarian literature, namely that there is no connection other than a metaphorical one between sin and impurity, contra Klawans and J. M. Baumgarten; see Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,” DSD 8 (2001): 9–37; Birenboim, “‘For He Is Impure among All Those who Transgress His Words’: Sin and Ritual Defilement in the Qumran Scrolls,” Zion 68 (2003): 366 (Hebrew); and cf. Klawans, Impurity and Sin 67–91; Baumgarten, “‘Zab’ Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law,” JJS 45 (1994): 275; idem, “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 209; and idem, “270. 4QDamascus Documente,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 146.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

42

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

but rather serves as the justification of prayer, apparently because only God can truly remove it.

4QBarkhi Nafshi: Direct Intervention in the Human Condition The need for divine intercession, implied in Syriac Psalm 155, is explicitly indicated in 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q434–438). This nonsectarian hymn of thanksgiving praises God for his assistance to the needy in general and to the speaker in particular.15 In both the general and specific cases, this assistance includes effecting an internal change that enables righteousness. The status of the speaker is very different from the petitioner of Syriac Psalm 155. This thanksgiving hymn acknowledges the changes that have already occurred, and does not speak from an ongoing condition of sinfulness. Nevertheless, the necessity of divine intervention for human righteousness is apparent from the beginning of 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q434 1 i 2–4):16 ‫שזעקתם ברוב רחמיו חנן‬ ׄ (3) ‫( פקח עיניו אל דל ושועת יתומים שמע ויט אוזניו אל‬2) ‫( למודו וימול עורלות‬4) ‫הם לשמוע‬ ֯ [‫ענוים ויפקח עיניהם לראות את דרכיו וא֗ז֯נ]י‬ ‫רתם לא עזבם‬ ֗ ‫צ‬ ֗ ‫ב‬ ֯ [‫לבם ויצילם למען חסדו ויכן לדרך רגלם בר]ו‬

(2)… He has opened his eyes to the helpless, and the cry of the orphans he has heard, and he has turned his ears to (3) their cry. In the abundance of his mercy, he has been gracious to the needy, and he has opened their eyes to see his ways, and their ears to hear (4) his teaching. And he has circumcised the foreskins of their heart, and he has delivered them on account of his loving-kindness, and he set their feet to the way. In the abundance of their distress, he did not abandon them…

15 Regarding the nonsectarian nature of 4QBarkhi Nafshi, see E. M. Cook, “A Thanksgiving for God’s Help (4Q434 II-III),” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley; London: Routledge, 1997), 15; G. J. Brooke, “Body Parts in ‘Barkhi Nafshi’ and the Qualifications for Membership of the Worshipping Community,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 79; and particularly C. Hempel, review of Esther Eshel et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts Part 2 (DJD 29), JSS 47 (2002): 338; contra D. Seely, “The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434–439),” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert; Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (ed. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks; STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 202 and D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “434–438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia–e: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 258. 16 Text and translation follow D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 270–1, unless otherwise noted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QBarkhi Nafshi

43

The needy in this passage are fortunate, because God has not only taught them, but has made the internal change necessary to enable their future righteous behavior. He has “circumcised the foreskins of their heart,” in fulfillment of the biblical promise in Deut 30: 6. As in Deut 30: 6, God himself has circumcised the hearts of his chosen people. Thanks to this divine act, the needy are able to follow God’s will without impediment: he has “set their feet to the way.”17 The “circumcision” described in line 4 denotes the removal of the “foreskin” of the heart. It thus indicates the curbing of a desire to sin that is internal and natural to the human being, though unwanted. This internal change wrought by God is necessary to enable righteous behavior. However, the changed nature of the needy is also an end in itself: the very transformation is evidence that the cries of the humble have been heard (lines 2–3). This hymn reflects the underlying assumption that the prayers of the humble are, as in Syriac Psalm 155, focused on the removal of the sinful inclination. The theme continues in the speaker’s individual thanks, with far more detail and explanation of what the internal transformation involves. God is initially portrayed as the supplicant’s teacher, who has instructed him to walk in his ways (4QBarkhi Nafshic [4Q436] 1 ia,b.5b–6):18 ‫( ]על לבי פקד[תה תורתכה‬6) ‫(… לבי פקדתה וכליותי שננתה בל ישכחו חוקיכה‬5) [‫כ]ה‬ ֯ ‫{ לרדוף אחרי דרכ֯י‬°} ‫וכליותי פתחתה ותחזק עלי‬

(5) … You have commanded my heart, and my inmost parts you have taught well, lest they forget your statutes19 (6) [On my heart] you [have enjoined] your law, on my inmost parts you have engraved it; and you have prevailed upon me, so that I pursue after you[r] ways…

These lines explain that God himself has ensured that the speaker will follow his commandments. The change wrought by God in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is not

17 This phrase echoes Ps 85: 14b ‫מיו‬ ָ ‫ע‬ ָ ‫פ‬ ְּ ‫ך‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ֶ ‫ד‬ ֶ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫שם‬ ֵׂ ‫“ ְוָי‬and he sets out on his way,” lit. “and ָ ‫כל‬ ָ ‫בי‬ ִּ ‫לט‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ ְׁ ‫ת‬ ַּ ‫אל‬ ַ ‫ך ְו‬ ָ ‫ת‬ ֶ ‫ר‬ ָ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫א‬ ִ ‫ב‬ ְּ ‫כן‬ ֵ ‫ה‬ ָ ‫מי‬ ַ ‫ע‬ ָ ‫פ‬ ְּ “Make he sets his feet to the path” and Ps 119: 133 ‫אֶון‬ my feet firm through Your promise; do not let iniquity dominate me.” Compare Hodayot 4QHb (4Q428) 10 5 (par 1 QHb [1Q35] 1 9–12), [‫“ כוננתה רגלי בדרך ]לבכה‬you established my feet in the way of [your heart].” (Text and translation of the Hodayot follow E. M. Schuller, “428. 4QHodayotb,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 [ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999], 141–2.) While W. Kahl interprets the passage in Barkhi Nafshi as the compulsion of the subject to walk the correct path (“The Structure of Salvation in 2Thess and 4Q434,” QC 5, [1995]: 109), the context and language reflect facilitation rather than duress. 18 Text and translation follow D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 297, 299, unless otherwise noted. 19 Seely and Weinfeld translate “lest your statutes be forgotten,” but ‫ ישכחו‬appears to be a qal whose subject is the speaker’s heart and “inmost parts.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

44

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

merely pedagogical, but a change in the speaker’s internal being. These lines emphasize the modification of the speaker’s heart and “inmost parts”; the laws are no longer external, but engraved within him. The importance of the law in ensuring righteousness is a theme that is found throughout Second Temple texts that address the human desire to sin, and will be discussed further below. The alteration of the speaker’s internal landscape is further described in 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436) 1 ia,b.10–ii.4 (underlined par. 4Q435 2 i.1–5):20 [‫ר]תה מן כליותי‬ ֯ ‫ערתה ממני ותשם לב טהור תחתיו יצר רע גע‬ ֗ [‫( ]לב האבן ג‬10) ‫א]ת‬ ֯ ‫ ]ורוח קוד[ש שמתה בלבבי זנות עינים הסירותה ממני ותבט‬vacat (1) [...] (11) ‫( ]דרכיכה ע[֯ורף קשה שלחתה ממני ותשמו ענ֗וה זעף אף הסירותה ]ממני‬2) [‫כול‬ [‫מני ]רוח שקר‬ ֗ ‫תה מ‬°°‫ר֯ום עינים התנ‬ ֯ ‫( ]לי רוח אר[וך אפים גבה לב ו‬3) [‫ותשם‬ ... ֗‫[ה‬....‫( ]אבדת‬4)

(10) [the heart of stone] you have [re]buked out of me,21 and have set a pure heart in its place. The evil inclination [you] have rebuked [out of my inmost parts][…] vacat (1) [and the spirit of ho]liness you have set in my heart. Lechery of the eyes you have removed from me, and they (lit., “it”) gazed upon [all] (2) [your ways. The s]tiffness of neck you have expelled from me,22 and you have made it into humility. Wrathful anger you have removed [from me, and have set] (3) [in me a spirit of lo]ng suffering. Haughtiness of heart and arrogance of eyes you have °°° from me. [A spirit of deceit] (4) [you have destroyed…] h…23

This passage emphasizes God’s assistance in transforming the speaker’s evil nature. It includes several elements that are key to understanding the source of sin from the speaker’s point-of-view. These include the combination of physical and intangible descriptions of sinfulness; the indication of a special relationship between the speaker and God; a pessimistic view of the human inclination; a development of the idea of the yēṣ er in its biblical sense; an abstraction and internalization of external influences to sin; and a focus on divine assistance combined with the description of sin as a condition. The sinfulness of the human being is expressed through the organs and parts of the body as well as through intangible qualities such as the speaker’s former “evil inclination” and “wrathful anger.” The sinful organs must be replaced or changed in order to transform the human’s basic condition of sinfulness, but their description alongside nonphysical qualities indicates that human sin is not only connected to the physical. On the contrary, as noted by

20 Text and translation follow Seely and Weinfeld, “4QBarkhi Nafshic,” except where otherwise noted. (Certain changes have been made to maintain a literal translation of the text.) 21 Here and in the continuation of this line, Seely and Weinfeld translate “you have [dri]ven with rebukes.” 22 The verb šlh ̣ is most likely in pi‘el form, meaning to expel (see Gen 3: 23, 25: 6; Job 14: 20); Seely and Weinfeld translate “you have sent away from me.” 23 “A spirit of deceit you have destroyed” is restored from this text’s parallel in 4Q435 2 i.5. The rest of this line, however, is very fragmentary and largely reconstructed.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QBarkhi Nafshi

45

M. Kister, this prayer, together with other “purification prayers for the organs” that Kister identifies at Qumran and in B. Ber. 17a, succeeds in separating sin from the body itself, attaching it instead to organs that can be (metaphorically) replaced.24 Like the metaphorical foreskin of the heart, the sinful organs embody an inborn sinfulness that is nonetheless susceptible to removal. It is possible to live as a sin-free human (physical) being, a state already enjoyed by the speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi. The speaker’s thanks for the divine assistance that has led to this state implies a special relationship with God. However, the speaker is not unique, simply one of the “needy and humble” whose inclination to sin has been “circumcised.” Rather than elevate the speaker’s individual status, the prayer acknowledges, on an individual level, the divine goodness that allows all of the virtuous poor to maintain their righteousness. The speaker presents a basically pessimistic view of humankind in the absence of divine assistance. Negative qualities are part of the human being and must be removed to make way for positive ones. The removal of sinful traits in favor of righteous characteristics echoes themes already common in biblical use; Ezek 11: 19 and 36: 26 speak of God replacing Israel’s heart of stone with one of flesh, thereby enabling the Israelites to follow his will. It is clear that 4QBarkhi Nafshi draws the description of the speaker’s “change of heart” from these verses. In a similar sense, the verses at Ps 51: 11–12 request divine assistance following an appeal that God “blot out” his sins: Hide Your face from my sins; blot out all my iniquities. Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit.

However, while Psalm 51 focuses on the spiritual impurity caused by past acts of sin, the chief concern of the speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is not individual sins, but the condition of sinfulness from which he has been rescued.25 4QBarkhi Nafshi also focuses at length on the negative human aspects that must be removed. For each positive quality that is granted, a negative quality must be eliminated.26 The author’s pessimistic view of natural human sinfulness is Kister, “Inclination,” 270 (Hebrew). On the request to purge the speaker’s sins in Ps 51: 3–4, 9, see previous section. See also B. Renaud, “Purification et recréation: le ‘Miserere’ (Ps 51),” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 62 (1988): 204–6. As mentioned above, the concept of a condition of sinfulness may itself be a development of the idea of moral impurity reflected in Ps 51. 26 On the theme of God instilling pious attributes in the Barkhi Nafshi texts, see D. R. Seely, “Implanting Pious Qualities as a Theme in the Barki Nafshi Hymns,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947–1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 322–31. The removal of negative attributes that precedes the “implantation” is not addressed by Seely. 24 25

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

46

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

indicated by the characteristics that have been removed by God: heart of stone, evil inclination, lechery of eyes, stiffness of neck, wrathful anger, haughtiness of heart, arrogance of eyes and a spirit of deceit.27 Another aspect of sin present in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is reflected in the terminology that is used. Particularly evocative is the appearance of the term g‘r (‫“ )גער‬rebuke,” a term that usually refers to the expulsion of Satan or evil spirits. Here it appears in conjunction with yṣ r r‘ “evil inclination” in 4Q436 1 i.10. E. J. C. Tigchelaar has argued that in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, yṣ r r‘ represents an external spirit due to the use of the verb g‘r (‫“ )גער‬rebuke,” commonly employed in reference to Satan or evil spirits.28 In rabbinic texts the evil inclination (yēṣ er hārā‘) is presented similarly in personified and almost demonic form, as an entity who attempts to control the human and desires her death.29

27 The use of the term rwh ̣ , “spirit,” to denote an abstract quality in Second Temple texts possibly developed from biblical use: see Isa 4: 4; 28: 6, ‫רוח משפט‬, “spirit of justice”, while the employment of rwḥ to denote a quality of the individual could have developed from the appearance of rwḥ in phrases denoting specific dispositions such as jealousy (‫ )רוח קנאה‬in Num 5: 14, 30 or from the idiomatic use of rwḥ to denote specific human qualities (e. g. ‫רוח‬-‫קצר‬, ‫רוח‬-‫)ארך‬. Second Temple use may also have been influenced by that of the Persian term mēnōg. S. Shaked notes that in late Pahlavi (Middle Persian) writings, the term mēnōg (commonly translated “spirit”) represents at least three distinct notions: (a) an abstract quality, such as truth or lack of truth; (b) a quality or psychological urge operating within the individual person, such as a person’s truthfulness, falsehood, etc.; (c) a personified entity (i. e., a divine or demonic power) active on the individual level and on a cosmic scale (see Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B. C. E. to Second Century C. E.,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism [ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; 4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984], 1: 317). While it is difficult to determine definitively whether the Persian use of mēnōg influenced the parallel use of rwḥ in Jewish circles, particularly as the written evidence in Pahlavi post-dates Second Temple writings significantly, the parallels are intriguing. Certainly the use of rwḥ in Jewish writings of this period shows the variation described above, as noted by Shaked. However, there are additional uses of rwḥ found in Second Temple texts, particularly those of the Qumran community, that do not reflect Shaked’s categories. These include (a) the use of rwḥ to denote human beings themselves (e. g. rwḥ bśr “spirit of flesh” in the Hodayot; rwḥ in Hodayot VII.26; and rwḥ htw‘h “erring spirit” in Hodayot IX.24); (b) a continuation of the biblical use of rwḥ to denote life or breath (as in 4Q272 [4QDg] 1 ii.1, 4Q418 126 ii.8, and 4Q385 [4QpsEzeka] 2 7 in a paraphrase of Ezek 37: 9); and (c) the use of rwḥ to represent a quantifiable attribute that allows for the categorization of the group member (as in CD XX.24, 1QS IV.26, and 4Q279 [4QFour Lots] 5 5). It is perhaps a combination of this third Qumran use and the second meaning of mēnōg noted by Shaked that is behind the intriguing reference in the fragmentary 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer (4Q477 2 ֗ ‫“ העון עמו וגם רוח פארה ע‬the offence is with him and also haughty spirit (is) with ii.4): [‫מ]ו‬ [him]”; text and translation follow E. Eshel, “477. 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer,” in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part I (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 480–1. 28 Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 351. 29 See b. Qidd. 30b.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QBarkhi Nafshi

47

However, in this passage the verb g‘r also relates to another sinful and internal part of the petitioner, apparently the heart, which is “rebuked” and replaced with a pure heart in 4Q436 1 i.10. Hence, in 4Q436 1 i–ii the evil inclination is paralleled on the one hand with the heart and on the other with sinful inclinations such as the “lechery of eyes” removed by God in 4Q436 1 ii.1. This indicates that despite the use of the verb g‘r, the yēṣ er ra‘ here is an internal evil inclination, and not an external spirit. The distinction between the biblical use of g‘r and its appearance in this passage is strengthened by the fact that the biblical idiom is g‘r b-, indicating the character being rebuked, and not g‘r m- as seen here, referring to the “host” of the rebuked entity.30 Rather than representing either a demonic entity or a personified form of evil (as seen in later rabbinic literature), here yēṣ er is used in its biblical sense, as in Gen 6: 5 and 8: 21. In these verses, yēṣ er represents the tendencies of humankind’s thoughts and intentions. As in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, these verses present the yēṣ er in a pessimistic sense, as an aspect of the human that reflects her tendency to sin. The verse at Gen 6: 5 implies that the evilness of the human yēṣ er goes against the natural order:31 And the Lord saw that the evil of humankind was great on the earth, and every inclination (yēṣ er) of the thoughts of its heart was only evil throughout the day.

Following the flood, however, this wickedness is presented as an inevitable element of humanity (Gen 8: 21): And the Lord smelled a pleasing odor, and the Lord said to himself (lit., his heart), I will not continue to further curse the earth because of humankind, for the inclination (yēṣ er) of the heart of humankind is evil from his youth, and I will not continue to further smite everything living as I have done.

4QBarkhi Nafshi similarly presents the inclination as a basic trait of the speaker that is evil by nature. However, 4QBarkhi Nafshi further develops the biblical concept of the yēṣ er in the context of a parallel with the śātān (“accuser/satan”) of Zechariah 3: 2. As Tigchelaar has demonstrated, there is an intertextual relationship between 4QBarkhi Nafshi (specifically 4Q436 1 i-ii and 4Q437 4 par 4Q438 4a ii) and Zechariah 3, evident in the verbs used in both texts: g‘r, hlbyš, h‘byr, hsyr, g‘r, and śym.32 An investigation into this intertextual relationship reveals that the conversion of the rebuked śātān of Zechariah to an “evil inclination” (yṣ r r‘) in 4QBarkhi Nafshi corresponds to a process of abstraction that the author of 4QBarkhi Nafshi utilizes throughout. For exam30 See Gen 37: 10; Isa 17: 13, 54: 9; Jer 29: 27; Nah 1: 4; Zech 3: 2; Mal 3: 11; Ps 106: 9; Ruth 2: 16. (The verb g‘r is used without any preposition in Mal 2: 3, Ps 9: 6, and Ps 119: 21.) 31 The translation of the following verses is my own. 32 Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 351–2. For Tigchelaar this relationship further bolsters the idea that the yṣ r r‘ in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is a demonic stand-in for the śātān (“accuser/satan”) of Zechariah 3: 2.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

48

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

ple, instead of the defiled clothes of the priest that are removed and replaced with pure garments in Zechariah 3: 4, the speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi exults that God has removed his sinful ways and “clothed” him in the spirit of salvation (4Q438 4a ii.6: ‫)ורוח ישועות הלבשתני‬, paraphrasing Isa 61: 10b ‫כי‬ ִּ ‫שע‬ ַׁ ‫די ֶי‬ ֵ ‫בְג‬ ִּ ‫שִני‬ ַׁ ‫בי‬ ִּ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ִ “for he has clothed me with garments of salvation.”33 Consequently, rather than “demonizing” sin, the author of 4QBarkhi Nafshi creates an abstraction of the śātān.34 The non-human, external, and demonic role played by the śātān does not suit the author’s focus, which is wholly on the internal change that has been effected within the human being and the conversion of his innermost parts. For these purposes the śātān is transformed into a wholly internal evil inclination that is the abstract representation of the human desire to sin. This evil inclination, like the heart of stone, is removed entirely and replaced with a positive counterpart. The focus of 4QBarkhi Nafshi differs intrinsically from that of Syriac Psalm 155. The speaker in Psalm 155 cries out over his past sins, taking full responsibility for these sins. In contrast, in 4QBarkhi Nafshi there is no consideration of human responsibility at all; the speaker concentrates completely on divine assistance and intervention. Consequently, the thanksgiving prayer in 4QBarkhi Nafshi provides the reader with a different view of the source of sin than that reflected in Psalm 155, although the two are integrally connected. While Psalm 155 is a prayer from a sinner who wishes both to be relieved of past sins and protected from ongoing sinfulness, 4QBarkhi Nafshi presents the view of one who has already merited this protection. The speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is concerned only with the condition of sinfulness, from which he has been freed. This sinfulness is connected to the whole human being: physical organs and nonphysical traits. The deserving humble and poor are freed of it through the direct intervention of God, who completely converts their innermost being, inscribing his laws within them and replacing their sinful organs and traits with upright and righteous ones. While Psalm 155 may express the difficulty of the “struggling righteous,” that is, those who consider themselves righteous but sin nonetheless, the speaker of 4QBarkhi Nafshi does not struggle at all. He has been saved from these struggles through divine intercession, and no longer wrestles with the inherently evil inclination from which the rest of humankind suffers.

33

Translation mine. This reanalysis of the Barkhi Nafshi text is in agreement with the observation of I. RosenZvi that the wider context of this passage, i. e. the removal of negative human qualities, indicates that the yṣ r r‘ here is not an independent entity; see Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires 47. 34

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Words of the Luminaries

49

The Words of the Luminaries: Divine Assistance The Words of the Luminaries (4Q504–506) are communal prayers for the days of the week that reflect Second Temple practice beyond the Qumran community.35 They are spoken in the plural and include both the praise of God and petitions to him. The request that God curb the speakers’ desire to sin forms a prominent part of these petitions. The petitions in the Words of the Luminaries share aspects of both Syriac Psalm 155 and 4QBarkhi Nafshi. As in Psalm 155, the speakers suffer from ongoing sin, and request to be cleansed of previous acts of sin as well as purified from a condition of sinfulness. But like the speaker of 4QBarkhi Nafshi, the petitioners of the Words of the Luminaries refer explicitly to an internal change enabled by God. The internal modifications that they request are not as all-encompassing as those already enjoyed by the speaker of 4QBarkhi Nafshi. However, these changes are just as necessary to resist sin and achieve righteousness. Following a request for forgiveness for past sins of both their forefathers and themselves (4Q504 4 5–7 par. 4Q506 131–132 11–14) and a mention of their chosen status (4Q504 4 10–11) the community requests that God “circumcise the foreskin of [our heart]” (line 11) and “strengthen our heart to do [… to] walk in your ways” (lines 12–13). The request for divine “circumcision” echoes the circumcision of Israelite hearts in Deuteronomy 30: 6, like the similar allusion in 4QBarkhi Nafshi. Unlike the reference in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, however, here it serves as part of a communal request and not an individual

35 The name Words of the Luminaries was found written on the reverse of one of the three copies (4Q504 8 verso), and probably refers to the “change” of the luminaries in morning and evening, indicating the time of the prayer (Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 69) or possibly to the daily and monthly cycles of the sun and moon (Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 108); see E. Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam)” (Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), 69 (Hebrew) and D. T. Olson “Words of the Lights (4Q504–506 = 4QDibHama–c),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 108. This text was found at Qumran in three copies but is nevertheless considered nonsectarian and a reflection of wider Second Temple practice; see Chazon, “A Liturgical Document,” 88–89 (Hebrew); eadem, “Is ‘Divrei Ha-me’orot’ a Sectarian Prayer?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 14; D. T. Olson “Words of the Lights,” 108; D. K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 61; L. H. Schiffman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (ed. L. I. Levine; Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987), 40–41; idem, “From Temple to Torah: Rabbinic Judaism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Shofar 10 (1992): 10; and M. R. Lehmann, “A Re-Interpretation of 4Q Dibrê Ham-me’oroth,” RevQ 5 (1964): 106–10.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

50

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

acknowledgment of past favor. God is petitioned to effect an internal change in the speakers’ hearts, strengthening them to perform God’s commandments.36 Another passage (4Q504 1 + 2 ii recto) also presents the promise of this transformation as the result of the chosen status of Israel. It introduces the transformation that will occur with “And you remember the wonders that you performed…for your name has been called over us” (line 12–13). The community then presents its request and expectation of divine assistance:37 ‫( ]לבלתי סור ממנה‬14) ‫ב֯נו בכול לב ובכול נפש ולטעת תורתכה בלבנו‬°[ ]‫(]…[ל‬13) ‫הן בע[֯ו֯ונותינו‬...‫( ]לבב‬15) ‫מימין ושמאול כיא תרפאנו משגעון ועורון ותמהון‬ ֗ [ ‫ללכת‬ ‫ והצלתנו מחטוא לכה‬°°[…] (16) ‫֗נמכרנו ובפשעינו קרתנו‬

(13) […]l[ ]bnw with all heart and with all soul and to plant your Torah in our heart (14) [so as not to turn from it, to go] right or left, for you will heal us from madness and blindness and confusion (15) [of heart. … For because of] our [i]niquities we have been sold and in our transgressions […] has befallen us38 (16) […] and you will deliver39 us from sinning against you (4Q504 1 + 2 ii recto 13–16)

The speakers express confidence that God will “heal us from madness and blindness and confusion” (line 14), all of which are the cause of straying from the law. The condition of madness, blindness and confusion reflects the sinner’s defect in basic understanding. The idea that sinning results from a defect in understanding is also found in Jewish wisdom literature, particularly in the Wisdom of Solomon and in the Parables of Enoch.40 A parallel approach is found in Hellenistic thought, reflected in the Orphic fragments, the Golden

36 See Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 167. If Tigchelaar’s revised reading is correct (Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 355), a parallel may also be found in 4Q468i 2–3, ‫כיא‬ ‫שיבונו‬ ֗ ‫ה‬ ֗ ‫צר לבנו הרע‬ ֗ [‫חזק עורפנו ]י‬, “for our neck is stiff…restore/reverse for us the evil in[clination] of our heart” (translation my own). Here the “evil inclination of the heart” is explicitly referred to, and God is requested to change it in some manner, presumably to prevent future sinning on the part of the petitioners. 37 Text follows Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 139–40. The translation is my own but draws from those of Baillet, Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 127 and Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 229. 38 qrtnw is likely a form of qrh “to occur,” and not qr’ “to call,” as it is sometimes translated. See 4QMMT (4Q397 IV.12 par. 4Q398 14–17 i.5) ‫“ שתסור מהדרך וקרתכה הרעה‬that you shall stray from the path and evil will befall you.” The chosen translation also has the advantage of eliminating the need for the insertion of “in spite of.” (The probable meaning of this phrase was drawn to my attention by M. J. Bernstein.) 39 For a similar verbal construction, see Ps. 22: 22. See also Chazon, ibid., 236, 240. 40 See the description of sinning in Wisdom of Solomon 4: 10–14, 12: 23–25 and the contrast of wisdom with iniquity in the Parables of Enoch, 1 En. 42: 1–3. These texts continue in the path of biblical wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs. This understanding may also be reflected in certain Qumran sapiential texts such as the description of sinning as mistaken action in 4Q306 1 1, 2 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Words of the Luminaries

51

Verses of Pythagoras, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, and in Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus.”41 In the Words of the Luminaries this madness can be “healed” by God, through the “planting of Torah” (line 13) in the hearts of the speakers. An internal positive change is made and an “illness” is cured; in this way, the speakers are delivered from sinning against God (line 16). At the same time, the speakers have suffered because of acts of sin they have performed in the past (line 15). The change that they request will apparently include forgiveness of past sins (line 15) as well as the prevention of future sins (line 16). The idea that the Torah is a defense in the internal battle against the desire to sin is found throughout Second Temple literature.42 In the Words of the Luminaries it appears in the connection between the divine “planting of the Torah” in the sinner’s heart and the consequent “healing” of the desire to sin (lines 13–14), while in 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q436 1 ia, b.5b–6) it is metaphorically described as the engraving of the law on the speaker’s insides. The “planting of the Torah” is an image that appears later in rabbinic liturgy, specifically in the blessing for the Torah.43 As will be seen, in Second Temple texts the role of the law in the fight against sin is not confined only to the internal view of sin. The apotropaic prayers Songs of the Sage (4Q511) and 4QIncantation (4Q444) attribute sin to demonic forces within the speaker and the laws of God are described as battling these forces.44 Nor is this idea exclusive to a single genre, as will be evident in the discussions of Sir 23: 11 and 4 Ezra below. In the Words of the Luminaries, the commonly accepted idea that God’s “planted” Torah transforms the human inclination to sin plays a central role. It is the planting of the Torah by God that delivers the speakers from sinning, curing their madness, blindness and confusion. Sin here is described as a disease, not as an entity or organ. It is not displaced by the Torah, but cured by it. Torah is the antidote provided by God, introduced into the speakers’ hearts through divine intervention. In a similar manner, rabbinic texts later portray 41 See discussion below. For this idea in the Orphic fragments, see Orphic frg. 337 and 396.14–15 (Bernabé); in the Hymn to Demeter see particularly 256–57. 42 M. Kister notes the apotropaic function of Torah observance in several Second Temple texts, particular regarding release from the spiritual dominion of demons; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16: 4–6 and Related Texts),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 169; idem, “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (2 vols.; Between Bible and Mishna; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009), 2: 507–9 (Hebrew). However, the idea that the law fights sin is also found extensively in contexts where no demonic forces appear. 43 See Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 237–8. 44 See Songs of the Sage 4Q511 48–49+51 ii.2–6 and 4Q444 (4QIncantation) 1–4 i.1–4. These texts will be explored further in Chapter 9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

52

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

the Torah as an antidote created by God to protect humans against the evil inclination.45 Logically, the role of the law in the struggle with the desire to sin places the responsibility for sin into human hands. God cannot be blamed for sin despite his creation of humans with an inclination to sin, since he also created the law as its cure.46 The choice to accept this cure lies in human hands. In prayer, however, the portrayal of the law as cure emphasizes law as a divine intervention. The petitioners do not speak of choosing to follow the law; they are grateful to God who has incorporated the law directly within them. The exaggeration of human helplessness and dependence on the Deity that is an integral part of the prayer experience colors the presentation of the law so that it expresses heavenly guidance rather than earthly choice. Accordingly, in the Words of the Luminaries, as in Syriac Psalm 155 and 4QBarkhi Nafshi, the desire to sin is depicted as inherently human and necessitating divine assistance to be resisted. As in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, an actual change in the human condition is required in order to be righteous. However, like the speaker in Psalm 155, the community of petitioners in the Words of the Luminaries acknowledge their past acts of sin, and approach the Deity as sinners who yearn to be righteous and are confident that God will assist them in this endeavor. Thus, despite the pessimistic view of human nature that Words of the Luminaries reflects, sin is not inevitable. After all, just as in Psalm 155 and 4QBarkhi Nafshi, the required divine assistance is readily available through prayer.

4QCommunal Confession: God’s Responsibility for Sin The diverse prayers explored above agree in their description of divine intercession as vital in preventing future sin. However, these prayers do not go so far as to hold God responsible for sins committed by human beings. It is understandable that in a penitential prayer or a prayer of benediction the speaker would acknowledge the need for divine assistance without shifting responsibility for sinfulness to the Deity. Nevertheless, one text, 4QCommunal Confession, does reach this “logical” conclusion regarding God’s responsibility. 4QCommunal Confession is a penitential prayer of nonsectarian origins found at Qumran that is similar to other post-exilic prayers of communal con-

45

See b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b and Sifre Deut. 45. This idea will be explored further in the analysis of 4 Ezra. It is found explicitly in b. B. Bat. 16a. 46

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QCommunal Confession

53

fession.47 It includes the familiar request that God wipe out the sins of the community (4Q393 1 ii-2 4–5) and create “a new spirit” and a “faithful inclination” within them (5–6). In an urgent plea, the speakers ask God not to desert them (4Q393 3 3b–5a):48 ‫כרצונך‬ ֯ ‫( ]הר[ע‬4) ‫ת איש בשרירות לבו‬ ֗ ‫חלתך֗ ֗ואל ללכ‬ ֯ [‫( … אל תע֗זוב עמך ]ונ‬3) … ‫בשררו]ת[ לבו הרע‬ ֗ (5) ‫ה ה֗וא ֗ותע]ז[֯וב עמך ונחלתך ואל ללכת איש‬ ֯ [‫ה]י‬ ֗ ‫אל֗והי‬

(3) … Do not abandon your people [and] your [in]heritance. Do not (allow) each to walk in the stubbornness of his [ev]il heart. (4) According to your will, O my God, it has [come] to pass, and you have aban[do]ned your people and your inheritance to walk49 each (5) in the stubborn[ness] of his evil heart…

The passage at 4Q393 3 3–5 presents the logical conclusion to the position that God’s intervention is necessary in order to fight the desire to sin. While God is requested not to let people walk “each one in the stubbornness of his e[vil] heart” (line 3) in an echo of Ps 81: 13, God is also reminded that it is because he left his people that they did, in fact, sin. On the one hand, all sinners contain an “evil heart” that they follow in stubbornness.50 On the other, God’s presence alone is enough to purify and elevate those receiving his presence, as stated in lines 5–6, “On whom will you make your face shine without their being purified and sanctified and exalted above everything?”51 This “sanctification” presumably prevents future sin. Because God’s help is needed in the fight against the “evil heart,” God’s abandonment has facilitated the people’s sinning (lines 4–5). God is petitioned on the basis of this responsibility, both for the forgiveness of these sins and for the return of his presence, which is necessary to prevent future sinning. The implication that God’s abandonment lies 47 See D. K. Falk, “393. 4QCommunal Confession,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 47– 48. Falk notes that 4QCommunal Confession has no concrete indications of sectarian origin and includes the use of the Tetragrammaton in opposition to sectarian practice. See also D. K. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JJS 45 (1994): 199–207; Falk (tentatively) concludes that 4Q393 is a confession of sins that was regularly recited communally by a non-sectarian group or groups, but may have been used at Qumran as well (ibid., 207). 48 Text and translation (with minor modifications) based on Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” 53, 55. 49 As noted by Falk (“4QCommunal Confession,” 56), ‫“( אל‬not”) in line 4 is a scribal error, copied from the previous line, which has the identical phrase. 50 As Falk notes (“4Q393,” 193–4; “4QCommunal Confession,” 56), while “stubbornness of his/their heart” (šĕrîrût libbô/libbām) is a common biblical phrase, the phrase “the stubbornness of his/their evil heart” appears only in Jeremiah. On the biblical parallels and patterns in 4Q393, see D. K. Falk, “Biblical Adaptation in 4Q392 ‘Works of God’ and 4Q393 ‘Communal Confession’,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 126–146. 51 ‫ממו למעלה לכול‬ ֗ ‫א ֗יטהרו ויתקדשו ויתרו‬ ֗ ‫ ;ועל מי תאיר פניך ול‬translation follows Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” 55.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

54

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

behind the people’s sin stands as a compelling argument for both forgiveness of past sins and the return of God’s presence.

Psalms of Solomon: Prayer and the Need for Divine Assistance A similarly deep connection between the experience of prayer and the need for divine intercession against sin is found in the Psalms of Solomon. In this composite work, most likely composed during the Hasmonean period by a single anti-Hasmonean community, different psalms reflect different attitudes regarding free will and the need for God’s assistance against temptation.52 In Pss. Sol. 9: 4–5, the author declares humankind’s complete free will and freedom of action, concluding that: ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἀδικίαν αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ…

The one who practices righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who practices injustice is responsible for the destruction of his own soul…53

As the choice between righteousness and wickedness is wholly in the hands of the human being, humans are responsible for their own punishment. In contrast, a prayer found in Pss. Sol. 16: 7–11 requests God’s help against sin and illicit desire, beginning: ἐπικράτησόν μου, ὁ θεός, ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς σκανδαλιζούσης ἄφρονα.

Hold me back, O God, from wicked sin and from every evil woman who causes the foolish to stumble.54

In words similar to other prayers investigated here, the speaker enjoins God to “direct the works of my hands in your place, and guard my steps in your remembrance” (16: 9) and to distance “anger” (ὀργὴν) and “unreasoning wrath” (θυμὸν ἄλογον) from the petitioner (16: 10). The petition contrasts with the view proposed in Pss. Sol. 9: 4–5 in which only humans and their free 52 On the identification and dating of the Psalms of Solomon, see J. L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6: 115–6. 53 Greek follows A. Rahlfs et al., eds., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931). Translation of passages from Pss. Sol. follows K. Atkinson, “Psalms of Salomon,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 763–76, unless otherwise noted. 54 This translation follows Atkinson, “Psalms of Salomon,” 773 note c. The translation Atkinson has chosen in the body of his translation is “Rule over me,” but the translation proposed in his note is appropriate to the context and a reasonable translation of “ἐπικράτησόν μου.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Road Not Travelled

55

will are responsible for their sinning acts. It is clear that the authorial community responsible for Psalms of Solomon had no difficulty with petitioning God against the desire to sin, despite the more “philosophical” declaration in 9: 4–5. This is connected to the expectations of the prayer genre. Within a direct prayer to God, the request for assistance in resisting one’s inclination toward sin is expected, regardless of any larger theological premise regarding human free will.

The Road Not Travelled: Prayers without an Inclination to Sin The connection between the prayer genre and the idea of an innate human inclination to sin is particularly evident in the prayers reviewed here. Nevertheless, the idea that people incline toward sin as part of the human condition is not a necessary component of the genre wherever it appears in the Second Temple period. For example, prayers spoken by a character in narrative usually do not reflect this idea. Prayers embedded in narrative sometimes assume the complete righteousness of the speaker; for example, in the prayer of Amram described by Josephus in A. J. 2.211, Amram asks God to pity the people, who were not guilty of any transgression.55 Alternatively, prayers in narratives may attribute the cause of sin to demons, as in Noah’s prayer in Jub. 10: 3–6. (Such prayers will be further investigated in the second part of this study.) Even in the Prayer of Manasseh, in which a self-acknowledged sinner prays for forgiveness, Manasseh does not mention any internal inclination to sin.56 Rather, he contrasts himself with the righteous patriarchs, who needed no such prayer (Pr Man 8); the righteousness of the patriarchs demonstrates that sin is not an inevitable aspect of the human condition. The absence of this paradigm in prayer embedded in narrative is further evidence that it is the experiential aspect of prayer that fuels the idea of an innate

55 For a collection of prayers in Josephus that bear out this idea, see T. M. Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (AJEC 70; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 56 According to D. K. Falk, the Prayer of Manasseh was composed sometime between the second century B. C. E. and the first century C. E. in order to recreate the penitential prayer of Manasseh mentioned in 2 Chron 33: 12–13, 18–19; see D. K. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid; WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 13. Nevertheless, cf. J. R. Davila, who argues that while an early Jewish provenance is possible, given the lack of evidence for such a provenance the text should be treated as an early Christian text; Davila, “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 75–85.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

56

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

human inclination to sin and the need for divine assistance against it. In the meeting with the Deity expressed in prayer, as distinct from the prayer embedded in narrative, the distance between the human condition and divine greatness is keenly felt.57 Human sinfulness and helplessness are exaggerated. Human free will is ignored; only God can help the petitioner, who is naturally sinful. Another group of prayers that does not assume a naturally human inclination to sin is the collection of apotropaic prayers from this period, whose purpose is to obtain God’s protection from evil spirits. Unsurprisingly, in these prayers (discussed in the second part of this study) the tendency is to portray demons or evil spirits as the cause of human sin. The paradigm of an innately human inclination to sin draws neither from Mesopotamian prayer nor, apparently, from Hellenistic prayer. In Mesopotamian petitionary prayer, the petitioner typically claims ignorance of the sins he has committed, thereby removing these sins from the petitioner’s realm of responsibility.58 Early Hittite kings frequently take a different approach in their penitential prayers, blaming their fathers for committing sins for which they themselves are being held accountable, or complaining that they are paying “too much” for their sins.59 While Hellenistic prayer displays a stance closer to that of Second Temple prayers than does Near Eastern prayer, it lacks the attribution of sin to an inevitable internal inclination. Rather, the attribution of sin to foolishness, found widely in Hellenistic literature, is also found in Hellenistic prayer. The famous Hymn to Zeus written by Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoic school, is instructive in this respect. In this hymn, as noted above, sin is attributed to foolishness.60 (Cleanthes nevertheless requests the deity’s help in overcoming this ignorance.) As noted by J. C. Thom, Cleanthes echoes the Pythagorean Golden Verses and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (256–57).61 These hymns also attribute evildoing to foolishness or misperception by the wicked, as do two Orphic 57 As in the experience of the “masochistic sublime” noted by C. A. Newsom in her description of the Hodayot; see Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. 58 See K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: a Comparative Study (SSN 22; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 94–99. 59 See I. Singer, “Sin and Punishment in Hittite Prayers,” in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 557–67. 60 πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέραισιν ἀνοίαις “…except what bad people do in their folly.” (Text and translation following J. C. Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus”: Text, Translation and Commentary [STAC 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 36, 40.) 61 See Carm. Aur. 54–56 (in these lines, the “wretched” [τλήμονας] neither see the good nor hear it) and Hymn to Demeter 256–57: “Ignorant and senseless human beings, unable to foresee/the allotted share of coming good or evil”; see Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus,” 118– 9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

57

fragments.62 Plato later provides a similar explanation for evildoing, explaining that wickedness stems from a misunderstanding of the good (Laws 716a-b). Nevertheless, an interesting pre-Socratic parallel to the requests for God’s help against sin in Second Temple prayer is found in Xenophanes’ symposium elegy, fragment 1:63 Joyful men should first hymn the god with pious words and pure thoughts and after libations and prayer for the strength to act righteously (τὰ δίκαια δύνασθαι πρήσσειν) – for this is our immediate task… (Emphasis mine.)

It is intriguing that Xenophanes, one of the first Hellenistic thinkers to argue for a belief in the morality of the gods (and consequently for a rejection of Greek myth), should also prescribe prayer to the god for “the strength to act righteously.” The belief in a righteous god does not logically necessitate a belief in the human need for divine strength to act righteously, and thus this juxtaposition in Xenophanes, also found in Second Temple prayer, is intriguing. The little that is known of Xenophanes and his milieu precludes an in-depth exploration of his thought in the course of the present study, but this similarity opens possible avenues for future study.

Conclusion: Innate Inclination to Sin and Inevitability in Nonsectarian Prayer The prayers explored in this chapter demonstrate the connection between the genre of prayer and a particular paradigm regarding the nature of sin: that an inclination toward sin is innate and an inevitable element of the human condition that can only be prevented with divine assistance. The passages in the Psalms of Solomon in particular demonstrate that expectations of the prayer genre are stronger than a need for theological consistency. On the other hand, the differences between these prayers express the fluidity of concepts regarding sin during this period. Within the paradigm of an innate inclination to sin, these prayers express varying approaches to sin as an act, a condition, or both. They also indicate different degrees of focus on human or divine responsibility for sin. The comparison between these prayers and prayers found in Second Temple narratives demonstrates the importance of the experiential aspect of prayer for this paradigm. When the prayer simply fulfills a function in narrative, it does not correspond to the pattern found in these prayers. But when the Orphic frg. 337 and 396.14–15 (Bernabé). See Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus,” 119. Translation follows P. A. Meijer, “Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas,” in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S Versnel; SGRR 2; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 222. 62 63

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

58

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

prayer is composed as a direct petition to God, the experience of the meeting between human and divine creates an impetus for the exaggeration of the sinfulness and helplessness of humankind in contrast to the power of God. Nevertheless, human sinfulness and helplessness is not a barrier between the petitioner and God. Whether the speaker presents herself as guilty of past acts of sin, suffering from a current condition of sinfulness, or both, she is able to approach God and express confidence that divine assistance is forthcoming. While 4QBarkhi Nafshi and the Words of the Luminaries express their thanks and expectations in the context of chosenness, the speaker of Psalm 155 makes no claim of a special relationship. Rather, he emphasizes his past acts of sin and present sinful nature. They are the reason that the petitioner has turned to God, and his confidence that God will help him is what ensures that his petition will be granted. The expectation that the requested assistance against sin will be provided by the Deity and that this help is a consequence of prayer lies behind the focus on divine responsibility for sin in 4QCommunal Confession. Of the prayers examined in this chapter, 4QBarkhi Nafshi is the most conceptually rich in its depiction of sinfulness. This hymn focuses on the condition of sin, addressing a range of manifestations of this condition. In the world of the composer of 4QBarkhi Nafshi, sin resides metaphorically in the organs as well as in the intangible qualities of the human being, which include the basically sinful human inclination, the yēṣ er, a concept that echoes the term’s biblical use. The terms used by the composer of 4QBarkhi Nafshi emphasize the internal and human nature of sinfulness; the echoes of Zechariah 3 in this prayer transform the biblical passage’s images into abstractions that express a completely internal landscape of sin. Sin comes not from without, but within. This internal view of sin can be found in all the prayers examined in this chapter, and like the expression of human helplessness can be understood at least partially as a function of the experience of prayer. The prayers examined in this chapter are expressions of the speaker’s internal world, expressing her fears, concerns, and hopes to God in the expectation that he will intervene. This expectation itself will overcome the “inevitability” of human sin.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Three Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer The sectarian prayers found in the Hodayot and the “Hymn of Praise” (in the Community Rule, 1QS X.9-XI.22), like the prayers reviewed in the preceding chapter, describe the desire to sin as an innate, inevitable human condition that necessitates God’s assistance.1 While the understanding of sin presented in these sectarian prayers reflects existing views of sin, as explored in the previous chapter, both these texts develop and elaborate on these underlying views considerably. In particular, the sinful condition is connected to the physical reality of the human, and only direct divine election may free the human from this physical sinfulness. These aspects of the sinful condition result in a particularly ignoble depiction of human nature and the portrayal of an exclusive relationship between God and a chosen few.

The Hodayot: The Physical Dimension of Sin The Hodayot (also known as the “Thanksgiving Psalms”) is a collection of hymns found in two caves at Qumran. Its earliest fragments (4QHodayotb) have been paleographically dated to 100–50 B. C. E.2 These hymns are frequently divided into two groups, “Hymns of the Teacher” and “Hymns of the Community”; the former reflect personal experiences of the author and the latter represent liturgical hymns. While most of the texts cited below belong to the “Hymns of the Community,”3 the “Hymns of the Teacher” and the “Hymns of the Community” are equally relevant to this study, and both

1 The definition of prayer for the purposes of this study include both individual and liturgical prayer, and therefore includes the Hodayot even if they are classified as non-liturgical. 2 On the dating of 4QHodayotb (4Q428), see Schuller, “428. 4QHodayotb,” 129–30. 3 Following the divisions proposed by Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (ATDan 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 320–1; G. Morawe, Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân: Studien zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Hodajôth (Theologische Arbeiten 16; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961), 166; G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 168–267; H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 16–33; and J. Becker (Das Heil Gottes), and supported by the more recently published Hodayot scrolls of Cave 4; see E. M. Schuller, “427– 432. 4QHodayota–e and 4QpapHodayotf: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4, XX, Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 74–75.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

60

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

express certain theological ideas particular to the Dead Sea community.4 Individual prayers, as well as liturgical ones, can be expected to reflect the understanding and representation of sin particular to the prayer genre. Humanity’s innate sinfulness is a recurring theme in the Hodayot, as has been noted since this text was first studied.5 In the Hodayot, the baseness and sinfulness of human beings is expressly physical, and is communicated through the use of the terms yṣ r ḥ mr “creature of clay,” bśr “flesh,” and rwḥ bśr “a spirit of flesh” to denote humans and their distance from the Deity.6 Sinfulness as it is described in the Hodayot results from humanity’s natural physical state, and is not connected to any particular transgression. This understanding of the human condition in the Hodayot is expressed emphatically in 1QHa IX.23–25, where the speaker maintains his own basic sinfulness as a member of humankind:7 ‫( סוד הערוה ומקור הנדה כור העוון ומבנה‬24) ‫(… ואני יצר החמר ומגבל המים‬23) ֯ ‫החטאה‬ ‫משפטי צדק מה אדבר בלא נודע‬ ֯ ‫ב‬ ֯ ‫( בינה ונבעתה‬25) ‫רוח הת֯ועה ונעוה בלא‬ …‫ואשמיעה בלא סופר‬

4 As noted by C. A. Newsom, both were equally important in forming the “subjectivity” of the sectarians; see Self as Symbolic Space, 197. 5 See M. Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): texte hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 48–49; Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 274; and D. Dombrowski Hopkins, “The Qumran Community and 1Q Hodayot: a Reassessment,” RQ 10 (1981): 325; Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” 278– 9, 283; G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 1/12; Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), 170; E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 38; Murphy, “Yēṣ er in the Qumran Literature,” 339–40; and L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 151–2. Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 41, notes that the speaker in the Hodayot desires freedom from sinfulness, rather than asking for forgiveness for individual sins. 6 On the semantic range of rwh ̣ in Second Temple texts, see n. 27 in the previous chapter. For further examples of yṣ r ḥ mr, see 1QHa IX.23; XII.30; XIX.6; XX.29; XX.35; XXII.12; XXIII.13. For bśr, see 1QHa IV.37; V.15,30,33; VII.25,34; XII.30; XVIII.25 (where yṣ r bśr indicates not an inclination but a creature of flesh, i. e. a human being); XXI.7,9,23; XXIV.10,14,29; XXV.12; XXVI.35. On the use of bāśār to denote human weakness and/or sinfulness in the Hodayot, see Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 48–49; Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 33–34; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 170. 7 Text and translation follow E. M. Schuller, H. Stegemann, and C. A. Newsom, 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 21–23, except where otherwise noted. The line numbering of this and all selections and citations of the Hodayot in this study is based on the later edition of the Hodayot in DJD 40, and variant readings in E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (vol. 1; Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010 [Hebrew]) are noted. Following Schuller and Stegemann, no distinction is made between more or less certain reconstructions; all damaged letters are marked with an open circle.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Hodayot

61

(23)…Yet I am a creature of clay and (a thing) kneaded with water, (24) a foundation of shame and a spring of impurity,8 a furnace of iniquity, and a structure of sin, a spirit of error, and a perverted being, without (25) understanding, and terrified by righteous judgments. What could I say that is not known, or what could I declare that has not been told?9 … (1QHa IX.23b–25)

The speaker does not claim that he is guilty of particular sins. Rather, as a member of humanity, he shares in its lowly and sinful state. He decries his physical condition alongside his sinful situation: the fact that the speaker is a “creature of clay” that has been “kneaded with water” goes hand in hand with the “shame,” “impurity,” and “iniquity” that are in his foundation. The phrases that are used to describe the speaker’s sinful condition echo biblical verses without repeating exact phrases. The phrase “creature of clay,” yṣ r hḥ mr, is reminiscent of the statement in Isa 29: 16: “Should the potter (yōṣ ēr) be accounted as the clay (ḥ ōmer)? Should what is made say of its maker, ‘He did not make me,’ and what is formed (yēṣ er) say of him who formed it (yôṣ rô) ‘he did not understand’?” The other biblical allusions in this passage actually reverse the biblical meaning they echo. Rather than a divine furnace (kûr) that purifies Israel from dross as described in Ezek 22: 18–22, the speaker is a “furnace of iniquity.” Rather than a spring (māqôr) that will cleanse Jerusalem from impurity (nīddâ) as in Zech 13: 1, the speaker is a “spring of impurity” (mqwr ndh) himself. This passage also differs conceptually from its biblical precedents. In Ps 103: 14, the mention of the “dust” from which humanity is formed is an expression of human weakness and mortality, but not of sinfulness. In contrast, the speaker in Hodayot is intrinsically sinful because of his human status as a “creature of clay.” The experience he describes in his meeting with the divine is one of total humility, sinfulness, and unworthiness. This is the “masochistic” element of the experience of the “masochistic sublime” noted by Carol Newsom in her description of the Hodayot.10 By cultivating the “masochistic sublime,” the speaker deeply experiences the lowliness of his nature contrasted to the “absolute being” of God, and subsequently the elation that results from the encounter with the Deity. While this feeling is related to the experience of sinfulness and helplessness expressed in nonsectarian prayer and explored above, in the Hodayot this feeling is so magnified that it seems to be in a class all its own. In addition, individual acts of sin and the pardoning of these acts are not a Newsom, 1QHodayota, 130, translates “well of impurity,” but “spring” better reflects the biblical semantic range of the term ‫( מקור‬māqôr) used both as a source of water (i. e. a spring or a fountain) and a source of menstrual impurity. 9 Newsom translates “is not already known” and “has not already been told,” but there is no indication of this in the Hebrew text. 10 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. 8

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

62

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

concern in the Hodayot.11 The speaker yearns for, and benefits from, purification from the state of sinfulness he suffers from as a result of his humanity.12 It is clear that only God can effect this purification. Similar terms of sinfulness and lowliness are applied to all of humankind in 1QHa V.31–34, before the speaker notes that divine help is required to overcome this condition. As in 1QHa IX.23–25, the physical nature of the human being serves as an introduction to a description of human sinfulness.13 ‫( מבנה עפר ומגבל מים‬32) ‫ הנוראים והוא‬14‫ך‬ ֯ [‫ל]י‬ ֯ [‫( … ומה ילוד אשה בכול ]ג[ד֯]ו‬31) ֯ ‫ ואם‬vacat ‫( בו‬33) ‫מ]קור הנ[דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬ ֯ ‫א]שמה וחט[אה סודו ערות קל֯ו֯ן ֯ו‬ ‫( יצדק איש‬34) ‫לבשר רק בטובך‬ ֯ ‫ם‬ ֯ [‫ק]י‬ ֯ ‫עולם ומופת דורות רחו‬ ֯ [ ‫ירשע יהיה֯] לאות עד‬ … ‫ובר֯֯וב רח֯]מיך [ בהדרך תפארנו‬

(31) …What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at fearful acts?15 He (32) is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ful gui]lt is his foundation, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit rules (33) him. If he acts wickedly, he will become[ a sign for]ever and a portent for dis[ta]nt generations of flesh. Only through your goodness (34) can a person be righteous, and by [your] abundant mer[cy ]. By your splendour you glorify him… (1QHa V.31b–34)

In this passage the baseness of humanity is contrasted to the greatness of the works of God. There is no separation between the physical nature of humans and their sinful disposition. It is the fact that the human is “constructed of dust” and “kneaded with water” that gives rise to the “sinful guilt” in her foundation.16 This human sinfulness is in turn linked to the idea that only God can enable righteousness (lines 33–34) and even “glorify” the human being. Thus, like the petitioners in nonsectarian prayer, the speaker relies on divine aid in order to be free of the basic human condition of physical sinfulness. But unlike those petitioners, the speaker in the Hodayot expects more than mere purification: God can and will “glorify” the human being, a glorification that is described more fully elsewhere in the Hodayot.

11

See Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 41. In contrast, in Ps 51: 7 the speaker is “in sin” from birth (“Indeed I was born in iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me”), but the sin in question stems from specific sins that the speaker has performed, as indicated by the active verb forms in the preceding verse (“Against you alone have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight…” [51: 6]). 13 Text follows Schuller, Stegemann, and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 76, and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 86. 14 E. Qimron reads [‫ ;]מעשיך‬see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 64. 15 Or, following Qimron’s reading op. cit., “all your fearful acts.” 16 Nevertheless, sinfulness is not specifically connected to the sexual nature of human beings. Compare the description of the speaker in the Hodayot as formed with clay or dirt and kneaded with water with the description of human origins as a “stinking drop” (‫)טפה סרוחה‬ in m. ’Abot 3: 1. The rabbinic description has clear sexual connotations that are not present in the Hodayot passage. 12

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Hodayot

63

The prominence of the human condition of sinfulness in the Hodayot and its connection with the flesh have led some scholars to see the Hodayot as a precursor to the Pauline contrast between (sinful) flesh and the spirit, specifically as found in Gal 5: 16–23 and Rom 7: 14,18.17 In the Hodayot corporeality is associated with sin in a manner akin to Paul’s description of his own sinfulness in Rom 7: 14, 18. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between Paul’s approach and the approach to sin reflected in the Hodayot. The most prominent of these differences is evident in how the terms “flesh” (bśr) and “spirit” (rwḥ ) are employed in the Hodayot. While Gal 5: 16–23 describes a battle between the flesh and the spirit, in the Hodayot these terms are used concurrently in the phrase rwḥ bśr “spirit of flesh” (a phrase found elsewhere only in 4QInstruction). In the Hodayot, both bśr and rwḥ are used to denote human beings, as in 1QHa XVII.16. Hence, as contrasted to the use of these terms in Gal 5: 16–23, in the Hodayot “flesh” and “spirit” are not contradictory elements. When used in conjunction with each other, these two terms emphasize human corporeality in the Hodayot; the “flesh” is not an entity separate from the essence of the human being.18 Thus, while there are similarities between the individual experience of sinful flesh in Paul (specifically in Rom 7: 14, 18) and in the Hodayot, Paul’s dichotomy between “flesh” and “spirit” is not parallel to the concepts found in the Scrolls.19 In 1QHa XIX.13–17, the speaker describes his purification from sin and sanctification, and praises the result: he can now “be united with the children of your truth and in the lot with your holy ones, so that a corpse infesting maggot (twl‘t mtym) might be raised up from the dust to the council of [your] t[ruth]… so that he may take (his) place before you with the everlasting host and the [eternal] spirit[s].”20 This passage describes both the ignoble nature of human beings and the glorification that results from humans’ purification by the Deity so that they may join “the council of your truth.” The severe description of the impurity and baseness of the human (a “corpse infesting maggot”) makes the purification and elevation of the human all the more miraculous, and clearly the work of God. Moreover, the speaker is no longer among the ranks of humanity once he has been transformed via his purification. He is

17 See Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 49 and the more recent study by J. Frey, “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, 2002), 402. 18 See Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 170. 19 See W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls” 153–4, 177. 20 Translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 248.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

64

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

now one of “your holy ones”: the angels. He does not have to worry about the sinning that is inevitable for regular humans. Thus in spite of his originally innate sinfulness, the speaker can now declare his own chosenness. It is the speaker’s special status that allows him to be freed from the seemingly inevitable connection between humanity and sin.21 By choosing the speaker, God has enabled him to resist the desire to sin. The speaker’s divine election and his need for God’s assistance in overcoming his sinfulness confirm each other.22 This is the situation described in IV.33–35:23 ‫חשכהו‬ ֯ [‫( ] ת‬34) ‫ה]כינותה[ דרכו ובשכל‬ ֯ ‫ה‬ ֯ ‫ת‬ ֯ ‫ר‬ ֯ ‫( … ואני ה֯ובינותי כי את אשר בח‬33) ‫( ]…[ עבדך מחטוא‬35) ‫תה לבו‬ ֯ [‫ב לו ענותו ביסוריך ובנס]וייך חזק‬°°‫מחטוא לך ול‬ ֯ ‫ב‬ ֯ ‫לך ומכשול‬ …‫כול דברי רצונך‬

(33) …As for me, I understand that (for) the one whom you have chosen [you determi]ne his way and through insight (34) [ you] hold him back from sinning against you. And in order to °°b to him his humility through your disciplines and through [your] tes[ts] you have [strengthened] his heart (35) […] your servant from sinning against you and from stumbling in all the matters of your will… (1QHa IV.33b–35a)

In this passage, it is only through God’s assistance that the speaker has been (and will be) able to resist sin. This is a key aspect of the petitioner’s “chosenness,” expressed by noting that God “chooses” (bḥ r) those who will then be saved from sinning (IV.33–34). In order to act according to God’s will, the speaker must be (and is) strengthened by God. The need for God’s assistance in fighting sin fits easily into the broader framework of determinism found in the Hodayot. The determinism described in the Hodayot is distinctly to the speaker’s advantage. Because God has chosen the speaker (IV.33) and has “set his feet” in the correct path, preventing him from sin (IV.33–34), the speaker is free from his innate and physical

21 The presentation of this idea in the Hodayot is suggestive of the Pauline doctrine of grace, particularly as it applies to Paul himself in 1 Cor 15: 10 and 2 Cor 12: 9; see Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, 247 and W. Grundmann, “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Chicago: Priory Press, 1968), 104. Like the speaker in the Hodayot, Paul describes himself as weak and sinful, but rescued by God’s election. (The salvation from sin through grace is more widely applied in passages such as Rom 3: 21–23 and in the possibly deutero-Pauline Eph 2: 1–10.) 22 As Newsom notes, “As is typical of the Hodayot, there is a relentless consistency in the way in which all moral initiative is attributed to God and utter moral incapacity is attributed to the speaker…The very possibility of a moral life depends upon God’s action in choosing one.” (Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 265.) 23 Text follows Schuller and Stegemann, 1QHodayota, 63 and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 73–74, with the exception of “hold him back,” translated “draw him back” by Newsom.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Hodayot

65

desire to sin. No reason is given for God’s choice, but it is clear from the general language in IV.33–35 that the speaker is not the only member of the “chosen,” a class that seems to include all righteous people. The purpose of the speaker’s election is clear in 1QHa XIII.7–11a: ‫( שפטתני ולא‬8) ‫כאשמתי‬ ֯ [ ‫ר ] … ולא‬ ֯ ‫כ‬ ֯ ‫( אודכה אדוני כי לא עזבת֯֯ני בגורי בעם ֯נ‬7) ‫( לביאים מועדים‬9) ‫ט בתוך‬ ֯ ‫ל‬ ֯ [‫] פ‬° ‫ל֯י‬ ֯ ‫ת֯ן‬ ֯ ‫עזבתני בזמות יצרי ותעזור משחת חיי ות‬ ֯ ‫ד‬ ֯ ‫לבני אשמה אריות שוברי עצם אדירים ושותי‬ ‫{במגור‬°°°°} (10) ‫ם גבורים ותשמני‬ ‫עם דיגים רבים פורשי מכמרת על פני מים וצידים לבני עולה ושם למשפט‬ …‫( יסדתני וסוד אמת אמצתה בלבבי ומזה ברית לדורשיה‬11)

(7) I thank you, O Lord, that you have not abandoned me when I dwelt with a foreign people [not]24 according to my guilt (8) did you judge me. You did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination. And you delivered my life from the pit, and you gave me [es]cape in the midst (9) of lions appointed for the children of guilt, lions that crush the bones of the mighty and drink the blood of warriors. You placed me (10) in a dwelling place among the many fishers who spread a net over the surface of the waters and among the hunters of the children of iniquity. And there, for judgment, (11) you established me, and the counsel of truth you strengthened in my heart. From this comes a covenant for those who seek it… (1QHa XIII.7–11a)

This passage provides a wider view of the role of those whom God has elevated. It moves quickly from the speaker’s freedom from sin to his place among the “fishers” and “hunters” who are intended to punish the “children of iniquity.” First the speaker thanks God for rescuing him from both the consequences of past sins and the internal desire to commit future sins: “[not] according to my guilt did you judge me. You did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination.” The freeing of the speaker from the “devices of his inclination” prepares the path to his divinely mandated role. By rescuing the speaker from his sinfulness and by putting him in the metaphorical lions’ den, God has “established him for justice,” to judge the real sinners: the “children of iniquity.” It is noteworthy that, as indicated by the phrase “the devices of my inclination” (zmwt yṣ ry), the yēṣ er here is at least partially independent of the speaker.25 In Isa 32: 7 the term zīmôt refers to the advice of the wicked; zmwt in this passage also resembles the mzmwt (plots) of the wicked against the speaker in 1QHa X.18–19 and XIII.11–12. The depiction of the speaker’s inclination as an independent entity that seeks to mislead him into sin is unlike other references to sin in the Hodayot, and somewhat similar to the depiction of the inclination in the Plea for Deliverance, discussed alongside other apotropaic prayers in the second section of this study. Thus this passage may reflect the influence of apotropaic prayers that ask for assistance against demonic 24

This corresponds to the reconstruction of most commentators; see Schuller’s textual note, 1QHodayota, 170. 25 As noted by Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 50.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

66

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

forces. The main effect of this portrayal of the yēṣ er as an independent force is to demonize the desire to sin and to distance it from the speaker. As noted by I. Rosen-Zvi, it may represent the beginning of the later, more demonic version of the evil inclination in rabbinic literature.26 As elsewhere in the Hodayot, in 1QHa XIII.7–11a the speaker presents himself as helpless in the face of his inclination to sin, although here that inclination is presented in a unique manner, as somehow separate from the speaker himself. The speaker’s salvation from human sinfulness results from God’s special relationship with the speaker, a relationship that seems to include the choice of the speaker as one of the righteous despite the speaker’s “guilt” (XIII.7). The speaker’s faith that God has chosen him for salvation from sin is further illustrated in XI.19–22: ‫( העליתני לרום‬20) ‫ אודכה אדוני כי פדיתה נפשי משחת ומשאול אבדון‬vacat (19) ‫( יצרתה מעפר‬21) ‫עולם ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר‬ ‫( צבא קדושים‬22) ‫לסוד עולם ורוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב להתיצב במעמד עם‬ ֯ ֯‫ולבוא ביח‬ …‫ד עם עדת בני שמים‬

(19) I give thanks to you, O Lord, for you have redeemed my soul from the pit. From Sheol and Abaddon (20) you have raised me up to an eternal height, so that I might walk about on a limitless plain, and know that there is hope for him whom (21) you created from the dust for the eternal council. The perverse spirit you have purified27 from great transgression, that he might take his stand with (22) the host of the holy ones, and enter in the yaḥ ad with the congregation of the sons of heaven… (XI.19–22a)

It is because of the speaker’s confidence in his status as one of the divine chosen that he can thank God in XI.19–22 for the knowledge that there is hope for “him whom you created from dust.” Despite beginning in a state of sinfulness, through God’s actions humans may be purified of their “perverse spirit,” cleansed of their “great transgression,” and even elevated to stand “with the host of the holy ones.” It seems, however, that only the chosen have merited such redemption. Only someone who has a special relationship with God like the speaker’s can hope to be raised from the lowest human beginnings, the creation from dust and the possession of a perverse spirit, to the highest of spiritual attainments, being placed within an eternal council and the host of the holy ones. God’s aid to the righteous demonstrates that they have been chosen for righteousness from the start, despite their “muddy” beginnings. Each has been chosen by God to receive divine assistance toward righteousness, as described in IV.33–34. This logical equation sheds light on such passages as 1QHa VII.27–30, which sets forth the principle of the predestination of the wicked

26 27

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 44–64. Newsom translates “you have cleansed,” but “purified” is a closer translation of ‫טהרתה‬.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Hodayot

67

and the righteous as it is reflected in the Hodayot.28 “You alone [crea]ted the righteous, and from the womb you prepared him for the time of favor, to be attentive to your covenant … But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your wrath,29 and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter.”30 Like the righteous, the wicked have been determined from the womb. This is demonstrated by their actions: “For they walk in the way that is not good, and they despise yo[ur] covenant, [and] their soul abhors your [statutes]” (VII.31). These actions show that, unlike the righteous, the wicked have not been rescued from their sinful nature by the Deity. The fact that the wicked “choose what you hate” (line 32) reflects their predetermined state, and proves that they have always been “set apart” as wicked.31 In the Hodayot, the speaker’s insistence on his own chosenness and his consequent freedom from sinfulness is part of an overall view according to which the righteous are chosen, indeed predestined, by God, who also determines all human actions. God’s predetermination of all human actions is expressed strongly in VII.25b–27a: ‫( דרכו ולא יוכל‬26) ‫]רוחו ולא ל[אדם‬32‫( …ואני ידעתי בבינתך כיא לא ביד בשר‬25) ‫( הכינותה בטרם‬27) ‫אנוש להכין צעדו ואדעה כי בידך יצר כול רוח ]וכול פעול[תו‬ …‫בראתו‬

(25) …And as for me, I know, by the understanding that comes from you, for [one’s spirit] is not in the power of flesh and a human’s (26) path [is not his (own)],33 nor is a person able to direct his steps. And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every 28 For the purposes of this study, while determinism or predeterminism is defined as the expressed belief that all actions are predetermined by God, predestination refers specifically to the predetermined election or rejection of particular human beings. 29 According to E. Qimron’s reading, “for the (time) periods of your wrath” (‫לקצי‬ ‫ ;)חרונכה‬see E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (vol. 1; Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010 [Hebrew]), 66. 30 Text and translation follow Schuller and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 98, 106. 31 On the themes of predestination and determinism in the Hodayot, see Merrill, Qumran and Predestination, 39; Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, 106–7; D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984), 524; Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 27–28; Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 279, 281–2; Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 55–57; Licht, “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll,” 89–90; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 147–9; and A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 195–232, esp. 229–32. 32 Reconstruction follows Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 66, and the translation has been changed accordingly. Schuller reconstructs ‫כיא לא ביד בשר ]יוכל להתם[ אדם דרכו‬, and Newsom translates “that it is not through the power of flesh [that] an individual [may perfect] his way.” Qimron’s reading is more convincing. The underlying implication that only God determines human actions is identical in both reconstructions. 33 Translation of this phrase is my own, based on Qimron’s reconstruction; see n. 32 above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

68

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty (27) you determined before you created it… (1QHa VII.25b– 27a)

It is apparent that the author of the Hodayot integrated an understanding of the source of sin common to many Second Temple prayers. Like nonsectarian prayers, the Hodayot portray humans as suffering from an innate and inevitable inclination to sin, understood to be a condition of sinfulness. This sinfulness cannot be resisted or removed without divine help. However, the author of the Hodayot presents this paradigm of sin within a specific theological stance. The internal desire to sin is portrayed as sinfulness tied to human physicality. The human in her physical essence is particularly sinful and base. At the same time, the need for divine help is incorporated into the author’s belief in the predestination of the wicked and the righteous and the predetermination of all human action. In the worldview presented by the Hodayot, divine help in fighting innate human sinfulness is granted only to the predestined righteous. Those who behave wickedly clearly did not receive such assistance, and must be among the predestined wicked. At the same time, those who are predestined to be righteous are not only free of sin, but elevated to a status close to that of the angels. This election and elevation is not only a reward; it is necessary to avoid the inevitable sinfulness of human physicality.

The “Hymn of Praise”: Ongoing Sin and Chosenness The hymn found at the end of the Community Rule (1QS X.9-XI.22) provides another perspective on the nature of sin and its source, one that is not always compatible with the view in the Hodayot.34 In 1QS XI.3, the speaker describes his status as one who was chosen through divine enlightenment:35 ‫ ובצדקותו ימח פשעי כיא ממקור דעתו פתח אורו ובנפלאותיו הביטה עיני‬3

(3) and in his (God’s) righteousness he will wipe out my sin(s), for from the font of his wisdom he revealed (lit., “opened”) his light and my eyes gazed upon his wonders…

The sharing of divine wisdom with the speaker has apparently “wiped out” his sins. Nevertheless, the speaker’s chosen status is immediately contrasted with the description of his ongoing sinful nature in lines 9–11.

The “Hymn of Praise” is also found in fragmentary form in 4QSb (4Q256), 4QSd (4Q258), 4QSf (4Q260), and 4QSj (4Q264). The fact that this hymn, and its introduction, are not included in 4QSe (4Q259) has led S. Metso to conclude that this psalm, while sectarian, had an independent existence before being incorporated into the Community Rule; see S. Metso, The Serekh Texts (CQS 9; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 14. 35 Text of 1QS throughout this section follows E. Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 230. Translation is my own. 34

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The “Hymn of Praise”

69

‫( …ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד בשר עול עוונותי פשעי חטאתי }…{ עם נעוות לבבי‬9) ‫( לסוד רמה והולךי חושכ כיא לאדם דרכו ואנוש לוא יכין צעדו כיא לאל המשפט‬10) ‫( תום הדרכ ובדעתו נהיה כול וךול הויה במחשבתו יכונו ומבלעדיו לוא‬11) ‫ומידו‬ …‫יעשה‬

(9) … And I (belong) to wicked humanity and to the assembly of unrighteous flesh. My iniquities, my transgressions, my sins, […]36 as well as the perverseness of my heart (10) belong to the assembly of maggots and of those who walk in darkness. For is a human’s way his (own)? And the human cannot establish his step; for to God (alone) is the judgment and from his hand is (11) the perfection of the way, and by his knowledge all has occurred. And all which in existence he establishes through his design, and without him (nothing) shall be done… (1QS XI.9b–11a)

As in the Hodayot, the sinfulness of the speaker is connected to his physicality; he belongs to the “assembly of unrighteous flesh.” However, unlike the speaker of the Hodayot, the speaker of the “Hymn” is not free of sinfulness or sinning following his election: he yet belongs to “the assembly of maggots.” The immediate description of divine determination of all human action is meant to explain how the speaker can maintain his chosen status despite his ongoing sins and sinfulness. In his statement that “the human cannot establish his step” (line 10) and his following request that God “will establish my footsteps for the way” (line 13; see below), the speaker relies on God for help in preventing further sin and echoes Ps 119: 133 “Make my steps firm through your promise; do not let iniquity dominate me.” Apparently, because God determines all human action, he will not blame the speaker for his individual sins. The speaker stops short of holding the Deity responsible for his sins, but indicates that humans’ helplessness in determining their own actions is a key factor in the hope for God’s forgiveness. The speaker’s expectation of future sin accompanied by divine salvation is clear in the continuation of the passage, lines 11–15: ‫( אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי לעד ואמ אכשול בעוון בשר משפטי‬12) ‫( … ואני אם‬11) ‫( ואם יפתח צרתי ומשחת יחלצ נפשי ויכן לדרכ פעמי‬13) ‫בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬ ‫משפטי בצדקת אמתו שפטני וברוב טובו יכפר‬ ֗ (14) ‫ברחמיו הגישני ובחסדיו יביא‬ ‫לאל‬ ֯ ‫( אנוש וחטאת בני אדם להודות‬15) ‫בעד כול עוונותי ובצדקתו יטהרני מנדת‬ …‫צדקו ולעליון תפארתו‬

(11) …And I, if (12) I stumble, the kindness of God is my salvation forever. And if I totter in fleshly iniquity, my judgment is by God’s justice, which endures forever. (13) And if he will relieve my distress and he will rescue my soul from the pit and he will establish my footsteps for the way. In his mercy he has drawn me (near), and in his kindness he will bring (14) my judgment. In the righteousness of his truth he judges me and in his great goodness he will atone for all my iniquities. And in his righteousness he will purify me of

36 There is an erasure here approximately three letters in width with traces of (unreadable) letters/marks above and below.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

70

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

the impurity of (15) humanity and (of) the sin of humans, to praise God (for) his righteousness, and the Most High (for) his glory… (1QS XI.11b–15a)

This passage describes the hope of one who expects to sin in the future but is still confident that he will receive God’s assistance. The speaker may yet “totter in fleshly iniquity” (line 12), but God will rescue him nevertheless (line 13). It seems that, despite the speaker’s “purification” (line 14), he must still contend with an inclination to sin connected to his physicality, unlike the already elevated speaker of the Hodayot.37 The similarity and differences between this hymn’s approach to sin and the stance of the Hodayot is clear. Like the Hodayot, the hymn in the Community Rule includes the idea that sinfulness is connected to the physicality of humans (line 9 “assembly of unrighteous flesh,” line 12 “fleshly iniquity”). As in the Hodayot, the speaker’s physical baseness is described in the harshest terms. This basic sinfulness, in turn, is connected to the idea that humans are unable to be righteous without divine assistance. This is presented as a necessary part of divine determinism: all actions are established by God’s plans. However, the speaker in the Community Rule hymn, while emphatic regarding the human inability to reach “perfection of the way” through their own efforts, expresses the explicit hope for forgiveness of individual sins (lines 3,14).38 More importantly, the speaker expects to continue sinning. Unlike the speaker in the Hodayot, he does not experience communion with the angelic assembly. He yet belongs to the “assembly of maggots,” and must still face the possibility that he will “totter in fleshly iniquity.” The “Hymn” portrays a “righteous” petitioner who nevertheless faces the possibility — or even probability — of future sin. It is perhaps because the speaker does not expect a complete transformation that the speaker of the “Hymn” concentrates on individual acts rather than the state of sinfulness. The determination of the Deity does not only include choosing the speaker; it seems in line XI.11 that all the speaker’s actions are determined as well. The petitioner’s hope is not that God will miraculously elevate him to the level of angels; he has faith that he will be able to be righteous in the future because God “will establish my footsteps for the way” (XI.13), determining his future righteous actions so that he will be able to avoid committing sins, although the prevention of sin is not guaranteed.39 37 Compare the “righteous” (ὁ δίκαιος) of Psalms of Solomon 3: 6–8 (see also 13: 10), who sins but atones for his sins regularly. On attitudes reflected in Second Temple texts regarding the possibility that the righteous can sin, see Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism.” 38 J. Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: Serekh ha-Yah ̣ ad, Serekh ha-‘Edah, Serekh ha-Berakhot (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 225. 39 This hymn is not completely uniform in its limitation of the human capability to avoid sin. The speaker promises as part of his duties not to “keep bĕlîya‘al (evil) in my heart” (X.21). The implication that the speaker is, in fact, capable of keeping evil out of his “heart,” i. e. his

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sectarian Prayer

71

Thus, the “Hymn of Praise” shares the sectarian “twist” on the common Second Temple prayer paradigm found in the Hodayot. Reflecting the Second Temple prayer paradigm, the “Hymn” assumes that there is an innate human inclination to sin and that divine assistance is needed to combat it. Like the Hodayot, the “Hymn” translates this inclination into a state of sinfulness connected to human physicality, while the need for divine assistance is transformed into a need for divine election. However, in its essence, the “Hymn” reflects a very different experience of sin than does the Hodayot. The speaker in the “Hymn” continues to struggle with sin, and calls on God for continued forgiveness. His position is similar to the “righteous” (ὁ δίκαιος) of Pss. Sol. 3: 6–8, who sins but atones for his sins regularly.40 The righteous can sin but still be considered righteous. In the Psalms of Solomon one may preserve the status of “righteous” through atonement. In the Hodayot, salvation by God saves one from one’s previous sins. But in the hymn in the Community Rule, the righteous may sin, but can rely on God’s help in preventing the consequences of these sins, as one who has already been designated as righteous.41 Thus, in the hymn’s description of humanity’s lowly condition, even the righteous cannot escape. The need to appeal to God for help in avoiding sin and its consequences, a need which might seem unreasonable, is put in a deterministic context. Everything is determined by God, and therefore it is completely reasonable that predetermined human sinfulness can only be combated through prayer to God. Reliance on God can stop the cycle of sinfulness, for God can cleanse the petitioner of his physical sinfulness and prevent the speaker’s future sin, while forgiving the sins he has already committed.

Sectarian Prayer: Hodayot and the Community Rule Hymn The preceding analysis demonstrates that the view of sin presented in the Hodayot and the Community Rule hymn must be considered within the context of the broader genre of prayer during the Second Temple period. The approach to sin reflected in the Hodayot and in the Community Rule hymn is not a complete innovation. The sectarian prayers explored here reflect ideas common to the broader genre, but also show the sectarian development of these ideas in their emphasis on human physicality and predestination. While these ideas are absent in the nonsectarian prayers explored in this study, they are prominent in these sectarian prayers. thinking/feeling faculties, assumes a certain amount of independent control over the presence of any sinful inclination. However, this possibility is clearly secondary to the primary deterministic stance of this prayer. 40 See also Pss. Sol. 13: 10. 41 See n. 37.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

72

Inclination, Physicality, and Election in Sectarian Prayer

These sectarian concepts are nevertheless integrated with the common Second Temple paradigm. The connection to human physicality is a development based on the innate human condition of sinfulness found in some nonsectarian prayers, while predestination and determinism are used to explain the need for divine assistance to be righteous. Examination of the Hodayot and the “Hymn” also indicates the significant differences in worldview even among sectarian texts. The election described by the Hodayot frees one from sinfulness and (apparently) from the potential for future sin, ensuring membership in the community of angels. The speaker’s chosenness in the “Hymn of Praise,” however, does not transform him at all, but simply guarantees divine assistance in his efforts to be righteous and forgiveness for ongoing sin.

Conclusion: Second Temple Prayer and the Innate Inclination to Sin It is evident from the prayers reviewed in the past two chapters that the paradigm of an innate, human inclination to sin was a popular explanation of sin within the prayer genre. Another aspect of this prayer paradigm is the assumption that without God’s help, sin is inevitable. Throughout all the prayers reviewed here, the possibility of human free will in controlling the urge to sin is either diminished or negated. The internal inclination to sin is portrayed as a basic and inescapable aspect of the human being, controllable only with divine assistance. It is this assistance that is requested or gratefully acknowledged in prayer. The experience of prayer determines this approach to sin. C. A. Newsom has termed the contrast between the nothingness of the speaker and the absolute being of God in the Hodayot the cultivation of the “masochistic sublime.”42 However, this experience is not restricted to the Hodayot. It is a religious stance vis-à-vis God, particularly when coming to terms with the existence of evil.43 In the meeting with the divine, the religious petitioner minimizes herself and exalts God. During this experience, she exaggerates her own sinfulness while attributing all power over her sins to God. This personal and experiential aspect of prayer does not exist in prayers embedded in narrative. These prayers have the propulsion of the narrative as their main goal, unless they were originally stand-alone prayers that have been integrated into the narrative. This may explain why these embedded prayers do not stress the inevitability of human sin. Since these prayers do not result

42

Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. See P. L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1969), 55–57. 43

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

73

from a feeling of the “masochistic sublime” but from a literary need, they do not reflect a strong feeling of human helplessness in the encounter with God and consequently do not attribute all power over the human sinful inclination to the Deity. The preceding analysis has demonstrated the importance of examining the prayers of the Dead Sea community within their broader Jewish context. When they are examined in comparison with other prayers of this period, it is clear that they develop ideas about sin that were already expressed in prayer, but with a sectarian slant. Sectarian prayers add the connection between sin and corporeality and put the commonly expressed need for divine assistance into a framework of predestination and determinism.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Four Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts Introductions to legal works of the Second Temple period portray the inclination to sin and its effect on free will in a manner that differs dramatically from the view found in prayer. “Covenantal texts” is the appropriate term for these passages: their focus is not on the legal material that follows them in the redacted composition, but on their description of joining the covenant of the community. These texts address both new and existing members and explain the nature of the community and the covenant the members are accepting. The purpose of these texts determines the view of sin that they reflect, just as the experience of prayer proves a dominant factor in determining prayers’ approach to sin. The only covenantal material that has survived from the Second Temple period is that of the Dead Sea community, although it is likely that there were similar texts in other self-defined communities. The sectarian covenantal texts explored here address the requirement for members to turn away from sin and explain that nonmembers continue to sin. The view of the innate inclination to sin in these texts is reflected through the prism of free will, particularly freedom of choice.

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a: Freedom of Choice and the Inclination to Sin The Damascus Document (CD) has a complex redaction history, and is widely regarded as a composite work.1 In its most complete version, the Damascus Document was found in two medieval copies that survived in the Cairo Geniza and were published by Solomon Schechter in 1910.2 Very small fragments of the Damascus Document were found in Caves 5 and 6, and more complete fragments in Cave 4, where a total of eight manuscripts of the Damascus Docu1 For a summary of the different approaches to the redaction history of the Damascus Document, see C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (CQS 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 15–8 and 44–53. 2 Manuscript A comprises sixteen columns. Manuscript B comprises two columns, one parallel to columns 7 and 8 of MS A and the other consisting of additional material. In the editio princeps MS B is referred to as columns 19 and 20, and this method of numbering has been adopted for the present study.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a

75

ment were found. The latest possible date of composition, determined by the paleographic date of the earliest of these manuscripts (4Q266), is the first half or middle of the first century B. C. E.3 The first section of the complete Damascus Document, termed “The Admonition,” is a review of Israelite history and a promise of future salvation, while the second part is legal in nature. The different sections within the Admonition and within the legal portion of the Damascus Document reflect different purposes and perhaps different stages of the life of the community. These sections also reflect different approaches to the nature and source of sin.4 The following analysis will focus on those passages that assume an internal, non-demonic source of sin.

CD II.14–III.12a: A History of Sinners The passage at CD II.14-III.12a is an exhortation to the member (or potential member) not to sin.5 It includes a description of biblical history that focuses on those who have sinned and were punished, with a few righteous exceptions. The beginning of this history (CD II.14–16) uses language based on Num 15: 39b, “and recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them, so that you do not go about (tātûrû) after your heart and eyes, after which you whore.”6 J. M. Baumgarten, “Damascus Document 4Q266–273 (4QDa–h),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 3, Damascus Document II. Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 2; idem, “266. 4QDamascus Documenta,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 26–30. 4 As J. J. Collins (Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 379) notes, the Damascus Document reflects a number of different traditions regarding sin without synthesizing them into a coherent theory. 5 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14-VI,1,” RB 77 (1970): 201–29, maintains that this passage is a missionary document addressed to nonmembers, while P. R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOT 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 77, proposes that this exhortation is directed to initiates in the process of choosing to become members. This section of the Damascus Document was found in several Cave 4 fragments: 4Q266 (4QDa) 2 ii-iii; 4Q269 (4QDd) 2; and 4Q270 (4QDe) 1 i. These copies do not provide evidence of any significant diversions from the medieval copy, due at least in part to their fragmentary nature. 6 Translation of this verse follows NJPS except for “go about after” and “after which you whore,” both changed in order to maintain the literal sense of the verse. For all citations of CD in this chapter, text follows Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 7–9 and translation follows Schwartz in J. M. Baumgarten and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 15–17, unless otherwise noted, and with the exception of the translation of the root t‘h, 3

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

76

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

‫( אל ולבחור‬15) ‫ ועתה בנים שמעו לי ואגלה עיניכם לראות ולהבין במעשי‬vacat (14) ‫( בכל דרכיו ולא לתור‬16) ‫את אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא להתהלך תמים‬ …‫במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות‬

(14) vacat And now, O sons, hearken to me and I will uncover your eyes so you may see and understand the works of (15) God and choose that which he wants and despise that which he hates: to walk perfectly (16) in all his ways and not to go about in the thoughts of an inclination of guilt and lecherous eyes…(CD II.14–16a)

In an expansion of Num 15: 39b, the passage at CD II.16 admonishes the new member “not to go about (ltwr) in the thoughts of an inclination of guilt and lecherous eyes.” The composer of this passage has interpreted “your hearts” in Num 15: 39 as “the thoughts of an inclination of guilt.”7 Hence, a person’s thinking faculty — in ancient parlance, her heart — is not neutral, but a repository of “the thoughts of an inclination of guilt.” At the same time, “your eyes after which you whore” in Num 15: 39 has been collapsed into “lecherous eyes”: human eyes are “lecherous” and inherently sinful.8 In the history of sinners that immediately follows this introduction (CD II.16b–III.12a), the author explains that the metaphorical heart and eyes are at the root of the straying of “many.” The “many” who are enumerated here begin with the heavenly Watchers, continue through the sinning sons of Noah, and eventually include the sinning Israelites, who succumb despite the Patriarchs’ resistance to their own evil will in CD III.2–12. All these have sinned due to “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes,” i. e., due to their own inherent desire to sin. The “Watchers of heaven” (‘yry hšmym) that begin the list of sinners are well known from other Second Temple sources, particularly Jubilees and 1

consistently translated below as “stray,” sryrwt, consistently translated below as “stubbornness,” and mṣ wt, consistently translated as “commandments.” In addition, in the following passage, the translation of line 16 is my own. 7 On “the thoughts of an inclination of guilt” (mh ̣ šbwt yṣ r ’ šmh) see Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 199–200 and Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 98. It should be noted that while the term yṣ r ’ šmh (‫ )יצר אשמה‬is also found in the Hodayot (1QHa XIV.32; ‫ואין פלט ליצר‬ ‫ )אשמה‬the term there refers to the sinners themselves, “creatures” of guilt; see Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 183 and Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 102; contra Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 118 n. 32. 8 While some have attempted to identify the “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” with specific types of sin (see in particular I. Fröhlich, “‘Narrative Exegesis’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996 [ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 84–6), the vague descriptions in the historical survey that follows these lines demonstrate that it is not the specific nature of the sin that is important, but the basic disobedience to God’s will that it represents.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a

77

Enoch. Their role in this recounting, however, differs significantly from their depiction elsewhere. ‫תם‬ ֗ ‫( תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה בלכ‬17) ‫(… כי רבים‬16) ‫ השמים בה נאחזו אשר לא שמרו מצות אל‬9עירי‬18) ‫בשרירות‬ ‫( כל בשר אשר היה‬20) ‫( ובניהם אשר כרום ארזים גבהם וכהרים גויותיהם כי נפלו‬19) ‫( רצונם ולא שמרו את מצות עשיהם עד‬21) ‫בחרבה כי גוע ויהיו כלא היו בעשותם את‬ ‫אשר חרה אפו בם‬

(16) … For many (17) have strayed due to them; mighty men of valor10 have stumbled due to them, from their earliest times and until today. Walking after the stubbornness of (18) their heart(s), the Watchers of heaven fell. They were held by it, for they did not keep God’s commandments; (19) and (so too) their sons, who were as high as lofty cedars and whose bodies were like mountains.11 For (20) all flesh which was on dry land fell, for they died and were as if they had not been, for they had done (21) their (own) will and had not kept the commandments of their maker, until his wrath was kindled against them. (CD II.16b–21)

The myth of the Watchers as found in 1 Enoch and Jubilees is based on the account of the bĕnê ’elōhîm in Gen 6: 1–4. According to several versions of the Watchers story, discussed further in the second half of this study, sin on earth was caused by angels who descended to mate with human women (see chapters 7–9).12 The exhortation in the Damascus Document, however, does not use the Watchers story as an explanation for human sin.13 Instead, it equates the Watchers with “mighty men of valor” (gbwry ḥ yl) who have sinned in the past. This equation may draw from Ps 103: 20, where angels are called “mighty men of strength,” gībbōrê kōaḥ . In this manner, the author portrays the Watchers stumbling into sin in the same way that human heroes do: by operating according to their own will (rṣ wnm) and not in accordance with God’s commandments (II.20–21).14 In consequence, the Watchers’ offspring do not

This editorial correction matches the Cave 4 copy; see 4QDa (4Q266) 2 ii.18 and Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 7 n. 66. 10 Schwartz translates “mighty warriors.” I have translated “mighty men of valor,” a wordier and more literal translation, in order to facilitate comparison with possible parallels. 11 Schwartz translates “their corpses were as mountains.” However, the simile in line 19 seems to be a description of the Watchers’ giant offspring in life. While the term ‫ גויה‬frequently indicates a dead body, as in Nah 3: 3, it can also be used to describe living bodies or torsos, as in Gen 47: 18 and in the descriptions of celestial beings in Ezek 1: 11, 23 and Dan 10: 6. 12 As Schwartz notes (“Damascus Document [CD],” 15 n. 20), CD II.18–19 presupposes the identification of the Watchers who “fell” with the nĕpīlîm (literally, “fallen”) of Gen 6: 4. The description of the Watchers’ descendants as “tall as cedars” identifies them with the Amorites, who are similarly described in Amos 2: 9. As Schwartz observes, this description draws from the identification of the occupants of Canaan as nĕpîlîm in Num 13: 33. 13 See Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 153, and Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 292. 14 Compare the rabbinic association of the sinning angels and sinning humanity in Pesiq. 9

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

78

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

cause sin, but apparently perish with all flesh as a result of their own sin.15 Similarly, Noah’s sons do not sin due to demonic influence as they do in Jub. 7: 27, but stray “through it” (bh), i. e., by following their own “thoughts” and “eyes” (III.1). Thus the alternate version of the Watchers story presented in CD II.16–21 maintains complete individual responsibility for sin, while still providing evidence of the power of the Watchers myth in this period.

Terminology of Sin and Choice in CD III.2–12a The terminology in this section of the Damascus Document reflects the author’s view of sin and human agency. The key terms that indicate the human inclination to sin are the “will” (rṣ wn) of the actors and “the stubbornness of their heart” (šryrwt lbm). The designation of a person’s “will” as a cause of sin is evident from the beginning of the history. The author relates that Abraham, as a “lover” of God, kept the commandments of God and did not choose (wl’ bḥ r) the will of his spirit (rṣ wn rwḥ w) (CD III.2–3a):16

Rab. 34: ‫רבש"ע לב אבן נתתה לנו והוא התעה אותנו ומה עזא ועזאל שגופן אש כשירדו לארץ חטאו‬ ‫אנו לא כל שכן‬

“Master of the Universe, you gave us a heart of stone and it led us astray. If Aza and Azael, whose bodies were fire, sinned when they came down to earth, would not we all the more?” (Translation is a slightly modified version of that of W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts and Special Sabbaths [2 vols.; YJS 18; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968], 2: 666.) The characters Aza and Azael represent a rabbinic version of the Watchers story, seen also in Deut. Rab. 11.10 and later in Berešit Rabbati 6:2 (ed. H. Albeck, 29–31).The passage in Pesiqta Rabbati, like the passage in the Damascus Document, refers to these angels as paradigms of sinners and sinning, not as a source of sin itself. 15 Compare with 1 En. 8–9 and Jub. 10, where the Watchers or their descendants do cause sin; see discussion in chapters 7 and 8. 16 The juxtaposition of “love of God” and Abraham’s fulfillment of the commandments as well as the description of Isaac and Jacob as “lovers of God” and “parties to (God’s) covenant” in CD III.3–4 reflect the Deuteronomic association of covenantal loyalty with the love of God first elucidated by W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87; repr. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. F. Greenspahn; Essential Papers on Jewish Studies; New York: NYU Press, 2000), 103–15. Moran notes the use of the term “love” in a variety of Near Eastern texts from the eighteenth to the seventh century B. C. E. to denote the loyalty and friendship connecting king and subject or sovereign and vassal. The nature of this association has been refined in recent studies; see J. E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69 and S. Ackerman, “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437–58.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a

79

…‫( ברצון רוחו‬3) ‫מרו מצות אל ולא בחר‬ ֗ ‫ש‬ ֗ ‫ב‬ ֗ ‫א֯והב‬ ֯ ֗‫( אברהם לא הלך בה ויעל‬2) (2) Abraham did not walk in it and he was accepted as a lover, for he kept God’s commandments and did not choose to follow (3) the will of his (own) spirit…17

Thus Abraham’s righteousness does not result from a different makeup than that of sinners. On the contrary, it has been achieved in spite of Abraham’s own all-too-human inclination. Abraham chose to ignore his own will, which would naturally lead him to sin, and instead followed God’s commandments. This contrasts with the previously described actions of the Watchers, who “had done their (own) will (rṣ wnm) and had not kept the commandments of their maker” (II.20–21). These angels acted according to their own inclination to sin, which was at variance with God’s commandments. The sinning of Abraham’s descendants is not long in coming. While Isaac and Jacob continue in Abraham’s footsteps (III.3–4), the sons of Jacob stray, and their sons in turn walk “in the stubbornness of their heart(s), plotting against the commandments of God” (III.5–6). The list of sinners ends with the “first ones who entered the covenant,” who nevertheless choose their own will and stray after the stubbornness of their own hearts: ‫( לחרב בעזבם את ברית אל‬11) ‫( … בו הבו >חבו< באי הברית הראשנים ויסגרו‬10) … vacat ‫( לבם לעשות איש את רצונו‬12) ‫ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו אחרי שרירות‬

(10) … The first ones who entered the covenant became guilty through it; and they were given up (11) to the sword, having abandoned18 God’s covenant, and they chose their (own) will, and strayed after the stubbornness (12) of their heart, for each one to do19 his (own) will. vacat …(CD III.10b–12a)

These sinners, like their predecessors (and unlike the righteous Abraham), abandoned God’s covenant because they had chosen to follow their own naturally sinful inclination. The meaning of rāṣ ôn, “will,” differs from the term’s biblical use in each of the four instances it appears in this passage. In the Hebrew Bible, rāṣ ôn almost always indicates the favor, acceptance, or will of God and in rare instances, of kings (as in Prov 14: 35; 16: 13, 15; 19: 12).20 Only in later biblical books (such

17 Schwartz in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 17, translates “(that which) his (own) spirit desired.” A more literal translation is used here for the purpose of the analysis that follows. 18 Schwartz translates “departed from,” but here ‫ עזב‬is used to denote not just “departing,” but abandonment. 19 Schwartz translates “each doing his (own) will.” The form of the infinitive, ‫לעשות איש‬ ‫רצונו‬, however, indicates a result of or a motivation for the previous clause. 20 In Lev 1: 3, 19: 5, 22: 19, 22: 29, and 23: 11 lirṣ ōnô/lirṣ ōnkā refers to the acceptance of the human by God, an acceptance facilitated through sacrifice. (Contrast Est 1: 8 [discussed in n. 21 below], where kirṣ ōn’îš wā’îš “according to each one’s desire” refers to the actual wishes of the person and not to acceptance by the king or the Almighty.) In addition to references to the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

80

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

as Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) is rāṣ ôn expanded to include the desires or will of human beings. This expansion is reflected in only a handful of Qumran texts outside of CD II.14-III.12a.21 In more than one hundred other instances of rāṣ ôn in Qumran texts, this term’s semantic range is equivalent to that found in earlier biblical books: rāṣ ôn refers to the will or favor of God. In contrast, in CD II.14-III.12a, the term rāṣ ôn exclusively indicates the desire of the human being (or rebellious angel) to sin. These illicit desires are contrasted with the commandments of God. The contrast is maintained in descriptions of the Watchers’ sin (“for they had done their (own) will (rṣ wnm) and had not kept the commandments of their maker”; II.20b–21a), of Abraham’s righteousness (“for he kept God’s commandments and did not choose to follow the will [rṣ wn] of his own spirit”; CD III.2–3) and, finally, of the sins of the “first ones who entered the covenant” who had “chosen their (own) will (brṣ wnm), straying after the stubbornness of their heart for each one to do his will (rṣ wnw) ” (CD III.10–12). In this manner the will of humans is consistently contrasted not to the will of God, but to the commandments or covenant of God. The term rāṣ ôn is used exclusively to describe negative and non-divine desires. In this passage, rāṣ ôn is an expression of the internal evil will of the human being, which must be resisted in order to follow God’s commandments. The use of the term rāṣ ôn in this atypical sense is augmented with the repetition of the biblical phrase “the stubbornness of their heart,” indicating that the author had a specific concept of sin in mind. The phrase šĕrîrût libbām is found seven times in all of the Damascus Document, and three of those instances are found in the passage under discussion.22 Its appearance here

“will” of kings, Proverbs also includes the use of rāṣ ôn in the sense of general goodwill, perhaps of God; see Prov 10: 32; 11: 27; 14: 9. 21 There are two exceptions elsewhere in the Damascus Document (CD XI.4–5 parallel to 4Q271 5 i.1 and 4Q266 11 1 par. 4Q270 7 i.16), two instances in 4QInstruction referring to the wife doing the will of her husband (4Q416 2 iv.8–9 par. 4Q418 10a–b 9–10) and one in the Temple Scroll referring to the king of Israel (11Q19 LIX.20). Copies of Jubilees found at Qumran also contain two exceptions, referring to the will of Isaac and Rebecca (4Q223–224 2 ii.4,13). In later biblical books, specifically in Dan 8: 4; 11: 3, 16, 36; Neh 9: 24, and Est 1: 8; 9: 5 the phrase kirṣ ôn/nô/nām is used to mean “according to his/their desire” referring to the desires of human beings, whether for good or ill, and in Ps 145 rāṣ ôn is used twice, once to indicate the desires of those who fear God (145: 19) and once as an indication of the desires of “all living things” (145: 16). (While it is possible to interpret rāṣ ôn differently in Ps 145: 16 this is the most probable [and standard] interpretation.) A particularly significant development in the use of the term is represented in 2 Chr 15:15b, where rāṣ ôn is used to indicate a purely posiֻׁ ‫ק‬ ְ ‫ב‬ ִּ ‫צוָנם‬ ֹ ‫ר‬ ְ ‫כל‬ ָ ‫ב‬ ְ ‫“ וּ‬and they tive, independent inclination on the part of the Judahites: ‫שהוּ‬ sought him (God) with all their will.” 22 See CD II.17, III.5, III.11, VIII.8 (and parallel in XIX.20), VIII.19 (and parallel in XIX.33), XX.9, and the additional section found in 4Q266 (4Da) 5 ii.11.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a

81

extends its biblical usage as an expression of sinning in Deut 29: 18, throughout Jeremiah, and in slightly altered form in Ps 81: 13.23 Here the composer of CD II.14–III.12a uses the “stubbornness of the heart” interchangeably with the “inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” to explain the sins of previous generations. Thus, like the “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and the “lecherous eyes” in II.16, the “stubbornness of their heart” is an expression of the basic disposition of the human heart for sin that must be rejected in order to follow God’s laws. It is no accident that in the additional paraphrase of Num 15: 39 that ends this passage (III.11–12a), the “stubbornness of their heart” (šryrwt lbm) is used as a substitute for the biblical “your hearts” in Num 15: 39. Like the heart in the biblical verse, this “stubbornness” is considered an innate component of the human that predisposes her toward sin. Accordingly, in the view of human nature presented in this passage, acts of sin stem from humans’ internal will, which inclines toward sin. The human will in its essence contradicts the commandments of God.24 The only way to be obedient to the commands of God is to ignore this will, as Abraham does in III.2–3. Nevertheless, the decision to sin is not inevitable. Humans are described in terms of their ability to do the right thing; while historically humans have sinned, this in no way indicates that they are destined to do so.25 The author indicates this point through the use of the root bḥ r, to choose, when referring to the sinful will of the human being. Throughout this section, the sinning of previous generations is described as a choice. In CD III.2–3 Abraham does not choose the will of his spirit, while in CD III.11, the “first ones” to enter the covenant choose their will and walk according to the stubbornness of their heart.26 The emphasis on choice in this passage serves to justify the harsh punishment of sinners in the past and corresponds to the manner in which the inclination to sin is described. Sin is an expression of human will, which by its nature takes a wrong turn unless it is consciously rejected in favor of God’s commandments. Elsewhere in the Admonition “the stubbornness of their heart” is also paired with language that connotes choice. In VIII.7–8 (and in its parallel MS B

23 In Deut 29: 18 the phrase appears within the internal monologue of the unrepentant sinner “for I will walk according to the stubbornness of my heart.” Its appearances in Jeremiah include Jer 3: 17; 7: 24; 9: 13; 11: 8; 13: 10; 16: 12; 18: 12; 23: 17. In Ps 81: 13, God himself “releases” the people to walk according to the stubbornness of their heart after they refuse to heed him. 24 As noted briefly by Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 186. 25 See Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 154. 26 It is likely that the lacuna in CD III.7 included a similar phrase. As opposed to Abraham, the Israelites did choose the will of their spirit in opposition to the divine commandment to “go up and possess (the land)” (Deut 9: 23).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

82

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

XIX.19–20)27 each of the undetermined evil leaders signified by the “princes of Judah” in Hos 5: 10 “chooses” (wybḥ rw) the stubbornness of his heart. Harsher (and more unusual) language connected to the “stubbornness of their heart” is found in CD XX.9–10. This passage refers to those who refuse to follow the covenant after joining the group. These rejecters of the covenant are introduced in XIX.32–33 (par. VIII.19) as “all who reject the commandments of God and leave them and turn to the stubbornness of their heart.” In CD XX.9–10 they are described as those “who placed idols on their hearts” and afterward “walked in the stubbornness of their heart.”28 The unusual phrase “who placed idols on their heart” is taken from Ezek 14: 3–8, where a horrible end is promised to those of Israel who “set up idols upon their hearts and put the stumbling block of their sin before themselves” (14: 3). In this passage of the Damascus Document, the imagery from Ezekiel describes an action that has reversed the initial change wrought by members when they joined the community, that is, the curbing of their desire to sin. When the erstwhile members described in CD XX.9–10 rejected the laws of the group, they cancelled the restriction of the sinful inclination that they had originally achieved by joining. They have consequently “placed idols” on their hearts, i. e., allowed sin back into their decision-making faculties. That they subsequently “walk in the stubbornness of their heart” is doubly evil. These former members have made the choice to free their will of the bonds of the group’s covenant, and have then followed their naturally stubborn hearts once free of these constraints; as in Ezekiel, they have “put the stumbling block of their sin before themselves” (Ezek 14: 3). These passages of the Damascus Document indicate that both those who successfully refrain from sin, that is, those who choose God’s commandments and reject their own will, and those who return to sin by “placing idols” on their hearts, act out of choice. The inevitably sinful human inclination does not affect one’s personal freedom in rejecting it. This freedom underlies all humans’ complete responsibility for their own sins, and for any punishment that may result from it.

Freedom in the Context of Predestination The freedom of choice described in CD II.14–III.12a follows a passage that emphasizes predestination. The preceding section is structurally divided from CD II.14–III.12 with a vacat, and opens with an expression that corresponds

27

As noted above, the numbering of columns in this study follows the commonly accepted convention whereby MS B columns I-II are designated CD XIX-XX. (See n. 2.) 28 ‫אשר שמו גלולים על לבם }וישימ{ וילכו בשרירות לבם‬

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14–III.12a

83

to the opening of CD II.14–III.12 (“And now listen to me…”).29 The structural sections CD II.2–13 and II.14–III.12 appear to be parallel to each other; according to their introductions the first reveals the “ways of the wicked” (II.2) and the second the “actions of God” (II.14–15).30 However, the passages differ greatly in their emphasis. As shown in the analysis above, CD II.14–III.12a emphasizes freedom of choice regarding the decision to sin, despite a pessimistic view of the human inclination. The passage at CD II.2–13, while assuring the reader of the possibility of repentance (II.4–5), emphasizes divine foreknowledge and predestination. God has withheld the possibility of choice from the wicked from the beginning; he knew their actions even before they were created (II.7). In contrast, God has already designated individuals (“those who are called by name,” qry’y šm) who will form the “remnant” and will fill the earth with their descendants (II.11–12). The names of these chosen individuals will be made known through God’s anointed one and the “seers” of truth (II.12–13). The passage concludes with a cryptic non-sequitur: “and that which he hated, he led astray (ht‘h)” (II.13). The meaning of this concluding statement and its connection to the enlightenment promised in II.12–13 is clarified through an examination of the root t‘h and its meaning in this section of the Damascus Document. In the passage that follows the historical survey explored above, III.12b–18, the audience is assured that those who continued to hold fast to the divine commandments were rewarded by God, who revealed to them “hidden things in which all Israel had strayed (t‘w),” including Sabbaths, appointed times, and the “ways of his truth and the desires of his will ‘which a person shall do and shall live through them’ (Lev 18: 5; Neh 9: 29)” (III.14–16).31 In this passage, t‘h (to “stray”) refers to transgressing the “hidden” commandments that are only known to the community. This specific meaning for the root t‘h is also found in the historical survey in II.14–III.12, as shown by Gary Anderson’s analysis of this text. As Anderson notes, while the Israelites in Egypt transgressed a known commandment and walked in the stubbornness of their hearts, Jacob’s sons “strayed” (t‘w) and were punished for their inadvertent errors (mšgwtm).32 Similarly, in 4Q266 (4QDa) 11 10–11 the nations

29 The introduction in II.14 more closely parallels similar introductions in Prov 5: 7a; 7: 24a; 8: 32a, “And now sons, listen to me.” 30 See Davies, Damascus Covenant, 75. Davies sees these sections as integrally connected due to their shared terminology and, in Davies’ view, ideology. 31 L. Schiffman notes that the fact that these “hidden things” include the Sabbath indicates that the community felt that Israel did not possess the correct interpretation of the Sabbath law. The inclusion of holidays in this list reflects the calendar differences between the community and the Jerusalem establishment; see Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 77. 32 G. A. Anderson, “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

84

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

are deliberately “led astray” by God (wtt‘m), in contrast to the Israelites, who have received God’s commandments. It follows that this is the manner in which God causes those he hates to “stray” in CD II.13: he does not reveal the hidden commandments to them. The chosen, in contrast, have been and will be enlightened with knowledge of these commandments. Thus the enlightenment of individuals described in II.11–13 is immediately contrasted with the non-enlightenment of the wicked, which will lead them astray. However, as described in CD II.2-III.16, even those who have been enlightened with the revealed and hidden commandments may make the mistake of choosing their own will. The history of humanity in CD II.14-III.12 illuminates the possibility of such a mistake as well as its consequences. Like the author of the Hodayot, the composer of CD II.14-III.12 integrates the paradigm of an innate inclination to sin with a belief in predestination. The paradigm itself, however, differs significantly from that found in the Hodayot. While the Hodayot presents human sinfulness that is inevitable without God’s intervention, this section of the Damascus Document presents a human desire to sin that is completely under human control. It is the responsibility of community members to fight their desire to sin, just as it was the responsibility of past Israelites who eventually suffered the consequences of their sins. The “logical” precondition for the ability to reject one’s inclination and to choose God’s commandments is access to knowledge of what God really wants. Without this knowledge, the unchosen are doomed to “stray.”

The Community Rule: A “Free Choice” Redaction The Community Rule has a complex redaction history. It is composed of several sections, originating in different source texts, which reflect divergent attitudes regarding the source of sin and its nature.33 Because the various sections of the Rule differ dramatically in their genre and their approach to sin, they will be addressed in different chapters of this study. This chapter will address 1QS V.1–VI.23, a covenantal text that reflects the assumption of an innate human tendency toward sin.

in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. J. Milgrom, D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 59–60. As Anderson asserts, this reflects an inherent difference in the view of the author between sinning against revealed commandments (such as eating blood, the sin of the Israelites in Egypt according to this passage) and sinning against commandments not yet revealed, as Israel does in CD III.14, “straying” (t‘w) against the “hidden” commandments (nstrwt). 33 On the definition of the sections of the Community Rule, see Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 502 and Metso, The Serekh Texts, 7–14.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Community Rule

85

The approach to sin in the Community Rule is particularly intriguing because of the distinct views that are reflected in its different versions. A comparison between 1QS V.1–VI.23 and its Cave 4 parallels, 4Q256 (4QSb) and 4Q258 (4QSd), reveals significant variation regarding the manner in which the versions of the Community Rule discuss the source of sin. In particular, the connection between one’s inclination to sin and free will is found only in the Cave 1 version. While scholars are still divided regarding the relationship between 1QS and the Cave 4 versions of the Community Rule, the majority of scholars accept the theory that the Cave 4 texts represent an earlier version of the Community Rule than 1QS (despite the late paleographic date of the Cave 4 manuscripts).34 (As will be evident from the following analysis, the nature of the additions in 1QS V–VI [compared to the Cave 4 parallels] lends support to the argument that 1QS is the later version of the Community Rule.) The passage that begins 1QS V introduces the Rule: “This is the rule for the men of the yaḥ ad who volunteer to repent from all evil and to hold fast to all that (he) commanded according to his will” (1QS V.1).35 One of the injunctions that the new member must accept is “not walking in the stubbornness of his heart to stray” (‫ ;לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות‬1QS V.4 par. 4Q258 I.4 and 4Q256 IX.4). This phrase also appears in the passage of the Damascus Document explored above, but here it is a straightforward description of sin-

34 See Baumgarten, “Zadokite Priests at Qumran”; M. Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),” RevQ 18 (1998): 541–60; P. R. Davies, “Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne; VTSup 49; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 152–63; C. Hempel, “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa,” DSD 3 (1996): 253–69; eadem, “Comments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1,” JJS 44 (1993): 128; M. Knibb, “Rule of the Community,” EDSS 2: 796; R. Kugler, “Priesthood at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 2: 93–116; G. Vermes, “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 42 (1991): 255; and idem, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok – Priests – Congregation,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. P. Schäfer; 3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 1: 375–84. Others have seen the paleographic dating as sufficient reason to determine that 1QS is earlier; see P. S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥ ad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 448–9; Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 21 n. 90; Charlesworth and Strawn, “Reflections on the Text of ‘Serek ha-Yaḥ ad’ Found in Cave IV,” RQ 17 (1996): 414; and P. Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5.1–7: Towards a Serek Text History,” JSP 15 (1997): 75 and n. 19 ad loc. 35 Translation my own.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

86

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

ning through human willfulness, echoing biblical usage.36 In the Community Rule to “walk in the stubbornness of one’s heart” indicates engaging in any action that opposes the will of God. The Cave 4 versions of the Community Rule do not elaborate on this phrase. The version found in Cave 1 (1QS V.4–5), however, expands on this description considerably. (Words found only in 1QS are underlined below.)37 ‫( ועינוהי ומחשבת יצרו‬5) ‫( … אשר לוא ילכ איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר לבבו‬4) …‫ למול ביחד עורלת יצר ועורפ קשה ליסד מוסד אמת לישראל‬38כיא אם‬

(4)… So that no one shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart, to stray following his heart, (5) his eyes, and the thought of his inclination. He shall rather circumcise in the yaḥ ad [alternatively: together]39 the foreskin of the inclination (and) a stiff neck. They shall lay a foundation of truth for Israel…

In contrast to the parallel version in 4QSb,d, 1QS V.4–5 includes a gloss that explains the meaning of “walking in the stubbornness of his heart.” The redactor equates such “walking” with straying after one’s heart, eyes, and the thought of one’s inclination.40 This description, like the introduction and conclusion of the history of sinners in CD II.14–III.12, paraphrases Num 15: 39b.41 The redactor borrows “heart” and “eyes” directly from Num 15: 39b, while the “thought of his inclination” is an addition drawn from Gen 6: 5. The gloss in 1QS accordingly describes the possible cause of the member’s sin as a part of the member himself. The heart, eyes, and thought of the inclination are all a natural part of the prospective member, and all have the potential to lead the member into sin. The “thought of his inclination” (mḥ šbt yṣ rw) is a phrase influenced by biblical terminology and in particular by Gen 6: 5b, which describes the evil of humankind before the flood: “and every inclination (yēṣ er) of the thoughts of its heart was only evil throughout the day.”42 In contrast to the biblical verse, where the inclination is an aspect of human thought,

36

See analysis of CD II.14-III.12a above and n. 23 ad loc. Text of 1QS throughout this chapter follows Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218. Translation is my own. 38 This has been reconstructed based on 4QSb,d. 39 The term ‫( יחד‬yah ̣ ad) can be read either as the typical term used by the Dead Sea community to refer to itself, or in its usual sense, “together.” Here it is more likely that the text is referring to enrollment in the community itself; see Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 124 n. 5. 40 Whether this gloss was written by an author of the original text or a later redactor depends on the approach taken to the redaction of the Community Rule. The question will be revisited in the conclusion to the analysis of 1QS V-VI. 41 These words are also echoed in 1QS I.6–7 (for which no Cave 4 parallels have survived), where the member is admonished “not to walk any longer in the stubbornness of a heart of guilt and lecherous eyes to do any evil” (‫ולוא ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות‬ ‫)לעשות כל רע‬. 42 Translation my own. 37

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Community Rule

87

in the Community Rule thoughts are attributed to the inclination. The Rule thereby portrays the yēṣ er as the repository of evil thoughts; it is not simply a term for the “shape” of one’s intentions. In addition, by equating the inclination with the stiff neck in the continuation of the gloss, the redactor depicts the inclination as an integral part of the human that leans towards sin. Furthermore, the inclination is equated with the human heart: like the heart in Deut 10: 16 and Jer 4: 4, the inclination must be “circumcised” in order to allow atonement.43 The correspondence of the inclination and the heart is further proof that the negative human inclination that must be “circumcised” of sin is considered an integral part of the human being and not an independent entity. Nevertheless, in 1QS V.4–5 the path to avoiding sin is clearly and completely within human control. In order to resist straying, the new member must “circumcise the foreskin” of his inclination as well as that of his “stiff neck,” in an echo of Deut 10: 16, “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart(s), and you shall no longer stiffen your neck(s).”44 The purpose of joining the sect is to circumcise this same “foreskin of the heart,” thereby curbing the inclination of new members to sin. The depiction of entry into the community as circumcising the “foreskin of the heart” may be compared with the description of the wicked priest in Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) XI.12–13a: …‫פשרו על הכוהן אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו כי לוא מל את עורלת לבו‬ Its interpretation concerns the priest whose shame prevailed over his glory, for he did not (or had not) circumcise(d) the foreskin of his heart…45

The wicked priest had refused to join the community and thus did not curb his inclination to sin. He therefore continues in a state where “his shame prevailed over his glory.” The apparent refusal of the priest to act in a way that would ensure his own righteousness only increases his guilt for his subsequent actions. Consequently, in 1QS V.4–6 the innate and internal nature of the inclination to sin does not obviate free will. No deterministic aspect is mentioned regarding prospective members’ need to deal with their inclination to sin. The

43 See O. J. F. Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man: an Essay in Biblical Exegesis,” NTS 6 (60 1959): 94; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 197; and Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 94–95. This equation of the heart with the inclination is similar to the rabbinic exegesis of Deut 6: 5 in m. Ber. 9: 5, Sifre Deut. 32 and Deut. Rab. (ed. S. Lieberman) Va’etḥ anan, 70, where Deut 6: 5 is used as a prooftext for the two inclinations (based on the double bet in lĕbābkā, “your heart”). 44 Translation my own. 45 Translation based on that of M. P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 181.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

88

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

initial act to join the yaḥ ad and repent is not attributed to a predetermined chosen status. It is clear that those who join the group have an evil inclination, and have joined in order to “circumcise” it. In this respect, the “circumcision” in 1QS reflects that found in the biblical imperative to “circumcise your hearts” found in Deut 10: 16 and Jer 4: 4, where the “circumcision of the heart” is an act of the people.46 The members of the yaḥ ad have decided to “circumcise their inclination,” a decision that in 1QS is not predetermined or even assisted by the Deity. Nevertheless, a similar expansion in 1QS V.26–VI.1 indicates that the internal inclination toward sin has not been completely removed by joining the sect, at least in the view of the redactor. This expansion locates the (forbidden) hate of one member for another in the “foreskin of the heart”: ‫( או בעורפ ]קשה‬26) ‫ באפ או בתלונה‬47אל אחיהו‬vacat … (25) ‫{ יוכיחנו ולוא ישא‬°°}‫ל]ת[ לבבו כיא ביומ‬ ׂ [‫או בקנאת[ רוח רשע ואל ישנאהו ]בעור‬ … ‫( עליו עוון‬1)

(25) … vacat He must not speak to his fellow with anger or with grumbling, (26) or with a [stiff] neck [or in the jealousy of a] spirit of wickedness. And he shall not hate him [in the fores]k[in] of his heart, for he shall admonish him on (that) day and not (1) bear iniquity because of him… (1QS V.25b–VI.1a)48

The expansion is based on Lev 19: 17, “You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman, and you shall not bear sin over him.”49 It describes the hate residing not in the heart, but in the foreskin of the heart: the illegitimate part of the member’s internal nature that must be curbed. As in the other expansion previously discussed, the source of sin is an inherent and internal part of the human being. However, in both expansions this in no way diminishes the human’s free will or ability to avoid sinning. On the contrary: in both passages, the human tendency to sin is described in the context of a choice by the group member not to sin. The presence of an internal desire to sin only underscores the member’s responsibility to fight such a desire. This freedom of choice is clear in the 1QS description of the inveterate sinner, namely the nonmember, in 1QS V.10–13. ‫( בדרכ הרשעה כיא לוא החשבו‬11) ‫( … להבדל מכול אנשי העול ההולכים‬10) ‫( בם‬12) ‫בבריתו כיא לוא בקשו ולוא דרשהו בחוקוהי לדעת הנסתרות אשר תעו‬ ‫לאששמה >לאשמה< והנגלות עשו ביד רמה לעלות אפ למשפט ולנקום נקם באלות‬ … vacat ‫( גדולים לכלת עולם לאין שרית‬13) ‫ברית לעשות בם }מׅׄ{שפטים‬

46

In Deut 30: 6, in contrast, it is God who circumcises the people. On this editorial correction, see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218 n. 25. 48 Text follows Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218–20. Translation is my own. 49 Translation of Lev 19: 17a follows NJPS, translation of 17b is my own in order to maintain the literal meaning of the verse. 47

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Community Rule

89

(10) …to separate from all of the men of injustice, who walk (11) in the way of wickedness. For they are not accounted in his covenant, since they have neither sought nor inquired after him through his statutes, in order to know the hidden (laws) in which they erred (12) to (their) guilt, nor the revealed (laws) in which they acted with an arrogant hand, (thus) arousing anger for judgment and taking vengeance by the curses of the covenant. Against them (God) will execute great (13) judgments resulting in eternal destruction without a remnant. vacat …(1QS V.10b–13a)50

The gloss in 1QS V.10–13 (underlined above) explains why nonmembers have been doomed to destruction. It is striking that neither predestination nor an internal inclination is used as an explanation for their ultimate annihilation. Rather, this passage stresses that the sinning nature of the nonmember has been determined by a choice: nonmembers (unlike those who have joined the group) have not sought out the law of God. The redactor of 1QS is not concerned with the question of why nonmembers sin, but rather with the fact that they have chosen to sin. The entire passage, from V.10 to V.13, is a gloss on the phrase “the men of injustice” in V.10.51 For the redactor of this version of the Rule, nonmembers cannot be called “men of injustice” arbitrarily. By means of the gloss in 1QS, the redactor explains that the fact that nonmembers have not joined the group shows that they have chosen a sinful and unjust path, neither seeking out God’s hidden law nor obeying his revealed laws.52 This passage sheds further light on the nature of sinfulness as portrayed in 1QS V. Unlike the descriptions of human lowliness in the Hodayot and in the “Hymn of Praise,” here there is no “condition of sinfulness” independent of the act of sinning. Even nonmembers are only considered “men of injustice” as a result of their sinning ways, exemplified by their refusal to join the group; the epithet is not the result of a predetermined “lot.” The other side of the coin is that members, while dealing with a continuous desire to sin, are not “men of injustice,” as they have chosen to curb their desire by joining the sect and by keeping its rules. How these members would have been classified before this choice is not clear. In summary, the redactor of 1QS has a particular view of sin that is emphasized throughout. This view combines the idea of an internal, innately human desire to sin, as found in V.4–5, with the recognition that the decision to sin is

50 Translation is my own; the wording of some passages is based loosely on Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 23. 51 This was noted by Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 128, long before the publication of the Cave 4 parallels. 52 This is possibly an interpretation of Zeph 1: 6b, “and those who have not sought the Lord and have not inquired after him.” According to Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 132 n. 11, the term ‫“ בחוקוהי‬through his statutes” in V.11 has been added in order to clarify that the purpose of the “seeking” is to determine what the binding statutes are.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

90

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

the result of human choice, as in V.10–12. For the redactor of 1QS, there is no condition of human sinfulness that cannot be resisted. On the other hand, while joining the Qumran group is a step toward controlling the urge to sin, it does not completely suppress it. Therefore the member must continue to be on his guard, as shown in the rules of rebuke in 1QS V.25–VI.1 The consistent nature of these glosses supports the idea that 1QS V–VI represents a later, edited version of the Community Rule compared with 4QSb,d. This view has been prominently espoused by Sarianna Metso, who has traced the evolution of the Community Rule from versions reflected in Cave 4 texts to 1QS.53 From the glosses in 1QS V–VI it appears that during the redactional process, a member or group within the Qumran community held a particular view of the source of sin and the human capacity to resist it and inserted phrases that made this view an integral part of a principal rule text of the Qumran community. It would be far more difficult to explain the purpose of a redactor in removing such glosses from 1QS, resulting in the Cave 4 versions of the Community Rule. There is clearly a degree of innovation in this redaction, particularly regarding its theological stance toward sin. For the redactor of the 1QS version of the Community Rule, the tendency to sin is an inherent characteristic of the human being. It is associated with parts of the human being in a reflection of biblical metaphor, but resisting the inclination to sin is nevertheless the responsibility of the individual. This resistance lies completely within the power of the individual, who can restrain this tendency to sin. This process is enabled by entry into the community. By joining the community, the new member curbs his internal inclination to sin: he “circumcises the foreskin” of his inclination and stiff neck (1QS V.5). This is the new member’s motivation for joining the sect. Nonmembers, in contrast, have doomed themselves to sinning by refusing to join the sect (1QS V.10–13). Unlike the member, nonmembers now suffer from a continuous state of sin (and are therefore designated “men of injustice”) because they have refused to “seek out” the correct law and join the community. The texts explored above depict an inherently human, internal inclination to sin combined with an assumption that humans are capable of fighting this inclination, specifically by joining the community. Evidently, this understanding of the human inclination to sin was particularly prominent during the period when 1QS was redacted, enough so that a member of the community revised the Community Rule in order to include it. 53 See Metso, The Serekh Texts; “Redaction of the Community Rule”; Textual Development; and “The Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141–7.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

91

The emphasis on human free choice in these texts goes hand-in-hand with the idea of human agency: people are able to act on their own decisions, and are both fully responsible for and in full control of their actions. The concept of human agency is integral to the idea of law and covenant, and the covenant of the Dead Sea community is no exception. While other texts belonging to this community may emphasize predestination, the passages explored here reflect the human decision that is required both to join the community and to maintain its rules. Free will enables this decision and underlies the responsibility borne by members who have joined the covenant as well as the guilt of the nonmembers who have chosen not to do so.

The Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts This analysis of Qumran covenantal texts reveals a view of sin that pairs a belief in an inherently human inclination to sin with the equally strong conviction that people are free to combat this inclination. The fact that both 1QS and CD draw on the same biblical prooftext, Num 15: 39, in their presentation of this paradigm may be evidence that this was a common prooftext for those at Qumran (or in wider circles) who wished to describe an innate, but not irresistible, evil will.54 Of course, there are also important differences between the passages in 1QS and CD explored above. While 1QS V.11–12 blames nonmembers for not seeking out the hidden laws, in the Damascus Document it seems that at least some nonmembers were predestined not to know them. Nevertheless, both covenantal texts emphasize free will and choice.55 The presence of a desire to

54 As few scholars claim a direct connection between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule, it is likely that this prooftext enjoyed a wider popularity and influenced each of these texts separately. S. Metso sees the penal codes in 1QS and 4QD not as directly dependent on each other but as having a common source; see Metso, “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in The Damascus Document – A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998 (ed. J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90. The pairing of heart and eyes in imitation of Num 15: 39 is found in one other Qumran text: 11Q19 (the Temple Scroll) LIX.13–14, in a description of the sinning king. This points to the probability that the use of Num 15: 39 as a prooftext was common either in covenantal texts in general, or in those texts that discussed a freely fought innate inclination to sin. M. Kister has presented the idea of a dynamic relationship between Qumran texts, in which the same stock of terms and phrases appear in various permutations in a variety of Qumran texts with differing degrees of dependence; Kister, presentation at the Orion Center, Jerusalem, April 23, 2009, cited with permission. 55 Contra Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 6–7, who maintain that

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

92

Free Will and the Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts

sin as part of the human condition only makes the correct path clearer: one must turn from one’s own desires in order to fulfill God’s commandments, whatever they may be. The contrast between the presentation of the inherently sinful inclination in these covenantal texts and the portrayal of this inclination in the prayer texts previously discussed is striking. While prayer texts emphasize the lack of human ability to fight the innate inclination to sin, these covenantal texts emphasize the opposite. In prayer texts a description of the innate inclination to sin is an expression of the lack of human freedom; in the covenantal texts investigated here the inevitable nature of the desire to sin serves as a further impetus for humans to exercise their free choice and to act against it. In the context of these covenantal texts, since humans know that they are naturally inclined toward sin, they have no excuse for following their own will — for “walking in the stubbornness of their heart.” The differences between the prayer and covenantal genres in their depictions of sin stem from the very different functions and experiential aspects of these two genres. As noted in previous chapters, prayer expresses human helplessness in the encounter with God. The petitioner experiences her own lowliness and God’s greatness, and must also request mercy for sins already committed. In this situation, it is natural for the speaker to emphasize her own helplessness against her desire to sin and her need for divine assistance. Covenantal texts, in contrast, must place responsibility squarely on the new member’s shoulders. The acceptance of the covenant on the part of the new member is the ultimate choice, and this act frames the manner in which the freedom to choose is depicted in covenantal texts. In addition, once members have joined the community they must follow its rules, regardless of their claim to a sinful human inclination. Thus, new and existing members are described in covenantal texts as choosing to curb their inclination to sin upon joining the community, and nonmembers are rebuked for not making a similar choice. Nevertheless, by accepting the rules of the community members also commit to an ongoing choice: the continuous choice to reject their own will in favor of God’s commandments. The introductions to the community’s rules do not deny that this choice will constantly be placed before the member. The member’s ongoing inclination to sin is no excuse for not complying with these rules, the “true” commandments. While covenantal texts may express the view that humans have an inevitable desire to sin, they also express the expectation that humans will combat it, and that they have the capability and freedom to do so.

in 1QS humans have no role in determining their “lot.” As is evident from the preceding analysis, it is misleading to assign one theological position to 1QS as a whole.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Five The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira and the Writings of Philo of Alexandria An analysis of Ben Sira’s approach to sin demonstrates the wide range of attitudes regarding sin and its nature found even within the wisdom genre. The previous analysis of prayers and covenantal texts has explored the viewpoints that these texts reflect, despite the fact that they do not address the problem of sin and its origin directly. Ben Sira, as an example of the wisdom genre, grapples with this problem head-on. His attempt to address problems of theodicy, the conundrum of the existence of evil in spite of an all-powerful and benevolent deity, is typical of the wisdom school.1 While Job and Qoheleth deal principally with the origin of physical or natural evil, Ben Sira is the first who directly addresses the problem of sin and its existence despite a divinely-mandated creation.2 The two main passages that deal with the question of sin’s source in Ben Sira are Sir 15: 11–20 and Sir 33: 7–15, while other approaches to sin are found in isolated passages throughout the book. By reflecting a variety of attitudes regarding the nature of sin and evildoing, the book of Ben Sira underlines the fluidity of views of sin in this period and the lack of consistency even within individual works. While the main “solution” to the problem of sin in 15: 11–20 emphasizes free will, other passages indicate Ben Sira’s familiarity with different and more deterministic approaches. This diversity in Ben Sira underlines how the modern search for consistency in ancient worldviews risks forcing ancient texts into artificial constraints while ignoring the complexity of those worldviews.

1 A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 33–35, addresses the centrality of theodicy in wisdom literature. His definition of theodicy as the religious legitimation of anomic phenomena follows Berger, The Sacred Canopy, 53. 2 In fact, the only direct reference in Qoheleth to the source of human sinfulness is found in ָ ‫א‬ ָ ‫ה‬ ָ ‫בֵני‬ ְּ ‫לב‬ ֵ ‫ְוַגם‬ Qoh 9: 3b, where humans are described as inherently and naturally evil: ‫דם‬ ‫הם‬ ֶ ‫חֵּיי‬ ַ ‫ב‬ ְּ ‫בם‬ ָ ‫ב‬ ָ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫ב‬ ִּ ‫לות‬ ֹ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫הו‬ ֹ ‫רע ְו‬ ָ ‫לא‬ ֵ ‫מ‬ ָ “and also the heart of humans is filled with evil and there is madness in their hearts throughout their lives.” (Translation is my own.) This declaration draws from the statement regarding the inherent evil of humankind in Gen 8: 21b.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

94

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

The Book of Ben Sira: Textual History The textual history of the book of Ben Sira is complex.3 It was originally composed in Hebrew in Judea, approximately 200–175 B. C. E., during the Ptolemaic period. Hebrew texts of the book of Ben Sira are extant for about twothirds of the text, but the book has survived in its entirety only in translation. The first of these was a Greek translation undertaken by Ben Sira’s grandson between 132 and 116 B. C. E.4 A Syriac version based on a Hebrew Vorlage that fused two different Hebrew recensions has also survived.5 The most complete of the Hebrew copies of Ben Sira are four medieval manuscripts copied in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and found in the Cairo Genizah.6 The faithfulness of the Genizah texts to the original book of Ben Sira, despite their medieval date, was confirmed by Hebrew fragments found at Qumran7 and by the more extensive manuscript found at Masada, containing chapters 39 through 44 and dated to the first century C. E.8 While the medieval copies preserve the Hebrew of Ben Sira in its essentials, the differences between them bear witness to the existence of more than one recension of the Hebrew text, including retroversions from the Syriac and Greek translations.9 The status of these manuscripts will be important in the following analysis of Sir 15: 11–20.

3 For a complete overview of the texts and their history, see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 51–62. 4 As noted in the prologue of the Greek translation; see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 8 and G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 1: 293. The Greek translation is itself a subject of the present study, as it falls within the defined time frame of the Second Temple period. 5 The Old Latin translation of this work reflects a later expanded Greek version of the book; see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 57. 6 The original four manuscripts were discovered in 1896–1900 and were expanded in subsequent discoveries in 1931, 1958, 1960, and 1982 (see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 51–54) and by purchase from a private collector in 2007 (see S. Elizur, “A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben Sira [Ecclesiasticus],” Tarbiẓ 76 [2007]: 17–28 [Hebrew]). 7 Sir 6: 14–15, 20–31 were preserved in 2Q18 and Sir 51: 13–30 can be found in 11QPsa XXI.11–XXII.1. 8 M. Gilbert, “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 1. For an overview of these texts and their features, see C. Martone, “Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. P. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 81–94. 9 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 54, 57. See also B. G. Wright, “Wisdom of Iesous son of Sirach,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Tra-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

95

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

Ben Sira 15: 11–20 The passage at Sir 15: 11–20 is where Ben Sira grapples most directly with the problem of sin. This section is an argument for human free will with regard to the decision to sin, but begins with the question of where the human desire to sin originated. The Greek and Hebrew versions of this section contain significant differences. In the beginning of the passage, Ben Sira presents a claim he wishes to disprove: namely, that one can attribute one’s sins to God:10 (11) Do not say “From God is my sin,” for that which he hated he did not make. (12) Lest you say “He caused me to stumble,” for there is no need for wicked people (lit., “men of violence”). (13) Wickedness and abomination the Lord hates; and will not let it befall those who fear him.

‫( אל תאמר מאל פשעי‬11) :‫כי את אשר שנא לא עשה‬ ‫( פן תאמר הוא התקילני‬12) :‫כי אין צורך באנשי חמס‬ ‫( רעה ותעבה שנא ייי‬13) :‫ולא יאננה ליראיו‬

Ben Sira is evidently responding to deterministic approaches, according to which divine determinism extends to human sin. Thus one could ostensibly blame one’s sins on God. Given the popularity of deterministic thinking both in the Hellenistic and the Jewish world, it is likely that Ben Sira was responding

ditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 715. The inclusion of retroversions of translations in the Hebrew manuscripts was proposed by A. A. Di Lella and supported by M. Gilbert; see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 58; A. A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: a Text-Critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1; London: Mouton, 1966); and Gilbert, “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends,” 3. As the current study deals directly only with Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, I will focus only on the Hebrew and its Greek translation in this study, except where the Syriac is relevant for determining the Hebrew Vorlage. 10 The text above reflects MS A. Hebrew manuscripts reproduced throughout this chapter are found in Aḳ ademyah la-Lashon ha-‘Ivrit, Sefer Ben Sira: Ha-Maḳ or, Ḳ onḳ ordantsyah Ṿ eNituaḥ Otsar Ha-Milim (Jerusalem: ha-Aḳ ademyah la-lashon ha-‘Ivrit, 1973). Translation is my own. The Greek text of this passage reads: Μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην· ἃ γὰρ ἐμίσησεν, οὐ ποιήσει. μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν· οὐ γὰρ χρείαν ἔχει ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ. πᾶν βδέλυγμα ἐμίσησεν κύριος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαπητὸν τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν. (“Do not say, ‘On account of the Lord I fell away,’ for what he hates, he will not do. Do not say, ‘It was he who led me astray,’ for he has no need of a sinful man. Every abomination the Lord hated, and it is not beloved to those who fear him.” Translation follows Wright, “Wisdom of Iesous Son of Sirach.”) The Greek text throughout this chapter follows J. Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

96

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

to an actual philosophical stance.11 Such a position would be the logical outcome of the deterministic outlook later expressed in Qumran prayer: by determining that humans will have an inevitable inclination to sin, God has determined evildoing itself. Ben Sira may also be responding to a Judean development based on broader Hellenistic thought that assumed a determinism underlying human agency.12 The prevalence of determinism in Greek and Hellenistic thought was not exclusive to Stoic views; it later extended to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy as well.13 The focus in Hellenistic determinism was not the determinism 11 As noted by J. Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (l’Ecclésiastique) (Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1970), 93, this proposal is strengthened by a similar statement found in the works of Philo: “For Moses does not, as some impious people do, say that God is the author of ills. Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them, figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the spontaneous movement of our minds to what is wrong” (Det. 122 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). This statement is discussed further below. 12 It is not proposed here that this passage represents a general attitude against Hellenism propounded by Ben Sira; rather, in 15: 11–12 Ben Sira opposes a Jewish view that was an outgrowth of Hellenistic attitudes. The stance to which Ben Sira objects, namely that one’s own actions can be attributed directly to the Deity, does not conform to any particular known Hellenistic approach; contra Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 113, and compare V. D’Alario, “‘Non dire: “Da Dio proviene il mio peccato”’ (Sir 15,11 ebr): Dio all’origine del male,” RStB 29 (2007): 121–7. For example, as noted earlier, in his Hymn to Zeus, Cleanthes (Zeno’s successor as head of the Stoic school) makes it clear that Zeus is not responsible for human sins or sinners, who act out of foolishness (“Nothing is accomplished save through you, O Spirit, neither in the divine, heavenly, ethereal sphere, nor upon the sea, save as much as the evil accomplish on their own in their ignorance…”); see W. Cassidy, “Cleanthes – Hymn to Zeus,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley; London: Routledge, 1997), 135–6. In addition, it is doubtful whether Ben Sira would respond directly to a specifically Hellenistic philosophy, given the limited access to Hellenistic philosophy in Judea during the Ptolemaic period. In this period even the Alexandrian school was not particularly interested in philosophy; see S. L. Mattila, “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence,” JBL 119 (2000): 495–7. For an overview of approaches regarding Ben Sira’s antipathy or lack of it toward Hellenism as a whole, see P. C. Beentjes, “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research,” in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 9–11; repr. from Bijdragen 66 (2005). 13 In Plato’s view, the relative strength or weakness of the body vis-à-vis the soul could determine the outcome of the conflict between them; H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), 2: 430; D. Winston, “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy and Jewish Hellenistic Wisdom,” SPhilo 2 (1973): 49. For Aristotle, too, responsibility does not require free will, and one’s behavior, while voluntary, is determined by one’s character, rather than by “free volition”; D. J. Allan, “The Practical Syllogism,” in Autour d’Aristote: recueil d’études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion (ed. A. Mansion; Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain 16; Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1955), 333 and D. J. Furley, Two Studies in the Greek Atomists: Study I Indivisible magnitudes. Study II Aristotle and

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

97

of human sinfulness but, frequently, the determination of human actions.14 This may have been transposed to Jewish thought to include the act of sinning itself. It is the idea that actual sins are determined by God that Ben Sira finds objectionable. In his response to the claim that one can blame one’s sins on God, Ben Sira argues that God would not create what he himself despises, namely sin and sinners.15 This argument itself points to the challenge of theodicy: if God despises sin, why did he create it? Yet it is clear that from Ben Sira’s point of view his argument is logically convincing; it is stated initially in 15: 11 and reiterated in 15: 12b–13.16 Key to the effectiveness of this argument is Ben Sira’s subsequent statement that sin is not created at all:17

Epicurus on Voluntary Action (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 223–5. This deterministic stance was not seen as a problem until the Hellenistic age, when, as described by D. Winston, “A feeling of helpless fatality begins to take hold of men…” (Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 43; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1979], 51). 14 For instance, Chrysippus’ famous cylinder analogy, meant to clarify Stoic determinism, expresses the idea that actions, like the rolling of the cylinder, are determined both by antecedent causes (the cylinder being pushed) and by the human’s nature (the cylinder’s roundness); see F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975), 102–4. While all actions are determined in some way, these actions are performed through a human’s own force and nature, and she is therefore responsible for them; see Cicero, On Fate 42–43. 15 An interesting parallel to this argument is found in Wis 11: 23–24, “You have mercy on all, because you can do all things, and you overlook the sins of human beings that they may repent. For you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have formed anything if you had hated it.” (Translation following M. A. Knibb, “Wisdom of Solomon,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title [ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 707.) In this passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, the axiom used by Ben Sira to free God from responsibility for sin is presented as the reason behind God’s sanction of human repentance. God would not create anything he hated, including humans themselves, and will therefore not destroy them for their sins. 16 M. Gilbert sees Sir 15: 12b–13 as a key part of Ben Sira’s argument: God has no need of evildoers and does not cause those who fear him to sin; if God did desire sin, there would be no just people; see M. Gilbert, “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15: 11–18: 14,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (ed. R. EggerWenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 119. This is a logical leap that is not found in the text. 17 In the Hebrew and its translation, the subscript add marks verses and stichs that do not appear in the Septuagint version of this passage. (These additions appear in both Hebrew manuscripts, MS A and MS B.) The translation of the Hebrew is my own; the translation of the Greek throughout this chapter follows Wright, “Wisdom of Iesous Son of Sirach,” unless otherwise noted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

98

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

LXX

Hebrew MS A

(14a) αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν

ἄνθρωπον

‫( אלהים מבראשית ברא אדם‬14a) ‫( וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬14aadd)

(14b) καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ. (15) ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολὰς καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι εὐδοκίας.

:‫ ( ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬14b) ‫( אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה ותבונה לעשות‬15) :‫רצונו‬ ‫ ( אם תאמין בו‬15add) :‫גם אתה תחיה‬

(14a) It was he who from the beginning made humankind,

(14a) God from the beginning created humankind (lit., “man”) (14aadd) and placed him in the hand of his snatcher

(14b) and he left him in the hand of his diaboulion.18

(14b) and placed him in the hand of his yēṣ er.

(15) If you want to, you shall preserve the (15) If you wish you will keep (his) commandment and understanding to do his commandments, and to keep faith is a will. matter of goodwill.19 (15add) If you believe in him, you too shall live.

The recounting of God’s creation of humans in 15: 14 serves a twofold purpose: it provides a historical origin for humans’ “subjection” to their yēṣ er,20 and it underlines Ben Sira’s initial argument. God is the creator of humans. God hates sin. Hence, human sin could not have been caused by God, who despises sinners. Again, in an initial reading this “argument” only intensifies the basic problem that necessitates justification of the Deity in the face of sin. Why does God create a human who will do what he hates? Verse 14 forms the cornerstone of Ben Sira’s argument regarding this difficulty, providing the logical underpinnings of his previous statements. It describes the relationship between God, the human and the yēṣ er of the human being in a manner which 18 Wright, “Sirach,” translates “deliberation,” but for reasons of analysis I have chosen to leave the term diaboulion untranslated here. See discussion below for a full analysis of this term. 19 While Wright, “Sirach,” translates “good pleasure,” the term is used in the Septuagint for the goodwill of God (translating the word rāṣ ôn) in LXX Ps 5: 13, 18 (MT 19): 15, 50 (51): 20, and 68 (69): 14, and this is the preferred meaning here, as in Sir 33: 13 below. See J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 1: 185. 20 The term yēṣ er in this section is untranslated, as the following discussion aims to determine how this term can be understood here.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

99

will absolve God of responsibility for human sin. To fully explore this idea, it is necessary to “unpack” the meaning of the term yēṣ er in this passage. The Medieval Gloss in Sir 15: 14: Rewriting of a Theological Argument In the Genizah manuscripts, the meaning of yēṣ er is clear, thanks to an additional stich (15: 14aadd) that states that God placed the human in the hand of his “snatcher” (ḥ wtpw). With the additional stich the verse has three legs, unlike other verses in the passage, an indication that this second stich has been added to the original verse. Using language similar to the subsequent stich, 14aadd serves as a gloss, identifying the yēṣ er as an anthropomorphic “snatcher.”21 A. Di Lella has convincingly argued that the addition is a medieval retroversion of the Syriac of Sir 4: 19b,22 “And I will deliver him up to the hand(s) of plunderers”; the root of “plunderers” (ḥ ṭ p) is similar to the root used in 15: 14aadd (ḥ tp).23 In both Syriac and Hebrew, ḥ ṭ p and ḥ tp appear interchangeably, with a similar meaning: to “seize” or “snatch.”24 In fact, P. Beentjes has noted that the glosses found in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Ben Sira are concentrated particularly in passages that deal with theodicy, demonstrating the acute challenge of theodicy for Jews in later centuries.25 The gloss reflects the medieval redactor’s understanding of yēṣ er in terms of the later, highly developed rabbinic concept of the yēṣ er hārā‘: a personified, anthropomorphic evil inclination.26 This understanding was encouraged by the phrasing of the original Hebrew verse (14b): humans are placed “in the

21 As noted by Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1: 371 and Murphy, “Yēṣ er in the Qumran Literature,” 335. 22 Syriac text and English translations of the Syriac in this chapter follow N. CalduchBenages, J. Ferrer, and J. Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa (Biblioteca Midrásica 26; Estella, Navarre: Verbo Divino, 2003). 23 Di Lella, Hebrew Text of Sirach, 121–5. Di Lella dates the Hebrew insertion to sometime after 800 C. E. His conclusion has been contested by W. van Peursen, “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives,” KUSATU 2 (2001): 63–64, who sees the use of ḥ tp as an internal, though still secondary, Hebrew development, based on the appearance of the verb ḥ tp in Job 9: 12, in the Hodayot (in 1QHa XIII and its parallel in 4Q429), and twice elsewhere in Ben Sira: 32(35): 21 and 50: 4. 24 See Jud 21: 21; Ps 10: 9; Prov 23: 28; Job 9: 12. 25 P. C. Beentjes, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 524. 26 On the demonic nature of the rabbinic evil inclination, see Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, particularly 65–84.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

100

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

hand of” their yēṣ er, an image compatible with the concept of an almost demonic evil inclination. The use of the verb ḥ ṭ p in Ps 10: 9 may shed light on the description in 14aadd. In Ps 10: 9, a wicked person is described as “snatching” (yaḥ ṭ ōp) the poor person like a lion waiting in ambush. Similarly, the description of the human inclination as a “robber” in Sir 15: 14aadd indicates both a lack of human decision and the apparent cruelty of the divine decision to place humans in the power of their inclination to sin. The addition of the gloss in 15: 14 subverts the entire aim of Ben Sira’s argument. While Ben Sira has stated that one’s sin cannot be from God because God does not create what he hates, the expanded verse declares that God has indeed determined that humans will be at the mercy of their inclination. The gloss at 14aadd is not motivated by Ben Sira’s intent to distance God from sin, but rather by a later editor’s wish to illustrate the nature of the yēṣ er. The medieval gloss achieves this by describing the yēṣ er according to the rabbinic concept of the “evil inclination,” a personified and potentially overpowering evil force, created by God from the beginning of time.27 In doing so, however, the gloss distorts the verse so that it no longer distances God from the responsibility for sin. The gloss must therefore be disregarded in order for the verse’s original meaning to be understood.28 The Meaning of yēṣ er in the Book of Ben Sira The question remains: how does Ben Sira’s explanation in 15: 14 solve his initial problem, even if the medieval gloss is removed? If God has in fact put humans into the power of their yēṣ er, how can human sin not be attributed to God? The key to answering these questions lies in the meaning of the term yēṣ er in the book of Ben Sira. The meaning of yēṣ er in Sir 15: 14 may be interpreted in its biblical sense, specifically as it appears in Gen 6: 5 and 8: 21.29 In these verses the term yēṣ er is used in a pessimistic sense, but as it must be qualified as evil, this term is not negative by definition. In fact, the verse at Gen 6: 5 implies that the evil dispo-

27

See Sifre Deut. 45; b. B. Bat. 16a; b. Qidd. 30b. Contra the early study by F. Porter (“Yeçer HaRa,” 138), who argues that 15: 14b in the Hebrew manuscripts was original and deleted by the Greek translator. Porter therefore asserted that the translator changed the meaning of yēṣ er in this passage from a relatively personified evil inclination to a general expression of free will. However, the current consensus among scholars that 15: 14b is not original has precluded this idea. 29 Particularly given the echo of Gen 1: 1 and 1: 27 in MS A 15: 14a mbr’šyt, “from (in) the beginning.” (mbr’šyt is also found in the margins of MS B, although the main text in MS B reads mr’š.) 28

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

101

sition of the human yēṣ er goes against the natural order, even if, following the flood in Gen 8: 21, the Deity accepts it as part of human nature. As J. R. Levison notes, Ben Sira further distances yēṣ er from its negative connotation in Genesis by removing it from the context of the flood narrative (as it appears in Gen 6: 5 and 8: 21) and placing it in the context of the creation. The result is that the yēṣ er as it appears in Sir 15: 14 is a neutral capacity that enables the human being to make a moral choice.30 In other words, the yēṣ er in 15: 14 reflects the moral choice of the human being, and in keeping with biblical use, denotes human character. Ben Sira’s reference to the creation further indicates that the yēṣ er is an inherent part of the human being, so that this choice has always been a human capability.31 This interpretation of yēṣ er in 15: 14 is supported by the similar use of yēṣ er to mean moral character in Sir 27: 6. In 27: 6, the individual’s yēṣ er is reflected in her thinking or reckoning: Hebrew (MS A):

LXX: ‫על עבדת עץ יה י פר י‬ ‫כן חשבון על יצר אחד‬

γεώργιον ξύλου ἐκφαίνει ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ, οὕτως λογισμὸς32 ἐνθυμήματα καρδίας ἀνθρώπου;

According to the cultivation of the tree, so Its fruit brings to light a tree’s cultivation – so reasoning (logismos) (brings to light) will the fruit be; So is the account/reckoning according to notions (enthumēmata) of a person’s heart. the individual’s yēṣ er.33

30 J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 35. 31 See G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 91, contra V. D’Alario “‘Non dire’,” 114–7. D’Alario concludes that the yēṣ er in Ben Sira must be negative based on the generally pessimistic biblical connotation of yēṣ er. She therefore concludes that 15: 14 must be voiced by Ben Sira’s opponents, although this is nowhere indicated in the text. 32 While several manuscripts read λόγος here, the preferred reading is λογισμὸς, as per Ziegler, following 253-Syh and 248–493-637. See M. H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 167 (Hebrew); Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 356. 33 Translation is my own (leaving yēṣ er untranslated for further analysis). ’eh ̣ ad, “one” is translated as “individual” based on context, and the literal meaning of ḥ ešbôn is retained in its translation as account or reckoning, comparable to Smend’s translation: “und die Ausforschung die Denkweise des Menschen”; R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (3 vols.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906), 1: 46. There have been a wide variety of translations of ḥ ešbôn/logismos in this verse, while yēṣ er is alternately translated as indicating mind or nature. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 167 emends the Hebrew ’eḥ ad “one” to read ’ādām “human,” in accordance with LXX, and so do many of the translators; so, for example, Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1: 406, “so (dependeth) man’s thought upon his nature.” While Skehan, Ben Sira, 353, translates “so too does a person’s speech show the bent of his mind” based on the Greek logismos, Di Lella seems to prefer a translation of “reckoning” or “reflection”; see his comments ad loc. (ibid., 356).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

102

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

In this passage, Ben Sira explains that just as a fruit is the expression of one’s labor concerning the tree, so the thought reflects an individual’s yēṣ er, i. e., her character. From a purely external and human perspective, one may determine another person’s character by their reasoning or “reckoning.” The “cultivation” brought to light is the person’s character or inner intent, expressed as yēṣ er in the Hebrew and the “notions of a person’s heart” in the Greek. It is thus apparent that the yēṣ er in both Sir 15: 14 and Sir 27: 6 signifies the character of each individual, a character that will mold the individual’s thoughts and may choose to follow good or evil.34 It is this character, with its ability to turn toward good or evil, that determines human actions.35 The description of human creation in LXX Sir 17: 1–8 also provides a clue to the meaning of yēṣ er in Ben Sira. (6) διαβούλιον καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ὀφθαλμούς, ὦτα καὶ καρδίαν ἔδωκεν διανοεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς. (7) ἐπιστήμην συνέσεως ἐνέπλησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς. (6) Deliberation (diaboulion) and a tongue and eyes, ears and a heart for thinking he gave them. (7) With knowledge of understanding he filled them, and good things and bad he showed them. (Sir 17: 6–7)

In Sir 17: 6, God grants diaboulion to humans alongside tongues, eyes, ears and a “heart for thinking.” This is the precursor to the gift of wisdom and knowledge in v. 7, a gift that includes the knowledge of both good and evil. While this passage has not survived in Hebrew manuscripts, it is probable that

34 This explanation is in keeping with many modern translations and studies, although these also integrate the meaning of LXX Sir 15: 14 diaboulion, discussed separately below, and therefore tend toward translation of yēṣ er as “free choice” rather than as “character.” See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 97; Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1: 25, “und überliess ihn seinem freien Willen”; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 267, “who made them subject to their own free choice”; and Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1: 371 n. 14, 15: “Yeṣ er is here used in a neutral sense (almost equivalent to Free-will) in which lay the power of doing right or wrong…” (Box and Oesterley also present the possibility that Ben Sira had the evil inclination in mind; see “Sirach,” 1: 311.) However, a statement that a person is placed in the power of his character is more reasonable, particularly in the context of early Hellenistic thought, which frequently portrayed character as determining actions (see discussion above and n. 12 ad loc.). In addition, the interpretation of yeṣ er as “free choice” is unduly influenced by the Greek translation diaboulion. As discussed below, the translation itself develops the meaning of the text, and therefore cannot be understood as the most accurate understanding of yeṣ er here. 35 It is tempting to associate the appearance of yēṣ er here with the use of psyche (ψυχή) in Stoic thought. According to the classical Stoic approach, human actions are determined by a combination of antecedent causes and the (already determined) human psyche. (On the psyche in the context of Chrysippus’ cylinder, see F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics [New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975], 102–3.) Nevertheless, there is little if any evidence of direct Stoic influence on Ben Sira (see further below and n. 63 ad loc.).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

103

diaboulion translates the term yēṣ er in the Hebrew original.36 This possibility is bolstered by the reading in the Syriac version that God “created mouth and tongue and eyes and ears” for humans, possibly reflecting a reading of the verb yāṣ ar, “formed” instead of yēṣ er in the (unpointed) Hebrew Vorlage.37 The term diaboulion has a classical Greek meaning of “debate, deliberation”38 and a more specific meaning in the Septuagint of “design, plan, counsel.”39 The term’s meaning here as the capacity for thought or decision is apparent from its context. Hence, assuming a Vorlage of yēṣ er for diaboulion in 17: 6, the term in 17: 6 expresses the human capacity for thought, reflecting the biblical use of yēṣ er in genitive construct with the heart (Gen 8: 21) and the heart’s thoughts (Gen 6: 5). The yēṣ er brackets God’s gifts in Sir 17: 6 together with a “heart for thinking,” and like this “heart,” the yēṣ er appears here as a positive term reflecting human abilities. Certainly, yēṣ er in 17: 6 cannot be construed as a negative term, as it is listed as one of God’s gracious gifts to human beings. Consequently, yēṣ er in Sir 17: 6 reflects a neutral capacity for thought and choice in human beings. This clarification of yēṣ er in Ben Sira is critical for a correct understanding of 15: 11–20.

The Choice between Good and Evil in Sir 15: 11–20 Accordingly, Sir 15: 11–20 does not express a tendency toward sin. God has allowed humans to be swayed by their own character (their yēṣ er), whatever it may be. God has not determined human nature toward good or evil: the choice is the individual person’s, as emphasized in the description of human choice in the continuation of the passage, vv. 15–17. In these verses Ben Sira describes a choice between good or evil:40

36

As reconstructed by Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 103. The Syriac translation of Sir 17: 6 uses the verbal root br’ (wbr’ lhw, “and created for them”); the root yṣ r does not generally appear as a verb in Syriac. 38 See “διαβουλιον,” LSJ 390. 39 See T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), 114; J. Lust et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint 1: 101–2. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, diaboulion appears as a ֲ ‫מ‬ ֹ (Hos 11: 6, Ps 5: 11), ‫מֹות‬ ָּ ‫מִז‬ ְ (Ps 10: 2), ‫עלֹות‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ַ (Ezek 11: 5) and ‫לים‬ ִ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫ע‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ַ translation of ‫עצֹות‬ (Hos 4: 9; 5: 4; 7: 2). Hence, Muraoka initially describes the Septuagintal meaning of diaboulion as “that which one deliberates to do.” 40 The text here is from MS A; translation is my own. The LXX version is similar, although without the stich marked 15add: ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολὰς καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι εὐδοκίας. παρέθηκέν σοι πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ· οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου. ἔναντι ἀνθρώπων ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ὁ θάνατος, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν εὐδοκήσῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 37

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

104

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

:‫( אם תאמין בו גם אתה תחיה‬15add) :‫( אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה ותבונה לעשות רצונו‬15) ‫פני אדם חיים ומוות אשר‬ ֗ ‫( ל‬17) :‫( מוצק לפניך אש ומים באשר תחפץ שלח ידיך‬16) :‫יחפץ ינתן לו‬ (15) If you wish (tḥ pṣ ) you will keep (his) commandment and understanding to do his will. (15add) If you believe in him, you too shall live. (16) There are poured out before you fire and water; to whichever you wish (tḥ pṣ ) stretch forth your hands. (17) Before (each) human are life and death; that which he desires (yḥ pṣ ) shall be given to him. (Sir 15: 15– 17)

Ben Sira’s description echoes Deut 30: 19 but adds the imagery of fire and water, providing a depth of contrast between fiery evil and life-giving good not found in the Deuteronomic passage. This contrast may also imply that, just as fire and water are irreconcilable, so too are sin and faithfulness to God’s commandments.41 Another development of the Deuteronomic passage in Sir 15: 15–17 is the repetition of the verb ḥ pṣ (‫)חפץ‬, to “desire, wish,” emphasizing human freedom of choice. Each of the verses in Sir 15: 15–17 repeats a form of this verb (not found at all in the Deuteronomic passage), indicating that keeping the law, choosing “fire” or “water,” and determining between life or death are all within reach if the person so desires. This repetition also serves to emphasize human responsibility; there is nothing preventing humans from achieving their desire. The freedom and effectiveness of human choice is the focus of this passage. As established at the beginning of this section, human choice is also a function of the yēṣ er, created by God within the human being. The Septuagint translation of this passage reflects a further emphasis on this idea by the translator. In LXX Sir 15: 14 yēṣ er is translated as diaboulion. In the context of Sir 15: 11–20, the word diaboulion specifically expresses the ability to deliberate between good and evil, as in Sir 17: 6.42 The use of the term diaboulion to translate yēṣ er in both 15: 14 and 17: 6 reflects a conscious choice by See Beentjes, “Theodicy in Ben Sira,” 513–4. As noted by Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 89. Most recent in-depth studies have incorporated the meaning of diaboulion in Sirach with yēṣ er in 15: 14 as an expression reflecting the free decision of humankind (see n. 34 above). Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 110, argues that diaboulion in Sir 15: 14 reflects a “volitive” aspect of human inclination, through which the person can choose not to sin (ibid., 103). A prominent exception is R. Murphy (“Yēṣ er in the Qumran Literature,” 336), who argues against understanding diaboulion as counsel, decision or free choice in Ben Sira based on the use of diaboulion in T. Ash. 1: 3 (where the existence of two diaboulia are described in the context of a dualistic system of good and evil) and T. Benj. 6: 1 (where diaboulion is used to describe the inclination of the good man who is not subject to the deception of the spirit of “Beliar” [an alternative spelling of Belial]). However, the late dating and Christian redaction of the Testaments shed doubt on the feasibility of using the Testaments to clarify earlier terminology. See Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin; idem, “Christian Influence”; and the recent study by Hillel, “Structure, Source and Composition,” 232–3. 41 42

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Ben Sira 15: 11–20

105

the translator of Ben Sira, who as a rule did not maintain one-to-one equivalence between vocabulary in the original Hebrew and his own translation.43 The Septuagint translation thereby presents a unified message in LXX 15: 11– 20 and LXX 17: 1–7. The ability to deliberate between good and evil was granted by God to humankind at creation (15: 14; 17: 1–7); this makes it impossible for any sinner to blame God for her subsequent decision to do evil (15: 11–20). The reiteration of the Deuteronomic choice that stands before the human being in Sir 15: 16–17 is particularly apt; without the diaboulion, the choice between good and evil presented to humankind would be meaningless. LXX Sir 15: 16–17 both justifies God’s gift of the human ability to choose and emphasizes human responsibility for righteous or sinful actions. In its Septuagint translation, the passage at Sir 15: 11–20 removes any indication that the topic of the discourse may be an inclination toward good or evil; it is simply the ability to choose one or the other. By using the term diaboulion, Ben Sira’s grandson has subtly changed the meaning of the base text. In the original Hebrew, placing humans “in the power of” their yēṣ er indicates that the yēṣ er is something that may determine human actions, i. e. it signifies the human character. But by interpreting yēṣ er as diaboulion, the translator has distanced God further from the responsibility for human sin. Surrendering humans to their character may indicate that human character is determined by God. In contrast, diaboulion signifies the human capacity for free choice, and therefore cannot be determined. Consequently, in neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version of Ben Sira does Sir 15: 11–20 present an inborn inclination or predisposition to sin; it expresses a neutral state from which humans can make a choice, reflective of Deuteronomic thinking. This idea, present in the original Hebrew, is made more distinct in the Greek translation. The motivation behind this underscoring of free choice in the Septuagint translation may have been the need to distance the possibility of an inevitably evil inclination in parallel to Hellenistic thought, which favored a more rational approach to evildoing. Alternatively, it may have resulted from a straightforward reading of the text and an understanding of yēṣ er as a positive aspect connected to the perceptive faculties, as in Sir 17: 6. This passage, the first in this study to directly address the question of the origin of human sin, is also the passage that (in its original form) most clearly argues for human freedom of choice and responsibility for sin. This focus stems from the theological imperative to distance God from responsibility for human sin. Such consideration of theological issues is typical of wisdom works. However, the book of Ben Sira is not completely consistent regarding

43 B. G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 115, 249.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

106

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

the approach to sin it reflects. A survey of the passages in Ben Sira that address sin reveals a spectrum of views regarding its nature.

Sir 33: 7–15: Election and the Evildoer The passage that most clearly reflects an approach that is not immediately reconcilable with the approach in Sir 15: 11–20 is found in Sir 33: 7–15. The passage at Sir 33: 7–15 concludes by justifying the existence of evil:44 LXX

Hebrew MS E

(13) [14] ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ

:‫(}כחמר ביד ה{יוצר לאחוז כרצון‬13) :‫}כן אדם ביד{ ע֗֗ושהו להתיצב מפני֗ו חלק‬

(14) [15] ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή, οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός·

:‫ב ונוכח חיים מות‬ ֗ ‫ט֗ו‬ ֗ {‫(}נוכח רע‬14) :{‫ב ר֗שע ונוכח האור ח}שך‬ ֗ ֗‫ח איש ט֗ו‬ ֗ ֗‫֗נ֗וכ‬

(15) καὶ οὕτως ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ὑψίστου, δύο δύο, ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός.

‫ה אל כולם שנים‬ ֗ ֗‫בט֗ אל כל מע֗ש‬ ֗ ֗‫( ה‬15) :{‫שנים זה לעומת }זה‬

αὐτοῦ πλάσαι αὐτὸ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτοὺς ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν αὐτοῦ.

(13) [14] Like a potter’s clay in his hand, (13) {Like clay in the hand of the} potter, to to fashion it according to his liking, grasp at his will, {so is a person in the hand so are human beings in the hand of him of} his creator, to be set smooth before him.45 who made them, to repay them according to his judgment. (14) [15] Good is opposite evil, and life is opposite death; so a sinner is opposite a pious person.

(14) {Opposite evil} is good and opposite life is death. Opposite a good man is a wicked man, and opposite light is d{arkness}.

44 Greek follows Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. In all extant Greek manuscripts, the order of 30: 25–33: 13b and 33: 13b–36: 16a is reversed and certain verse numbers differ. The Greek text below is presented in its proper order while the displaced order is noted in brackets. Hebrew MS E follows Aḳ ademyah la-Lashon ha-‘Ivrit, Sefer Ben Sira (square brackets mark reconstructions by the editor), and is presented together with Segal’s reconstructions in Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem marked with curly brackets. Supralineal dots mark unclear letters. Translation of Hebrew MS E is my own. 45 The text seems corrupted here and the translation proposed above, “to be set smooth before him,” is tentative. Skehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 13b, translates “to be stationed before him, a share,” reading ḥ lq as ḥ ēleq “a share” while I have read ḥ ālāq, “smooth.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sir 33: 7–15

107

(15) And so look at all of the works of the (15) Look at all the work(s) of God, all are Most High, two by two, one opposite the two by two, one opposite {the other}. other one.

In Sir 33: 13, using imagery that reflects Jer 18: 4,6,46 God is described as the “potter” who forms the nature and destiny of all humankind. This section, unlike 15: 11–20, is not concerned with the dilemma of the provenance of and responsibility for sin. Rather, the central question in 33: 7–15 is that of differentiation and sanctification, as is clear from its introduction.47 LXX

Hebrew MS E

(7) Why is a day superior to a day, when (7) {Why is one d}ay different from the all the light of a day of a year is from the other, when all (of the year) receives light sun? {fr}om the sun? (8) By the Lord’s knowledge they were marked off, and he made seasons and feasts different.

(8) … By the Lord’s knowledge they are judged [separated]48 and there are holidays among them.

(9) [10] Some of them he exalted and hallowed, and some of them he established for a number of days.

(9) {Some of them he b}lessed and sanctified, and some he designated as ordinary days.

(10) And all human beings are from the ground, and out of earth Adam was created.

(10) {So too a person is a v}essel of clay and from earth humankind is formed.

46 Jer 18: 4, 6: (4) “And if the vessel that he was making with clay in the potter’s hand was spoiled, he would make it into another vessel, such as the potter saw fit to make.” (6) “O House of Israel, can I not deal with you like this potter? – says the Lord. Just like clay in the hands of the potter, so are you in My hands, O House of Israel!” 47 Parentheses mark an addition in the manuscript; square brackets mark reconstructions by the editor. The Greek and Hebrew read as follows: 7 Διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει, καὶ πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου; 8 ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν, καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς· (10) 9 ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔθηκεν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἡμερῶν. 10 καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους, καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ·11 ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν· 12 ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐλόγησεν καὶ

ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἡγίασεν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἤγγισεν· ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν κατηράσατο καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ στάσεως αὐτῶν. ‫מת( בחכמת יי נשפטו ויש מהם‬. .) 8 :‫שמש‬ ֗ ‫ }למה מיו{ם יום כי כלו אור ש}ו{נה }מ{על‬7 ‫ }וגם איש כ{לי חמר מן עפר נוצר‬10 :‫ }מהם ב{רך והקדש֗ו ומהם שם לימי מספר‬9 :‫ם‬ ֗ ‫מועד֗י‬ ‫ }מהם ב{רך‬12 :(‫ת דרכיהם‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֗ [‫ש֗נ]ה‬ ֗ ‫ }חכמ{ת ייי תבדילם וישם אותם דרי הא}רץ{ )֗ו֗י‬11 :‫אדם‬ :‫ם‬ ֗ {‫ם ודחפם ממעבד}יה‬ ֗ ‫ל‬ ֗ ‫השפ֗י‬ ֗ {‫ }מהם קלל ו‬:{‫א}ליו הקריב‬ ֗ ‫והקדש֗ו ומהם הקדיש ו‬

The literal meaning of nšpṭ w is “judged,” but this may be a corruption of npršw “are separated,” as in the LXX and the Syriac. See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 210 and Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 8. 48

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

108

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

(11) In fullness of knowledge the Lord marked them off and made their ways different.

(11) {The wisdo}m of the Lord separates them And he places them as inhabitants of the ear{th}

(and he distinguished their paths)49 (12) Some of them he blessed and exalted, (12) Some of them he blessed and raised up; and some of them he hallowed and some of them he sanctified and brought near brought near to himself; himself; some of them he cursed and brought low Some of them he cursed and brought low and turned them out of their position. and pushed them away from their deeds [from their place].50

The passage thus begins with the question: why are some days sanctified while others are not, despite their equality under the sun? The meaning of the following analogous question is evident: why are some people sanctified while others are not, despite what should be their inherent equality? The answer is the same to both questions: such is the wisdom of God. It is this wisdom that determines the “separation” of both days and human beings; both are subject to the divine will. The conclusion of the passage, 33: 14–15, indicates that the divine wisdom that determines the differences between days and humans is also reflected in the dualistic symmetry of the universe. The essence of the distinction between different days and humans, Ben Sira suggests, lies in this divinely sanctioned symmetry. In past scholarship, Sir 33: 7–15 has sometimes been presented as evidence that predestination is basic to Ben Sira’s thought.51 Other scholars maintain that these verses are defending the election of Israel; like the holy days of the year, Israel has been chosen to be closer to God.52 However, this type of nationalism is not typical of Ben Sira, and it is peculiar that if the election of

49 This is a scribal insertion in the original manuscript. As noted by Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 2: 298 and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 400, “paths” here indicate “destinies.” 50 As noted by Skehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 12, it is highly probable that m‘bd{yh}m “their deeds” in 33: 12 is a corruption of m‘mdyhm “their place (position),” given the frequent confusion of bet and mem; see also Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 211. 51 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 83 and Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 158–9. Both Collins and Maier see Sir 33: 7–15 as evidence of a belief in predestination. Maier, however, thinks that in Sir 15: 11–20 Ben Sira refused the psychological consequences of the “traditional” deterministic system, because of the problem it created for accepting the concepts of free will and retribution (ibid., 115). 52 See Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 2: 297; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; London: SCM Press, 1972), 267; Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 400; J. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 60.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sir 33: 7–15

109

Israel is, in fact, the focus of the passage, the name of Israel is not mentioned.53 Instead, this passage seems to address the election of the individual within Israel. It may explain the special status of either the priesthood (the closest analogy with the “sanctified days” with which the passage begins) or of other religious or political leaders.54 (The identification of the “non-elect” in 33: 12 remains an open question.)55 Regardless of the identity of the “rejected” group, however, in 33: 12 it is this group’s non-elected status, and not their lack of righteousness, that is under discussion. That the focus of this passage is election, not righteousness, can be determined from its discussion of the sanctification and destiny of humans rather than human righteousness or sinfulness. People can be “sanctified” and “blessed” or alternatively “brought low” and “cursed” by God; they can be brought near to God or exiled. Their actions are not mentioned. Hence while Ben Sira distinguishes between the elect and the non-elect, this distinction does not necessarily determine sinfulness or righteousness.56

53

See Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 159. Other passages in Ben Sira, such as Sir 7: 29–31, have been cited as evidence that Ben Sira had a very positive view of the priesthood, supporting the idea that this passage refers to the “election” of the priestly caste. In fact, B. G. Wright claims that Ben Sira intended some passages specifically to respond to complaints against the Jerusalem priesthood; see “‘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 (ed. P. C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222. 55 The forceful rejection of the “non-elect” described in 33: 12c-d is the basis of G. S. Goering’s theory regarding the identification of the “elect” in this passage; Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (JSJSup 139; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 59–60. Goering has argued that the contrast is between “elect” (Israel) and “anti-elect” (the cursed nation of Canaan), and not between “elect” (Israel) and “non-elect” (non-Israelites); in his view the latter are not diametric opposites. However, it is not clear why Ben Sira would wish to focus on this ancient distinction. S. M. Olyan has proposed that the argument for election in Sir 33 addresses those who advocated a pan-Levitic priesthood in this period, while Ben Sira advocated an Aaronid approach; Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. If Olyan’s proposal is accepted, the harsh language in 33: 12c-d may be read as a rebuke of Levites who dare to claim the priesthood. Olyan bases the idea of Ben Sira’s opposition to a pan-Levitic approach on the disparity between the attention given to Moses (five verses) and that given to Aaron and his descendants (20 verses) in 45: 1–25, in addition to the use of the term zār in Sir 45: 13 to describe a non-priest, parallel to the description of non-Aaronides in Num 17: 5 or Num 3: 10 (“Relationship to the Priesthood,” 267, 271). However, it should be noted that only a few verses later in 45: 18, Ben Sira uses the plural of zār to describe Datan and Abiram (nonLevites) as well as Koraḥ and his community (Levites). In addition, there is a complete lack of evidence for any advocacy of Levites as priests during the Second Temple period. Consequently, the exact group rejected in 33: 12c-d must remain undetermined. 56 This is consistent with the conclusion reached by Goering (Wisdom’s Root Revealed, 54

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

110

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

The divinely determined framework presented here does not clearly interact with Ben Sira’s approach in 15: 11–20. In Sir 15: 11–20, Ben Sira explains that humans may or may not sin: the Deuteronomic choice between life and death lies in their hands. In Sir 33: 7–13, the world operates according to a system of divine election, whereby God decides whom to bring close and whom to reject, who will be holy and who will not, without regard to human choice. Ben Sira makes no attempt to integrate the two systems described in 15: 11–20 and 33: 7–13. The conclusion of this passage (33: 14–15; see above) clearly puts this selective election into a dualistic context. All the works of God, Ben Sira declares, exist in pairs: good opposite bad, righteous opposite wicked.57 Ben Sira draws from the description of God’s creation of contrasting elements in Isa 45: 7, “(I) form light and create darkness, (I) make weal and create woe – I the Lord do all these things.”58 The purpose of this declaration, like that of the verse in Isaiah, is to address the challenge of theodicy despite the existence of evil. However, in Sir 33: 7–15 the chief issue is the existence not of evil, but of evildoers (33: 15b). The continued existence of sinners presents a problem for Ben Sira, regardless of the human power to choose. While humans may freely choose sin, why does God not obliterate the sinner or prevent the damage sinners wreak upon the righteous? The solution presented in 33: 7–15 addresses this problem through the praise of a universe that contains polar opposites. Evil and good, sinner and righteous59 must exist alongside each other in a harmo248–9) that Ben Sira does not integrate the dichotomies of wise/foolish and righteous/wicked within the system of election he propounds. 57 In Sir 11: 14 Ben Sira expresses a similar idea: “Good and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth are from God.” The two verses that follow 11: 14 include additional pairs from God including the pair “just paths” and “sin” (MS A)/“love” (LXX), and conclude with the assurance of retribution for evildoers. However, these verses are considered secondary by most scholars; see Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, and Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 237, 239. Compare Reiterer, who considers them original on literary and substantive grounds; Reiterer, “Bibelübersetzung: Wiedergabe oder Deutung?” in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn…” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 375; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 166–7. 58 As noted by O. Wischmeyer, the contrast between good and bad and its ascription to God is also found in Qoh 7: 14: “So in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune, reflect: The one no less than the other was God’s doing; consequently may man find no fault with him”; O. Wischmeyer, “Gut und Böse: antithetisches Denken im Neuen Testament und bei Jesus Sirach,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 135–6. However, while in Qoh 7: 14 this contrast demonstrates humans’ lack of knowledge regarding what to expect, Ben Sira changes the dualistic aspect of God’s works into a general principle that his audience can apply to reality. 59 The pair “light and darkness” appearing in 14b of the Hebrew text may be secondary, a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sir 33: 7–15

111

nious universe.60 It is worthy of note that Ben Sira still makes no attempt to justify this “necessity of opposites” within the framework of the human choice he espouses in 15: 11–20. By juxtaposing the concluding statement in 33: 14–15 with the passage on election in 33: 7–13, Ben Sira conveys the idea that some people are elected and others are not for the same reason that righteous and wicked coexist: the world consists of opposing pairs. For the purposes of this argument, it matters little that the choice of election – of “bringing close” and “blessing” – is determined wholly by the Deity while the choice to sin is, presumably, in human hands. God creates a harmonious world of opposites where he determines the existence of both elected and non-elected, and where he allows the existence of righteous and sinner. Both sets of opposites are required for the operation of the universe.61 While some have connected this dualistic “doctrine of opposites” to Stoic thought,62 the relationship between Ben Sira 33 and classical Stoicism is tenu-

retroversion based on a combination of the Greek and of the Syriac, which includes the pair “light and darkness” but not “righteous and sinner”; see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 14b. This pair is also drawn from Isa 45: 7. 60 O. S. Rankin considers this Ben Sira’s unique contribution to theodicy, anticipating Augustine and even Leibniz; Rankin, Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion (repr. New York: Schocken, 1969); 34–5. 61 Contra J. K. Aitken, “Divine Will and Providence,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 297–8. Aitken proposes that Ben Sira 15 and Ben Sira 33 portray the two sides of the relationship between God and humankind, allowing responsiveness by both God (in Ben Sira 33) and humans (in Ben Sira 15). Notwithstanding Aitken’s argument, the nature of the Deity portrayed in Ben Sira 33 is not particularly responsive, and mutuality is not prominent in this passage. 62 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85; D. Winston, “Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy,” in Of Scholars, Savants, and Their Texts; Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (ed. R. Link-Salinger; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 239–49. Winston draws connections between Sir 33 and Stoic thought, but does not cite Sir 15. Elsewhere (Winston, “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy,” 43–5) Winston claims that the solution to the problem of the contrast between Ben Sira 15 and the more deterministic passages in Ben Sira is that Ben Sira used the Stoic formula of contrasting proximate and principal causes. However, this argument assumes that Ben Sira had an in-depth knowledge of Stoic thought that is highly unlikely, and reads a great deal into the passage in Ben Sira 15. J. T. Sanders notes that similar contrasts between the concepts of human responsibility and divine determinism are found in Proverbs, for example in the disparity between Prov 11: 5 and Prov 22: 2; see Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBLMS 28; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 55 n. 127. Consequently, when this contrast is found in Ben Sira it need not be traced to Hellenistic thought. (Contrast the view of U. Wicke-Reuter, who sees Ben Sira’s multiple references to the harmony of God’s creation as parallels to early Stoic thought; Wicke-Reuter, “Ben Sira und die Frühe Stoa: Zum Zusammenhang von Ethik und dem Glauben an eine göttliche Providenz,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

112

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

ous at best. Dualism is not particularly prominent in Stoic philosophy.63 It is more likely that Ben Sira 33 reflects the general theory of polar opposites that formed part of most pre-Socratic cosmological doctrines,64 as in the thought of one Pythagorean group who, according to Aristotle, referred to ten different pairs of opposite principles, including light and darkness and good and evil (Metaph. 986a21–26).65 Consequently, by juxtaposing the idea of election with accepted cosmological theory, Ben Sira demonstrates the “rationality” of the election of some and the non-election of others, thereby legitimizing the sanctification of the elite while reflecting the perspective of Hellenistic thought.66 Consequently, while Ben Sira 15 and 33 can be read as part of a consistent worldview, these two passages reflect different approaches and foci regarding sin and evildoers, and address different problems. In Sir 15: 11–20, Ben Sira aims to release God from the responsibility for sin by explaining its “true” origin: human character and free choice. In Sir 33, Ben Sira’s goal is to explain the nature of election; within this context he explains evildoers as part of the natural dichotomy of the universe. In Sir 33 the universe is depicted as dualisUshaw College 2001 [ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002], 268– 81.) 63 While Chrysippus (the third head of the Stoic school) did justify evil by stating that good cannot exist without coexistent bad, he pairs only the traits of human beings whose positive qualities can be appreciated through contrast with their lack (including bravery versus cowardice, self-control versus license, and good sense versus folly); he does not pair good and evil; see Sandbach, Stoics, 105. In fact, Mattila (“Ben Sira and the Stoics,” 495–7) has concluded that Ben Sira would not have had access to the basics of Stoicism due to the fact that Hellenistic philosophy was not commonly studied in Alexandria until the very end of the Ptolemaic period (see n. 12 above). She also points to the deep differences between views found in Ben Sira and Stoic thought, including Ben Sira’s emphasis on the doctrine of retribution within one’s lifetime. 64 See G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1992), 15–8, esp. 16. Lloyd brings a range of examples from surviving fragments of pre-Socratic thought as well as reports by Aristotle. In addition to the Pythagorean example cited below, Lloyd notes that Alcmaeon proposed that “most human things go in pairs,” referring to contrary characteristics such as white and black, sweet and bitter, good and bad, and great and small (Metaph. 986a31 ff). 65 These pairs are closer to those we find in Ben Sira 33 than the pairs mentioned by Chrysippus (see n. 63). In addition, the language used in the book of Ben Sira, nwkḥ , “opposite/in front of,” expresses a polar/spatial relationship between the pairs that is in keeping with wider Hellenistic thought, although the term used in LXX Ben Sira 33 (ἀπέναντι) does not have any particular significance in Hellenistic thought. 66 This is in keeping with the conclusions of H. V. Kieweler, who maintains that Ben Sira, while remaining true to the traditions of his faith, was forced to contend with the “international” form of Hellenistic thought, whether he rejected or accepted it; see Kieweler, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp (BEATAJ 30; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 268, contra Th. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Other References to the Source of Sin

113

tic and deterministic, an approach that is consistent with Pythagorean ideas. Significantly, Ben Sira makes no attempt to reconcile these approaches. He is not bothered by the apparent contradictions between these passages, nor does he expect his reader to be concerned with them. The lack of concern for theological consistency can be found throughout the book of Ben Sira, as is evident in the selection of passages that follows.

Other References to the Source of Sin in the Book of Ben Sira The book of Ben Sira contains other references that are difficult to reconcile with a single viewpoint regarding sin. These various passages shine a spotlight on different views of sin that were common in Ben Sira’s Judean milieu.

Sir 25: 24: Original Sin or a Wicked Wife? Perhaps the most prominent of Ben Sira’s brief references to sin is Sir 25: 24: LXX

Hebrew MS C

ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀποθνῄσκομεν πάντες.

From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die.

‫ ובגללה גוענו יחד‬,‫מאשה תחלת עון‬

From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we die together/we die alike.

It is possible that this verse is one of the few references in Second Temple literature to “original sin,” the idea that humans have inherited sin from Adam as a result of his eating the forbidden fruit offered him by Eve. This idea existed alongside the tradition that death resulted from the first sin. Both these aspects of the “original sin” tradition are seldom found in surviving Second Temple literature. Apart from this verse in Ben Sira and the well-known passage in Paul (Rom 5: 12–21),67 this idea is found principally in literature written soon after the destruction of the Temple, namely 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra,68 67 See also 1 Cor 15: 21–22, frequently cited as evidence of original sin in Paul’s thought. However, this interpretation depends on whether the “death” Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15: 21–22 is spiritual or literal. If it is literal, this passage is evidence of the idea that the death of human beings is due to Adam’s sin. 68 See Chapter 6. This idea is also reflected in Apoc. Mos. 32: 2, where Eve laments that her actions have caused “all sin”: “καὶ πᾶσα ἁμαρτία δι’ἐμὲ γέγονεν ἐν τῇ κτίσει.” (Text follows J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition [PVTG 6; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 160.) The Apocalypse of Moses (sometimes called the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, in relation to Vita Adae et Evae, with which its text overlaps) is considered Jewish in origin, but its dating is in doubt. While its terminus ad quem is approximately 400 C. E., some claim that

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

114

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

indicating that the idea of “original sin” may have become more popular following the destruction. However, the possible reflection of “original sin” in this verse becomes far less prominent once the verse is read in its context, namely, a passage that describes the disaster of being married to an evil wife. The verse that states that the “beginning of sin” is from “woman” is immediately preceded by the declaration, “A dejected heart and a sullen face and a wound of the heart is a wicked wife; slack hands and weakened knees (are from) a woman who does not make her husband happy” (Sir 25: 23). From this perspective, the “woman” who is the beginning of sin in v. 24 is the evil wife, not the Eve of antiquity.69 This forms a contrast with the good wife in 26: 1, who doubles her husband’s days.70 Thus, Sir 25: 24 is principally an observation regarding the wicked wife that may nevertheless allude to the tradition according to which death or sin came to the world through the sin of Adam and Eve.71 The context of 25: 24, however, determines that Ben Sira’s primary focus is on the wicked wife; this verse is not meant to reflect his primary view of sin, but testifies to a common metaphor of sin “beginning” with a woman. Two other verses in Ben Sira have sometimes been cited regarding views of the evil inclination: Sir 17: 31 and Sir 21: 11.72 While Sir 17: 31 refers to the

the traditions it contains can be dated to the first century of the common era; see J. R. Levison, “Adam and Eve, Life of,” ABD 1: 65–66. 69 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 80–81. J. Levison has similarly interpreted Sir 25: 24 according to its context as referring not to Eve but to the wicked wife; see J. R. Levison, “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25: 24,” CBQ 47 (1985): 617–23. According to Levison the verse should be read: “From (one’s) wife is the beginning of sin, and because of her we (husbands) all die.” The description of a woman who is the “beginning of perversity” and is a source of death to her intimates is also found in 4Q184 “Wiles of the Wicked Woman,” with no connection to Eve. Collins further develops this idea, but notes the similarities between Ben Sira’s assertion and later traditions according to which Eve caused death for humanity, as is found in the Apocalypse of Moses; see Collins, “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 296–7. 70 Levison, “Is Eve to Blame?” 621. 71 As reflected in Di Lella’s commentary; see Ben Sira, 348–9. Another possible reflection of the tradition that Adam and Eve’s sin led to death (although not sin) may be found in the Damascus Document, CD X.8–9: ‫“ כי במעל האדם מעטו ימו‬for in the treachery of man/ Adam his days became few.” 72 Another apparent reference to the evil inclination is found in LXX Sir 37: 3, “O evil notion, how were you involved, to cover the dry land with deceit?” However, as is evident from the Hebrew in MS B, this reflects a misreading of the unpointed Hebrew as ra‘, “evil” and not the correct reading rē‘a, “friend”; the context of this verse in Ben Sira concerns the nature of friends, both bad and good. The LXX verse that presents the idea of an “evil notion” is probably the result of a corruption in the text. Di Lella has posited that the Greek translation of yṣ r

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Other References to the Source of Sin

115

inevitability of sin, the verse at Sir 21: 11 explains how the inclination may be controlled. An additional section that is relevant for exploring Ben Sira’s view of sin is Sir 23: 2–6, a passage that demonstrates the significance of the prayer genre in determining how the desire to sin is portrayed in Second Temple texts.

Sir 17: 31: Pondering Evil In Sir 17: 31, the sinning human is compared to the eclipsed sun. τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα.

“What is brighter than the sun? Even this thing fails. And flesh and blood will ponder evil.” (Sir 17: 31)73

The Syriac of 31b reads, “thus is a human being who does not control his inclination (yaṣ reh), because he is flesh and blood.”74 The term yaṣ reh in the Syriac translation evidently reflects yēṣ er in the Hebrew Vorlage.75 The analogy presented in 31a presents a complex view of this “inclination,” one that is more pessimistic than the representation in 15: 11–20. Nevertheless, the view of the human inclination in this verse is more positive than it seems at first glance. The sun, which normally gives light, is sometimes eclipsed. Similarly, humans (who are far weaker than the sun) will sometimes contemplate or have a tendency toward evil, despite their usual mission to follow God’s commandments. In this verse humanity is presented as a whole, and as such the inevitability of evil contemplation or inclination can be safely acknowledged without justifying the reader’s individual sin. The inevitability of pondering evildoing in the Septuagint translation is paralleled in passages of rabbinic literature that depict the inevitability of evil thoughts.76 Evildoing in Sir 17: 31 represents the failing represents a borrowing of ṣ r (enemy) from the end of verse 2; see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 428. 73 This verse has not survived in the Hebrew manuscripts. 74 Translation follows Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba, 132. 75 Most translations consequently rely on the evidence of the Syriac: Smend (Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1: 46) translates “und böse ist das Trachten von Fleisch und Blut”; Oesterley, in Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 378, (reading ἀνήρ ὃς instead of πονηρὸς) translates “And (how much more) man, who (hath) the inclination of flesh and blood!”; and Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 108, reconstructs “and evil is the yēṣ er of flesh and blood.” A notable exception to the list of translations that rely on the Syriac is that of Skehan and Di Lella. Skehan (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 278) translates: “Is anything brighter than the sun? Yet it can be eclipsed. How obscure then the thoughts of flesh and blood!” 76 See b. Šabb. 64a and Song Rab. 4: 4.3, both of which explain Num 31: 50 as portraying a sin offering necessitated by inescapable evil thoughts. An interesting partial contrast to this idea

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

116

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

of humans at their mission and not their natural condition, as the sun’s eclipse represents a veering from its usual function. Nevertheless, like the eclipse, human evildoing or its contemplation is, on a universal level, unavoidable.

Sir 21: 11: Controlling One’s Inclination Sir 21: 11 is compatible with the approach set forth in Ben Sira 15 (particularly in 15: 15–17), where the reader is enjoined to make the correct choice and keep the commandments.77 Sir 21: 11 reflects a similar idea, although in this case keeping the law precedes the choice: ῾Ο φυλάσσων νόμον κατακρατεῖ τοῦ ἐννοήματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ συντέλεια τοῦ φόβου κυρίου σοφία.

He who keeps the law gains mastery over the object of his thought, and consummation of the fear of the Lord is wisdom. (Sir 21: 11)78

It is probable that the Vorlage of “object of his thought” (τοῦ ἐννοήματος αὐτοῦ) is yēṣ er, as indicated by the Syriac, yaṣ reh.79 If so, this verse expresses the idea that while one’s character may determine one’s actions (as in Sir 15), this character may be tempered through the law. The idea that the law is used to curb one’s inclination toward sin is found throughout Second Temple prayer as well as in wisdom literature. The special status of the law in the fight against the desire to sin is found in narratives and apotropaic prayers that reflect a demonic explanation of sin, discussed in the second section of this study. This idea also plays an important part in works is found in Philo’s On the Change of Names, where Philo describes the seemingly unending tidal wave of evil thoughts with which humans must contend, only to conclude that the solution is simply never to entertain an evil thought (Mut. 239–40). (Possibly Philo depends on divine help to achieve this end; in Leg. 2.32 he describes his own thought process: “…and many a time when wishing to entertain some fitting thought, I am drenched by a flood of unfitting matters pouring over me; and conversely when on the point of admitting a conception of something vile, I have washed the vile thing away with wholesome thoughts, God having by His grace poured upon my soul a sweet draught in place of the bitter one” [LCL; Leg. 2.32].) Responsibility for evil thoughts has continued to be an issue for Jewish sages until the modern period, as evidenced by the declaration of Schneur Zalman of Liadi that one must not hold oneself responsible for inevitable (to all but the purely righteous) “strange/foreign thoughts” as they are simply manifestations of one’s “animal soul.” Such a thought was not to be accounted sin as long it was not contemplated at length. See Liqutei Amarim (Tanya), 28. 77 As noted by Prato, Il problema della teodicea, 244, Sir 15: 15 integrally connects the importance of the law with the choice to do good. 78 This verse has not survived in the Hebrew manuscripts. 79 See Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba, 147. The possibility that the Vorlage is yēṣ er is also supported by the appearance of the “mastery of the yēṣ er” in m. ’Abot 4: 1: “…Who is mighty? He who masters his yēṣ er.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Other References to the Source of Sin

117

composed shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple (see Chapter 6). In Second Temple literature, the law does not simply inform humans whether an action is or is not a sin; rather, the law actively combats the desire to sin. The active role of the law in the fight against sin will be further explored throughout this study.

Sir 23: 2–6: Prayer and Sin The passage at Sir 23: 2–6, a short prayer within Ben Sira, includes an intriguing reference to the desire to sin.80 This passage, while not consistent with the emphasis on human choice in 15: 11–20, corresponds surprisingly well to views expressed in the prayers previously discussed. Like those prayers, Ben Sira’s prayer describes a desire to sin that cannot be controlled without divine assistance. In Sir 23: 2–6, the speaker asks for help to control his “thought” and “heart,” that is, the sources of his desire to sin.81 (2) Who will set whips upon my thought and discipline of wisdom upon my heart so that they might not spare my faults of ignorance and he shall not let their sins go? … (4) O Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me a lifting up of eyes, (5) and turn desire away from me. (6) Let not the belly’s appetite and sexual intercourse seize me, and do not give me over to a shameless soul. (Sir 23: 2,4–6)

Here the petitioner explicitly asks God for help in setting “whips” upon his thought and “discipline” upon his heart in order to prevent future sins as well as any illicit sexual desire that may overtake him. The tone of the petitioner is hopeless, reflecting the helplessness of someone who can only avoid sin with

80 This passage has not been preserved in the Hebrew. The prayer is the second of two prayers in 22: 27–23: 6, the first of which asks God for help in curbing the speaker’s tongue. On these prayers and their function, see P. C. Beentjes, “Sirach 22: 27–23: 6, in zijn context,” Bijdr 39 (1978): 145; F. V. Reiterer, “Gott, Vater und Herr meines Lebens: Eine poetisch-stilistische Analyse von Sir 22,27–23,6 als Verständnisgrundlage des Gebetes,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (ed. R. EggerWenzel and J. Corley; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 145–7; and M. Gilbert, “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 117–8. On the association of 22: 27–23: 6 with the prayer genre, see Beentjes, “Sirach 22: 27–23: 6,” 146. 81 The Greek reads as follows: 2 τίς ἐπιστήσει ἐπὶ τοῦ διανοήματός μου μάστιγας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς καρδίας μου παιδείαν σοφίας, ἵνα ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγνοήμασίν μου μὴ φείσωνται καὶ οὐ μὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν… 4 κύριε πάτερ καὶ θεὲ ζωῆς μου, μετεωρισμὸν ὀφθαλμῶν μὴ δῷς μοι 5 καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν ἀπόστρεψον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 6 κοιλίας ὄρεξις καὶ συνουσιασμὸς μὴ καταλαβέτωσάν με, καὶ ψυχῇ ἀναιδεῖ μὴ παραδῷς με.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

118

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

divine assistance. The more deterministic view of sin reflected in this petition to God contradicts the theological stance seen elsewhere in Ben Sira, according to which people are completely capable of turning away from sin on their own. However, this passage does correspond to the previously explored connection between a deterministic view of sin and the experience of prayer. In light of this association, the request for assistance in overcoming one’s desire to sin in Sir 23 is no surprise. Regardless of any larger theological premise in Ben Sira concerning human free will, the expression of the need for divine assistance fits the petitionary context of these verses. The idiom of prayer and its assumption of helplessness before God determine the view of sin reflected here.

Ben Sira’s Approach to Sin As noted earlier, the one passage in Ben Sira that directly addresses the question of sin’s source, Sir 15: 11–20, is a tribute to human free will. According to this passage, sin is dependent on human character and the free choices that humans make; there is no definitive human inclination toward evil. In this regard, Ben Sira’s approach differs both from the prayers previously examined, which present the inescapability of the desire to sin without divine assistance, and from the covenantal texts at Qumran, according to which the human is freely capable of rejecting his inevitably sinful desire. In Ben Sira’s solution to the problem of sin in 15: 11–20 there is no inevitable desire to sin. There is simply human character, bestowed by the Deity and fully responsible for humans’ actions, including sin. The idea set forth in Sir 15: 11–20 is distinct from Ben Sira’s description of divine election in Sir 33, which presents the idea that sinners are allowed to continue their existence due to the universe’s “harmony of opposites.” Ben Sira makes no attempt to reconcile the different stances reflected in Sir 15: 11–20 and Sir 33, nor does he attempt to integrate the other approaches to sin that are found in Ben Sira. The variety of ideas regarding sin found in Ben Sira, including the origin of sin through woman (whether the evil wife or Eve; Sir 25: 24), the inevitability of sinful thoughts or actions (17: 31), and the importance of the law in controlling sin (21: 11), provide a glimpse of different conceptions of sin popular in Ben Sira’s milieu. In a similar vein, Ben Sira’s request in prayer for divine assistance against his sinful inclinations (23: 2–6) is in keeping with the stance of general Second Temple prayer explored above. The variety of perspectives on sin in Ben Sira, and the absence of any attempt to harmonize them, demonstrates that for Ben Sira, one “solution” is not meant to apply to all possible situations.82 Furthermore, in the context of the Second Temple texts explored in previous chapters, it is evident that the 82

As suggested by G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 247–51.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin

119

need for consistency was not a deciding factor for writers in the ancient world at all, particularly regarding theological matters. The “inconsistency” of ancient texts allowed flexibility when faced with the variety of human experience and enabled a complex worldview. A more consistent view can be found in the works of Philo, the Alexandrian exegete and philosopher. However, even in the works of Philo it is possible to find variations that correspond in surprising ways to approaches in Ben Sira.

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin Like Ben Sira, Philo of Alexandria directly addresses the problem of sin in his writings.83 The works of Philo of Alexandria are not a standard part of the wisdom genre. They are, on the whole, works of philosophical exegesis that reflect the Alexandrian intellectual milieu in which Philo lived, ca. 20 B. C. E.–50 B. C. E. Philo’s approach bears certain marked resemblances to the approach found in Ben Sira. Like Ben Sira, Philo wishes to distance God from the responsibility for sin by any means possible. To that end (unlike Ben Sira), Philo goes so far as to limit God’s providence:84 It is not that God is responsible for everything; nay, the attributes of his nature are altogether good and benevolent. On the contrary, the nature of matter and that of vice is a product of deviation and not caused by God. (Prov. 2.82; italics mine.)

In this analogy, both natural evil (“the nature of matter”) and moral evil (“that of vice”), because they are the result of the corruption of nature, are removed from divine responsibility.85 Philo is forced to admit that this limits God’s overall responsibility for the universe.

83 Philo’s approach to evil has been explored frequently by scholars, with varying foci and conclusions. Several studies focus not on the origin of moral evil in Philo, but on the origin of natural or physical evil (i. e. the existence and occurrence of detrimental events or entities); see Wolfson, Philo, 279–303, O. Leaman, Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy (CSRT 6; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 33–47, and D. T. Runia, “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 576–604. Runia (ibid., 604) concludes that the distinction between physical and moral evil is fundamental to Philo’s approach, but that moral evil is explained more easily by Philo through the idea of free will. 84 On Providence has survived only in an Armenian translation from the Greek, and therefore the Greek cannot be reproduced here. The citation follows A. Terian’s translation from the Armenian included in D. Winston’s anthology, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections (Classics of Western Spirituality; New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 181. 85 F-H. Hager notes that nevertheless, unlike Xenophanes and Plutarch, Philo does not pre-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

120

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

Another approach used by Philo to distance God from moral evil is to describe it, like Ben Sira does, as inherently human. In Fug. 79–80, Philo describes the nature of human sin in a manner reminiscent of Sir 15: 11–20:86 (79) οὐδὲν οὖν τῶν ὑπούλως καὶ δολερῶς καὶ ἐκ προνοίας πραττομένων ἀδικημάτων ἄξιον λέγειν γίνεσθαι κατὰ θεόν, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς. ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὡς ἔφην, οἱ τῶν κακῶν εἰσι θησαυροί, παρὰ θεῷ δὲ οἱ μόνων ἀγαθῶν. (80) ὃς ἂν οὖν καταφύγῃ, τὸ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὃς ἂν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων μὴ ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ θεὸν αἰτιᾶται, κολαζέσθω, τῆς μόνοις ἱκέταις πρὸς σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀσφάλειαν καταφυγῆς, τοῦ βωμοῦ, στερούμενος… (79) Accordingly it is not right to say that any wrongs committed with secret hostility and with guile and as the result of premeditation originate from God – they originate from us ourselves.87 For as I have said, the treasuries of evil things are in ourselves; with God are those of good things only. (80) Whosoever, therefore, takes refuge, that is, whosoever blames not himself but God for his sins, let him be punished, by being deprived of the refuge which is a place of deliverance and safety for supplicants only, namely the altar… (Fug. 79–80)

Two elements of Ben Sira’s argument in 15: 11–20 can be found in this passage of Philo: the audience’s potentially misguided attempt to blame God for their sins and the assertion that sins originate within human beings themselves.88 However, Philo juxtaposes his assertion with the idea that no bad thing can originate from God, while Ben Sira in 15: 11–20 is satisfied with the claim that God would not create what he hates. This difference may be the result of Philo’s philosophical approach contrasted to Ben Sira’s more anthropomorphic view of God. Philo thus presents an idea similar to that found in Sir 15: 11–20, but couched in philosophical language. Philo’s view of the human origin of sin is further delineated in Det. 122. In an explanation of Gen. 5: 29, Philo notes:89 sent the doctrine that matter constitutes an evil counter-principle, i. e., that the source of all evil is found in the existence of matter; see F-H. Hager, Gott und das Böse im antiken Platonismus (Elementa 43; Amsterdam: Würzburg, 1987), 114–5. 86 Translation following F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL, except where otherwise noted. 87 For “originate from God – they originate from us ourselves,” the translation is my own. Colson and Whitaker translate “are done as God ordains; they are done as we ordain.” The translation chosen is a more literal reflection of the Greek (λέγειν γίνεσθαι κατὰ θεόν, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς), and indicates the chief concern of Philo here: the origin of these “wrongs.” 88 This is an observation of similarity, not an argument for Philo’s reliance on Ben Sira. D. Roure, “L’obtenció del perdó en Ben Sira i en Filó d’Alexandria,” in Perdó i reconciliació en la tradició jueva (ed. A. P. i Tàrrech; Barcelona: Associació Biblical de Catalunya, 2002), 209–21, has concluded that Philo did, in fact, develop traditions he had inherited from Ben Sira, based on a vocabulary analysis of a variety of theological issues in Philo and Ben Sira. However, Roure’s analysis does not include the text or topic under discussion. 89 Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL, modified as noted below.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin

121

ὀυ γάρ, ὡς ἔνιοι τῶν ἀσεβῶν, τὸν θεὸν αἴτιον κακῶν φησι Μωυσῆς, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας χεῖρας, συμβολικῶς τὰ ἡμέτερα παριστὰς ἐγχειρήματα καὶ τὰς ἑκουσίους τῆς διανοίας πρός τὸ χεῖρον τροπάς.

For Moses does not, as some impious people do, say that God is the author of ills (κακῶν), rather (Moses says that) our own hands (cause them),90 figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the voluntary91 movement of our thoughts/intentions92 to what is wrong. (Det. 122)

The implication that humans, while granted free will, tend toward what is wrong reflects a negative view of human tendencies. Philo’s pessimistic view of human desires coincides with the idea of a human “evil inclination” while contrasting with Ben Sira’s more neutral yēṣ er depicted in Sir 15: 11–20. Philo uses a similar approach of distancing God from evil when addressing the exegetical imperative created by the plural form in Gen 1: 26a MT and LXX: Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν “Let us make man according to our image.” In Opif. 74–75, Philo explains that for the creation of “mixed natures” of good and evil such as human beings, God enlisted “others” to collaborate with him (συμπαράληψιν ἑτέρων ὡς ἂν συνεργῶν). Consequently, any evil decisions or actions can be attributed not to God, but to his subordinates. For, concludes Philo, “it must be that the Father is blameless of evil in his offspring” (ἔδει γὰρ ἀναίτιον εἶναι κακοῦ τὸν πατέρα τοῖς ἐκγόνοις). Philo’s reference to subordinate creators, surprising from a monotheistic standpoint, draws heavily from Plato’s Timaeus, where the demiurge calls upon the “young gods” to help him.93 However, while Plato delineates the creation of the mortal and perishable by “young gods,” for Philo it is moral evil that must be delegated.94 This idea is repeated in four different texts (Op. 72– 75; Fug. 68–72; Conf. 168–183; Mut. 30–32).

90 Colson and Whitaker translate less literally, but with the same meaning: “Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them.” 91 Colson and Whitaker translate “spontaneous,” but “voluntary” is the usual meaning of ἑκούσιος, and it is used in this sense by both Plato and Aristotle. See “ἑκουσι-ος,α,ον,” LSJ 514b–515a. 92 While Colson and Whitaker translate “minds,” the use of διάνοια is far more abstract, reflecting thought or intention. (See “διάνοια, ἡ,” LSJ 405b.) 93 See D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 244–6. Plato’s “young gods” make the mortal parts of humanity (i. e. the body) as well as living beings who “have no part of immortality” (Tim. 41a, 42e). 94 See Runia, ibid., 244–6. D. Winston argues that, based on Spec. 1.329 (according to which God is not directly responsible for the physical universe, called “limitless, chaotic matter”), God could not have made the human body directly. Therefore, according to Winston, the human body was part of what was delegated to God’s assistants in Philo’s description of creation; D. Winston, “Theodicy and Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky (ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud; CREJ 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 109. However, this inference is not supported by Philo’s depic-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

122

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

While Philo thereby solves the problem of moral evil by attributing it to “makers” (δημιουργοῖς) other than God, he does not address why God would require the creation of moral evil at all. This failure to explain the creation of moral evil is connected to Philo’s pessimistic view of human nature. Philo portrays the inclination toward sin as inseparable from the human condition, even the “reasoned” one, and as a basic part of human make-up. In essence, it is impossible for a human being to exist without a tendency toward evil. For example, in Her. 295, Philo expresses the conviction that, even without wayward teachers, the soul will of itself be guilty of evil in its youth (καὶ ἄνευ τῶν διδαξόντων αὐτομαθής ἐστιν αὐτὴ πρὸς τὰ ὑπαίτια, ὡς ὑπ’ εὐφορίας ἀεὶ κακῶν βρίθειν), thereby explaining the inclination toward sin in youth expressed in Gen 8: 21. In Mut. 183–185, Philo describes the inevitable moral failing of humans, despite their reason, noting that “mixed” humans are incapable of containing the unmixed “excellences of God” (τὰς θεοῦ ἀρετάς), and that a human being will inevitably do evil at some point in his life:95 εὐδαίμων δ᾽ ὅτῳ ἐξεγένετο τὸν πλείω τοῦ βίου χρόνον πρὸς τὴν ἀμείνω καὶ θειοτέραν μοῖραν ταλαντεύειν· ἅπαντα γὰρ τὸν αἰῶνα ἀμήχανον, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἀντίπαλον θνητὸν ἄχθος ἔστιν ὅτε ἀντέρρεψε καὶ ἐφεδρεῦσαν ἐκαιροφυλάκησε τὰς ἀκαιρίας τοῦ λογισμοῦ, ὡς ἀντιβιάσασθαι.

Happy is he to whom it has been granted to incline toward the better and more godlike portion for the greater part of his life. For it is impossible to do so throughout the whole of his life, for at times the rival mortal burden turns the balance, and lying in wait watches for the right moment amid the indispositions of reason to forcibly counter it. (Mut. 183–185; italics mine.)

Regarding the impossibility of complete virtue, Philo states: “For there necessarily remain blemishes congenital to every mortal being, which may well be abated but cannot be completely destroyed” (Mut. 49; ἀπολείπονται γὰρ ἐξ

tions of the delegation of creation to “others.” If Winston is correct that the creation of the human body is delegated, one would expect this important aspect of human creation to be delineated at least once in Philo’s descriptions (as is found in the Platonic parallel in the Timaeus). In addition, according to Winston himself (“Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,” Poetics Today 19 [1998]: 48–49), for Philo, the body is not necessarily evil, and he addresses it with both deprecation and praise. (See also B. A. Pearson, “Philo and Gnosticism,” ANRW 21.1: 328–9.) Positive statements regarding the body are found in Opif. 136–38, Praem. 119–23, and, as noted by Runia, in QG 4.200 (regarding Isaac, who has a “formidable and wonderful greatness of body”); Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 322. (Plato’s works also include both negative and positive attitudes toward the body; see Runia, ibid., 321–2.) While the corporeal human is both mortal and perishable (Opif. 134), the “original man” is excellent in both body and soul (Opif. 136). Thus there is no need, according to Philo’s approach, to delegate the creation of the human body to “others.” 95 Translation follows Winston, Philo of Alexandria, 219.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin

123

ἀνάγκης παντὶ θνητῷ συγγενεῖς κῆρες, ἃς λωφῆσαι μὲν εἰκός, ἀναιρεθῆναι δ᾽ εἰσάπαν ἀδύνατον).96 In Mos. 2.147 Philo explains “that sin is

congenital to every created being, even the best, just because they are created” (ὅτι παντὶ γενητῷ, κἂν σπουδαῖον ᾖ, παρόσον ἦλθεν εἰς γένεσιν, συμφυὲς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐστίν).97 Philo’s depiction of humans as innately evil in a manner that is completely divorced from divine responsibility is most strongly expressed in Philo’s interpretation of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden. According to Philo, it is the sin of eating the forbidden fruit that demonstrates the human evil inclination to God (Opif. 155): θέμενος δὲ τούτους τοὺς ὅρους ἐν ψυχῇ καθάπερ δικαστὴς ἐσκόπει, πρὸς πότερον ἐπικλινῶς ἕξει. ὡς δὲ εἶδε ῥέπουσαν μὲν ἐπὶ πανουργίαν, εὐσεβείας δὲ καὶ ὁσιότητος ὀλιγωροῦσαν, ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἀθάνατος ζωὴ περιγίνεται, προὐβάλετο κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς καὶ ἐφυγάδευσεν ἐκ τοῦ παραδείσου μηδ᾽ ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰσαῦθις ἐπανόδου δυσίατα καὶ ἀθεράπευτα πλημμελούσῃ ψυχῇ παρασχών…

“Once he (God) placed these boundaries in the soul,98 he proceeded like a judge to observe in which direction it would incline. When he (God) saw it leaning towards cunning and having little regard for piety and holiness, from which immortal life results, he expelled it, as might be expected, and banished it from the garden of delights. He did not offer any hope of future return to a soul which was going incurably and irremediably astray…” (Opif. 155)99

God’s recognition of this human inclination, an aspect of humanity that was not apparent to God beforehand, is the cause of the exile from Eden as much as is the sin itself, and determines that humans have no hope of returning. The description of God’s “discovery” that humans tend to sin is incongruous but succeeds in disconnecting God from this negative tendency. However, in contrast to Plato, who attributes evildoing exclusively to the irrational soul, Philo attributes the “road to evil” to the reasonable soul in Conf. 179 (τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ).100 It is apparent that Philo had 96

Translation follows Winston, Philo of Alexandria, 218. Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 98 Apparently a reference to the human virtues, understanding, and the ruling part of the soul, all symbolized by the plants in the Garden of Eden as described by Philo in Opif. 154. 99 Translation follows Runia, On the Creation, 88. 100 Contra P. Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 77; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 166, who assumes that the irrational soul is responsible for sin (and consequently that the irrational soul is created by “others”), and the assumption by A. T. Wright, “Some Observations of Philo’s ‘De gigantibus’ and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism,” JSJ 36 (2005): 478, that the rational and irrational soul mentioned in Leg. 2.6 are parallel to good and evil inclinations. The mention of the irrational soul in Fug. 68–72 is in keeping with the strong Platonic influence found in this text; see Winston, “Theodicy and Creation,” 109. In the words of D. T. Runia (Philo and the Timaeus, 244), Philo’s explanation in this section of De fuga et inventione “virtually amounts to a Platonic and Platonist medley.” 97

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

124

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

an interest in emphasizing not only human responsibility for sin, but the human capability to prevent it, and hence emphasized its control via the rational soul. Like Ben Sira, Philo is not completely consistent in his approach to sin. His emphasis on rationality, however, is evident in these exceptions as well. In Deus 49–50, Philo expresses a more optimistic view of human tendencies. He uses Deut 30: 15 as a prooftext for human freedom of choice, and explains:101 οὐκοῦν ἀμφότερα διὰ τούτου παρίσταται, ὅτι καὶ ἐπιστήμονες τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων γεγόνασιν ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὀφείλουσι πρὸ τῶν χειρόνων αἱρεῖσθαι τὰ κρείττω λογισμὸν ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὥσπερ τινὰ δικαστὴν ἀδωροδόκητον, οἷς ἂν ὁ ὀρθὸς ὑποβάλλῃ λόγος πεισθησόμενον, οἷς δ᾽ ἂν ὁ ἐναντίος ἀπειθήσοντα.

So then in this way he puts before us both truths; first that men have been made with a knowledge both of good and evil, its opposite; secondly, that it is their duty to choose the better rather than the worse, because they have, as it were, within them an incorruptible judge in the reasoning faculty, which will accept all that right reason suggests and reject the promptings of its opposite. (Deus 50)

Here Philo explains that because God has bestowed free will on humankind, and because all decisions are led by the reasoning faculty, humans should have an inclination against, rather than for, evildoing.102 In a similarly positive vein but without the emphasis on free will, Philo in Praem. 63 describes the human soul as bearing the “twins” of good and evil at birth, but nevertheless tending uniformly to the good.103 In these passages, human free will combined with human reason should necessarily result in human righteousness. This optimistic view of human nature differs from the Philo’s usually pessimistic approach, 101

Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL. This is similar to the description of human makeup in 4 Macc. 2: 21–3: 5; see Chapter 6. 103 G-H. Baudry describes Philo’s approach to human sin as dualistic, reflecting the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1 QS III.13-IV.26) (discussed in Chapter 12) as well as the rabbinic concept of two inclinations, evil and good. For Baudry, Philo is proof that the idea of two inclinations had spread to Alexandrian Judaism. He cites QE 1.23 as a central prooftext: “Into every soul at its very birth there enter two powers, the salutary and the destructive. If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite one is too weak to see. And if the latter prevails, no profit at all or little is obtained from the salutary one” (LCL; QE 1.23); G-H. Baudry, “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel,” 286–9; idem, “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie,” 105–6. While at first glance, this statement does seem to support Baudry’s conclusion, reflecting two innate inclinations, the continuation of the passage speaks against this understanding: “Through these powers the world too was created. …Thus, the sun and moon and the appropriate positions of the other stars and their ordered functions and the whole heaven together come into being and exist through the two (powers).” This statement is clearly dualistic, but it is equally evident that mere human inclinations are not what are described here. While there may be “dualistic” descriptions of sin in Philo such as the “twins” in the citation above, the majority of Philo’s descriptions of sin are not particularly dualistic beyond what would be expected for a Platonic philosopher, as can be seen in the various citations brought in this chapter. 102

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin

125

but emphasizes the human responsibility for sin, as sin can be avoided with human reason. Hence Philo is not completely consistent in presenting a specifically “evil” human inclination; in the passages noted above, humans’ freedom of choice underlies the more optimistic possibility that rational humans will have a proclivity for good. Regardless of whether human nature is basically evil or good, Philo portrays evildoing as the result of human free will and the potential for evil that results from it. Therefore, humans bear full responsibility for any evil action. This general approach is difficult to reconcile with the puzzling homily on Deut. 30: 15, 19 found in the lost fourth book of the Legum allegoriae that begins:104 μακάριον χρῆμα, προθέντος ἀμφότερα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τὸ ἄμεινον ἰσχύειν λαβεῖν τὴν ψυχήν· μακαριώτερον δὲ τὸ μὴ αὐτὴν ἑλέσθαι, τὸν δὲ δημιουργὸν προσάγεσθαι καὶ βελτιῶσαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ κυρίως άνθρώπινος νοῦς αἱρεῖται δι᾽ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ἐπιθροσύνην θεοῦ δωρουμένου τοῖς ἀξίοις τὰ κάλλιστα·

It is a happy thing for the soul to be able to choose the better of the two choices put forward by the Creator, but it is happier for it not to choose, but for the Creator to bring it over to himself and improve it. For, strictly speaking, the human mind does not choose the good through itself, but in accordance with the thoughtfulness of God, since he bestows the fairest things upon the worthy.

The passage continues to describe free will as an illusion of sorts, appropriate for those who have not been “initiated in the great mysteries.” Philo’s statement here directly contradicts other passages in Philo, including Deus 50, where Philo specifically refers to Deut 30: 15. In this fragment of Legum allegoriae, Philo accepts a view similar to that of Stoic thought, that all acts have been determined by God. Several scholars have attempted to resolve this contradiction.105 However, based on the previous analysis of Ben Sira and his 104 The text of this fragment is found in the Res Sacrae of Leontius and John (Cod. Vat. 1553), and is printed in J. R. Harris, ed., Fragments of Philo Judaeus (Cambridge: University Press, 1886), 8. Translation follows Wolfson, Philo, 1.442, parts of which are based on the translation of J. Drummond, Philo Judaeus, or The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion (2 vols.; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), 1: 347 note. 105 Wolfson, Philo, 1: 446 concludes that the statement in Legum allegoriae refers only to the choice for good. (See also ibid., 1: 457–8 and idem, “Philo on Free Will,” HTR 35 [1942]: 163–4.) Winston, in contrast, has concluded that Philo, like Plato (in his view), is a proponent of “relative” free will; namely, that while the choice process is ultimately determined by one’s (predetermined) moral character, the participation in this choice renders a human being morally culpable for any evildoing; see idem, “Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhilo 3 (1974–1975): 47–70, particularly 49–50, 57. Winston’s approach may explain passages such as Leg. 3.88, where God is described as knowing all of a person’s future actions and passions from the womb, and Leg. 3.75–76, a passage that intimates that God has created some souls with a faulty character (φυσίς), and others with an excellent one.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

126

The Inclination to Sin in the Book of Ben Sira

“contextual” approach to sin, it may be preferable to follow the approach of J. Drummond, who shies away from any attempt at reconciliation with Philo’s other statements.106 Another exception to Philo’s emphasis on free will is found, as in Ben Sira, in the context of prayer. In Ebr. 125–126, Philo describes the need to petition God that one not take the first steps toward evil:107 εὔχου δὴ τῷ θεῷ μηδέποτε ἔξαρχος οἴνου γενέσθαι, τουτέστι μηδέποτε ἑκὼν ἀφηγήσασθαι τῆς εἰς ἀπαιδευσίαν καὶ ἀφροσύνην ἀγούσης ὁδοῦ…τελεσφορηθεισῶν δέ σοι τῶν εὐχῶν ἰδιώτης μὲν ἔτι μένειν οὐκ ἂν δύναιο, τὴν δὲ μεγίστην ἡγεμονιῶν ἀρχήν, ἱερωσύνην, κτήσῃ.

“Pray (εὔχου) then to God that you may never become a leader in the wine song, never, that is, voluntarily take the first steps on the path which leads to indiscipline and folly… But if your prayers (τῶν εὐχῶν) are fulfilled you can no longer remain a layman, but will obtain the office which is the greatest of headships, the priesthood.” (Ebr. 125–126)

In this passage, as in the prayer found in Sir 23: 2–6, Philo borrows a theme from the prayer genre: the need for divine assistance to turn away from evil. The language of prayer (εὔχου, τῶν εὐχῶν), while serving as a figure of speech, indicates the source of the idea that God’s help is needed to overcome the desire to sin. In parallel to Qumran prayer, particularly the Hodayot, this idea is also linked to a form of divine election: if one’s prayers are fulfilled, one will be a “priest” of sorts, as opposed to a regular person (ἰδιώτης).

Conclusion: Ben Sira and Philo The juxtaposition of Ben Sira and Philo’s approaches to sin elucidates the differences between them despite their common goals. Both of these thinkers address the issue of sin and its source directly. The similarity between Prov. 2.82 and Sir 15: 11–20 demonstrates how important it was for both Philo and Ben Sira to distance God from blame for human sin and to emphasize the individual’s responsibility for her sin. However, despite this common aim, there are significant differences between Ben Sira and Philo that are not the direct result of their very different milieus. Ben Sira does not portray an evil inclination as such; humans act according to their character, and may thus do evil or good. Philo, in contrast, has a definitely pessimistic view of human tendencies. For Philo, humans have a natural tendency to evil. God is not responsible for this capability for evil; its creation was thus delegated to others. Various passages in Ben Sira reflect different views of sin but are not inte106 107

See Drummond, Philo Judaeus, 347 note. Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

127

grated into his central approach, where the source of sin is directly addressed, in Sir 15: 11–20. While Philo is more consistent, his works, as well, reflect some inconsistency. The most difficult passage to reconcile with Philo’s usual emphasis on free will is found in the lost fourth book of the Legum allegoriae. However, another incongruity mirrors a similar variance in Ben Sira: the pairing of prayer with the declaration that divine assistance is required to fight sin. Together, the works of Ben Sira and Philo demonstrate the consistency and inconsistency of the wisdom and the philosophical approaches to the problem of sin during this period. When addressing the problem of sin directly, the works reviewed here aim to remove responsibility from God and to place it firmly on the shoulders of the thinking human being. This emphasis on human agency and freedom of choice is central to the wisdom enterprise. At the same time, the flexibility that ancient texts allowed themselves provides the audience of these works with different approaches in other contexts, particularly when the influence of another genre such as prayer is prominent.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Six After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch The preceding survey of Second Temple texts of diverse genres has illuminated various aspects of approaches to the idea of an inherent inclination to sin. By exploring texts composed soon after the destruction of the Second Temple, it is possible to shed light on the continued acceptance of some of these approaches and to highlight explanations of sin that are not prominent in earlier texts. The examination of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch demonstrates the extent to which the idea of an inevitable inclination to sin, the importance of free will in the choice to sin, and the role of Adam and his transgression became central to explanations of sin following the destruction.

4 Ezra 4 Ezra1 was written in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, dating to approximately 81–96 C. E.2 It is commonly categorized as an apocalypse, although it also displays characteristics of the prophetic and wisdom genres.3 Composed in Hebrew, 4 Ezra has survived only in secondary or ter-

1 This work is also known as 2 Esdras 3–14 and in the Vulgate as 4 Esdras 3–14. 2 Esdras, as a whole, is commonly acknowledged as a composite work and is presented as such in early Latin mss: 2 Esd 1–2 is known as 5 Ezra, and 2 Esd 15–16 is labeled 6 Ezra. 4 Ezra begins with 3: 1, maintaining the original chapter and verse numbers of 2 Esdras. 2 This conclusion is reached based on an analysis of the “eagle vision” of 4 Ezra, 11: 1– 12: 51, depicting an eagle with three heads symbolizing three kings, one who will die in his bed, a second who will be assassinated by the third, and the third whose reign will be ended by the Messiah. If these rulers are identified as Vespasian, Titus (who was widely believed to be murdered by Domitian) and Domitian, then the author likely lived during Domitian’s reign. See E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols.; 4th ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909) 3: 325–8; J. Myers, I and II Esdras (AB 42; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 129; M. A. Knibb and R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of Esdras (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 104–5; M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (ed. F. M. Cross; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 363–5; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 196; and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 270, 275. 3 See M. A. Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1982): 72–74. Knibb notes

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4 Ezra

129

tiary translations of the Greek translation of the Hebrew original.4 Most current scholarship considers 4 Ezra to be a unified work composed by a single author.5 4 Ezra contains seven episodes, commonly called “visions.” The first three visions (chapters 3–9), on which this chapter of the study will focus, consist of a series of dialogues between Ezra and an angel sent to answer his questions. Assumptions about sin and its source play a prominent part in this section of 4 Ezra. The author of 4 Ezra makes no attempt to prove that the evil inclination, or as it is called in 4 Ezra, the “evil heart,” is internal and innate to the human condition; this is assumed as a problematic fact, and produces one of the central theological challenges of the book.6 The narrative of 4 Ezra begins thirty years after the destruction of the First Temple, when the distressed Ezra asks God why the Israelites have been punished severely for their sins while their Babylonian conquerors, also sinners, are spared. The problem represented by the “evil heart” is prominent in Ezra’s that 4 Ezra is too distinctive to be a typical apocalypse and therefore cannot be used to explore the characteristics of the genre as a whole. 4 On the composition of 4 Ezra in Hebrew, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 10–11 and Myers, I and II Esdras, 115–7. See Stone, ibid., 1–9, for an overview of the versions and their relationship to the posited Hebrew original. 5 While R. Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889) and G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (London: Pitman, 1912), were influential in early source critical approaches to 4 Ezra, most contemporary scholars approach 4 Ezra as a single work following the whole-text analysis of H. Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), 2: 331–402; see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 14–21 and n. 24 below. 6 The presupposition that the “evil heart” itself is a problem that must be solved may be evidence of a narrowing of explanations for sin in Jewish thought following the destruction of the Second Temple. The combination of the theological implications of the disaster and the practical consequences of a more confined Jewish community may have caused a consolidation of theological views regarding sin and its source; contra F. García Martínez, who has portrayed 4 Ezra as a continuation of the (pre-destruction) apocalyptic tradition. Martínez maintains that the author of 4 Ezra sees the origin of evil as “outside history” and proposes that the author of 4 Ezra dismisses the possibility of Belial or an “angel of darkness” as the possible origin of evil in order to avoid Qumranic dualism. However, as noted by Collins, there is no evidence that 4 Ezra belongs to the same tradition as 1 Enoch regarding the origin of evil or that 4 Ezra deliberately rejects the dualistic explanation of evil found in the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III.13-IV.26). 4 Ezra refers neither to demons nor to two spirits. The explanation of the origin of evil in 4 Ezra is not outside of history, but at its beginning, with the creation of humans. It is the human heart that holds the source of evil. As Collins observes, “This is not a disagreement with a common framework, but a divergence that arises from radically different premises”; see Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 297–8, and cf. F. García Martínez, “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (ed. E. Tigchelaar; STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 162–4; repr. and transl. of “Traditions communes dans le IVe Esdras et dans les MSS de Qumrân” RQ 15 (1991).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

130

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

initial speech (4 Ezra 3: 1–36). The speech begins with a history of the world and its sinners, slightly reminiscent of that in CD II.16b–III.12a (see chapter 4). According to Ezra, all human generations from the time of Adam have been sinners, with just a few notable exceptions (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David). However, the crux of his history is found in the description of the revelation at Sinai and its ineffectiveness in preventing the sinning of the Israelites:7 (20) “Yet you did not take away from them their evil heart, so that the Torah might bring forth fruit in them. (21) For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. (22) Thus the disease became permanent; the Torah was in the people’s heart along with the evil root, but what was good departed, and the evil remained.” (4 Ezra 3: 20–22)

In Ezra’s description, the “wicked heart” did not originate with Adam’s sin; rather, the wicked heart, which Adam bears as the first human being, was the cause of his sin.8 The term “evil heart” (cor malum/malignum) reflects a biblical phrase.9 As M. E. Stone notes, the actual origin of this evil heart is not clear here, although in 7: 92 the author comes close to implying that it is from God.10 The evil heart, as the author is careful to note in 3: 20, was not removed

7 All translations of 4 Ezra in this chapter follow Stone, Fourth Ezra, with small changes to the old-style English preferred by Stone. 8 Contra W. Harnisch, who follows E. Brandenburger and G. H. Box in distinguishing between the evil inclination, which he identifies with the “evil seed,” and the “evil heart” that results from it as a consequence of Adam’s sin; see W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 48–49 and n. 5 ad loc.; E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5, 12–21 (1. Kor 15) (WMANT 7; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), 33; and G. H. Box “IV Ezra,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2: 563 n. 20. According to Brandenburger (ibid., 33), 4 Ezra 3: 20 expresses the idea that the “evil root” (i. e. the evil inclination) and the Torah are both in one’s heart; the resulting “fruit” (which may be the “evil heart”) depends on free choice. Such an interpretation is rejected by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 75, who notes that to attribute the “evil heart” to voluntary action contradicts the argument of the chapter. In addition, as noted by A. L. Thompson, the evil heart is used as an explanation of Adam’s sin in 3: 21, 26, in which case it cannot be the result of Adam yielding to his evil inclination; see A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 334–5, 352 n. 83. (In Ezra’s initial speech, the result of Adam’s sin is death for all future generations, as described in 3: 7.) 9 See Jer 3: 17, 7: 24, 11: 8, 16: 12, 18: 12. The “evil heart” also echoes the “heart of stone” in Ezek 11: 19 and 36: 26, with the implicit promise that, like the “heart of stone” in these verses, it will be removed at the eschaton. 10 “The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4 Ezra

131

from the Israelites, even when they received God’s law, and therefore they, like Adam before them, sinned and were exiled.11 While the description of the law and the “evil root” that remain in the people’s hearts is again reminiscent of the choice presented in CD II.16b–III.12a, where human beings must choose between the divine law and their own will, a more illuminating parallel is found in the “Words of the Luminaries,” 4Q504 (Frgs. 1 + 2 ii recto) 13–16 (addressed in chapter 2), where the speaker depicts God’s planting of the law in his heart as a safeguard against sin. In fact, the idea that the law imbues a person with special power against the desire to sin can also be found in apotropaic prayer of this period, as will be further discussed in the second section of this study. The Songs of the Sage (4Q511) and 4QIncantation (4Q444) describe the laws that are within the speaker strengthening him in his battle with demonic forces of sin who have also entered his frame. Similarly, Sir 21: 11, discussed above, enjoins the reader to use the law in order to control her inclination. In a Cave 4 copy of the Damascus Document, God, by not giving other nations the law, has “made them go astray in a trackless void” ‫( ותתעם בתהו ולו דרך‬4QDa [4Q266] 11 10–11).12 Later rabbinic literature correspondingly portrays the Torah as a preventive measure against the evil inclination.13 In 4 Ezra, however, the protagonist argues with the view that the law effectively combats the desire to sin. Ezra complains that the law has been completely insufficient; without the removal of the evil heart, the law is ineffective in preventing the “disease” (evil) that eventually takes over the human being. Hence, while employing disease and plant terms for sin such as are found in the prayer in Syriac Psalm 155 (11QPsa XXIV; see chapter 2 above), the passage in 4 Ezra presents a view that contrasts strongly with what is reflected in Second Temple prayers. While these prayers present the law as an almost guaranteed safeguard against sin, for Ezra the law is simply not enough. Similarly, in 4 Ezra 9: 31, the law is depicted as a plant: “For behold, I sow my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and you shall be glorified through it forever.” But Ezra immediately follows this “quotation” of God’s words with

which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death” (7: 92); see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 63. 11 Adam’s descendants have not inherited his sin; they simply resemble him in their individual failure to resist sin; see Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, 34–35. For a parallel to this idea in polemical form, see 2 Bar. 54: 15–19, discussed below. 12 Text and translation follow Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documenta.” 13 See Sifre Deut. 45, b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b. In Song Rab. 1: 2.4 the evil inclination is actually expelled at Sinai by the revelation of the commandment “You shall not have other gods before me,” but returns when the Israelites request an intermediary for the other commandments, thereby rejecting direct revelation. Moses promises the distraught nation that the inclination will be expelled in the future messianic age (‫)לעתיד לבוא‬, citing Ezek 36: 26.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

132

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

an indictment of the inefficacy of the “sowing”: “But though our fathers received the law, they did not keep it, and did not observe the statutes…” (4 Ezra 9: 32a).14 Correspondingly, in Rom 5: 20; 7: 7–13, Paul completely overturns the notion whereby the giving of the law combats the desire to sin. In a similar literary framework, namely the history of sin, Paul attributes the increase of sin to the revelation of the law at Sinai (Rom 5: 20, 7: 7–13). The theological impetus for this reversal of expectations is comparable to that found in 4 Ezra: explaining the absolute impossibility of a mere human resisting sin. For Ezra in 4 Ezra, this is a function of the evil heart; for Paul in Romans, it is the result of the human being’s existence in (material) flesh, not spirit (Rom 7: 14). It is possible that, like the author of 4 Ezra, Paul was troubled by the widespread belief that the law was sufficient to fight sin; the strength of this belief necessitated an equally strong contradictory statement by Paul as a step toward abrogating the law. In 4 Ezra 4: 4, in response to Ezra’s initial plea in 3: 1–36, the angel Uriel promises to reveal “why the heart is evil” if Ezra can answer one of three riddles. The angel has no argument with Ezra’s declaration that humans were created with a heart that is inevitably evil. In fact, the angel says as much in 4 Ezra 4: 30: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness it has produced until now, and will produce until the time of threshing comes!” However, the angel promises to answer the unasked question that follows directly from this assumption: why would God create a person with an inevitably evil inclination? Through the riddles that follow, Uriel “shows” Ezra that this question is illegitimate: a mere human, necessarily corrupt as part of the corrupted world, cannot understand “the way of the incorruptible.” Consequently Ezra stands in the face of a particularly cruel paradox: because he is corrupt, he cannot understand why the Deity has made him so.15 14 It is important to note that “the law” itself is not a consistent entity throughout 4 Ezra. A survey of the appearance of the term “the law” in 4 Ezra by K. M. Hogan (“The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 38 [2007]: 530–52) has shown that it has a variety of meanings, including the law of Moses, the ways of God (which include laws of nature), and general or esoteric wisdom. This finding speaks against Hogan’s assumption that the word tôrâ is the Vorlage of every appearance of the term “law” in 4 Ezra. It appears to be the concept of the law that is meaningful to the author of 4 Ezra and, one assumes, to his intended audience, rather than a specific embodiment of it. 15 In the Armenian version of 4 Ezra, this problem is eventually addressed in an addition following 8: 62 that is at odds with the rest of the book. Ezra is able to ask God directly why humans desire evil. The answer is that God did not create humans as evil at all; God gave humans knowledge, the law and an honored place among creations. They corrupted themselves, and abused these gifts. (For an English translation of the Armenian, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 278–9 note u.)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Inevitable Sinfulness in 4 Ezra

133

Inevitable Sinfulness in 4 Ezra As presented by the author of 4 Ezra, all humans are inevitably sinful as a result of their “evil heart.” Even in the context of a plea to God to reward the just, Ezra declares that there has never been a time when the inhabitants of earth did not sin (3: 35). All of humanity sins (4: 38); there has never been a man who has not sinned (7: 46), and this too has been the way of Ezra’s people, whose “evil heart” has grown strong and led them to ruin (7: 48). This is maintained despite isolated statements by Ezra that there are a few righteous people who suffer in this world and are rewarded in the next (see 4 Ezra 7: 18 and 7: 47). In none of these examples, however, is sinfulness a condition that exists independently of one’s actual sins. The evil heart is expressed in the desire to sin; the inevitable sins that follow demonstrate the sinfulness of humankind. Ezra consequently protests the human situation. If everyone alive is burdened and defiled with wickedness (7: 68), and there is no possibility of being otherwise, why is there judgment of these wayward sinners after death (7: 69)? The angel responds that humans have understanding and were given laws; in spite of this, they sinned (7: 71–2).16 In this manner the author of 4 Ezra describes the particularly cruel predicament of the human: while the law does not effectively combat the evil inclination from Ezra’s human perspective, it does make the hapless human a full moral agent in the eyes of God.17 In 4 Ezra 7: 71 the angel deliberately echoes Ezra’s own lament in 7: 63–69 that humans

16 The Talmud in b. B. Bat. 16a puts a similar debate into the mouths of Job and his companions: ,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫ אמר לפניו‬,‫ בקש איוב לפטור את כל העולם כולו מן הדין‬:‫אמר רבא‬ ‫ את זה טהרת ואת זה‬:‫ בראת חמור פרסותיו קלוטות; )רש"י‬,‫בראת שור פרסותיו סדוקות‬ ‫ מי‬,‫ בראת רשעים‬,‫ בראת גיהנם; בראת צדיקים‬,‫טמאת הכל בא על ידך( בראת גן עדן‬ ‫מעכב על ידך! ומאי אהדרו ליה חבריה ]דאיוב[? אף אתה תפר יראה ותגרע שיחה לפני‬ .‫ ברא לו תורה תבלין‬,‫אל – ברא הקדוש ברוך הוא יצר הרע‬ “Raba said: Job wished to free the entire world from judgment (for sin). He said before him (God): Master of the Universe, you created the ox with cloven hooves, you created the donkey with whole hooves (Rashi: this one you made pure and the other you made impure; it is all in your hands); you created the Garden of Eden, you created Gehinnom; you created righteous people, you created wicked people: who prevents you? And what did [Job’s] companions answer him? ‘You subvert fear (of God) and restrain prayer before God’ (Job 15: 4): the Holy One Blessed be He created the evil inclination, (but) he created the Torah as an antidote for it.” (Translation mine.) In this Talmudic passage, Job presents an argument similar to Ezra’s, although far more deterministic in its approach; as God has created both good and wicked humans, how can he hold them to account at all? His friends answer by presenting a logic similar to that of the angel in 4 Ezra and to that of other Second Temple texts cited above: God did, in fact, create the evil inclination, but the Torah is sufficient to combat it. 17 Compare Rom 5: 13, “Sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law” (NRSV). See also Rom 5: 20; 7: 7–13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

134

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

are created with a mind, and are therefore subject to judgment. Humans are legally responsible for every sin they do, despite their innate inclination to sin.

The Angel and 4 Maccabees Ezra’s angelic interlocutor consistently propounds a belief in the human capability to fight the desire to sin, albeit with great effort (see 4 Ezra 7: 19–24, 7: 89, 92, 7: 127, 8: 56–60, and especially 7: 72, discussed below).18 From the perspective of the angel, humans can always avoid sin, although the vast majority has not. (The ability of humans to avoid sin is eventually espoused by Ezra, but only in the epilogue of the book, 4 Ezra 14: 34.) But according to the angel’s account even the righteous are not free from the constant struggle with the evil heart. In 7: 92 the angel describes the righteous as engaged in a long struggle against their innate impulse to evil (cum eis plasmatum cogitamentum malum) that ends in victory only after death (7: 88–99)19 and in the “last times” (8: 53).20 From the angel’s point-of-view, the avoidance of sin is a lifelong struggle, but still an achievable goal. The choice that humans have not made is powerfully described by the angel in 4 Ezra 7: 21–24: “…(21) For God strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live and what they should observe to avoid punishment. (22) Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, (23) and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared 18 As noted by M. A. Knibb (Second Book of Esdras, 174–5), while Ezra generally takes the position that all humans are doomed because of inevitable sin, the angel is consistent in his insistence that humans could avoid sin and are therefore responsible for it. (The angel acknowledges the struggle that this involves, but it is a struggle that lies within the power of the human to win; see the angel’s description of the righteous in 7: 89, 92 and his portrayal of the struggle against sin in 7: 127: “This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth wages.”) 19 A similar idea is found in another post-destruction work, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (LAB). In LAB 33: 3, Deborah warns the people that they will not be able to repent after death: “But if you seek to do evil in the underworld after your death, you will not be able, because the desire for sinning will cease and the evil inclination will lose its power…” (Translation follows H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation [2 vols.; AGJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 1: 152; dating of this text to post-destruction follows Jacobson, ibid., 1: 199–210.) This work, like 4 Ezra, reflects the assumption that it is the evil inclination that causes sin, further demonstrating this paradigm’s prominence following the destruction. 20 As noted by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 64 n. 21, the idea that the “evil heart” will be removed in the end-times, already found in Ezek 11: 19, is also reflected in Apoc. Mos. 13: 5 and is found in rabbinic texts such as Song Rab. 1: 2.4 (see n. 13 above) and Midrash Tanḥ uma, ed. S. Buber, Ki Tiśa 13.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Angel and 4 Maccabees

135

that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways! (24) They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works.”

Thus, according to the angel, the very transmission of God’s commandments should have sufficed to compel humans to honor these commandments. Humans, in their unbelievable lack of faith, have broken this divine equation. The angel of 4 Ezra, while not denying the innate “evil heart,” proposes that humans are responsible for sin because they have been given both law and reason: For this reason, therefore, those who dwell on earth shall be tormented, because though they had understanding they committed iniquity, and though they received the commandments they did not keep them, and though they obtained the law they dealt unfaithfully with what they received. (4 Ezra 7: 72)

This statement mirrors a similar one made in 4 Macc. 2: 21–3: 5, where reason and the law are presented as God’s antidote against human passions: (21) Now when God fashioned human beings, he planted in them their passions and habits, (22) but at the same time he enthroned the mind among the senses as a sacred governor over them all, (23) and to this mind he gave the law… (4 Macc. 2: 21–23a)21

While the dating of 4 Maccabees is disputed (with proposed dates ranging from 18–55 C. E. to the beginning of the reign of Hadrian in 118–135 C. E.),22 this work may yet be seen as reflecting “common” wisdom during this period. The correlation between the angel’s words and the passage in 4 Maccabees is further evidence that the angel in 4 Ezra echoes wisdom traditions. Ezra is not immediately swayed by the angel’s arguments. It is only long after Ezra’s apparent change of heart in the fourth vision (9: 26–10: 59) that he finally accepts the angel’s view. In Ezra’s divinely commanded last words to the people of Israel he declares: “If you, then, will rule over your minds and discipline your hearts, you shall be kept alive, and after death you shall obtain mercy” (4 Ezra 14: 34). The source of Ezra’s change of heart and acceptance of the angel’s point-of-view remains a mystery. To most scholars it is the result not of logic, but of an internal transformation.23 21 Translation follows S. Westerholm, “4 Makkabees,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 530–41. 22 See E. J. Bickerman, “The Date of Fourth Maccabees,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees (ed. A. Tropper; 2 vols.; AJEC 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 266–71; deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 18; A. Dupont-Sommer, Le Quatrième Livre des Machabées (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1939), 75–86; U. Breitenstein, Beobachtungen zu Sprache: Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuchs (Basel: Schwabe, 1978), 177–8. For a complete overview of arguments for different dates of 4 Maccabees, see deSilva, ibid., 14–18. 23 Collins proposes that Ezra’s change is one of “pastoral necessity”; when Ezra is forced to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

136

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

The authorial meaning behind the different theological stances of Ezra and the angel is also a matter of debate.24 In light of the analysis above, it appears that the author of 4 Ezra, by placing an accepted view regarding human take the role of the comforter in the fourth vision, he realizes that it is necessary to let oneself be persuaded even if one’s problems of faith cannot be resolved (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 210–1). G. Hallbäck maintains that Ezra experiences a “transfer of competence” in this vision, having proven his worthiness through his concern for Zion and human salvation; G. Hallbäck, “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra,” SJOT 6 (1992): 283. E. Brandenburger proposes that Ezra’s repeated assertions in the fourth vision (in 9: 39 and 10: 5) that he dismissed the thoughts/discourse in which he had been previously engaged indicate that, from the point-of-view of the author, Ezra has simply abandoned the entire set of questions that has occupied him since the beginning of the book; E. Brandenburger, Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches (ATANT 68; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981), 77–78. Harnisch portrays the fourth vision as transformative for Ezra via the role he must play in it; Harnisch, “Die Ironie der Offenbarung. Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Esra,” ZAW 95 (1983): 75–95. M. E. Stone describes Ezra’s meeting with the weeping woman/mourning Zion in the fourth vision as a “conversion experience” in which Ezra’s view of the world is changed; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 31–33, and idem, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion,” JSJ 12: 203. However, Stone maintains that prior to this experience, Ezra has already begun to accept the angel’s arguments. He proposes that in the first three visions the author of 4 Ezra “externalizes his convictions” in the character of the angel, while in the fourth vision, through a conversion experience shared by both the protagonist and, to some extent, the author, he internalizes these convictions. Most recently, K. M. Hogan has suggested that the transformation is enabled by the shifting of Ezra’s attention from the “hopeless” present to the promise of divine salvation of Israel in the eschaton; see Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008) . 24 Gunkel has explained the argument between the angel and Ezra as reflecting a conflict within the author between the two views (Das vierte Buch Esra, 340). M. E. Stone (Fourth Ezra, 33) follows H. Gunkel and sees the final solution to this conflict occurring through Ezra’s conversion experience in the fourth vision. Collins (Apocalyptic Imagination, 200), too, favors the approach taken by Gunkel and Stone. Thompson (Responsibility for Evil, 217) proposes that the angel is a device used by the author to maintain the “appearance of orthodoxy” while voicing dissent through the character of Ezra; the angel represents an orthodoxy that, in the author’s view, is unrealistic regarding human nature. Several scholars have argued that the differences between the stance of the angel and Ezra indicate an ideological conflict between the author and another group. In particular, Brandenburger (Adam und Christus, 30) and Harnisch (Verhängnis und Verheissung, 64) have understood the angel as representing the author’s views while Ezra represents heretical, proto-gnostic views with which the author disagrees. However, their approach has been aptly refuted by A. P. Hayman, who notes that Ezra would not have been chosen as the mouthpiece for heretical views and that his views are, in fact, neither heretical nor Gnostic but find their parallels in criticisms found in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Lamentations and Qoheleth, and in later rabbinic literature; see Hayman, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in the Ezra Apocalypse,” JSJ 6 (1975): 50–53. In her recent study, K. M. Hogan has argued that in the initial dialogues, Uriel represents eschatological wisdom (as reflected, in her opinion, in 4QInstruction) while Ezra represents traditional, “covenantal” wisdom (as found in Ben Sira and Bar 3: 9–4: 4); see Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 101–57.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

137

responsibility in the mouth of an angel (that is, a divine agent who acts as an antagonist to the sympathetic and human protagonist), is contrasting the religious ideal with human experience. This religious ideal is found in didactic literature like 4 Maccabees, in Ben Sira, and in covenantal texts. 4 Ezra expresses the idea that, although in theory humans have both understanding and the freedom to choose the law of God, in human experience the desire to sin is inescapable. The only purpose of the understanding bestowed upon humans, in the view of the fatalistic Ezra, is to enable them to contemplate their inevitable doom (4 Ezra 7: 63–69). The belief in the human ability to fight the desire to sin with the help of reason and the law, a theological stance that the author of 4 Ezra supports at the close of the book, conflicts with his experience as described by Ezra throughout the majority of the book.25 This internal conflict on the part of the author is not expressive of a split personality but reflects the constructive doubt epitomized in Job and Qoheleth.26

2 Baruch and 4 Ezra The similarities between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch (also known as the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), both written in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, have been widely noted, although the direction of influence is a matter of dispute.27 Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch is an apocalypse that addresses the problem of theodicy, in particular the theological challenge of the destruction, in a series of dialogues initiated by the protagonist. 2 Baruch thereby draws on themes typical of wisdom literature. Unlike the author of 4 Ezra, however, the author of 2 Baruch does not see humans as inevitable sinners. For the author of 2 Baruch, the problem presented by the destruction is that the righteous have been destroyed unjustly (2 Bar. 14: 6) even though Zion (including, apparently, its sinners) should have been spared on account of the righteous (14: 7). The result is that those “for whom (the world) was made” have perished, while the earth remains (14: 19). God’s answer to Baruch is the angel’s

25 The explanation of the conflict between the angel and Ezra proposed here is closest to that of Thompson, Responsibility for Evil (see n. 24), although not identical to it. 26 On the “tradition” of constructive doubt, see Hayman, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 55– 56. In Hayman’s estimation, the anguished tone of 4 Ezra reflects the author’s mental turmoil at the inadequacy of traditional Jewish theodicy combined with an intense religious experience of God. 27 There have been four different opinions in the scholarship on the connection between 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra: (1) 2 Baruch was dependent on 4 Ezra; (2) 4 Ezra was dependent on 2 Baruch; (3) both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra relied on an earlier source; and (4) the direction of dependence cannot be determined. These opinions are reviewed in Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283–5. Nickelsburg himself argues for the primacy of 4 Ezra.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

138

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

response to Ezra: because humans have accepted the law and consciously disobeyed it, they are responsible and will be appropriately penalized:28 (5) True, man would not have understood my judgment unless he had accepted the Law, and unless I had instructed him in understanding. (6) But now, because he has transgressed knowingly, and because of this, behold, since he knows, he will be punished. (2 Bar. 15: 5–6)

However, unlike the continuing dialogue in 4 Ezra, there is no clear allusion to an evil inclination (with perhaps one exception; see the next section).29

Adam’s Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch In several places in 4 Ezra, the inborn and human evil heart is given a historical context: it is portrayed as an inherited trait from Adam. In most of these verses the source of sin, namely the evil heart or inclination, is described as inborn in Adam (3: 20–22, 25–26; 4: 30), and thus beginning at creation. However, in 4 Ezra 7: 118–126 it is the sin of Adam that is blamed for the evil inclination of his descendants: (118) O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the misfortune was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. (119) For what good is it to us, if an immortal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? (120) Or that an everlasting hope has been predicted to us, but we are miserably shamed? Or that safe and healthful treasuries have been reserved for us, but we have erred wickedly? (4 Ezra 7: 118–120)

The context indicates that the “misfortune” caused by Adam in 7: 118 is not simply death or toil, as in 4 Ezra 3: 7 and 7: 11.30 The passage at 7: 118–120 expresses the tragedy of the sinning human, who has lost the opportunity for receiving the reward contained in the next world. According to these verses Adam’s sin is the cause of the sinning of his descendants. It is not sin but the evil inclination that is inherited from Adam.31 Elsewhere in 4 Ezra, Adam is to blame for the evil inclination as the first human, and is therefore the source of the “evil heart” in his descendants. But even here, when

28 All citations and translations of 2 Baruch in this chapter follow D. M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances (JCTCRS 6; New York: T & T Clark, 2009). 29 The fact that humans are corruptible is lamented alongside their mortality (2 Bar. 21: 19), but is not directly addressed. 30 And as in the possible reference in the Damascus Document (also noted in the previous chapter, n. 71), CD X.8–9: ‫“ כי במעל האדם מעטו ימו‬for in the treachery of man/Adam his days became few.” 31 See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 65.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Adam’s Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

139

Adam’s sin is blamed, it has not caused an “original sin” from which humans must be freed. Adam’s descendants have themselves accomplished “deeds that bring death” (7: 119), apparently due to the evil heart inherited from Adam following his sin. In addition, only in this passage is Adam’s sin (and not his evil heart) blamed for the sinning of his descendants. While Adam’s fall is apparently the source of the evil inclination according to 7: 118, this isolated lament demonstrates that, for the author of 4 Ezra, the idea that Adam’s sin had lasting effects on humans’ moral condition did not contradict his main position. The origin of the evil inclination through Adam’s fall does not challenge the concept most central to 4 Ezra: an evil heart is innate and inevitable for humankind.32 In fact, tracing the evil heart to Adam’s sin (and not to the creation of Adam) contradicts neither the innate nature nor the inevitability of the desire to sin; it simply removes the source of the desire to sin one step further from God and the act of creation. The distancing of sin from God, while a central concern of Ben Sira and Philo, is not particularly important to the author of 4 Ezra. In 4 Ezra the protagonist has no problem attributing the tragic condition of humanity to God. Thus the description of Adam’s fall as the cause of his descendants’ sin occurs only once, as a literary device to provide Ezra with a target for his lament. An interesting parallel to this approach is found in 2 Baruch. In 2 Bar. 48: 42–43, Baruch portrays Adam and Eve’s sin as the source of future generations’ corruption. His lament begins, as does 4 Ezra 7: 118, with a rhetorical question directed at Adam: (42) And I answered and said, “O Adam, what have you done to all those who are born from you? And what will be said to the first Eve who heeded the serpent? (43) For all this multitude are going to corruption. Nor is there any numbering those whom the fire devours.” (2 Bar. 48: 42–43)

The passage is unmistakable in its meaning: innumerable sinners can trace the tragedy of their sinning to the first sin, perpetrated by Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, a later declaration in 2 Bar. 54: 15–19 denies any such possibility: (15) “For though Adam sinned first and brought untimely death upon all, also those who were born from him have prepared for himself33 the coming torment. (16) And also, each one of them has chosen for himself glories to come. For truly he who believes will receive reward. (17) But now, as for you, you wicked that now are, turn to destruction, because you will be visited quickly, since you previously rejected the understanding of the Most High.… (19) So Adam is not the cause, except only for his own soul. But each of us has been the Adam of his own soul.” (54: 15–17, 19)

32 As noted by Stone, ibid., as these two ideas (Adam’s fall and the evil heart) are not explicitly integrated, the idea of Adam’s fall does not play a major role in understanding the origins of evil in 4 Ezra. 33 That is, “each for himself.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

140

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

Here, as opposed to the literary lament penned in 48: 42–47, the author presents a statement directly opposing the idea of Adam as the originator of future generations’ sins. Adam’s sin has, instead, caused the ultimate death of his descendants (54: 15). This direct polemic is unlike anything found in 4 Ezra. In 2 Bar. 54: 15–19 the goal of the author is to ensure that sinners take responsibility for their own sins, a concern that is not reflected unambiguously in 4 Ezra. According to this passage in 2 Baruch, sins are the result of a completely free decision: each sinner has “prepared for himself” (and has not been burdened from the beginning with a soul already inclined toward evil), and has consequently “rejected the understanding of the Most High” (54: 17). This emphasis on individual responsibility can also be found in 2 Bar. 56: 10–14, where the mating of the angels with human women in Gen 6: 2 is ultimately attributed to Adam’s sin, which begat human lust (56: 6). In this passage the author is careful to emphasize that, while some angels sinned, the majority of angels restrained themselves (56: 14). Hence one can choose not to sin even when faced with lust and granted the total “freedom” of angels (56: 11). How then could the author of 2 Baruch present a lament blaming Adam for the sins of future generations?34 In both 4 Ezra 7: 118 and in 2 Bar. 48: 42–47, the lament addressed to Adam is literarily motivated. By addressing the progenitor of humankind and lamenting his tremendous error, an error with horrendous consequences for future generations, the protagonist emphasizes the truly tragic position of “contemporary” sinners. Despite the common literary use of Adam’s sin in lament form, for neither 4 Ezra nor 2 Baruch does Adam’s role as first sinner take a central place in the author’s theological approach to sin. In 2 Baruch, the possibility of such a role for Adam’s sin is openly rejected alongside an emphasis on total free will. In contrast, in 4 Ezra the desire to sin is inherited from Adam and is thus both basic to humanity and inevitable; whether this desire was created within him or whether it results from his sin matters little to the protagonist Ezra or to the book’s intended audience, who must deal with the consequences regardless. The toil and travail that Adam has brought to the world according to the angel in 4 Ezra 7: 11–12

34 While Harnisch (Verhängnis und Verheissung, 74 n. 1) postulates that 48: 42–43 is an interpolation from a different context, the comparison with the lament in 4 Ezra makes this exercise unnecessary. Another attempt at solving the contradiction in 2 Baruch is presented by Levison, Portraits of Adam, 135–6. Levison explains the contradiction between the passages in 2 Baruch by first depicting Baruch’s query in 48: 42–43 as a non-rhetorical question that simply asks how it could be that Adam and Eve could cause future generations’ sins, and then by interpreting 48: 42–47 as saying that only the wicked are born from Adam and Eve, their spiritual forebears, not the righteous. In Levison’s words, “To be born from Adam is to imitate his sin.” This ingenious explanation is nevertheless far from the plain meaning of the text, which does not indicate the limitation of 48: 42–47 in this way.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

141

is likewise now a basic feature of this world that both the righteous and the wicked must experience; it remains only to hope for the next world. The question of who will merit the realization of this hope is yet another bone of contention between Ezra and the angel. The dialogue in 4 Ezra represents the empirical difficulty with conventional wisdom that resulted from the Temple’s destruction and the magnitude of the tragedy it represented. On the one hand, Ezra accepts that the destruction of the Temple is a punishment for Israel’s sins. On the other hand, these sins, whose scale does not seem to match the enormity of the punishment received, are nearly inevitable as part of the human condition. The “solution” proposed in 4 Ezra that this situation will only be righted during the eschaton or after death (4 Ezra 13; 14: 34–35) is a sad expression of what must have seemed an almost impossibly grim reality to the author.

Conclusion: the Choice to Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch When taken as a whole, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra present different emphases regarding the choice that lies before the human being. In 2 Baruch, each human is free to make a choice, the same choice that stood before the primordial Adam: to sin or not to sin; to reject God or to approach him. No evil inclination need be overcome. In contrast, 4 Ezra presents two viewpoints, both based on the assumption of an innate human inclination toward sin. For 4 Ezra’s protagonist Ezra (before his final “transformation”), humans have little or no choice in fighting the desire to sin; their possession of an evil heart, one that dates from Adam’s creation or from his transgression, results in inevitable sin. In contrast, the stance represented by the angel in 4 Ezra emphasizes human responsibility (and culpability) consequent to humans’ possession of reason and the law. Reason and law together should be sufficient to overcome the evil heart. The angel’s view is presented as a divine, logical ideal not reflected in Ezra’s experience.35 4 Ezra is significant in its portrayal of two different approaches regarding the connection between an innate inclination to sin and free will, both approaches related to those already explored in previous chapters. Ezra and the angel agree that humans have an innate “evil heart,” but disagree on the implications of this evil heart for humankind. Ezra sees the outcome of an innate evil will as inescapable (or nearly inescapable) sin. While the prayers

35 Brandenburger, Verborgenheit Gottes, 67–68, notes a similar representation of an ideal not borne out by human experience in Ezra’s analogy in 9: 34 ff. According to Brandenburger, this analogy presents an absurd argument demonstrating that the promise that sinners will be killed has not been supported by Ezra’s experience.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

142

After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

explored in previous chapters reflect a similar understanding, they rely on divine assistance to rescue the petitioner from this cruel equation. In 4 Ezra, however, no divine assistance is forthcoming. Even knowledge of the law, in the protagonist’s view, is insufficient to overcome the “evil heart.” In this view, it matters little whether humans and their evil heart were created together or whether the evil heart is the result of Adam’s sin, except that the first approach makes God culpable. The opposing view, put in the mouth of a divine messenger, emphasizes free will, and maintains that a combination of human reason and knowledge of divine law should be sufficient to prevent sinning, albeit with great effort, despite the inclination to sin. While it seems, based on his speech to the people in 14: 34, that Ezra finally accepts the angel’s view, the majority of the book finds fault with the view that humans, gifted with reason and the law, have complete free will in choosing not to sin. As presented in 4 Ezra, this belief may be a fine, “God’s-eye view” of how sin should work; humans, however, have trouble experiencing free will when in the midst of the struggle with their “evil heart.” In effect, the author of 4 Ezra contrasts the philosophical ideal of free will presented by Ben Sira and Philo with the experiential aspect of the desire to sin expressed in many prayers. In this way the author of 4 Ezra reacts to an apparently widespread paradigm of sin in wisdom literature: humans have an innate inclination to sin that is subject to human free will. While in the conclusion Ezra must accept the divine view of the ideal, the author of 4 Ezra does not allow the reader to forget that for a human with no prospect of divine aid against the “evil heart,” the chance of fighting sin is slim indeed. This examination of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch allows a clearer focus on ideas found in earlier texts. It is evident that the emphasis on free will and human responsibility, found in the works of Ben Sira and Philo discussed in the previous chapter, had become “accepted wisdom” that presented a problem for the author of 4 Ezra. Similarly, the pessimistic view of human nature espoused by Philo, as well as by the prayer and covenantal texts previously discussed, that all members of the human race must contend with an inborn inclination to sin had become popular enough by the period following the destruction that the author of 4 Ezra could assume this as a problematic fact. The “solution” regarding the source of sin had become a problem in its own right, as the evil inclination’s existence speaks against the very freedom of will argued for in wisdom literature. It is the certain belief in an unavoidable evil inclination that underlies the extreme pessimism of the protagonist of 4 Ezra. Another idea that had become accepted enough to be problematic for the author of 4 Ezra is the idea that the law bestows the power to resist sin. The formulation of this idea in 4 Ezra brings its reflection in Second Temple texts into greater relief. While the prayers and wisdom texts previously explored partially reflect this idea, in 4 Ezra the angel states it directly with unyielding

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

143

conviction. The rejection of this idea by the author of 4 Ezra also sheds light on the earlier argument against this idea by Paul in Rom 7: 7–13. The concepts of human freedom and of the innate evil inclination are found in works that predate the destruction, as explored in previous chapters. In contrast, the idea of “original sin” (namely that sin somehow resulted from Adam’s actions before the expulsion from Eden) is prominent only in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, and is barely alluded to in works that precede the destruction, with the possible exception of Rom 5: 12–21 and 1 Cor 15: 20–22. This may be the result of the very partial witnesses that remain of Second Temple works. However, the striking disparity between works that preceded the destruction and those that followed it points to the need to further distance the innate evil inclination from God following the destruction. The dissociation of the evil inclination from any divine action enabled the justification of God in the face of the extreme punishment for humans’ tendencies to evil: the destruction of the Temple.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Excursus: Inclination to Sin and the Gentile The texts discussed in this section present explanations of the desire to sin in those who should not, in theory, wish to sin: the “righteous” audience or speaker. Those who suffer from an inclination to sin may be members of the composer’s own community or group, the entire nation of Israel, or even humanity as a whole. However, the inherent inclination to sin is also used to explain a slightly different phenomenon: the sinning antagonistic “other,” specifically, the Gentile. In this case there is no desire to vindicate the sinner. Rather, the intention is both to explain why there are nations who cause Israel grief and to demonize these nations. Thus, sinning is portrayed as a basic part of the nature of the “enemy” Gentile. It is for this purpose that the inclination to sin appears in two texts that otherwise do not rely on the idea of an “evil inclination” as the source of sin. One of these is Jubilees, a narrative retelling of the Biblical account from Genesis 1 to Exodus 12, dated to approximately 170–150 B. C. E.1 In Jubilees, the origin of sin is generally explained by means of the Watchers myth, discussed further in the second section of this study. However, the sinful nature of Esau, the paradigmatic forefather of Edom, is explained by referring to his inclination. When Rebecca pleads that Isaac require Esau to swear not to harm Jacob in Jub. 35: 9, she brings force to her argument by reminding Isaac of Esau’s basic evil nature:2 She went in to Isaac and said to him: “I am making one request of you: make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob and not pursue him in hatred. For you know the inclination of Esau – that he has been malicious since his youth and that he is devoid of virtue because he wishes to kill him after your death.” (Jub. 35: 9)

1

See J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: Translated (CSCO 511; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989),

v-vi. 2 This translation is based on that of J. C. VanderKam, Jubilees: Translated, 233–4 and n. 35: 9 ad loc. The second half of this verse is not attested in the Hebrew; in fact, there is not enough space for it to have been included in the Hebrew witnesses of this verse. VanderKam (Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees [HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977], 84–87) argues that the longer text is original and was omitted through parablepsis. This argument does not substantially affect the analysis presented above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

145

Excursus: Inclination to Sin and the Gentile

This verse has been preserved in its entirety in Ethiopic, but fragments of the original Hebrew have survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew Jubilees text in 1Q18 1–2 3 reads:3 [‫ע אתה את יצר֗ עשו אשר הו]א‬ ֗ [‫כי ֗י]וד‬ For you k[no]w the inclination (yēṣ er) of Esau, that it/he…

The Hebrew of the same verse in 4Q223–224 2 i.49 adds:4 ‫אשר ר[ע מן נעוריו‬

is ev]il from his youth…

The description of Esau as “evil from his youth” is a reference to Gen 8: 21, where God describes the inclination of all humankind as “evil from his youth.” The author of Jubilees has reduced this statement regarding all humankind to refer to Esau alone. Rather than God “seeing” humankind’s inclination as in Gen 8: 21, in Jubilees Isaac knows Esau’s basically evil nature. The author of Jubilees thereby succeeds in transferring the deterministic aspect of Gen. 8: 21 to the paradigmatic Gentile Esau, without reducing the free will of humankind as a whole. The Wisdom of Solomon offers a similar view. This wisdom text, dating to a period between 220 B. C. E. and 50 C. E.,5 generally attributes sinning to foolishness (Wis 12: 23, and see Wis 5: 4).6 However, a different state of affairs exists for the Gentiles of the seven nations of the land of Canaan, who were decreed to be wiped out at the hands of the Israelites: (10) κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχὺ ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὅτι πονηρὰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν καὶ ἔμφυτος ἡ κακία αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἀλλαγῇ ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. (11) σπέρμα γὰρ ἦν κατηραμένον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, οὐδὲ εὐλαβούμενός τινα ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἡμάρτανον ἄδειαν ἐδίδους. (10) … but judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn and that their way of thinking would never change. (11) For they were an accursed race from the

3 Text follows J. T. Milik, “17–18. Livre des Jubilés,” in Qumran Cave I (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 82–84. 4 Text follows J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “223–224. 4QpapJubileesh,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 95–140. 5 Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 20–24. Winston (ibid., 23) proposes a narrower date range, suggesting that the reign of Gaius “Caligula” (37–41 C. E.) was the likeliest setting for this work. On the unity of the work and past scholarship proposing composite authorship, see Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 12–14. 6 This is an approach similar to that of Stoicism and other Hellenistic schools of thought; see, for example, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, discussed in chapter 2. Winston (Wisdom of Solomon, 33) describes the approach reflected in Wisdom as “Stoicising Platonism,” a characteristic trademark of Middle Platonism.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

146

Excursus: Inclination to Sin and the Gentile

beginning, and it was not through fear of anyone that you granted them pardon for the things in which they sinned. (Wis 12: 10–11)7

This passage is not only an explanation of the evil perpetrated by these nations (as described in Wis 12: 4–6), but of the severity of the divine decree against them. Their wickedness is inborn and will never change, and therefore their ultimate destruction is an example of divine justice. For the composers of Jubilees and of the Wisdom of Solomon, certain Gentiles do not operate under the same paradigm of sin as Jews or the rest of humanity. While Jews may be subject to external demons (as in the Jubilees narrative) or may be free to turn away from sin through their own intellect (as in the Wisdom of Solomon), these Gentiles are born with an innate sinful nature. In neither case is this idea applied to all Gentiles. Rather, by applying this concept to Gentile nations traditionally hostile to the nation of Israel such as Edom (Esau) or the seven Canaanite nations, the author allowed Jewish readers to apply a similar understanding to their own “hostile Gentiles,” namely whichever Gentile nation was perceived by the Jewish audience as the chief persecutor of their group or of the Jewish nation as a whole.

Translation follows M. A. Knibb, “Wisdom of Solomon” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (eds. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 707. 7

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Part II: Demonic Influence

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Seven Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch While the previous section of this study explored the concept of an innate human inclination to sin in Second Temple texts, the second part of this study focuses on a very different idea: that human sin is ultimately caused by demonic influence. The idea that demons cause sin provides cosmic significance and drama to the “story” of human sin. More importantly, it frees the audience from seeing itself as inherently sinful. In essence, the demonic view of sin diverts the audience’s attention to external threats as opposed to their own internal landscape. At the same time, by portraying the “outsider” (whether Jew or Gentile) as completely subject to demonic influence, the author could indicate that the outsider was almost demonic himself, the true enemy of “insiders.”1 The depiction of demons as the cause of sin renders the question of why humans were created with sinful desires irrelevant. Instead, the author must explain the origin and continued existence of a demonic presence that tempts humans, despite a benevolent and powerful God. An interesting aspect of demonic sin is the degree to which it is tied to specific types of sin. This is particularly true of the Watchers (discussed below), but also of demonic figures such as Mastema or Belial. The attribution of all evil to demons originates much earlier than the Second Temple period, and Second Temple texts draw from a variety of traditions and myths when attributing human sin to demons.2 This section will trace specific 1

Compare the depiction of the evil inclination in Gentiles discussed in the previous excur-

sus. 2 On the attribution of evil to demons in Near Eastern texts, see K. van der Toorn, “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation,” 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), 61–83. The attribution of evil to demons in Mesopotamian texts generally does not extend to human sin; it focuses on natural evil, particularly disease; see Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 72. This may be due to the relative unimportance of ethical issues to Mesopotamian religious thought; see J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (trans. Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 228. When demonic influence inside a person is noted, such as in the extispicy texts noting the presence of a mukīl rēš lemutti, an accompanying demon or “evil accomplice” (M. J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations [SAACT 5; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007], 290), it is indicative of disease or bad luck, as in CT 3 2: 17: mukīl rēš lemuttim marṣ um imât (“[due to] an accompanying evil demon [he is] sick; he shall die”), which may itself

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

150

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

traditions within Second Temple literature regarding certain demonic entities in addition to observing other influences on the way these entities are portrayed. The attribution of sin to demonic influence does not in itself define sin as either predetermined or subject to free will. A text may emphasize human helplessness in the face of demonic forces, compatible with a deterministic view, or it may focus on human resistance to demonic temptation, an approach consistent with human free will. Beyond examining whether sin is subject to free will in these texts, this section will explore the degree to which the demonic source of sin is part of a dualistic system, in which good and evil spiritual forces are in direct and relatively equal conflict. The attribution of sin to demonic forces may be an element of a dualistic approach to the universe, in which the cosmic forces of good and evil, and those forces’ earthly deputies, the righteous and the wicked, are in direct (and relatively equal) opposition.3 However, such a dualistic system cannot be assumed whenever demons are mentioned, even when they are subject to a more important demonic or angelic figure. In the chapters that follow the study distinguishes between dualistic approaches and those that are not clearly dualistic.

Genres and Provenance of “Demonic” Texts The texts that reflect the demonic paradigm include apocalypses, narratives (that sometimes display apocalyptic features) and apotropaic prayers. Narratives sometimes include embedded prayers that have been drawn from other sources and can be directly compared with independent apotropaic prayers. In this section the organizing principle is based not chiefly on genre but on specific demonic figures or traditions and the distinction between sectarian and nonsectarian works. Nevertheless, considerations of genre are also addressed.

be the punishment of the gods; see T. Abusch, “Witchcraft and the Anger of the Personal God,” in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn; Ancient Magic and Divination 1; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1999), 89–91. 3 While most texts that discuss sin, by their nature, reflect ethical dualism (in which good and evil are contrasted), the dualism noted here is more specific, corresponding to the cosmic dualism described by J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 283.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers Myth and 1 Enoch

151

The Watchers Myth and 1 Enoch A prominent tradition in Second Temple texts concerning demons and their interference in human affairs draws on the story of the bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm in Gen 6: 1–4. In the Second Temple period this narrative developed into what is commonly known as the “Watchers myth.”4 In Gen 6: 1–4, the “sons of God” (bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm)5 see the “daughters of men” and take them as wives:6 4 While M. Barker proposed that both Genesis and 1 Enoch draw independently from an older myth, and J. T. Milik concluded that the verses in Gen 6: 1–2,4 refer to and quote 1 Enoch 6–11 and not vice versa, these suggestions have not been accepted by most scholars. See M. Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 18–19; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 30–32; and cf. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 166. 5 “Sons of God” is one possible literal translation of bĕnê ’elōhîm. The exact meaning of this phrase in Gen 6: 1–4 is a matter of some debate. Some scholars have classified the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm as angels, i. e. immortal beings that are not considered gods but are part of the divine court, as in Job 1: 6 and 2: 1; see G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 140; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 141; and N. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 45 n. 2. U. Cassuto characterizes the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm as lower than “standard” angels called mal’ākîm, explaining that this is why they are capable of mating with humans; see Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1. From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI 8 (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961), 294. Other scholars understand the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm to be divine beings “of the class of god,” similar to the bĕnê ha’nĕbî’îm (lit., “sons of the prophets”), who are members of the class of prophets mentioned in 1 Kgs 20: 35; see H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle; MLBS; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997), 55; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 44; G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J. H. Marks; OTL 1; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 114; C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984), 372; B. S. Childs, “A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI” (Ph. D. diss., Plymouth, Wis.: Basel, 1955), 67–68 and idem, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 1/27; London: SCM, 1960), 49. The Ugaritic cognate bn ’il allows for a range of meanings in the context of extant texts; in KTU 1.65 (RS 4.474), this term is found in conjunction with the divine council (dr and mpḫ rt). As noted by M. S. Smith, these expressions may suggest groups centered around a specific divine figure (rather than the pantheon as a whole); see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 42. The coincidence of terms denoting a divine council with the term bn ’il in the Ugaritic text indicates that the divine groupings and councils mentioned in these texts may represent the families of divine patriarchs. The juxtaposition of the phrase bn ’il and the idea of a divine council corresponds to the role of bĕnê hā’elōhîm in the divine council in Job 1: 6 and 2: 1, and may point to a similar meaning in Gen 6: 1–4. 6 Translation is mine, based loosely on NJPS.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

152

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

(1) When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, (2) the “sons of God” saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives for themselves from among all those that they chose. (3) The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide7 in man forever, in that he too is flesh;8 let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.” (4) It was then, and later too, that the nĕpīlîm appeared9 on earth – when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (Gen 6: 1–4)

This account is immediately followed by God’s decision to visit a flood upon the earth in Gen. 6: 5–7. While biblical scholars have attempted to determine the original meaning of this story independently of its context,10 for Jews in the Second Temple period the episode’s importance lay precisely in its function as an introduction to the flood. In Jewish texts, the phrase bĕnê ’êlōhîm is interpreted as angels, corresponding to the monotheistic outlook of these works.11 The placement of the bĕnê ’êlōhîm passage prior to the account of the flood implies that there is a connection between the “sons of God” story and the flood that follows,12 and this suggestion became an important part of Second Temple interpretation. While the mating of divine beings with humans in

7 The term yādôn here is a difficult one to interpret, and most commentators interpret it as “abide” or “remain” according to context and the translation in LXX (καταμείνῃ) and the Vulgate (permanebit); see Cassuto, Genesis I, 295; von Rad, Genesis, 113; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 375; Sarna, Genesis, 46. An exception is Speiser (Genesis, 44), who translates “My spirit shall not shield man forever,” based on the Akkadian cognate danānu. R. S. Hendel similarly translates “My spirit will not be strong in man forever,” based on the Akkadian cognate and following the earlier interpretation of K. Vollers; see R. S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6: 1–4,” JBL 106 (1987): 15 and n. 10 ad loc. and K. Vollers, “Zur Erklärung des ‫ ידון‬Gen 6,3,” ZA 14 (1889): 349–56. 8 NJPS: “since he too is flesh.” The chosen translation follows the approaches of Speiser, Genesis, 144 note, and Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 375–6. The Hebrew term bĕšaggam is understood here as the juxtaposition of the preposition b, the relative še, and gam, “also, too.” For še as a shortened form of the relative ’ăšer, see J. Huehnergard, “Etymology of the Relative še-,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006), 103–25. 9 Literally, “were on the earth.” 10 See Childs, “Study of Myth,” 74–75; idem, Myth and Reality, 55–56; Speiser, Genesis, 46; von Rad, Genesis, 115; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 376; Skinner, Genesis, 140–1, 150; Gunkel, Genesis, 59. 11 Such an interpretation may already be found in LXX Gen 6: 2, as Cambridge MS A (unlike other witnesses of LXX) reads οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ instead of the expected οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ. While P. S. Alexander considers this to be a later, inconsistent attempt at alteration, given the incidence of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ in all extant manuscripts of LXX Gen 6: 4, M. Harl considers the original text to be οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ based on the readings of Philo and early witnesses of Origen; see P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 63; M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie I. La Genèse (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986), 125. 12 See Speiser, Genesis, 46; Skinner, Genesis, 139–40; Sarna, Genesis, 45.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers Myth and 1 Enoch

153

Gen 6: 1–4 is related neutrally and without any indication of moral misdoing,13 in its broader context the mating becomes an indication of corruption, the illicit crossing of the boundary between human and divine.14 In this manner the flood that follows this account is justified; it results not only from the unspecified human evil related in Gen 6: 5 (and in 6: 12–13), but also from a complete breakdown of the boundary between the human and the divine spheres. In attempting to identify the nĕpīlîm, ancient readers and modern scholars alike have been informed by other biblical passages. In Gen 6: 1–4 the nĕpīlîm appear to be the result of the mating of the “sons of God” with human women. The nĕpīlîm are equated with the “heroes of old” and “men of renown.” But the earliest interpretations of Gen 6: 1–4 read the reference to nĕpīlîm in conjuction with Num 13: 33, where the inhabitants of Canaan are called “nĕpīlîm, giants (descended) from the nĕpīlîm.” (In Num 13: 22, 28 and Deut 9: 2 the inhabitants of Canaan are likewise called “descendants of the giants” [yĕlîdê/ bĕnê hā‘ănāq].)15 Consequently the LXX translation in Gen 6: 1–4 of both nĕpīlîm and “heroes” (gībbōrîm) is γίγαντες, giants. That the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and human women were giants was widely accepted in Second Temple traditions.16

13 It can be argued that Gen 6: 3 constitutes a punishment of sorts and hence a negative reaction to the actions of “sons of God”; see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 376. (According to Westermann, Gen 6: 1–4 is the tale of an attempt to raise humanity’s status by union with the divine power of life, parallel to the attempt to transcend the human by means of technology in Gen 11: 1–9; ibid., 381–2.) However, this “punishment” is visited not upon the transgressors themselves, but on their offspring, and even the offspring of the “sons of God” only receive their punishment as part of humankind. The offspring of these beings have now been defined as human, and are therefore not immortal but will share in humanity’s shortened lifespan of 120 years. See Sarna, Genesis, 45. 14 See von Rad, Genesis, 115. The theological difficulty inherent in any divine being mating with human women was a problem that was resolved in later Jewish and Christian exegesis by interpreting the bĕnê hā’elōhîm as judges or as descendants of Seth, respectively. Ben Sira’s reference to “princes of old, rebellious in their might” not forgiven by God (Sir 16: 7; MS B: ‫ )נסיכי קדם המורדים בגבורתם‬may be an early example of this Jewish tradition if referring to the angels themselves, but it was not understood so by Ben Sira’s grandson; in LXX the reference is to “τῶν ἀρχαίων γιγάντων,” “the ancient giants.” Di Lella (Ben Sira, 273–4) explains the Ben Sira verse as an allusion not only to the giants, but also to “princes of old” such as the king of Babylon in Isa 14: 4–21 and Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4: 7–30. 15 This identification is also connected to the tradition of the rĕpā’īm, described as the ancient, giant inhabitants of Moab and Ammon; see Deut 2: 11, 20; 3: 11, 13. 16 The appearance of the nĕpīlîm in Numbers also implies that the offspring survived the flood. For biblical and later traditions that the giants survived the flood, see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6: 1–4 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. Nevertheless, most texts that are relevant to the present study portray the giants as perishing, at least in their physical form, before or during the flood. The divine response to the illicit mat-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

154

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

Second Temple works develop this short account of the “sons of God” and “daughters of man” into a wide-ranging myth about angels called the “Watchers”17 that explains (depending on the text) the flood, the origin of natural evil, and even the origin of sin.18 The earliest extant Jewish texts that reflect traditions regarding the “Watchers” are found in 1 Enoch. However, the explicit idea that human sin originated from the Watchers and their illicit actions is largely absent from the relevant passages of 1 Enoch.

The Watchers in 1 Enoch: The Book of the Watchers (Chapters 1–36) 1 Enoch is a text comprising multiple Jewish works of the Second Temple period that center on the character of Enoch.19 While these works were originally

ing in Genesis is somewhat ambiguous. In its immediate context, the divine declaration limiting the human lifespan to 120 years emphasizes human mortality and the far from unlimited human lifespan, a lifespan that will now apply even to the offspring of the “sons of God,” as they are also flesh. These offspring are affected only in the context of other humans. (In LXX, the divine response is more specific: these humans [τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις] will have limited lifespans.) In its immediate context this statement emphasizes that the offspring are not half-divine immortals, but mortals like all “other” humans. Within the passage’s wider context as an introduction to the flood, the 120 years can be read as a grace period before the flood that will ultimately wipe out mankind. This interpretation is also found in Second Temple texts; see M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 91–92. 17 The earliest example of this name for the běnê hā’ĕlōhîm of Gen 6: 2 is in the Syncellus manuscript of the Book of the Watchers at 1 En. 6: 2: οἱ ἐγρήγοροι. This term is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic noun ‘îr, a general term for angels that is found in Daniel (4: 10, 14, 20) and probably originates from the tradition that angels do not sleep. (The Hebrew term is found referring specifically to the sinning angels in a Hebrew fragment of a Jubilees-like text, 4Q227 (4QpsJubc) 2 6: ‫“ וגם על העירים‬and also against the Watchers [‘yrym].”) The term “Watchers” is also found in a neutral sense elsewhere in 1 Enoch (1 En. 12: 2, 3). In the Genesis Apocryphon the Aramaic term refers both to angels in general (1Q20 VI.13) and to the sinning angels of Genesis in particular (1Q20 II.1,16). The term “Watchers” is found in the latter, negative sense throughout Second Temple literature (see Dimant, “Fragment,” 229–30). 18 Alternatively, P. S. Alexander has posited that the original purpose of the Watchers myth was to explain the origin of demons; see Alexander, “Demonology,” 2: 351. 19 A possible exception to this Second Temple dating is the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37– 71), the provenance of which is a matter of dispute. Milik (Books of Enoch, 91–98), has concluded that the Parables is a late, third-century Christian composition, based partially on the fact that it is the only section of 1 Enoch not represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ibid., 91–92), as well as certain similarities to the second and fifth books of the Sibylline Oracles. However, this conclusion has been strongly contested. J. J. Collins argues that the Dead Sea community may have rejected the Parables because it does not give the sun the primacy that sectarian beliefs demanded; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 177–8. G. W. E. Nickelsburg has also

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

155

composed in Aramaic (as is evident from the Dead Sea fragments of 1 Enoch), they survive in their entirety only in Ethiopic, although approximately 28 percent of 1 Enoch has been preserved in fragmentary texts of a Greek translation of the original.20 Chapters 1–36 of 1 Enoch are commonly called the Book of the Watchers (BW). As a work BW is considered one of the earliest texts contained in 1 Enoch, possibly composed as early as ca. 250 B. C. E.21 This work, as could be expected from its modern appellation, focuses in large part on the story of the Watchers. The original Aramaic version has survived in very fragmentary form at Qumran.22 BW has also been preserved nearly in its entirety in the Akhmim/Gizeh manuscript (Ga), a Greek manuscript of the fifth or sixth century C. E.23 The focus is primarily on this Enochic work in the analysis that follows.

1 Enoch 6–11 The Book of the Watchers itself is not uniform. 1 En. 6–11 appears to be a separate unit, perhaps inserted as a preface to Enoch’s mission to rebuke the Watchers in 1 En. 12–16.24 Its explanation of the Watchers’ sin, and especially the sin’s aftermath, differs markedly from the account in 1 En. 12–16, which is also considered to be an independent unit within BW.25 argued against a Christian provenance, noting the identification of the Elect One in the Parables with Enoch himself, and not a Christ-like figure, and has proposed that the Parables is a Jewish work produced around the turn of the era; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 254–6. Similarly, M. E. Stone has dated the Parables to the first century B. C. E.; see “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B. C. E.,” CBQ 40 (1978): 492. 20 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 12. 21 See Milik, Books of Enoch, 28; J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 111–3; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Books of,” in EDSS 1: 250. 22 Found in five copies (4Q201, 4Q202, 4Q204–206), the earliest of which is dated to ca. 200–150 B. C. E.; see Nickelsburg, “Enoch,” 1: 251. 23 Other Greek fragments have been preserved in the Chronography of George Syncellus, composed in a Byzantine monastery at the beginning of the ninth century (Gs); see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 12. 24 D. Dimant, “‘The Fallen Angels’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them” (Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974), 23–73, esp. 72–73 (Hebrew); eadem, “Fragment.” Nevertheless, as noted by Collins, “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers,” CBQ 44 (1982): 95, the earliest fragment of BW, 4Q201 frg. 1, seems to extend from 1: 1–6 to 12: 4–6, indicating that chapters 6–11 were integrated into BW by the time it was read at Qumran. 25 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 229; VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 129; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OtSt 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 183; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 49; C. A. Newsom, “The

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

156

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

The beginning of the Watchers story in 1 En. 6–11 closely parallels Gen 6: 1–2:26 (1) And when the sons of men had multiplied, in those days, beautiful and comely daughters were born to them. (2) And the Watchers/the angels sons of heaven,27 saw them and desired them. And they said to one another, “Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men, and let us beget for ourselves children.” (1 En. 6: 1–2)

In 1 En. 6: 2 a motivation beyond the beauty of human women is added as the basis for the angels’ actions: the desire to procreate. While the basic hubris of such an aspiration is elucidated in 1 En. 15: 4–7 (discussed below), here it is left to the reader to understand that the Watchers’ sin did not end in carnal desire but also included a goal that transcended the boundaries of their angelic status. The account of the Watchers and their sin in 1 En. 6–11 reflects several traditions regarding the Watchers.28 As proposed by D. Dimant, there are three traditions that have been merged in BW:29 1) The tradition in which Šemiḥ aza leads a group of angels (the Watchers) to mate with human women and through their sin creates a race of violent giants, found in 1 En. 6–7; 8: 3–4; 9: 9–10. The violence of these giants causes the humans to cry to God for assistance, the giants are destroyed, and the Watchers are punished. As an exegetical expansion of Gen 6: 1–4, this tradition has nothing to do with the flood: the punishment of the Watchers and the giants occurs before the flood.

Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 310–29; and Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600. 26 The translation of 1 Enoch in this chapter follows the critical translation of Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, except in specific cases where Nickelsburg hypothesizes a reading that has no extant witnesses, in which case I have substituted a translation of the word(s) actually found in the extant texts. These substitutions are noted where they appear. Nickelsburg’s translation is eclectic; he chooses between Ga and Gs as each case warrants, usually preferring whichever Greek text agrees with the Ethiopic. In this section, there are no meaningful differences between the Greek witnesses, with the possible exception of the term “Watchers”; see n. 27. 27 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 174 reads “the Watchers, the sons of heaven,” combining “the angels, the sons of heaven” found in Ga and Eth. (Ga: οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ οὐρανοῦ, Eth.: malā’ěkt wěluda samāyāt) with “the Watchers” found in Gs and the Syriac (Greek: οἱ ἐγρήγοροι, Syr: ‘yr’). 28 As noted by J. J. Collins, “Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch: Reflections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 316, “the presence of distinct traditions within a text does not necessarily presuppose distinct literary documents.” 29 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels,’” 65 (Hebrew); eadem, “1 Enoch 6–11: A Methodological Perspective,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 329.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

157

2) At an early stage (previous to its inclusion in BW), the Šemiḥ aza tradition merged with one in which the Watchers teach their wives forbidden knowledge, including divine secrets and magic, reflected in 7: 1, 9: 7–8, and 10: 7. Human sin through divination is the consequence. In this tradition, by causing humans to sin, the angels instigate the flooding of the world. 3) Later, the ‘Aśā’el tradition was added, in which ‘Aśā’el teaches forbidden crafts to human beings (8: 1–2, 9: 6, and 10: 1–5, 8). These include the creation of weapons, enabling war, and jewelry and cosmetics, enabling seduction. ‘Aśā’el thereby causes humans to sin, resulting in the flood. Certain material is derived from both the Šemiḥ aza and ‘Aśā’el traditions, specifically 9: 1–5, 11. Alternatively, as suggested by G. Nickelsburg, the second tradition described above can be understood as two different editorial interpolations, one adding forbidden knowledge of magic and herbs, and the other adding forbidden knowledge of astrological and related methods of prognostication.30 These three traditions are also combined in 1 En. 10: 1–14, in which the punishment of the Watchers and their offspring is commanded by God to be carried out by various angels (specifically, Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel and Michael). In 10: 4 ‘Aśā’el receives a punishment first (deriving from tradition 3), separate from that of Šemiḥ aza and the Watchers (which derives from traditions 1 and 2). Šemiḥ aza and the Watchers, unlike ‘Aśā’el (whose sin was teaching forbidden knowledge) sinned principally by mating with human women. Therefore they are forced to witness the demise of their children, the giants (called “bastards” [10: 9]), and are only afterward bound by Michael until the day of judgment (10: 11–12), when they will be imprisoned eternally in a fiery abyss. The demise of the giants here is not caused by the flood. Instead, the flood is announced separately by Sariel before any of the punishments are delivered. It will “heal the earth” after the damage done by the Watchers (see 1 En. 10: 7), apparently the damage wrought by the forbidden knowledge they have revealed (traditions 2 and 3). The giants, however, are set against each other by Gabriel and kill each other (10: 9) prior to the flood (tradition 1). Michael is later commanded, in a repetition of what was supposedly accomplished by Gabriel, to destroy “all the spirits of the half-breeds31 and the sons

30 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 165, 171 and idem, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977): 386–9. 31 Following the translation of κιβδήλων in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 215. As noted by Nickelsburg, ibid., 213, in LXX Lev 19: 19 and LXX Deut 22: 11 κίβδηλον translates MT ša‘aṭ nēz (‫)שעטנז‬, denoting cloth woven from a forbidden mixture of two types of thread (linen and wool).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

158

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

of the Watchers, because they have wronged men” (10: 15).32 Michael is then commanded to destroy all evil, creating a world in which righteousness will flourish (10: 16). All humanity will become righteous (10: 21) and God will never again visit a flood upon the earth, which will be free of all defilement (10: 22). The passage concludes with the promise of blessing sent from heaven to earth, and the continuation of peace and righteousness for eternity (11: 1– 2).

The Role of Sin in the Three Traditions of 1 Enoch 6–11 In the original Šemiḥ aza tradition humans do not sin at all. Only the Watchers and their offspring sin, causing destruction from which humans are later saved by divine intervention. In the additions to the Šemiḥ aza tradition and in the ‘Aśā’el tradition, however, humans become part of the chain of sin after partaking of the forbidden knowledge shared with them by the Watchers.33 However, even in these later traditions there is no indication that the sin of the Watchers had any lasting demonic implications for humankind beyond the flood.34 The forbidden mysteries that have been revealed have apparently been “cleansed” from the earth by the flood (see 1 En. 10: 7). In fact, the only possible consequence of the Watchers’ sin for the postdiluvian era is found within the ‘Aśā’el tradition, where humans learn the means of war and seduction. This knowledge presumably survived the flood (although the narrative does not say so explicitly). Yet while sinful knowledge has apparently survived, there is no continuing demonic presence after the flood. When the flood occurs, the giants have already been completely destroyed and the Watchers have been punished. Even in the antediluvian era, the corrupting influence of the Watchers is confined to their teachings and does not stem from ongoing activity on their part. The Watchers do not continue to actively tempt humans to sin, but have Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 215. Ga: ἀπόλεσον πάντα τὰ πνεύματα τῶν κιβδήλων καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἐγρηγόρων διὰ τὸ ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. 33 See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Reflections upon Reflections: A Response to John Collins’ ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch’,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 311. 34 The spirits described in 10: 15 are a possible exception; they are described as “wronging men,” a possible reference to causing sin. However, in context these spirits are identical to the giants whose destruction precedes the flood (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 225); they have “wronged men” through the violence they have done them, and are consequently destroyed before the flood. Another alternative is that this verse is a later insertion; as noted by E. Eshel and Segal, these “spirits” have not been mentioned earlier in the narrative; see Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 47–48 (Hebrew) and Segal, Book of Jubilees, 114. These spirits are mentioned only in the account of the Watchers, 1 En. 15: 1–16: 4, and in 19: 1–2, discussed below. 32

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

159

simply given them the tools to do evil. It is this forbidden knowledge that is the ongoing “source” of sin in this account, rather than continuous actions by the Watchers. These types of knowledge are so terrible, implies the author (or redactor), that it must have originated with evil angels. Consequently, 1 En. 6–11 does not reflect a belief in a demonic source of iniquity after the flood. At the simplest level, the purpose of the Watchers narrative as it is found in this section of 1 Enoch is to explain and justify the flood, not to explain the origin of sin (or even of natural evil) in the postdiluvian period.35 The Watchers story serves as a paradigm of sin and punishment: it delineates the punishment of the Watchers and the giants for their illicit behavior and establishes that the flood was the humans’ punishment for sinning as a result of acquiring forbidden knowledge.36 This justification of the flood also serves an exegetical purpose by explaining the progression from the story of the bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm to the account of the flood in Gen 6: 1–8: 14. While 1 En 6– 11 may have served other purposes for its author(s),37 the Watchers or giants as an explanation of sin after the flood is not one of them.38 The theme of forbidden knowledge nevertheless begs investigation, and will be revisited in the context of BW as a whole.

35 Nickelsburg offers a similar interpretation in his response to M. W. Elliott summarized in A. Y. Collins, “The Theology of Early Enoch Literature,” Hen 24 (2002): 108. 36 As noted by Dimant, “Methodological Perspective,” 330. See also C. Molenberg, “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in I Enoch 6–11,” JJS 35 (1984): 145. 37 On the giants as a stand-in for foreign rulers, see Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” 396–7 and R. Bartelmus, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6, 1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur (ATANT 65; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979), 180–1. On the theme of forbidden knowledge and the Prometheus myth, see Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” 399–404; idem, 1 Enoch, 171. (Note, however, that there is no emphasis on an act of rebellion against God in 1 En. 6–11, as opposed to 1 En. 15: 1–16: 4, discussed below). On the possibility that this story served as a polemic against the priests in Jerusalem and particularly their practice of intermarriage see D. W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35. This argument is better suited to 1 En. 12–16; see Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” and Tigchelaar’s analysis of 1 En. 12–16 as a polemic against priests who defected to the Samaritan temple, in Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 198–203 and idem, “Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208,” Hen 24 (2002): 143–5. See also M. Himmelfarb’s analysis in “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem,” Hen 24 [2002]: 131–5, where she argues that the polemic against “intermarriage” in 1 En. 12–16 is concerned with marriage between priests and members of non-priestly families. The argument that anti-priestly polemic is mainly to be found in 1 En. 12–16 was partially accepted by Suter in later analysis; see idem, “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest’,” Hen 24 (2002): 140. 38 See Dimant, “Methodological Perspective,” 329–30; contra Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 167 and Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 52. However, see Nickelsburg’s opinion summarized by A. Y. Collins, noted earlier (n. 35).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

160

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

The Watchers Myth in 1 Enoch 12–16 1 En. 12–16 is a composition separate from 1 En. 6–11.39 While it is not clear just how much of 1 En. 6–11 the author of 1 En. 12–16 knew, this author both expanded and changed the Watchers tradition.40 In particular, in 1 En. 12–16 the result of the Watchers’ sin lasts well beyond the flood. The “new” consequences of the Watchers’ sin are clarified in 1 En. 15: 1–16: 1. 1 En. 15: 1–16: 1 is introduced as a message for Enoch to return to the Watchers, who have requested clemency. God first explains that procreation is not meant for immortal angels (15: 3, 6–7) and is the exclusive prerogative of humankind (15: 5). Despite this divinely dictated division between the angelic and human realms, these immortal holy spirits defiled themselves with the “blood of women” (15: 4) thereby begetting giants.41 The giants are hybrids who reflect the true nature of the Watchers’ sin and who will be the agents of future damage:42

39 See R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes, and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged, and Rewritten Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 1–2. Charles’ conclusions have been widely accepted in subsequent scholarship. 40 The relationship of 1 En. 12–16 to 1 En. 6–11 is a matter of dispute. C. A. Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6–19,” 319, has concluded that the author of 1 Enoch 12–16 knew only the Šemiḥ aza tradition, and that the tradition regarding illicit knowledge was added later to both sections. J. C. VanderKam and Nickelsburg, in contrast, maintain that the author of chapters 12–16 knew the story of the Watchers as it appears in chapters 6–11; see VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 129; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 229. 41 So the Greek: ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν γυναικῶν. (This verse has survived in Ga but not in s G .) For ἐν τῷ αἵματι, the Ethiopic has badiba ’anĕst (upon/onto woman), possibly a corruption of badama ’anĕst “through the blood of woman”; see M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 2: 100. Dimant (“Methodological Perspective,” 325) and Nickelsburg (1 Enoch, 271) posit that the “blood” here refers to the menstrual period, while M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 21, suggests that the reference is to the blood of virginity and that the defilement involves the very fact of marriage. However, blood in the context of 15: 4 denotes nothing specifically female, but rather the human (and mortal) sphere with which the Watchers have defiled themselves, as seen by the parallels found within the verse: “With the blood of women you have defiled yourselves and with the blood of flesh you have begotten; and with the blood of men you have lusted…” (Ga: καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε ἅγιοι καὶ πνεύματα ζῶντα αἰώνια ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν γυναικῶν ἐμιάνθητε, καὶ ἐν αἵματι σαρκὸς ἐγεννήσατε καὶ ἐν αἵματι ἀνθρώπων ἐπεθυμήσατε. Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 267; emphasis mine.) 42 The translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 267, except where Nickelsburg relies on a hypothesized reconstruction, in which case the different witnesses are presented. Italics indicate alternate readings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

161

(8) But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh – they will call them evil spirits upon the earth, for their dwelling will be upon the earth. (9) The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits, for from humans they came into being, and from the holy Watchers was the origin of their creation. Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called. (10) The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but the spirits begotten on the earth, on the earth is their dwelling. (11) And the spirits of the giants nĕpīlîm, do damage/ lay waste,43 do violence, make desolate, and attack and wrestle and hurl upon the earth and cause illnesses.44 They eat nothing, but abstain from food and are thirsty and smite. (12) These spirits (will) rise up against the sons of men and against the women, for they have come forth from them. (16: 1) From the day of the slaughter and destruction and death of the giants (Gs adds “the nĕpīlîm, the mighty of the earth, the great of renown”45), from the soul of whose flesh the spirits are proceeding, they are making desolate without (incurring) judgment. Thus they will make desolate until the day of the consummation of the great judgment, when the great age will be consummated. It will be consummated all at once. (1 En. 15: 8–16: 1)

In this short account, the postdiluvian consequences of the Watchers’ sin take center stage. The giants, born of an illicit mix of flesh and spirit, will become

43 The first of the giants’ sins enumerated in 15: 11 is corrupted in two of the principal texts, as indicated by the translation used here. In Ga, the first sin of the giants is νεφέλας ἀδικοῦντα “injuring the clouds.” This clearly corrupted phrase is translated similarly in the Ethiopic: dammanāta…yĕgaf’u. One possible restoration of the original text, followed by M. Black, among others, is to interpret νεφέλας as a corruption of Ναφηλείμ, “Nĕpīlîm,” the biblical name for the offspring of the “sons of God” in Gen 6: 4; see M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 34, 153. According to this restoration the text would read “the Nĕpīlîm do wrong/ injure,” in keeping with the general destruction described in the giants’ list of wrongdoing. A more attractive alternative is to rely on the version of the verse found in Gs (τὰ πνεύματα τῶν γιγάντων νεμόμενα, ἀδικοῦντα…), as it is not obviously corrupted. However, there is more than one possibility for the Aramaic that may lie behind this version. νεμόμενα has two possible meanings in this context: 1) laying waste, in which case the Aramaic may have been r‘‘yn (‫“ )רעעין‬doing evil/ruining”, or 2) pasturing, in which case the Aramaic would have been r‘yn (‫)רעין‬, itself a possible corruption of r‘‘yn; see R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS. together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906), 44–45 n. 3. However, Nickelsburg (1 Enoch, 267–8, 273) takes this second possibility a step farther, positing that r‘yn was a corruption not of r‘‘yn but of t‘yn (‫)תעין‬, leading astray. Nickelsburg’s reading presumes two stages of corruption in Aramaic. The more contextually appropriate understanding of νεμόμενα as “laying waste” is to be preferred: it has a clear Aramaic Vorlage (r‘‘yn), does not require the assumption of stages of corruption, and corresponds to the description of the wholesale destruction caused by the giants in the remainder of the passage. 44 Nickelsburg hypothesizes “cause illnesses” instead of the Greek δρόμους ποιοῦντα, “make races,” suggesting a corruption of Aram. mrw‘’ “illness” to mrwṣ ’ “running.” However, the Ethiopic (waḥ azana) indicates “cause sorrow” (see Knibb, Ethiopic Enoch, 2: 102). 45 Gs: Ναφηλείμ, οἱ ἰσχυροὶ τῆς γῆς, οἱ μεγάλοι ὀνομαστοί… This is a reference to the conclusion of Gen 6: 4: “They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

162

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

spirits that are nevertheless tied to the earth.46 These are the evil spirits, to blame for a host of earthly ills, and their existence will continue until the final judgment day. In this retelling of the Watchers story, the punishment of the giants no longer has any force.47 Despite their evildoing, the giants will continue to exist in spirit form. Consequently the Watchers story no longer demonstrates justice. The Watchers story has been transformed from a cautionary tale of the evils of violence, sexual immorality and mantic/magical practices into an explanation for the origin of natural evil.48 But while the spirits of the giants are responsible for natural evil, they are not explicitly to blame for human sin. In the extant textual witnesses, the spirits of the giants are responsible for destroying, attacking and “throwing to the earth.”49 There is nothing to indicate that this “destruction” includes causing human sin, although the possibility is not barred. What, then, is the purpose of 1 En. 15: 1–16: 1? Through this passage the author connects the existence of evil spirits in his own day with the myth of the Watchers. The previous section, 1 En. 6–11, has already established that the giants were obliterated before the flood. Thus the author of 15–16 explains that only the giants’ bodies have been destroyed. Their spirits, separated from their bodies, still continue to cause havoc. Yet the havoc that is described encompasses natural evil, and does not include leading humans astray.

46 Evident here is the dichotomy between flesh and spirit, a dichotomy lacking, for example, in the portrayal of the inborn desire to sin in the Hodayot, despite the use of both “flesh” and “spirit” as terms throughout the Hodayot. In the account in 1 Enoch only the giants are a combination of flesh and spirit; humans are wholly flesh, while angels are wholly spirit. It thus may be possible to equate the use of the term “flesh” here with the use of the term “spirit of flesh” in the Hodayot: both denote human beings in their common form. 47 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels,’” 77 (Hebrew). (A. T. Wright disagrees with Dimant’s statement, arguing that the killing of the giants’ bodies does, in fact, constitute a punishment and that the promised eschatological judgment [1 En. 10: 16] will destroy the evil spirits completely; see Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6: 1–4 in Early Jewish Literature [WUNT 2/198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 152–3.) 48 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 193. 49 Tigchelaar (Prophets of Old, 204) raises the possibility that 15: 11 refers not to the activity of the giants, but to the appellations of the spirits who have originated from them (assuming that the Aramaic Vorlage represents the substantive and not the participle). Hence, he reconstructs: “The spirits of the giants are Afflicters (or: Lurkers), Smiters, Destroyers, Assailants, Strikers, Earth Demons, and Crushers. They do not eat anything, but hunger and thirst, hallucinate, and stumble.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

163

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

Forbidden Knowledge in 1 Enoch There is, however, one aspect of sin that may be traced to the Watchers in 1 En. 15–16: transgressions resulting from the acquisition of forbidden knowledge. There is a separate reproach of the Watchers’ disclosure of forbidden knowledge following 15: 1–16: 1: (2) “And now (say) to the Watchers who sent you to petition on their behalf, who formerly were in heaven, (3) ‘You were in heaven, and no mystery was revealed to you; but a despised (Eth.)50/divine (Gr.)51 mystery you learned; and this you made known to the women in your hardness of heart; and through this mystery the women and men are multiplying evils upon the earth.’ (4) Say to them, ‘You will have no peace.’” (1 En. 16: 2–4)

The sharing of illicit knowledge that is the focus of these verses is a sin that is absent from the previous passage. It is parallel to 1 En. 13: 2, where Enoch is instructed to declare to ‘Aśāel: “You will have no relief or petition, because of the unrighteous deeds that you revealed, and because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin that you revealed to men.” (1 En. 13: 2)

The passages at 13: 1–2 and 16: 2–3 appear to be redactional additions.52 Both read as afterthoughts following the description of the Watchers’ punishment for mating with human women. The incorporation of the theme of forbidden knowledge, a theme that is not mentioned in the preceding passages, demonstrates the redactor’s reluctance to describe the Watchers’ sin without some reference to the Watchers’ illicit revelation. In both of these passages, the disclosure of forbidden knowledge is itself a catalyst for human sin during the period before the flood. As noted above, in the initial telling of the Watchers story in 1 En. 6–11, this forbidden knowledge

50 Eth. wa-mĕnnuna mĕśṭ ira. Throughout this chapter and the next, Ethiopic transliteration follows the convention employed by W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge‘ez-English, English-Ge‘ez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1987), with the exception that the šěwă’ is indicated by ě (and not ) in the interests of consistency with other Semitic transcriptions in this study. 51 The Greek translates literally as “a mystery that originated from God”: μυστήριον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενημένον. Nickelsburg hypothesizes that the original Aramaic text read “a stolen mystery.” He proposes that there was an initial confusion in the Aramaic between bz’ “despise” and bzz “plunder,” leading to the Greek Vorlage of the Ethiopic proposed by Charles (Ethiopic Enoch, 47 n. 5): ἐξουθενημένον “worthless/despised.” According to Charles, this was subsequently corrupted in the Greek from ἐξουθενημένον to τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενημένον “that originated from God.” However, the idea that the angels stole the secrets they shared is not found elsewhere within the Enochic retelling of the Watchers story, while the idea that these secrets lead directly to sin (and hence are despicable) is found throughout. There is thus no need to hypothesize that the Aramaic Vorlage read bzz rather than bz’. 52 See Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6–19,” 319; Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 183.

e

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

164

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

is of two types: crafts of seduction and war attributed to ‘Aśā’el (8: 1), and magic and divinatory practices attributed to Šemiḥ aza and the Watchers (8: 3). These two types are mirrored in 13: 1–2 and 16: 3. The passage in 13: 1–2 and its reference to “unrighteous deeds”53 may refer to either type of knowledge described in 1 En. 6–11.54 This is similar to 1 En. 9: 6, where ‘Aśā’el is held responsible for teaching both “iniquity”55 and “eternal mysteries/secrets.”56 The “mystery”57 in 16: 3 seems to refer more particularly to arts of divination and magic, mirroring the sin attributed to Šemiḥ aza and the Watchers in 1 En. 8: 3. There is a literary motivation for including Aśā’el’s sin (as described in 8: 1) in 1 En. 6–11. The teaching of the crafts of seduction mirrors the sin of the Watchers in mating with human women, while the sharing of skills of war reflects the violence caused by the giants, thereby creating a double admonition against sins of sex and sins of violence in the story as a whole.58 However, the sins related to divination and magic attributed to Šemiḥ aza and the Watchers in 8: 3 are not related to the giants and the damage they do, and so the inclusion of these sins cannot be explained as easily.59 Ga ἀδικημάτων, Eth. gĕf‘ā. 54 See Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 181. 55 Ga ἀδικίας, Gs ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, Eth. ‘āmaḍ ā. Gs of 9: 6 reflects a considerably different version; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 204 n. 6b. 56 Ga τὰ μυστήρια Gs τὰ μυστήρια… τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (see n. 55), Eth. ḫ abu’āta ‘ālam (eternal secrets). 57 Gr. μυστήριον, Eth. mĕšṭ ira. 58 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 180. 59 Numerous motivations have been proposed for the addition of these sins to the story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, some of which also relate to the inclusion of Aśā’el’s sins of illicit revelation. H. S. Kvanvig has proposed that in the expanded Šemiḥ aza tradition the Watchers story draws from the Phoenician, Egyptian, and Hittite practices of using magic rituals to call on primeval gods descended to the netherworld for mantic purposes; Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 313. Nevertheless, there is no specific evidence that such rituals were practiced by Jews during the Hellenistic period. J. Collins (“Apocalyptic Technique,” 101–2; Apocalyptic Imagination, 51–53) maintains that the redactor of BW, by making illicit knowledge a central feature of the Watchers story, intended to reinterpret the myth of sexual misconduct in terms of inappropriate revelation. Collins interprets this retelling of the myth as a comment on the culture shock in Israel during the Hellenistic period. Similarly, M. E. Stone (“Book of Enoch,” 489–90) posits that the cultivation of sacred speculation during the rise of Hellenism, particularly among the educated classes, is what led to the polemic against such speculation in BW, although he does not offer textual evidence for his theory. L. T. Stuckenbruck (“‘Angels’ and ‘Giants,’” 361) has proposed that the insertions regarding illicit knowledge are actually a polemic against an existing tradition whereby Abraham’s (legitimate) knowledge of astrology and similar arts was transferred from Enoch through the giants. According to J. VanderKam (Growth of Apocalyptic, 133), the improper knowledge of which the Watchers stand accused in 13: 2 and 16: 3 contrasts with the revealed knowledge 53

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in 1 Enoch

165

The focus on the illegitimacy of certain astrological, mantic and magical knowledge in the redacted Watchers story testifies to the fact that the redactor’s world was one in which such knowledge was regularly put into practice. The inclusion of this type of knowledge in the Watchers myth achieves a dual purpose: it delegitimizes and demonizes this knowledge while also accounting for its perceived effectiveness. According to the redactor of BW, both the sinfulness and the effectiveness of magical and divinatory practices originate from the same source: the evil Watchers and their sin in transgressing the boundaries between the human and the divine. These evil otherworldly forces provide the power that enables these illicit practices. The redactor’s apparent need to explain the origin of these practices highlights the theological difficulty that they presented. The theme of illegitimate knowledge as a source of sin was not a popular one in Second Temple texts. One exception is found in Jub. 8: 3, where Noah’s great-grandson Cainan discovers a tablet that contains the Watchers’ teachings on astrology, causing him to sin. Cainan is the son of Arpachshad, who is given the Chaldees as part of his inheritance (Jub. 9: 4), thereby linking the illicit knowledge of the Chaldeans (see Jub. 11: 8) with the Watchers.60 As elucidated by L. T. Stuckenbruck, in Jubilees the line of transmission of illegitimate knowledge from “bad angels” is kept distinct from the line of legitimate knowledge that flows from “good angels” through Enoch and Noah to Abraham. The author of Jubilees thereby successfully distinguishes between two “lines” of knowledge.61 It is likely that the difficulty of the distinction between “good” and “bad” knowledge explains the neglect of illicit knowledge as a cause of sin in other Second Temple texts. After all, what was considered illegitimate by the redactor of Enoch, particularly medicinal knowledge (as in 1 En. 7: 1, 8: 3), was seen in a highly positive light by the author of Jubilees (Jub. 10: 10, 13).62 Similar positive approaches to all types of knowledge, including “magical” knowledge, would have prevented the Enochic approach to illicit knowledge from becoming an accepted motivator of sin. Consequently, the idea that forbidden knowl-

that Enoch imparts in the succeeding chapters of BW, chapters 17–36. C. A. Newsom, too, sees the revelation of the Watchers as a foil for the legitimate revelation of Enoch (Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6–19,” 320–1, 329). The misappropriated knowledge of the Watchers stands in contrast with the true mysteries available to those who transmit Enoch’s revelation in 1 Enoch 17–19. 60 L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6: 1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries BCE,” in The Fall of the Angels (ed. C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck; TBN 6; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 113. 61 Stuckenbruck, ibid., 113–4 and n. 63 ad loc. 62 See Stuckenbruck, ibid., 114.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

166

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

edge lies behind ongoing human sin was abandoned in these Second Temple texts.63

1 Enoch 19: 1–2: Worship of Demons In 1 En. 19: 1–2 the spirits of the Watchers are described as continually leading humans astray.64 The Watchers’ bodies are bound until the judgment day but their spirits, equivalent to the spirits of the giants in 15: 8–12, roam the earth and tempt humans into idol worship: they “lead them astray to sacrifice to demons as to gods.”65 The particular sin that the spirits cause is fitting: by demonstrating non-divine power, these spirits are responsible for humans worshipping non-divine power. The demons, however, are not identical to the spirits.66 They are non-angelic spiritual beings who are the recipients of worship. The demons’ origin is not explained; their existence is simply assumed. Perhaps the extreme nature of this sin caused the author to attribute it to the spirits of the Watchers. Sacrificing to demons is the ultimate rebellion against God. The author may therefore have connected this transgression to the ultimate divine rebels, the Watchers. The idea that the Watchers caused the sin of idol worship is later reflected in the book of Jubilees. Of all the passages reviewed above, only the passage at 1 En. 19: 1–2 explicitly describes human sin after the flood as the result of the Watchers’ sin. And while the sin of the Watchers is mentioned elsewhere in 1 Enoch, specifically in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90),67 there, too, no earthly consequences result from the Watchers’ sin following the flood, which eradicates the last of the giants.68 Sins of humans are not to be attributed to the Watchers,

63 While texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls community express the idea that certain “mysteries” should be kept secret within the community (see 1QS IV.6), this secret knowledge is not considered “bad” in any sense of the word, and is never mentioned as a potential cause of sin. 64 According to Dimant (“‘Fallen Angels,’” 81 [Hebrew]), these spirits are not those of the Watchers themselves, but rather of their offspring. 65 Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. The phrase “sacrificing to demons as to gods” is drawn from the predicted sin of the Israelites in Deut 32: 17 (see also Ps 106: 37). 66 As noted by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. Nickelsburg identifies these demons with the “spirits” who rule the nations, citing LXX Deut 32: 8. However, there is no indication in the text that these demons rule the nations. 67 The Watchers are also mentioned in passing in 1 En 21: 10, when Enoch sees the site of their imprisonment. 68 The account of the Watchers and their punishment in the Animal Apocalypse parallels the ‘Aśā’el and Šemiḥ aza traditions found in BW, as noted by Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 83 (Hebrew). ‘Aśā’el is portrayed as sinning first (86: 1–2), separately from the other angels, and is bound first (88: 1–2), while the rest of the Watchers are bound only after the giants begin to kill each other (88: 3). Unlike the account in BW, some giants remain to perish in the flood (89: 6).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Summary

167

but to humans themselves. The author of the later Epistle of Enoch may well have been continuing this approach to sin when he argued in 1 En. 98: 4:69 “Thus lawlessness was not sent/given70 upon the earth; but men created it by themselves, and those who do it will come to a great curse.”71

Summary: Watchers in 1 Enoch While the myth of the Watchers is found in several forms in 1 Enoch, only one short passage clearly attributes the advent of sin after the flood to the Watchers, and then only to the very specific sin of sacrificing to demons. The purpose of the Watchers myth as it is found in 1 Enoch was not to explain the origin of sin. In 1 En. 6–11 the story expresses divine justice against paradigmatic sinners and justifies the devastation of the flood. In 1 En. 15: 1–16: 4, the Watchers myth is used to explain the origin of natural evil. The Book of the Watchers does present a causal connection between the possession of forbidden knowledge and sin. While there have been numerous attempts to explain the motivation for attributing sin to forbidden knowledge in BW, it must be acknowledged that this theme was not adopted by the majority of Second Temple literature. The focus on illicit knowledge as a source of sin was too difficult to maintain in the face of a more positive outlook on knowledge shared by most other Second Temple texts. There are two other important contributions of 1 Enoch to the development of the demonic explanation of sin in Second Temple texts. First, while the description of the havoc that the spirits of the giants wreak on earth in 1 En. 15: 1–16: 4 does not explicitly include causing sin, the general terms for destruction used in 15: 1–16: 4 allow the book’s audience to interpret them as 69 The author of the Epistle knew BW (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 422) and therefore the Epistle clearly dates to a later period. It is difficult to narrow the dating of the Epistle beyond this terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem of mid-first century C. E. based on the Aramaic manuscripts; see Milik, Books of Enoch, 48, 178. Nickelsburg posits that the Epistle could have been composed either in the Hasmonean period or during the Herodian period, while VanderKam posits a possible early Hasmonean date if the Epistle as a whole is contemporaneous with the Apocalypse of Weeks, an originally independent work included within the Epistle. This would allow the Epistle to share the generally accepted early Hasmonean dating of the Apocalypse of Weeks based on its content; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 427–8 and VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 142–5. 70 Eth. ’i-tafanawat “not sent,” Gr. οὐδὲ … ἐδόθη “was not given” (following the Chester Beatty-Michigan Papyrus). 71 Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 468. Nickelsburg (ibid., 477) draws the obvious comparison to Sir 15: 11–20 (see chapter 5) and suggests that these texts reflect a common tradition. He notes that the overarching interest of both texts is human responsibility.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

168

Demonic Sin and 1 Enoch

including sin (as occurred in later retellings of this narrative, specifically in Jubilees). Second, the reference to the sin-causing spirits of the Watchers in 1 En. 19: 1–2 shows that, while the Watchers story was not the explanation of the origin of sin, it could be used to explain the occurrence of specific sins that might seem otherwise unreasonable. The foremost example of such an “unreasonable” sin is the worship of demons despite the existence of a single omnipotent God. The story of the Watchers as it is told in the Book of the Watchers grew into an explanation of the source of sin in subsequent literature of the Second Temple period. This development is a prominent part of the book of Jubilees.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Eight Jubilees and Demonic Sin Jubilees is a complex work, an example of the “Rewritten Bible” genre. It retells the narrative of Genesis and the first half of Exodus as told by an “angel of the presence” to Moses at Sinai.1 Jubilees is commonly dated to ca. 160–150 B. C. E. (the period following the Hasmonean victory).2 Different passages of Jubilees reflect attributions of sin to a variety of demonic figures, among them spirits associated with the Watchers.

The Book of Jubilees: Textual Background The book of Jubilees was composed in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek. The Greek translation was used as a basis for translations into Latin and Ethiopic. Jubilees has survived in its entirety only in Ethiopic, and in fourteen very fragmentary copies of the original Hebrew text that have been found at Qumran.3 1 On Jubilees as an example of the “Rewritten Bible” genre, see S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 61–62 and Segal, Book of Jubilees, 4–5. 2 See J. C. VanderKam, “Jubilees, Book of,” EDSS 1: 434; idem, The Book of Jubilees (GAP 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 1: 17–21. VanderKam derives his dating based on two main pieces of evidence: the terminus ad quem is based on the fragments of Jubilees at Qumran, dated paleographically to 100–50 B. C. E., while allusions in Jub. 4: 15–26 to the Dream Visions of Enoch (1 En. 83–90), dated to no earlier than 164 B. C. E., provide a terminus a quo. An alternative date has been proposed by J. A. Goldstein, “The Date of the Book of Jubilees,” PAAJR 50 (1983): 69–72. Goldstein argues that Jubilees must have been written before Antiochus’ decrees, because the book shows knowledge of events early in Antiochus’ reign but not of Antiochus’ decrees forbidding the observance of Torah law. Consequently Goldstein dates the book to ca. 170 B. C. E. (shortly before the decrees of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B. C. E.) 3 These fragments were found in Caves 1 (1Q17–18), 2 (2Q19–20), 3 (3Q5), 4 (4Q216–224) and 11 (11Q12); see VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1: 435. This is not to say that Jubilees is a sectarian work. D. Dimant has proposed a category of texts found at Qumran that is appropriate for the book of Jubilees: “intermediate” works that share a number of ideas with those of the Qumran community, while lacking specifically sectarian features; see Dimant, “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

170

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

Through an in-depth comparison of the Qumran fragments and the Ethiopic manuscripts, J. C. VanderKam has shown that the Ethiopic manuscripts, when treated critically, reproduce the Hebrew original with “remarkable, though not complete precision.”4 It is therefore possible to use the Ethiopic text for detailed textual studies, a methodology that has been adopted for the present study. Following the approach of M. Segal, who has differentiated between the redactional layer of Jubilees and sections attributed to other sources, this study does not attempt to artificially harmonize the disparate views of sin presented in the various sections of Jubilees.5 The distinction between “author” and “redactor” is not always clear and consequently this study employs the term “author” throughout for the sake of simplicity, while noting passages that have clearly been integrated from other sources.

The Watchers in Jubilees 4 and 5: Reflection of Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 10–11 References to the Watchers story in Jub. 4–5 closely parallel the accounts in Gen 6: 1–4 and in the Book of the Watchers. An exception is the positive depiction of the initial mission of the Watchers in 4: 15: …He named him Jared because during his lifetime the angels of the Lord who were called Watchers descended to earth to teach mankind and to do what is just and upright upon the earth. (Jub. 4: 15)6

The Watchers’ initially positive role, an innovation in Jubilees, is also reflected later, in Jub. 5: 6: “Against his (God’s) angels whom he had sent to the earth he was angry…” as well as in the assertion that in mating with women the Watchers acted “apart from the mandate of their authority” (7: 21). This diverges from the biblical account, where the first action of the bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm is to observe the beauty of human women (Gen 6: 2), apparently from heaven. The idea that the Watchers had a mission that was initially divine can also be seen

Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 106–7, 134. These texts, and Jubilees among them, reflect a broader range of thought than that evidenced at Qumran. 4 See VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 18–95; the quote above is found at ibid., 95. 5 Segal, Book of Jubilees. 6 All Jubilees texts and translations in this chapter follow VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 510; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989) and idem, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989), respectively, except where otherwise noted. This etymology of Jared’s name is based on the reading of the Hebrew name (yrd) as “descended” (sg.).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers in Jubilees 4 and 5

171

in Noah’s reference to the Watchers in prayer as “your Watchers” (10: 21).7 The positive depiction of the Watchers’ original undertaking has been explained in various ways. Perhaps, as VanderKam explains, the relocation of the Watchers’ initial sin from heaven to earth was a means of further distancing evil from heaven.8 Nevertheless, this positive outlook on the Watchers does not affect the other accounts of the Watchers in Jubilees, where the attitude toward the Watchers is resoundingly negative. In Jub. 5: 1–5, an account that closely follows Gen 6: 1–4 and 1 Enoch 10–11, the focus is not on the acts of the Watchers but on the corruption and violence brought about by their children the giants: (2) Wickedness9 increased on the earth. All flesh10 corrupted its way – (everyone of them) from people to cattle, animals, birds, and everything that moves about on the ground. All of them corrupted their way and their established order.11 They began to devour one another, and wickedness increased on the earth. Every thought12 of all mankind’s knowl-

7 J. C. VanderKam, “The Demons in the ‘Book of Jubilees’,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Allan; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 348. 8 J. C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (ed. E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 155. Dimant (“‘Fallen Angels’,” 100 [Hebrew]) provides two alternative explanations: either this is a polemic against the version of the story found in BW, where the Watchers descended to earth with an evil purpose, or it is part of a trend to soften the motif of sinning angels. Segal (Book of Jubilees, 126–32), in contrast, maintains that the author/redactor’s motivation was completely chronological: the author wished to maintain a connection between the beginning of the Watchers’ sin and the flood, while maintaining the tradition in 1 En. 6: 6 that the Watchers descended to earth more than 700 years before the flood. 9 Eth. ‘amaḍ ā, “wickedness, injustice, violence.” VanderKam translates wickedness here, but ‘amaḍ ā may specifically indicate violence; see discussion of 7: 20–33 below. 10 Eth. wa-kwěllu za-śěgā. VanderKam translates “all animate beings,” but I have chosen to present the literal meaning of śěgā, as the literal translation better reflects the biblical text on which the verse in Jubilees is based: “for all flesh had corrupted its way/path on the earth” (Genesis 6:12b). 11 Eth. wa-śěr‘atomu. While VanderKam translates “their prescribed course,” the translation chosen fits the semantic range of śar‘a; see Leslau, Dictionary of Ge‘ez, 532–3. It is also particularly appropriate based on the Vorlage proposed by VanderKam and others: ‫השחיתו‬ ‫דרכם וחקתם‬. This retroversion is based on 11QJub (11Q12) 7 3, ‫; ה[שחיתו דרכם וח]קתם‬ see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 37 and F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, “12. 11QJubilees,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 215. While García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woulde translate ‫ חקתם‬as “their ordinance,” ‫ חקתם‬can also imply estabֹּ ‫ח‬ ֻ refers specifically to the divinely mandated course of lished order, as in Jer 31: 35, where ‫קת‬ the sun, moon, and stars. 12 Eth. ḫ ěllinā. This may also be translated “inclination.” This verse is an interpretation of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

172

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

edge was evil like this all the time. (3) The Lord saw that the earth was corrupt, (that) all flesh had corrupted its established order, and (that) all of them – everyone that was on the earth – had acted wickedly before his eyes. (Jub. 5: 2–3)

This account of the Watchers, which immediately precedes the flood, does not explain how the birth of the giants led to the increase of wickedness among humankind; as in his Genesis source-text, the author simply juxtaposes the giants’ birth with the corruption of “all flesh.”13 There is one significant addition to the biblical account, however. As noted by Segal, the author has added that all flesh has corrupted not only their “ways,” as in Gen 6: 12, but also their “established order” (Eth. śer‘atomu)14 a term used in the context of the flood in Jub. 6: 4. Through this addition the author hints that it is the breakdown of the divine order, initiated by the Watchers, that led to the punishment of the flood.15 Jub. 5: 6–10 describes the punishment of the angels and their offspring, which is inextricably linked to the divine decision to punish humankind through the flood. This passage closely parallels 1 En. 10–11 and as in that passage, neither the giants nor their spirits survive the flood.16 There are consequently no postdiluvian consequences of the Watchers’ sin. Thus, in Jub. 5, the Watchers myth serves as a lesson that all creatures must follow their prescribed paths and keep the commandments of God. The sin of the Watchers has not caused any lasting “impurity.” Instead, it serves as a prototypical example of creatures who did not follow the path prescribed for them by God and who were punished accordingly. The moral of the story in Jub. 5 is particularly clear in its postscript: The judgment of them all has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets; there is no injustice. (As for) all who transgress from their way17 in which it was ordained for them to go – if they do not go in it, judgment has been written down for each creature and for each kind. (Jub. 5: 13)

Gen 6: 5, where “every inclination of the thoughts of (man’s) heart” (‫בו‬ ֹּ ‫ל‬ ִ ‫בת‬ ֹ ‫ש‬ ְׁ ‫ח‬ ְ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫צר‬ ֶ ‫כל ֵי‬ ָ ‫ )ְו‬is described as evil “throughout the day.” In Jub. 5: 2 “inclination of the thoughts” has been collapsed into ḫ ěllinā, thought or inclination, while “the heart of man” is translated as “mankind’s knowledge,” a fairly straightforward translation given the wide semantic range of lēb (lit., “heart”) in the Hebrew Bible. 13 J. Kugel calls this “corruption spread,” noting that while it is not clear how the Watchers corrupted all living beings, “whatever the case, mankind and the animal kingdom seem to have been directly infected”; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 201. 14 See n. 11 above. 15 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 107–8. 16 On the extensive parallels between this passage and BW, see Segal, Book of Jubilees, 115–6. 17 Eth. yět‘adawu ’ěm-fěnotomu.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Jub. 7

173

Jub. 7: Watchers, the Law, and Human Freedom The passage at Jub. 7: 20–33 presents a different view. Here the Watchers story is transformed into an explanation for ongoing sin. This is not to say that the Watchers are presented as the only source of sin. In Jubilees evil exists before the Watchers, who do not appear until chapter 5.18 The sin of Adam and Eve (Jub. 3: 17–25) and the murder of Abel by Cain (Jub. 4: 2–4) are both recounted in Jubilees and are both examples of sin, although neither story is used to explain sin, either as origin or as paradigm.19 The account of the Watchers in Jub. 7: 20–33, however, does tie the Watchers to the ongoing sin of future generations, and also includes an explicit link between the Watchers’ misdeeds and the flood. In the first section of this account, the sin of the Watchers and the violence of their descendants are paradigmatic examples of how Noah’s descendants should not behave. The passage begins with Noah transmitting all the commandments that he knows to his sons and grandsons, teachings his sons to “do what is right,” including basic injunctions to “cover the shame of their bodies,” bless God, honor their parents, love each other, and to “keep themselves from fornication, impurity,20 and from all violence”21 (7: 20). The narrator explains: (21) For it was on account of these three things that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse, apart from the mandate of their authority, with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they

As noted by Dimant in Collins, “Theology,” 108–9. Contra J. C. VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources,” SBLSP 13 (1978): 244. VanderKam proposes that sin is of earthly origin in Jubilees because of the serpent’s instigation in the story of Adam and Eve (Jub. 3: 17–26). However, the role of the serpent in the Jubilees story of Adam and Eve, as well as its lack of an explicit origin, is a straightforward reflection of the biblical text in Gen 3: 1–5, and the sin of Adam and Eve is not presented as an “origin of sin” story; see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 296–7. The story of Adam and Eve’s sin primarily explains why animals do not speak and why humans must wear clothing (Jub. 3: 28– 31), while the story of Cain and Abel emphasizes the prohibition against beating another human being and the requirement to bear witness if one sees such an act of violence (Jub. 4: 5). 20 Eth. rěkws. VanderKam translates “uncleanness,” but the term rěkws can also specifically indicate defilement or impurity (see Leslau, Dictionary of Ge‘ez, 470), and this meaning makes the most sense when used to refer to marriages between the Watchers and human women. 21 Eth. ‘amaḍ ā, “violence, injustice.” While VanderKam translates ‘amaḍ ā here as “injustice,” ‘amaḍ ā is used consistently in this passage to refer to violence and bloodshed. VanderKam, Jubilees Translated, 32 n. 5: 2, notes the use of ‘amaḍ ā to translate ḥ āmās in the Ethiopic translation of Gen 6: 11. In Jub. 7: 20–29 the term ḥ āmās/‘amaḍ ā specifically indicates violence (despite the translation ἀδικίας for ḥ āmās in LXX Genesis 6: 11). 18 19

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

174

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

committed the first (acts) of impurity.22 (22) They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. They were all dissimilar (from one another) and would devour one another: the giant killed the Naphil; the Naphil killed the Elyo; the Elyo, mankind; and people, their fellows. (23) When everyone sold himself to commit violence and to shed innocent blood, the earth was filled with violence.23 (24) After them all the animals, birds, and whatever moves about and whatever walks on the earth. Much blood was shed on the earth. All the thoughts and wishes of mankind were (devoted to) thinking up what was useless and wicked all the time. (25) Then the Lord obliterated all from the surface of the earth because of their actions and because of the blood which they had shed in the earth. (Jub. 7: 21–25)

In this passage, bloodshed in particular is considered an ongoing human consequence of the Watchers’ sin. The Watchers themselves are held responsible for three major sins: fornication, impurity, and violence.24 These three sins, Noah indicates, are what led to the flood (7: 20–21). While the fornication (intercourse with human women) and impurity (illicit marriage with these women) are both perpetrated by the Watchers themselves, the violence is caused by the offspring of the Watchers and ultimately leads to human sin. The birth of the Nephilim triggers a series of killings that ends with humans murdering each other (7: 22). In Jub. 7: 22 the punishment of the Watchers’ offspring, namely their slaughter of each other (as described in 1 En. 10: 9, 88: 2, and Jub. 5: 9) is conflated with their sin. Thus, the sin of the Watchers has repercussions for all of humanity.25 The actions of the Watchers are the justification for the laws that Noah has conveyed to his children. The law emphasized in the continuation of the passage (7: 26–33) is the prohibition of eating animal blood, a proscription transmitted to Noah and his descendants in Gen 9: 4. In Jub. 7: 26–28 the law is given a specific purpose: it is meant to prevent bloodshed of the sort that

Eth. rěkws. See n. 20. VanderKam translates “to commit injustice…filled with injustice,” translating Eth. ‘amaḍ ā as “injustice”; see n. 21 above. 24 On ‘amaḍ ā and h ̣ āmās see n. 21 above. On the similarity between these three transgressions and the three sins mentioned in the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) 6: 3, see J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 74. 25 The giants as described by Abraham in Jub. 20: 5 are guilty of the sins attributed here to the Watchers. In 20: 5, the giants, like the people of Sodom, are guilty of fornication (zěmmut), impurity (rěkws), and corruption (musěnnā). The context of Jub. 20: 5 is a description of the death that follows upon such sins. This may be the reason that the Watchers’ sins in Jub. 20:5 have been transmitted to the giants, who were immediately destroyed as punishment, unlike the bound Watchers. The transformation of amaḍ ā into musěnnā in 20: 5 is understandable if the Hebrew Vorlage was ḥ āmās, as in the passage under discussion above, but was translated as “injustice” rather than “violence” in the Greek Vorlage of 20: 5. 22 23

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Jub. 7

175

resulted from the sin of the Watchers. In this postscript to the Watchers story, unexplained “demons” influence humans to violent acts:26 (26) We (I and you, my children, and everything that entered the ark with us) were left. But now I am the first to see your actions, that you have not been conducting yourselves properly because you have begun to conduct yourselves in the way of destruction, to separate from one another, to be jealous of one another, and not to be together with one another, my sons. (27) For I myself see that the demons have begun to lead you and your children astray; and now I fear regarding you that after I have died you will shed human blood on the earth and (that) you yourselves will be obliterated from the surface of the earth. (28) For everyone who sheds human blood and everyone who consumes the blood of any flesh27 will all be obliterated from the earth. (Jub. 7: 26–28)

The continuation of the passage (7: 30–31) delineates the biblical prohibition of eating the blood of any slaughtered animal or fowl and the injunction to cover all such blood.28 The consequence of ignoring these injunctions is the death of the perpetrator. Noah’s explanation of postdiluvian strife in 7: 26–28 combines two intersecting concepts concerning human agency: on the one hand, the source of human jealousy and violence is demonic interference; on the other, humans are able to resist this interference, particularly by keeping specific commandments.29 In 7: 26–27, the presence of strife in itself indicates to Noah that demons must be interfering in human affairs and thereby entrapping his descendants. (The origin of these demons is not elucidated; they may be descended from the Watchers, but they are not identified with any of the Watchers’ descendants named in Jub. 7: 22.)30 Nevertheless, Noah’s response is not 26 These figures are designated by a term not previously associated with the Watchers: Eth. ’agānĕnt, “demons.” 27 Eth. za-śěgā. VanderKam translates “animate being”; the literal translation “flesh” is used here for the sake of consistency (see n. 10 above). 28 The biblical background for these injunctions is both Noahide (Gen 9: 4) and Mosaic (Lev 3: 17; 7: 26–27; 17: 10–14; Deut 12: 16, 23; 15: 23). The author of the passage in Jubilees has combined the Noahide and Mosaic injunctions with that given to the Israelites in Lev 17: 13 to cover the blood of slaughtered wild animals and fowl. This injunction “flattens” the distinction made in Lev 17: 10–14 between domesticated animals, whose blood is sacrificed, and wild animals and birds, whose blood is covered. (The distinction in Lev 17: 10–14 is maintained in later rabbinic halakah, according to which only the blood of wild animals and of birds must be covered; see m. Ḥ ul. 6: 1.) Such antedating of Mosaic law is typical of the author of Jubilees; see VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 100–9, 140. 29 The complexity of the picture presented in Jub. 7 is reflected by modern interpreters as well. Hence Segal (Book of Jubilees, 149) emphasizes the demonic source of evil in Jub. 7 (while noting that humans are not absolved of responsibility), while L. Stuckenbruck (“Origins of Evil,” 115) stresses the human responsibility for sin in this account. 30 As noted by Dimant and Eshel, the juxtaposition of Noah’s comment and his retelling of the Watchers story implies that the demons are in fact descended from the Watchers; see Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 101 n. 288 (Hebrew); Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 52

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

176

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

an appeal to God or any other supernatural force for assistance.31 Rather, he turns to his children with commandments he enjoins them to fulfill. The more general commandments introduced in the beginning of the passage are intended to prevent sins such as those of the paradigmatic Watchers (7: 20– 21); the prohibition of eating blood with which the passage ends has the specific purpose of preventing violence (7: 27) like that caused by the Watchers’ descendants before the flood (7: 23).32 As transgressing the prohibition of eating blood is equated with murder (7: 28; see Lev 17: 4), it results in human death and the end of human descendants (7: 29). As previously noted (see Chapter 6), the power of the law to combat sin is found in several Second Temple works. In Jub. 7 no explanation is offered regarding how keeping Noah’s commandments will maintain the unity of his descendants and prevent demons from causing discord among them. Nevertheless, fulfilling the commandments that Noah has transmitted is his descendants’ only hope of preventing demonic mischief and ensuring their own continued existence on the earth. This “legal” means of combating demons emphasizes rather than detracts from human free will. The ability of the demons to cause human strife (an ability that would seem to belie human choice) is limited by human fulfillment of specific commandments. These commandments do not compel God to destroy or otherwise limit the demons; rather, keeping the commandments itself limits the demons’ activities and their success, although the underlying mechanics of how it does so is not obvious. Freedom of choice in this passage is assumed, not argued, and human free will interacts with but is not limited by supernatural forces. While the continued existence of demonic forces is taken for granted in Jub. 7: 20–33, Noah’s grandchildren should be fully able to resist demonic influence with the help of the laws that Noah has transmitted to them.

Jub. 10: 1–6: Prayer and Human Helplessness A very different approach is reflected in Jub. 10.33 The prologue in Jub. 10: 1–2 explains that the demons have succeeded in causing Noah’s grandchildren to sin: (Hebrew). Nevertheless, the author does not explicitly identify the demons with the Watchers’ descendants. 31 As opposed to his response in Jub. 10, to be discussed below. See Segal, Book of Jubilees, 149–150 and n. 12 ad loc. 32 It is interesting that the declaration in 1 Enoch that the giants drank blood (1 En. 7: 5) is not repeated here, although it may well have influenced this passage. 33 The different approaches to the Watchers story in chapters 7 and 10, as well as the duplication of passages regarding the evil spirits and the incongruous placement of the narrative of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Jub. 10: 1–6

177

During the third week of this jubilee impure demons34 began to lead Noah’s grandchildren astray,35 to make them act foolishly, and to destroy them. Then Noah’s sons came to their father Noah and told him about the demons who were leading astray, misleading, blinding, and killing his grandchildren. (10: 1–2)

The perpetrators are called “impure demons” (Eth. ’agāněnt rěkusān), perhaps a hint that the postdiluvian demons (’agāněnt) mentioned in 7: 27 did result from the impurity (rěkws) perpetrated by the Watchers in 7: 21. Demons injure humankind in three ways: they actively lead humans into sin, they mislead and blind humans to knowledge of the correct behavior, and they destroy humans (either directly or through the consequences of sin). In contrast to the steps taken against demonic influence in Jub. 7: 20–33, here Noah speaks neither to his children nor to his grandchildren. Instead, he immediately prays to God for direct intervention to protect his descendants from the demons. (3) He (Noah) prayed before the Lord his God and said: “God of the spirits which are in all flesh, you who have shown kindness to me, saved me and my sons from the flood waters, and did not make me perish as you did to the people (meant for) destruction,36 because your mercy for me has been large and your kindness to me has been great: may your mercy be lifted over the children of your children; and may the wicked spirits not rule them in order to destroy them from the earth. (4) Now you bless me and my children so that we may increase, become numerous, and fill the earth. (5) You know how your Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, have acted during my lifetime. As for these spirits who have remained alive, imprison them and hold them captive in the place of judgment. May they not cause destruction among your servants’ sons, my God, for they are savage and were created for the purpose of destroying. (6) May they not rule37 the spirits of the living for you alone know their punishment; and may they not have power over the sons of the righteous from now and forevermore.” (Jub. 10: 3–6)

The terminology of Noah’s prayer does not mirror that found in the introduction (10: 1–2), indicating that it has been drawn from an independent source. Within the prayer, Noah does not call the perpetrators “impure demons” but “wicked spirits” (Eth. manāfāst ’ěkuyān).38 The depiction of the Watchers’ off-

Jub. 10 after Jub. 7, have led M. Segal to conclude that Jub. 7 and 10 were copied from different sources, and that Jub. 10 was influenced by Jub. 7; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 163 and n. 49 ad loc. 34 Eth. ’agāněnt rěkusān. 35 Eth. yāsh ̣ ětěwwomu. VanderKam translates “began to mislead Noah’s grandchildren,” but the semantic range of ’asḥ ata “lead astray, lead into sin, seduce into error, tempt to evil, corrupt, seduce, mislead, deceive, delude” (Leslau, Dictionary of Ge‘ez, 494) together with the word’s context here supports the stronger “lead astray.” 36 Eth. wěluda h ̣ agwl (=hagwl), lit. “children of destruction.” The probable Hebrew Vorlage is běnê šaḥ at (‫)בני שחת‬. 37 Eth. wa-’iyĕmabbĕlu. 38 The term “spirits” is also used in the prayer in reference to “all flesh” (10: 3) and “the living” (10: 6).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

178

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

spring as “wicked spirits” may reflect a different version of the Watchers myth, in which the mating of the Watchers and human women produced not giants, but spirits.39 The strong links between this prayer and the Noah story (see 10: 3, for example) indicate that it may be original to an independent Noah narrative.40 Noah’s prayer introduces an action not previously attributed to the Watchers’ descendants. The spirits “rule” humans, thereby causing sin and destruction (10: 3, 6). Use of the verb “to rule” (Eth. mabbala) indicates the helplessness of humans in the face of these spirits and explains the need to appeal to God (and his rule) for help. This verb is repeated in both the introduction and the conclusion of the prayer. As will be discussed in the following chapter, the idea that spirits cause sin by “ruling” humans is common to apotropaic prayers of the Second Temple period.41

39 Dimant and Segal connect this version of the Watchers myth with a possible variant reading of the defective nplym in Gen 6: 4 as něpālîm, denoting spirits (and not něpīlîm as in MT Gen 6: 4, who are identified as giants in Num 13: 33). See Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 48–49 (Hebrew); Segal, Book of Jubilees, 146–54, 174. 40 See L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance from the Demonic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Early Jewish Literature,” in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (ed. I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema; JSHRZSt 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 156. Stuckenbruck notes that the prayer in its present form could not be uttered by anyone but Noah. It is a “historicized” prayer, completely adapted to its narrative setting. Several scholars attribute the story found in Jubilees 10 to a hypothetical “Book of Noah,” proposed as a source for both Jubilees and a medieval text, the Book of Asaph (also called The Book of Cures [seper harěpû’ôt]). R. H. Charles attributed both Jub. 10 and Jub. 7: 20–39 to this hypothetical work; see Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902), xliv, 61, 78–81. In a subsequent study, F. García Martínez proposed an outline of the hypothesized material from the “Book of Noah” that overlaps with sections of Jubilees (García Martínez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran [STDJ 9; Brill, 1992], 36–39), and M. Himmelfarb suggested that both Jubilees and the Book of Asaph drew from a common Noah source (Himmelfarb, “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha [ed. J. C. Reeves; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 127–36). However, C. Werman has shed doubt on the possibility that the author of Jubilees had access to an actual “Book of Noah,” based on the fact that the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Asaph, Jubilees and ALD all attribute different types of material to the “Book of Noah” and her observation that, unlike his treatment of the Enoch material in Jubilees, the author of Jubilees does not attempt to stay faithful to other sources regarding the “Book of Noah”; Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (ed. E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 171–81. 41 Throughout this and the following chapter, the term “apotropaic” indicates that the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Mastema

179

The justification for Noah’s request in 10: 3 is not the mere fact of human helplessness but the previous favor shown him by God. God’s favor has distinguished him from the “people (meant for) destruction” (10: 3). In Noah’s conclusion he makes a similar distinction: the evil spirits should not have power over the “sons of the righteous,” that is, the sons of Noah. The righteous are those who deserve protection from demons, and their children are those who are, apparently, in need of such protection. Like the sectarian prayers explored earlier, chosenness is accompanied by divine assistance against sin, whether that sin is fueled by internal desire or external influence. The declaration of demonic rule and power over humans, combined with Noah’s appeal to God, indicates even righteous humans’ deep vulnerability. The descendants of the righteous, who are presumably (at least in Noah’s view) predisposed toward righteousness, are susceptible to sinning if beset by demons, just like other “spirits of the living.” Only God can prevent this, in this case by imprisoning the spirits.42 Thus all that remains for a righteous progenitor to do when confronted by these spirits is pray.

Mastema: Bringing Demons into the Fold Despite the prominence of the Watchers in Jub. 7 and 10, the central demonic figure in the Jubilees narrative is the angel Mastema. The name Mastema is biblical; it appears in Hos 9: 7–8 (as maśṭ ēmā) and means hostility or persecution.43 The noun maśṭ ēmā was probably chosen to characterize the angel due to the similarity of the word maśṭ ēmā to śāṭ ān, the angelic “accuser” of Job 1–2 and Zech 3: 1–2. Mastema is introduced following Noah’s prayer in 10: 3–6. In response to Noah’s prayer and his request that God imprison the evil spirits, God tells the angels to bind them (10: 7). Mastema, who has not been mentioned until this point of the narrative, protests: When Mastema, the leader of the spirits, came, he said: “Lord creator, leave some of them before me; let them listen to me and do everything that I tell them, because if none of them is left for me I shall not be able to exercise the authority of my will among mankind. For they are meant for (the purposes of) destroying and misleading before my punishment because the evil of mankind is great. Then he said that a tenth of them should be left

prayer is asking for protection against demonic forces and not that it is necessarily magical or exorcistic; see Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 163. 42 As these are spirits without a physical body, they cannot be killed. Like the Watchers themselves, they can only be bound or imprisoned. 43 It is likely that in the Hebrew version of Jubilees the “Angel Mastema” was meant to be understood as the “Angel of Hostility,” but later translators of Jubilees did not understand the rare word and rendered it as the angel’s proper name; Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 246.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

180

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

before him, while he would make nine parts descend to the place of judgment.” (Jub. 10: 8–9)

Mastema is characterized as the “leader of the spirits” (Eth. mal’aka manāfāst) and is of sufficient standing within the divine realm to request a boon of God.44 Mastema’s ability to work his will among humans is part of the divine order, demonstrated by Mastema’s right to the assistance of demons in this endeavor. Mastema functions as a member of the heavenly court,45 much as the śāṭ ān does in Job 1: 6 ff.46 In fact, Mastema is called a “satan” (Eth. sayṭ ān) in Jub. 10: 11. The remainder of the Watchers’ descendants, previously free of divine restraint, will now be (indirectly) under the control of the heavenly court via their subjugation to the divinely sanctioned Mastema.47 From this point on, the evil spirits are a functional part of the divine system, and do not represent a force independent of God’s will or control.48 The attempt in Jub. 10: 8–11 to integrate autonomous, dangerous demons into a theistic system mirrors developments within Mesopotamian literature explored by K. van der Toorn.49 Van der Toorn notes the tension in Mesopotamian literature between the status of demons as “cosmological accidents, anomalous births, the misfits of creation”50 that exist outside the divine order and the integration of these demons into the divine order.51 An example is Lamashtu, also called Pashittu, who, according to early Near Eastern myth, was created accidentally and then thrown out of heaven for her bad disposition.52 In the Near Eastern epic Atraḫ asis this demon, who kills infants at birth, is created as part of a deliberate scheme of the gods to prevent overpopulation. She is thus transformed in accordance with the harmonized, theistic worldview of the author of Atraḫ asis.

44 Dimant (“Belial and Mastema,” 247–8) notes that the Ethiopic can also be translated as “the Angel of Spirits,” classifying Mastema as one of God’s angelic court. 45 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 249, notes that in both this episode and prior to the binding of Isaac (an episode discussed further below), Mastema is in direct dialogue with God. 46 See Alexander, “Demonology,” 2: 342. 47 See Segal, Book of Jubilees, 177. 48 Dimant states this more strongly, asserting that the fact that God grants Mastema’s request shows that Mastema’s rule over the spirits is part of the overall plan of creation (Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 248). However, the fact that Mastema makes his request only as a response to the divine decree to imprison all the spirits (Jub. 10: 7) implies that there was no intent to appoint Mastema their ruler from the beginning. 49 Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 73–76. 50 Toorn, ibid., 68. 51 Toorn, ibid., 76. Van der Toorn notes the example of Namtar, who in the early second millenium was depicted as an independent death-dealing demon. By the first millenium Namtar had been turned into a subordinate of Ereshkigal, the queen of the netherworld (ibid., 73). 52 Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 69.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Mastema

181

The subordination of the evil spirits to Mastema in Jubilees has a similar effect. While acknowledging the descendants of the Watchers as an ongoing force of evil and sin, the author of Jubilees subordinates them to Mastema, a functionary of the divine court. In this way the spirits are subdued; for the remainder of the Jubilees narrative, Mastema will function as the principal villain.53 Consequently, in the historical narrative presented in Jubilees, the Watchers myth as an explanation of sin and evil is integrated into a larger account of evil as part of the divine plan. By subordinating the Watchers’ descendants to a member of the divine court, the author of Jubilees has succeeded in demythologizing evil and sin to the extent that they comprise a controlled part of the monotheistic system. The incongruity in attributing evil to the divine order is alleviated by blaming its necessity on “the evil of mankind” (10: 8). Nevertheless, Mastema’s characterization of the spirits in 10: 8 illustrates that, while Mastema is a member of the divine court and so must presumably answer to some form of divine authority, his subordinate demons retain some of their original anarchic nature, sowing disaster that includes both moral and natural evil. A variety of activities are attributed to the evil spirits in this passage. They cause both moral evil (by misleading humans) and natural evil (by destroying them). While Mastema requests the spirits’ assistance in both, his justification centers on the natural evil they will cause; the spirits are able to punish evil humans by “destroying” before these humans’ final punishment (or judgment, another possible meaning of kwěnnan) by Mastema. This passage provides a complex justification for the continued existence of sin-causing demons. On the one hand, they are part of the divine system, and meant to punish evildoers. Their acts of causing sin, however, are a by-product of their justified role of causing natural evil. Being set free to cause natural evil allows them to cause moral evil as well. There is an implied “evil leads to evil” theme in the idea that one tenth of the misleading demons are set free because of the “evil of mankind.” Through the work of Mastema’s spirits, evil humans will be entrapped in a cycle of sin. The uncontrolled quality of these demons is observed by the angels in their immediate response to the new state of affairs: He (God) told one of us that we should teach Noah all their medicines because he knew that they (the evil spirits) would neither conduct themselves properly nor fight fairly. (Jub. 10: 10; italics mine.)

The angels teach Noah about medicinal plants (10: 12–13), and thereby “the evil spirits were precluded from pursuing Noah’s children.” Here the evil prevented is natural evil, specifically disease. There is no reference in 10: 10–13 to 53 In fact, as noted by VanderKam (“Angel Story,” 154), the Watchers story does not play a dominant role in Jubilees as a whole; after 10: 1–14 it is “largely forgotten.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

182

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

the demons’ sin-causing activities. The means by which sin can be prevented are not enumerated, perhaps because (as implied in 10: 8) demons cause sin as a response to a cycle begun by humans themselves. The role of Mastema in the remainder of Jubilees goes beyond that of simply punishing evildoers, his function according to 10: 8. His actions instead resemble the activities of the spirits as described in Jubilees 10, despite his divinely sanctioned status. Throughout Jubilees, Mastema does not behave as a reasonable punisher of sinning humans, but as an enemy of the righteous and an arbitrary instigator of evil.

Mastema and his Role in the Book of Jubilees Mastema appears throughout the book of Jubilees as a cause of both “natural” misfortune and human sin. Similar to the role of the śāṭ ān in Job 1–2, Mastema is a participant behind the scenes in a variety of biblical and extra-biblical episodes. Such is the case in Jub. 11, when Noah’s children begin to sin, although Mastema does not appear at first. During this jubilee Noah’s children began to fight one another, to take captives, and to kill one another; to shed human blood on the earth, to consume blood; to build fortified cities, walls, and towers; men to elevate themselves over peoples, to set up the first kingdoms; to go to war – people against people, nations against nations, city against city; and everyone to do evil, to acquire weapons, and to teach warfare to their sons. City began to capture city and to sell male and female slaves. (Jub. 11: 2)

As the passage continues, the narrator explains that Noah’s children also made idols, with the “help” of spirits: They made molten images for themselves. Each one would worship the idol which he had made as his own molten image. They began to make statues, images, and unclean things; the spirits of the savage ones were helping and misleading (them) so that they would commit sins, impurities, and transgressions. (Jub. 11: 4)

Just as Noah feared, the descent of Noah’s children into warfare accompanies their consumption of animal blood: transgression of the precise prohibition meant to protect Noah’s descendants from this eventuality.54 Their transgression is not initially instigated by demons. In fact, only after Noah’s descendants actually make idols for themselves do the spirits become directly involved. As promised in Jub. 10: 8, the spirits entrap Noah’s children in their own sin.55

54 M. Segal (Book of Jubilees, 184–5) proposes that Jub.11: 1–6 was composed in order to present the realization of Noah’s predictions in Jub. 7. 55 This depiction of the spirits’ involvement in human idol worship may also reflect 1 En. 19: 1–2, where the Watchers’ spirits lead humans astray so that they sacrifice to demons (see

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Mastema

183

Only after this description does the narrator explain that it is Mastema who is holding the reins: Prince Mastema was exerting his power in effecting all these actions and, by means of the spirits, he was sending to those who were placed under his control (the ability) to commit every (kind of) error and sin and every (kind of) transgression; to corrupt, to destroy, and to shed blood on the earth. (Jub. 11: 5)

The spirits’ activities are defined clearly in this verse. They corrupt (cause sin), destroy (cause natural evil), and shed blood, in the direct and foreseen consequence of the bloodshed of Noah’s children (according to Jub. 7: 27). The first two activities are drawn from Mastema’s description in Jub. 10: 8, “they are meant for destroying and misleading,” while the third indicates the underlying cause of the spirits’ interference. The structure of this passage, in which the sins of humankind are enumerated long before the spirits and Mastema are mentioned, lays the lion’s share of the blame on Noah’s children rather than on Mastema or on his spirits. Both humans and spirits bear the blame for the bloodshed and sinning that pervaded the world, but the cycle of violence was begun by humans. Humans not only started wars but also ignored the injunction not to eat blood, an injunction meant to prevent violence among humankind and to thwart demonic interference. In Jub. 11: 2–6 demonic influence is not the sole source of sin, but acts alongside or even intensifies the human choice to sin. Mastema’s subsequent activities indicate that the author does not distinguish categorically between the source of natural evil and the source of sin. Thus, in Jub. 11: 11 Mastema causes a famine, which continues until Abram, who realizes the “errors of the earth”56 uses his wisdom to repel the ravens that are eating the farmers’ seeds (11: 18–21). This is not the last time that Mastema appears in the book of Jubilees. In the continuation of the Jubilees narrative, Mastema is a device for transforming a variety of biblical scenes that are theologically troubling in their original form. In Jub. 48: 2 it is Mastema who is behind the “bloody bridegroom” incident that threatens Moses’ life in Exod 4: 24–26. Similarly, in Jub. 48: 9 it is Mastema who enables the Egyptian sorcerers’ magic in Exod 7: 11, 22; 8: 3. Moreover, as noted above, it is not God but Mastema who hardens the Egyptians’ hearts in 48: 12, 16–17. Chapter 7), as noted by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. It may also be connected to Jub.1: 11, a verse in which idol worship and sacrificing children to demons are closely related: “They made for themselves high places, (sacred) groves, and carved images; each of them prostrated himself before his own in order to go astray. They will sacrifice their children to demons and to every product (conceived by) their erring hearts (Eth. sěḥ tata lěbbomu).” In Jub. 1: 11, however, the demons are not blamed for human wrongdoing; the “erring hearts” of humans are wholly responsible for their sins. 56 And in particular the error of idol worship; see 11: 16–17.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

184

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

Similarly, in Jub.17: 16 Mastema takes on the role of the śāṭ ān in Job; he urges God to test Abraham’s loyalty by commanding the sacrifice of Isaac. In this manner the author of Jubilees solves the theological puzzle presented by Gen 22: 1, where God “tests” (nīsā) Abraham for no apparent reason. This aspect of Mastema’s role in the sacrifice of Isaac depends on his status within the divine court. In Jub. 18: 9 the “angel of the presence” who is narrating the story describes himself standing in front of God and Mastema when God orders him to stop the sacrifice. Despite the “shaming” of Mastema in this episode (18: 12), he continues to be part of the divine system, and a thorn in the sides of Abraham’s descendants.57 His spirits’ continued capability of causing sin is illustrated in Abraham’s blessing to his grandson Jacob: May the spirits of Mastema not rule over you and your descendants to remove you from following the Lord who is your God from now and forever. May the Lord God become your father and you his first-born son and people for all time. Go in peace, my son. (Jub. 19: 28–29)

The role of Mastema’s spirits in this passage is unmistakable: they cause humans to stop following God. What is less obvious is whether this blessing is successful in freeing the descendants of Jacob from the sin-causing power of Mastema’s spirits. In the continuation of Jubilees, Mastema remains a threatening force, but not because of his ability to lead Israel astray. In fact, such a possibility is never mentioned following this passage. The blessing in 19: 28 may imply that while Mastema may cause natural evil that affects the children of Israel, following Abram’s blessing he will have no power to cause moral evil among them. (In contrast, Mastema is capable of hardening the Egyptians’ hearts in Jub. 48: 12, 16–17.) If so, this passage presents another view of Israel’s immunity to demons contrasted with the vulnerability of Gentiles.58 Abraham’s blessing that the descendants of Jacob will not be ruled by these 57 In Pseudo-Jubilees, a text found in fragmentary form at Qumran (4Q225–227), Mastema’s role is somewhat magnified. True to his name, he hopes to cause hostility (wyśṭ ym), apparently between Abraham and Isaac (4QpsJuba [4Q225] 2 i.10); see Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 112 (Hebrew). Mastema’s spirits form a cheerleading squad opposite the weeping angels, hoping for Isaac’s death (4QpsJuba 2 ii.5–7). Mastema and his angels are contrasted here with the “angels of holiness” in their antipathy towards Isaac. (For further analysis of this scene in Pseudo-Jubilees, see M. J. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Development of a Midrashic Motif,” DSD 7 [2000]: 263–291.) Beyond this passage no further account of these “angels of the Mastema” (or, “angels of hostility”) has survived among the fragments of Pseudo-Jubilees. Both Mastema and Belial are mentioned shortly thereafter, in a text that is ֯ ‫“ שר ה‬the prince too fragmentary to interpret: 4QpsJuba 2 ii.14 ‫מ]ש[טמה וישמע בליעל אל‬ Mastema, and Belial listened to…” For an attempt to interpret this fragment, see Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 247. 58 Another possibility is that Mastema here is not a proper name at all, and that the phrase “spirits of Mastema” simply signifies “hostile spirits”; see n. 43. If such is the case, 19: 28–29 refers to the anarchic demons of Jub. 7 that report to nobody and cause general havoc.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Mastema

185

spirits is immediately followed by the wish that God be the father of Israel. Abraham’s distinction of Israel as the “firstborn of God” is linked to the idea that Israel is not ruled by spirits. This is similar to the declaration in Jub. 15: 30–32 that God chose only Israel, and that while “He made spirits rule over all (nations) in order to lead them astray from following him” (15: 31), over Israel “he made no angel or spirit rule because he alone is their ruler” (15: 32). However, the dichotomy between the nations and Israel is not repeated here, nor is God contrasted directly with the evil spirits. What this blessing shares with 15: 30–32 is an implicit connection between Israel’s freedom from demons and Israel’s special relationship with God. Mastema’s continued ability to cause problems for Abraham, and later for Moses and the Israelites, demonstrates that the children of Israel are nevertheless not completely safe from Mastema and his spirits.59 Nevertheless, God’s angels can easily defeat Mastema if they are so inclined. This is evident when, following the exodus, Mastema is alternately bound and released by the angels (48: 15–18) so that he will not “accuse” the Israelites during their escape but will encourage the Egyptians to chase them afterwards to the Red Sea, thereby sealing the Egyptians’ doom.60

59 E. Eshel sees a contradiction between the statement in Jub. 15: 31–32 that spirits rule only over other nations and Mastema’s interference in the binding of Isaac; see Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 111 (Hebrew). Such contradictions are numerous in the book of Jubilees. Nevertheless, as noted above, Jub. 15: 31–32 does not refer to Mastema; it reflects proto-LXX Deut 32: 8 and may refer to the original Watchers. 60 The content of Mastema’s potential accusation against the Israelites in 48: 18 involves the Israelites’ illicit “borrowing” of utensils and clothing from the Egyptians; the possible addressee of Mastema’s “accusation” is ambiguous. While Mastema could speak to the Egyptians themselves, his role as divine accuser makes it more likely that God is the intended audience. In the Jubilees version of the Exodus story, God does not explicitly command Israel’s deceitful borrowing, avoiding the inevitable theological questions that are raised by the divine commandment (or prediction) in Exod 3: 22. Once this act is not divinely mandated, it may be considered a sin, and Mastema can thus employ it in an accusation against Israel, resulting in a lack of divine favor when the Israelites need it most. For this reason Mastema must be bound by the “good” angels for the Israelites to effect their escape. The narrating angel affords a double justification of the Israelites’ “borrowing,” no longer justified by explicit divine mandate. The narrator explains that the Israelites’ plunder of the Egyptians was payment for the Israelites’ forced labor (48: 18). He also asserts that “We did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt empty-handed” (48: 19) (i. e., the angels have fulfilled the divine promise in Exod 3: 21), thereby hinting that the borrowing was in accord with the divine will without actually repeating God’s command of the questionable deed.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

186

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

Summary: Mastema in Jubilees Throughout Jubilees Mastema functions completely within the divine system. He can be stopped by God or his angels at any time, although he continuously seeks to do harm to Israel through both natural and moral evil. While Mastema is presented as an instigator of sin, his activities in Jubilees derive principally from the literary motivation of avoiding theological problems that are raised by the biblical text. Mastema is a divinely sanctioned troublemaker who is easily subdued by the “good” angels and whose power against Israel is limited in scope. Accepting such a troublemaker as part of the divine court does not present a theological difficulty for the author of Jubilees.61 In addition, Noah’s prayer and Abraham’s blessing provide protection to the righteous and the children of Israel from Mastema’s sin-causing capabilities. Protection from Mastema’s influence through blessing and prayer fits well within the tradition of apotropaic prayer, while assuring the audience that they are not wholly vulnerable to Mastema and his spirits.

Mastema in the Damascus Document The Damascus Document is unusual among Qumran texts in that it mentions the Angel Mastema (or “Angel of Hostility”) as a force for evil.62 The only other Qumran text that mentions this angel, apart from copies of Jubilees itself and Pseudo-Jubilees texts, is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, discussed in Chapter 10.63 The Damascus Document mentions Mastema in the context of a citation from Jubilees. Jubilees is referenced as a historical source text providing evidence of Israel’s blindness (CD XVI.2–6). As in the book of Jubilees itself, this passage does not attempt to identify the figure of Mastema with Belial, who is the main demonic figure featured in the Damascus Document:64 ‫ראל מכל אלה הנה הוא מדוקדק על ספר‬ ֗ ‫( יש‬3) ‫ ופרוש קציהם לעורון‬vacat … (2) ‫( ליובליהם ובשבועותיהם וביום אשר יקום האיש על נפשו לשוב‬4) ‫מחלקות העתים‬

61 In much the same way, the role of the śāṭ ān in the divine court of Job 1–2 is not addressed as a problem in Job. The śāṭ ān’s actions in Job 1–2 serve to explain the source of Job’s troubles and to distance them from God, while the “fact” of the śāṭ ān’s divine function is not presented as a theological difficulty. 62 The chief demonic force for evil in the Damascus Document is Belial, discussed in the following chapter. 63 Belial is also called an “angel of hostility (maśṭ ēmā)” in the War Scroll (1QM XIII.11). This juxtaposition is discussed as part of the analysis of Belial in the War Scroll in Chapter 10. 64 Text and translation follow Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD).”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial and the Nations: A Complex View of Sin

187

‫( על כן נימול‬6) ‫( אל תורת משה יסור מלאך המשטמה מאחריו אם יקים את דבריו‬5) … vacat ‫ב אברהם ביום דעתו‬

(2) …vacat And the explication of their times, when (3) Israel was blind to all these; behold, it is specified in the Book of the Divisions of the Times (4) in their Jubilees and in their Weeks. And on the day when a man takes upon himself (an oath) to return (5) to the Torah of Moses, (the) angel Mastema shall turn aside from after him, if he fulfills his words. (6) Therefore, Abraham was circumcised on the day of his knowing. vacat … (CD XVI.2b–6a)

The composer of this passage declares that as soon as one returns to the “Torah of Moses,” Mastema will leave him. This declaration suits the view reflected in Jubilees that the righteous are free from the demonic power to cause sin. The reference to circumcision in CD XVI.6 may also be an interpretation of Jub. 15: 33 (discussed below), in which those who do not circumcise their sons are referred to as “children of Belial.” However, the author of this text does not make a deliberate effort to reconcile the two figures of Mastema and Belial. Rather, the author’s choice of Mastema as the demonic figure featured in this passage reflects its context, a reference to Jubilees, where Mastema is the chief demonic figure.

Belial and the Nations: A Complex View of Sin While Noah’s prayer and Abraham’s blessing focus on protection from Mastema’s spirits, the prayer of Moses at the start of Jubilees (1: 19–21) concerns a force of evil who does not appear again in the book: Belial.65 (19) “Lord my God, do not allow your people and your heritage to go along in the error of their hearts,66 and do not deliver them into the control67 of the nations with the result that they (the nations) rule over them lest they make them sin against you. (20) May your mercy, Lord, be lifted over your people. Create for them a just spirit. May the spirit of Belial not rule them so as to bring charges against them before you and to trap them away from every proper path so that they may be destroyed from your presence. (21) They are your people and your heritage whom you have rescued from Egyptian control by your great power. Create for them a pure heart68 and a holy spirit. May they not be trapped in their sins from now to eternity.” (Jub. 1: 19–21)

65 The epithet “people of belial,” applied in Jub. 15: 33 to Jews who do not circumcise their children, will be discussed below. 66 Eth. basěh ̣ tata lěbbomu. VanderKam translates “in the error of their minds”; I have preferred a slightly more literal translation here, but the sense is the same. 67 Eth. ’ěda, lit. “hand/power.” 68 Eth. lěbba něṣ uh ̣ a; VanderKam translates “a pure mind.” The more literal translation presented here evokes the verse on which this passage is clearly based, Ps 51: 12 (see below).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

188

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

The introduction echoes Moses’ prayer for forgiveness following the sin of the golden calf in Deut 9: 26–29. The body of the prayer, however, differs considerably. In Deut 9: 26–29, Moses prays that God will ignore Israel’s sin and spare their lives. In the Jubilees prayer, Moses requests God’s assistance to prevent Israel’s sins, sins that have been predicted by God in the previous passage (1: 5–18). Consequently, Moses focuses not on the merit of Israel’s forefathers as in Deut 9: 27 but on preventing the reign of Belial and of the nations. As in the prayer of Noah on behalf of his descendants and the blessing of Abraham to Jacob, Moses’ prayer is concerned with the sinning of a particular group. However, in Moses’ prayer there are two entities that are blamed for causing sin. The first of these is “the nations.” Moses describes the Gentile nations as instigating sin by ruling over Israel. Belial is similarly capable of ruling the Israelites and causing them to sin; in this he resembles not only the nations in Moses’ prayer but also the evil spirits in Noah’s prayer and Abraham’s blessing. Unlike the evil spirits, however, Belial is also capable of accusing the Israelites of their sin before God (like the biblical śāṭ ān in Job 1–2 and Zech 3: 1–2 and like Mastema in Jub. 48: 18) and can consequently ensure their destruction. It is apparent that Belial has a role within the divine system. It is God who can prevent Belial’s activity, not by imprisoning Belial (who apparently is not subject to internment due to his status in the heavenly court) but by creating a just/holy spirit and a pure heart (Eth. lěbba něṣ uḥ a) for his people. This is the lone reference to Belial as a demonic force in Jubilees, an indication that (like Noah’s prayer) Moses’ prayer originally existed independently of Jubilees.69 In Moses’ prayer it is Belial, and not the Watchers’ descendants or Mastema, who is the Israelites’ principal demonic threat. This prayer expresses the extent and limit of Belial’s power. Belial interacts with God, not as a counterpart but as part of the divine system; he accuses Israel before God. In fact, the author’s first concern is that Israel not be destroyed as a result of accusations by Belial and as a result of Belial’s other occupation, “entrapping” people so that they do not follow the correct path. Belial’s entrapment signifies continuous future wrongdoing, an ongoing choice “away from every proper path.” In the dynamic described here, as in Jub. 10, one evil deed leads to more, with Belial’s ready assistance (1: 20). Nevertheless, the entrapment feared by Moses can be counteracted by God enabling an internal change in Israel, as requested in his repetition in 1: 21 of Ps 51: 12, “Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; (re)create in me a steadfast spirit.” This change in the Israelites’ hearts and spirits will ensure that the Israelites do not become “trapped” in their sins (1: 21) by continuing to perpetrate them. This reference to Ps 51: 12 in the conclusion of a prayer meant to prevent

69

See Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,”152.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial and the Nations: A Complex View of Sin

189

sin is apt. The pure heart and upright spirit requested by the psalmist in Ps 51: 12 are primarily meant to prevent future sins after his past sins have been forgiven in 51: 11.70 Similarly, the intent of the conclusion to Moses’ prayer is to prevent the continued “entrapment” of Israel in their current sins “from now to eternity,” so that they do not continue in the wrong path. In Moses’ prayer an external force causes sin but can be countered with an internal change. Moreover, sin is not caused exclusively by demonic forces. Moses’ initial request does not attribute the Israelites’ sins to the nations or to Belial. Rather, he asks that God not allow “his people” to walk in the error of their hearts (see Jer 11: 8).71 This is a description and not an attribution of sin, but it is notable in that it blames nothing but the human heart. Thus, Moses’ prayer presents three possible sources of sin: the people can sin on their own; they can sin because of the rule of the nations; they can sin and subsequently be accused before God due to the rule of Belial. God is asked to prevent each of these eventualities, and in conclusion, is requested to execute a change within the sinning Israelites. Consequently Moses’ prayer presents a complex view of sin. There is no attempt in this prayer to identify a single source of sin. Within the kaleidoscopic view presented, Belial, the demonic force that causes sin, has a place in the cosmic design similar to that of Mastema: he accuses sinners from within the divine court. As will be discussed in the following chapter, the “rule” of demons is a typical idiom in apotropaic prayer to describe demonic influence that leads to sin. This idiom is found in both Noah’s prayer and Abraham’s blessing. However, the verb used to depict Belial’s rule in Jub.1: 19–21 demonstrates that the author of this prayer invested this trope with additional meaning. The verb kwannana, “to rule/govern,”72 expresses the rule of Belial as well as that of the nations. It differs from verbs used for demonic rule elsewhere in Jubilees (śalaṭ a, the cognate of the Hebrew/Aramaic šlṭ , and mabbala, found in 10: 3,6; 19: 28). The description of Belial “ruling” Israel employs a term that usually

70 See Rashi, ad loc.; Radaq and Ibn Ezra ad loc. explicitly connect this internal change to the struggle with the evil inclination. See also the structural analysis by B. Renaud and his division between 51: 9–11 where the speaker asks that he be cleansed of his past sins and 51: 12 ff., where the focus is on the re-creation of the speaker; “‘Miserere’,” 204–5. 71 M. Kister interprets 1: 20–21 as demonstrating that the control of Belial’s spirits over Israel pertains only when Israel does not follow God’s commandments; M. Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16: 4–6 and Related Texts),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 167–8. This is not stated explicitly anywhere in Jub. 1: 20–21. The passage does convey the idea that Belial’s dominion is instrumental in causing Israelites to sin, but does not present any particular precondition. 72 See Leslau, Dictionary of Ge‘ez, 287.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

190

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

denotes human rule, not demonic control of humans, thereby ensuring a more complete parallel between Belial and the nations, who may literally rule Israel. By describing Belial ruling Israel in the same way that the nations do, the author completes Belial’s parallel to the nations, thereby making a powerful point regarding the inevitable consequences of foreign rule. Like the “rule” of the demonic Belial, the rule of the nations results in the sinning of Israel.73 In Jub. 1: 19–21, the nations are not explicitly under the rule of demons.74 They are instead compared with the demons themselves. Essentially, the nations act metaphorically as the demons’ earthly substitute, ruling Israel and causing them to sin.75 In Moses’ prayer, by paralleling the activities of Belial to the activities of the Gentile nations vis-à-vis Israel, the author emphasizes just how important it is to be free of the control of Gentile nations. Belial’s control is overarching and yet personal enough to lead the individual to sin. In the author’s mind, the rule of Gentile nations is just as pernicious. The early Hasmonean date of Jubilees provides a suitable historical background for this harsh approach to Gentile rule.76 It is likely that this attitude toward non-Jew73 D. Dimant has connected the depiction of the demonic rule of the evil shepherds in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90) and of the “angels of hostility” in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah to references to Gentile rule in the Community Rule and the Damascus Document; see D. Dimant, “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” RQ 22 (2006): 373–88, particularly 387–8. However, Dimant does not discuss any passage or text that refers to both demonic and Gentile rule. 74 Contra Segal, Book of Jubilees, 256. In Segal’s view, the nations’ attempt to cause Israel to sin stems from the fact that the nations themselves are ruled by evil spirits, as in Jub. 15: 31–33. However, this is nowhere stated in Jub. 1: 19–21 nor is this idea found anywhere in its immediate context. 75 A similar idea may lie behind the choice of the verb šlṭ in Abram’s prayer in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) XX.15, where Abram asks for Pharaoh to be stopped before consummating his desire for Sarai: “and may he not be empowered (yšlṭ ) this night to defile my wife.” Like a demon, Pharaoh is capable of controlling (as denoted by the verb šlṭ ) and afterward “defiling” Sarai, and therefore Abram uses typical anti-demonic language in asking for God’s prevention of such a deed. The similarity between Abram’s prayer and prayers requesting protection from demons is noted by L. T. Stuckenbruck, who draws no conclusions other than the irony of God’s dispatch of an evil spirit to Pharaoh in response to Abram’s prayer; see Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 153–4. A. Lange classifies Abram’s prayer in the Genesis Apocryphon as an incantation due to God’s response and posits a link to Abram’s later prayer to remove the spirit; see Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 382. However, as Stuckenbruck notes (ibid., 154), Abram’s prayer in XX.15 is not connected in the narrative to the expulsion of the spirit from Pharaoh. 76 The alternate date proposed by Goldstein, (“Date of Jubilees”; see n. 2), shortly before the decrees of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B. C. E., provides an equally fitting historical setting for this attitude.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial and the Nations: A Complex View of Sin

191

ish authority would continue to influence those Jewish communities, like the one at Qumran, that read and studied the book of Jubilees until the Great Revolt, over 200 years later. The parallel between the nations and Belial in 1: 19–21 is compatible with the worldview espoused in Jub. 15: 30–32, whereby the nations are ruled by demons, although they “belong” to God (15: 31): (30) … But he chose Israel to be his people. (31) He sanctified them and gathered (them) from all mankind. For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him. He made spirits rule over77 all (nations) in order to lead them astray from following him. (32) But over Israel he made no angel or spirit rule because he alone is their ruler. He will guard them and require them for himself from his angels, his spirits, and everyone, and all his powers so that he may guard them and bless them and so that they may be his and he theirs from now and forever. (Jub. 15: 30–32)

The idea that the nations are ruled directly by evil demons in 15: 30–32 was likely inspired by a reading of Ps 96: 5 similar to that of the Septuagint, “because all the gods of the nations are demons (δαιμόνια, as opposed to MT ’elîlîm, ‘idols’) but the Lord made the heavens.”78 It may also have been influenced by a version of Deut 32: 8 similar to the one in 4QDeutj (4Q37) XII.14 (comparable to the Vorlage of LXX Deut 32: 8) whereby the nations’ boundaries are fixed according to the number of the bny ’lhym (“sons of God”). As bny ’lhym is the same term that describes the heavenly perpetrators in Gen 6: 1–4,79 the connection would be apparent to any Second Temple audience: the nations are led by descendants of the evil Watchers, while “the portion of the Lord is his nation” (Deut 32: 9).80 Hence, according to the author of Jubilees, Gentiles are not simply tempted to sin. They are permanently subject to demonic forces; their sinning is inevitable and absolute. In contrast to Israel, the nations are completely divorced from the divine supervision that can curb these forces. Eth. ’aslaṭ a. VanderKam, “Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” 354. 79 A similar version of Deut 32: 8 may be reflected in a fragmented verse of the Hodayot (1QHa XXIV.33–34) where bĕnê ēl appears in parallel with the “borders of the nations”: ‫בולות עמים‬ ֯ [‫( כ[֯ובדתה מבני אל ש֯ו]מעי… ג‬text following Schuller, Stegemann, and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 283; Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 99). An understanding of the bny ’lhym as demons would be in keeping with what M. Smith proposes as the meaning of this version of Deut 32: 8 in its biblical context. According to Smith, the bny ’lhym of 4QDeutj and LXX Deuteronomy do not constitute gods like YHWH; they are at most minor divinities, and therefore are not at odds with the monotheistic framework of Deuteronomy 32; see M. S. Smith, “What Is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between Their Biblical Past, Their Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and Their Textual Witnesses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 279. 80 On the early versions of this verse and how they may have been understood in the Second Temple period, see Smith, “Scriptural Text.” 77 78

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

192

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

The subjection of the nations to demonic forces in 15: 30–32 is actually less harsh than the the way the nations are depicted in Moses’ prayer, where they are parallel to Belial himself. Nevertheless, it is a small leap from considering Gentiles completely subject to demons to depicting them as an extension of these demons. The connection between the Gentiles and demons in 15: 30–32 may have influenced the following depiction of those Jews who do not circumcise their children as “people of belial” (15: 33). The phrase “people of belial” here does not refer to the character Belial; it is equivalent to the biblical bĕnê bĕlīya‘al (lit., “sons of belial”) used to refer to various sinners, usually of a particularly immoral nature.81 However, the secondary connotation of “people of (a demonic) Belial” may draw from 15: 30–32. By following the Gentile nations in refraining from circumcision, these non-circumcising Jews have brought themselves that much closer to demonic leadership. Neither the prayer regarding Belial in Jub. 1: 19–21 nor the description of the nations in 15: 30–32 is part of an integrated view of sin in Jubilees.82 Belial is not heard from following Moses’ prayer. And despite the claim in Jub. 1: 19– 21 that only God rules the Israelites, the angel Mastema continues to cause problems for “God’s people” throughout the Jubilees narrative. Likewise, the cosmic order described in 15: 30–32 that contrasts God to the evil spirits who rule over the nations is not reflected in the remainder of Jubilees. The spirits in 15: 30–32 function as the direct (evil) counterparts to God’s leadership of Israel. In contrast, Mastema is not a counterpart of God, but a member of the divine court with a job to perform, similar to the śāṭ ān in Job, and is easily restrained by God’s angels. The passage in 15: 30–32 is particularly isolated in this respect, reflecting a worldview that is not accepted in the remainder of Jubilees. Throughout Jubilees, the main demonic perpetrators function as part of the divine court. It is likely, however, that the worldview reflected in 15: 30– 32 was the precursor of the dualistic system found in sectarian texts discussed later in this study. While Moses’ prayer presents a complex view that includes multiple and coexisting sources of sin, it also has an important function within the book of Jubilees as a whole. Together with Noah’s prayer and Abraham’s blessing, Moses’ prayer assures Jubilees’ audience that they have been protected from any future demonic influence through a series of prayers by prominent and righteous forefathers. The author/redactor of Jubilees describes a world where demons are active and dangerous, yet implies that the “righteous” of Israel are safeguarded from their influence.

81

See Deut 13: 14; Jud 19: 22, 20: 13; 1 Sam 2: 12, 10: 27; 1 K 21: 10, 13; 2 Chr 13: 7. Contra Segal, who concludes, in part on the basis of 15: 30–32, that the worldview of Jubilees is basically dualistic; see Segal, Book of Jubilees, 268–9, 323–4. 82

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Abram’s Prayer

193

Abram’s Prayer: A Complex Demonic Reference in Jubilees Jubilees contains another apotropaic prayer that addresses several sources of sin. In Jub. 12: 20–21, Abram prays for guidance following his recognition of God’s supreme power: (20) Save me from the power of the evil spirits who rule the inclination of people’s hearts.83 May they not mislead me84 from following you, my God. Do establish me and my posterity forever. May we not go astray85 from now until eternity. (21) Then he said: “Shall I return to Ur of the Chaldeans who are looking for me to return to them? Or am I to remain here in this place? Make the path that is straight before you prosper through your servant so that he may do (it). May I not proceed in the error of my heart,86 my God.” (Jub. 12: 20–21)

As noted by M. Kister, the phrase used in 12: 20, Eth. “ḫ ěllinā lěbba sab’ě,” is the equivalent of the biblical yēṣ er lēb hā’ādām “the inclination/thought of the heart of man” (Gen 6: 5; 8: 21).87 As in Gen 6: 5 and 8: 21, the yēṣ er appears here in its neutral sense; it is not evil in and of itself, but is vulnerable to evil, which in Abram’s prayer is equated with demonic rule.88 Abram’s prayer presents a situation in which what seems to be an internal evil inclination is actually the work of demonic forces.89 The urgings of these spirits are at the root of the internal experience of an “evil inclination.”90 By ruling the human inclination, demonic forces can “mislead” even the righteous from following God (12: 20). 83 VanderKam translates “the thoughts of people’s minds,” but I have chosen a more literal translation of the Ethiopic ḫ ěllinā lěbba sab’ě. 84 Eth. ’i-yāsh ̣ ětuni. 85 Eth. ’i-něsh ̣ at. 86 Eth. ba-sěh ̣ tata lěbběya. VanderKam translates “in the error of my mind,” but again I have chosen a more literal translation of the Ethiopic. 87 Kister, “Inclination,” 244–5 and n. 5. 88 Kister, ibid., 256–7. On the similarities between the use of yēṣ er in Jubilees and in the Hebrew Bible, particularly the use of yēṣ er to denote human good or evil contemplation, see Lichtenberger, “Vorkommen und Bedeutung,” 10. 89 Lange, “Essene Position,” 383, notes Abram’s observations regarding the stars at night in 12: 17–18 and consequently identifies the demonic forces with the “spirits” of the stars, linked to astrology. However, there is no indication of such an identification in the prayer itself. In fact, Abram’s observations in 12: 16–18 do not attribute “spirits” (Eth. maněfāst) to the stars, sun, and moon, but only “signs” (Eth. ta’amměra/ta’amměrāt). 90 Kister, “Inclination,” 258, compares this combination of external demonological and internal psychological views of the human with the use of the term rûăḥ in 4Q230 (4QCatalogue of Spirits) to denote internal qualities as well as (apparently) demonic forces. See also E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “‘These are the names of the spirits of…’ A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a),” RevQ 21 (2004): 529–47.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

194

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

The subsequent references in Abram’s prayer to evil spirits “misleading” or humans “going astray” should be read in light of this initial declaration. Human sin is, at least partially, the result of these interfering demons. As such it can be portrayed as human error, following the misleading activities of the spirits. In Ethiopic, this idea is expressed through the repetition of the root sḥ t, a verbal root used to express error and sin three times in this prayer, once regarding the evil spirits (“may they not mislead me,” Eth. ’i-yāsḥ ětuni), once regarding Abram and his posterity (“May we not go astray”; Eth. ’i-něsḥ at) and finlly in connection to Abram himself (“in the error of my heart”; Eth. basěḥ tata lěbběya). Unlike the other passages of Jubilees that have been explored in this chapter, in this prayer this is the only term used to express sin. If the Ethiopic faithfully represents the Hebrew Vorlage, the repetition of this root creates a link between the sinning caused by evil spirits, the possible sinning of Abram’s descendants, and the potential sin of Abram himself.91 It is implied that, like the sin caused by evil spirits, Abram’s sin or error is found in his heart/mind (lěbb) but may have its source in demonic “rule.”92 Therefore, unlike prayers discussed earlier in this study (see Chapter 2), in this prayer there is no request that God effect an internal change in Abram. It is not an internal human desire to sin that may lead Abram astray, but the subjugation of Abram’s neutral or good inclination to demonic rule. Consequently Abram only needs protection from evil spirits and the “straightening of his path” in order to behave virtuously. The view that even “internal” evil stems from demonic activity anticipates works such as the Treatise of the Two Spirits,93 where spirit forces for good and evil continue their struggle within the human frame. This view is similar to aspects of apotropaic prayers that will be explored in the following chapter. Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12: 19–21 is probably an independent apotropaic prayer that was inserted into Jubilees by the author, who then added to Abram’s question about his future path in 12: 21a.94 Possibly this prayer was put into Abram’s mouth to further justify the vulnerability of the righteous to the desire to sin. It expresses the wholly internal experience of this desire. The

91 Contrast Jub. 1: 19–21, where God is implored not to let his people “go along in the error of their hearts” (Eth. laḥ awir bāsěḥ ětata lěbbomu) but where the nations “make them sin” (Eth. yěgbarěwwomu kama yěḫ ěṭ ě’u). 92 Lange, “Essene Position,” 383, understands Abram’s prayer to be a “hymnic exorcism,” but as noted by E. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNTSup 231; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 163, a demonic tendency to cause humans to stray is not the same as demonic possession, and a prayer intended for prevention is not identical to an exorcism meant to free someone who is already the victim of a demonic attack. 93 The Treatise of the Two Spirits is discussed in Chapter 12. 94 Kister, “Inclination,” 245–6. Kister notes that Abram’s question relates to an actual path as opposed to the metaphorical path depicted in 12: 21b,c.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Summary and Conclusion

195

composer of the prayer does not deny that it feels like the desire to sin comes from one’s own mind or inclination. However, this desire is actually the result of “foreign,” demonic rule. Hence, even the “righteous” audience may experience an internal desire to sin, a desire that is nevertheless the fault of demonic forces.

Summary and Conclusion: Jubilees and the Demonic Source of Sin This exploration of Jubilees has revealed an assortment of approaches to demonic sin. While Jubilees texts depict a variety of demonic figures and activities, it is possible to determine certain general tendencies in the book as a whole. Although chapters 7 and 10 in Jubilees both reflect the understanding that (some) human sin can be attributed to the Watchers, these passages take strikingly different approaches to free will. In Jub. 7, humans have complete free will and can prevent the demons’ influence by fulfilling God’s commandments. However, in the introduction to Jub. 10, humans have little chance of overcoming the influence of the evil spirits on their own; Noah must pray for divine help so that his descendants will remain righteous. The angel Mastema features as the main demonic force in Jubilees. He is put in command of the Watchers’ descendant spirits, but unlike these spirits he is a full member of the divine court, whose job it is to punish evildoers. In this manner, the author succeeds in subordinating the anarchic descendants of the Watchers to a theistic system. At the same time, Mastema’s activity does not seem to impair human free will, with the possible exception of his influence on the Egyptians. Mastema causes famine and tries to destroy Isaac, Moses and the Israelites, but he is easily defeated and rarely causes sin. Mastema and his spirits can directly cause sin only when people are guilty of beginning the cycle of sin themselves. Noah’s descendants ignored the commandment to refrain from eating blood and creating idols, enabling Mastema and his spirits to become directly involved. Thus, Jubilees seen as a whole is inconsistent regarding the power of human free will, but presents the viewpoint that humans (or at least Israelites) are not completely helpless. Demons are a force to be reckoned with, but Jubilees provides the reader with a selection of means to combat them, including keeping divine commandments, prayer to God, and a realization that one’s inclination actually reflects a demonic will. The preceding exploration of Jubilees demonstrates that a belief in demonic influence in this period did not require an accompanying belief in determinism nor a denial of other sources of sin. In fact, the Watchers story is only one of several explanations for the desire to sin presented by the author of Jubilees. In 1: 19–21, Israel is vulnerable to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

196

Jubilees and Demonic Sin

the possible rule of Belial, which is paralleled to the rule of foreign nations. The sovereignty of either may cause the sinning of the Israelites. While Mastema is the principal demonic force for evil in Jubilees, the appearance of Belial in 1: 19–21 provides evidence that this figure was also prominent in the milieu in which Jubilees was created. Belial is depicted ruling over humans, causing them to sin, and accusing them before God. The latter two activities are elsewhere attributed to Mastema by the author of Jubilees. The dualistic system found in certain Qumran sectarian texts, in which Belial plays a prominent part, is not reflected in this short passage; rather, Belial seems to fill a divinely mandated function. This is evidence of an earlier tradition regarding Belial prior to this figure’s integration into a more dualistic system in Qumran works (explored in later chapters of this study). In addition, Jubilees reflects two different types of association between Gentiles and demonic influence. In Jub. 1: 19–21 (Moses’ prayer), Gentiles are compared to Belial in their ability to cause Israelite sin through their rule of Israel. The parallel drawn between Belial and the Gentiles in this passage extends even to the verb that is used to depict Belial’s rule, and reflects a nationalistic sentiment that opposed Gentile rule at all cost. In Jub. 15: 30–32, the Gentiles are depicted as being ruled by demons, explaining Gentile idol worship and establishing their identity as evildoers. Jubilees 15: 30–32 portrays a somewhat dualistic system, where God leads Israel but leaves the nations to demonic rule. However, the author is careful to tell the reader that “all (nations) belong to him” (15: 31). In 1: 19–21, Belial functions as part of the divine court, accusing Israel before God, and is not presented as part of a dualistic worldview. Israel may be vulnerable to Belial as they are vulnerable to the nations, but God can and will easily counteract either. Jubilees is particularly significant because of the multivalent and complex views of sin it presents; these are especially evident in the apotropaic prayers it contains. Moses’ prayer in Jub. 1: 19–21 and Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12: 19–21 both combine external (demonic) and internal (human inclination) views of sin. As explored in the previous chapters on prayer, petitions to the Deity frequently express an internal experience. This is no less true of apotropaic prayer, ostensibly intended to fight “external” demonic influence. In many apotropaic prayers the petitioner expresses his internal dilemma, a dilemma that happens to involve demons that attack from without. (This phenomenon will be explored further in Chapter 9.) Thus it is not surprising to find prayers that present a view of sin that is mixed, expressing an understanding of the cause of sin that contains demonic as well as internal human elements. These texts are further evidence of the complexity of approaches to sin during the Second Temple period. There is no doubt that the author of Jubilees maintained a worldview in which demons held real power. He is familiar with several stories regarding the demonic origins of sin, accounts that include the Watchers, Mastema,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Summary and Conclusion

197

Belial, and the anonymous “spirits” who rule the nations. But in the book of Jubilees, demonic power, especially as it regards Israel, is acknowledged but limited. In 10: 8–9, the anarchic spirit descendants of the Watchers are subjugated to Mastema, a member of the divine court, and are consequently made part of the divinely guided system. Mastema himself is easily defeated, whether by a young Abram who knows how to scare ravens or by angels who bind and release Mastema at will. The parallel between the nations and Belial (1: 19) and the nations’ total subjugation to sin-causing spirits (15: 31–32) serve to demonize the Gentile while distancing demonic power further from the “righteous of Israel.” A series of passages, including Noah’s prayer, which requests that the righteous be free of demonic influence, Abraham’s blessing to Jacob that his descendants not be subject to Mastema’s spirits, and Moses’ prayer for freedom from Belial, further distances demonic power from the “chosen” people. The “righteous” Jewish audience now knows that freedom from and assistance against the demons has been requested of God by Noah, Abraham and Moses in a chain of prayer and blessing that safeguards the righteous Jew. By using the good angels’ medical knowledge to battle demonic disease and a combination of God’s commandments and prayer to battle demonic sin-causing influence, members of Jubilees’ intended audience can successfully combat the demons of their world.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Nine Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence Demonic characters figure prominently in Qumran texts, both sectarian and nonsectarian.1 Consequently it is no surprise that the depiction of demonic forces as a prime cause of sin is frequently found in these texts. Nevertheless, the manner in which these forces operate, their characterizations, and even the theological worldviews they seem to represent are not identical.

The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sectarian Apotropaic Prayer A variety of texts found at Qumran reflect the wider impact of the Watchers myth, several of which also include the association of sin with the Watchers and their descendants. Familiarity with earlier forms of the Watchers myth was presumably widespread at Qumran; five fragments of the Enochic Book of the Watchers2 and at least fourteen fragments of the book of Jubilees3 were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jubilees is cited as an authoritative text in CD XVI.2–4.4 Independent texts found at Qumran also reflect the Watchers story. A prominent example is the “Book of Giants,” found in six copies at Qumran.5 In this text the giants, born of the Watchers, send for Enoch to interpret a dream that one of their number has had. This request results in the prediction of the giants’ demise in the flood.6 In one passage, 4Q531 (4QEnGiantsc) 19 2–5, the

1 Although the particular origins of these demons were not necessarily important to the Qumran community; see Reimer, “Rescuing the Fallen Angels.” 2 Including 4Q201; 4Q202; 4Q204; 4Q205; and 4Q206. 3 Including 1Q17, 1Q18, 2Q19, 2Q20, 3Q5, 4Q176 (fragments 19–21), 4Q216, 4Q218, 4Q219, 4Q220, 4Q221, 4Q222, 4Q223–224, 11Q12, and perhaps 4Q217; see VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1: 435. 4 Jubilees may also be cited in 4Q228; see VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1: 437. 5 In 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530–533, and 6Q8. 6 This text has been identified by J. T. Milik as the forerunner of the Manichean Book of Giants, which was long thought to be related to the story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch; see Milik, Books of Enoch, vi; idem, “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumran,” HTR 64 (1971): 366–72 and idem, “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Watchers and Other Demons of Influence

199

giants mention the “violence” (ḥ ms) they have done on land. Another passage, 4Q532 (4QEnGiantsd) 2 9–10, mentions the great destruction that the giants have caused.7 A thematic pesher composed within the Qumran community, the “Pesher of the Periods” (4Q180),8 unsurprisingly equates the leader of the wayward angels with Azazel, identified in Lev 16: 7–10 as the intended recipient or destination of the released sacrificial scapegoat.9 Due to the fragmentary nature of this text, however, it is not possible to state definitively that it connects the Watchers to sin following the flood.10 It is clear from apotropaic prayers at Qumran, however, that the Watchers’ descendants were considered an ongoing threat, together with other demons who caused sin. Petitioners continued to request divine assistance against these demonic figures.

The Watchers and Other Demons of Influence in Sectarian Apotropaic Prayer A definitive connection between the Watchers and the ongoing threat of sin is evident in several apotropaic prayers found at Qumran. References to the

Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Jeremias G., H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117–27. 7 While h ̣ bl in line 9 could mean either destruction or corruption, the following line, which explains that the giants did not have enough to eat, relates to the recounting of the giants’ gluttony and ensuing destruction in 1 En. 7: 3–5. Consequently it appears that the giants have caused destruction, but not necessarily sin. 8 D. Dimant has noted the sectarian terminology and predestinarian ideology found throughout 4Q180; see Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” IOS 9 (1979): 91–94, 96. She suggested the title “Pesher on the Periods” based on the introduction to the document in 4Q180 1 1; see “Ages of Creation,” EDSS 1: 11. 9 The connection between the Watchers and Azazel is also found in later rabbinic literature. See Pesiqta Rabbati 34 (also cited in Chapter 4 n. 14), where Azazel is equated with two characters, Aza and Azael: ‫אומרים לפניו רבש"ע לב אבן נתתה לנו והוא התעה אותנו ומה עזא ועזאל שגופן אש‬ ?‫כשירדו לארץ חטאו אנו לא כל שכן‬ “They (the children of Israel) will say before him: ‘Master of the Universe, You gave us a heart of stone, and it led us astray. If Aza and Azael, whose bodies were fire, sinned when they came down to earth, would not we (sin) all the more?’” 10 J. J. M. Roberts, “Wicked and Holy (4Q180–181),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 204–13, reconstructs the end of line 9 q[ṣ w], so that the line reads “and to bequeath wickedness (for) all [his] ti[me],” indicating the existence of evil until the eschaton. While this reconstruction is possible, it is far from certain.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

200

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

Watchers, or more specifically to their descendants the “bastards,”11 are found throughout these prayers (in addition to two fragmentary references in the Hodayot).12 These prayers provide a glimpse into the understanding of the nature of these spirits as well as a more nuanced view of the nature of demonic influence in general. The exact purpose of these prayers is a matter of dispute. Some, like the Songs of the Sage, address God in both the second and third person and function both as a prayer to the Deity and as a means of repelling demons.13 However, with the exception of the incantation in 11Q11, all of the texts discussed below are directed principally to God and therefore correspond to the category of prayer.14

11 The descendants of the Watchers are first called “bastards” in 1 En. 10: 9: “And the Lord said to Gabriel: ‘Proceed against the bastards…’” As noted by M. A. Knibb, both the Ethiopic manĕzūrān and the Greek τους μαζηρέους reflect the underlying Aramaic noun ‫ ;ממזרא‬see Knibb, Ethiopic Enoch, 2: 88 n. 10: 9. 12 The word “bastards” (‫ )ממזרים‬appears in 1QHa XXIV.16, and a fragmentary reference to the ability of these “bastards” to cause sin may also be found in 1QHa XXIV.26 ‫בבסר כי‬ ‫ת ממזרים להרשיע בבשר‬ ֯ ‫“ כול רוחו‬with flesh, for all the spirits of the bastards to act wickedly/condemn/cause sin with/in flesh.” (Text and translation following Schuller and Newsom, 1QHodayota, except for alternatives to “act wickedly” and “with.”) The meaning of ‫להרשיע‬, translated by Newsom as “to act wickedly,” can also be to condemn, i. e. to accuse sinners before God, or to cause sin; both meanings are found in Qumran texts. (For ‫ הרשיע‬as condemning, see 1QS V.7; 4Q424 3 2; 4Q511 [4QShirb] 63–64 iii.4; for ‫ הרשיע‬as causing sin see CD V.19; 1QpHab IX.11.) 13 Thus this set of prayers has sometimes been classified as “incantations” depending on one’s definition of the latter. E. Chazon has categorized Songs of the Sage as “magical incantations” on the basis of their function, namely frightening evil spirits, as well as their citation of the apparently apotropaic Ps 91 and their mention of demons related to the Watchers. However, Chazon notes that they differ from most incantations in their direct address of God and in their possible liturgical use; see E. G. Chazon, “Hymns and Prayers in 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), 1: 263. 14 E. Eshel distinguishes between “apotropaic prayers” and “incantations,” and describes Songs of the Sage as the former because the texts it includes address God and not the demons they mean to frighten and because they share terminology common to apotropaic prayers; see E. Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000 (ed. E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 79–80, 87– 88. A. Lange, in contrast, considers a wide variety of prayers to be exorcistic texts, including Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 (Lange, “Essene Position,” 431). However, as noted by E. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNTSup 231; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 163, temptation to sin is not the same thing as possession, and the word exorcism “should at least be reserved for the cure of demonic assaults, and not extended to prevention.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511)

201

Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511) Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511) is a set of prayers uttered by the Maskil,15 apparently an official of the Dead Sea community, as a protective measure against evil forces. It nevertheless describes the nature of humanity in a manner similar to other sectarian prayers cited in Chapter 3:16 ‫רצתי ומחושך‬ ֗ ‫ק֯ו‬ ֯ [ ‫( ]חמר‬4) ‫( ]ש[מתה דעת בסוד עפרי לה]ללכה [ ואני מצ֗ירוק יצר‬3) ‫שרי‬ ֗ ‫ב‬ ֗ ‫֗ו֗ה ֯וע֯֯ולה בתכמי‬°° ֯‫מגב֯]לי [ה‬

(3) You [pl]aced knowledge in my frame of dust in order that I might p[raise You.] And I am from spit, a creation of (4) [clay] I was kneaded, and from darkness is [my f]orm h °°wh and iniquity is in the innards of my flesh (4Q511 28–29 3–4)

Yet, the iniquity in the speaker’s “innards” does not only stem from his human form. Demonic “bastards” are also a source of impurity inside him, and must be frightened away by God (4Q511 48–49 +51 ii.1b–6a):17 ‫עה ובפ֯י ֯יפחד ]כול‬ ֯ […]°‫( הודות צדקו ֯ו‬2) […‫( … ]…[ת֗ בינתו נתן ]ב[לב]בי‬1) ‫]…וב[גויתי‬°‫ד‬ ֯ ‫ד‬ ֯ ‫בשרי יס֯ו‬ ֯ (4) ‫כמי‬ ֯ ‫ת‬ ֯ ‫ב‬ ֯ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫מאה כי‬ ֯ ‫ט‬ ֯ ‫טי‬ ֯ […]‫( ממזרים להכ֯נ֯יע‬3) [‫רוחות‬ …‫( אשמה ארש֗יע‬6) ‫כ֯ול מופתי גבר מעשי‬ ֯ ‫על‬ ֯ […‫( אל בלבבי ואוע֯י]ל‬5) ‫מ֗לחמ֗֯ות֯ חוקי‬

(1) … […]t His knowledge he put [in my] hear[t…] (2) the praises of His righteousness, and […]‘h and by His mouth he frightens [all the spirits] (3) of the bastards to subdue […]ṭ y impurity. For in the innards18 of (4) my flesh is the foundation of d[…and in] my body are battles. The statutes of (5) God are in my heart, and I prof[it] for all the wonders of man. The works of (6) guilt I condemn …

By uttering these prayers, the sage means to frighten these forces away (see 4Q510 1 3,4; 4Q511 8 4). It is clear from this prayer that the subjugation of the spirits of the Watchers’ descendants into a divinely mandated system, as devised by the author of Jubilees,19 was not accepted by the composer of this prayer. God himself is called upon to frighten these spirits; the angel Mastema, who commands these spirits in the book of Jubilees, is not mentioned. The refusal to situate evil spirits within a divine system mirrors similar developments in Near Eastern texts. The efforts of authors of Near Eastern epics to “tame” anarchic demons by subjugating them to theistic systems 15

See 4Q510 1 4; 4Q511 2 i.1 Text of Songs of the Sage in this chapter follows M. Baillet, “510. Cantiques du Sage (i)” and idem, “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 215–9; translation is my own except where otherwise noted. 17 Translation of this passage is based on that of M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook, “4QShira–b (4Q510–511),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 6: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 168–211, slightly modified. 18 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “filth.” On the possible meaning of takmê/tĕkāmê (‫)תכמי‬, a term found only at Qumran, see n. 35 below. 19 See previous chapter. 16

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

202

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

(noted in the previous chapter) were not popularly accepted, as witnessed by Near Eastern exorcism texts that address these demons as independent forces.20 Similarly, despite the prominence of Jubilees in the Qumran community,21 these sectarian prayers do not acknowledge the subjugation of the Watchers’ descendants to Mastema and the divine court as in Jub. 10. As noted by D. Flusser, apotropaic prayer in the Second Temple period commonly reflects popular piety and not necessarily the doctrine of religious leaders.22 In this case, “popular piety” placed greater emphasis on the ongoing role of anarchic demonic influence. In particular, Flusser’s observation explains the difference between the depiction of the Watchers’ descendants here and the description of the Watchers and their children in the Damascus Document. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Damascus Document (CD II.17–20) compares the Watchers to sinning human heroes and notes the utter destruction of their children. Thus, according to the Damascus Document, the Watchers’ descendants have absolutely no influence on postdiluvian humanity, and the Watchers are simply an example of typical sinners. The Damascus Document reflects a more “official” representation of Qumran doctrine, while the prayers explored here reflect a more central role for the Watchers’ children in “popular” Qumran belief and practice. Songs of the Sage also sheds light on another aspect of the Watchers’ descendants. The petitioner describes these spirits as part of his internal experience of the desire to sin.23 This desire to sin is not only due to these spirits; it is part of the human condition. The spirits are connected to the “impurity” within the speaker, causing “battles” within him.24 These battles result from the conflict between the laws of God already inside the speaker (lines 4–5) and the impurity or evil spirits that have reached within him. Another passage, 4Q510 (4QShira) 1 4–8, depicts a host of threatening entities, the “bastards” among them:

Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 75–76. As noted above, Jubilees was found in multiple copies at Qumran and is cited as authoritative in the Damascus Document. 22 Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 204. 23 Nevertheless, these spirits are not described as “possessing” the speaker as such. This stands in contrast to descriptions of demonic possession in the synoptic Gospels; see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry,” in Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth; JCTCRS 4; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 77–79. As Stuckenbruck notes, there are few sources composed during the Second Temple period besides the New Testament that describe demonic possession in the strict sense. On the ambiguity of Qumran texts in this respect, see Eve, Jewish Context, 174–216, esp. 214. 24 On the connection between sin and impurity, see the discussion of 11QPsa XXIV (Psalm 155) in Chapter 2 above. 20 21

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511)

203

‫( כול רוחי מלאכי‬5) [‫ב]הל‬ ֗ ‫ ואני משכיל משמיע הוד תפארתו לפחד ול‬vacat … (4) ‫( והפוגעים פתע פתאום לתעות‬6) […]‫חבל ורוחות ממזרים שד אים לילית אחים ו‬ [‫( רשעה ותעודות תעניות בני או]ר‬7) [‫תם בקץ ממשל]ת‬°°‫רוח בינה ולהשם לבבם ו֯נ‬ …‫( ]…[ם לקץ תעניות פשע‬8) ‫באשמת קצי נגוע]י[ עוונות ולוא לכלת עולם‬

(4) … vacat And I, the Maskil, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] (5) all the spirits of the destructive angels, bastard spirits, demons,25 Lilith, howlers26 and […] (6) and those who strike suddenly to lead a spirit of understanding astray and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of (7) wickedness and predetermined time of afflictions for the children of lig[ht], by the guilt of the ages of [those] smitten by iniquity—not for eternal destruction, (8) […]m for an era of affliction of transgression. … (4Q510 1 4b–8a)27

In this passage the “bastard spirits” are simply one type of the numerous demonic spirits who “strike suddenly to lead a spirit of understanding astray.” The demons listed are drawn mainly from Isa 13: 21 and Isa 34: 14, where the day of divine wrath includes the abandonment of the dwelling-places of the wicked to the unbridled forces of nature. These forces include wild animals as well as demonic figures, such as the śĕ‘îrīm and lîlīt.28 The unusual animals in these verses (e. g. ’ōḥ îm)29 were understood by the author of 4Q510 to be demons as well; they are anarchic forces who, like other evil spirits, cause humans to transgress the divine will.30 These demons, however, have a particular limitation. They operate only during the current “period of the dominion of wickedness.” Songs of the Sage thereby recasts the verses from Isaiah: the promised divine day of wrath (Isa 13: 9, 33: 2, 8) now refers to the speaker’s present epoch. This identification of the current era carries within it the comforting thought that its conclusion will bring the total destruction of the wicked, as promised in the Isaiah passages. It also implies that these seemingly anarchic forces are, in the final analysis, subject to the divine plan and subordinate to God’s rule.31 All of these demonic forces, the Watchers’ descendants among them, are capable of leading a person who is usually righteous astray, even if she is endowed with a “spirit of understanding” (line 6). Despite the efforts of the 25 “Demons” is written in two words with an extra ’ālep: šd ’ym. As noted by Baillet (“Cantiques du Sage (i),” 216 n. L. 5), this is a representation of the typical Qumran plene spelling. It is possible that this term was copied as two words due to the influence of Isa 34: 14 and 13: 22, in which ’îyīm (“jackals”) are among the destructive creatures listed. 26 The ’ōh ̣ îm (‫אחים‬ ֹ ) found in Isa 13: 21 apparently denoted howling desert animals, from the verb ’ḥ ḥ , “howl.” 27 Translation mine, but draws from Abegg, Wise, and Cook, “4QShira–b.” 28 lilit as a demonic figure is widely attested in ancient Near Eastern magic; see Alexander, “Demonology,” 2: 335. 29 See n. 26 above. 30 See Alexander, “Demonology,” 2: 334–5. 31 See I. Fröhlich, “From Pseudepigraphic to Sectarian,” RevQ 21 (2004): 404–5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

204

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

author of Jubilees to reassure the righteous reader that demonic forces of sin are not an uncontrollable threat for the righteous,32 Songs of the Sage presents a picture of demonic forces that regularly threaten the righteous and must be frightened away by the direct intervention of God. This intervention is directed specifically toward the Watchers’ descendants in 4Q511 35 6–8. ‫( בגבורתו כ֯ו]ל [רוחי ממזרים‬7) […]‫ר‬ ֯ ‫( ואני מירא אל בקצי דורות֗י לרומם שם דב‬6) […]‫קץ ממשלתם‬ ֯ […]‫( ]מ[֯ועדי‬8) […‫להכניעם מירא֗]תו‬

(6) And I practice the fear of God through the periods of my generations, to exalt the name dbr[…] (7) by his strength al[l] the spirits of the bastards, to subdue them by [His] fear […] (8) [fe]stivals […]period of their rule […] (4Q511 35 6–8)

Here one of the righteous, a practicing “God-fearer,” uses the invocation of God’s power (“his strength,” line 7) to frighten the bastard spirits. Yet again there is a connection between these spirits and an apparently predestined “period of rule” (line 8). It is once more apparent that these spirits do not belong to the orderly ongoing system of divine rule described in Jub. 10; rather, they have been given a “period of rule” during which only God may hold them in check. The periodization of evil is found throughout sectarian texts and will be discussed further in the following two chapters.

4QIncantation (4Q444) The internalized aspect of demonic influence found in Songs of the Sage is echoed in 4Q444, an apotropaic prayer that bears an affinity to Songs of the Sage.33 As in the Songs of the Sage, here, too, the speaker is a righteous “Godfearer” (4Q444 1–4 i.1–4):34 ֯ [ ‫ל ] אל‬ ‫ה‬ ֗ [‫כ]ו‬ ֯ ‫תל‬ ֯ ‫מ‬ ֯ ‫א‬ ֯ (2) […]° ‫מרוח קודשו‬ ֗ ‫אל בדעת אמתו פתח פי ו‬ ֗ ‫( ואני מיראי‬1) ‫צדק‬ ֗ ‫תו‬ ֗ ‫מ‬ ֯ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫תכמי בשר ורוח דעת ובינה‬ ֯ [‫( ]…ב‬3) [‫ויהיו לרוחי ריב במבניתי חוק]י אל‬ […]°° ‫( ]…[֗וה ותתחזק בחוקי אל ולהלחם ברוחי רשעה ול֯וא‬4) [‫שם אל֯ בל֯]בבי‬

(1) And as for me, because of my fearing God, with his true knowledge he opened my mouth; and from his holy spirit […] (2) truth to a[l]l[ the]se. They became spirits of controversy in my (bodily) structure; law[s of God] (3) […in ]innards35 of flesh. And a spirit

32

See the previous chapter. This text was dubbed 4QIncantation in its editio princeps, but as E. Eshel has determined, this text is a prayer, and not an incantation; see “Apotropaic Prayers,” 79–81, 87–8. On the connection between 4Q444 and Songs of the Sage, see Chazon, “4QIncantation,” 371. 34 Text and translation follow Chazon, “4QIncantation”, except where otherwise noted. 35 Chazon translates “blood vessels.” The term translated here, tkmy (‫)תכמי‬, appears only at Qumran (see 1QHa IV.37, XIII.30, XV.7; 1QS IV.20–21; 1Q36 14 2; 4Q511 28–29 4; 4Q511 48–49 + 51 ii.3–4; and 4Q525 13 4) and is always in construct form, presumably derived from 33

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QIncantation (4Q444)

205

of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness, God put in [my] he[art…] (4) […]wh and strengthen yourself by the laws of God, and in order to fight against the spirits of wickedness, and not °°[…]

Despite the speaker’s status, he must contend with sparring spirits within him who combat the good qualities implanted in him by God.36 As in Jub. 7 and Songs of the Sage, the laws of God are invoked as a means of fighting these “spirits of wickedness.”37 In the continuation of the prayer (line 8), the “bastards” are mentioned alongside the “spirit of impurity,” apparently as demonic forces that distress the God-fearing speaker.

the plural *tĕkāmîm (‫)*תכמים‬. While the specific meaning of *tĕkāmîm is uncertain, it indicates either a part or the inside of the human body, as is evident from its conjunction with the flesh (in all but one instance, 4Q525 13 4) in the term tkmy bśr ‫תכמי בשר‬, a term found in synonymous parallelism to “my body” (‫ )גויתי‬in 4Q511 48–49 + 51 ii.3–4. In addition, as noted by E. G. Chazon, “444. 4QIncantation,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 376, “in every case where something is said to be in takmê/tĕkāmê bāśār, that thing is evil.” Based on the coincidence of *tĕkāmîm with ng‘ nm’r, a term frequently indicating skin disease, in 1QHa XIII.30, E. Qimron concluded that the meaning of *tĕkāmîm was “blood vessels.” Qimron supported his conclusion with a parallel he found between gîdîm “sinews” and *tĕkāmîm in a preliminary reading of 4Q525 13 4 provided to him by Emil Puech: ‫ ;]ב[גדיה תנחל ובתכמיה‬see Qimron, “Notes on the 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Disease,” JJS 42 (1991), 256–9. However, this reading was not retained in the published version of this text; in the DJD edition Puech reads ‫“( גאוה‬pride”) and describes this reading as “certaine”; E. Puech, “525. 4QBéatitudes,” in Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (ed. E. Puech; DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 143. In addition, Qimron’s initial conclusion that collocation with nega‘ must indicate that *tĕkāmîm denotes “blood vessels” is questionable due to the metaphorical use of ng‘ in the Hodayot. There is therefore little need for biological accuracy in describing the speaker’s pain. In addition, while the link between evil and *tĕkāmîm is evident, there is rarely a link between evil and blood in the Scrolls, apart from blood’s legal implications: the actual act of bloodshed, the transgression of the consumption of blood, and contraction of impurity from the blood of the dead. Finally, elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particular in the Cave 4 copies of the Damascus Document, blood vessels are indicated with the term gyd; see 4QDa (4Q266) 6 i.12 (par. 4QDg [4Q272] 1 ii.1), 4QDd (4Q269) 7 2, 4QDg (4Q272) 1 i.3, 6a. Consequently the word *tĕkāmîm appears to be a more general expression referring the innards of the body, particularly when the body is “infested” with sinfulness or affliction. 36 A. Hogeterp, “The Eschatology of the Two Spirits Treatise Revisited,” RevQ 23 (2007): 255–6, notes the parallels between this outlook and the stance found in the “Two Ways” section of the Treatise of the Two Spirits. These similarities will be discussed further in the analysis of the Treatise in Chapter 12. 37 As mentioned in Chapter 2 n. 42, M. Kister has noted the apotropaic nature of the laws of God in Second Temple texts, specifically against demonic influence; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 169. However, as already demonstrated, the power of the law in preventing sin portrayed in Second Temple texts was not restricted to fighting demons; see Chapters 2, 5, and 6.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

206

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

The prayers Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 portray the Watchers’ spirit descendants as anarchic forces that directly afflict the righteous, and not as part of the divine system set forth in the book of Jubilees. These prayers also indicate that another idea in Jubilees was not assimilated, namely the limitation or even abnegation of spirits’ power to cause sin among the righteous. The limitation set forth in the book of Jubilees was not translated into the daily experience of those petitioners who recited the apotropaic prayers discussed here. In the worldview that informs these prayers, evil spirits are a constant threat to the righteous. Fearing God does not preclude one’s vulnerability to demonic influence. The prayers of Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 also depict an aspect of the Watchers’ descendants not found in the Jubilees narrative, namely an internalized view of these demonic forces. In these prayers, the spirits have entered the petitioner’s insides (tkmy bśr)38 and battle with the laws of God and the positive qualities that God has planted within him.39 In these prayers it is the speaker’s own internal experience of the spirits that troubles him. These spirits are described not as fearsome from without, but as threatening from within. Thus, these sectarian prayers integrate the external demonic view of sin into the internal experience of prayer. The integration of internal and external views of sin is by no means atypical of apotropaic prayer. In fact, while this integration does not reflect the Watchers narrative in Jubilees, it does echo another section of Jubilees: Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12: 19–21. As discussed in the previous chapter, Abram’s prayer indicates that demons may rule the human inclination. Abram’s prayer thereby integrates the belief that the human inclination causes sin with a belief in the ability of demonic forces to cause sin. Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 integrate internal and external views of sin in a different way: the external becomes internal when demonic forces enter the human bodily frame and do battle within it.

11Qapocryphal Psalms (11Q11) In contrast, the author of the Qumran incantation in 11Q11 portrays a descendant of the Watchers as a totally external demonic figure (complete with horns).40 The incantation directly addresses the demon:41 38

See n. 35 above. A similar view may be put forth in 1Q36 (1QHymns), which mentions “spirits of rebellion” (fragment 2, ‫)רוחות פשע‬, “in innards of flesh” (fragment 14, ‫)בתכמי בשר‬, and seems to refer to the nĕpīlîm (fragment 16, ‫יכה‬°‫ל‬°°°‫)ונפילי בש‬. However, due to the fragmentary nature of this text, this is impossible to determine with any certainty. 40 Although there is no direct connection between this being and sin in the surviving fragment. 41 11Q11 also includes terminology specific to incantations, including the use of the hip‘il 39

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer

207

‫( מי אתה ]הילוד מ[אדם ומזרע‬6) ‫( …]כי [֯יבוא אליך בל֯י]לה וא[מרתה אליו‬5) ‫( ]עו[ל‬8) ‫ם חושך אתה ולוא אור‬ ֯ [‫ך קרני חל]ו‬ ֯ ‫( ]שו[֗ו וקר֗נ֯י‬7) ‫ם פניך פני‬ ֗ [‫הקד֯]ושי‬ …‫ולוא צדקה‬

(5)…[When ]he comes to you in the nig[ht,] you will [s]ay to him: (6) ‘Who are you, [oh offspring of] man and of the seed of the ho[ly one]s? Your face is a face of (7) [delu]sion and your horns are horns of ill[us]ion, you are darkness and not light, (8) [injust]ice and not justice…(11Q11 V.5b–8a)42

Here the reader is instructed to address the threatening spirit as a descendant of “man and the holy ones”, i. e. a product of the Watchers’ illicit mating with human women. The speaker defends himself by declaring the demon’s basically false and evil nature, and (in lines 8–10) the fact that the demon is destined to be imprisoned by God in deepest Sheol, in accordance with his dark nature. As an incantation, this text is not concerned with the desire to sin, and portrays the demon as a wholly external threatening force who is directly confronted. This approach contrasts with the perspective of Songs of the Sage and 4Q444, which reflect the internal experience of prayer by transplanting demonic forces into the speaker’s internal landscape. Nevertheless, the incantation in 11Q11 is comparable to these apotropaic prayers in its depiction of the Watchers’ descendant as a threatening force that does not exist in an orderly system, but that can be (and is) frightened and easily defeated by God.

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document The idea that a demonic influence “rules over” sinners and causes them to sin is found throughout apotropaic prayer. As discussed in Chapter 8, the apotropaic prayers in Jubilees echo this trope in various ways.43 It is particularly prominent in two nonsectarian apotropaic prayers: the Plea for Deliverance (11QPsa XIX) and Levi’s prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document (4Q213a).

of šb‘ (‫משביע‬, to adjure) in iii.4 and iv.1 and the employment of the tetragrammaton to address God, as discussed by E. Eshel; see Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 87–88. As noted by Eve, Jewish Context, 211, while the speaker of this incantation addresses the demon, he appeals to God’s power in doing so. Thus this incantation, like other Qumran incantations, is not “magical” in the strictest sense of the word. 42 Text, reconstruction, and translation follow F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181–205. 43 This “rule” is not identical to demonic “possession”; see n. 23.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

208

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

The Plea for Deliverance The Plea for Deliverance has survived as part of the Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. Although it addresses themes similar to those in sectarian texts, it lacks the terminology typical of the Qumran community44 and was apparently composed outside the community or even before the community was formed. The beginning of this prayer does not diverge greatly from the approach to sin found in biblical psalms and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Sins are actions that have consequences, above all death.45 In order to avoid death one must be forgiven for one’s sins by God:46 ‫( יהוה כרוב‬11) ‫( הייתי בחטאי ועוונותי לשאול מכרוני ותצילני‬10) ‫(… למות‬9) …‫רחמיכה וכרוב צדקותיכה‬

(9) … To death (10) I was (destined) for my sins, and my transgressions sold me to Sheol, but you saved me, (11) Lord, according to the greatness of your mercy and the multitude of your righteous deeds… (11QPsa XIX.9c–11b)

Despite the fact that the speaker has sinned, God’s mercy has ensured his absolution. The purification of the speaker, presented in line 14, is part of God’s forgiveness:47 ‫( וטהרני מעווני רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל‬14) ‫( … סלחה יהוה לחטאתי‬13) ‫( רע אל ירשו‬16) ‫( בעווה אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה מכאוב ויצר‬15) ‫אתקלה‬ …‫( כול היום‬17) ‫בעצמי כי אתה יהוה שבחי ולכה קויתי‬

(13) … Forgive, Lord, my sin (14) and purify me from my sin. Grant me a spirit of faithfulness and knowledge. May I not stumble (15) in transgression. Let not a satan rule over me, nor a spirit of impurity; let pain and evil (16) inclination not have control over me. For you Lord are my praise and for you I have hoped (17) throughout the day…(11QPsa XIX.13c–17a)

The structure of this section of the Plea seems to be based on Ps 51, which emphasizes the purification of past sins (see 51: 4, 9).48 Ps 51 begins with an appeal for purification from past sins, and in v. 12 follows this with a request for a “renewed” creation, including a pure heart and an upright spirit.49 In the

44

As noted by Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 76. See Exod 28: 43; Lev 22: 9; Num 18: 22,32; 1 Sam 2: 25; Jer 31: 2; and especially Ezek 3: 17– 21, 18: 5–20 ff., 33: 7–20. 46 Text follows Sanders, Psalms Scroll; translation my own. 47 Translation of lines 15–16a loosely follows that proposed by J. C. Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 312. 48 For an overview of the connection between impurity and sin in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple texts, see Chapter 2 and notes 10 and 14 ad loc. 49 See A. Klein, “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 45

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer

209

Plea for Deliverance, the request to be purified of past sins (lines 13b–14a) is similarly followed by a request for internal positive change (line 14b). The psalmist in Ps 51 is certain that following the requested internal change, he will be fully equipped to bring sinners back to the correct path (51: 15). However, for the author of the Plea, an internal change executed by God is not enough. Even after the granting of a “spirit of faithfulness and knowledge” (comparable to the “upright spirit” of Ps 51: 12), there are evil forces that must be kept at bay. “Let not a satan rule over me, nor a spirit of impurity; let pain and evil inclination not have control over me” (lines 15–16). These “powers” are in fact an assortment of evil. They include a “satan,”50 a “spirit of impurity,” physical pain/illness and an “evil inclination.” It is most likely that the “spirit of impurity” is the expression of an internal quality, akin to the positive and negative spirits in the Barkhi Nafshi text (discussed in Chapter 2).51 The “spirit of impurity” contrasts with the “spirit of faithfulness and knowledge” that denotes a desired internal quality in line 14.52 Nevertheless, in the Plea for Deliverance all of these evil forces may “rule” the speaker. The external mechanism of “ruling” is used here not only for outside forces, but also for internal anguish and the evil inclination. This prayer, like Moses’ and Abram’s prayers in Jubilees, presents a complex view of sin in which internal and external sources of sin combine to cause iniquity. Only God can prevent the rule of these entities, providing the motivation for prayer. As noted in the previous chapter, the language of line 15 draws from Ps 119: 133b, “may no sin rule over me.” The more abstract idea in Ps 119: 133b, namely that sin may “rule over” the speaker, was later transformed into a description of the workings of demons who cause sin. However, the author of the Plea for Deliverance has interpreted “sin” to include all the forces that may

and 1QS,” in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (ed. D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz; FAT 2. Reihe 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 173, and Pfeiffer, “‘Ein reines Herz’”. 50 “Satan” here is not a proper name, but a category, as is further demonstrated by the parallel text in ALD discussed below; see Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 310; idem, Aramaic Levi Document, 129–30; and H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 216. 51 On the use of the term rwh ̣ to denote abstract qualities in Second Temple texts, see Chapter 2, n. 27. 52 Contra Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 205 and A. Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13: 2,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. H. Lichtenberger, D. Römheld, and A. Lange; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 260–1. Flusser argues that the “spirit of impurity” in the Plea for Deliverance is an actual spirit, citing the “impure demons” of Jubilees and the impure spirits of Mark, Luke, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, without noting the parallel in the text under discussion. Lange focuses on the parallel between the “spirit of impurity” and “satan,” concluding that the spirit of impurity designates a demonic being and not a “state of mind.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

210

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

be considered evil or may lead to sin.53 The petitioner asks to be saved from all evil that may afflict his person, physical and mental,54 external “satan” and internal “inclination.”55 Levi’s Prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document Levi’s prayer in the third chapter of the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) bears some similarity to the Plea for Deliverance, and scholars have posited that it is dependent on the Plea or draws from analogous prayer traditions.56 However, despite this common ground, the Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer take different approaches.57 Like the Plea for Deliverance, ALD is a text produced outside the Qumran community.58 It belongs to the “testament” genre: it is a narrative retelling of

53 A similar interpretation of sin may lie behind the citation of Exod 34: 7, ‫הנ[שא עואן‬ ‫[“ ופשע‬He who rem]oves sin and iniquity,” in the adjuration of illness-causing demons found

in line i.4 of 4Q560 1, an incantation text. Alternatively, this incantation may refer to sin-causing demons, as assumed by Stuckenbruck, “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview,” 79. 54 D. Flusser explains the inclusion of physical pain here as part of a gradual expansion of apotropaic prayers to non-spiritual dangers that would reach its full form in rabbinic apotropaic prayer; see Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 204. What is most unusual in this prayer, however, is not the inclusion of disease (a common theme in apotropaic prayers and incantations), but the inclusion of disease in a list that focuses on sin-causing forces. 55 Contra Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262. Lange interprets this verse as saying that the satan and spirit of impurity rule through pain and an evil inclination. However, the parallel between the two parts of the verse is highlighted by the parallel verbs šlṭ and ršh that appear in hendiadys in later texts (see the discussion below). Both verbs, while differing in their exact connotation, indicate that the subject may have some form of control over the speaker. Hence there is no substantial differentiation in this prayer between a satan and spirit of impurity on the one hand and pain and an evil inclination on the other. C. Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (WUNT 2/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 43, has proposed that the spirit of impurity and the satan are external forces, while pain and the evil inclination are internal pressures. However, as noted above, “spirit” is used in this prayer to denote an internal quality, while pain is fundamentally different from an evil inclination, and not only because it is not generally portrayed as a cause of sin. M. Kister has suggested that the inclusion of pain/illness in these lines of Plea for Deliverance may be due to a combination of the beliefs that illness is the result of sin and that illness is caused by demons; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 170. 56 Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262, argues for the former and Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 152, for the latter. 57 Stuckenbruck, op. cit. 58 The Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), an Aramaic narrative representing the testament of Levi, the son of Jacob, dates to the third or early second century B. C. E.; see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 19–20. ALD has survived in Aramaic in fragments found in the Cairo Geniza and in seven fragmentary copies found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer

211

part of Genesis in the form of a testament given by Levi to his sons before his death. The prayer included in the third chapter of ALD (3: 1–18) was found in an Aramaic fragment at Qumran (4Q213a) and in an 11th century Greek copy.59 The prayer in ALD 3: 1–18 is uttered by the priestly forefather Levi, and thus, unlike the Plea, does not mention past sins. Another variation from the Plea for Deliverance is the ALD prayer’s distinction between an internal inclination to sin and external forces, even though both are the subject of the prayer:60 ‫( אחזיני מרי רוח‬6) [‫( ארחק ]מני מרי רוח עויה ורעיונא ב[אישא וזנותא דחא ]מני‬5) ‫( למעבד די שפיר קדמך ולא[שכחה‬7) ‫קודשא ועטה וח[כמה ומנדע וגבורה ]הב לי‬ ‫אל‬ ֯ [‫( ]ו‬9) ‫דשפיר ודטב קדמיך‬ ֯ […] [‫( ]לשבחה מלליך עמי מרי‬8) ‫רחמי>ן< קדמיך‬ [‫( ]ורחם ע[לי מרי וקרבני למהוא לכה ]עבד‬10) [‫תשלט בי כל שטן ]לאטעני מן ארחך‬

(5) Make far from me, my Lord, the unrighteous spirit and evil thought, and fornication turn away61 from me. (6) Let there be shown to me,62 O Lord, the holy spirit, and grant me counsel and wisdom and knowledge and strength, (7) in order to do that which is pleasing to you and find mercy63 before you, (8) and to praise your words with me,64 O Lord […] that which is pleasant and good before you. (9) And let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path. (10) And have mercy upon me, my Lord, and bring me forward, to be your servant and to minister65 to you. (ALD 3: 5–10)

as in extracts of a Greek translation reproduced in one 11th century Greek copy of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (the Athos manuscript). 59 See Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, ibid., 1–5. 60 The Aramaic reconstruction follows Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 60, 62; numbering follows the Greek text. Aramaic reconstructed from the Greek is indicated by brackets. Translation follows Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 61, 63, except where otherwise noted. The Greek text that forms the basis of the reconstruction reads as follows (italics mark Greek words that differ from the Aramaic witness): (5) μάκρυνον ἀπ᾽ἐμοῦ, κύριε, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄδικον καὶ διαλογισμὸν τὸν πονηρὸν καὶ πορνείαν καὶ ὕβριν ἀπόστρεψον ἀπ᾽ἐμοῦ (6) δειχθήτω μοι, δέσποτα, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ βουλὴν καὶ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν καὶ ἰσχύν δόσ μοι. (7) ποιῆσαι ἀπέσκοντά σοι […] καὶ εὑρεῖν χάριν ἐνώπιόν σου (8) καὶ αἰνεῖν τοὺς λόγους σου μετ᾽ἐμοῦ, κύριε. [8b is missing in the Greek.] (9) Καὶ μὴ κατισχυσάτω με πᾶσ σατανᾶσ πλανῆσαί με ἀπὸ τῆς ὀδοῦ σου. (10) καὶ ἐλέησόν με καὶ προσάγαγέ με εἶναί σου δοῦλος καὶ λατρεῦσαί σοι καλῶς. 61 The Greek adds καὶ ὕβριν: “and turn pride away from me.” 62 The translation in the passive proposed by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel is closer to the Greek (δειχθήτω μοι) than to the Aramaic, a reasonable choice as the Aramaic is merely an attempted reconstruction. 63 Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel translate “favour,” but “mercy” is used here in order to maintain a consistent translation of ‫ רחם‬throughout this study. 64 This peculiar phrase reflects the Greek, καὶ αἰνεῖν τοὺς λόγους σου μετ᾽ἐμοῦ. 65 The Greek adds καλῶς: “to minister well.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

212

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

In this prayer the request for the removal of negative, sin-causing qualities precedes the request for positive qualities, unlike the structure of Plea for Deliverance but similar to that of the Barkhi Nafshi prayer explored in Chapter 2.66 The negative qualities that must be removed include a spirit of unrighteousness, fornication (here denoting straying from God),67 and evil thought.68 Like the “spirit of impurity” in the Plea, the “spirit of unrighteousness” here is not a separate entity, but an internal tendency of the human being. So, too, are the evil thought and “fornication” with which it is grouped. These negative internal tendencies must be removed before the granting of “the holy spirit”69 and the conferral of counsel, wisdom, knowledge, and strength.70 The structure of this prayer, like that of the Plea, may be an interpretation of Ps 51. Thus the purification from sin (51: 4, 9) that precedes the granting of an upright spirit (51: 12) is interpreted as the removal of all sin-causing tendencies that must precede the granting of positive qualities. Only after Levi requests the rectification of his internal constitution does he ask for help against external forces, in an echo of Ps 119: 133b that is almost identical to line 15 of the Plea for Deliverance: “And let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path”(ALD 3: 9).71 The author of this prayer was not concerned with only a single source of sin. Like the author of the Plea for Deliverance, he was troubled both by sin66 A. Lange sees the request for good qualities in 3: 6 paralleled in the plea in 3: 9 for freedom from a satan’s rule; see Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262. Lange notes that this satan causes unethical behavior, and is therefore paralleled by the positive qualities requested in 3: 6. However, the juxtaposition of the negative traits in 3: 5 with the positive traits listed in 3: 6 indicates that it is these two verses that describe the precisely opposing forces, not 3: 6, 9. 67 As in almost all appearances of this noun in the Hebrew Bible; see Num 14: 33; Jer 3: 2, 3: 9, 13: 27; Ezek 23: 27. 68 The Greek text includes ἥβριν (pride) in this list, but there is no corresponding term in the Aramaic manuscript; see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 127. H. Eshel notes the similarity between this list and the three “traps of Belial” in CD IV.15, discussed further in Chapter 10; see H. Eshel, “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets of Belial’: a Reference to the ‘Aramaic Levi Document’?,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 254–5. 69 M. Kister notes the close connection between the “holy spirit” that drives away evil spirits and knowledge; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 178. 70 As noted by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 128, the terms “wisdom and knowledge and strength” are derived from Isa 11: 2, where the future Davidic king is described as bestowed with “a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion and reverence for God.” It is because of these internal changes requested of God that the prayer begins with noting God’s knowledge of the human heart; see Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 212–3. 71 This request, apparently not included in Levi’s previous entreaty, further confirms that the “spirit of unrighteousness” mentioned previously is not a separate entity, but a human quality.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer

213

causing human qualities and by demons that can lead even the correctly-spirited human astray. The Plea and Levi’s prayer address this dual concern in different ways. The Plea portrays internal and external forces as equivalent, included in the same list of evil forces, while the prayer in ALD is principally concerned with internal qualities, addressed at length, and only later refers to the possible effect of an external and demonic sin-causing force. The fact that the deterrence of the demonic force must be addressed separately indicates that, in the view of the prayer’s composer, demonic forces can affect even a human who enjoys a righteous constitution.

The Rule of Demons in the Plea and Levi’s Prayer Similar terms are used to express the rule of demons in the Plea and in Levi’s Prayer in ALD. The nature of the terms šlṭ and yrš in these texts has been elucidated by J. C. Greenfield.72 According to Greenfield, the term yiršû in the Plea for Deliverance is not from the root yrš (to inherit), but rather from ršh, a verb found in Sirach and in Mishnaic Hebrew although not in biblical Hebrew.73 In its causative form (as found in the Plea for Deliverance) the meaning of ršh is to empower or to permit. In the Plea the root ršh is used as a synonym of šlṭ , also found in Levi’s prayer. These terms appear in hendiadys in the standard Jewish divorce document dating from the Gaonic period (7th–11th century C. E.) and in use today.74 This hendiadys is also found in a far earlier legal document from the Babatha archive in Naḥ al Ḥ ever, 5/6 Ḥ ev7 (papDeed of Gift), dated to the early second century C. E., in which Babatha’s father gives his wife full control over her inheritance upon his death (‫רשיה ושליטה‬ ‫ )באתרי מתנתא‬but stipulates that she does not have the right to bring a new husband into the house (‫ולא רשיה ולא שליטה תהוא למנעלו לביתא הו‬ ‫)בעל‬.75 Another early example of a divorce decree using ršh alone was found at Wadi Murabba‘at (Mur19 [papWrit of Divorce]) and is dated to the 2nd century C. E.:76

Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 311–2. It is also found in Akkadian, Aramaic and Phoenician; see Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 311. 74 In the standard divorce decree, the husband declares that his wife is rš’h wšlṭ ’h (‫רשאה‬ ‫ )ושלטאה‬over herself (that is, she is under her own jurisdiction) to marry another. 75 The Babatha archive was found in 1961 during an excavation led by Yigael Yadin in the Cave of Letters on the bank of Naḥ al Ḥ ever, about five kilometers southwest of Ein Gedi. It comprises legal documents ranging in date from 93/94 to 132 C.E; see R. Katzoff, “Babatha,” EDSS 1: 173. 76 Text follows J. T. Milik, “19. Acte de répudiation, en araméen,” in Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât (ed. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux; DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 105. 72 73

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

214

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

‫דנא די אתי רש֗יא֗ ב֯נפשכי למ]ה[ך למה֗י אנתא לכול גבר יה֯ודי די תצבין‬

“…that you are in charge (ršy’) of yourself (bnpšky) to go be the wife of any Jewish man you desire.” (Mur19 17–18)

The verb ršh here indicates that the wife is fully in control of her own person, and has full legal rights to dispose of herself as she desires. Such is the meaning of šlṭ used in hendiadys with ršh in Geonic divorce decrees77 as well as in the texts cited above; šlṭ and ršh indicate right over and control of a property or person. On the basis of the parallels brought by Greenfield, it is possible to unpack these terms to further elucidate the assumed relationship between the demon and the speaker in these prayers, particularly as this relationship concerns the desire to sin. The phrases ’al tašlēṭ and ’al tarše express, on the one hand, the control and authority that demons may wield over the human self, but on the other, acknowledge that this right must be granted by God (as such a right would be legally granted in the case of property). To nullify the demon’s power, therefore, it is enough to ask God not to allow such control.78 This can be compared to the divorce decrees cited above, where the wife must be granted authority over herself by her ex-husband before she may remarry. Thus while evil forces are described as “ruling” the sinner, the sinner is not exclusively under their command, just as Belial does not command the Israelites in Jub. 1: 19–21. The ultimate control belongs to God, and demons may only influence humans if they are enabled to do so by the Deity. It is important to note that in both the Plea and Levi’s prayer in ALD, the request that the demonic presence not be allowed to “rule” the speaker follows a longer request for God to prevent sin in the speaker and to endow him with good qualities (ALD 3: 6–7)79 or to cleanse him from past sins (11QPsa XIX 13–14).80 In other words, the “ruling” of the demon is not the only source of 77

See n. 74. An interesting twist on this idea is found in a medieval text describing the means of commanding “Bilar, the king of demons,” famously identified as Belial (or βελίαρ) by Gershom Scholem, “Bilar (Bilad, bilid, ΒΕΛΙΑΡ) the King of the Demons,” Mada’ei ha-Yahadut 1 (1926): 112–27 (Hebrew). There the introduction (in ms Munich 214) promises that whomever God loves “he will empower him to rule (ymšylnw wyšlyṭ nw) over the knowledge of the words/ matters of Bilar” (translation mine, text following Sholem, ibid., 121). 79 Grk. μάκρυνον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, κύριε, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν καὶ ἰσχύν δός μοι. “Let there be shown to me, O Lord, the holy spirit, and grant me counsel and wisdom and knowledge and strength.” Aram. fragment: ‫[“ ]ח[כמה ומנדע וגבורה‬w]isdom and knowledge and strength.” Text and translation follow Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 60–61. 80 11QPsa XIX.13b–14b …‫( … סלחה יהוה לחטאתי וטהרני מעווני רוח אמונה ודעת חונני‬13) (13)… “Forgive, Lord, my sin, (14) and purify me from my iniquity. Favor me with a spirit of faith and knowledge…” Text follows Sanders, Psalms Scroll. 78

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian

215

sin; as in Moses’ prayer in Jubilees, there are many factors that may cause sin, and these include demonic influence. The following chapters discuss texts that depict certain humans as under the command of demonic forces. These humans are not considered to be the struggling righteous, and they are usually not members of the author’s community.81 Rather, those under the command of demons are the proverbial “wicked.” In contrast, in the prayers discussed above, the speaker who strives to be righteous requests protection from the threatening rule of demons. Demonic rule in the righteous is a constant danger to be prevented by God, while demonic command of the wicked, further explored in later chapters, is a painful reality.

Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian Apotropaic Prayers The Plea and Levi’s prayer, like “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444, reflect a complex view of sin that includes both human (internal) and demonic (external) components. The portrayal of demonic forces from an internal perspective, whereby the forces function within the frame of the speaker, likely results from the internal experience of prayer. At the same time, the view of sin in these prayers reflects a complex view whereby sin is not caused solely by demons or by the human inclination. These prayers reflect the idea that demonic rule is a danger for the righteous, and testify that the subordination of the Watchers’ descendants and the protection of the righteous promised by Jubilees was not generally accepted in popular practice. While demons continue to threaten the righteous and tempt them to sin, however, their power can be prevented by God. All four prayers that have been discussed in this chapter display psychological dualism, in which the contrast between good and evil is internalized and seen to be comprised of impulses within the human being.82 This psychological dualism is evident in the contrast of good and bad qualities within the petitioner described in each of these prayers. The sectarian prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444 differ from the nonsectarian prayers in the degree of psychological dualism that they describe. The negative qualities mentioned in the nonsectarian prayers do not actually cause “battles” within the speaker, in contrast to “Songs” and 4Q444. It seems likely that the more extreme form of psy81 In contrast to Noah’s descendants and Moses’ Israelites, as well as the speakers in ALD and the Prayer for Deliverance, who are depicted as members of the reader’s community and/ or righteous people who struggle with the desire to sin. 82 As defined by Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 282–5. Of course, like every other text in the present study, they also display ethical dualism, that is, the basic contrast between good and evil.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

216

Apotropaic Prayer and Views of Demonic Influence

chological dualism portrayed via these “battles” is a sectarian development. The stringent rules of the community may have led to a more conflicted internal experience of sin among community members.83 The battles between the demonic forces and the “law” is yet another example of the assumed power of the law to prevent sin. In these selections the value of the law appears apotropaic. However, previously explored texts that depict the value of the law in preventing the non-demonic, purely human desire to sin demonstrate that the law’s effectiveness against sin was considered wideranging and ubiquitous. There is no hint in Levi’s prayer or in the Plea for Deliverance that evil forces have cosmic standing or that they command human forces. Even in the sectarian prayers Songs of the Sage and 4Q444, this cosmic standing can only be deduced from the periodization of evil that is presented. Both Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 mention demonic forces in the context of a period of rule (4Q510 1 7, 8; 4Q511 35 6, 8; 4Q444 1–4 i.7). This framework implies that, during the present period, namely, the period before the eschaton, there has been some kind of divine ceding of power to these forces. However, no such periodization is found in the ALD prayer or in the Plea for Deliverance. Both of these nonsectarian prayers put demonic forces on a par with negative internal qualities, as forces that may lead to sin but are not connected to any particular time period. However, the “rule” of demons is particularly prominent in the nonsectarian prayers examined here. In this respect they resemble the apotropaic prayers found in the book of Jubilees. The “rule” depicted in these prayers (particularly in the terminology employed) reflects an understanding whereby God may cede control over human beings to a demon. Because this control is ultimately the province of the Deity, it can just as easily be withheld from demonic forces when the petitioner’s request is granted. It is intriguing that this conspicuous feature of nonsectarian apotropaic prayer is not found in sectarian prayers that deal with the desire to sin. It is possible that the Qumran community held a more limited view of the control that a demon could have over the righteous than did the wider circle of Jews from whom this community drew some of its prayers. Clearly the periodization and limited cosmic dualism found specifically in the sectarian apotropaic prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444 are not a customary aspect of apotropaic prayer. They are found in neither of the nonsectarian prayers examined in this chapter. These ideas form an important part of the Qumran worldview, and will be explored further in this study. The contrasting positive and negative “spirits” in ALD and the Plea have

83 In contrast, M. Kister has connected these “battles” with the war-like experience of the Qumran community; see Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 2: 522 (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian

217

sometimes been seen as the precursors of those in the Treatise of the Two Spirits, found in the Community Rule (1QS III.13-IV.26).84 While the psychological dualism reflected in ALD and the Plea may well have influenced the Treatise, the vague dualism of these texts is a far cry from the consistent dualistic system presented within the Treatise of the Two Spirits, discussed at length in Chapter 12. In the Treatise, the “Prince of Light” and the “Angel of Darkness” are the sources of the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of falsehood” respectively, and each of these spirits engenders a host of other qualities in turn. The connection between cosmological, ethical and psychological dualism, so central to the Treatise,85 is completely absent from ALD and the Plea. Also absent from these prayers is the idea, fundamental to the Treatise, that the righteous are under the authority of the “Prince of Light” while the wicked are under the authority of the “Angel of Darkness.” The determinism inherent in this idea is not to be found in any of the prayers analyzed above, whether sectarian or nonsectarian. In ALD, the Plea, “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444, it is specifically the righteous petitioner who fears that he will be affected by evil demons.

84 85

See Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 33–34, 125–6. See Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 166.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Ten Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll Belial is particularly prominent in sectarian Qumran texts, although as previously noted, his first appearance as a demonic figure is in Jubilees, a nonsectarian work that was nevertheless important to the Qumran community.1 In the Hebrew Bible, the term bĕlīya‘al indicates wickedness, without any particularly demonic overtones.2 Only rarely does bĕlīya‘al appear in purely nominal form, and only in Nah 2: 1 is the term bĕlīya‘al used to denote personified evil (most likely a reference to the king of Assyria).3 A similar employment of the term bĕlīya‘al to denote general wickedness is also evident in certain Second Temple period and Qumran texts, such as the Hodayot, where the connotation of bĕlīya‘al conforms to its biblical meaning.4 1 As previously noted, Jubilees was found in several copies at Qumran and is cited as authoritative in the Damascus Document. On the identification of Jubilees as an “intermediate” work that shares certain ideas with those of the Qumran community while lacking specifically sectarian features, see Dimant, “Apocryphon of Joshua,” 106–7, 134. On the central role of Belial in Qumran sectarian works, see Steudel, “God and Belial,” 332–3 and D. Dimant, “Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy,” RevQ 24 (2009): 17. Dimant identifies the depiction of Belial as the supreme leader of evil in Qumran texts as a sectarian marker. As discussed in Chapter 8, Belial does not figure prominently in the book of Jubilees as a whole. 2 On bĕnê bĕlīya‘al (“sons/children of belial”) in the Bible, see Chapter 8 of this study and Dimant’s overview in Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 237–9. 3 See 2 Sam 23: 6, Nah 1: 11, 2: 1. The meaning of bĕlīya‘al in Nah 2: 1 is dependent on the appearance of the term “counselor of bĕlīya‘al” in Nah 1: 11; D. L. Christensen, Nahum (AB 24F; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 234–5, 261. P. von der Osten-Sacken argues that bĕlīya‘al in Ps 18: 5 is a proper name; Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 76. His argument is based on the appearance of the identical phrase naḥ ălê bĕlīya‘al in the Hodayot (1QHa) XI.30, 33, in a passage that Osten-Sacken interprets as referring to the character Belial. However, as noted by Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 238 n. 12, by the time the composer of the Hodayot wrote, Belial was already in common use as a proper name, as witnessed by the texts discussed here and by Jubilees (Jub. 1: 19–21). It does not follow that such was the case when the psalms were composed. Furthermore, the context of 1QHa XI.30, 33 indicates that bĕlīya‘al in this passage of the Hodayot indicates general evil; see following note. 4 See also Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 239. The appearance of bly‘l in 1QHa XI.29 refers to reified evil, but not to the demon Belial, as attested by the phrase in which it appears: ‫וקץ‬ ‫“ חרון לכול בליעל‬and a period of wrath for all bĕlīya‘al,” i. e., for all evil; see P. R. Davies, “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T & T Clark, 2010), 8–9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian

219

However, by the Second Temple period the meaning of the term bĕlīya‘al had developed to signify a personified form of wickedness: a demonic spirit with significant power.5 The probable impetus for this development was the heightened interest in demonic forces during the Second Temple period, an interest that at least partially stemmed from the Jewish encounter with Persian thought. As explored in Chapter 8, in Jub. 1: 19–21 Belial appears in parallel to the nations; his rule causes Israel to sin. In addition, Belial performs a satan-like function in the heavenly court and is consequently capable of “bringing charges” against Israel before God (Jub. 1: 20). However, as previously noted, in comparison to the central role of Mastema in the book of Jubilees as a whole, the demon Belial makes only a limited appearance. The description of Belial in Jubilees may nevertheless be seen as a precursor to the view at Qumran, although the Qumran portrayal of Belial is far from identical to that found in Jubilees. There is no single “Qumran approach” to the role of Belial; Belial’s depiction varies in the different texts that refer to him.6 The analysis of Belial as he appears in Qumran texts is further complicated by the complex redactional history of some of these works. In a pivotal study, P. von der Osten-Sacken investigated the presentation of Belial in the War Scroll in the context of the development of dualism evidenced in Qumran texts.7 Osten-Sacken identified Belial as a critical component of the cosmic dualism that he proposed lay at the base of the War Scroll’s earliest layer. In contrast, J. Duhaime and P. Davies have concluded that Belial was added to the War Scroll, at least in some measure as part of a secondary redactional layer.8 Duhaime has also identified other texts where, he argues, the figure of Belial was added in secondary redactions.9 The most well-known Qumran texts in which Belial appears are the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, and the Community Rule. Belial’s appearance in 5 It can thus be assumed with some certainty that Nah 2: 1 was read by Qumran community members as referring to the demonic Belial, although this segment of the text is unfortunately missing from the community’s pesher of Nahum (4Q169). 6 As noted by Steudel, “God and Belial,” 338. 7 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 73–87. 8 J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56; Davies, “Dualism,” 12–13. Duhaime proposes that Qumran dualism was originally ethical, and only later cosmological. Davies finds little original dualism in a broad survey of major Qumran texts, and reads the War Scroll as a reflection of traditions portraying a non-dualistic, nationalistic war. See also J. Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân,” RB 84 (1977): 210–38; idem, “L’Instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III, 13-IV, 26),” RB 84 (1977): 566–94; and P. R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). 9 See Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII” and idem, “Dualistic Reworking.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

220

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

the Community Rule as a demonic figure is confined to a liturgical ceremonial text that is likely an interpolation from an independent text.10 The appearance of Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll will be explored in this chapter, while Belial’s function in the Community Rule will be studied in comparison with similar Qumran ceremonial texts in the following chapter.

Belial in the Damascus Document The name Belial appears five times in the Damascus Document. The first two of these are found in the passage at IV.12–19, where Belial is described as free to act against Israel in the present age.11 ‫( בליעל משולח בישראל כאשר דבר אל ביד‬13) ‫(… ובכל השנים האלה יהיה‬12) ֗ ‫ישעיה‬ ‫ פשרו‬vacat ‫( אמוץ לאמר פחד ופחת ופח עליך יושב הארץ‬14) ‫ה֗נביא בן‬ ‫( אשר הוא תפש בהם‬16) ‫( שלושת מצודות בליעל אשר אמר עליהם לוי בן יעקב‬15) ‫( הצדק הראשונה היא הזנות השנית ההין‬17) ‫בישראל ויתנם פניהם לשלושת מיני‬ ‫( טמא המקדש העולה מזה יתפש בזה והניצל מזה יתפש‬18) ‫ השלישית‬12ההון‬ …‫( בזה‬19)

(12)… But during all those years, (13) Belial will be set free amidst Israel, as God spoke through the hand of the prophet Isaiah, son of (14) Amoz, saying, “Fear and a pit and a snare are upon you, O inhabitant(s) of the land” (Isa 24: 17). vacat Its interpretation concerns (15) the three traps of Belial, of which Levi, the son of Jacob, said (16) that he (Belial) entrapped Israel with them, and he made (lit., placed) them (the traps) before them (Israel) (as if) they were three types of (17) righteousness. The first is unchastity, the second wealth,13 and the third (18) defilement of the sanctuary. He who escapes from this is caught by that and he who is saved from that is caught (19) by this… (CD IV.12b–19a) 10 The passage in 1QS X.21 “and bly‘l I will not keep in my heart” (‫ובליעל לא אשמור‬ ‫ )בלבבי‬reflects the biblical meaning, as is evident from the following statement (X.21–22) that the speaker will also not speak “lewdness and deceit” (‫)נבלות וכחש‬. On the origin of the litur-

gical text in which Belial appears, see Metso, Textual Development, 113. 11 The term “the present age” used here and elsewhere in this study refers specifically to the age before the eschaton, typified by the existence of evil. Text and translation of all sections of the Damascus Document in this chapter follow Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD)”; significant modifications are noted below. 12 Editorial correction to ‫ ההון‬is generally accepted; see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 10, n. 107. This correction is not accepted by Baumgarten and Schwartz; see following note. 13 Schwartz (“Damascus Document (CD),” 19) translates “arrogance,” reading the original ‫( הין‬hîn), and does not correct the word to ‫( הון‬hôn), wealth, as do other editors; see n. 12 above. This reading is apparently an attempt by Schwartz to solve the problem of the gap between Belial’s traps and their referents in the following passage; see discussion below. Schwartz’s unusual choice is based on a hypothesized derivation from the word tāhînû (from thh) in Deut 1: 41, referring to the decision of the Israelites to ascend the mountain following the episode of the spies (Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 19 n. 38, 21 n. 45). However, there is no evidence that Second Temple readers derived such a verb; the hypothesized verbal root hyn appears nowhere else in the Scrolls.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Damascus Document

221

This passage describes the meaning behind the term “Belial’s dominion,” mmšlt bly‘l, a term found several times in Qumran texts to describe the imperfect age preceding the eschaton.14 According to CD IV.12–13, this is the period in which Belial is set free among the children of Israel.15 The “traps” he sets, meant to cause sin, seem impossible to escape. In the examples provided for two of these traps in the continuation of the passage (CD IV.19–V.11), they are explained as halakic disputes that exist between the community and its detractors.16 Thus the “traps” ensnare unwitting nonmembers who mistake these traps for “righteousness” (IV.16–17), that is, those outside the community think that the “wrong” side of the halakic dispute is actually correct.17 14 Particularly in the Community Rule (1QS I.18, II.19) and the War Scroll (1QM XIV.9, 1QM XVIII.1; 4QMa [4Q491] 8–10 i.6). It is also found in 4QBerakhote (4Q290) 2, 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390) 2 i.4, and restored in 4QCatena A 1–4 8. 15 As noted by H. Kosmala, this line echoes Prov 17: 11: ‫רי‬ ִ ‫כָז‬ ְ ‫א‬ ַ ‫ך‬ ְ ‫א‬ ָ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫רע וּ‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ׁ ‫ק‬ ֶּ ‫ב‬ ַ ‫רי ְי‬ ִ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ך‬ ְ ‫א‬ ַ ‫בו‬ ֹּ ‫לח‬ ַּ ‫ש‬ ֻׁ ‫“ ְי‬A rebellious (man) seeks only evil, and a cruel messenger/angel will be sent against him” (translation my own); see Kosmala, “The Three Nets of Belial: A Study in the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament,” ASTI 4 (1965): 92; repr. in vol. 2 of Kosmala, Studies, Essays and Reviews (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978). 16 The author explains that “unchastity” refers to the practice of taking more than one wife observed outside the community (IV.19-V.1), and “defilement of the sanctuary” is connected to not separating “according to the Torah” (V.6–7), having relations with a woman during her menstrual period (V.6–7), and marriage between a man and his niece (V.7–11a). The practice of a woman marrying her uncle derided in V.7–11a is identical to that later encouraged in rabbinic law, apparently as a means of polemic against a Zadokite or sectarian approach; see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (10 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 3: 915 (Hebrew). (For an overview of this dispute and the possible history of its development, see A. Shemesh, “The Laws of Incest in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Halakhah,” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy (JAJSup 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 85–91.) This passage functions as a critique of Judaism outside the community, as noted by Davies, Damascus Covenant, 108–9. Davies proposes that this dispute refers specifically to the “revealed” law, i. e. the interpretation of the Torah, as biblical prooftexts are subsequently provided as support for the community’s halakic position. 17 Recent scholarship has argued both for the importance of the “three traps/nets” in the Qumran community and for the possibility that these were a more widely accepted allusion. The composer of this passage in CD “cites” the three traps of Belial as if from a version of the Testament of Levi (CD IV.15). H. Eshel, “Three Nets of Belial,” esp. 249–53, has connected this citation to ALD 6: 3, “First of all, be[wa]re my son of all fornication/recklessness (Ar. paḥ az; Gr. συνουσιασμοῦ) and impurity (Ar. ṭ ūm’ā; Gr. ἀκαθαρσίας) and of all harlotry (Ar. zĕnût; Gr. πορνείας),” interpreting “recklessness” as avarice based on Jer 23: 32 and Zeph 3: 4 (and influenced by Mic 3: 9–11). Eshel follows M. Kister (“Studies in 4QMiqṣ at Ma‘aśe ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiẓ 68 [1999]: 348 [Hebrew]) in drawing a parallel between the three traps of Belial and the three sections of Miqṣ at Ma‘aśe HaTorah (MMT), a text recovered in several copies at Qumran (4Q394–399) that lists the reasons that the community separated from the majority (see 4Q397 IV.7–8). According to Kister and Eshel, both CD and MMT show that the Qumran community attributed the schism to three difficulties with the leadership in Jerusalem, here exemplified by the “traps of Belial”: dif-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

222

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

This passage has two basic implications. First, Belial’s traps cause sin. Second, they do so by causing a misunderstanding of the “correct” law — the law of the community — that is extrapolated from the biblical prooftexts cited in CD IV.19–V.11.18 The “traps of Belial” thereby divide between members of the Qumran community and nonmembers, who are easily misled by Belial. The description of Belial’s traps corresponds to the declaration in 4Qpesher of the Psalms (4Q171) 1–10 ii.9–12 that the members of the community, “the community of the poor” (‘dt h’bywnym) will be saved from “all the traps of Belial.” The nature of Belial’s activity is further explicated in the passages that follow. The first of these, CD V.11b–17a, describes the sins of Israel as a rejection of the correct law: the law of the community. ‫( גדופים פתחו פה על חוקי ברית‬12) ‫ וגם את רוח קדשיהם טמאו ובלשון‬vacat …(11) ֗ ֗‫אל לאמר לא נכונו ותוע‬ (16)… ‫( הם מדברים בם כלם קדחי אש ומבערי ז֗יקות‬13) ‫בה‬ … ‫( הם גוי אבד עצות מאשר אין בהם בינה‬17) ‫… כי לא עם בינות הוא‬

(11)… vacat They also polluted their holy spirits, and with a tongue of (12) blasphemies they opened (their) mouth against the statutes of God’s covenant, saying, “They are not right,” and abomination (13) they are speaking against them. All of them are lighters of fire and burners of brands…(16)… For it is not a people of discernment (Isa 27: 11). (17) They are a nation void of counsel, for they have not discernment.19 (CD V.11b–13, 16b–17a)

This passage describes nonmembers’ public denigration of the community’s law. The incitement of the community and the rejection of the community’s law earn them God’s ire. The prooftexts brought in lines 16–17 indicate that nonmembers’ rejection of the correct law results from simple foolishness. The explanation of sin as foolishness is similar to the explanation for sin found fre-

ferent laws regarding fornication; the financial corruption of the priestly establishment; and differing purity and temple laws. Nevertheless, as noted by Davies, Damascus Covenant, 110, texts outside of Qumran reflect similar triads, indicating a wider tradition. It is possible to find similar but not identical lists of three major sins in the Psalms of Solomon (8: 9 ff; illicit sex, plundering of the sanctuary, and pollution of the sanctuary) and in Jub. 7: 20 (fornication, uncleanness, and injustice/iniquity). In explaining the imperfect match between the “traps” that are enumerated and the examples of them that are provided, Davies proposes that the “three traps” were a well-known allusion in this period, and that the examples and prooftexts in this passage are drawn from a second source, not related to the traps, that focused on sexual transgressions; ibid., 115–6. 18 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 243–4; Davies, Damascus Covenant, 109. See also Kosmala, “Three Nets of Belial.” Davies, op. cit., notes that the dependence on biblical prooftexts to prove the author’s point indicates that the mistakes caused by Belial are connected to the “revealed” law and not to laws that have only been revealed to members of the group. 19 This is a paraphrase of Deut 32: 28: ‫נה‬ ָ ‫תּבוּ‬ ְ ‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ב‬ ָּ ‫אין‬ ֵ ‫מה ְו‬ ָּ ‫ה‬ ֵ ‫צות‬ ֹ ‫ע‬ ֵ ‫בד‬ ַ ‫א‬ ֹ ‫כי ֹגוי‬ ִּ “For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no discernment in them.” (Translation my own.)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Damascus Document

223

quently in wisdom literature as well as in Hellenistic thought.20 However, the explication that follows in CD V.17b–VI.3a contradicts this explanation of sin. ‫( משה ואהרן ביד שר האורים ויקם בליעל את יחנה ואת‬18) ‫(…כי מלפנים עמד‬17) ‫ ובקץ חרבן הארץ‬vacat (20) vacat ‫( אחיהו במזמתו בהושע ישראל את הראשונה‬19) ‫( ותישם הארץ כי דברו סרה על מצות אל‬21) ‫עמדו מסיגי הגבול ויתעו את ישראל‬ ‫( אל ויזכר‬2) ‫חר‬ ֗ ‫( ב֗משיח֗ו הקודש וינבאו שקר להשיב את ישראל מא‬1) ‫ביד משה וגם‬ … ‫( חכמים וישמיעם‬3) ‫ ויקם מאהרן נבונים ומישראל‬vacat ‫אל ברית ראשנים‬

(17)…For formerly (18) Moses and Aaron stood by the hand of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Yaḥ ne and (19) his brother in his plotting, when Israel was first saved vacat (20) vacat And at the time of the destruction of the land, the trespassers arose and led Israel astray; (21) and the land became desolate, for they spoke deviantly against the ordinances of God (given) through Moses, and also (1) against the anointed holy ones/ his anointed holy one. And they prophesied falsely, so as to cause Israel to turn away from (2) God. And God recalled the covenant with the first ones, vacat and he raised up from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel (3) wise men; and he allowed them to hear…(CD V.17b–VI.3a)

The passage at CD V.17-VI.3 compares the current sinning of Israel to an occurrence in the past, when Moses and Aaron, supported by the “Prince of Lights,” were opposed by Belial’s emissaries, “Yaḥ ne and his brother,” a designation for the unnamed Egyptian magicians who oppose Moses and Aaron in Exod 7: 8–13.21 As Duhaime has proposed, it is likely that the passage in lines 17c–19 is a secondary insertion. The text is continuous without this passage and the passage adds new vocabulary (such as the “Prince of Lights”) and new theological ideas, particularly in its dualistic overtones.22 However, in the passage’s final form these lines present a framework for understanding the following passage, which bemoans the manner in which the “trespassers” led Israel astray. In CD V.20-VI.2, these false leaders are depicted as the reason for the rejection of the community’s laws by Israel as a whole.23 The passage regarding Yaḥ ne and his brother establishes a parallel between 20 For this approach in wisdom literature, see the description of sinning in Wisdom of Solomon 4: 10–14, 12: 23–25 and the contrast of wisdom with iniquity in Parables of Enoch (1 En.) 42: 1–3. These texts continue in the path of biblical wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs. This understanding may also be reflected in certain Qumran sapiential texts such as the description of sinning as mistaken action in 4Q306 1 1, 2 4. In Hellenistic texts this explanation for sin can be found in Orphic fragments (Orphic frgs. 337 and 396.14–15 [Bernabé]), the Pythagorean Golden Verses, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (256–57), and in Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus” (πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέραισιν ἀνοίαις). As noted in Chapter 2, it later appears in Plato’s Laws, 716a–b. 21 These figures are later referred to as Jannes and Jambres in the eponymous pseudepigraphic work Jannes and Jambres and as Yoḥ ana and Mamra in b. Menaḥ . 85a. 22 Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 52–55. 23 Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 212–6, identifies the “trespassers” here as Pharisees. While this is the most likely identification, the passage may in theory refer to the leaders of any group who have refused to accept the stringencies of the Qumran community.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

224

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

Belial’s emissaries, who opposed the true leaders Moses and Aaron, and the false leadership of the “trespassers,” who oppose those raised up by God in VI.2–3.24 Without the passage in 17–19, these false leaders could be presumed to operate through mere foolishness. With the inclusion of the passage in 17– 19, it is clear that these false leaders are actually demonic emissaries. The picture is completed by the contrasting parallel between Moses and Aaron in 17– 19 and the trespassers’ denunciation of the commandments given through both Moses (V.21) and the anointed priests (VI.1) in the following passage. While the dualism reflected in V.17b–19, particularly the contrast between Belial and the Prince of Lights, seems foreign to this section of the Damascus Document, this passage does provide a transition from the “traps of Belial,” equated with the people’s foolishness in rejecting the “true” law, and the success of false leaders in fooling Israel with false prophecy (VI.1–2). Consequently, Belial’s function shifts from justifying nonmembers’ foolish refusal to follow the community’s laws (IV.14–19) to explaining the success of evil leaders in misleading Israel (V.17-VI.2). Any leader who opposes the community is not just misled by Belial, but is actually his emissary. Leaders of other groups have been literally “demonized.” The figure of Belial serves not to accuse nonmembers of directly following a demon, but rather to mitigate the guilt of nonmembers while exacerbating the guilt of their leaders. Unlike the role of demons in sectarian apotropaic prayers described in the previous chapter, Belial serves not as a psychological explanation of sin for the member, but as a social explanation of why nonmembers do not join the community and why their “evil” leaders prosper. Belial thereby serves to demarcate the community from other social groups who have not chosen to join the community. Belial has caused nonmembers’ foolishness and their leaders’ evil instigation, but does not affect the community member. Apart from the inserted passage at V.17b–19, Belial does not function within a dualistic system. He is not directly opposed by any particular angel, or even by God. No “lot” of Belial is mentioned here; he commands neither a group of humans predestined to be evil nor a faction of demons. As noted by Davies, the presence of Belial in a text does not necessarily denote a dualistic outlook.25 Belial’s role is not merely confined to causing sin, as is apparent in CD VIII.1–3. In this passage, Belial himself destroys evildoers: ‫( לא יחזיקו באלה‬2) ‫( והנסוגים הסגירו לחרב וכן משפט כל בא֗י בריתו אשר‬1) ‫ שרי יהודה אשר תשפוך‬26‫( אשר יפקד אל היו‬3) ‫לפוקדם לכלה ביד בליעל הוא היום‬ ‫עליהם העברה‬

24 25 26

See Davies, Damascus Covenant, 121, who draws a similar comparison. P. R. Davies, “Eschatology at Qumran,” JBL 104 (1985): 50–51. Schwartz reads ‫ היו‬as ‫ ;הין‬see n. 27 below.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Damascus Document

225

(1) But the backsliders they handed over to the sword. And such is the judgment of all who entered his covenant, who (2) will not hold firmly to these (statutes): they will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial. That will be the day (3) when God will visit (upon them) “the princes of Judah were…” for you “will pour out upon them rage” (Hosea 5: 10)27 (CD VIII.1–3)

Those who suffer punishment at the hand of Belial seem to include two groups: nonmembers (the “backsliders”) and those who have joined the community (“all who entered his covenant”) but have broken its laws. In the continuation of the passage (CD VIII.5) these sinners are explicitly guilty of two of the three “traps of Belial” that have been enumerated: fornication (znwt) and wealth (hwn).28 Moreover, these evildoers are identified in the continuation of the passage as those who did not separate from the people (VIII.8) and are also connected to the “builders of the barrier” (VIII.12)29 who have been taken in by the lies of an evil leader (VIII.12–13). Members who do not keep the law are thus equated with sinning nonmembers. This equivalence forms an effective warning to new and existing members appropriate to a covenantal text. The eschatological destruction of all nonmembers and straying members by Belial is an inevitable consequence of their rejection of community law. The depiction of Belial as punisher of evildoers reflects his description in Jub. 1: 19–21, where Belial causes sin and also holds the role of accuser. Belial’s depiction may also be the result of a harmonistic reading of Jubilees that combines the figures of Belial and Mastema into one. If Mastema were considered identical to Belial, the depiction of a final punishment executed by Belial could reflect a reading of Jubilees 10: 8, where Mastema describes himself as eventually punishing evildoers and requiring the spirits’ assistance before that time: 27 Schwartz reads ‫ היו‬as ‫ הין‬and translates “the arrogance of the princes of Judah”; however, besides the fact that ‫ הין‬as a noun for “arrogance” is not attested (see n. 13 above), CD ַּ ‫כ‬ ַּ ‫ך‬ ְ ‫פו‬ ֹּ ‫ש‬ ְׁ ‫א‬ ֶ ‫הם‬ ֶ ‫לי‬ ֵ ‫ע‬ ֲ ‫סיֵגי ְּגבוּל‬ ִּ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫כ‬ ְּ ‫דה‬ ָ ‫רי ְיהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ָׂ ‫היוּ‬ ָ VIII.3b–c is a paraphrase of Hos 5: 10: ‫מִים‬ ‫תי‬ ִ ‫ר‬ ָ ‫ב‬ ְ ‫ע‬ ֶ “The officers/princes of Judah have acted like shifters of (field) boundaries; on them I will pour out my wrath like water.” The paraphrase therefore begins with the initial word of the verse, ‫היו‬. Further evidence for this explanation of ‫ היו‬is found in the more complete parallel text in CD XIX.14–16 (text and translation follow Schwartz): ‫( הוא היום אשר‬15) ‫( בריתו אשר לא יחזיקו באלה החקים לפקדם לכלה ביד בליעל‬14) ‫( גבול עליהם אשפך כמים עברה כי באו‬16) ‫יפקד אל כאשר דבר היו שרי יהודה כמשיגי‬ ‫}באו{ בברית תשובה‬ (14) his covenant who will not hold firmly to these statutes: They will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial. (15) That is the day when God will visit, as he said, “The princes of Judah were like those who move (16) border(s). I will pour out rage upon them like water.” For although they entered into a covenant of repentance… 28 CD VIII.5: ‫ …“ … ויתגוללו בדרכי זונות ובהון רשעה ונקום וניטור‬but rather wallowed in the ways of prostitutes (zwnwt) and wicked wealth (hwn), avenging and bearing grudges…” 29 These “builders of the barrier” are likely the Pharisees; see Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 243.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

226

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

“For they are meant for (the purposes of) destroying and misleading before my punishment because the evil of mankind is great.” The passages that mention Belial in the Damascus Document depict a demonic figure who operates principally through false leaders. Belial roams freely throughout the period before the eschaton. He causes sin by “trapping” Israel, perhaps through foolishness, into following the incorrect law. Belial is therefore behind the opposition to the “true” leaders of Israel, the leaders of the community, and is particularly represented by leaders outside the community. Surprisingly, Belial will destroy the evildoers himself in the eschaton (CD VIII.2). While members are essentially free of Belial, this is not the case for those members who do not follow community law. Belial does not fulfill a “personal” role as do other demons addressed in the apotropaic prayers previously discussed. He acts on the nation of Israel or on entire groups within it, serving to divide between the Qumran community and the rest of Israel, whom he has misled. He is behind the major mistakes of Israel. As noted above, the explanatory power of Belial as a force of evil here is not psychological, but social. His activity explains the existence of misleading leaders as well as their success in leading Israel astray by convincing those outside the community not to follow the community’s law. Belial acts as a social divider within Israel, and the community’s members can understand that anyone outside of the community has somehow been influenced by Belial’s nefarious activities.30 A member who fails to observe community law will find himself in the same predicament as the nonmember, and subject to Belial’s punishment in the eschaton. There is one final reference to Belial in the Damascus Document, CD XII.2– 6.31 ‫( ודבר סרה כמשפט האוב‬3) ‫ כל איש אשר ימשלו בו רוחות בליעל‬vacat …(2) ‫( לחלל את השבת ואת המועדות לא יומת כי על בני‬4) ‫והידעוני ישפט וכל אשר יתעה‬ ‫( ֗יב֗וא אל הקהל‬6) ‫( משמרו ואם ירפא ממנה ושמרוהו עד שבע שנים ואחר‬5) ‫האדם‬

… vacat

(2) … vacat Each man whom the spirits of Belial rule (3) and speaks apostasy, in accordance with the judgment of (one who communicates with) a ghost or a familiar spirit shall he be judged. And each man who errs and (4) profanes the Sabbath or the holy days shall not be put to death, for he is to be (5) guarded by the sons of man, and if he is healed 30 M. Kister has reached the more extreme conclusion that in the thought of the community, all those outside the community are actively possessed by evil spirits while those inside the community are immune to them; Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 172. However, this conclusion is belied by the prayers found at Qumran asking for deliverance from these spirits (see Chapter 9), the language of the Damascus Document in CD IV-V, where Belial misleads rather than possesses, and the passage in the Damascus Document discussed below, CD XII.2–6, where the straying member is described as ruled by “spirits of Belial.” 31 Translation follows Baumgarten in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 51, slightly modified.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Damascus Document

227

of it, they shall guard him for seven years; then (6) he may enter the assembly. vacat (CD XII.2b–6a)

These lines are not easily reconciled with the other references to Belial in the Damascus Document that depict Belial’s influence on a social level, not a personal one. C. Hempel has identified these lines as an interpolation.32 However, a careful reading of the transgressions mentioned in this passage shows connections to other sections of CD, particularly the passage concerning Belial’s influence in IV.12–19 and the passage regarding evil leadership in V.20-VI.2. The passage at CD XII.2–6 mentions two transgressions, which result in two different punishments: (1) dbr srh, “speaking apostasy”; (2) a “straying” (’šr yt‘) that results in the desecration of the Sabbath and holidays. The punishment for the first is death, while the perpetrator of the second is kept in supervised custody33 until such time as the transgressor is “cured,” a period which may last up to seven years. As noted above, Belial is behind the mistaken following of incorrect halakah. In XII.2–6, the conflict between the community member and the laws of the community is similarly attributed to the influence of “spirits of Belial.” However, the two transgressions that may result from this demon-induced foolishness are interpreted as basically different. The first transgression is punishable by death and compared to the decree against the necromancer in Lev 20: 27a. This transgression, “speaking apostasy,” most likely refers to publicly speaking against the community’s laws or leadership, as evidenced by the use of the identical phrase dbr srh “speaking apostasy” in CD V.21-VI.1 regarding the “trespassers” who speak against the “commandments of God through Moses and through his anointed one.”34 In such a circumstance a harsh punishment

32 Hempel, Laws, 158–9, argues that this passage is an interpolation seeking to promote the message of Jubilees, in her opinion reflecting both the reference to Belial in Jub. 1: 20 and the remedies that counteract evil spirits in Jub. 10: 12–13 as a source of the idea that one can be “healed” of Belial’s spirits. Hempel notes that a belief in spirits is largely absent from the laws of the Damascus Document. However, the choice of Belial and not Mastema indicates that this passage is not particularly influenced by Jubilees; compare the reference to Mastema in the context of the Jubilees citation in CD XVI.2–6. Moreover, the remedies in Jub. 10: 12–13 are directed specifically at physical ailments, and not at sin. 33 See L. H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 189 n. 185. 34 This phrase is also found in a probable reconstruction of 4QDe (4Q270) 2 ii.13–14 in reference to one who betrays the group, curses them, and “[speaks] apostasy” against “those who are anointed with the holy spirit” ‫( ]אשר ידבר[ סרה על משיחי רוח הקדש‬reconstructed by Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documente”). C. Hempel, Laws, 157–8, relates CD xii.2b–3a not just to Lev 20: 27a but also to Deut 13: 6, which prescribes death for the prophet and “dreamer of dreams” who speak rebellion (dîbēr sārā) against God. Hempel’s parallel further supports the interpretation proposed here, whereby dbr srh indicates public speech against the community’s laws or in favor of different laws or leadership.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

228

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

is not surprising.35 Speaking against the community and its laws confirms that the member is firmly in the camp of the community’s enemies, those accused of misleading Israel, like the emissaries of Belial in CD V.20-VI.2. The member is thereby complicit in their demonic activity, and shares the fate of the necromancers of Lev 20: 27a.36 In contrast, straying from the rules of Sabbath and the holidays, while opposed to a basic set of community precepts and therefore the result of Belial’s spirits, does not remove a member from the righteous community for good. If he is “cured,” i. e. realizes the error of his ways, he may be forgiven, perhaps just as a new member is forgiven for similar “straying” in the past. The leniency of this punishment is unusual, particularly compared to the punishment for Sabbath desecration described in Exod 31: 14–15, 35: 2 and Num 15: 32–36. Several commentators have explained that this leniency is due to the possibly unintentional nature of the violation (on the basis of the verb yt‘h, from t‘h, to stray or err, in line 3b).37 However, the verb t‘h also appears in reference to the “trespassers” who lead Israel astray in V.20, indicating that the transgression is not only mistaken, but the result of misleading activity on the part of outside leaders. This transgression likewise reflects the role of Belial in IV.14–19, where Belial is the cause of the mistaken understanding of the Torah by those outside the community. The straying caused in XII.3–4 by Belial’s spirits is most likely connected to a differing calculation of the calendar, possibly proposed by someone outside the community, that resulted in the “straying” of the community member. This different calendar would lead to Sabbath desecration avoided by the community’s calendar, which precluded any festival coinciding with the Sabbath.38

35 Albeit harsher than the law in the Community Rule, 1QS VII.16–17, that dictates the expulsion of a member who slanders the community. 36 Baumgarten explains the death penalty here as an extension of Lev 20: 27, regarding the punishment of necromancers, to those possessed by evil spirits; see Baumgarten, “Damascus Document (CD),” 51 n. 181. However, this does not explain the more lenient punishment given to the member who desecrates the Sabbath and festivals. 37 See Maier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer, 2: 56 n. 314 and Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 78. Others have interpreted the influence of “spirits” as mental illness, which would explain the leniency of this ruling; see T. H. Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect in English Translation (London: Secker & Warburg, 1957), 88 and H. Bietenhard, “Sabbatvorschriften von Qumran im Lichte des rabbinischen Rechts und der Evangelien,” in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9 bis 14 Oktober 1961 (ed. H. Bardtke; Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 42; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963), 56–57. (Bietenhard’s approach also integrates the first of these two views, by interpreting these lines as indicating that “irrtümlicher Sabbatbruch” was understood to be the result of mental illness.) 38 Hempel, Laws, 158; Baumgarten, “Damascus Document (CD),” 51 n. 182. Baumgarten sees a similar approach to the offering of the Omer on the Sabbath in 4Q513 4 based on a somewhat speculative reading; see J. M. Baumgarten, “Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

“Angels of Hostility” and Belial

229

The lenient punishment may be a recognition of the difficulty of standing firm against the temptation of a convincing alternative calculation, particularly when it is enabled by “spirits of Belial.” The legal prescription in CD XII.2–6 presents a realization of Belial’s power in dividing between the community and others. The first transgressor is an actual worker of Belial’s will, who speaks against the community’s leadership or laws, and is therefore condemned to death. The second has been the victim of Belial’s misleading activity (although perhaps through human agents), and is treated with more compassion, as long as he is able to be “cured” and fully accept the community’s laws.

“Angels of Hostility” and Belial in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah As noted earlier, another reference to “angels of maśṭ ēmôt (‘hostilities’)” (ml’ky hmśṭ mwt) is found in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387–390).39 D. Dimant has identified these angels as members of Mastema’s camp.40 However, the “angels of hostilities” in this passage behave less like the Jubilees description of Mastema and more in a manner suited to a “dominion of Belial” when Belial is free to affect humankind, as in CD IV.13. God abandons the land in their hands (4Q387 2 iii.3–5a; underlined par. 4Q388a 7 ii.5–6):41 ‫אכי‬ ֯ ‫ארץ ביד מל‬ ֗ ‫ה‬ ֗ ‫( ]…[את‬4) [‫ם] ועזבתי‬ ֯ ‫ד‬ ֯ ‫( ]והש[מותי א]ת [ה֯]א[ר֯ץ ורחקתי את הא‬3) … ‫ראל‬ ֗ [‫( ]מיש‬5) […] ‫המשטמות והסתרתי‬

(3) [And ]I[ shall lay wa]ste the [l]and and I shall drive man away[ and I shall abandon] (4) […]the land in the hand of the angels of mśṭ mt, and I shall hide […] (5) [from Is]rael…

from Qumran Cave 4,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 395–6. 39 The plural form ml’ky hmśṭ mt (literally, “the angels of hostilities”) is unusual; maśṭ ēmā as “hostility” is an abstract noun, and does not appear in the plural in biblical use. While the plural form indicates that maśṭ ēmā is not employed here in its biblical connotation, it also signifies that maśṭ ēmā does not represent a proper name in this passage. The simplest interpretation of this term is that these are angels who perpetrate acts of hostility. Alternatively, the phrase “angel of hostility/Angel Mastema” (ml’k mśṭ mh) may reflect a known entity, and in the plural indicates many such “Mastema angels.” 40 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 253. 41 Texts and translation of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah in this chapter follow D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). Dimant’s reconstruction of entire words has been omitted when not based on parallel texts.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

230

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

These “angels of mśṭ mt” will rule over the survivors during the period that God “hides his face” from them (4Q390 [4QapocrJer Ce] 1 10–11): [‫פ]ני‬ ֯ ‫הסתר‬ ֗ ‫ב‬ ֯ [‫( … והשארתי מהם פ֗ליטים למע]ן[ אשר לא ֯י]כ[ל]ו [בחמתי ]ו‬10) …[‫מ]אסתים‬ ֯ ‫ש]ט[מות ו‬ ֗ ‫( מהם ומשלו בהמה מלא֗כי המ‬11) (10) … But I shall leave among them refugees, s[o] that [t]he[y] should not be an[nihi]lated in my wrath[ and] when [my ]fa[ce ]is hidden (11) from them, and the Angels of mś[ṭ ]mt will rule over them, and[ I shall ]sp[urn them]…

In fact, the “dominion of Belial” (mmšlt bly‘l) is mentioned in 4Q390 2 i 4 as a time when these “angels of hostilities” (ml’ky hmśṭ mwt) will rule (4Q390 2 i 3– 7), with the result that the apostate Jews “will not know and will not understand that I (God) was angry with them because of their trespass.”42 The “angels of hostilities” act here in the role elsewhere assigned to Belial, misleading Israel and ruling them during the dominion of Belial. The appearance of the dominion of Belial indicates either that these spirits have now been assigned to Belial, or that the dominion of Belial is to be interpreted here as a “dominion of evil,” with bĕlīya‘al appearing in its abstract meaning, much as it does in the Hodayot (1QHa XI.28): ‫“ וקץ חרון לכול בליעל‬and a period of wrath for all bĕlīya‘al.”43 The provenance of these Apocryphon of Jeremiah texts is still a matter of some debate. According to Dimant, these texts are not sectarian due to their lack of sectarian terminology, and instead reflect an intermediate category of texts that share certain broad ideas with sectarian works.44 If so, this passage 42

Text and translation below follow D. Dimant; see previous note.

‫( ממשלת בליעל בהם להסגירם‬4) ‫ כי אלה יבואו עליהם]…[֗ן ֯ו]ת[הי‬°[…]° ‫( נעשה כן‬3) ‫( מפרים את כול חקותי ואת כל מצותי אשר‬5) ‫ב֯יובל ההוא יהיו‬ ֯ [‫ם]…ו‬ ֗ ‫ע שני‬ ֯ ‫לחרב שבו‬ ‫( וי]ח[ל]ו[ להריב אלה באלה שנים שבעים מיום‬6) ‫ד עבדי הנביאים‬ ֗ [‫א]ותם…בי‬ ֯ ‫אצוה‬ ‫אכי המשטמות ומשלו בהם ולא ידעו‬ ֗ [‫( ]… מל‬7) ‫הפר ה]אלה וה[ברית אשר יפרו ונתתים‬ ‫ולא יבינו כי קצפתי עליהם במועלם‬

(3) so it was done […] for these things will befall them[…] and[ there ]will be (4) the dominion of Belial (Dimant: rule of Belial) over them so as to deliver them to the sword for a week of years[…and ]in that jubilee they will be (5) violating all my statues and all my commandments which I shall have commanded th[em…in the ha]nd of my servants, the prophets. (6) And[ t]he[y ]will be[gi]n to quarrel among themselves for seventy years, from the day of the violation of the[ oath and the ]covenant which they will have violated. So I shall deliver them (7) […the an]gels of mśṭ mt, and they will rule over them. And they will not know and they will not understand that I was angry with them because of their trespass…(4Q390 2 i.3–7) 43 Contra Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 253–4. Dimant concludes from this text that Belial and the mal’akē hamaśṭ ēmôt, although bound to each other, had different realms of activity, as the “rule of Belial” belongs to the sphere of humans who are under the yoke of the “angels of hostility.” However, the juxtaposition of the “angels of hostility/ies” and the “rule of Belial” seems to point to the conjunction, rather than disjunction, of these figures. 44 D. Dimant, “A New Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Qumran: A Presentation,” Hen 22 (2000): 185–7. Dimant identifies common approaches to the history of Israel, the nature of its

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Summary

231

may reflect a tradition whereby the “dominion of Belial” was not connected to any single archdemonic figure, but rather to a period of general evil. This “period of evil” (reflecting the biblical meaning of bĕlīya‘al) was considered a time when demonic figures, “angels of hostility” of the sort described in Jubilees 7 and 10, are free to do their will. Such a description suits the period of evil delineated in the apotropaic prayers described in the previous chapter, when different types of evil spirits are free to threaten the speaker.

Summary: Belial in the Damascus Document and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah In the Damascus Document, Belial functions as an explanation of nonmembers’ sin and of the success of their leaders, identified as Belial’s emissaries. Belial and his spirits also serve as a rationale for how a member could “mistakenly” take a stance not accepted by the community, particularly regarding the calendar. Belial functions mainly through evil leaders and affects nonmembers by misleading them to reject community law. Members, however, are largely free of his influence. Belial thus serves a role in explaining the social division between members and nonmembers, and particularly why nonmembers persist in the “foolishness” of denying the community’s legal interpretation. Unlike the Damascus Document, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah seems to reflect an earlier stage when the “dominion of Belial” was not connected to the figure Belial but to an age of evil when “angels of hostility” are set free by God to work evil among humankind. This age of evil is comparable to the period decried in apotropaic prayers analyzed in the previous chapter. As noted above, Belial in the Damascus Document does not command a predetermined “lot” of either humans or demons and does not form half of a dualistic system. While he may be behind evil leaders, in the majority of the Damascus Document (with the exception of the insertion at V.17b–19) he has no direct counterpart. He seems completely free of control during the final age of evil before the eschaton. In contrast, the War Scroll reflects a very different understanding of Belial.

sins, and the eschaton, as well as a shared use of a year-weeks chronology. C. Werman, however, distinguishes between the Apocryphon of Jeremiah texts 4Q385a, 387–388 and 4Q390, which she identifies as a sectarian “pseudo-Moses” text; see Werman, “Eschaton,” 46–57. If C. Werman’s proposal is accepted, the passage in 4Q390 discussed above may be another example of the selective integration of Belial and Jubilees traditions in Qumran texts.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

232

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

Belial in the War Scroll Belial plays a central role in the War Scroll and in the eschatological battle between good and evil that it describes. In the War Scroll, it is Belial who leads the forces of evil, called the “children of darkness,” against the “children of light.” This sectarian work has a long history of redaction, particularly in its most complete version, found in Cave 1: 1QM (1Q33).45 A long-standing debate exists regarding which passages containing Belial are original to the oldest version of the War Scroll. P. von Osten-Sacken concluded that Belial and the dualistic framework in which he functions was the original foundation of the War Scroll.46 However, both J. Duhaime and P. R. Davies have identified key dualistic passages mentioning Belial as separate redactional additions.47 Belial’s depiction as it appears in 1QM may not be original to the “core” of the War Scroll, but it is still possible to analyze the final redaction as it was transmitted to its Qumran audience and to explore the understanding of Belial and his actions that it conveyed to that community. The War Scroll begins by introducing the eschatological battle between the “children of light” and the “lot of the children of darkness in the army of Belial” (1QM I.1). This “lot” in the “army of Belial” consists of the nations, particularly those portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible: “Edom and Moab, and the sons of Ammon and ḥ […] Philistia and the troops of the Kittim of Ashur” (1QM I.1–2).48 The identification of these nations as 45 The War Scroll is also represented in four copies found in Cave 4 (4Q492, 494, 495, 496); see J. Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 20–23. According to Davies, 4Q471, 4Q491, 4Q493 and 4Q497 are evidence of additional War Scroll material and recensions (Davies, “Dualism,” 16). These latter texts, however, do not contain any material relevant to the discussion of Belial in the War Scroll. 46 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 28–41. 47 See Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll, 113–23; Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII.” Davies has argued that the War Scroll reflects a dualistic development of an earlier nationalistic war tradition. In his view, 1QM I is “largely redactional” and ties together the nationalistic war, depicted in 1QM II-IX, and the cosmic war against the army of Belial, depicted in 1QM XVXIX (Davies, ibid., 21, 113–21). In particular, Davies draws attention to a “dualizing” process in 1QM that puts the nationalistic war into a framework that is cosmically and ethically dualistic (idem, “Dualism,” 12–15). Duhaime (“La rédaction de 1QM XIII” and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 43–51) does not divide 1QM as extensively as does Davies, but has identified specific redactional additions, particularly additions that deepen the cosmic dualism of the text as a whole. Duhaime has also compared the Cave 1 War Scroll (1QM) explored here and the comparable copies of the War Scroll found in Cave 4. He notes that the similarities and differences between these texts suggest that a common source was reworked more extensively in 1QM than in its Cave 4 parallels, and that this is compatible with his proposal that 1QM belongs to a later stage in the interpretive process of war traditions (Duhaime, War Texts, 50–52). 48 As noted by Davies, the original nationalistic description of a war between Israel and the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the War Scroll

233

the lot of Belial and as the “children of darkness” transforms this national battle into an eschatological confrontation between good and evil. Henceforth, Belial functions as the leader of military forces composed of these nations (1QM I.1, 13; IV.8–9, XV.2–3). These forces are supported by Israelites who have transgressed the covenant (I.2). He also commands a “lot” including evil humans (1QM I.5, IV.1–2), sometimes called the “lot of darkness” (1QM I.1, 11; XIII.5). As described in a hymn included in the War Scroll (analyzed below), Belial’s lot also includes spirits (1QM XIII.2, 4, 11–12). Finally, as in other Qumran texts, Belial is responsible for a period of rule (1QM XIV.9, and see XVIII.1), which he shares with the Kittim (1QM I.5–6), an echo of the parallel between Belial’s rule and the nations’ rule in Jub. 1: 19– 20.49 Belial’s rule will be ended by God at the eschaton (1QM XVII.5–6; XVIII.1). The War Scroll includes two passages in particular that focus on Belial and his role. The first and chief of these is the hymn found at 1QM XIII.1–16. Lines 1–6 of this hymn parallel the liturgical curses of Belial and Melki-reša found in the Community Rule, 4QBerakhot, and 4Q280 explored in the following chapter, in both function and content:50 ‫ב]לי[על‬ ֯ ‫ת‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫( שם‬2) ‫עמו‬ ֯ ‫( … וברכו על עומדם את אל ישראל ואת כול מעשי אמתו וז‬1) ‫ואת כול רוחי גורלו וענו ואמרו ברוך אל ישראל בכול מחשבת קודשו ומעשי אמתו‬ ‫ר בליעל במחשבת‬ ֯ ‫ר֯ו‬ ֯ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫ ו‬vacat (4) ‫רתיו בצדק יודעיו באמונה‬ ֯ ֯‫מש‬ ֯ ‫( כול‬3) ‫וב]ר[֯וכים‬ vacat (5) ‫משטמה וזעום הואה במשרת אשמתו וארורים כול רוחי גורלו במחשבת‬ ‫רשעם וזעומים המה בכול עבודת נדת טמאתם כיא המה גורל חושך וגורל אל לאור‬ vacat ‫( ]עולמ[֯ים‬6)

(1) … They shall bless, from their position, the God of Israel and all his truthful works. They shall denounce (2) there Be[li]al and all the spirits of his lot. They shall speak up, saying, “Blessed be the God of Israel for all his holy plan and his truthful works. Bl[es]sed be (3) all (who) serve him righteously (and) know him faithfully.” vacat (4) “Cursed be Belial for the hostile plan (mḥ šbt mśṭ mh) and may he be denounced for his guilty authority. Cursed be all the spirits of his lot for their (5) wicked vacat plan and may they be

nations is evident in this introduction; see Davies, “Dualism,” 12–13. For the biblical reference underlying “Kittim of Ashur,” see Ezek 27: 6. On the Kittim as Romans in Qumran texts, see T. H. Lim, “Kittim,” EDSS 1: 469–71. 49 The reference in 1QM XVII.5–6 to ‫“ שר ממשלת רשעה‬prince of the reign of wickedness” also seems to be a reference to Belial. 50 See M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 84; Metso, Textual Development, 113 n. 18; Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 214–16; and Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 222. All citations and translations of the War Scroll in this chapter follow J. Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 80–203 unless otherwise noted; translations are slightly modified. Reconstructions of entire words have been omitted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

234

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

denounced for all their service of impure uncleanliness. For they are the lot of darkness, but the lot of God is for (6) [everlast]ing light.” vacat (1QM XIII.1b–6)

The curse of Belial is contrasted to blessing the God of Israel, a blessing which in the War Scroll is extended to those who serve and truly “know” him (XIII.3). It is significant that the initial curse (XIII.4–6) addresses Belial and his spirit minions, as does the curse in 4QBerakhot discussed in the following chapter. Belial and his minions are cursed for their evil plans and intentions, just as Belial is in 4QBerakhot and Melki-reša is in 4Q280. Unlike other references to the lot of Belial in the War Scroll, this liturgical curse does not include human beings who follow Belial. Following the curse of Belial in lines 1–6, similar to other curse texts explored in the following chapter, the declaration in lines 10–12 that it is God who created Belial is surprising: (11) ‫ק וכול רוחי אמת בממשלתו ואתה‬ ֗ […]°‫(… ושר מאור מאז פקדתה לעוזרנו וב‬10) ‫ש]ך…[תו ובעצתו להרשיע ולהאשים וכול‬ ֗ ‫עשיתה בליעל לשחת מלאך משטמה ובחו‬ …‫( גורלו מלאכי חבל בחוקי חושך יתהלכו ואליו ]תש[֯וקתמה יחד‬12) ‫רוחי‬ (10) … The Prince of Light, long ago, you appointed to assist us wb°[…]q; all the spirits of truth are under his dominion. You (11) have made Belial to corrupt, a hostile angel (ml’k mśṭ mh). In the darkne[ss…]tw, by his counsel to cause wickedness and to accuse. All the spirits of (12) his lot, angels of destruction, go about according to the statutes of darkness; towards it is their one [de]sire… (1QM XIII.10b–12a)51

The declaration that God is behind the existence of Belial addresses the difficulty of acknowledging a powerful demonic leader of evil in a monotheistic system. The power of the demon would seem to challenge the supremacy of the Deity; the curse of Belial juxtaposed directly with the blessing of God implies an equivalence of power. In contrast, the statement here that God created Belial for a specific function subordinates the demon to God; Belial is transformed into a tool of God’s will.52 The influence of Jubilees is apparent throughout this section. The description of Belial’s designated function as causing evil and “accusing” bears a striking resemblance to the description of Belial in Jub. 1: 19–21. There, too, Belial is described as a functionary of God, whose job it is to lead astray and to “accuse.” In addition, Belial’s spirits in 1QM XIII.11–12, like Mastema’s spirits in Jubilees 10, are described as destroying indiscriminately. It is probable that this passage, like CD VIII.1–10 and perhaps the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390 2 i 3–7), results from a harmonistic reading of Jubilees identifying Mastema with Belial.53

51 52 53

Translation is mine but draws from Duhaime, “War Scroll.” Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 221. A similar harmonistic reading may lie behind the attribution of seven spirits of deceit to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the War Scroll

235

The declaration that Belial is God’s creation, however, is incongruous within a hymn that contrasts cursing Belial with blessing God. This incongruity is an indication that lines 10–12 may be a later addition to the text. Duhaime notes that this section adds new vocabulary and concepts, particularly the dualistic framework in which the Prince of Light opposes Belial, and consequently has identified 9b–12a as an interpolation.54 If so, it can be concluded that the author of this passage wished to present a dualistic system that would in its entirety be subordinate to God. Belial is God’s tool, and opposes only the “Prince of Light” directly, not God himself. In a similar fashion, the angel Michael is described as the leader of the Israelite troops in 1QM XVII.6–7, serving as an angelic counterpart to Belial. A closer investigation of the passage cited above also reveals an interesting biblical allusion that highlights the Qumran view of sin. This is the allusion in line 12 to the divine oracle in Gen 4: 7b: ‫תו‬ ֹ ‫ק‬ ָ ‫שוּ‬ ׁ ‫ת‬ ְּ ‫ך‬ ָ ‫לי‬ ֶ ‫א‬ ֵ ‫בץ ְו‬ ֵ ‫ר‬ ֹ ‫טאת‬ ָּ ‫ח‬ ַ ‫תח‬ ַ ‫פ‬ ֶּ ‫ל‬ ַ ‫בו‬ ֹּ ‫של‬ ָׁ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ת‬ ִּ ‫תה‬ ָּ ‫א‬ ַ ‫“ ְו‬Sin crouches at the door; its desire is toward you, yet you can rule it.”55 Although this Genesis verse directly describes sin and its machinations, it is strikingly absent as a prooftext from Qumran texts that address or describe sin, despite the verse’s survival at Qumran.56 The verse’s absence is particularly intriguing given the prominence of Gen 4: 7b in discussions of the “evil inclination” in rabbinic literature.57 Yet the War Scroll includes three allusions to this verse, referring to evil spirits (1QM XIII.12b) and to the opposing army composed of both evil spirits and people (1QM XV.9b–10a, XVII.4b), whose desire is toward darkness (ḥ wšk; XII.12b, XV.9b–10a) and toward “nothingness and void” (lthw wlbhw; XVII.4b). The allusions to Gen 4: 7b in the War Scroll describe the inevitable desire for sin among evil spirits and wicked people. These allusions are particularly appropriate given that the biblical oracle is addressed to Cain, the world’s first murderer. These allusions to Gen 4: 7 in connection to the wicked also explain “Beliar” in T. Reu. 2: 1–2. (The description that follows in 2: 3–3: 2, however, is drawn from the Stoic division of the soul; see Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments, 93.) 54 Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 218–27 and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44–46. Duhaime also notes that the hymn reads more coherently without the addition of these lines, and that lines 9b–10a and 12b form an inclusio via the repetition of gwrl and ’mt. According to Duhaime, the hymn in lines 1–6 (as well as lines 13b–16) was then added by a redactor who did not accept the idea of an intermediary between Israel and God; Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44–46. 55 Translation mine. 56 A possible allusion may be found in the description of human lowliness in 1QS XI.21b– 22a “and he is from spit (and) pinched-off clay, and to dirt is his desire” ‫והואה מצירוק חמר‬ ‫קורצ ולעפר תשוקתו‬. The verse has survived in fragmentary form as part of a copy of Genesis in 4Q2 (4QGenb) 3 i.6–7. 57 See Sifre Deut. 45; Gen. Rab., ed. Theodor and Albeck, 22 (4:7); Song Rab. 7:11; b. Qidd. 30b.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

236

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

the absence of this verse in other Qumran texts that explain the desire to sin. If humans are to be divided between the righteous and the wicked, then Cain, according to the biblical account, is undoubtedly to be counted among the world’s wicked. Consequently, the oracle addressed to him in Gen 4: 7 explains only the desire to sin among the wicked. But most Qumran texts are not particularly concerned with explaining the desire to sin among the wicked; it is understood that the wicked desire to do evil. Rather, it is the desire to sin among the righteous that posed a theological problem for the Qumran community and other groups in the Second Temple period. An oracle to a future murderer was considered of little use in solving this problem.58 The second passage that illuminates the role of Belial in the redacted War Scroll, the description of the predestination of the children of light and the children of darkness (XIV.8–11), shows a marked correspondence to certain ideas in Jubilees. ‫( כול‬9) ‫[ שמכה אל החסדים השומר ברית לאבותינו ועם‬...‫( … ואנו שא]רית‬8) ֯ ‫דורותינו הפלתה חסדיכה לשא‬ ‫לוא‬ ֗ ‫ר]ית…[ בממשלת בליעל ובכול רזי שטמתו‬ ‫מ]נו… אנ[שי ממשלתו שמרתה נפש‬ ֯ ‫בלו גערתה מ‬ ֗ [‫( מבריתכה ורוחי ]ח‬10) [‫הדיחו֯נ]ו‬ ‫ה תגד]ע…[לכול גבוריהם‬ ֯ ‫( נופלים בעוזכה ורמי קומ‬11) ‫פדותכה ואתה הקימותה‬ …‫אין מציל ולקליהם אין מנוס‬

(8) …And we are the remna[nt…] your name, O merciful God, you who keep the covenant for our fathers and with (9) all our generations. You have shown through wonders your mercy for the remna[nt…] during the dominion of Belial. With all the mysteries of his hatred (śṭ mtw), he has not repelled [us] (10) from your covenant; you have driven his spirits of [des]truction from u[s. …the me]n of his dominion […] you preserved the soul of those you have redeemed. You have raised up (11) the fallen by your vigor, but the (men) of high stature you have hew[n down…] for all their mighty men there is no deliverer, for their swift there is no refuge. … (1QM XIV.8b–11b)59

The protection of the righteous from demonic influence, a theme developed throughout the book of Jubilees, is prominent in this passage. In 1QM XIV.8– 11, the truly righteous have been determined and are safe from the temptations of evil spirits led by Belial. As the passage states, God has saved “us,” the chosen ones, and is apparently behind the inability of Belial to lead the children of light astray from God’s covenant. The parallels between the Belial passages in the War Scroll and the approach towards demonic sin in Jubilees, including the characterization of Belial in

58 The view of Cain in several rabbinic texts is a sympathetic one, particularly in those that consider him the first human to experience repentance; see Gen. Rab., ed. Theodor and Albeck, 97 (49:8); Lev. Rab. 10.5; Deut. Rab. 8.1; Tanḥ . Berešit 9; Pesiq. Rab. 47. (For a more cynical view of Cain’s “repentance,” see Midrash Tanḥ uma, ed. S. Buber, Berešit 25.) Rabbinic texts consequently present the oracle in Gen 4: 7 as a statement directed toward all humans who struggle with the desire to sin, not just to the unrepentant wicked. 59 Translation follows Duhaime, “War Scroll” except where otherwise noted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

237

1QM XIII.10–11 and the immunity of the righteous to demonic sin in 1QM XIV.8–11, indicate that the War Scroll was significantly influenced by Jubilees in its depiction of Belial. This dependence is further borne out by the description of Belial as an “angel of hostility,” ml’k mśṭ mh, in 1 QM XIII.11 and by the use of the root śṭ m in conjunction with Belial’s plans and actions in 1QM XIII.4 and XIV.9. By describing Belial as ml’k mśṭ mh, the composer of this section clarifies that Belial is, in fact, the angel Mastema of Jubilees.60 The role of Belial as the head of evil nations in eschatological battle is also a natural development of Jub. 1: 19–21, where Belial is parallel to the nations in his ability to lead Israel astray, and of Jub. 15: 31, where spirits rule the nations in order to lead them astray. The redacted War Scroll is thus a window into how Jubilees may have been understood by certain members of the Qumran community. Traits of Mastema have been transferred to Belial, who is a development of the Belial in 1: 19–21, leading both evil nations and spirits. Unlike Mastema and the Belial of Jubilees, however, Belial functions within a dualistic system, directly countered by God’s emissary while remaining completely subordinate to God. While Belial leads troops into physical battle against the “children of light,” he and his spirits are unable to lead them spiritually astray due to God’s protection.

Conclusion: Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll A comparison of the Damascus Document and the War Scroll demonstrates very different depictions of Belial with a common thread. In both texts Belial serves to distinguish between members and nonmembers, and in both he defines a period of evil before the eschaton. However, in the Damascus Document, Belial functions within a system of assumed free will. He is used to justify the continued existence of evil leaders and to explain the mistaken sinning of their followers. According to CD XII.2–6, even members may be misled by Belial and his spirits. In the War Scroll, on the other hand, Belial is part of a cosmically dualistic system, commanding a “lot” of apparently predetermined evildoers and opposed by an angelic figure, the “Prince of Light” or Michael. In the cosmic dualism of the redacted War Scroll, Belial is explicitly subordinate to the Deity; God has created Belial and is not directly opposed by him. The “children of

Contra Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 243. Dimant considers this passage a straightforward description of Belial as “an angel full of animosity”; she concludes that Belial is a subordinate of Mastema in Qumran texts. 60

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

238

Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

light” may need to fight Belial and his forces physically, but with God’s help they are not led astray by them. Thus in both the Damascus Document and the War Scroll, Belial has a particularly social function. Belial does not threaten the righteous community member from an internal perspective, but remains a purely external threat through “others,” namely the nonmembers and Gentile nations who follow him. Belial may lead these “others” through their own foolishness, as in the Damascus Document, or due to a predetermined dualistic system, as in the War Scroll, but he does not threaten the righteousness of community members.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Eleven Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule The association of Belial with a “lot” of human evildoers finds its most complete expression in the liturgical curse texts of the Qumran community. These are actually liturgies that include both blessings addressed to the faithful and curses of evil demons and humans. While similar to the passage in the War Scroll in which Belial and spirits of his lot are cursed (1QM XIII.2, 11–12), these liturgies include the denunciation of Belial’s human minions.

4QBerakhot: Periodization of Demonic Evil and Evildoers 4QBerakhot (4Q286–290) comprises a communal liturgy1 that includes a recitation of blessings and curses. Although the text is fragmentary, the full extent of Belial’s perceived power is evident in the more complete first half of the fragment, 4Q286 7a ii 1–6 (parallel 4Q287 6).2 ‫( ואת‬2) ‫ר יזעמ]ו[ את בליעל‬ ֯ ‫ח‬ ֯ ‫ וא‬vacat ‫( עצת היחד יומרו כולמה ביחד אמן אמן‬1) ֯ ‫ר֯ו‬ ֗ ‫כול גורל אשמתו וענו ואמרו א‬ ‫( וזעום הוא‬3) ‫טמתו‬ ֯ ‫שבת מש‬ ֯ ‫ח‬ ֯ [‫ב]מ‬ ֯ ‫ר ]ב[ליעל‬ ‫( וזעומים המה‬4) ‫רלו במחשבת רשעמה‬ ֯ [‫ר֯ו]חי גו‬ ֯ ֗‫במשרת אשמתו וארורים כול‬ ‫( לשחת עולמים אמן‬5) ‫ל חושך ופקודתמה‬ ֗ [‫במחשבות נדת ]ט[מאתמה כיא֯] המה גור‬ ‫( כול בני בלי]על[ בכול עונות‬6) ‫ וארור הרש]ע…[ ממשלותיו וזעומים‬vacat ‫אמן‬ vacat [‫מעמדמה עד תוממה ]…אמן אמן‬

…(1) of the council of the community, all of them will say together: ‘Amen. Amen.’ vacat And then [they] will denounce Belial (2) and all his guilty lot. And they will respond and say: ‘Cursed be [B]elial in his hostile [p]lan, (3) and denounced is he in his guilty authority. And cursed are all the spir[its] of his [lo]t in their wicked plan, (4) and they are denounced in the plans of their [un]clean impurity; for[ they are the lo]t of darkness, and their designation (5) is to eternal destruction. Amen. Amen. vacat And cursed is the 1 4Q286–290 contains prolonged praise of God and his heavenly and earthly works, with “Amen Amen” serving as a responding refrain for the community. While Nitzan interprets this text as having a covenantal nature due to similarities with the passage in the Community Rule discussed below (1QS I.16–II.23), there is nothing in the text itself to indicate covenantal renewal; cf. Nitzan, “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,” RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506. 2 The parallel text is underlined. Text and reconstruction follow B. Nitzan, “286. 4QBerakhotª,” in Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (ed. J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 27–28. Reconstructions of words and phrases that are completely absent in the surviving text have been removed. Translation is my own.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

240

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

wick[ed…] of his dominions; and denounced are (6) all the children of Beli[al] in all the periods of their presence until their consummation [Amen. Amen.] vacat

Here Belial has a “lot” (gwrl; lines 2, 3, 4), consisting of spirits under his command (line 3), but is also followed by “children of Belial” (line 6, in a partial reconstruction). While the phrase in its biblical context indicates evil human beings without any demonic overtones, in its current context it clearly reflects the understanding of Belial as a demonic figure.3 The phrase’s use here reframes the original term; as in biblical use, the phrase indicates wicked people, but now signifies that these wicked humans belong to the “lot” of the demon Belial.4 As in the sectarian apotropaic prayers explored above, this ceremony connects demonic figures to a specific era: the current one (line 6). This is the “period of their presence” (‘wnwt m‘mdmh, lit., “periods of their ‘stand’”), i. e., the period when Belial and his spirits are allowed to exist.5 It is only during the current era that Belial, his spirits, and the wicked humans under his command exist and are able to carry out their desires. This excerpt serves to explain the evildoing of the nonmember, the “child of Belial” who persecutes the community. (The fragmentary line 11 notes that these characters are those who “commit intrigue,” mqymy mzmtmh.) The evildoer functions like a demon himself, attempting to harm the righteous. The human evildoer is allowed to exist for the same reason demons are allowed to exist: as part of a fixed period of evil that will end dramatically at the eschaton.

Belial in the Community Rule: Demonic Presence and Absence in a Covenantal Text Unlike 4QBerakhot, the blessing/curse liturgy in the Community Rule appears within a framework that explains when it is to be recited. It is part of the annual ceremony renewing the covenant, including both new and current members of the community. The passage notes that as part of the covenant, members must not turn away from God because of any “terror, dread, or per3 For biblical appearances of “children of Belial” see Deut 13: 14, 15: 9; Jud 19: 22, 20: 13; 1 Sam 2: 12, 10: 27, 25: 17; 1 Kgs 21: 10,13; and 2 Chron 13: 7. 4 See Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 2: 504 (Hebrew), contra Lyons and Reimer, “Demonic Virus,” 28. Lyons and Reimer propose that the term bny bly‘l could include spirits, based on the reconstruction of bny bly‘l in 11Q11 vi.3 (mistakenly cited ad loc. as v.3). However, even if the reconstruction of 11Q11 vi.3 is correct, there is nothing in its immediate context to indicate that it refers to spirits. (In fact, there is little in its immediate context that has survived in the fragment.) 5 Compare 1QM IV.3–4, ‫“ חדל מעמד רשעים ]ב[גבורת אל‬the ‘stand’ (m‘md) of the wicked is ended [through] the strength of God.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Community Rule

241

secution during the dominion of Belial (mmšlt bly‘l)” (I.17–18). It then recounts the ceremony in which the priests and Levites begin by blessing God, his works, and his kindness to Israel. While the priests report God’s righteousness and his acts of kindness to Israel, the Levites enumerate the sins of Israel during the “dominion of Belial” (I.22–24). In the second part of the ceremony, the priests bless “all the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in his ways” (II.1–4) and the Levites curse “all the men of Belial’s lot”:6 ‫( אנשי גורל אל ההולכים תמים בכול דרכיו‬2) ‫( … והכוהנים מברכים את כול‬1) ‫( טוב וישמורכה מכול רע ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונכה‬3) ‫ואומרים יברככה בכול‬ ‫( וישא פני חסדיו לכה לשלום עולמים והלויים מקללים את כול‬4) ‫בדעת עולמים‬ ‫( אל‬6) ‫( גורל בליעל וענו ואמרו ארור אתה בכול מעשי רשע אשמתכה יתנכה‬5) ‫אנשי‬ ‫( גמולים ארור‬7) ‫זעוה ביד כול נוקמי נקם ויפקוד אחריכה כלה ביד כול משלמי‬ ‫( באפלת אש עולמים לוא יחונכה אל‬8) ‫אתה לאין רחמימ כחושך מעשיכה וזעום אתה‬ ‫(ישא פני אפו לנקמתכה ולוא יהיה לכה שלום‬9) ‫בקוראכה ולוא יסלח לכפר עווניך‬ ‫( וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחר המברכים והמקללים‬10) ‫בפי כול אוחזי אבות‬ ‫אמן אמן‬

(1)…Then the priests shall bless all (2) the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in all his ways, and say: “May he bless you with all (3) good and keep you from all evil; may he enlighten your heart with insight for living, may he favor you with eternal knowledge. (4) May he lift up his merciful countenance toward you for eternal peace.” Then the Levites shall curse all the men of (5) Belial’s lot; they shall respond and say: “Cursed be you in all the acts of your guilty wickedness.7 May God give you up (6) (to) terror through all the avengers (lit. ‘avengers of vengeance’). May he visit upon you destruction through all those who take (7) revenge. Cursed be you without compassion in accordance with the darkness of your works. Damned be you (8) in everlasting murky fire. May God not favor you8 when you cry out. May he not forgive (you) in order to cover over9 your iniquity. (9) May he lift up his angry countenance to wreak vengeance upon you. May there be no peace for you according to all who hold fast to the fathers.” (10) And all those who cross over into the covenant shall say after those who bless and those who curse: “Amen, amen.” (1QS II.1–10)

The liturgical text in 1QS contains several biblical references that have been reframed in the context of the community. The renewal of the covenant through a string of blessings and curses draws from the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27–28.10 The final warning against the hypocritical member of the community in lines II.11–17 draws directly from Deut 29: 18–20, a passage 6 All citations and translations of 1QS in this chapter follow J. H. Charlesworth and E. Qimron, “Rule of the Community,” unless otherwise noted. Reconstructions of entire words in 1QS II have been omitted. 7 Charlesworth translates “your guilty (and) wicked works.” 8 Charlesworth translates “not be compassionate unto you”; the meaning chosen here maintains the parallel with 1QS II.3. 9 Charlesworth translates “by covering over.” 10 The blessings in 1QS II.2–4 are an expansion of the priestly blessing in Num 6: 24–26, while II.8–9 is a reversal of this blessing.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

242

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

that similarly warns any Israelite who does not take the Deuteronomic curses to heart: לעבוד‬vacat (11) ‫( בשומעו את‬13) ‫( הבא בברית הזות ומכשול עוונו ישים לפניו להסוג בו והיה‬12) ֗‫( כיא בשרירות לבי אלכ‬14) ‫דברי הברית הזות יתברכ בלבבו לאמור שלום יהי לי‬ ‫( סליחה אפ אל וקנאת משפטיו יבערו בו‬15) ‫ונספתה רוחו הצמאה עם הרווה לאין‬ ‫( אלות הברית הזות ויבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת‬16) ‫לכלת עולמים ודבקו בו כול‬ ‫( מאחרי אל בגלוליו ומכשול עוונו יתן גורלו בתוך‬17) ‫מתוכ כול בני אור בהסוגו‬ vacat (19) vacat ‫( וכול באי הברית יענו ואמרו אחריהם אמן אמן‬18) ‫ארורי עולמים‬ …‫ככה יעשו שנה בשנה כול יומי ממשלת בליעל‬

(11) And the priests and the Levites shall continue and say: “Because of the idols of his heart which he worships cursed be (12) he who enters into this covenant and puts the stumbling block of his iniquity before him so that he backslides, (stumbling) over it. And (13) when he hears the words of this covenant, he blesses himself in his heart,11 saying: ‘Peace be with me, (14) for I shall walk12 in the stubbornness of my heart.’ May his spirit be destroyed, ‘the thirsty with the saturated’13 without (15) forgiveness. May God’s wrath and his angry judgments flare up against him for everlasting destruction, and may all (16) the curses of this covenant stick to him. May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the children of light because of his backsliding (17) from God through his idols and the stumbling block of his iniquity. He shall put his lot14 among those who are cursed forever.” (18) And all those who enter the covenant shall respond and say after them: “Amen, amen.” (19) Thus they shall do year after year, all the days of Belial’s dominion.15 …(1QS II.11–19a)

The “people of the lot of Belial” and the hypocritical community member are the sole objects of the community’s curse. The “lot of Belial” in this liturgy includes only human evildoers; no spirits of Belial’s lot are mentioned. As is explained earlier in the text, the “days of Belial’s dominion” signify two different periods in history where “righteous” humans confront evil: the long history of a sinning Israel (I.23–24) and the present period, when the community suffers the trials of persecution (I.17–18). This persecution is presumably conducted by the “children of Belial.” While the curse in 4QBerakhot addressed Belial and his demon followers directly, in 1QS I-II Belial is never referred to as a separate being. It is evident that the audience is expected to know what

11 Charlesworth translates “blesses himself erroneously.” The translation chosen maintains the literal meaning of the text. 12 Charlesworth translates the imperfect form in the present tense: “for I walk.” 13 Deut 29: 18. Charlesworth translates “(suffering) thirst along with saturation” but the quote likely denotes the total destruction of all such people, rather than a particular type of suffering. 14 Charlesworth translates “May he put his lot.” For the difference between this clause and previous requests of God, see discussion below. 15 Charlesworth translates “the reign of Belial”; the translation has been changed to maintain consistency.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Community Rule

243

the “lot of Belial” and “the days of Belial’s dominion” are, but if all that had survived of Qumran were this text, there would be no way to know whether Belial here denotes a demonic figure or general evil.16 The neglect of the demonic Belial goes hand in hand with the exclusively human focus of the passage.17 It is likely that the curse originally did address Belial. This would explain the consistent use of the second person singular in II.5–9 in a curse ostensibly directed toward “all the people of Belial’s lot.” If so, the object of the curse has been intentionally changed from a demonic figure to the humans who are within his “lot,” indicating a conscious decision on the part of the redactor to focus on human evildoers in this passage. Belial and his spirits are not actors in this passage; they do not instigate human sin. The editor of this passage does not change the Deuteronomic prooftext (Deut 29: 18) when explaining the motivation of the hypocritical member; as in Deuteronomy, the hypocrite’s thoughts result only from his own “stubbornness.” Since the language of the hypocritical member’s thought is drawn directly from Deuteronomy, it is impossible to draw conclusions regarding free will from the choice of the term šryrwt lb (“stubbornness of heart”) to indicate the decision to sin. However, the following section of the Community Rule (a description of the nature of the yaḥ ad) similarly portrays the rejection of the community as resulting from a choice made freely by the nonmember (1QS II.25b–III.4): ‫( ]…א[ל ללכת בשרירות לבו לוא ]…י[חד אמתו כיא‬26) ‫( … וכול המואס לבוא‬25) ‫( נפשו ביסורי דעת משפטי צדק לוא חזק למשוב חיו ועם ישרים לוא יתחשב‬1) ‫געלה‬ ‫סאון רשע מחרשו וגואלים‬ ֗ ‫( ודעתו וכוחו והונו לוא יבואו בעצת יחד כיא ב‬2) ‫( בשובתו ולוא יצדק במתור שרירות לבו וחושכ יביט לדרכי אור בעין תמימים‬3) ‫( לוא יתחשב לוא יזכה בכפורים ולוא יטהר במי נדה ולוא יתקדש בימים‬4)

(25)…And every one who refuses to enter (26) […G]od (so as) to walk in the stubbornness of his heart, [shall] not […] his true [Com]munity, for (1) his soul detests instructions about knowledge of righteous precepts. He is unable to repent, (so that) he might live, and he is not to be accounted with the upright ones. (2) His knowledge, strength, and

16 Hence H. W. Huppenbauer has read Belial in this passage not as a proper name but as an abstract principle of ungodliness; Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten: der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente, ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangelismus (ATANT 34; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959), 35–36. Huppenbauer was limited in his analysis by the paucity of published texts at the time, and based his reading of 1QS partly on the fact that among the scrolls of Cave 1, only the War Scroll portrayed Belial as a personified character. 17 Contra Nitzan (“4QBerakhota–e,” 495), who sees this text as depicting two opposing authorities. Nitzan’s identification of the dualistic framework of this passage is accurate, but the framework in this text lacks any direct address of Belial, indicating that cosmic authorities are not the focus of its dualistic outlook.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

244

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

property shall not come into the Council of the Community, for in the filth of wickedness (is) his plowing, and (there is) contamination (3) in his repentance. He is not righteous when he walks in the stubbornness of his heart. And darkness he considers the ways of light; in the fount of the perfect ones (4) he cannot be accounted. He cannot be purified by atonement, nor be cleansed by waters of purification, nor sanctify himself in streams (1QS II.25b–III.4)

The decision of someone who chooses not to join the community is not attributed to demonic influence or even to the “lot” to which the nonmember belongs.18 The nonmember has made this sinful decision based solely on his own willful heart (II.26, III.3). As in CD II.14-III.12a (discussed in Chapter 4), the will of the human heart may tend naturally toward transgressing God’s commandments, and can therefore lead a person astray in the choice not to join the community. The opposing choice to join the community and to abide by its precepts is similarly described as an act of will that depends only on the member himself (1QS III.9b–12): ‫( בכול דרכי אל כאשר צוה למועדי תעודתיו‬10) ‫( … ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים‬9) ‫( לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו אז ירצה בכפורי‬11) ‫ולוא לסור ימין ושמאול ואין‬ vacat ‫( יחד עולמים‬12) ‫ניחוח לפני אל והיתה לו לברית‬

(9) … May he establish his steps for walking perfectly (10) in all God’s ways, as he commanded at the appointed times of his fixed times, and not turn aside, to the right or to the left, and not (11) transgress a single one of all his commands. Then he will be accepted by an agreeable atonement before God, and it shall be unto him (12) a covenant of the everlasting Community. vacat (1QS III.9b–12)

As in the covenantal texts investigated in Chapter 4, the purpose of this covenantal text determines the manner in which it portrays the decision to sin or not to sin. The new or existing member must be prepared to “set his feet to walk perfectly in all the ways of God.” The member must be ready to make this choice, and must take full responsibility for it. In Chapter 4 of this study, the analysis of the introductory passages of the Community Rule and the Damascus Document demonstrated that the approach to sin in these texts emphasized the members’ free will to turn away from their own inclination to sin. This emphasis served the purpose of these texts, as they were aimed at members undertaking the responsibility to fulfill the precepts accepted by the group. The avoidance of the figure of Belial in 18 Contra Baumgarten and Schwartz (“Damascus Document [CD],” 6–7), who interpret the Community Rule as reflecting the belief that humans have no role in determining to what lot they belong. In their opinion, this is opposed to the view reflected in the Damascus Document that members can sin and evildoers can repent. As is clear from the earlier analysis of 1QS in Chapter 4, the theological basis of the Community Rule in 1QS and the theological stance of the admonition in the Damascus Document are not diametrically opposed. Both note the freedom of nonmembers to turn away from their evildoing and join the community, while members remain capable of sin.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Community Rule

245

1QS I.16-II.19 and the emphasis on the member’s independent decisions in this section of 1QS stem from a similar goal. Unlike 4QBerakhot, the purpose of the passage in the Community Rule is to firmly draw the line between member and nonmember and to emphasize the path that the member must take. Members must assert their complete allegiance to the group by cursing those who do not follow its precepts, including hypocritical members who seem to have accepted the responsibilities of membership but who plan to ignore the rules. In order to underline the choice members have made, and the absolute responsibility they will bear if they choose not to follow the precepts of the community, the ceremony does not address the demon Belial. Evildoing is in the hands of humans, even though they may belong to the “lot” of Belial if they neglect to join the community or to obey its precepts. This emphasis on human responsibility seems to be at odds with the conceptual framework, which assumes a “lot” of Belial and a “lot” of God. In the 1QS passage the “lot” of Belial is part of a dualistic division of humanity: there is a “lot” of God (ΙΙ.2) who follow God’s ways and are consequently blessed, and a “lot” of Belial (II.4–5) consisting of evildoers (II.4–5). In contrast, in 4QBerakhot only Belial has a “lot,” which principally includes spirits. An investigation of the employment of the term gwrl (“lot”) in Qumran texts sheds light on this apparent disparity. The passage in 1QS does not seem to reflect the idea of predetermined lots. The lot of the community member who turns his back on the sect is placed with the cursed (II.17) due to the member’s own unfortunate choice and actions: ‫( מאחרי אל בגלוליו‬17) ‫(…יבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת מתוכ כול בני אור בהסוגו‬16) ‫ומכשול עוונו יתן גורלו בתוך ארורי עולמים‬

(16)…May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the children of light because of his backsliding (17) from God through his idols and the stumbling block of his iniquity. He shall put his lot among those who are cursed forever. (1QS II.16–17)

The verb ytn “shall put” bears more than one possible interpretation in this passage. It may relate to the preceding “stumbling block of his iniquity”; that is, the member’s sin – his stumbling block – will place him in the lot of the wicked. The subject of the verb may be God, but this is somewhat less likely as the verb does not connect to the previous divine actions with a waw-consecutive. Finally, it is possible that the subject of the clause is the sinner himself, who will place himself in the lot of the wicked through his own actions. Whether the subject is God, sin, or the sinner himself is significant for determining the degree of free will reflected in this passage. Nevertheless, regardless of the subject of ytn, this passage indicates that one’s lot is flexible, and can be changed by one’s decision to sin. The sinner’s “lot” (gwrl) is at least in some sense in his own hands, at least as it pertains to his rejection of the community. Elsewhere in 1QS the term gwrl usually refers to the actual casting of lots by

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

246

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

leaders of the community (as is evident in 1QS VI.16–22).19 An exception is 1QS IV.26, a probable reference to the metaphorical casting of lots by God, whereby God determines his creatures’ fate.20 The actual and metaphorical meanings of gwrl as it appears in the community’s writings differ from each other. The actual, literal meaning of gwrl is a lot cast by leaders of the community. The gwrl served as an oracle for the administration of the community, as is evident in 1QS VI.16–22 and CD XIII.4,21 and signified God’s continuous revelation.22 In its metaphorical use, however, gwrl denotes the casting of lots by God at creation, and hence the predetermination of specific humans’ roles and their place among the righteous or wicked.23 However, neither of these meanings easily explains the appearance of the term gwrl in 1QS II.17. In both the actual and metaphorical meanings of gwrl, the person affected by the lots has no control over them. The member does not cast the lots himself; they are cast either by leaders of the community (VI.16–22) or by God (1QS IV.26). In 1QS II.17, however, the rejecting member has somehow managed to place himself (or have himself placed) in a particular lot.24 In other words, the gwrl in this passage is directly See Lange, “Essene Position,” 148–9. This reading is supported by the study of F. Schmidt, “Gôral versus Payîs: Casting Lots at Qumran and in the Rabbinic Tradition,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Popović; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175–85. Schmidt distinguishes between human lot casting, depicted with the phrase yāṣ ā’ hagôrāl, “the lot ‘came out’” (as in Josh 16: 1, 19: 1, 17, 24, 32, 40, 21: 4; 1 Chron 24: 7) and divine lot casting, described with the more active phrase hippîl gôrāl “he cast lots” (a phrase found particularly in late biblical Hebrew; see Jonah 7: 7; Ps 22: 19; Prov 1: 14; Esth 3: 7; Neh 10: 35, 11: 1; 1 Chron 24: 31; 2 Chron 25: 8; 26: 13–14). ֗ [‫)]ו‬, F. Schmidt concludes that As the phrase in 1QS IV.26 is wlhpyl gwrlwt (‫ל]ה[פיל גורלות‬ divine lots are the subject of discussion there; see ibid., 180. If Schmidt’s distinction is not accepted, IV.26 may refer to the casting of lots within the community, a power bestowed by God so that community leaders may cast lots “according to the spirit” (1QS IV.26) of the member, as described in 1QS VI.16–22. A. Lange connects the idea of God casting lots at the creation with the Sumero-Akkadian poem Wisdom Text from Emar and Sippar. This poem contains the refrain “With Enki the rules were formulated; by command of the (same) God the lots have been cast; since early times it happened in this way.” As Lange notes, the idea of God casting lots can also be found in Isa 34: 17 and Ps 16: 5. See Lange, “The Determination of Fate by the Oracle of Lot in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Mesopotamian Literature,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 44–48. 21 Lange, “Essene Position,” 408–10. See also 1QS V.3, IX.7, and 1QSa I.16. 22 See Schmidt, “Gôral versus Payîs,” 180, 185. 23 See Lange, “Essene Position,” 423. Lange notes this use of the gwrl in 4Q176 16 3 and 4Q181 1 ii 5. See also 1QS IV.26; 4Q181 1 ii.4–5; 4Q418 81 5. 24 As noted above, whether the action belongs to God, the “stumbling block of his sin,” or 19 20

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Belial in the Community Rule

247

affected by conscious human behavior. The member’s actions determine how his lot will fall. The manner in which gwrl is employed in II.17, and in fact throughout the entire passage of 1QS I.16-II.19, is drawn from the appearance of the term gwrl in the ceremony described in Lev 16: 7–10: (7) He shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; (8) and Aaron shall place lots (gôrālôt) upon the two goats, one “lot” (gôrāl ’eḥ ād) for the Lord and one “lot” (gôrāl ’eḥ ād) for Azazel.25 (9) Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot for the Lord, which he is to offer as a sin offering; (10) while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel.

The term gwrl in the biblical verse reflects the lot that has been cast in order to determine which goat would be sacrificed to the Lord and which would be designated “for Azazel.” But the important “bottom line” would not be lost on a Qumran reader: there is a “lot” that belongs to God, and another that belongs to Azazel. It is this lot that 1QS II.17 depicts as at least somewhat fluid, in the sense that one can remove oneself from the lot of God and put oneself into the “other” lot, which in 1QS II.17 is the lot of Belial, of those “cursed forever.”26 The idea of two lots, one belonging to God and one to a demonic figure, clearly informs the Qumran use of the term gwrl in its metaphorical meaning.27 The passage in 1QS I.16-II.19 goes slightly further, demonstrating how this term could be employed in a manner far from its literal meaning but still reflecting biblical use. There are, indeed, two lots, one belonging to God and one to the demon Belial. These lots express whether a person belongs to the righteous or to the wicked, but in 1QS I-II they reflect neither metaphorical nor literal lots that have been cast. They only determine whether one will belong to God, as one of the righteous community members, or to Belial, as one of the evildoing nonmembers. They are therefore subject to the person’s the member himself, it is a result of the member’s actions, and has apparently not been determined from his birth. 25 NJPS translates “one marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel.” 26 In an early study, J. Licht reviewed the appearance of the term gwrl in the extant Dead Sea Scrolls (Licht, “The Term GWRL in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Beit Mikra 1 [1955–1956]: 90– 99 [Hebrew]). He noted that the idea of “casting one’s lot (gwrl) with” a group of evildoers can be found in Prov 1: 14 and in describing the blessed joining the angels in 1QSb IV.26 (‫מפיל‬ ‫)גורל עם מלאכי פנים‬. The latter source reflects a use of gwrl that appears nowhere else in the Scrolls. Based on the use of gwrl in other Dead Sea texts, Licht ultimately concluded that gwrl at Qumran indicated divinely predetermined membership in a band of wicked or righteous people. Nevertheless, it is significant that in both Prov 1: 14 and 1QSb IV.26 one’s gwrl is influenced by independent human decision. 27 J. Amir was the first to note the possible influence of Lev 16: 7–10 on the Qumran concept of Belial, in a brief (three-paragraph) response to Licht’s article on gwrl; see J. Amir, “The Term ‘Goral’,” Beit Mikra 2 (1957): 102 (Hebrew).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

248

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

actions, which similarly determine one’s righteousness or wickedness. In this text, while one may in essence determine to which lot one belongs, it is an allor-nothing proposition; one cannot be “a little righteous.” One is a righteous member or a wicked nonmember. The comparison between the two curse texts in 4QBerakhot and 1QS I-II accentuates different manifestations of Belial as a concept even where there is a shared assumption that Belial is a demonic figure. The Belial of 4QBerakhot is an active demonic figure, commanding a team of spirits and humans. He is directly opposed to God, but nevertheless in the present period he, his spirits, and his human subjects are allowed to exist. Evildoers are “children of Belial,” implying both complete belonging to Belial and, possibly, a connection with Belial from birth. From the perspective of 4QBerakhot, the line is clearly drawn: evildoers are wholly evil, while community members do not sin. The passage in the Community Rule shares this stark division of humanity, but differs in its concept of Belial. Here, too, there are evildoers who belong to the “lot” of Belial. But Belial himself and his spirit minions are nowhere to be found. Furthermore, these evildoers are in a certain sense the masters of their fate. They have chosen to reject the community and have placed themselves in their evil lot. As discussed above, this “Belial-less Belial passage” conforms to the nature of covenantal texts. Because the focus is on members and their agreement to abide by the rules of the community, this text focuses on human evildoers and does not enable any shift in responsibility to a demonic presence. Even a member’s “lot” is the result of his own actions.

4QCurses (4Q280): An Integrative Approach The Qumran text 4QCurses (4Q280) reflects an integration of the ideas found in the previously discussed passages of the Community Rule and 4QBerakhot.28 The curse focuses on the demonic figure Melki-reša (“ruler of wickedness”), the apparent counterpart to Melki-ṣ edeq.29

28 Text cited follows B. Nitzan, “280. 4QCurses,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 1–8; translation my own. 29 See Davies, “Eschatology,” 51–52. The other source in which Melki-reša is found, 4QVision of Amram (4Q544 2=iii.13), probably also included Melki-ṣ edeq as his counterpart. (4QVision of Amram will be explored further below in connection with the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the Community Rule.) While Melki-ṣ edeq is a human king and priest in Gen 14: 18 (also referred to in Ps 110: 4), it is apparent that by the Second Temple period some conceived of him as an angelic figure, as is apparent in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) and in possible references to Melki-ṣ edeq in “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” 4Q401 11 3 and 22 3; see A. Steudel, “Melchizedek,” EDSS 2: 535–6. In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon (unsurprisingly) refers to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QCurses (4Q280)

249

[… ‫( ]…אר[ור אתה מלכי רשע בכול מח]שבות‬2) […‫לרעה מתוך בני הא֗]ור‬ ֗ […] (1) ‫( לכה לזעמה ולוא‬4) […] ‫ה‬ ֯ ‫קוראכ‬ ֗ [‫אל לזעוה ביד נוקמי נקם לוא יחונכה אל ]ב‬ ֗ (3) ‫( לאין שרית וזעום אתה לאין פליטה‬5) […‫יהיה לכה שלו]ם[ בפי כול אוחזי אב֯ו]ת‬ ‫( ]…[֗י‬7) […]‫ל‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫במה לזום על ברית‬ ֗ ‫מ֯זמתכה בלב‬ ֯ ‫( ]ומ[ק֯ימי‬6) […‫וארורים עוש֯]י‬ ֗ ‫כול‬ […] ‫א‬ ֗ ‫ב֗ו‬ ֯ ‫ל‬ ֗ ֯‫ח֗ו֗ז֗י אמ֗]תו וכ[֯ול המואס‬ (1) […]for evil from among the children of li[ght…] (2) […Cur]sed are you, Melki-reša‘, in all the pl[ans…] (3) God to terror through all the avengers (lit. “avengers of vengeance”). May God not favor you [when] you call. […] (4) upon you for a denouncing. And you will have no pea[ce] according to all those who hold fast to the fathe[rs. …] (5) without remnant and denounced are you without escape. And cursed are those who perf[orm…] (6) […and those who f]ulfill your scheme in their hearts, by plotting against the covenant of God[…] (7) […]y all the seers of [his] tru[th. And any]one who refuses to enter […] (4Q280 2 2–7)

In this text Melki-reša has taken over the role of Belial as the demonic leader of evil. It is likely that this text does not contrast the leader of evil to God himself, but rather to the angelic Melki-ṣ edeq, who is depicted as Belial’s adversary in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13, discussed further below). If this is so, such a “downgrading” of the cosmic dualism in this text compared to 4QBerakhot avoids the depiction of a demonic figure who may seem to directly challenge God himself. As noted by B. Nitzan, the different sections of this fragment exhibit parallels to 1QS II and to 4QBerakhot.30 The line fragment at line 1 seems to conclude a curse against someone who rejects the community, parallel to 1QS II.16.31 The final line fragment at line 7b apparently refers to someone who

Melki-ṣ edeq as the human king-priest of Gen 14: 18; see the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) xxii.14. Melchisedek (Μελχισέδεκ) is a central figure in Hebrews 4–10, where his character combines the characters of Gen 14: 18 and Ps 110: 4; in fact, one of the differences between the figure in Hebrews and in Qumran texts noted by Steudel (see Steudel, ibid., 536), namely the eternal nature of Melchisedek and his priesthood, is drawn directly from Ps 110: 4. Another difference, noted by L. Schiffman, is that while Hebrews dissociates Melchisedek from the now obsolete Temple priesthood, in the Dead Sea Scrolls the eschatological role of Melki-ṣ edeq represents the fulfillment of the priestly role as described in the Hebrew Bible; see Schiffman, “Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. F. García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 173. 30 Nitzan, “4QBerakhota–e,” 489–90. Nitzan has described the middle section, lines 2–7a, as parallel to the curse in 4QBerakhot discussed above. However, what remains of this middle section actually begins with elements of the curse in 4QBerakhot (4Q286) 7a ii.2, continues with words that parallel 1QS II.8–9, and concludes with a parallel of 4QBerakhot 7a ii.11–12, as discussed below. 31 Compare 4Q280 2 1: [‫א]ור‬ ֗ ‫לרעה מתוך בני ה‬ ֗ [ ], “for evil from among the children of light” and 1QS II.16b: ‫ויבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת מתוכ כול בני אור בהסוגו‬, “May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the children of light because of his backsliding.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

250

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

refuses to join the community, as in 1QS II.25–26.32 The beginning of the curse against the demonic Melki-reša in line 2, “[Cur]sed are you, Melki-reša‘, in all the pl[ans]” echoes the beginning of the curse of Belial in 4QBerakhot (4Q286) 7a ii.2, “Cursed be [B]elial in his hostile [p]lan.” The following lines in 4Q280 seem to borrow ideas and terminology from the curses against evildoers in 1QS II.6–9. They promise vengeance (see 1QS II.6) and state that God will not favor Melki-reša by accepting his plea (1QS II.8), nor will Melki-reša have peace among those who “hold fast to the fathers” (see 1QS II.9). These phrases are more appropriate for human evildoers; it seems unlikely that an archdemon would expect either favor from God or peace among law-observing Jews. Like the text in 1QS, the curse of Melki-reša begins with an apparent reversal of the priestly blessing in Num 6: 24–26. B. Nitzan sees 4Q280 as the earlier text and, therefore, as a source of the curse in the Community Rule.33 However, as Nitzan herself notes, while lines 1 and 7b in 4Q280 reflect the order of the last part of the curses in the Community Rule (1QS II.15–17, 25–26),34 this order is interrupted in lines 2– 7a with the curses directed at Melki-reša and his followers.35 The interruption of the flow of 4Q280 indicates that the curse against Melki-reša was itself modeled on that found in 1QS column II or a similar text, and was redirected to a demon as opposed to human evildoers. It was then inserted into a text condemning those who reject the community similar to 1QS II.15–17, 25–26.36 In 4Q280 the insertion of a curse against Melki-reša into a text condemning human evildoers results in an expression the opposite of what was observed in the curses of 1QS. In 1QS II the actions of the individual cause one to be in Belial’s lot. In contrast, the inserted passage at 2–7a implies that it is Melki-

32

Compare 4Q280 2 7b: ‫א‬ ֗ ‫ב֗ו‬ ֯ ‫ל‬ ֗ ‫ס‬ ֯ ‫ ]וכ[֯ול המוא‬and 1QS II.25b–26a: ‫וכול המואס לבוא‬

‫]…א[ל ללכת בשרירות לבו‬

33 Nitzan concludes that 4Q280 is earlier, due to its “undeveloped liturgical form” compared to the ceremony in 1QS I-II, which includes repeating refrains that are written systematically throughout the ceremony; see B. Nitzan, “Blessings and Curses,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; vol. 1; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 98. Her explanation for the transition from the liturgy in 4Q280 to that found in 1QS II is that the editor of the Community Rule did not want to include the curse against Melki-reša in a covenantal ceremony concerned only with human beings. While this is a reasonable explanation, especially given the analysis of 1QS I- II above, the textual evidence that results from the comparison of 4Q280 with 1QS II overwhelmingly supports a development from 1QS to 4Q280, as explained above. 34 See notes 31 and 32 above. 35 Nitzan, “Blessings and Curses,” 1: 97. 36 Paleographic evidence supports the idea that this text, dated to the middle of the first century B. C. E. by J. T. Milik, “Milkî-ṣ edeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 129, borrowed from the earlier 1QS, paleographically dated to the beginning of the first century (100–75) B. C. E. by Cross; see idem, Ancient Library of Qumran, 119.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

4QFlorilegium

251

reša who lies at the root of the actions of those who reject the group. Those who have rejected the community are thereby explained as (perhaps predetermined) active followers of demonic forces, bent only on carrying out Melkireša’s schemes. In 4Q280, the inserted curse of Melki-reša provides the community member with an explanation of why the ex-member has left the group and draws a firm line between members and nonmembers, including nonmembers who once belonged to the “children of light” (line 1). The redactor responsible for inserting the curse against Melki-reša may have been bothered by the possibility that rejection of the community could result from mere human decision. Thus those who refuse to enter the covenant are not simply nonmembers who have chosen to do wrong. Rather, they are manifestations of the ultimate demonic presence, fulfilling Melki-reša’s evil scheme.

4QFlorilegium: A pesher View of Belial Demonic influence attributed to Belial can also be found in 4QFlorilegium, a sectarian, thematic pesher that interprets a variety of biblical passages.37 4QFlorilegium describes an eschatological period when the nation will be led by both a Davidic and a priestly messiah, and a Temple will be constructed that will never be destroyed. When contrasting the present age to the eschaton, the author of 4QFlorilegium describes Belial’s human accomplices engaging in typically demonic activity by attempting to lead the “children of light” into sin:38 [‫כ]ול‬ ֯ ‫תי לכה מכול אויביכה אשר יניח להמה מ‬ ֯ [‫( … ואשר אמר לדויד ו]הניחו‬7) ‫ל]י[על‬ ֯ [‫מ]ה…[מה כאשר באו במחשבת] ב‬ ֯ ‫( בני בליעל ה֗מכשילים אותמה לכלות‬8) ‫מ]ען ית[פשו לבליעל במשגת‬ ֯ ‫א֯ו]ר[ ֯ולחשוב עליהמה מחשבות און ל‬ ֗ (9) [‫להכשיל֯ ב֯]ני‬ ֗ vacat ‫א]ו[֯נמה‬ (7) … And (that) which he said to David, “And I [shall give] you [rest] from all your enemies” (2 Sam 7: 11), that (is) he will give them rest from a[ll] (8) the children of Belial who cause them to stumble in order to destroy th[em…]mh just as they came with a plan of [Be]lial to cause to stumble the c[hildren of] (9) ligh[t] and to devise against them evil plans so t[hat th]ey might be cau[ght] by Belial through their ini[quit]ous error. vacat (4QFlor [4Q174] 1–2 i, 21 7–9)

37 4QFlorilegium has been identified as sectarian in particular because of its sectarian terminology; J. Milgrom, “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2 (4Q174=4QFlor),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 248; see also G. J. Brooke, “Florilegium,” EDSS, 1: 297–8. 38 Text and translation follow Milgrom, “Florilegium,” 250–1.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

252

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

These references to Belial and to the “children of Belial”39 depict a firm division between humans belonging to Belial and those belonging to the “children of light,” presumably community members, similar to the division implied in 4Q280. The categories “children of Belial” and “children of light” are mutually exclusive; one is the enemy of the other. While the covenantal ceremony in 1QS focused on the decision to join the community and the need for such a decision to be wholehearted, in 4QFlorilegium decision is irrelevant. As in 4QBerakhot, in 4QFlorilegium the lines have already been drawn. The eschatological framework of 4QFlorilegium determines this lack of fluidity between human groups.40 In the eschatological future described in 4QFlorilegium, there are no “potential” members; all people will have already made their choice for good or evil, whether that choice was predetermined or not, and will have consequently been established for life or death. The promised “peace” from the children of Belial contrasts with the present age, when the (human) “children of Belial” cause the “children of light” to stumble in order to destroy them. 4QFlorilegium interprets 2 Sam 7: 11, which originally refers to peace from David’s enemies and the future building of the temple, as a reference to the ongoing threat from enemies of the community and, in particular, to the corrupting influence of these enemies. The community’s antagonists will only desist from corrupting the “children of light” at the eschaton, when God’s true temple shall be built. The “children of Belial” have thereby taken on the demonic function of both leading the righteous to sin and subsequently “destroying” them, just as the demons of Jub. 10: 8 both “destroy” and “mislead.” They are thus able to “catch” the righteous in Belial’s trap. As in depictions of demonic influence in other texts, the power of these evildoers to lead the righteous astray is restricted to the age before the eschaton. Thus, the humans under Belial’s dominion seem to have taken over the role of the evil spirits in leading the righteous to sin. Their activity is a byproduct of the present “dominion of Belial.”41 39 As noted by G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 194, this is the only place in the Qumran texts where the phrase “sons of Belial” appears in its entirety. This phrase has also been restored with a fair amount of certainty in 4QBerakhot (4Q286 7a ii, b-d 6; see above) and in 11Q11 vi.3, and with lesser certainty in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LV.3) and 4QBeatitudes (4Q525 25 2). 40 The eschatological emphasis of 4QFlorilegium is expressed through the repeated references to ‫אחרית הימים‬, “the latter days,” in 4Q174 1–2 i.2, 12, 15, 19. 41 Belial is mentioned twice more in other fragments of 4QFlorilegium, once in a particularly fragmentary reference, in the context of a remnant of Israel who will keep the Torah (1 ii, 3 1–2), and again in a slightly more complete context in fragment 4 lines 3–5. This fragmentary text speaks of a time when Belial will act against the “house of Judah,” apparently an appellation of the sect; see Brooke, “Florilegium,” 1: 298. The fragment seems to depict the same periodization of evil that elsewhere is expressed by mmšlt bly‘l.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

253

Another pesher text, 4QCatena A (4Q177), demonstrates certain features similar to what is found in 4QFlorilegium. The name Belial appears numerous times in 4QCatena A, but the text is often too fragmentary to understand Belial’s role. The “people of Belial” and the “rabble” mentioned in line 4 of fragments 10–11 are perhaps those who cause the “children of light” to sin in line 7 of the same fragments. In 4Q177 12–13 i.7, Belial is opposed by an angel of God who comes to the aid of the children of light. As in 4QFlorilegium, it appears that the line is firmly drawn separating the “people of Belial” from the “children of light.” The aid of an angel, not God, against Belial hints at a modified cosmic dualism that avoids the opposition of Belial to God himself. A similarly modified cosmic dualism may be found in the 4Q280 curse of Melkireša. 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) is an eschatological pesher text that goes further in downgrading the dualism it presents. In 11QMelchizedek, Belial is opposed by the angelic Melki-ṣ edeq. Melki-ṣ edeq, like Belial, has his own lot (11Q13 ii.8). The dualism of 11QMelchizedek extends to a future “dominion of justice” (ii.9) that presumably contrasts with the present “dominion of Belial.” In contrast to other pesher texts discussed below, in what has survived of this text there is nothing regarding humans that Belial commands or misleads; Belial’s lot consists of spirits (ii.12).

Conclusion: Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls The figure of Belial served a wide range of purposes for the Qumran community. While there is virtually no statement that can be made about Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls without qualification, there are broad lines that may be drawn. Belial is usually not portrayed as an internal threat to those who are already members. Rather, he is responsible for the existence of evildoers outside the group and for their success in persecuting the community. Belial’s role differs from the part played by the Watchers’ descendants in the apotropaic prayers previously explored. In those prayers the Watchers’ descendants are portrayed as an ongoing threat to the righteous speaker. Belial, in contrast, serves to define who is not righteous or not a member of the community. Belial’s social function as a dividing marker between the Qumran community and those outside it is clearest in the Damascus Document, where the mistaken straying of those outside the community is blamed on the “traps of Belial” and on Belial’s emissaries, the evil human leaders who speak against the community’s law and leadership. Belial as a cause of sin for those outside the group solves two basic theological problems: the existence of evil leaders and their success as well as the persistence of outsiders who do not accept the obviously correct interpretations of the community regarding the laws of the Torah. Nevertheless, in certain texts, such as 4Q280 (albeit through Belial’s

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

254

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

stand-in Melki-reša), the existence of Belial explains the rejection of the community by one who is already a member. An extension of this idea, and an exception to the portrayal of Belial’s power as centered on those outside the community, is found in CD XII.4–6, where a member’s transgression is blamed on the rule of “spirits of Belial.” While this passage is likely an interpolation, it can still be read in harmony with previous passages of the Damascus Document; it refers to transgressions involving the boundaries between members of the Qumran community and those outside it. The time period of “the dominion of Belial” is found throughout these texts, sometimes referred to by name (as in the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah [4Q390], 4QBerakhot, and 4QCatena A), and sometimes simply a period in which Belial is allowed to run free or exist. The description of this period of evil also serves an explanatory function. While Belial’s power explains the persistence and success of evildoers, why is Belial himself allowed to exist? Through the period of the “dominion of Belial,” Belial’s existence becomes part of an inscrutable divine plan that is more palatable to the writer, and presumably to his audience. The idea of a time period of evil is not restricted to texts focused on the figure of Belial. As noted in the previous chapter, references to a period of evil before the eschaton are found in sectarian texts featuring other demonic figures as well and serve a similar explanatory purpose. The depiction of a specific time period in which evildoers and demons are free to wreak havoc suits an eschatological worldview according to which all evil will be destroyed at the eschaton. The depiction of the present time as a period in which demonic evil is at large both explains the present persecution of the community and contrasts it with the beautiful, evil-free, eschatological future. (The periodization of evil has its counterpart in Persian thought, a parallel that will be discussed in the next chapter.) The eschatological framework of the pesher texts examined in this chapter also accounts for the inflexibility of the categories of human beings that they reflect. Unlike in covenantal texts, there is no reason for eschatological pesher texts to encourage nonmembers to “cross over.” In the eschaton, sides have already been chosen: the doom of nonmembers, particularly the community’s nearly demonic “enemies,” is assured. To what extent is Belial part of a dualistic system? The survey included in this chapter and the previous one demonstrates that while Belial is frequently contrasted to God in a dualistic framework, particularly in blessing/curse liturgical texts, this is not always the case. In the Damascus Document Belial operates without a clear counterpart, except for the “Prince of Light” in the interpolated episode concerning Moses and Aaron. In the War Scroll and in the liturgical texts that mention Belial, however, there is a clear dualistic framework, albeit one that is not completely consistent. In the Community Rule, the actual demon Belial is not addressed. The covenantal liturgy contrasts Belial’s

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Conclusion

255

human subjects to the faithful community members, creating a socially dualistic framework while avoiding direct cosmic dualism. In 4QBerakhot Belial and God are directly contrasted, while in 4Q280 Belial’s substitute Melki-reša is presumably contrasted with an angelic counterpart, Melki-ṣ edeq, thereby avoiding including God directly in a dualistic system. Finally, the War Scroll presents a completely dualistic social system whereby “children of darkness” and “children of light” battle in the eschatological future. The cosmic dualism that might be expected is partially nullified by the explanation in 1QM XIII.10–11 that God himself has created Belial, without any description of the creation of a counterpart. Nevertheless, the description of the “Prince of Lights” in 1QM XIII.10 and the depiction of the angel Michael as the leader of the Israelite troops in 1QM XVII.6–7 reflect a cosmic dualistic worldview that still avoids equating Belial’s power with divine might. In the final analysis, social dualism is prominent throughout the Qumran representations of Belial, while some level of cosmic dualism is found specifically in the War Scroll, the liturgical curse text 4Q280, and the pesher texts 4QCatena A and 11QMelchizedek. Belial’s connection to a doctrine of predetermination is not unequivocal. The “lot” of Belial, as demonstrated in the analysis of the Community Rule above, does not necessarily denote a lack of free will. In fact, the covenantal texts previously explored maintain the same approach to free will and determinism when they address the figure of Belial as when they describe an internal desire to sin (see Chapter 4 above). In these texts, any members or potential members who sin bear the responsibility for their sin, regardless of whether this was caused by internal desire or external demonic activity.42 Members’ sins can instigate their metaphysical relocation from the realm of the good to the doomed domain of the wicked. Among the texts explored above, the redacted War Scroll is unusual in its depiction of Belial as both the leader of the Gentile nations and as a divine functionary responsible for “accusing” sinners. Both these aspects of Belial are drawn from Jubilees. More than any other text explored above, the War Scroll reflects a reading of Jubilees that conflates the figures of Belial and Mastema, as indicated by the description of Belial as an “angel of hostility” (ml’k mśṭ mh) in 1QM XIII.11. In the War Scroll Belial is not consistently portrayed in a cosmic dualistic context. However, social dualism is particularly pronounced in the War Scroll, and forms the basis of the eschatological war between the “children of light” and the “children of darkness” that it describes. While the War Scroll shows evidence of an attempt to combine the figures of Belial and Mastema, in the Damascus Document and other texts these

42 The exception, of course, is the puzzling escape of the Sabbath desecrator from death in CD XII.4–6. See the analysis above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

256

Belial in Liturgical Curse Texts and the Community Rule

remain two separate figures. While Belial is central to texts of the Qumran community, Mastema remains principally confined to texts that reflect the direct influence of the book of Jubilees. It is impossible to determine with certainty how Belial came to play such a central role; however, it may be that a connection in earlier Jewish thought between Belial and the nations, evident in both Jub. 1: 19–21 and the War Scroll, developed into the role of Belial as a leader of evildoers. Belial remained less relevant for explaining the internal psychological struggle of the “righteous” member, and therefore did not play a role in the apotropaic prayers of the community.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Twelve Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits The Treatise of the Two Spirits is a self-contained exposition on the origin of sin and the nature of divine omniscience. It is found in the Cave 1 version and a Cave 4 version of the Community Rule, 1QS III.13-IV.26 and 4QpapSc (4Q257) V–VI. While the Treatise was once considered to represent the theological basis of the Qumran community’s outlook due to its location in the Community Rule, recent scholarship has recognized that this text is unusual and should be studied independently.1 Nevertheless, the placement of the Treatise indicates that it was significant to the Qumran community or, at the very least, to the redactor of the Community Rule. The Treatise combines various views of sin already explored in this study. It is fitting to conclude with this intriguing text. Whether the Treatise was a literary unit or the product of stages of redaction has long been a subject of debate, with prominent scholars on both sides.2 Accordingly, the following analysis will address the Treatise both in its discernible sections and as a whole.

1 For examples of the former view, see Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 533–6; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 149–50; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 139–40. Typical is Nickelsburg’s statement (Jewish Literature, 139): “This section spells out systematically the religious worldview that undergirds the lifestyle and rituals of the community.” For the latter view, see the treatments of the Treatise in Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 121– 43, particularly 127–8; E. 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), 194–203; and Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 161–7. 2 Those who treat the Treatise as a literary unit include J. Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 88–100; H. Stegemann, “Zu textbestand und grundgedanken von 1QS III,13-IV,26,” RevQ 13 (1988): 95–131; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 126– 70; and Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 289–300. Arguing for stages of growth are Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 541–3; OstenSacken, Gott und Belial, 165–89; Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 40–43; and idem, “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III 13 – IV 26),” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 103–131. For a recent overview of these approaches, see C. Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 110–3.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

258

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

1QS III.13–18a: Introduction to the Treatise In the introduction to the Treatise (1QS III.13–15a), the Maskil is told to understand and to teach all the “children of light” the history of humans.3 The Treatise then describes God’s omniscience and foreknowledge (III.15–16):4 ‫( ובהיותם‬16) ‫( … מאל הדעות כול הויה ונהייה ולפני היותם הכין כול מחשבתם‬15) … ‫לתעודותם כמחשבת כבודו ימלאו פעולתם ואין להשנות‬

(15) From the God of knowledge comes all that is occurring and shall occur. Before they came into being he established all their designs; and when they come into existence in their fixed times they carry through their task according to his glorious design. Nothing can be changed. (III.15b–16).

The divine designation “the God of knowledge” indicates that God’s omniscience lies behind the predetermination of all human thought and action.5 Nevertheless, the passage continues by stating that “He created the human for the dominion of the world” (III.17b–18a), signifying that humans do have power over their environment.

1QS III.18b–25a: A Central (Secondary?) Crux The next section, lines 18b–25a, is in many ways central to the redacted Treatise as a whole. It has nevertheless been identified as a secondary addition by J. Duhaime.6 An investigation of this passage on its own highlights its unique nature. 3 S. Metso proposes that this passage is a late addition by the redactor who integrated the Treatise into the Community Rule, as indicated by its heading “for the Maskil”; Metso, Textual Development, 139 n. 106. C. Hempel (“Treatise,” 116) notes that “Maskil” headings like this one seem to be part of the redactional processes evidenced in both 1QS and 4QSd in different sections. 4 All citations of 1QS in this chapter follow Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community.” The translation of this passage follows Charlesworth, op. cit. 5 The assumed equivalence of divine foreknowledge and predestination continued to present a theological conundrum for Jewish proponents of free will, as shown by Maimonides’ non-attempt to solve the problem in his Mishne Torah (Laws of Repentance 5: 5), countered by the strongly worded response of R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (in his critique ad loc.) that succeeds in logically disconnecting divine omniscience from predestination. 6 Duhaime, “L’Instruction sur les deux esprits,” 568–71 and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 41–42. Duhaime notes that the text of 1QS III.13-IV.14 reads more smoothly if the entire section from 18b through 25a is removed. He notes the introduction of new vocabulary compared to the rest of the Treatise, as well as the introduction of the figures of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness, who only appear in this section. Duhaime also notes thematic changes, such as the dominion of two spirits contrasted with the dominion of human beings in III.17b. The differences between III.18b–23a and III.23b–25a, particularly in the terminology used for

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

1QS III.18b–25a

259

‫( האמת‬19) ‫( …וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלכ בם עד מועד פקודתו הנה רוחות‬18) ‫( ביד שר אורים‬20) ‫והעול במעון אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬ ‫( חושכ כול ממשלת בני עול‬21) ‫ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו וביד מלאך‬ ‫( כול בני צדק וכול חטאתם ועוונותם‬22) ‫ובדרכי חושכ יתהלכו ובמלאך חושך תעות‬ ‫( לפי רזי אל עד קצו וכול נגועיהם ומועדי‬23) ‫ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו‬ ‫( וכול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור ואל ישראל ומלאכ‬24) ‫צרותם בממשלת משטמתו‬ … ‫( בני אור‬25) ‫אמתו עזר לכול‬

(18) … And he placed two spirits for him in which to walk until the appointed time of his appointment, namely the spirits of (19) truth and deceit. In a spring of light is the begetting of truth and from a well of darkness is the begetting of deceit. (20) In the hand of the Prince of Lights (is) the dominion of all the children of righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. And in the hand of the Angel of (21) Darkness (is) all the dominion of the children of deceit; and in the ways of darkness they walk. Due to the Angel of Darkness is the straying of (22) all the children of righteousness; and all their sins, their iniquities, their guilt, and their iniquitous works (are caused) by his dominion, (23) according to God’s mysteries, until his period. And all their afflictions and the appointed times of their suffering (are caused) by the dominion of his hostility. (24) and all the spirits of his lot cause the children of light to stumble; but the God of Israel and the angel of his truth help all (25) the children of light. …(1QS III.18b–25a)7

This passage portrays a dualistic worldview in which cosmic dualism (reflected in the realms of the Angel of Darkness and the Prince of Light), is responsible for social dualism, namely the division between the “children of righteousness” and the “children of deceit.” The connection between cosmic and social dualism is similar to that seen in the liturgical curse texts against Belial and Melkireša explored in the previous chapter. The passage presents the separation between these two groups as a function of the basically dualistic nature of the ethical underpinnings of creation.8 The spirits of truth and deceit that determine human actions until the eschatological age (mw‘d pqwdtw) reside in the areas of light and darkness, respectively. These areas are ruled by the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness. Each of these is given a share of humanity to lead. The dominion of the Angel of

the spirits and their human subjects (“two spirits” in III.18b and “spirits of their lot” in III.24a; “children of righteousness” in III.20a–22a and “children of light” in III.24b–25a), led Duhaime to conclude that III.18b–25a is actually a double interpolation; see Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120. C. Hempel implies that the secondary addition may actually extend from 17b to 26a, thereby relegating all light versus darkness terminology to a redactional addition; see Hempel, “The Community and Its Rivals according to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4,” RevQ 21 (2003): 79. However, following Hempel’s suggestion to extend the secondary addition removes the smooth reading of the hypothesized primary version, and consequently requires further explanation of how the text could be read without the insertion. 7 The translation of this passage is my own, but draws from Charlesworth’s translation in Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community.” 8 Compare T. Ash. 1: 3–5. The author of T. Ash., however, connects ethical dualism not to cosmic entities but to the existence of two inclinations (diaboulia) in the human breast.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

260

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

Darkness includes the “children of deceit” while the Prince of Lights reigns over the “children of righteousness.” This explains why the wicked walk “in the ways of darkness” and the righteous walk in the “ways of light.” In the redacted text as it stands, this passage serves to limit the freedom of human will. Despite this division between the wicked and the righteous, the righteous can and do sin (III.21b–22a). They do so only as a result of the machinations of the Angel of Darkness, whose power is apparently not confined to his own subjects. The composer of this passage has taken a step not evident in other Qumran texts, explicitly attributing all transgressions of the righteous to the influence of the Prince of Darkness. In order to explain the sinning of the righteous, the redactor has introduced an explicit contradiction. The “children of righteousness” are earlier described as residing under the dominion of the Prince of Lights (III.20), but are now described as contending with the dominion of the Angel of Darkness. The dominion of the Angel of Darkness during this period is also to blame for the (physical) troubles afflicting the righteous (III.23b). This conflict occurs “according to the mysteries of God (rzy ’l) during his period” (III.23a), a reference to the apparent inexplicability of God’s abandonment of the righteous to the mercy of the Angel of Darkness. As in other Qumran texts where evil is “set free” in the present period, the author of this passage has chosen an explanation of evil that is puzzling on a theological level. In other texts the “dominion of Belial” is a frozen concept; it is presented without any justification as a simple reflection of reality. In contrast, the author of this passage does not take the justification of a period of evil for granted; he acknowledges the need for an explanation of the “dominion of Belial” by noting the “mysteries of God” that are the only possible justification for Belial’s power. It is possible that the idea of a “dominion of Belial” had not yet gained widespread acceptance when this section of the Treatise was composed.9 Because this idea was not yet accepted unreservedly, the author must refer to the divine mystery as an explanation for the existence of a period of “permitted” evil before the eschaton. At the end of the passage (III.24) the “spirits of his lot” are introduced. Like the Prince of Darkness, these spirits are responsible for attempting to cause sin among the “children of light,” who are assisted by God and his angel.10 9 Stegemann, Lange, and Metso have each concluded that this text predates the Qumran community; see H. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 155–6; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127–8; and Metso, Textual Development, 137–8 and n. 99 ad loc. 10 The passage III.23b–25a introduces new terminology, such as “lot” and “sons of light,” as well as the idea that the Angel of Darkness has subservient spirits. It may thus be an addition to this passage in order to bring it in line with sectarian thought and terminology. See Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

1QS III.18b–25a

261

As noted above, this passage displays terminology and ideas that are different from the Qumran texts discussed so far. Of the other texts that have been investigated, the ideas and terminology found here are closest to what appears in the War Scroll, although the Treatise remains unique in many respects. The “children of light” and “children of darkness” are prominent in the division of humanity found in both the War Scroll and the Community Rule 1QS I-II. The idea that there are two areas, light and dark, in which humanity walk, is also found in the War Scroll. The “Angel of Darkness,” however, is found nowhere in the Scrolls outside of the Treatise, while the “Prince of Lights” is found only in the vignette regarding Belial’s opposition to Moses and Aaron in CD V.17– 1911 and, with a slightly different appellation (śr m’wr, “Prince of Light”), in 1QM XIII.10. Finally, while the contrast between truth (’mt) and deceit (‘wlh) is found widely in 1QS V-IX and its 4QS parallels,12 the employment of the term twldwt to denote those that emerge from light and from darkness is unparalleled in the Scrolls.13 More significantly, the emphasis on two opposing but equal domains ruled by angelic figures goes much further than other texts in removing God from the struggle between good and evil. Other texts, even those that present a framework of social dualism whereby humanity is divided into the righteous and the wicked, place the righteous ultimately under the rule of God, even if they are assisted by an angel.14 Even the redacted War Scroll, where Michael plays an important role against Belial, depicts the children of light as directly subservient to God, while the Prince of Lights has been created “to help us” (1QM XIII.10). The depiction of angels as “helpers” in other texts may have been a way to avoid the theological problem of attributing Israel’s leadership to an angel rather than to God.15 This passage of the Treatise, in contrast, proclaims And in its Cave 4 parallels, 4QDa (4Q266) 3 ii 5–6, 4QDb (4Q267) 2 1–2. Hempel, “Treatise,” 116–7. 13 The word twldwt is rare in the scrolls. The only appearance of this word in a manner at all comparable to its employment in the Treatise (while still far removed from its connotations in the Treatise), is in the War Scroll, 1QM III.14, “and the names of the twelve tribes according to their birth (ktwldwtm).” 14 A possible exception may be the “men of the lot of Melki-ṣ edeq” in 11QMelchizedek ii.8. In 4Q280 Melki-reša is probably opposed by Melki-ṣ edeq, but the fragmentary nature of the text makes it impossible to know who falls within Melki-ṣ edeq’s purview. 15 On the prominence of this tradition, see Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44–46. The tradition that Israel is the only nation to benefit from the direct guidance of God can be found in Exod 33: 14–16, LXX (and perhaps MT Kethib) Isa 63: 9, LXX Deut 32: 8 (and 4QDeutj), and Jub. 15: 30–32. The different approaches as to whether the existence of an angelic intermediary is positive or negative may also be reflected in the readings of Isa 63: 9 in MT Qere, whereby God’s love is expressed through Israel’s rescue by an “angel of the presence,” as opposed to the reading of LXX Isa 63: 9 and possibly MT Kethib, where God’s love is expressed in the assurance that only God, and no angel, will save Israel. (The verse as found in the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) supports either reading.) 11 12

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

262

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

that the righteous are under the dominion of the Prince of Lights as part of God’s creation. Nevertheless, the allocation of every human being to one of two spirits in this passage is similar to the depiction of the choice between good and evil in a nonsectarian work, the Visions of Amram, which will now be examined more closely in order to further illuminate the Treatise.

The Visions of Amram The Visions of Amram (4Q543–549) presents cosmic and human dualism in a manner similar to that found in the Treatise of the Two Spirits, although it lacks the connection of this dualistic framework to God’s creation. The Aramaic Visions of Amram (4Q543–549) has been identified as a pre-sectarian text, mainly due to the fact that Jubilees seems to draw on the Visions as a source.16 In the Visions of Amram, parallel texts in 4Q543, 4Q544, and 4Q547 (merged in the passage below) describe the meeting of Amram with two angels who rule all of humanity:17 …]‫מרין‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫ והא תרין דאנין עלי ו‬vacat ‫( בחז֗ו֗י חזוה די חלמא‬10) [‫( …]…חזית‬9) …‫עלי תגר רב ושאלת אנון אנתון מן די כדן מש]לטין עלי‬ ֗ ‫( ואחדין‬11) [‫דילוהי‬ ‫ת]ה‬ ֗ ‫א֯נ‬ ֗ ‫א‬ ֗ ‫כ֗ול בנ֗י אדם ואמרו לי במן מננ‬ ֗ ‫(] ש[ל֗֯יטין ושליטין על‬12) [‫ואמרין לי אנחנה‬ ‫ל] כפ[תן ]וכול [ל]ב[֯ושה צבענין‬ ֗ ‫ש‬ ֗ ‫ח‬ ֗ ‫( ] וחד[ מנהון חזוה‬13) [‫בעה…נטלת עיני וחזית‬ ‫ל]…[ בחזוה ֗ואנפיוה העכן ֯ו]מכסה‬ ֗ […]° ‫א‬ ֯ ‫ה‬ ֯ ‫( ]ואחרנא חזית [֯ו‬14) […]֯‫וחשיך חשוך‬ [‫בלבוש‬ (9) … […I saw] (10) in my vision, the vision of the dream, vacat and there were two figures arguing over me, and saying […his] (11) and holding a great dispute over me. So I asked them, ‘How is it that you have[ authority over me?’ They said to me, ‘We] (12) [… r]ule, and (we) rule over all humans.18 And they said to me, which of us do you [seek …I lifted my eyes and saw] (13) [one] of them, whose appearance [was moulting (?) [like a ser]pent [and all] his clothing was multicoloured and very dark; […] (14) [and I saw another and…]l[…] in his appearance, and his face was laughing [and he was covered with a garment]

16 E. Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549 (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 285–7 and R. R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547) (Studies in Biblical Literature 135; New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 89–103. See also J. T. Milik’s categorization of this text in “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: D’Hénoch à Amram,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978), 91–106. 17 Text follows Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXII and translation follows E. M. Cook, “Visions of ‘Amram,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 412–43, with slight modifications. The main text is 4Q544 1 9b–15; the parallel text in 4Q543 is underlined; the parallel text in 4Q547 is marked with a dotted underline. Reconstructions of entire words with no basis in parallel texts have been omitted. 18 The first part of this line was omitted from Cook’s translation; the translation is my own.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Visions of Amram

263

A further indication of the roles of these two characters is found in 4QVisions of Amramb 4Q544 2 11–16: ‫( ]…[֗ומלכי רשע‬13) […]‫מ‬ ֯ ‫ד ן מ ן ה וא ואמר ל י הד ן‬ ֗ […] (12) […]‫לט עליך‬ ֯ ֗‫(] מ[ש‬11) ‫( ]…חש[֯יכה וכל עבדה ח]ש[֗יך ובחשוכה הוא‬14) [‫ ואמרת מראי מא של֯]טן‬vacat ֗ ‫צליא עד‬ ֯ [‫( ]…מן מ‬16) ‫תה חזה והוא משלט על כול חשוכה ואנה‬ ֯ [‫( ]…אנ‬15) [‫ד]בר‬ [‫ארעיא אנה שליט על כול נהורא וכ֯ו]ל‬

(11) [ r]ules over you[…] (12) […] who is this? He said to me, ‘This one is m[…] (13)[… ]and Melki-reša.’ vacat And I said, ‘My lord, what is the domi[nion] (14) […dark]ness, all his work is darkness, and he l[eads] into darkness[…] (15) [… yo]u see, and he rules over all darkness, while I […] (16) […from] the [h]eight to the earth, I am ruler over all light and a[ll…]

The Visions of Amram contains several significant parallels to the Treatise, including the language of light and darkness so central to the first section of the Treatise (4Q544 2 13–16). As in the Treatise, the dark and light angels, here called Melki-reša and (presumably) Melki-ṣ edeq, rule over all of humankind; a human belongs to one or to the other (4Q544 1 12; 2 15–16). However, in contrast to the Treatise, in the Visions of Amram, Amram is given the choice of who will rule him (4Q543 5–9 3–4 par. 4Q547 1–2 12, 4Q544 1 12). Whether this is a choice given to every human or only to the righteous Amram is unclear. The choice presented to Amram stands in contrast to the redacted Treatise, where the divine predetermination of all actions includes the establishment of two angels who will rule humanity. It is possible that according to the passage at 1QS III.18b–25a, whether one is to be counted as a “child of righteousness” or a “child of deceit” is dependent on a choice, and that this choice determines whether one will be ruled by the Angel of Darkness or by the Prince of Light. This differs from the approach of the redacted Treatise, in which a person’s identification with the righteous or the wicked is one of the many matters determined by God at creation. The Visions of Amram demonstrates how the assumption of cosmic and social dualism need not signify predetermination. Amram’s choice in the Visions of Amram may be compared to the reverse choice of the wayward member in the Community Rule 1QS II.11–18, who causes his own placement in the “lot of those cursed forever.” However, while 1QS I.16-II.19 avoids addressing a demonic figure entirely, the Visions of Amram assumes a system similar to that of the Treatise, where two angels oppose each other and rule defined groups of human beings. The Visions of Amram provides evidence that the Treatise does, in fact, reflect a worldview of the workings of evil and sin that was held by a group wider than the Qumran community, one that is barely evident in the writings of the community itself.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

264

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

1QS III.25b–IV.14: The Spirits of Light and Darkness The passage at III.18b–25a colors how the entire Treatise is read, as is evident from an exploration of the next section, III.25b–IV.14. This section is understood differently in its hypothetical original form (posited by Duhaime) than in its present context. In lines III.25b–IV.1, the composer declares that God created these spirits of light and darkness, loving one and hating the other: ‫הן כול עבודה‬°[ ]‫ל‬ ֯ (26) ‫( והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושכ ועליהון יסד כול מעשה‬25) ‫( ]מו[עדי עולמים ובכול עלילותיה‬1) ‫דה אחת אהב אל לכול‬ ֗ °[ ] ֗‫ועל דרכיהן ]כו[ל‬ vacat ‫ירצה לעד אחת תעב סודה וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח‬

(25) … He created the spirits of light and darkness, and upon them he founded every work, (26) l[…]hn every action, and upon their ways (are) [al]l […]dh….one God loves for all (1) [app]ointed times of eternity, taking pleasure in all its doings forever; (concerning) the other he loathes its assembly, and all its ways he hates forever. (1QS III.25b– IV.1)19

All action from the time of creation is based on these spirits. This passage connects ethical dualism to the idea of predestination. If the preceding lines III.18b–25a are removed, the passage at III.25b–IV.1 describes ethical qualities that are divided according to their guiding “spirits,” i. e. prototypical qualities, determined by God at creation. But when this section is read together with III.18b–25a, the guiding “spirits” signify the rule of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness. In either case, the ethical dualism presented in the following passage, IV.2– 14, is starkly defined. All good characteristics are the result of “enlightenment” by the spirit of light/truth, while all wicked characteristics are outgrowths of the spirit of darkness/deceit. Social dualism is presented hand-in-hand with this ethical dualism; the “children of truth” walk in the ways of the spirit of light, while unnamed others walk according to the ways of darkness. Each group receives its just deserts, the righteous benefiting from the blessings of God while the wicked are destroyed by malevolent angels (IV.12). The relationship of this passage to the preceding one has been the subject of much discussion, particularly as it relates to the development of Qumran theology.20 The focus of III.25b–IV.14 is completely different from that of the

Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” with slight modifications. Murphy-O’Connor has noted the many terminological differences between this section and those that precede it; Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 541–2. Osten-Sacken analyzed III.13-IV.14 as a single piece, albeit one that drew from several different traditions (specifically those contained in the War Scroll and Hodayot); see Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 116–69, particularly 165–9. As noted above, Duhaime proposed that 1QS III.18b–25a was added to III.13-IV.14 at a later stage. 19 20

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

1QS III.25b–IV.14

265

previous passage. The section III.18b–25a that precedes it describes the cosmic pattern of the world, one that extends to the division of humanity between wicked and righteous. This passage, however, delves into the anthropological aspect of ethical dualism. The “spirits” described are all human qualities. The righteous receive “a spirit of humility and patience, of great compassion and constant goodness, and of prudence, insight, and wonderful wisdom…” (IV.3). The author explains that “these are the principles of the spirit for the children of truth” (IV.6). In contrast, the wicked suffer from a “spirit of deceit”: ‫ ולרוח עולה רחוב נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר גוה ורום לבב‬vacat (9) ‫( ורוב חנפ קצור אפים ורוב אולת וקנאת זדון מעשי תועבה‬10) ‫כחש ורמיה אכזרי‬ ‫( ולשון גדופים עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן‬11) ‫ברוח זנות ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה‬ ‫( כול הולכי‬12) ‫קושי עורפ וכיבוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושכ וערמת רוע ופקודת‬ ‫בה לרוב נגועים ביד כול מלאכי חבל לשחת עולמים באפ עברת אל נקמה לזעות‬ ‫( עד עמ כלמת כלה באש מחשכים וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון‬13) ‫נצח וחרפת‬ vacat ‫( כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬14) ‫ורעת מרורים בהויות חושכ עד‬

(9) But concerning the spirit of deceit: greed and slackness in righteous activity, wickedness and falsehood, pride and haughtiness, atrocious disguise and falsehood, (10) great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable works in a spirit of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship, (11) a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart (that results in) walking in all the ways of darkness, and evil craftiness. The visitation of (12) all those who walk in it (will be) many afflictions by all the angels of punishment, eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath, everlasting terror (13) and endless shame, together with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of the dark region. And all their times for their generations (will be expended) in dreadful suffering and bitter misery in dark abysses until (14) they are destroyed. (There will be) no remnant nor rescue for them. (1QS IV.9–14)21

The passage thereby explains not only what awaits the righteous and the wicked (IV.6–8, IV.11–12) but also where inimical qualities originate. In its aim this passage is the counterpart of the previous one. The passage at III.18b– 25a explains the existence of evil people and the temptations of the righteous to sin through an external, cosmic dualistic system. The passage at III.25b– IV.14 provides an internal view of the wicked, describing good and evil characteristics in a similarly dualistic system. The internal view of good and evil “spirits” is reminiscent of the nonsectarian Barkhi Nafshi prayer, analyzed in Chapter 2. In the Barkhi Nafshi prayer, a “spirit of long-suffering” is granted while a “spirit of deceit” is removed (4Q436 1 ii.2–4 par. 4Q435 2 i.4–5). However, in this passage of the Treatise, unlike the Barkhi Nafshi prayer, ethical dualism is linked to social dualism. While the petitioner of Barkhi Nafshi originally suffered from a “spirit of deceit,” in this passage of the Treatise all the “children of truth” walk in the 21

Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” with slight modifications.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

266

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

way of the spirit of light, and presumably benefit from the righteous qualities attendant upon it. Those who walk in the way of the spirit of darkness presumably suffer from the full range of bad qualities listed in lines 9–11. Thus the actions and the subsequent punishment of the wicked have been determined by God from creation, as implied in III.25-IV.1.

1QS IV.15–23: Predestination and the Eschaton In the next section, 1QS IV.15–23, the ethical dualism of the previous passage is linked with predestination.22 It is possible to divide the passage into two sections. The first, 15–17a, describes the determination of the “portion of each person” (nḥ lt ’yš) in one of the two “spirits” of truth and deceit that exist side by side until the eschaton: ‫ באלה תולדות כול בני איש ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כול צבאותם לדורותם‬vacat (15) ‫( מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב‬16) ‫ובדרכיהן יתהלכו וכול פעולת‬ ‫( אחרון ויתן איבת עולם‬17) ‫למועט לכול קצי עולמים כיא אל שמן בד בבד עד קצ‬ …‫בין מפלגותם‬

(15) In these are the begetting/generations of all the children of man, and in their divisions all their hosts of their generations have a share; in their ways they walk, and the entire task of (16) their works (falls) within their divisions according to a person’s share, much or little, in all the times of eternity. For God has set them as equals until the endtime; (17) and put eternal enmity between their divisions. (1QS IV.15–17a)23

The second section (IV.17b–23) explains that despite the hate that each bears the other, God “in the mysteries of his wisdom” set a time period in which deceit is allowed to exist. However, at the end of this period, “at the appointed time” (wbmw‘d pqwdh), it will be destroyed: ‫( ריב על‬18) ‫( … תועבת אמת עלילות עולה ותועבת עולה כול דרכי אמת וקנאת‬17) ‫כול משפטיהן כיא לוא יחד יתהלכו ואל ברזי שכלו ובחכמת כבודו נתן קצ להיות‬ ‫( פקודה ישמידנה לעד ואז תצא לנצח אמת תבל כיא התגוללה‬19) ‫עולה ובמועד‬ … ‫בדרכי רשע בממשלת עולה‬

(17) … An abomination to truth (are) the doings of deceit, and an abomination to deceit (are) all the ways of truth. (There is) a fierce (18) struggle between all their judgments, for they do not walk together. But God, in his mysterious understanding and his glorious wisdom, has set a period for the existence of deceit. At the appointed time (19) for visitation

22 This passage has been identified by Duhaime and by Osten-Sacken as the second stage of the Treatise’s literary development; see Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 170–84; Duhaime, “L’Instruction sur les deux esprits,” 589–92. E. Tigchelaar identified this passage as part of the final stage of development (together with III.13–18); see Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 203. 23 Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” with slight modifications.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

1QS IV.15–23

267

he will destroy it forever. Then truth will emerge forever (in) the world, which has polluted itself by the ways of evil during the dominion of deceit … (1QS IV.17b–19)24

Unlike the description of the eschaton in IV.11–12, the “appointed time” in IV.18–19 does not include the destruction of wicked, but rather the elimination of wickedness.25 Despite the declaration in IV.18 that these spirits will not “walk together,” it is apparent that humans who are not irredeemably wicked are nevertheless infected with the “spirit of deceit,” even if the degree to which they suffer from this spirit is predetermined (1QS IV.16). This spirit will be removed from each human’s “innards of flesh” in the eschaton and a “spirit of holiness” will purify them from past wicked deeds (IV.20–21). ‫( … ואז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי גבר יזקק לו מבני איש להתם כול רוח עולה‬20) ‫( בשרו ולטהרו ברוח קודש מכול עלילות רשעה ויז עליו רוח אמת כמי‬21) ‫מתכמי‬ ‫( ברוח נדה להבין ישרים בדעת עליון וחכמת‬22) ‫נדה מכול תועבות שקר והתגולל‬ ‫( ולהם כול כבוד‬23) ‫בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרכ כיא בם בחר אל לברית עולמים‬ …‫אדם ואין עולה יהיה לבושת כול מעשי רמיה‬

(20) …Then God will purify by his truth all the works of man and purge for himself the children of man in order to utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from the innards26 of (21) his flesh and to purify him with a holy spirit from all evil acts and sprinkle upon him a spirit of truth like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of falsehood and from being polluted (22) by a spirit of impurity, so that upright ones may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the children of heaven, so that the perfect in the way may receive understanding, for God has chosen them for an eternal covenant, (23) and all the glory of man shall be theirs, and there will be no deceit. All false works will be put to shame. … (1QS IV.20b–23a)27

The parallels between this passage and the prayers previously explored are significant. As in the Barkhi Nafshi prayer (4Q436 1 ii.2–4 par. 4Q435 2 i.4–5), in this passage an evil spirit is removed and a “holy spirit” is granted, with the result being complete human righteousness. As in the apotropaic prayer 4Q444 (see Chapter 9) there is a battle between good “spirits” and bad within the human’s “innards of flesh” (tkmy bśr; IV.20–21).28 As in prayer, the people referred to in this passage of the Treatise wish to be righteous, but must deal with forces that propel them toward sin. When read independently of the Treatise as a whole, the passage at IV.15–23 seems to describe an internal incli-

24

Translation follows Charlesworth, with slight modifications. A similar development is apparent from the original meaning of Ps 104: 35 to its wellknown reinterpretation in b. Ber. 10a (par. Midrash Tehillim, ed. S. Buber, 104.27). 26 Charlesworth translates “veins.” See discussion of tkmy bśr in Chapter 9 and n. 35 ad loc. 27 Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” with slight modifications. 28 In the fragments that have survived of 4Q444, the good “spirits” (4Q444 1–4 i.3) include spirits of knowledge, understanding, truth, and justice; the bad (in line 4) are simply called “spirits of evil.” The term tkmy bśr, as previously noted, is particular to Qumran; see n. 35 in Chapter 9. 25

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

268

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

nation to sin, but in the context of the redacted Treatise this internal inclination is transformed into the external and demonic Angel of Darkness. However, even if the Qumran reader interpreted the initial “spirits” of this passage as external, the purification promised at the eschaton is an internal one, and indicates that even the righteous and those “chosen” by God (IV.22) must struggle with a “spirit of deceit” in their “innards” (IV.20–21). This passage reflects the view expressed in the prayers explored previously, specifically those that depict the experience of an internal desire to sin even in the righteous speaker, whether this desire originates from demonic forces or from a human inclination. Unlike the curses against Belial’s lot in 1QS II.4–18, this passage acknowledges that even law-abiding members of the community must struggle with the desire to sin, and promises them relief at the end of days. Like the Hodayot and Barkhi Nafshi, this passage of the Treatise describes the purification and elevation of the chosen despite past impurity and wickedness. However, unlike the Hodayot and Barkhi Nafshi prayers where the petitioner has already been purified by God, in this text the elevation of the chosen is postponed until the eschaton. As in the apotropaic prayers explored in Chapter 9, in 1QS IV.15–23 the member of the “chosen” is involved in a constant struggle with the desire to sin, at least in the present age.

1QS IV.23–26: The Two Spirits and Predestination The relationship between the spirits of truth and deceit is elucidated in the next section of the Treatise, 1QS IV.23b–26: ‫( יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת וכפי‬24) ‫( … עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬23) ‫( יתעב‬25) ‫נחלת איש באמת יצדק וכן ישנא עולה וכירשתו בגורל עול ירשע בו וכן‬ ‫אמת כיא בד בבד שמן אל עד קצ נחרצה ועשות חדשה והואה ידע פעולת מעשיהן‬ ‫ל]ה[פיל גורלות לכול חי‬ ֗ [‫( ]מועד[ן וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ] ו‬26) ‫לכול קצי‬ ‫]…[ה֯פקודה‬°‫לפי רוחו ב‬

(23) … Until now the spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of humans, (24) and (so) they walk in wisdom or vileness. According to a man’s share in truth shall he be righteous and thus hate deceit, and according to his inheritance in the lot of deceit he shall be evil through it, and thus (25) loathe truth. For God has set them as equals until the time of that which has been decided, and the making of the new. He knows the reward of their works for all the end of (26) their [appointed tim]es, and he allots them to the children of man for knowledge of good […and thus] cas[t]ing the lots for every living being, according to his spirit b°[…] the visitation. (1QS IV.23b–26)29

29

Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” with slight modifications.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

The Redacted Treatise

269

This passage explains the current human condition in a way that seems to contradict, or at least to reinterpret, what was previously described in III.18b–25a as the completely opposed realms of truth and deceit.30 According to this concluding passage, all humans must contend with the spirits of truth and deceit inside themselves, causing them to walk in both wisdom and foolishness, that is, in both righteousness and sinfulness. But this passage also attempts to unite the universal sharing of the two spirits with the concept of predetermination by means of the concluding statement (lines 25–26), which reiterates God’s omniscience and his determination of the “lots of every being.”31 In this manner the section reconciles the previous passages. According to IV.23–26, while all humans must contend with both spirits, a person who is destined for truth will nevertheless be righteous, and the member of the “lot” of deceit will be evil (IV.24–25). This is the first time that the term gwrl, “lot,” is used in the Treatise to refer to human beings. This passage combines the internal struggle of humans with social dualism and predetermination. Community members need not worry that their experience of both righteousness and wickedness within themselves will exclude them from the lot of the righteous. Rather, their inclusion within the lot of the righteous, determined by God, dictates how they will eventually behave. Implied is that acting with a preponderance of righteousness will demonstrate that one belongs to the predestined lot of the righteous, while the reverse is true of evildoing. These actions themselves have been determined by God.

The Redacted Treatise While a central section of the redacted Treatise, III.18b–25a, focuses on external and cosmic causes of sin and evil, an overview of the Treatise as a whole shows that the focus of most of the text is on the internal human landscape. Apart from the (possibly secondary) passage at III.18b–25a, the Treatise focuses on dualistic ethical qualities caused by “spirits” that are internal, not external, to the human being. The spirit that causes evil exists within the chosen, and will be purified at the eschaton. The final passage provides the struggling righteous with both an explanation of the forces they feel within themselves and the (albeit somewhat contradictory) reassurance that they are still destined for righteousness and for membership in the correct “lot.” 30 1QS IV.23–26 has been identified as the third stage of the Treatise’s development by Duhaime and Osten-Sacken and as part of the second stage of development by E. Tigchelaar. See Duhaime, “L’Instruction sur les deux esprits,” 589–94; Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 185– 9; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 201–3. 31 See Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 542. Murphy O’Connor sees IV.23b–26 as a reinterpretation of IV.15–18a.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

270

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

The redacted Treatise presents a combination of themes found in different Qumran texts in a single work, while displaying unique terminology. The cosmic dualism described in III.18–25 is similar to the contrast between Melkireša and Melki-ṣ edeq in 4Q280 and the description of Belial and his conflict with the Prince of Lights in the Damascus Document as well as Belial’s opposition by the Prince of Light and the angel Michael in the War Scroll. The description of negative and positive internal qualities, their conflict within the human, and the need of the chosen to be purified of negative qualities before receiving positive ones matches the description of the sinful condition of the petitioner in such prayers as 4QBarkhi Nafshi and even, to a certain extent, the Hodayot.32 By combining internal and external forces in its explanation of the desire of the righteous to sin and by depicting the struggle they cause, the Treatise also supports the view of sin reflected in apotropaic prayers at Qumran (see Chapter 9). Earlier chapters of this study have emphasized the differences between views of sin in different Qumran texts. As has been discussed at length, some of these texts present an internal inclination to sin; others present a dualistic cosmic system in which an archdemon leads humans to sin; and still others present anarchic demons who threaten even the righteous with evildoing. In essence, the Treatise provides a multifaceted but still unified picture that serves to explain the connection between these popular, originally unconnected views to a sectarian Qumran audience.33 Community members who wished to understand the connection between Belial, the spirits at war within themselves, and the evil human inclination, receive an answer. The Treatise describes two spirits or cosmic forces who are responsible for internal human qualities. The evil spirit in this dualistic system could easily be understood as a stand-in for Belial. This “Angel of Darkness” is responsible for people who are destined to be evil, but is also to blame for the desire to sin within people who are not necessarily evil, particularly the righteous. This interference will only end at the eschaton. While the source of this text was probably extra- or pre-sectarian, the Treatise’s explanatory power for a wide range of views regarding sin was certainly a factor that justified its inclusion in the Community Rule.34

32

See the discussion of these prayers in chapters 2 and 3 above. As described from another perspective by L. Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 166, “the great contribution of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the Community Rule consists in its explicit merging of cosmic, psychological, and ethical dualities, allowing them to modify the one-sided force of the other.” 34 See the previous discussion in this chapter and n. 9 above. Hempel, “Treatise,” and Hogeterp, “Eschatology of the Two Spirits,” have proposed that the Treatise was further edited following its inclusion in the Community Rule. 33

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Sources of the Treatise

271

Sources of the Treatise The question of the source of this text remains. The two spirits of truth and deceit, their subordination to the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness, and their role as the source of all positive and negative qualities, are not typical of Qumran texts. The differences between the Treatise and other Qumran texts, as noted by A. Lange, include the lack of sectarian terminology, the use of terminology that appears nowhere else in the Scrolls (including unique terminology for the forces of evil), and the absence of prominent Qumran themes.35 The considerable differences between the Treatise and other Qumran texts indicate that outside influences played a significant role in its composition. The possibility that this text was influenced by Persian thought has long been a focus of discussion. As many scholars have noted, the “Two Spirits” described in the Treatise indicate Persian, and specifically Zoroastrian, influence. Most prominent is the parallel between the Treatise and Yasna (liturgical text) 30, in one of the Gathas36 found in the Old Avesta, a work whose latest possible date is earlier than 500 B. C. E.:37 (3) Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word, in act they are two: the better and the bad. And those who act well have chosen rightly between these two, not so the evildoers. (4) And when these two Spirits first came together they created life and not-life, and how at the end Worst Existence shall be for the wicked but (the House of) Best Purpose for the just man. (5) Of these two Spirits the Wicked One chose achieving the worst things. The Most Holy Spirit, who is clad in hardest stone, chose right, and (so do those) who shall satisfy Lord Mazda continually with rightful acts. …. (8) Then when retribution comes for these sinners, then, Mazda, Power

35 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127–8. Nevertheless, Hempel, “Treatise,” has noted that certain terminology and themes found in the Treatise are particular to the Community Rule. She notes the opposition of truth (’ĕmet) and deceit (‘āwel, ‘awlā) found in 1QS V–IX and its Cave 4 parallels (but notes that the phrase “people of deceit” is not attested in the Treatise, where the term used is “sons of truth/deceit”); Hempel, “Treatise,” 116–8. S. Metso has already noted that both the Treatise and 1QS IX.12–26 share the terms “chosen ones,” “children of righteousness,” and “people of the pit,” among others; Metso, Textual Development, 137. Hempel has also noted the common allusions to Mic 6: 8 and Isa 26: 3 in 1QS IV.5, 1QS V.3–4, and 1QS VIII.2 (and their Cave 4 parallels). She concludes that such links led to the perceived suitability of the Treatise to the Community Rule, and consequently to its inclusion in the Rule, while other links were introduced after the Treatise was already incorporated into the Rule; see Hempel, ibid., 118. 36 The Gathas are the seventeen hymns in Sanskrit attributed to Zarathustra, the founder of the Zoroastrian religion. 37 See P. O. Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (ed. A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 2.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

272

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

shall be present for Thee with Good Purpose, to declare himself for those, Lord, who shall deliver the Lie into the hands of Truth.38

This passage contains elements also found in the Treatise, such as the enduring conflict between two primal spirits and the eventual end of this conflict when “lie” is given into the hands of “truth.” A further example of this conflict is found in Yasna 45 (2): “Then shall I speak of the two primal Spirits of existence, of whom the Very Holy thus spoke to the Evil One: ‘Neither our thoughts nor teachings nor wills, neither our choices nor words nor acts, not our inner selves nor our souls agree.’” The parallels between these Gathas and the Treatise, as well as other parallels in Qumran texts, have led scholars to speculate on the Persian influence on Qumran thought.39 However, these parallels must not be overstated.40 Any direct influence of Zoroastrian texts on Jewish texts, even during the Persian period, is unlikely. The original language of the Gathas was already not understood in the late Achaemenid period, so influence of Zoroastrianism on other religions could only take place as a result of the observation of actual practices or from discussions with others familiar with Zoroastrian beliefs.41 In addition, contact in Judea with Zoroastrian thought after 300 B. C. E. would be minimal at best.42 It is intriguing that the spirits of good and evil that reside in humans are reminiscent of a number of passages in Zoroastrian literature.43 However, a close comparison between these Gathas and the Treatise reveals many essential differences pointing to a lack of direct influence, such as the emphasis on 38 Translation follows M. Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism (Textual Sources for the Study of Religion; University of Chicago Press, 1990), 35. 39 See D. Winston, “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence,” HR 5 (1966): 200–210; S. Shaked, “Qumran and Iran: Further Considerations,” IOS 2 (1972): 433–46; and M. Philonenko, “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux Esprits: ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique,” in Apocalyptique Iranienne et dualisme Qoumrânien (ed. G. Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko; Recherches intertestamentaires 2; Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1995), 163–211. 40 As noted by S. Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B. C. E. to Second Century C. E.”; Y. Elman, “Zoroastrianism and Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 91–98; and S. Secunda and Y. Elman, “Jewish and Zoroastrian Interactions,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Study of Zoroastrianism (ed. Y. Vevaina and M. Stausberg; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming). 41 Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” 89. 42 See Secunda and Elman, “Interactions.” Elman, “Zoroastrianism and Qumran,” 95–98, has further proposed that many parallels between Zoroastrian thought and Qumran ideas are the result of a shared fundamentalist mindset as defined by R. J. Frey, Global Issues: Fundamentalism (New York: Facts On File, 2007). 43 On the spirits of good and evil see Shaked, “Qumran and Iran,” 437–40.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Connection to Wisdom Thought

273

choice rather than predestination in Yasna 30, and the central role it assigns to the two Spirits in the creation of “life and not-life” (30 [3]). In fact, human choice between the two spirits, whereby one establishes one’s eventual fate, is central to Zoroastrian dualism. In this respect the Testament of Amram bears a closer affinity to the Gathas than does the Treatise.44 The broad parallels between Persian thought and Qumran attitudes toward sin and evil point to indirect Persian influence. As Shaked has proposed, it is possible that new ideas in Jewish thought, stimulated by internal factors and drawing from Jewish precedents, took their direction based on an already wellknown Persian pattern.45 This seems to be particularly true of the periodization of evil in Qumran texts. The idea that there is a period in which Belial is free to work his evil will among humankind, as in CD IV.12–13, can be compared to the characterization of the present period in Zoroastrian thought, which describes the “middle” period between creation and the eschaton as one in which both Ahura Mazda, the “Lord Wisdom,” and Angra Mainyu, the “Evil Spirit,” do battle on earth. The attitude in Qumran texts is nevertheless far more pessimistic than extant Zoroastrian texts that describe the present age. In most Qumran texts the present age is not one in which Belial is merely free, but one in which he actually rules: a period of the “dominion of Belial.” This contrasts with the characterization of the present period in Zoroastrian thought, which describes the existence of evil alongside good in the present age. In fact, in Zoroastrian thought this period is characterized not as evil, but as a “mixture” (gumēzišn) of good and evil.46 Nevertheless, the idea of a preordained period of evil in Qumran texts seems to be a development of Persian periodization. Thus the Persian influence evident in the Treatise is indirect in nature, and is only one example of indirect Persian influence in Qumran texts.

Connection to Wisdom Thought Both A. Lange and E. Tigchelaar have noted the similarities between the Treatise and 4QInstruction, particularly in their use of common terminology.47 Lange has construed these similarities as indicating that the Treatise is an outSee Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” 22–24. Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B. C. E. to Second Century C. E.,” 1: 309. 46 See P. G. Kreyenbroek, “Cosmogony and Cosmology i. In Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica (ed. E. Yarshater; 15 vols. to date; Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1993), 6: 303. 47 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 121–70; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 194–201. Similar terminology includes mḥ šbt for God’s predetermined plan, twldwt, nḥ lh, ’l hd‘wt, qṣ šlwm/qṣ y šlwmm, and bny ‘wl/‘wlh. 44 45

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

274

Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

growth of wisdom literature, while Tigchelaar concludes that there is a specific connection between 4QInstruction and the Treatise, as opposed to a general connection between the Treatise and wisdom literature. The current study supports Tigchelaar’s conclusion: the approach to sin evidenced in general wisdom literature (explored in Chapter 5) differs significantly from what is found in the Treatise. Moreover, the analysis of the Treatise above demonstrates that this text shares ideas not only with 4QInstruction, but also with ideas in Qumran prayer and in the Community Rule. The Treatise was apparently composed outside the community and was then adapted and integrated into the Community Rule precisely because it shared affinities with different approaches to sin in different texts.48

Conclusion: “Purpose” of the Treatise The value of the Treatise for the Qumran reader was most likely its integration of different concepts of sin popular within the community. Readers of the Treatise would be able to reconcile the community belief in the archdemonic Belial as part of a dualistic system evident in the War Scroll and liturgical curse texts with their own experience of internal urges to sin found in apotropaic and non-apotropaic prayer. These urges to sin are presented in the Treatise as the result of a demonic presence as well as the result of internal qualities. Like texts that reflect such an internal desire to sin, the Treatise promises the ultimate eradication of sinful qualities in the eschaton. The seemingly contradictory structure of the Treatise was particularly likely to appeal to a member of the Qumran community. The Treatise both underlines a strict social dualism, predetermined from the time of creation, and acknowledges the urges of the righteous to sin. Both demonic influence and internal sinfulness will be eradicated in the eschaton. It is appropriate that this study ends with an analysis of the Treatise. Rather than forming a quintessential part of the Qumran community’s theology, the redacted Treatise represents an attempt to resolve a variety of views popular at Qumran – views of sin, determinism and free will, and the nature of a dualistic universe – through the redaction of an outside text. In its multifaceted presentation of sin and sinning, the Treatise highlights the diversity of Qumran views on sin, and the degree to which these views were presented differently based on the aims and focus of each text’s author.

48

A. Hogeterp and C. Hempel have both interpreted affinities between the Treatise and the Community Rule as resulting from the final stage of redaction following integration into the Community Rule; see notes 34 and 35 above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Chapter Thirteen Summary and Conclusions This study has demonstrated the complexity and variety of depictions of sin in Second Temple works. The division of these texts into those that indicate an internal (human) source of sin and those that indicate an external (demonic) source of sin does not explain everything. However, it does enable the delineation of various views of sin that were popular during the Second Temple period. These approaches to sin were not mutually exclusive; they differed according to the purpose of the work.

Genre, Free Will, and the Source of Sin The depiction of the source of sin in any one genre is not unidimensional. Texts of any genre may portray the source of sin as human, demonic, or a mixture of both. However, there is a connection between a text’s genre and whether it portrays sin as subject to free will or to determinism.

Prayer Many prayers of this period reflect the belief that all humans share an inherent tendency to sin. Moreover, some of these prayers express a belief that regardless of their actions humans are “tainted” by their sinful nature. While this belief is not ubiquitous, the presentation of sin as a disease that must be cured or as intrinsically connected to human physicality (as in sectarian prayer) was not unusual during this period. The approach to the divine and a feeling of helplessness and inferiority before God are translated into an acknowledgement of human sinfulness (or past sin) and of the inevitability of sin if divine assistance is not forthcoming. The inevitability of sin depicted in these prayers seems to remove it from human control and presents a particularly pessimistic view of human nature. However, the act of prayer is the means by which the petitioner can prevent her own sin; she is confident that divine aid against her desire to sin is forthcoming. Prayers that reflect a belief in demonic influence, decrying the pernicious manipulation of demonic forces, nevertheless present an internal view of these demonic forces. They describe demonic forces that have entered the petitioner’s insides and now battle with the laws of God and the positive qualities

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

276

Summary and Conclusions

that God has planted within the supplicant. Another integration of “internal” and “external” sources of sin, found in Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12: 19–21, is the indication that demons may rule the human inclination itself. This prayer thereby integrates the assumption that the human inclination causes sin with a belief in the ability of demonic forces to cause sin. Prayers that are embedded in other types of texts demonstrate how strong the influence of the prayer genre is. Although Ben Sira and Philo usually emphasize the free choice of human beings, when they employ the language of prayer, they present the desire to sin as overwhelming if divine assistance is absent. Similarly, the apotropaic prayers investigated in this study, which present sin as both demonic in origin and as an internal threat, depict a situation that can only be resolved with God’s help. Sectarian prayer builds on ideas already intrinsically connected to the prayer genre. First, sectarian prayers add a connection between sinfulness and human physicality: it is because humans are creatures of clay that they are sinful. Despite this connection, these prayers do not divide between “body” and “spirit”; humans suffer from a “spirit of flesh” that is part and parcel of the human condition. Thus, the initial picture painted by sectarian prayer seems far bleaker than that found in other prayers. However, these prayers also reflect an assurance in divine election as the means of purification from sinfulness. Petitioners thank God for lifting them from their physical, and therefore sinful, beginnings. They have thus been (or expect to be) elevated and cured of this condition. The petitioner’s predestined status as one of God’s chosen ensures this elevation. (While “sinfulness” is cured, the petitioner may yet sin, but this does not remove him from his “righteous” status.) One’s status as one of the “righteous” in turn proves that one has indeed been elected. In this manner the need for divine assistance to prevent sin, common to Second Temple prayer, is used to underscore the belief in predestination and election. The manner in which sin is portrayed in the prayers studied here is an outcome of the prayer experience itself. Through prayer humans engage with the Deity, but by expressing their sinful state or past sins they emphasize their own distance from God, resulting in expressions of inferiority and helplessness. Composers of prayer, overwhelmed by God’s exaltedness and their own humbleness and sinfulness, convey the feeling that the only way to vanquish their own desire to sin and their sinful state is with the help of God. The petitioners’ prayers express how they experience their problematic desire to sin, reflecting their internal landscape. In contrast, many prayers that are embedded in narratives do not ask God for assistance against the desire to sin. Aside from the apotropaic prayers discussed in this study, these prayers frequently assume righteousness on the part of the speaker (who is a character in the story) or do not explain the reason for past sins at all. These petitions fulfill a purpose within the narrative and do not reflect the usual internal experience of prayer.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Genre, Free Will, and the Source of Sin

277

Covenantal Texts The covenantal texts discussed in this study depict both human and demonic sources of sin (although not in the same passages); neither precludes free will on the part of the member. Several passages in the Community Rule and the Damascus Document reflect a belief in human free choice, particularly concerning the decision to sin, while still assuming that humans possess an inherent inclination to sin. The redactor of the 1QS version of the Community Rule presumes that humans’ choice to sin or not to sin explains their identity as nonmembers or members of the community. The passage in the Damascus Document goes even further, emphasizing choice through the repetition of the keyword bḥ r, while still assuming that the human will (rṣ wn) naturally and inevitably tends toward sin. Consequently the audience is exhorted to consistently turn away from their own will in order to follow God’s commandments. The assumption of freedom of choice is also evident when covenantal texts describe demonic influence. The Damascus Document’s description of Belial places this demonic figure in the role of a deceiver of Israel regarding the accepted law. Belial is the force behind the success of “evil” leaders in convincing their followers that the laws of the community are not the correct law. Other people may be misled, but community members will avoid being caught in Belial’s “traps.” While the evil leaders may be “demonic” in some sense, nonmembers are simply misguided. Their sinning is ultimately a result of their foolishness, although this is certainly taken advantage of by Belial’s human emissaries. In the Community Rule, Belial is present only in name. The curses included in the Community Rule address only humans in the “lot of Belial,” not Belial himself or even Belial’s spirits. Humans have apparently placed themselves in Belial’s lot through their own sinning, as does a member who hypocritically intends to break the community’s laws. Thus the curse text in the Community Rule alters both Belial’s role and the meaning of his “lot” to suit a human-centered worldview in which humans can decide for themselves whether they will be righteous community members or evildoing nonmembers. Membership in Belial’s “lot” is not completely predetermined; it can result from a member’s actions. It is not surprising that the authors and redactors of covenantal texts focus on human free will rather than on the idea that all human actions have been predetermined by God. The covenantal text aims to place the responsibility for keeping the community’s rules firmly on the shoulders of the member, whether there is an innate human desire to sin or whether sin is the result of demonic influence. While prayer can emphasize the need for divine help, covenantal texts must assume that humans have the ability to choose the right path on their own.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

278

Summary and Conclusions

Wisdom and Philosophical Literature The wisdom and philosophical literature explored in this study are the only texts that address the problem of sin directly. Ben Sira and Philo both aim to distance God from the responsibility for sin and to place this responsibility squarely in human hands. Human free will is assured, and God has nothing to do with the human choice to sin. While Ben Sira’s central argument presents the idea that human beings act according to their character, be it good or bad, Philo has a far more negative view. Nearly all of Philo’s statements on the subject of sin present the human being as inevitably inclined toward sin, although this does not impede humans’ free will. However, neither Ben Sira nor Philo is completely consistent. This inconsistency is more pronounced in the book of Ben Sira, which reflects a range of different aspects of sin: the (Pythagorean-influenced) doctrine of opposites, the inevitability of evil thoughts, the power of the law in controlling the desire to sin, and a possible allusion to the idea that sin began with Eve and the eating of the forbidden fruit. However, even Philo, despite his generally pessimistic view of human inclinations, sometimes presents human beings as tending to good, and in one extreme example, describes all free will as an illusion. And as already noted, both Ben Sira and Philo reflect the common trope of the need for divine assistance when expressing themselves in the form of prayer. The emphasis on human agency and freedom of choice found in both Ben Sira and Philo is connected to the aim of many wisdom and philosophical texts: the encouragement of ethical behavior on the part of the audience. At the same time, the flexibility that these thinkers allowed themselves provided their audiences with different approaches that suited different situations and viewpoints of reality.

Demonic Influence and the Periodization of Evil Narrative texts explored in this study reflect the belief in demonic influence. The development of the Watchers and their descendants and the role of these descendants in causing sin in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36) and in Jubilees indicate that many in this period saw these figures as an anarchic force for sin (and natural evil). Apotropaic prayer from the Second Temple period demonstrates that despite the attempt of the author of Jubilees to subvert these demonic figures into a divine system via the Angel Mastema, believing Jews continued to see these characters as a threat to their internal equilibrium. Demonic figures are sometimes presented as part of a dualistic system, as is Belial in several Qumran texts, but this is not a necessary or even prominent feature of their operation. Thus, in Jubilees Mastema has no counterpart among the “good” angels, and in most of the Damascus Document Belial is not

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Identity

279

opposed by a single figure. Additionally, the expression of demonic influence allows either deterministic or free will approaches to be emphasized, and it may be acknowledged alongside other sources of sin. An idea that is prominent in sectarian texts, particularly those that reflect a belief in a demonic source of sin, is that in the present period (the era before the eschaton), evil is given free rein. At the eschaton the dominion of evil forces will end, and God will demonstrate his omnipotence by destroying all the evil spirits along with the human evildoers who carry out their will. The current period of evil is frequently called the “dominion of Belial” in these texts, even when Belial himself is not mentioned. However, the periodization of evil does not rely on Belial per se; apotropaic prayers that focus on demonic forces other than Belial also note that the influence of these forces is limited to the period before the eschaton. The restriction of evil to a particular period may be a theological response to the difficulties of blaming sin on the influence of demonic forces. By attributing the desire to sin to demons, the authors of these texts absolve God from all blame for sin. According to this view of sin, God has not fashioned humans with the desire to sin, so the question of why he would do so need not be addressed. However, this solution creates what could be seen as a greater difficulty: how does God allow these demons to roam free among God’s chosen? The limitation of the power of evil forces to a given time period may not solve this problem to the modern mind, but it seems to have provided a solution for Jews of the Second Temple period. The promise of the future destruction of evil forces apparently solves the difficulty of demons’ “current” influence. Why would the divine plan include a period of evil? The response implied by the Treatise of the Two Spirits is that this is a divine “mystery” (1QS III.23). The periodization of evil goes hand in hand with an eschatological worldview. It is the belief in a dramatic eschaton ending all evil that enables the portrayal of a dramatically evil present. The eschatological periodization reflected in many Qumran texts is likely the result of familiarity with Persian patterns of thought. However, the Qumran “dominion of Belial” is a more pessimistic development; it is a far worse state of existence than the Persian “mixture” of evil and good that precedes the eschaton in Zoroastrian thought.

Identity Throughout this study the source of sin has interacted with the composer’s and audience’s sense of their own and others’ identity. In prayer, petitioners may define themselves as righteous despite past (or future) sin. This is particularly true of sectarian petitioners, for whom the fact of their righteousness (even if they expect to sin in the future) is proof of their identity as the elected of God.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

280

Summary and Conclusions

The confidence in this identity for Second Temple Jews seems to have broken down following the destruction of the Temple, at least for the author of 4 Ezra. While Ezra himself is counted among the righteous, the reality he describes is one where very few are or can be righteous due to the incredible strength of their inclination to sin. The pessimistic view of Ezra as portrayed in 4 Ezra sacrifices the satisfying assumption that the audience is ultimately righteous for the explanatory power of blaming the Temple’s destruction on the nation’s (and the audience’s) sins. The issue of identity is central in texts that portray the source of sin as demonic. In Jubilees, one’s identity as a descendant of Israel functions as a protective charm against demonic influence thanks to a series of blessings and prayers by the righteous forefathers. In sectarian texts, Belial functions as a community marker. Nonmembers may be Belial’s followers or his dupes, but Belial can only threaten community members from the outside with physical harm or difficulty; he has no influence on their internal character. It is clear that despite the link created in several central works between one’s identity as an “insider” and one’s immunity to demonic influence, Jews of the Second Temple period, including Qumran sectarians, still felt that they were vulnerable to such influence. In nonsectarian apotropaic prayers this vulnerability is expressed as “rule” by the demons, which may be prevented by God in answer to prayer. In sectarian apotropaic prayers, a multitude of demons are depicted as entering the innards of the speaker and doing battle with the laws within them. This seems to be a concrete expression of sectarians’ daily struggle to be righteous.

The Law versus Sin An idea that is surprisingly strong across nearly all groups of texts explored in this study is that the desire to sin, whether innately human or the result of demonic influence, can be fought with the law. The means by which the law can overcome sin differ in the various texts. This idea is found in prayer describing an internal inclination to sin, in apotropaic prayer, in Jubilees, and in Ben Sira. It is particularly evident in the later 4 Ezra, where the angel’s words reflect this idea’s status as common wisdom despite Ezra’s claim that the law did not overcome Israel’s desire to sin. The strength of the belief during the Second Temple period that the law combats sin may explain Paul’s declarations in Rom 5: 20 and 7: 7–13 regarding the increase of sin following the revelation of the law at Sinai. The strength of the popular belief in the law as an antidote to sin necessitated an equally strong opposing statement by Paul in order to advocate the abrogation of the law. Statements in later rabbinic literature that assert that the cure for the “evil inclination” is found in the Torah and that one of the means of fighting the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Gentiles and Sin

281

evil inclination is to drag “him” to the house of study (Sifre Deut. 45, b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b) may also stem from the popular idea that the law actively combats the desire to sin.

Gentiles and Sin The different texts that explore sin and its source sometimes connect sin to Gentile nations. In Jubilees, where sin is usually not described as resulting from an innate human inclination, Esau suffers from an inclination (yēṣ er) that is “evil from his youth” (Jub. 35: 9). Similar and more literal demonization of Gentile nations can be found in texts that reflect a belief in a demonic source of sin. In Jubilees the nations, like Belial, can cause Israel to sin by ruling them (1: 19–21) and are themselves ruled by sin-causing spirits (15: 31). In the War Scroll, Belial’s army is first described as consisting not of spirits but of the nations, particularly those portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. These texts reflect the belief that the Gentile nations are basically sinful and possible emissaries of powerful demons; moreover, their rule will cause Israel to sin. Such a belief could conceivably make Roman rule intolerable for the readers of these texts and provides insight into the foment that preceded the Great Revolt in 66 C. E.

The Treatise of the Two Spirits and Views of Sin at Qumran The review of works in this study has demonstrated that a range of views of sin could flourish simultaneously within a single community and that the presentation of sin frequently differs according to the aim of the particular text. The assortment of approaches that can be found in the highly redacted Treatise of the Two Spirits reflects an attempt to integrate several of these views into a single theology. This would explain why the Treatise appealed to the redactor of the Community Rule and consequently why it was integrated into this central sectarian text, despite its unique terminology and theology.

Adam and “Original Sin” The idea that humans are sinful because Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit (“original sin”) is rarely found in surviving Second Temple literature. The earliest reference to this idea may be found in Sir 25: 24, which, while referring to a wicked wife, reflects a familiarity with an “original sin” tradition whereby death and sin both originated from the eating of the forbidden fruit at Eve’s instigation. However, only the two works written in the aftermath of the Tem-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

282

Summary and Conclusions

ple’s destruction, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, explicitly present the idea that the desire to sin originated with the transgression of Adam and Eve. Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch lament Adam’s sin, blaming Adam for the subsequent sins of his descendants. 4 Ezra describes the desire to sin as an inheritance from Adam; it is thus both innate and inevitable. However, 4 Ezra is inconsistent regarding the manner in which Adam received his “evil heart.” This evil heart is alternately described as originating either with Adam’s creation or as a result of his sin. It is apparent that the manner in which the evil heart was obtained is of little import to the author and his assumed audience, who must deal with its consequences in either case. Despite the ultimate rejection of the idea of original sin in 2 Baruch (54: 15– 19) and its nonexclusivity as the reason for the “evil heart” in 4 Ezra, it is clear that the idea of “original sin” (as indicated in Rom 5: 12–13 and perhaps 1 Cor 15: 20–22) was not exclusive to Paul, but was a widely known (if not commonly accepted) idea in the Jewish tradition by the time of the destruction of the Temple. The advantage of such an explanation was especially clear following this tragedy: the distancing of the responsibility for the human inclination to sin from God as well as the implication that humanity as a whole, in the figure of Adam, is responsible for the negative aspect of the human condition. The disadvantage, the possibility that individuals will blame their own sins on Adam’s initial action, leads to Baruch’s argument against this idea in 2 Bar. 54: 15–19. The idea of “original sin” may have become prominent in works written in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction because the incomprehensible tragedy required a justification that was both distant from God but also out of the hands of contemporary Jews. These Jews could not see any parity between their actions and the extreme punishment they had been forced to suffer. By attributing human sinfulness to Adam’s sin, authors could explain the destruction as the consequence of a prehistoric sinful act without expecting it to correspond to particular contemporary behavior.

Implications for Post-Second Temple Thought The diversity of views of sin explored in this study, and the complexity of single texts that reflect more than one approach to sin, has demonstrated that the search for theological uniformity and consistency among works of the Second Temple period is anachronistic at best, and misleading at worst. At the same time, a brief look at 4 Ezra, written shortly after the destruction of the Temple, already hints at a possible consolidation of views on sin shortly following the Second Temple period. 4 Ezra takes for granted that all humans suffer from an “evil heart” despite the theological problems that this presents, and both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch present the idea of sin originating with Adam as a common idea.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Implications for Post-Second Temple Thought

283

It is possible that the multiple views of sin prevalent during the Second Temple period went underground, at least partially, due to the dispersion of communities following the destruction of the Temple. In addition, after the destruction of the Temple the presence of an “evil inclination” in human beings (even the righteous) held a certain explanatory power, as shown in 4 Ezra. The subsequent rabbinic emphasis on repentance and the resulting fluidity between the categories of sinner and righteous made Belial and other demons unnecessary for identifying a distinct group as wicked. Finally, the integration of demonic features into the concept of the evil inclination allowed the internal struggle depicted in apotropaic prayers to include a demon-like figure while still reflecting an internal human reality. Nevertheless, the different approaches found in Second Temple works did not disappear entirely. Their echoes are found in rabbinic apotropaic prayers and in various midrashic passages. The works discussed here provided a rich reservoir from which early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism could draw.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography Abegg, M. G., M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. “4QShira–b (4Q510–511).” Pages 168–211 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 6: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Abusch, T. “Witchcraft and the Anger of the Personal God.” Pages 83–121 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Edited by T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1999. Ackerman, S. “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. Aitken, J. K. “Divine Will and Providence.” Pages 282–301 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Aḳ ademyah la-Lashon ha- Ivrit. Sefer Ben Sira: Ha-Maḳ or, Ḳ onḳ ordantsyah Ṿ e-Nituaḥ Otsar Ha-Milim. Jerusalem: ha-Aḳ ademyah la-lashon ha- Ivrit, 1973. Albeck, H., ed. Midraš Berešit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus e codice Pragensi cum adnotationibus et introductione. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940. Repr. Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1967. Alexander, E. S. “Art, Argument, and Ambiguity in the Talmud: Conflicting Conceptions of the Evil Impulse in b. Sukkah 51b–52a.” HUCA 73 (2002): 97–132. Alexander, P. S. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331–53 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 27–49 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by J. M. G. Barclay and S. J. Gathercole. LNTS 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥ ad: A Proposal.” RevQ 17 (1996): 437–56. –. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71. Allan, D. J. “The Practical Syllogism.” Pages 325–40 in Autour d’Aristote: recueil d’études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion. Edited by A. Mansion. Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain 16. Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1955. Amir, J. “The Term ‘Goral’.” Beit Mikra 2 (1957): 102 (Hebrew). Anderson, G. A. “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49–64 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by J. Milgrom, D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. –. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Atkinson, K. “Psalms of Salomon.” Pages 763–76 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. –. “Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 546–75 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Baars, W. “Apocryphal Psalms.” Pages i–x, 1–12 in The Old Testament in Syriac according to ,

,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

285

the Peshiṭ ta Version. Part 4 fasc. 6. Edited by the Peshiṭ ta Institute Leiden. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Baillet, M. “504. Paroles des Luminaires (i).” Pages 137–68 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482– 4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. –. “510. Cantiques du Sage (i).” Pages 215–19 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. –. “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii).” Pages 219–62 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Baillet, M., and E. G. Chazon. “4Q504 (4QDibHama).” Pages 240–61 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Translated by M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Barker, M. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1987. Bartelmus, R. Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6, 1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur. ATANT 65. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979. Baudry, G-H. “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie.” MScRel 50 (1993): 99–115. –. “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel.” BLE 95 (1994): 271–301. Baumgarten, A. I. “Who Cares and Why Does It Matter? Qumran and the Essenes, Once Again!” DSD 11 (2004): 174–90. –. “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration.” DSD 4 (1997): 137–56. Baumgarten, J. M. “266. 4QDamascus Documenta.” Pages 23–93 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. –. “269. 4QDamascus Documentd.” Pages 123–36 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. –. “270. 4QDamascus Documente.” Pages 137–68 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. –. “Damascus Document 4Q266–273 (4QDa–h).” Pages 1–185 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 3, Damascus Document II Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 390–9 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. –. “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7.” Pages 199–209 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “‘Zab’ Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law.” JJS 45 (1994): 273–7. Baumgarten, J. M., and D. R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Beall, T. S. “Essenes.” Pages 262–9 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Becker, J. Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Beentjes, P. C. “Sirach 22: 27–23: 6, in zijn context.” Bijdr 39 (1978): 144–51. –. “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research.” Pages 3–16 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Repr. from Bijdragen 66 (2005): 131–144.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

286

Bibliography

–. “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 509–24 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Berger, P. L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1969. Bernstein, M. J. “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Development of a Midrashic Motif,” DSD 7 (2000): 263–291. Bernabé, A., ed. Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Poetae Epici Graeci. Pars II. Fasc. 1. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Munich: K.G. Saur, 2004. Bickerman, E. J. “The Date of Fourth Maccabees.” Pages 266–71 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by A. Tropper. AJEC 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bietenhard, H. “Sabbatvorschriften von Qumran im Lichte des rabbinischen Rechts und der Evangelien.” Pages 75–108 in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9 bis 14 Oktober 1961. Edited by H. Bardtke. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 42. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Birenboim, H. “‘For He is Impure among All Those who Transgress His Words’: Sin and Ritual Defilement in the Qumran Scrolls.” Zion 68 (2003): 359–66 (Hebrew). Black, M. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Boccaccini, G. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: the Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Bockmuehl, M. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS).” RevQ 18 (1998): 541–60. Bottéro, J. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Box, G. H. “IV Ezra.” Pages 561–624 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. –. The Ezra-Apocalypse. London: Pitman, 1912. Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” Pages 268–517 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Boyarin, D. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Boyce, M. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Textual Sources for the Study of Religion. University of Chicago Press, 1990. Brandenburger, E. Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5, 12–21 (1. Kor 15). WMANT 7. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962. –. Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches. ATANT 68. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Braude, W. G. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts and Special Sabbaths. YJS 18. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Breitenstein, U. Beobachtungen zu Sprache: Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuchs. Basel: Schwabe, 1978. Brooke, G. J. “Body Parts in ‘Barkhi Nafshi’ and the Qualifications for Membership of the Worshipping Community.” Pages 79–94 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

287

–. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. –. “Florilegium.” Pages 297–8 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Buber, S., ed. Midrash Tanḥ uma. 2 vols. Vilna: Romm, 1885. –. ed. Midrash Tehillim. Vilna: Romm, 1891. Büchler, A. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. London: Oxford University, 1928. Calduch-Benages, N., J. Ferrer, and J. Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella, Navarre: Verbo Divino, 2003. Cassidy, W. “Cleanthes – Hymn to Zeus.” Pages 133–8 in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. Edited by M. C. Kiley. London: Routledge, 1997. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1. From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI 8. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961. Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes, and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged, and Rewritten Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. –. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902. –. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS. together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Charlesworth, J. H., and E. Qimron. “Cave IV Fragments Related to the Rule of the Community (4Q255–264 = 4QS MSS A-J).” Pages 53–103 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. –. “Rule of the Community (1QS).” Pages 6–51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Charlesworth, J. H., and B. A. Strawn. “Reflections on the Text of ‘Serek ha-Yaḥ ad’ Found in Cave IV.” RevQ 17 (1996): 403–35. Charlesworth, J. H. “Rule of the Community: Introduction.” Pages 1–5 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Chazon, E. G. “444. 4QIncantation.” Pages 367–78 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 244–70 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Is ‘Divrei Ha-me’orot’ a Sectarian Prayer?” Pages 3–17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam)”. Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991 (Hebrew). –. “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications.” DSD 1 (1994): 265–84.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

288

Bibliography

Childs, B. S. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. SBT 1/27. London: SCM, 1960. –. “A Study of Myth in Genesis I–XI”. Ph. D. diss., Plymouth, Wis.: Basel, 1955. Christensen, D. L. Nahum. AB 24F. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Cohen Stuart, G. H. The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: an Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣ er Hara’. Kampen: Kok, 1984. Collins, A. Y. “The Theology of Early Enoch Literature.” Hen 24 (2002): 107–12. Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers.” CBQ 44 (1982): 91–111. –. “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve.” Pages 293–308 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by H. Najman and J. H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. –. “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 97–111 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. –. “Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch: Reflections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg.” Pages 315–22 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. –. “Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 177–92 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007. –. Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Boston: Brill, 2001. Cook, E. M. “A Thanksgiving for God’s Help (4Q434 II-III).” Pages 14–17 in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. Edited by M. C. Kiley. London: Routledge, 1997. –. “Visions of ‘Amram.” Pages 412–43 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Cook, J. “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬.” JSJ 38 (2007): 80–91. Crawford, S. W. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Cross, F. M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1961. D’Alario, V. “‘Non dire: “Da Dio proviene il mio peccato”’ (Sir 15,11 ebr): Dio all’origine del male.” RStB 29 (2007): 101–33. Davies, P. R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. BibOr 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. –. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” JSOT 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. –. “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts.” Pages 8–19 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. –. “Eschatology at Qumran.” JBL 104 (1985): 39–55. –. “Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 152–63 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne. VTSup 49. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992. –. “Who Can Join the ‘Damascus Covenant’?” JJS 46 (1995): 134–42. Davies, W. D. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit.” Pages 145–78 in Christian Ori-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

289

gins and Judaism. The Jewish People: History Religion Literature. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Repr. from pages 157–82 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by K. Stendahl. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957. Davila, J. R. “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?” Pages 75–85 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Delcor, M. Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): texte hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962. deSilva, D. A. 4 Maccabees. GAP 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Di Lella, A. A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: a Text-Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. London: Mouton, 1966. Dimant, D. “1 Enoch 6–11: A Methodological Perspective.” Pages 323–39 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. –. “Ages of Creation.” Pages 11–13 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema.” Pages 235–56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008). Edited by A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’.” Pages 105–34 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. “‘The Fallen Angels’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them”. Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974. –. “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature.” RevQ 22 (2006): 373–88. –. “A New Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Qumran: A Presentation.” Hen 22 (2000): 169–96. –. “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181.” IOS 9 (1979): 77–102. –. Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. –. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–58 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. –. “Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy.” RevQ 24 (2009): 7–18. Dombrowski Hopkins, D. “The Qumran Community and 1Q Hodayot: a Reassessment.” RevQ 10 (1981): 323–64. Drawnel, H. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Drummond, J. Philo Judaeus, or The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1888. Repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press 1969. Duhaime, J. “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

290

Bibliography

(1QS III 13 – IV 26).” Pages 103–131 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by F. García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. –. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. –. “L’Instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III, 13–IV, 26).” RB 84 (1977): 566–94. –. “La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân.” RB 84 (1977): 210–38. –. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. CQS 6. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “War Scroll.” 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 J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Duke, R. R. The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547). Studies in Biblical Literature 135. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Dupont-Sommer, A. Le Quatrième Livre des Machabées. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1939. Elizur, S. “A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus).” Tarbiẓ 76 (2007): 17–28 (Hebrew). Elliott, M. W. “Origins and Functions of the Watchers Theodicy.” Hen 24 (2002): 63–75. Elman, Y. “Zoroastrianism and Qumran.” Pages 91–98 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Eshel, E. “477. 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer.” Pages 474–83 in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part I. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. –. “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 69–88 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000. Edited by E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period.” Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew). Eshel, H. “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets of Belial’: a Reference to the ‘Aramaic Levi Document’?” Pages 243–55 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Eve, E. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. JSNTSup 231. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Falk, D. K. “393. 4QCommunal Confession.” Pages 45–61 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “4Q393: A Communal Confession.” JJS 45 (1994): 184–207. –. “Biblical Adaptation in 4Q392 ‘Works of God’ and 4Q393 ‘Communal Confession’.” Pages 126–146 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Psalms and Prayers.” Pages 7–56 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid. WUNT 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Flusser, D. “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers.” IEJ 16 (1966): 194–205. Frey, J. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

291

Background and History.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: an Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 367–404 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002. Frey, R. J. Global Issues: Fundamentalism. New York: Facts On File, 2007. Frick, P. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Fröhlich, I. “‘Narrative Exegesis’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 81–99 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “From Pseudepigraphic to Sectarian.” RevQ 21 (2004): 395–406. Frymer-Kensky, T. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Furley, D. J. Two Studies in the Greek Atomists: Study I Indivisible magnitudes. Study II Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. García Martínez, F. “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah.” Pages 1–44 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Brill, 1992. –. “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 153–67 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. Edited by E. J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Repr. and transl. of “Traditions communes dans le IVe Esdras et dans les MSS de Qumrân.” RQ 15 (1991): 287–301. García Martínez, F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude. “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181–205 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. –. “12. 11QJubilees.” Pages 207–20 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Garnet, P. “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5.1–7: Towards a Serek Text History.” JSP 15 (1997): 67–78. Gaster, T. H. The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect in English Translation. London: Secker & Warburg, 1957. Geller, M. J. Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations. SAACT 5. Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007. Gilbert, M. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15: 11–18: 14.” Pages 118–35 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. –. “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 1–20 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. DCLS 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. –. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance.” Pages 117–35 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

292

Bibliography

Goering, G. S. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Goldstein, J. A. “The Date of the Book of Jubilees.” PAAJR 50 (1983): 63–86. Greenfield, J. C. “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms.” Pages 309–14 in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane and E. Tov. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Repr. pages 640– 5 in vol. 2 of ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone and A. Pinnick. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Greenfield, J. C., M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Grossman, M. “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document.” DSD 11 (2004): 212–39. –. “Rethinking Gender in the Community Rule: An Experiment in Sociology.” Pages 497–512 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008). Edited by A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref. STDJ 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Grundmann, W. “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul.” Pages 85–114 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. Murphy-O’Connor. Chicago: Priory Press, 1968. Gunkel, H. Genesis. Translated by M. E. Biddle. MLBS. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. –. “Das vierte Buch Esra.” Pages 331–402 in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testaments. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900. Gurtner, D. M. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances. JCTCRS 6. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Haddock, A. “Bodily Movements.” Pages 26–31 in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Edited by T. O’Connor and C. Sandis. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 46. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Hadot, J. Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (l’Ecclésiastique). Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1970. Hager, F-H. Gott und das Böse im antiken Platonismus. Elementa 43. Amsterdam: Würzburg, 1987. Hallbäck, G. “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra.” SJOT 6 (1992): 263–92. Harl, M. La Bible d’Alexandrie I. La Genèse. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986. Harnisch, W. “Die Ironie der Offenbarung. Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Esra.” ZAW 95 (1983): 75–95. –. Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse. FRLANT 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Harris, J. R., ed. Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: University Press, 1886. Hayman, A. P. “The Problem of Pseudonymity in the Ezra Apocalypse.” JSJ 6 (1975): 47–56. Hempel, C. “Comments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1.” JJS 44 (1993): 127–8. –. “The Community and Its Rivals according to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4.” RevQ 21 (2003): 47–81. –. The Damascus Texts. CQS 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. –. “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa.” DSD 3 (1996): 253–69. –. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction. STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

293

–. Review of Esther Eshel et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts Part 2 (DJD 29). JSS 47 (2002): 336–8. –. “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community.” Pages 102–20 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hendel, R. S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6: 1–4.” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26. Hillel, V. “Structure, Source and Composition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. –. “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem.” Hen 24 (2002): 131–5. –. “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512.” DSD 8 (2001): 9–37. –. “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature.” Pages 115–41 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. C. Reeves. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Hoffmann, D. Z. Das Buch Leviticus. 2 vols. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905. Hogan, K. M. “The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 38 (2007): 530–52. –. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution. JSJSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hogeterp, A. “The Eschatology of the Two Spirits Treatise Revisited.” RevQ 23 (2007): 247–59. Holm-Nielsen, S. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATDan 2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960. Horgan, M. P. “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab).” Pages 157–85 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 and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. –. Review of Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. CBQ 54 (1992): 544–6. Horst, P. W. van der. “A Note on the Evil Inclination and Sexual Desire in Talmudic Literature.” Pages 59–65 in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. WUNT 1/196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hübner, H. “Anthropologischer Dualismus in den Hodayot?” NTS 18 (1971–2): 268–84. Huehnergard, J. “Etymology of the Relative še-.” Pages 103–25 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. Huppenbauer, H. W. Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten: der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente, ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangelismus. ATANT 34. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959. Hyatt, J. P. “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” NTS 2 (1955–1956): 276–84. Jacobson, H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jeremias, G. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. SUNT 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Jonge, M. de. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193–246 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited by M. de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. –. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin. Van Gorcum’s theologische Bibliotheek 25. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

294

Bibliography

Jonquière, T. M. Prayer in Josephus. AJEC 70. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Josephus. 1926–1965. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kabisch, R. Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889. Kahl, W. “The Structure of Salvation in 2Thess and 4Q434.” QC 5 (1995): 103–22. Katzoff, R. “Babatha.” Pages 73–75 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kieweler, H. V. Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp. BEATAJ 30. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. Kister, M. “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16: 4–6 and Related Texts).” Pages 167–84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings. Edited by R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. –. “‘Inclination of the Heart of Man,’ the Body and Purification from Evil.” Pages 243–84 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VIII. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2010 (Hebrew). –. “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community.” Pages 497– 528 in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World. Between Bible and Mishna. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (Hebrew). –. “Studies in 4QMiqṣ at Ma‘aśe ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar.” Tarbiẓ 68 (1999): 317–71 (Hebrew). Klawans, J. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice.” Pages 264–83 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. –. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism.” JJS 48 (1997): 1–16. –. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90. Klein, A. “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 and 1QS.” Pages 171–91 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz. FAT 2/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Knibb, M. A. “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 13 (1982): 56–74. –. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. –. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. –. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793–7 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 697–714 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Knibb, M. A., and R. J. Coggins. The First and Second Books of Esdras. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

295

Kosmala, H. “The Three Nets of Belial: A Study in the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament.” ASTI 4 (1965): 91–113. Repr. pages 115–37 in vol. 2 of Kosmala, H. Studies, Essays and Reviews. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Kreyenbroek, P. G. “Cosmogony and Cosmology i. In Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism.” Pages 303–7 in vol. 6 of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Edited by E. Yarshater. 15 vols. to date. Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1993. Kugel, J. L. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by L. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman. New York: Jewish Publication Society, forthcoming. –. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kugler, R. A. “Priesthood at Qumran.” Pages 93–116 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the.” Pages 952–3 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kuhn, H.-W. Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Kvalvaag, R. W. “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts.” Pages 159–80 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kvanvig, H. S. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Lange, A. “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13: 2.” Pages 254–68 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by H. Lichtenberger, D. Römheld, and A. Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. “The Determination of Fate by the Oracle of Lot in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Mesopotamian Literature.” Pages 39–48 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination.” Pages 377–435 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. Weisheit und Prädestination: weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lapsley, J. E. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69. Leaman, O. Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy. CSRT 6. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Lehmann, M. R. “A Re-Interpretation of 4Q Dibrê Ham-me’oroth.” RevQ 5 (1964): 106–10. Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge‘ez-English, English-Ge‘ez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1987. Lévi, I. Le péché originel dans les anciennes sources juives. Paris: Leroux, 1909. Levison, J.R. “Adam and Eve, Life of.” Pages 64–66 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. –. “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25: 24.” CBQ 47 (1985): 617–23.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

296

Bibliography

–. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch. JSPSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Licht, J. “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD.” Pages 88–100 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. ScrHier 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958. –. “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll.” IEJ 6 (1956): 1–13, 89–101. –. Megillat ha-Hodayot mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: ‘im Mavo, Perush u-Milon be-Tseruf Qeta‘im mi-Sefer ha-Razim umi-Pesher Tehilim. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957. –. Megillat ha-Serakhim mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: Serekh ha-Yaḥ ad, Serekh ha-‘Edah, Serekh ha-Berakhot. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965. –. “The Term GWRL in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Beit Mikra 1 (1955–6): 90–99 (Hebrew). Lichtenberger, H. Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde. SUNT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. –. “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von ‫ יצר‬im Jubiläenbuch.” JSJ 14 (1983): 1–10. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lieberman, S. Tosefta Kifeshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta. 10 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973 (Hebrew). –, ed. Midrash Debarim Rabbah. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1974. Lim, T. H. “Kittim.” Pages 469–71 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lloyd, G. E. R. Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1992. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. Lyons, W. J., and A. M. Reimer. “The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Preventative Measures.” DSD 5 (1998): 16–32. Maier, G. Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus. WUNT 1/12. Tübingen: Mohr, 1971. Maier, J. Die Texte vom Toten Meer. 2 vols. München: Reinhardt, 1960. Mansoor, M. The Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 3. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Martone, C. “Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada.” Pages 81–94 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. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Mattila, S. L. “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence.” JBL 119 (2000): 473– 501. Meijer, P. A. “Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas.” Pages 216–63 in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S Versnel. SGRR 2. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Merrill, E. H. Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Metso, S. “In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule.” Pages 306–15 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “The Redaction of the Community Rule.” Pages 377–84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947–1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. –. “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.” Pages 85–

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

297

93 in The Damascus Document – A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998. Edited by J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. The Serekh Texts. CQS 9. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “The Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 141–7 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 217–31 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Middendorp, Th. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Milgrom, J. “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2 (4Q174=4QFlor).” Pages 248–63 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 and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. –. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Milik, J. T. “17–18. Livre des Jubilés.” Pages 82–4 in Qumran Cave I. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. –. “19. Acte de répudiation, en araméen.” Pages 104–9 in Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât. Edited by P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. –. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. –. “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: D’Hénoch à Amram.” Pages 91–106 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978. –. “Milkî-ṣ edeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 97–144. –. “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumran.” HTR 64 (1971): 333–78. –. “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen.” Pages 117–27 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jeremias G., H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Molenberg, C. “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in I Enoch 6–11.” JJS 35 (1984): 136–46. Moran, W. L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. Morawe, G. Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân: Studien zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Hodajôth. Theologische Arbeiten 16. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters, 1993. Murphy, R. E. “Yēṣ er in the Qumran Literature.” Bib 39 (1958): 334–44. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14-VI,1.” RB 77 (1970): 201– 29. –. “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76 (1969): 528–49. Myers, J. I and II Esdras. AB 42. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1974.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

298

Bibliography

Newman, J. H. Praying by the Book: the Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Newsom, C. A. “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgment.” CBQ 42 (1980): 310–29. –. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters. Edited by W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. –. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –. “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11.” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405. –. “Enoch, Books of.” Pages 249–53 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee.” JBL 100 (1981): 575– 600. –. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. –. “Reflections upon Reflections: A Response to John Collins’ ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch’.” Pages 311–4 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. Nitzan, B. “280. 4QCurses.” Pages 1–8 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “286. 4QBerakhota.” Pages 7–48 in Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Edited by J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. –. “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts.” RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506. –. “Blessings and Curses.” Pages 95–100 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chapman. STDJ 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Olson, D. T. “Words of the Lights (4Q504–506 = 4QDibHama–c).” Pages 107–53 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Olyan, S. M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Pearson, B. A. “Philo and Gnosticism.” ANRW 21.1: 295–342. Part 2, Principat, 21.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1984. Peursen, W. van. “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives.” KUSATU 2 (2001): 47–95. Pfeiffer, H. “‘Ein reines Herz schaffe mir, Gott!’ Zum Verständnis des Menschen nach Ps 51.” ZTK 102 (2005): 293–311. Philo. 1929–1962. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Philonenko, M. “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux Esprits: ses origines iraniennes et ses pro-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

299

longements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique.” Pages 163–211 in Apocalyptique Iranienne et dualisme Qoumrânien. Edited by G. Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko. Recherches intertestamentaires 2. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1995. Pink, T. “Thomas Hobbes.” Pages 473–80 in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Edited by T. O’Connor and C. Sandis. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 46. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Porter, F. C. “The Yeçer HaRa: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin.” Pages 93–156 in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University. Yale Bicentennial Publications. New York: Scribner’s, 1901. Prato, G. L. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Puech, E. “525. 4QBéatitudes.” Pages 115–78 in Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). Edited by E. Puech. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. –. Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Vol. 1. Between Bible and Mishnah. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010 (Hebrew). –. “Improving the Editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4): Benedictions.” Pages 191–200 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls IV. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2006 (Hebrew). –. “Notes on the 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Disease.” JJS 42 (1991): 256–9. –. “A Preliminary Publication of 4QSd VII-VIII.” Tarbiẓ 60 (1991): 435–7 (Hebrew). Rad, G. von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by J. H. Marks. OTL 1. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. –. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by J. D. Martin. London: SCM Press, 1972. Rahlfs, A., R. Hanhart, W. Kappler, J. W. Wevers, and J. Ziegler, eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. Rankin, O. S. Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. Repr. New York: Schocken, 1969. Regev, E. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. RelSoc 45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. –. “The Yaḥ ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship.” RevQ 21 (2003): 233–62. Reimer, A. M. “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.” DSD 7 (2000): 334–53. Reiterer, F. V. “Bibelübersetzung: Wiedergabe oder Deutung?” Pages 151–8 in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn…” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. –. “Gott, Vater und Herr meines Lebens: Eine poetisch-stilistische Analyse von Sir 22,27–23,6 als Verständnisgrundlage des Gebetes.” Pages 137–70 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003. Edited by R. EggerWenzel and J. Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. –. “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” Pages 91–127 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Repr. pages 185–228 in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn…” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

300

Bibliography

Renaud, B. “Purification et recréation: le ‘Miserere’ (Ps 51).” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 62 (1988): 201–17. Ringgren, H. The Faith of Qumran. Translated by E. T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963. Roberts, J. J. M. “Wicked and Holy (4Q180–181).” Pages 204–13 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Rosen-Zvi, I. Demonic Desires: “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011. –. “Sexualising the Evil Inclination: Rabbinic ‘Yetzer’ and Modern Scholarship.” JJS 60 (2009): 264–81. –. “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma.” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–39. Roure, D. “L’obtenció del perdó en Ben Sira i en Filó d’Alexandria.” Pages 209–21 in Perdó i reconciliació en la tradició jueva. Edited by A. P. i Tàrrech. Barcelona: Associació Biblical de Catalunya, 2002. Runia, D. T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. –. Philo On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 576–604 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Sacchi, P. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Translated by W. J. Short. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. –. “The Theology of Early Enochism and Apocalyptic: the Problem of the Relation between Form and Content of the Apocalypses; the Worldview of Apocalypses.” Hen 24 (2002): 77– 85. Sandbach, F. H. The Stoics. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975. Sanders, J. A. “Non-Masoretic Psalms (4Q88=4QPsf, 11Q5=11QPsa, 11Q6=11QPsb).” Pages 155–215 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. –. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Sanders, J. T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. SBLMS 28. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Sarna, N. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Schiffman, L. H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy.” Pages 33–48 in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine. Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987. –. “From Temple to Torah: Rabbinic Judaism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Shofar 10 (1992): 2–15. –. The Halakhah at Qumran. SJLA 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975. –. “Miqṣ at Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll.” RQ 14 (1989–1990): 435–57. Repr. pages 123–48 in The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll. Edited by F. García Martínez. STDJ 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. –. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. BJS 33. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. –. “Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

301

Pages 165–76 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by F. García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schiffman, L. H., and J. C. VanderKam, eds. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schmidt, F. “Gôral versus Payîs: Casting Lots at Qumran and in the Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 175–85 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 F. García Martínez and M. Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schofer, J. “The Redaction of Desire: Structure and Editing of Rabbinic Teachings Concerning Yeṣ er (‘Inclination’).” JJTP 12 (2003): 19–53. Scholem, G. “Bilar (Bilad, bilid, ΒΕΛΙΑΡ) the King of the Demons.” Mada’ei ha-Yahadut 1 (1926): 112–27 (Hebrew). Schuller, E. M. “427–432. 4QHodayota–e and 4QpapHodayotf: Introduction.” Pages 69–75 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “428. 4QHodayotb.” Pages 125–75 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: A Research Survey.” Pages 1–15 in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by M. J. Boda, D. K. Falk, and R. A. Werline. SBLEJL 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. –. “Prayer, Hymnic and Liturgical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 153–71 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam. CJAS 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Schuller, E. M., H. Stegemann, and C. A. Newsom. 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Schürer, E. Geschichte des jüdischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3 vols. 4th ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909. Secunda, S., and Y. Elman. “Jewish and Zoroastrian Interactions,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Study of Zoroastrianism. Edited by Y. Vevaina and M. Stausberg. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming. Seely, D. R. “The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434–439).” Pages 194–214 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert. Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –. “Implanting Pious Qualities as a Theme in the Barki Nafshi Hymns.” Pages 322–31 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947–1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Seely, D. R., and M. Weinfeld. “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia.” Pages 267–86 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “434–438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia–e: Introduction.” Pages 255–65 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. –. “436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic.” Pages 295–305 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

302

Bibliography

Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Segal, M. H. Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Seitz, O. J. F. “Two Spirits in Man: an Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” NTS 6 (1959–1960): 82–95. Sekki, A. E. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Shaked, S. “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B. C. E. to Second Century C. E.” Pages 308–25 in vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. –. “Qumran and Iran: Further Considerations.” IOS 2 (1972): 433–46. Shemesh, A. “The Laws of Incest in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Halakhah.” Pages 81–99 in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy. JAJSup 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Shemesh, A., and C. Werman. “Hidden Things and their Revelation.” RevQ 18 (1998): 409–27. Singer, I. “Sin and Punishment in Hittite Prayers.” Pages 557–67 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Skehan, P. W., and A. A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Skjaervo, P. O. “Zoroastrian Dualism.” Pages 55–91 in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds, and R. G. Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Smend, R. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. 3 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906. Smith, M. S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. –. “What Is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between Their Biblical Past, Their Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and Their Textual Witnesses.” Pages 271–98 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Stegemann, H. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. –. “Zu textbestand und grundgedanken von 1QS III,13-IV,26.” RevQ 13 (1988): 95–131. Steudel, A. “God and Belial.” Pages 332–40 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947–1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. –. “Melchizedek.” Pages 535–7 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Stone, M. E. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B. C. E.” CBQ 40 (1978): 479–92. –. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Edited by F. M. Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. –. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion.” JSJ 12: 195–204.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

303

Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6: 1–4 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. –. “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil.” Pages 294–308 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III: 13-IV: 26) in its Tradition-Historical Context.” Pages 145–68 in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds, and R. G. Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –. “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry.” Pages 68–84 in Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Edited by Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth. JCTCRS 4. New York: T&T Clark International, 2008. –. “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6: 1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries BCE.” Pages 87–118 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. –. “Prayers of Deliverance from the Demonic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 146–65 in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other GrecoRoman Religions in Antiquity. Edited by I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema. JSHRZ-St 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006. Suter, D. W. “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch.” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35. –. “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest’.” Hen 24 (2002): 136–42. Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Temporini, H., and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat, 21.1. New York: de Gruyter, 1984. Theodor, J. and H. Albeck. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. 3 vols. Berlin, 1912–36. Repr. Jerusalem:Wahrmann, 1965. Thom, J. C. Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus”: Text, Translation and Commentary. STAC 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Thompson, A. L. Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra. SBLDS 29. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?).” Pages 347–57 in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-van de Weg. AJEC 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –. “Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208.” Hen 24 (2002): 143–5. –. “‘These are the names of the spirits of…’ A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a).” RevQ 21 (2004): 529–47. –. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

304

Bibliography

Toorn, K. van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: a Comparative Study. SSN 22. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. –. “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation.” Pages 61–83 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Trafton, J. L. “Solomon, Psalms of.” Pages 115–7 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Tromp, J. The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. PVTG 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005. VanderKam, J. C. “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 151–70 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. Edited by E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. The Book of Jubilees. GAP 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. –. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. Lovanii: Peeters, 1989. –. The Book of Jubilees: Translated. CSCO 511. Lovanii: Peeters, 1989. –. “The Demons in the ‘Book of Jubilees’.” Pages 339–364 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Allan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. –. “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources.” SBLSP 13 (1978): 229– 51. –. “Jubilees, Book of.” Pages 434–8 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977. VanderKam, J. C., and J. T. Milik. “223–224. 4QpapJubileesh.” Pages 95–140 in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. –. “225. 4QpseudoJubileesa.” Pages 141–55 in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Vermes, G. “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok – Priests – Congregation.” Pages 375–84 in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. –. “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 42 (1991): 250–5. Vollers, K. “Zur Erklärung des ‫ ידון‬Gen 6,3.” ZA 14 (1889): 349–56. Wacholder, B. Z. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. STDJ 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wahlen, C. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT 2/185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987. Werman, C. “Qumran and the Book of Noah.” Pages 171–81 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. Edited by E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Bibliography

305

Westerholm, S. “4 Makkabees.” Pages 530–41 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Westermann, C. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984. Wicke-Reuter, U. “Ben Sira und die Frühe Stoa: Zum Zusammenhang von Ethik und dem Glauben an eine göttliche Providenz.” Pages 268–81 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Winston, D. “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy and Jewish Hellenistic Wisdom.” SPhilo 2 (1973): 40–50. –. “Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria.” SPhilo 3 (1974–1975): 47–70. –. “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence.” HR 5 (1966): 183–216. –. “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body.” Poetics Today 19 (1998): 41–62. –. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1981. –. “Theodicy and Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 105–11 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud. CREJ 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. –. “Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy.” Pages 239–49 in Of Scholars, Savants, and Their Texts; Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman. Edited by R. Link-Salinger. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. –. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1979. Wischmeyer, O. “Gut und Böse: antithetisches Denken im Neuen Testament und bei Jesus Sirach.” Pages 129–36 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948. –. “Philo on Free Will.” HTR 35 (1942): 131–69. Wright, A. T. “Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism: the ‘Watcher Tradition’ as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels.” Hen 28, no. 1 (2006): 141–59. –. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6: 1–4 in Early Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. “Some Observations of Philo’s ‘De gigantibus’ and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism.” JSJ 36 (2005): 471–88. Wright, B. G. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 189–222 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. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. –. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. –. “Wisdom of Iesous son of Sirach.” Pages 715–62 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Wright, D. P. “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity.” Pages 150–81 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

306

Bibliography

Ziegler, J., ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Modern Authors Index Abegg, M.G. 201n, 203n Abusch, T. 150n Ackerman, S. 78n Aitken, J.K. 111n Alexander, E.S. 21n Alexander, P.S. 24n, 30n, 85n, 152n, 154n, 180n, 203n Allan, D.J. 96n Amir, J. 247n Anderson, G.A. 23, 83 Atkinson, K. 54n Baars, W. 38n Baillet, M. 50n, 201n, 203n Barker, M. 151n Bartelmus, R. 159n Baudry, G.H. 23n, 124n Baumgarten, A.I. 32n, 85n Baumgarten, J.M. 41n, 75n, 91n, 131n, 186n, 220n, 226n, 227n, 228n, 244n Beall, T.S 32n Becker, J. 59n Beentjes, P.C. 96n, 99, 104n, 117n Berger, P.L. 72n, 93n Bernstein, M.J. 50n, 184n Bickerman, E.J. 135n Bietenhard, H. 228n Birenboim, H. 41n Black, M. 161n Boccaccini, G. 24 Bockmuehl, M. 85n Bottéro, J. 149n Box, G.H. 94n, 99n, 101n, 102n, 115n, 129n, 130n Boyarin, D. 21n Boyce, M. 272n Brandenburger, E. 130n, 131n, 136n, 141n Braude, W.G. 78n Breitenstein, U. 135n Brooke, G.J. 42n, 251n, 252n Büchler, A. 40n Calduch-Benages, N. 99n, 115n, 116n Cassidy, W. 96n

Cassuto, U. 151n, 152n Charles, R.H. 160n, 161n, 163n, 178n Charlesworth, J.H. 85n, 89n, 241n, 242n, 258n, 259n, 264n, 265n, 266n, 267n, 268n Chazon, E.G. 29n, 49n, 50n, 51n, 200n, 204n, 205n Childs, B.S. 151n, 152n Christensen, D.L. 218n Coggins, R.J. 128n Cohen Stuart, G.H. 20, 76n, 87n, 104n Collins, A.Y. 159n Collins, J.J. 24n, 29, 32n, 75n, 77n, 108n, 111n, 114n, 128n, 129n, 135–136n, 136n, 154n, 155n, 156n, 159n, 164n Colson, F.H. 96n, 120n, 121n, 123n, 124n, 126n Cook, E.M. 42n, 201n, 203n, 262n Cook, J. 21 Crawford, S.W. 169n Cross, F.M. 250n D’Alario, V. 96n, 101n Davies, P.R. 29, 75n, 83n, 85n, 218n, 219, 221n, 222n, 224, 232, 233n, 248n Davies, W.D. 22, 23n, 63n Davila, J.R. 55n De Jonge, M.; see Jonge, M. de Delcor, M. 60n, 63n, 76n deSilva, D.A 135n Di Lella, A.A. 93n, 94n, 95n, 99, 101n, 102n, 107n, 108n, 110n, 111n, 114n, 115n, 153n Dimant, D. 24n, 29n, 67n, 84n, 154n, 155n, 156, 159n, 160n, 162n, 166n, 169–170n, 171n, 173n, 175n, 178n, 179n, 180n, 184n, 190n, 199n, 218n, 222n, 229, 230, 237n, 257n Dombrowski Hopkins, D. 60n Drawnel, H. 209n, 212n Drummond, J. 125n, 126 Duhaime, J. 219, 223, 232, 233n, 234n, 235, 236n, 257n, 258, 259n, 260n, 261n, 264, 266n, 269n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

308

Modern Authors Index

Duke, R.R. 262n Dupont-Sommer, A. 135n Elizur, S. 94n Elliot, M.W. 23n, 159n Elman, Y. 272n Eshel, E. 24n, 46n, 158n, 174n, 175n, 184n, 185n, 200n, 204n, 207n, 210n, 211n, 212n, 214n, 217n Eshel, H. 212n, 221n Eve, E. 24n, 194n, 200n, 202n, 207n Eynikel, E. 98n Falk, D.K. 49n, 53n, 55n Ferrer, J. 99n, 115n, 116n Flusser, D. 39n, 202, 209n, 210n Frey, J. 63n, 150n, 215n, 257n Frey, R.J. 272n Frick, P. 123n Fröhlich, I. 76n, 203n Frymer-Kensky, T. 40n Furley, D.J. 96n García Martínez, F. 129n, 171n, 178n, 207n Garnet, P. 85n Gaster, T.H. 228n Geller, M.J. 149n Gilbert, M. 94n, 95n, 97n, 117n Goering, G.S. 109n Goldstein, J.A. 169n, 190n Greenfield, J.C. 174n, 208n, 209n, 210n, 211n, 212n, 213, 214, 217n Grossman, M. 32 Grundmann, W. 64n Gunkel, H. 129n, 136n, 151n, 152n Gurtner, D.M. 138n Haddock, A. 27n Hadot, J. 96n, 104n Hager, F-H. 119–120n Hallbäck, G. 136n Harl, M. 152n Harnisch, W. 130n, 136n, 140n Harris, J.R. 125n Hauspie, K. 98n Hayman, A.P. 136n, 137n Hempel, C. 31n, 42n, 74n, 85n, 227, 228n, 257n, 258n, 259n, 261n, 270n, 271n, 274n Hendel, R.S. 151n Hillel, V. 104n Himmelfarb, M. 41n, 159n, 160n, 178n Hoffmann, D.Z. 40n Hogan, K.M. 132n, 136n

Hogeterp, A. 205n, 270n, 274n Holm-Nielsen, S. 59n, 60n, 67n, 76n Hopkins, D. Dombrowski; see Dombrowski Hopkins, D. Horgan, M.P. 23n, 87n Horst, P.W. van der 21n Hübner, H. 22, 23n Huehnergard, J. 152n Huppenbauer, H.W. 243n Hyatt, J.P. 22, 60n Jacobson, H. 134n Jeremias, G. 59n Jonge, M. de 28n, 104n, 235n Jonquière, T.M. 55n Kabisch, R. 129n Kahl, W. 43n Katzoff, R. 213n Kieweler, H.V. 112n Kister, M. 21, 22n, 45, 51n, 91n, 189n, 193, 194n, 205n, 210n, 212n, 216n, 221n, 226n, 240n Klawans, J. 25, 30, 40n, 41n, 108n Klein, A. 208–209n Knibb, M.A. 85n, 97n, 128n, 134n, 146n, 160n, 161n, 200n, 233n Kosmala, H. 221n, 222n Kreyenbroek, P.G. 273n Kugel, J.L. 28n, 172n Kugler, R.A. 28n, 85n Kuhn, H.-W. 59n Kvalvaag, R.W. 23n Kvanvig, H.S. 164n Lange, A. 24n, 67n, 190n, 193n, 194n, 200n, 209n, 210n, 212n, 246n, 257n, 260n, 271, 273 Lapsley, J.E. 78n Leaman, O. 119n Lehmann, M.R. 49n Leslau, W. 163n, 171n, 173n, 177n, 189n Lévi, I. 23n Levison, J.R. 101, 113–114n, 114n, 140n Licht, J. 39n, 60n, 62n, 67n, 70n, 76n, 86n, 89n, 247n, 257n Lichtenberger, H. 20, 22, 77n, 81n, 193n Lieberman, S. 221n Liesen, J. 99n, 115n, 116n Lim, T.H. 233n Lloyd, G.E.R. 112n Lust, J. 98n, 103n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Modern Authors Index Lyons, W.J. 240n Maier, G. 60n, 63n, 76n, 81n, 87n, 96n, 101n, 108n Maier, J. 228n Mansoor, M. 67n Martínez, F. García; see García Martínez, F. Martone, C. 94n Mattila, S.L. 96n, 112n Meijer, P.A. 57n Merrill, E.H. 60n, 67n Metso, S. 68n, 84n, 90, 91n, 220n, 233n, 258n, 260n, 271n Middendorp, Th. 112n Milgrom, J. 40n, 251n Milik, J.T. 145n, 151n, 154n, 155n, 167n, 198n, 213n, 250n, 262n Molenberg, C. 159n Moran, W.L. 78n Morawe, G. 59n Muraoka, T. 103n Murphy, R.E. 20, 60n, 99n, 104n Murphy-O’Connor, J. 75n, 257n, 264n, 269n Myers, J. 128n, 129n Newman, J.H. 37n Newsom, C.A. 29n, 37n, 56n, 60n, 61, 62n, 63n, 64n, 66n, 67n, 72, 155–156n, 160n, 163n, 165n, 191n, 200n Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 128n, 137n, 151n, 154–155n, 155n, 156n, 157, 158n, 159n, 160n, 161n, 163n, 166n, 167n, 183n, 257n Nitzan, B. 39n, 239n, 243n, 248n, 249, 250 Oesterley, W.O.E. 94n, 99n, 101n, 102n, 115n Olson, D.T. 49n, 50n Olyan, S.M. 109n Osten-Sacken, P. von der 218n, 219, 232, 233n, 257n, 264n, 266n, 269n Pearson, B.A. 122n Peursen, W. van 99n Pfeiffer, H. 209n Philonenko, M. 272n Pink, T. 27n Porter, F. C. 20, 100n Prato, G.L. 116n Puech, E. 205n, 262n Qimron, E. 60n, 62n, 67n, 68n, 75n, 77n, 86n, 88n, 191n, 205n, 220n, 241n, 258n, 259n

309

Rad, G. von. 108n, 118n, 151n, 152n, 153n Rahlfs, A. 54n Rankin, O.S. 111n Regev, E. 31n, 32n Reimer, A.M. 30n, 198n, 240n Reiterer, F.V. 110n, 117n Renaud, B. 45n, 189n Ringgren, H. 64n, 67n Roberts, J.J.M. 199n Rosen-Zvi, I. 20n, 21, 48n, 65n, 66, 99n Roure, D. 120n Runia, D.T. 119n, 121n, 122n, 123n Sacchi, P. 23, 24 Sandbach, F.H 97n, 102n, 112n Sanders, J.A. 38n, 39n, 208n, 214n Sanders, J.T. 111n Sarna, N. 151n, 152n, 153n Schechter, S. 74 Schiffman, L.H. 32n, 49n, 60n, 67n, 83n, 227n, 228n, 249n, 257n Schmidt, F. 246n Schofer, J. 21n Scholem, G. 214n Schuller, E.M. 33, 43n, 59n, 60n, 62n, 64n, 67n, 191n, 200n Schürer, E. 128n Schwartz, D.R. 75n, 77n, 79n, 91n, 186n, 220n, 224n, 225n, 226n, 244n Secunda, S. 272n Seely, D.R. 42n, 43n, 44n, 45n Segal, M. 154n, 158n, 169n, 170, 171n, 172, 175n, 176n, 177n, 178n, 180n, 182n, 190n, 192n Segal, M.H. 101n, 102n, 103n, 106n, 107n, 115n Seitz, O.J.F. 87n Sekki, A.E. 23n Shaked, S. 46n, 272n, 273 Shemesh, A. 221n Singer, I. 56n Skehan, P.W. 94n, 95n, 101n, 102n, 106n, 107n, 108n, 110n, 111n, 115n Skinner, J. 151n, 152n Skjaervo, P.O. 271n, 272n, 273n Smend, R. 101n, 102n, 108n, 115n Smith, M.S. 151n, 191n Speiser, E.A. 151n, 152n Stegemann, H. 60n, 62n, 64n, 191n, 257n, 260n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

310

Modern Authors Index

Steudel, A. 24n, 218n, 219n, 248n, 249n Stone, M.E. 128n, 129n, 130, 132n, 134n, 136n, 138n, 139n, 155n, 164n, 174n, 210n, 211n, 212n, 214n, 217n Strawn, B.A 85n Stuart, G.H. Cohen; see Cohen Stuart, G.H. Stuckenbruck, L.T. 24n, 25, 70n, 153n, 164n, 165, 173n, 175n, 178n, 179n, 188n, 190n, 202n, 210n, 217n, 257n, 270n Suter, D.W. 159n Terian, A. 119n Thom, J.C. 56, 57n Thompson, A.L. 130n, 136n, 137n Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 21, 46, 47, 50n, 155n, 159n, 162n, 163n, 164n, 171n, 193n, 207n, 257n, 266n, 269n, 273, 274 Toorn, K. van der 56n, 149n, 180, 202n Trafton, J.L. 54n Tromp, J. 113n VanderKam, J.C. 144n, 145n, 155n, 160n, 164n, 167n, 169n, 170, 171, 173n, 174n, 175n, 177n, 181n, 187n, 191n, 193n, 198n Vermes, G. 85n

Vollers, K. 152n Wacholder, B.Z. 223n, 225n Wahlen, C. 210n Weinfeld, M. 42n, 43n, 44n Wenham, G.J. 151n Werman, C. 178n, 231n Westerholm, S. 135n Westermann, C. 151n, 152n, 153n Whitaker, G.H. 96n, 120n, 121n, 123n, 124n, 126n Wicke-Reuter, U. 111n Winston, D. 96n, 97n, 111n, 119n, 121– 122n, 122n, 123n, 125n, 145n, 272n Wischmeyer, O. 110n Wise, M.O. 201n, 203n Wolfson, H.A. 96n, 119n, 125n Woude, A.S. van der 171n, 207n Wright, A.T. 24n, 123n, 162n Wright, B.G. 94n, 95n, 97n, 98n, 105n, 109n Wright, D.P. 40n Yadin, Y. 213n Ziegler, J. 95n, 101n, 106n, 110n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Source Index I. Hebrew Scriptures (MT) Genesis 1: 1 100n 1: 26 121 1: 27 100n 3: 1–5 173n 3: 23 44n 4: 7 19, 235–236 5: 29 120 6: 1–2 156 6: 1–4 77, 151–153, 156–157, 170, 171, 191 6: 1–8: 14 159 6: 2 140, 154n, 170 6: 3 153n 6: 4 161n, 178n 6: 5 47, 86, 100–101, 103, 153, 172n, 193 6: 5–7 152 6: 11 173n 6: 12 171n, 172 6: 12–13 153 8: 21 47, 100–101, 103, 122, 145, 193 9: 4 174, 175n 11: 1–9 153n 14: 18 248–249n 22: 1 184 25: 6 44n 37: 10 47n 47: 18 77n Exodus 3: 21 185n 3: 22 185n 4: 24–26 183 7: 8–13 223 7: 11 183 7: 22 183 8: 3 183 28: 43 208n 31: 14–15 228 33: 14–16 261n

34: 7 35: 2

210n 228

Leviticus 1: 3 79n 3: 17 175n 7: 26–27 175n 13–14 38n, 39n, 40 13: 51–52 39n 14: 44 39n 16: 7–10 199, 247 17: 4 176 17: 10–14 175n 17: 13 175n 17: 17 40 18: 5 83 19: 5 79n 19: 17 88 19: 19 157n 20: 27 227, 228 22: 9 208n 22: 19 79n 22: 29 79n 23: 11 79n Numbers 3: 10 109n 5: 14 46n 5: 30 46n 6: 24–26 241n, 250 13: 22, 28 153 13: 33 77n, 153, 178n 14: 33 212n 15: 32–36 228 15: 39 75, 76, 81, 86, 91 17: 5 109n 18: 22,32 208n 31: 50 115n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

312

Source Index

Deuteronomy 1: 41 220n 2: 11 153n 2: 20 153n 3: 11 153n 3: 13 153n 6: 5 87n 9: 2 153 9: 23 81n 9: 26–29 188 10: 16 87, 88 12: 16 175n 12: 23 175n 13: 6 227n 13: 14 192n, 240n 15: 9 240n 15: 23 175n 22: 11 157n 27–28 241 29: 18 81, 242n, 243 29: 18–20 241–242 30: 6 43, 49, 88n 30: 15 124, 125 30: 19 104, 125 32: 8 191 32: 9 191 32: 17 166n 32: 28 222n Joshua 16: 1 246n 19: 1 246n 19: 17 246n 19: 24 246n 19: 32 246n 19: 40 246n 21: 4 246n Judges 19: 22 192n, 240n 20: 13 192n, 240n 21: 21 99n 1 Samuel 2: 12 192n, 240n 2: 25 208n 10: 27 192n, 240n 25: 17 240n

2 Samuel 7: 11 252 7: 14 38n 23: 6 218n 1 Kings 8: 37 38n 8: 38 38n 20: 35 151n 21: 10 192n, 240n 21: 13 192n, 240n Isaiah 4: 4 46n 11: 2 212n 13: 9 203 13: 21 203 13: 22 203n 14: 4–21 153n 17: 13 47n 26: 3 271n 27: 11 222 28: 6 46n 29: 16 61 32: 7 65 33: 2 203 33: 8 203 34: 14 203 34: 17 246n 45: 7 110, 111n 53: 8 38n 54: 9 47n 61: 10 48 63: 9 261n 64: 4–5 40–41 Jeremiah 3: 2 212n 3: 9 212n 3: 17 81n, 130n 4: 4 87, 88 7: 24 81n, 130n 9: 13 81n 11: 8 81n, 130n, 189 13: 10 81n 13: 27 212n 16: 12 81n, 130n 18: 4 107 18: 6 107 18: 12 81n, 130n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Source Index 23: 17 23: 32 29: 27 31: 2 31: 35

Zechariah 3 47–48, 58 3: 1–2 179, 188 3: 2 47 3: 4 48 13: 1 61

81n 221n 47n 208n 171n

Ezekiel 1: 11 77n 1: 23 77n 3: 17–21 208n 11: 5 103n 11: 19 45, 130n, 134n 14: 3–8 82 14: 11 40 18: 5–20 208n 22: 18–22 61 23: 27 212n 27: 6 233n 33: 7–20 208n 36: 26 45, 130n, 131n 37: 9 46n 37: 23 40 Hosea 4: 9 103n 5: 4 103n 5: 10 82, 225 7: 2 103n 9: 7–8 179 11: 6 103n Amos 2: 9 77n Jonah 7: 7 246n Micah 3: 9–11 221n 6: 8 271n Nahum 1: 4 47n 1: 11 218n 2: 1 218, 219n 3: 3 77n Zephaniah 1: 6 89n 3: 4 221n

Malachi 2: 3 47n 3: 11 47n Psalms 5: 11 103n 9: 6 47n 10: 2 103n 10: 9 99n, 100 16: 5 246n 18: 5 218n 22: 19 246n 22: 22 50n 51 41 51: 1–11 40 51: 3–4 45n 51: 4 208, 212 51: 4–5 40 51: 6–7 62n 51: 9 40, 45n, 208, 212 51: 9–11 189n 51: 11 189 51: 11–12 45 51: 12 187n, 188–189, 208–209, 212 51: 15 209 81: 13 53, 81 85: 14 43n 89: 33 38n 91 200n 96: 5 191 103: 14 61 103: 20 77n 104: 35 267n 106: 9 47n 106: 37 166n 110: 4 248–249n 119: 21 47n 119: 133 43n, 69, 209, 212 145: 16 80n 145: 19 80n Proverbs 1: 14 246n, 247n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

313

314

Source Index 3: 7 9: 5

5: 7 83n 7: 24 83n 8: 32 83n 10: 32 80n 11: 5 111n 11: 27 80n 14: 9 80n 14: 35 79 16: 13 79 16: 15 79 17: 11 221n 19: 12 79 22: 2 111n 23: 28 99n

246n 80n

Daniel 4: 7–30 153n 4: 10 154 4: 14 154 4: 20 154 8: 4 80n 10: 6 77n 11: 3 80n 11: 16 80n 11: 36 80n Nehemiah 9: 24 80n 9: 29 83 10: 35 246n 11: 1 246n

Job 1–2 179, 182, 186, 188 1: 6 151n, 180 2: 1 151n 9: 12 99n 14: 20 44n 15: 4 133n

1 Chronicles 24: 7 246n 24: 31 246n

Ruth 2: 16 47n

2 Chronicles 13: 7 192n, 240n 15: 15 80n 25: 8 246n 26: 13–14 246n 33: 12–13 55n 33: 18–19 55n

Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 7: 14 110n 9: 3 93n Esther 1: 8 79n, 80n

II. Apocrypha Wisdom of Solomon 4: 10–14 50n, 223n 5: 4 145 11: 23–24 97n 12: 4–6 146 12: 10–11 145–146 12: 23 145 12: 23–25 50n, 223n Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus) 93–94, 118–119, 126–127, 137, 142, 276, 278, 280 6: 14–15 94n 6: 20–31 94n

7: 29–31 109n 11: 14 110n 15: 11–12 96n 15: 11–20 93–107, 108n, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 126–127, 167n 15: 12–13 97 15: 14 20n, 21, 99–100, 100–102, 104–105 15: 14add 99, 100 15: 14–15 98 15: 15–17 103–104, 116 15: 16–17 105 16: 7 153n 17: 1–7 105

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

315

Source Index 17: 6 103, 104–105 17: 6–7 102 17: 31 114–116, 118 21: 11 114–115, 116–117, 118, 131 22: 27–23: 6 117n 23: 2–6 115, 117–118, 126 23: 11 51 25: 23 114 25: 24 113–114, 118, 281 26: 1 114 27: 6 101, 102 30: 25–33: 13 106n 32: 21 99n 33 112–113, 118 33: 7–12 106–107 33: 7–13 110, 111 33: 7–15 93, 106–113

33: 12 109 33: 13 98n, 107 33: 13–15 106 33: 13–36: 16 106n 33: 14–15 108, 110, 111 37: 3 114n 45: 1–25 109n 45: 13 109n 45: 18 109n 50: 4 99n 51: 13–30 94n Baruch 3: 9–4: 4

136n

Prayer of Manasseh 8 55

III. New Testament Romans 3: 21–23 64n 5–8 22 5: 12–13 282 5: 12–21 113n, 143 5: 13 133n 5: 20 132, 133n, 280 7 22 7: 7–13 132, 133n, 143, 280 7: 14 63, 132 7: 18 63

1 Corinthians 15: 10 64n 15: 20–22 143, 282 15: 21–22 113n 2 Corinthians 12: 9 64n Galatians 5: 16–23 63 Ephesians 2: 1–10 64n

IV. Ancient Biblical Texts and Versions LXX Genesis 1: 26 121 6: 1–4 153 6: 2 152n 6: 3 152n, 154n 6: 4 152n 6: 11 173n

Leviticus 19: 19 157n Deuteronomy 22: 11 157n 32: 8 166n, 185n, 191, 261n Isaiah 63: 9 261n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

316

Source Index

Ezekiel 11: 5 103n

Proverbs 2: 11, 17 21

Hosea 4: 9 103n 5: 4 103n 7: 2 103n 11: 6 103n

Peshiṭ ta Psalm 155 (see 11Q5 =11QPsa XXIV, Syriac Psalm 155) Ben Sira 4: 19 99 17: 6 103n 17: 31 115

Psalms 5: 11 103n 5: 13 98n 10: 2 103n 18: 15 98n 50: 20 98n 68: 14 98n 96: 5 191

Vulgate Genesis 6: 3

152n

Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) Genesis 6: 11 173n

V. Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 129n, 149–168 1: 1–6 155n

Apocalypse of Moses 13: 5 134n 32: 2 113–114n Aramaic Levi Document 3: 1–18 210–213 3: 5–10 211–212 3: 6 212n 3: 6–7 214 3: 9 212 6: 3 174n, 221n

207, 210–217

2 Baruch 113, 137–143, 281–282 14: 6 137 14: 7 137 14: 19 137 15: 5–6 138 21: 19 138n 48: 42–43 139, 140n 48: 42–47 140 54: 15 140 54: 15–19 131n, 139–140, 282 54: 17 140 56: 6 140 56: 10–14 140 56: 11 140 56: 14 140

1–36 (=Book of the Watchers) 23n; 24n; 154–168, 278 6: 1–2 156 6: 2 154n, 156, 156n 6: 6 171n 6–7 156 6–11 151n, 155–160, 162, 163–164, 167 7: 1 157, 165 7: 3–5 199n 7: 5 176n 8–9 78n 8: 1 164 8: 1–2 157 8: 3 164, 165 8: 3–4 156 9: 1–5 157 9: 6 157, 164, 164n 9: 7–8 157 9: 9–10 156 9: 11 157 10–11 171, 172 10: 1–5, 8 157 10: 1–14 157 10: 4 157

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

317

Source Index 10: 7 157, 158 10: 9 157, 174, 200n 10: 11–12 157 10: 15 157–158 10: 16 162n 10: 21 158 10: 22 158 11: 1–2 158 12–16 155, 159n, 160–162 12: 2, 3 154n 12: 4–6 155n 13: 1–2 163–164, 164n 15: 1–16: 1 160–162, 163 15: 1–16: 4 158n, 159n, 167–168 15: 3 160 15: 4–7 156 15: 4 160 15: 5 160 15: 6–7 160 15: 8–12 166 15: 8–16: 1 161–162 15: 11 161n, 162n 16: 2–4 163 16: 3 163–164, 164n 17–19 165n 19: 1–2 158n, 166–167, 168, 182n 21: 10 166n 37–71 (=Parables of Enoch) 42: 1–3 50n, 223n

154n

83–90 (=Dream Visions of Enoch) 85–90 (=Animal Apocalypse) 86: 1–2 166n 88: 1–2 166n 88: 2 174 88: 3 166n 89: 6 166n 98: 4 167, 167n 4 Ezra (=2 Esdras 3–14) 143, 280, 281–283 3: 1–36 130, 132 3: 7 138 3: 20 130–131 3: 20–22 130–131, 138 3: 25–26 138 3: 26 130n 3: 35 133

169n

166, 190n

51, 52n, 113, 128–

4: 4 132 4: 30 132, 138 4: 38 133 7: 11 138 7: 11–12 140–141 7: 18 133 7: 19–24 134 7: 21–24 134–135 7: 46 133 7: 47 133 7: 48 133 7: 63–69 133–134, 137 7: 68 133 7: 69 133 7: 71–72 133–134 7: 72 134–135 7: 88–99 134 7: 89 134 7: 92 130, 134 7: 118 139, 140 7: 118–120 138 7: 118–126 138 7: 119 139 7: 127 134 8: 53 134 8: 56–60 134 8: 62 132n 9: 26–10: 59 135 9: 31 131 9: 32 131–132 9: 34 ff 141n 9: 39 136n 10: 5 136n 11: 1–12: 51 128n 13 141 14: 34 134, 135 14: 34–35 141 Jannes and Jambres

223n

Jubilees 144- 146, 169–197, 280 1: 5–18 188 1: 11 182n, 183n 1: 19 187n, 197 1: 19–20 233 1: 19–21 187–192, 194n, 195–196, 214, 218n, 219, 225, 234, 237, 256, 281 1: 20 188, 219, 227n 1: 20–21 189n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

318

Source Index

1: 21 187n, 188 3: 17–25 173 3: 17–26 173n 3: 28–31 173n 4–5 170–172 4: 2–4 173 4: 5 173n 4: 15 170 4: 15–26 169n 5: 1–5 171 5: 2 171n, 172, 172n 5: 2–3 171–172 5: 6 170 5: 6–10 172 5: 9 174 5: 13 172, 172n 6: 4 172 7 173–176, 195, 205, 231 7: 20 173n, 222n 7: 20–21 174, 176 7: 20–29 173n 7: 20–33 171n, 173, 176, 177 7: 20–39 178n 7: 21 170, 174n, 177 7: 21–25 173–174 7: 22 174, 175 7: 23 176 7: 26–28 174–176 7: 26–33 174 7: 27 78, 176, 177, 183 7: 28 175n, 176 7: 29 176 7: 30–31 175 8: 3 165 9: 4 165 10 78n, 178n, 195, 202, 204, 231, 234 10: 1–2 176–177 10: 1–6 176–179 10: 1–14 181n 10: 2 177 10: 3 177, 179, 189 10: 3–6 55, 177, 178, 179 10: 6 177, 189 10: 7 179, 180n 10: 8 180, 181, 182, 183, 225, 252 10: 8–9 179–180, 197 10: 10 165, 181 10: 11 180 10: 12–13 181, 227n

10: 13 165 10: 21 171 11 182–183 11: 1–6 182n 11: 2 182 11: 2–6 183 11: 4 182 11: 5 183 11: 8 165 11: 11 183 11: 16–17 183n 11: 18–21 183 12: 16–18 193n 12: 19–21 193–195, 196, 206, 276 12: 20 193–194 12: 21 193n, 194 15: 30–32 185, 191, 192, 196, 261n 15: 31 191n, 237, 281 15: 31–32 197 15: 31–33 190n 15: 33 187, 192 17: 16 184 18: 9 184 18: 12 184 19: 28 189 19: 28–29 184 20: 5 174n 35: 9 144, 281 48: 2 183 48: 9 183 48: 12 183, 184 48: 15–18 185 48: 16–17 183, 184 48: 18 188 48: 19 185n 4 Maccabees 134–135, 137 2: 21–23 135 2: 21–3: 5 124n, 135 Psalms of Solomon 54–55, 57 3: 6–8 70n, 71 8: 9 222n 9: 4–5 54–55 13: 10 70n, 71n 16: 7–11 54 16: 9 54 16: 10 54

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Source Index Pseudo-Philo (= Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) 33: 3 134n Testament of Asher 1: 3 104n 1: 3–5 259n

Testament of Benjamin 6: 1 104n Testament of Reuben 2: 1–2 235n 2: 3–3: 2 235n

VI. Dead Sea Scrolls Qumran CD (Damascus Document) 29, 91, 218– 229, 231, 237–238, 253–256, 270, 277–279 II.2-III.16 84 II.2 83 II.2–13 83 II.4–5 83 II.7 83 II.11–12 83 II.11–13 84 II.12–13 83 II.14-III.12a 74–84, 86, 244 II.14–15 83 II.14–16 75–76 II.16 21n, 76, 81 II.16b-III.12a 76, 130–131 II.16–21 77–78 II.17 80n II.17–20 202 II.18–19 77n II.20–21 77–78, 79, 80 III.1 78 III.2–3 78–79, 80, 81 III.2–12 76, 78–82 III.3–4 78n, 79 III.5 80n III.5–6 79 III.7 81n III.10–12 79–80 III.11 80n, 81 III.11–12a 81 III.12b-18 83 III.14 84n III.14–16 83 IV-V 226n IV.12–13 221, 273

IV.12–19 220, 227 IV.13 229 IV.14–19 224, 228 IV.15 212n, 221n IV.16–17 221 IV.19-V.11 221–222 V.6–7 221n V.7–11 221n V.11–17 222–223 V.17–19 224, 231, 261 V.17-VI.3 223–224 V.19 200n V.20-VI.2 223, 227–228 V.21 224 V.21-VI.1 227 VI.1–2 224 VI.2–3 223–224 VIII.1–3 224–225 VIII.1–10 234 VIII.2 226 VIII.5 225 VIII.7–8 81–82 VIII.8 80n, 225 VIII.12 -13 225 VIII.19 80n, 82 X.8–9 114n, 138n XI.4–5 80n XII.2–3 227n XII.2–6 226–227, 229, 237 XII.3–4 228 XII.4–6 254, 255n XIII.4 246 XIII.5 38n XVI.2–4 198 XVI.2–6 186–187, 227n XIX.14–16 225 XIX.19–20 81–82

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

319

320

Source Index

XIX.20 80n XIX.32–33 82 XIX.33 80n XX.9 80n XX.9–10 82 XX.24 46n 1QIsaa Isa 63: 9

II.19 221n II.25–26 250 II.25-III.4 243–244 II.26 244 III.3 244 III.9–12 244 III.13–15 258 III.13–18 258, 266n III.13-IV.14 258n, 264n

261n

1QpHab (Pesher Habakkuk) IX.11 200n XI.12–13a 87 1Q17 (=1QJuba) b

1Q18 (=1QJub ) 1–2 3 145

169n, 198n 169n, 198n

1Q20 (=1QapGen, Genesis Apocryphon) II.1, 16 154n VI.13 154n XX.15 190n 1Q23 (=1QEnGiantsa ar) b

1Q24 (=1QEnGiants ? ar)

198n 198n

1Q28 (=1QS, Community Rule) 233, 240–248, 254–255, 277 I.6–7 86n I.16-II.19 244–245, 247, 263 I.16-II.23 239n I.17–18 240–241, 242 I.18 221n I.22–24 241 I.23–24 242 II.1–10 241 II.2 245 II.2–4 241n II.4–5 245 II.4–18 268 II.5–9 243 II.6–9 250 II.8–9 241n, 249n II.11–17 241 II.11–18 263 II.11–19 242 II.15–17 250 II.16 249 II.16–17 245 II.17 246–247

29, 92n,

III.13-IV.26 (Treatise of the Two Spirits) 23n, 124n, 129n, 217, 257–274 III.15–16 258 III.17–18 258 III.17–26 259n III.18–25 258–262, 263, 264–265, 269–270 III.20 260 III.21–22 260 III.23 260, 279 III.23–25 260n III.24 260 III.25-IV.1 264, 266 III.25-IV.14 264–266 IV.2–14 264 IV.3 265 IV.5 271n IV.6 166n, 265 IV.6–8 265 IV.9–14 265 IV.11–12 267 IV.15–17 266 IV.15–18 269n IV.15–23 266–268 IV.16 267 IV.17–19 266–267 IV.17–23 266 IV.18–19 267 IV.20–21 204n, 267–268 IV.20–23 267 IV.22 268 IV.23–26 268–269 IV.26 46n, 246 V-IX 260, 271n V.1 85 V.1-VI.23 84–91 V.3 246n V.3–4 271n V.4 85

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Source Index V.4–5 86–87, 89 V.4–6 87–88 V.5 90 V.7 200n V.10–12 90 V.10–13 88–89, 90 V.11–12 91 V.25-VI.1 88, 90 VI.16–22 246 VII.16–17 228n VIII.2 271n IX.7 246n IX.12–26 271n X.9-XI.22 (Hymn of Praise) X.21 70–71n X.21–22 220n XI.3 68 XI.9–11 69 XI.11–15 69–70 XI.13 70 XI.21 71n XI.21–22 235n

59, 68–71

Q28a (=1QSa, Rule of the Congregation) I.16 246n 1Q28b (=1QSb) IV.26 247n 1Q33 (=1QM, War Scroll) 256, 270 I.1 233 I.1–2 232 I.2 233 I.5–6 233 I.11 233 I.13 233 II-IX 232n III.14 261n IV.1–2 233 IV.3–4 240n IV.8–9 233 XII.12 235 XIII.1–6 233–234, 235n XIII.1–16 233 XIII.2 233, 239 XIII.3 234 XIII.4 233, 237 XIII.4–6 234

232–238, 254–

321

XIII.5 233 XIII.10 261 XIII.10–11 236–237, 255 XIII.10–12 234–235 XIII.11 186n, 255 XIII.11–12 233, 239 XIII.13–16 235n XIV.8–11 236–237 XIV.9 221n, 233, 237 XV.2–3 233 XV.9–10 235 XV-XIX 232n XVII.4 235 XVII.5–6 233 XVII.6–7 235, 255 XVIII.1 221n, 233 1Q34 (=1QHa , Hodayot; numbering follows DJD 40) 59–68, 71, 84, 270 IV.33–34 64–65, 66 IV.33–35 64–65 IV.37 60n, 204n V.15, 30, 33 60n V.31–34 62 VII.25 60n VII.25–27 67–68 VII.26 46n VII.27–30 66–67 VII.31–32 67 VII.34 60n VIII.24 39n IX.11 39n IX.23 60n IX.23–25 60–62 IX.24 46n IX.32 39n X.18–19 65 XI.19–22 66 XI.28 230 XI.29 218n XI.30, 33 218n XII.30 60n XII.36 39n XIII 99n XIII.7–11 65–66 XIII.11–12 65 XIII.28 39n XIII.30 204n XIV.32 76n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

322

Source Index

XV 23n XV.7 204n XVI.27 39n XVII.6 39n XVII.12 39n XVII.16 63 XVIII.25 60n XIX.6 60n XIX.13–17 63 XX.29 60n XX.35 60n XXI.7, 9, 23 60n XXII.6 39n XXII.12 60n XXIII.13 60n XXIV.10 60n XXIV.14 60n XXIV.16 200n XXIV.26 200n XXIV.29 60n XXIV.33–34 191n XXV.12 60n XXVI.35 60n

1–2 i.2, 12, 15, 19 252n 1 ii, 3 1–2 252n 4 3–5 252n 4Q176 (=4QTanḥ ) 19–21 198n 16 3 246n 4Q177 (=4QCatena A, 4QMidrEschatb) 1–4 8 221n 10–11 4, 7 253 12–13 i.7 253

253

4Q180 (=4QAgesCreat A) 1 1 199n 4Q181 (=4QAgesCreat B) 1 ii.4–5 246n 4Q184 (=4QWisda) 114n 4Q186 (=4QHoroscope) 4Q201 (=4QEna ar)

155n, 198n

b

4Q202 (=4QEn ar)

b

1Q35 (=1QHodayot ) 1 9–12 43n

59

23n

155n, 198n

4Q203 (=4QEnGiantsa ar) 4Q204–206 (=4QEn

c-e

198n

ar)

155n, 198n

1Q36 (=1QHymns) 2 206n 14 2 204n, 206n 16 206n

4Q213a (=4QLevib ar; see also Pseudepigrapha: Aramaic Levi Document) 207, 210–217

2Q18 (=2QSir)

4Q216–224 (=4QJuba-h)

94n a-b

2Q19–20 (=2QJub )

169n, 198n

2Q26 (=2QEnGiants ar) 3Q5 (=3QJub)

198n

169n, 198n

b

4Q2 (=4QGen ) 3 i.6–7 235n 4Q37 (=4QDeutj) 261n XII.14 191 4Q169 (=4QpNah)

169n, 198n h

4Q223–224 (=4QpapJub ) 2 i.49 145 2 ii.4, 13 80n 4Q225 (=4QpsJuba) 2 i.10 184n 2 ii.5–7 184n 2 ii.14 184n 4Q227 (=4QpsJubc) 2 6 154n

219n

4Q228 (=4QcitJub)

4Q171 (=4QpPsa) 1–10 ii.9–12 222

198n

4Q230 (=4QCatalogue of Spiritsa)

4Q174 (=4QFlorilegium) 1–2 i, 21 7–9 251

251–253

4Q256 (=4QSb) IX.4 85

68n, 85–86, 90

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

193n

323

Source Index 4Q257 (=4QpapSc) V-VI 257 4Q258 (=4QSd) I.4 85

68n, 85–86, 90

4Q259 (=4QSe)

68n

4Q260 (=4QSf)

68n

j

4Q264 (=4QS )

68n

a

4Q266 (=4QD ) 2 ii-iii 75n 2 ii.18 77n 3 ii.5–6 261n 5 ii.11 80n 6 i.12 205n 11 1 80n 11 10–11 83–84, 131 b

4Q267 (=4QD ) 2 1–2 261n

7a ii.1–6 239–240 7a ii.2 249n, 250 7a ii.11–12 249n 7a ii, b-d 252n 4Q287 (=4QBerakhotb) 6 239 4Q290 (=4QBerakhote) 2 221n 4Q306 (=4QMen of the People Who Err) 1 1, 2 4. 50n, 223n 4Q385 (=4QpsEzeka) 2 7 46n 4Q385a (=4QapocJer Ca) 4Q387 (=4QJer Cb) 231n 2 iii.3–5 229 4Q388 (=4QpsEzekd) 7 ii.5–6 229

d

4Q269 (=4QD ) 2 75n 7 2 205n

229, 231n

4Q389 (=4QJer Cd)

231n

229

4Q270 (=4QDe) 1 i 75n 2 ii.12 38n 2 ii.13–14 227n 7 i.16 80n

4Q390 (=4QapocrJer Ce, Apocryphon of Jeremiah) 229, 231n 1 10–11 230 2 i.3–7 230, 234 2 i.4 221n, 230

4Q271 (=4QDf) 5 i.1 80n

4Q393 (=4QCommunal Confession) 58 1 ii-2 4–6 53 3 3–5 53

4Q272 (=4QDg) 1 i.3, 6a 205n 1 ii.1 46n, 205n 4Q274 (=4QTohorot A) 1 i.4 38n 4Q279 (=4QFour Lots) 5 5 46n 4Q280 (=4QCurses) 233, 234, 248–251, 253–255, 261n, 270 2 1 249n, 250 2 2–7 249–251 4Q286–290 (=4QBerakhota-e) 239–240 4Q286 (=4QBerakhota)

4Q397 (=4QMMTd) IV.7–8 221n IV.12 50n 4Q398 (=4QMMTe) 14–17 i.5 50n 4Q401 (=4QShirShabbb) 11 3 248n 22 3 248n 4QInstruction

63, 273–274

4Q416 (=4QInstructionb) 2 iv.8–9 80n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

52–54,

324

Source Index

4Q418 (=4QInstructiond) 10a-b 9–10 80n 81 5 246n 126 ii.8 46n

4Q491 (=4QMa) 232n 8–10 i.6 221n 4Q492 (=4QMb) 232n 4Q493 (=4QMc) 232n

4Q424 (=4QInstruction-like Work) 3 2 200n

4Q494 (=4QMd)

b

4Q428 (=4QH ) 10 5 43n 4Q429 (=4QHc)

4Q495 (=4QMe)

232n 232n f

4Q496 (=4QpapM ) 232n 99n

4Q434–438 (=4QBarkhi Nafshia-e) 49, 52, 58, 211–212, 270

42–48,

4Q504–506 (=4QDibHama-c, Words of the Luminaries) 49–52, 58

4Q434 (=4QBarkhi Nafshia) 1 i.2–4 42

4Q504 (=4QDibHama) 1+2 ii recto 50 1+2 ii recto 13–16 50–51, 131 4 5–7, 10–11 49 4 12–13 49–50 8 verso 49n

4Q435 (=4QBarkhi Nafshib) 2 i.1–5 44 2 i.4–5 265, 267 4Q436 (=4QBarkhi Nafshic) 1 i.10 46–47 1 i-ii 47 1 ia,b.5b-6 43, 51 1 ia,b.10-ii.4 44 1 ii.1 47 1 ii.2–4 265, 267

4Q506 (=4QpapDibHamc) 131–132 11–14 49 4Q510–511 (Songs of the Sage) 215–217 4Q510 (=4QShira) 1 3, 4 201 1 4–8 202–204 1 7–8 216

4Q437 (=4QBarkhi Nafshid) 4 47 4Q438 (=4QBarkhi Nafshie) 4a ii 47 4a ii.6 48 4Q444 (=4QIncantation) 206, 207, 215–217 1–4 i.3 267n 1–4 i.1–4 51n, 204–205 1–4 i.7 216 1–4 i.8 205

4Q497 (=4QpapWar Scroll-like Text A) 232n

131, 200n, 204–

4Q468i (=4QSectarian Text) 2–3, 2 50n 4Q471 (=4QWar Scroll-like Text B)

232n

4Q477 (=4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer) 2 ii.4 46n

4Q511 (=4QShirb) 131 2 i.1 201n 8 4 201 28–29 3–4 201 28–29 4 204n 35 6–8 204, 216 48–49+51 ii.1–6 201 48–49+51 ii.2–6 51n 48–49+51 ii.3–4 204n 63–64 iii.4 200n 4Q513 (=4QOrdinancesb) 4 228n 4Q525 (=4QBeatitudes) 13 4 204n 25 2 252n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

201–206,

325

Source Index 4Q530–533 (=4QEnGiantsb-e ar)

198n

4Q531 (=4QEnGiantsc) 19 2–5 198–199 4Q532 (=4QEnGiantsd) 2 9–10 199 4Q543–549 (=Visions of Amrama-g ar) 262–263 a

4Q543 (=4QVisions of Amram ar) 5–9 3–4 263 4Q544 (=4QVision of Amramb ar) 1 9b-15 262n 1 12 263 2 iii.13 248n 2 11–16 263 e

4Q547 (=4QVision of Amram ar) 1–2 12 263 4Q560 (=4QExorcism ar) 1 i.4 210n 6Q8 (=6QpapEnGiants ar) 11Q5 (=11QPsa) XIX (Plea for Deliverance) 215–217 XIX.9–11 208 XIX.13–14 209, 214 XIX.13–17 208 XIX.15 212 XIX.15–16 209 XXI.11-XXII.1 94n

198n 65, 207–213,

XXIV (Syriac Psalm 155) 52, 58, 131, 202n XXIV.8–9 38 XXIV.10 38 XXIV.11–13a 38 XXIV.14b 39 XXIV.16 39–40 11Q11 (=11QapocPs) iii.4 206n iv.1 206n v.5–8 207 vi.3 240n, 252 11Q12 (=11QJub) 7 3 171n

38–42, 43, 48, 49,

200, 206–207

169n, 198n

11Q13 (=11QMelchizedek) ii.8 253, 261n ii.9 253 ii.12 253

248n

11Q19 (=11QTa, Temple Scroll) XLVIII.15 38n XLIX.4 38n LV.3 252n LVIII.4 38n LIX.13–14 91n LIX.20 80n Other Locations 5/6 Ḥ ev7 (=papDeed of Gift)

213

Mur19 (=papWrit of Divorce) 17–18 213–214

VII. Hellenistic Jewish Authors Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae (A.J.) 2.211 55

De Fuga et Inventione (Fug.) 68–72 121, 123n 79–80 120

Philo of Alexandria De Confusione Linguarum (Conf.) 168–183 121 179 123

De Mutatione Nominum (Mut.) 30–32 121 49 122–123 183–185 122 239–240 116n

De Ebrietate (Ebr.) 125–126 126

De Opificio Mundi (Opif.) 72–75 121

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

326

Source Index 2.32 116n 2.6 123n 3.75–76 125n 3.88 125n 4 125, 127

134 122n 136–138 122n 154 123n 155 123 De Praemiis et Poenis (Praem.) 63 124 119–123 122n

Quaestiones in Exodum (QE) 1.23 124n

De Providentia (Prov.) 2.82 119, 126

Quis rerum divinarum Heres sit (Her.) 295 122

De Specialibus Legibus (Spec.) 1.329 121n

Quod Deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.) 122 96n, 120–121

De Vita Mosis (Mos.) 2.147 123

Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Deus) 49–50 124 50 125

Legum Allegoriae (Leg.)

VIII. Classical Works Aristotle

Timaeus 41a 121n 42e 121n

Metaphysics 986a21–26 112 986a31 ff 112n

Xenophanes Cicero On Fate 42–43

Frag. 1

57

97n

Others Golden Verses of Pythagoras 223n

Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus

50–51, 56,

50–51, 56, 96n, 223n Hymn to Demeter

Plato De Legibus 716a-b 57, 223n

50–51, 56, 223n

Orphic Fragments (ed. Bernabé) 337 50–51, 56–57, 223n 396.14–15 50–51, 56–57, 223n

IX. Zoroastrian Literature Yasna 30: 3 273 30: 3–8 271–272 45: 2 272

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

327

Source Index

X. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah

Midrash

’Abot 3: 1 62n 4: 1 116n

Berešit Rabbati (ed. Albeck) 6: 2, 9–31 78n

Berakot 9: 5 21n, 87n

Deuteronomy Rabbah 8.1 236n 11.10 78n

Ḥ ulin 6: 1 175n

Deuteronomy Rabbah (ed. Lieberman) Va’etḥ anan, 70 87n

Tosefta

Genesis Rabbah (ed. Theodor and Albeck) 22 (4: 7) 235n 97 (49: 8) 236n

Berakot 6: 7 21n

Leviticus Rabbah 10.5 236n Midrash Tehillim (ed. Buber) 104.27 267n

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 10a 267n 16b 39n 17a 39n, 45 60b 39n

Pesiqta Rabbati 34 77–78n, 199n 47 236n

Šabbat 64a 115n

Sifre Deuteronomy 32 21n, 87n 45 52n, 100n, 131n, 235n, 280–281

Sukkah 52b 39n Qiddušin 30b 39n, 46n, 52n, 100n, 131n, 235n, 280– 281 Baba Batra 16a 21n, 52n, 100n, 131n, 133n, 280–281 Menaḥ ot 85a 223n

Song Rabbah 1: 2.4 131n, 134n 4: 4.3 115n 7: 11 235n Tanḥ uma Berešit 9 236n Tanḥ uma (ed. Buber) Berešit 25 236n Ki Tiśa 13 134n

XI. Medieval and Early Modern Jewish Sources Ibn Ezra Comm. to Ps 51: 11–12 189n

Raabad Comm. to Laws of Repentance 5: 5

Maimonides Laws of Repentance 5: 5

Radaq Comm. to Ps 51: 11–12

258n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

189n

258n

328

Source Index

Rashi Comm. to Ps 51: 11–12 189n

Schneur Zalman of Liadi Liqutei Amarim (Tanya), 28 116n

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Subject Index Aaron 109n, 223, 224, 254, 261 Abram/Abraham 78–80, 183, 184,185, 190n, 197 Blessing of 184–185, 186, 187, 188, 189,192, 196, 197 Prayer of 192–195, 196, 206, 209, 276 Adam 138–143 Sin of; see also Original Sin 23, 123, 128, 138–141, 143, 173, 278, 281–282 Amram 55, 262–263 “Angel of Darkness” 217, 258n, 259–261, 263, 264, 268, 270, 271 “Angel of Hostility”; see also Mastema 186, 190n, 229–231, 237, 255 Anthropology, Theological 22 Aristotle 96, 112, 121n ‘Aśā’el 157–158, 164, 166n Atonement 70n, 71, 87 Augustine 22, 24 Aza 78n, 199n Azael 78n, 199n Azazel 199, 247 Belial 28, 31, 149, 184n, 186–190, 192, 196, 197, 214, 218–256, 270, 273, 274, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283 Dominion of 189n, 221, 229–231, 240– 241, 242–243, 252, 253, 254, 260, 273, 279 Sons of/Children of 187, 192, 218n, 240, 242, 248, 251–252 Traps of 220–226, 253 Blood, Consumption of 83–84n, 174–176, 182, 183, 195 bly‘l /bĕlīya‘al 28, 70n, 192, 218–219, 220n, 221, 230, 231, 240n bny h’lhym/bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm (“sons of God”) 77, 151–154, 159, 161n, 170, 191 Cain 235–236 Choice; see Free Will/ Freedom of Choice Chrysippus’ Cylinder 97n, 102n, 112n Circumcision 43, 45, 49, 87–88, 90, 187, 192

Cleanthes 51, 56, 145n Commandments, Hidden 83, 84 Community Rule, Redaction of 84–90 Covenantal Texts 74–92, 220–226, 240– 248, 255, 277 Approach to Sin 27, 31, 74–92, 244, 255, 277 Definition of 74 Experiential Aspect of 92, 248, 277 Curses, Liturgical 233, 234, 239–243, 248, 250, 254, 277 Demons 24, 30, 55, 56, 149, 154n, 166, 176, 177, 180, 181, 185, 186, 189, 190–197, 203, 206, 207, 215, 217, 218, 219, 224, 226, 239, 240, 248, 249, 250, 277, 279, 283 Influence of 23, 24, 31, 51, 65, 149, 158, 159, 167, 169, 175m, 177–217, 236, 239–252, 268, 275, 277, 278–281 Internalized View of 206, 275–276 Rule of 189–196, 213, 280, 281 Determinism 22n, 25, 26, 30, 64, 67, 69–73, 95, 96, 111n, 113, 255, 274 And Divine Omniscience 258 In Hellenistic Thought 96–97 In Stoic Thought 96, 97n, 102n, 111n diaboulion 102–105 Distancing God from Sin 105, 119, 121, 126, 139, 170, 278 Divination 157, 164, 165 Divine Assistance against Sin 38, 39n, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66–71, 72, 117, 142, 177, 179, 189, 195, 199, 276, 278 Divine Court And bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm 151n Belial as Member of 188, 189, 196, 219 Mastema as Member of 180–181, 192, 195, 197, 202 Doctrine of Opposites 110–112, 118, 278 Dualism 22n, 25, 110–113, 124n, 150, 192, 196, 215–219, 224, 235, 237, 249, 253255, 259- 266, 269, 270, 274

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

330

Subject Index

Election 30, 59, 64–65, 66–68, 68–69, 70–71, 72, 108–112, 118, 126, 276, 279 And Predestination 30, 67n In Ben Sira 108–112, 118 In Philo 126 In Sectarian Prayer 59, 64–65, 68–69, 71, 72, 276, 279 Enochic Judaism 23n, 24 Esau 144–145, 281 Eschaton 141, 216, 221, 226, 231, 233, 237, 240, 251, 252, 254, 260, 266–270, 279 Essenes 31–32 Eve, Sin of; see also Adam, Sin of and Original Sin 34n, 113–114, 118, 123, 139, 140n, 173, 278, 281–282 Evil Natural vs. Moral 26, 27, 119, 122, 181, 184, 186 Periodization of 204, 240, 254, 260, 273, 278–279 “Evil Heart” 129–135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 282 Evil Inclination; see also yṣ r and yṣ r hr‘ 19– 22, 46–48, 58, 123, 129, 130n, 138–139, 141–142, 144, 189n, 193, 277, 280–281, 282, 283 And Dualism 20, 124n Rabbinic View of 20–21, 39n, 64, 115, 124n, 235, 280 Evil, Natural 163, 167, 181, 183 Exorcism/Expulsion of Demonic Spirits 24, 194n, 200n, 201–202 Fate 30 Flesh/bśr 60–63, 162n Pauline Dichotomy with Spirit 22, 63 Flood, The 157–159, 166, 172 Free Will/Freedom of Choice 22n, 25, 26, 54–56, 72, 74, 85, 81–83, 87, 88–92, 95, 104–105, 118, 124–127, 128, 140- 142, 149, 150, 176, 195, 237, 244, 255, 258n, 274, 277, 278 g‘r (Rebuke) 46–47 Gender in Second Temple Works 32 Gentiles 144–146, 184, 188, 190- 192, 196, 197, 238, 255, 281 Giants 153, 156, 157, 159, 160–162, 166, 167, 172, 174n, 198, 199 Gospels 23n, 24 gwrl; see Lot/gwrl

hpṣ (Desire, Want) 104 Human Helplessness against Sin 52, 56, 58, 61–62, 69, 92, 117–118, 178–179, 195, 275, 276 Human Nature, Pessimistic View of 43–44, 45, 47, 52, 61–63, 68, 71, 115, 120, 121, 126, 142 Idol Worship 166, 182, 183n, 195 Incantations, Definition of 200n Isaac, Binding of 180n, 184, 185n Knowledge, Forbidden 157, 158–159, 160n, 163–167 Of Magic 157, 164, 165 Lamashtu/Pashittu 180 Law, Importance of 43, 51–52, 116–118, 131–133, 137, 141, 142, 174–176, 195, 205, 216, 278, 280–281 Lot/gwrl 54n, 239–240, 241–248, 255, 269, 277 Luther 22 “Masochistic Sublime” 56n, 61, 72 Mastema 31, 149, 179, 180–187, 192, 195– 197, 201, 219, 225, 227n, 229, 230, 234, 237, 255, 256, 278 Melki-reša 233, 248–254, 255, 261n, 263, 270 Melki-ṣ edeq 248, 249, 253, 255, 261n, 263, 270 Michael (Angel) 235, 237, 255, 270 Moses 183, 185, 187–192, 196, 197, 223, 224, 261 Prayer of 187–192, 196, 197, 215, 281 Něpīlîm 77n, 153, 161, 174, 178n, 206n Noah 55, 173–179, 181, 186, 192, 195, 197, 215n Prayer of 55, 177–179, 186, 187, 188, 189, 197 Noahide Injunctions 173–176, 175n Original Sin 23, 113–114, 138–141, 143, 173n, 278, 281–282 Pauline Thought 22, 28, 63, 64n, 132, 143, 280, 282 Persian Influence 271–273, 279 Pharisees 223n, 225n Philosophy of Action 27 Plato 57, 96, 121, 123, 125n, 223n Prayer 37–73, 198–217, 275–276 Apotropaic 27, 51, 56, 65–66, 131, 150,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Subject Index 178, 186, 189, 193, 194, 196, 198–217, 240, 253, 267, 276, 278, 279 Embedded in Narrative 55–56, 72–73, 276 Experiential Aspect 55, 58, 72, 92, 276 Genre and Approach to Sin 27, 31, 55, 60, 92, 115, 126, 275–276 Hellenistic 56–57 Hittite 56 Mesopotamian 56 Nonsectarian 37–55, 57–58, 72–73, 215, 216 Sectarian 59–73, 179, 201, 202, 206, 215, 216, 240, 276 Predestination 22n, 30, 66–68, 71–72, 73, 82, 83, 84, 108, 236, 263, 264, 266, 268 “Prince of Light” 217, 223, 235, 237, 254, 258n, 259–264, 270, 271 psyche 102n Purification from Sin 40–42, 62–64, 70, 208–209, 212, 268, 276 Pythagorean Influence 112–113, 278 Qumran Community, Identity of 24, 3132 Responsibility, Human 48, 52, 54, 58, 91, 104, 105, 136, 140, 141, 142, 245, 277, 278 rṣ wn/ rāṣ ôn (Will) 77–81, 277 Semantic Range of 80 Satan/śāṭ ān 21n, 46, 47–48, 180, 182, 184, 186n, 188, 192, 209, 210n Šemiḥ aza 156, 157, 158, 160n, 164, 166n Sin And the Gentile 144–146, 189–190, 191–192, 196, 197, 238, 255, 281 And the Nonmember 88–90, 91, 92, 221–225, 226, 231, 237, 238, 240, 243– 245, 247–248, 277, 280 Anthropology of 22 As Disease/Affliction 38- 44, 51, 58, 131, 275 As Foolishness/Lack of Wisdom 50–51, 56–57, 96n, 145, 222–223, 224, 227, 231, 238, 277 As Impurity 40–41 Definition of 26–27

331

In Christian Theology 22–23 Internal Experience of 44, 49, 58, 88, 196, 201, 206, 209, 215, 268, 269, 274, 276 Physicality of 59–61, 68–72 “Sons of God”; see bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm Spirit/rwḥ 63, 162n, 193n And Persian Terminology 46n Pauline Dichotomy with Flesh 22, 63 Semantic Range 46n Spirits, Evil 162, 166, 168, 169, 177–184, 188, 190n, 192, 194, 195, 197, 200–209, 226n, 231, 235–237, 240, 252, 260, 281 šryrwt lb (Stubbornness) 78, 80–82, 85–86, 243–244 Stoic Thought 96–97, 111–112, 145n Theodicy 93, 97, 99, 137 Definition of 93 Torah Study, Defense against Sin 39n, 51– 52, 131–137, 141, 195, 280 Watchers 31, 76–78, 144, 149, 151–168, 170–176, 177–178, 180–181, 191, 195– 197, 198–207, 253, 278 Wicked Priest, The 87 Will; see rṣ wn Wife, Wicked 113–114, 118, 281 Wisdom Texts and Approach to Sin 27, 31, 50–51, 93–127, 128–142, 274, 278 Xenophanes 57, 119–120n yṣ r/yēṣ er 19, 20, 21–22, 44, 46–47, 58, 65– 66, 76n, 86–87, 98–105, 114–115n, 115, 116, 121, 145, 193, 281 Biblical Meaning of 47, 86, 193 Demonic Influences and 21–22n, 193– 194 In Ben Sira 98–105, 114–115n, 115, 116 Rabbinic View of 19–20, 21n, 46, 99, 100 Terminological Studies of 20 yṣ r bśr 60 yṣ r ḥ mr 60, 61 yṣ r r‘/yēṣ er hārā‘; see also Evil Inclination 19–21, 46–48, 99–100 Zoroastrian Influence; see Persian Influence

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Recommended Further Reading...

Ruth Sander / Kerstin Mayerhofer

Retrograde Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary Das Wörterbuch aktualisiert Kuhns Arbeit von 1958. Enthalten ist der Wortschatz aller hebräischen und aramäischen Texte auf Schriftrollen und Inschriften aus Palästina bis 135 n.Chr. sowie der der ElephantinePapyri einschließlich der Achikar-Sprüche. Dieses Wörterbuch dient der Rekonstruktion einzelner Fragmente von Schriftrollen und Inschriften. Während der Arbeit mit unvollständig erhaltenen Quellen stellt sich die Frage, wie verderbte Textstellen zu ergänzen sind. Ist von einem Wort nur der letzte Teil erhalten, kann es mit Hilfe der alphabetisch rückläufig angeordneten Lemmalisten ergänzt werden. Enthalten ist der Wortschatz aller hebräischen und aramäischen Texte auf Schriftrollen und Inschriften aus Palästina bis 135 n.Chr. sowie der Elephantine-Papyri einschließlich der Achikar-Sprüche.

Armin Lange / Eric M. Meyers / Bennie H. Reynolds III / Randall G. Styers (Ed.)

Light Against Darkness Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World Light Against Darkness is comprised of articles that put on display the power and pervasiveness of dualistic thought. Dualism has proved a potent cultural tool for clarifying reality. Particularly in times of social stress and insecurity, it can offer a conceptual grid that provides orientation to the world and a clear sense of identity. At the same time, though, there are important questions to be asked about the social effects of binary thinking. As history illustrates, dualistic notions can be deployed to rationalize violence. At a deeper level, a dualist worldview can also obscure the possibilities to be found in multiplicity.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Recommended Further Reading...

Albert I. Baumgarten / Hanan Eshel / Ranon Katzoff / Shani Tzoref (Ed.)

Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy The contributors examine diversity in halakhic positions, in terms of both exegesis and practice. They explore evidence of halakhic development over the course of the Second Temple period, and of halakhic variety among different groups. Epigraphic finds, here interpreted broadly to include papyri, scrolls, and the like, have immeasurably enriched our knowledge of the ancient Jewish past while at the same time posing a challenge to modern scholarship: How does one integrate old knowledge, based on previously known sources, with new information? This volume examines diversity in halakhic positions, in terms of both exegesis and practice. It explores evidence of halakhic development over the course of the Second Temple period, and of halakhic variety among different groups and it examines a variety of epigraphic sources.

Saul M. Olyan

Social Inequality in the World of the Text The Significance of Ritual and Social Distinctions in the Hebrew Bible This volume presents a selection of fifteen essays on social inequalities in the Hebrew Bible dealing with e.g. social status, gender, sexuality, disability, holiness, death and afterlife. All the essays in this collection reflect in some manner the author’s ongoing interest in literary operations of classification and their social implications, particularly the production of distinctions which create social inequality in the world of the text, and have the potential to generate hierarchical social relationships in contexts where biblical texts might have had an impact on real people. The author introduces each of the sections, contextualizing every essay in his larger scholarly project, reflecting on its development and reception and, in some cases, responding to his critics.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements Vol. 11: Rainer Albertz / Jakob Wöhrle (Ed.)

Between Cooperation and Hostility Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers 2013. 280 pages incl. 16 illustrations, hardcover ISBN 978-3-525-55051-9 E-Book ISBN 978-3-647-55051-0

The question of why the cooperation of Jews with the Persian and Ptolemaic empires achieved some success and why it failed with regard to the Seleucids and the Romans, even turning into military hostility against them, has not been sufficiently answered. The present volume intends to show, from the perspectives of Hebrew Bible, Judaic, and Ancient History Studies, that the contrasting Jewish attitudes towards foreign powers were not only dependent on specific political circumstances. They were also interrelated with the emergence of multiple early Jewish identities, which all found a basis in the Torah, the prophets, or the psalms.

Vol. 8: Bennie H. Reynolds III

Between Symbolism and Realism The Use of Symbolic and NonSymbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333-63 B.C.E. 2011. 421 pages incl. 14 tables, hardcover ISBN 978-3-525-55035-9 E-Book ISBN 978-3-647-55035-0

Reynolds analyzes of the language (poetics) of ancient Jewish historical apocalypses. The primary methodologies for this study are linguistic- and motif-historical analysis and the theoretical framework is informed by a wide range of ancient and modern thinkers from Artemidorus of Daldis, Ferdinand de Saussure to Leo Oppenheim and Umberto Eco. The most basic contention of this work is that the data now available from the Dead Sea Scrolls significantly alter how one should conceive of the genre apocalypse in the Hellenistic Period. This basic contention is borne out by five primary conclusions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071

Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements

Vol. 7: Geoffrey P. Miller The Ways of a King Legal and Political Ideas in the Bible Translation by Liliane Meilinger. With a foreword by Shulamit Volkov. 2011. 296 pages, hardcover ISBN 978-3-525-55034-2 E-Book ISBN 978-3-647-55034-3

Geoffrey P. Miller argues that the history of the Israelite people from Genesis to 2 Kings contains a wellorganized, cogent, and comprehensive set of ideas about political obligation and governmental design. The Bible explores these issues, not through discursive analysis in the style of Greek philosophy, but rather through careful management of the narrative frame. In this sense the Bible can be considered as one of the earliest political philosophies of the western world.

Vol. 5: Matthias Weigold /

Armin Lange Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature 2011. 384 pages, hardcover ISBN 978-3-525-55028-1 E-Book ISBN 978-3-647-55028-2

Using new search capabilities of electronic databases this volume presents a comprehensive list of allusions to and quotations of the books collected in the Hebrew Bible in the Jewish literature from the Second Temple period. It is therefore an indispensable tool for everyone interested in ancient Judaism, the Hebrew Bible and its reception.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525354070 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647354071