The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014 9789004349797, 9004349790

Citation preview

The Prophetic Voice at Qumran

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke

Associate Editors Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

volume 120

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

The Prophetic Voice at Qumran The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014

Edited by

Donald W. Parry Stephen D. Ricks Andrew C. Skinner

leiden | boston

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014 : Salt Lake City, Utah), author. | Parry, Donald W., editor. | Ricks, Stephen David, editor. | Skinner, Andrew C., 1951- editor. Title: The prophetic voice at Qumran : the Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11-12 April 2014 / edited by Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, Andrew C. Skinner. Description: leiden ; boston : brill, 2017. | Series: Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, issn 0169-9962 ; volume 120 | “The conference at the Leonardo Museum, was held in connection with their Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit entitled, “Dead Sea Scrolls: Life and Faith in Biblical Times,” November 22, 2013 through April 27, 2014.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2017022635 (print) | lccn 2017031398 (ebook) | isbn 9789004349797 (E-book) | isbn 9789004349780 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Dead Sea scrolls–Congresses. | Prophecy in literature–Congresses. | Prophecy–Judaism–Early works to 1800–Congresses. Classification: lcc bm487 (ebook) | lcc bm487 .l46 2014 (print) | ddc 296.1/55–dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017022635

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9962 isbn 978-90-04-34978-0 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-34979-7 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Introduction

1

The Prophetic Voice in the Qumran Pesharim Ida Fröhlich

4

Priestly Divination and Illuminating Stones in Second Temple Judaism Matthew J. Grey

21

Exegete as Prophet? Qumran Methods of Receiving Revelation for Pesher Interpretation 58 David Joseph Larsen Artificial Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) Donald W. Parry

83

The Word of the lord and the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts 97 Dana M. Pike False Prophets as a Construction of Authority at Qumran Joshua M. Sears Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative? Emanuel Tov The Prophet Isaiah At Qumran Eugene Ulrich Jubilees as Prophetic History James C. VanderKam Index of Ancient Sources Index of Subjects 203

189

144

167

128

115

Introduction Contrary to the generally held view, the Second Temple Era was not a time of prophetic dormancy, but of genuine activity, though of a different character than that of the pre-exilic age. The conference on “The Prophetic Voice at Qumran,” held 11–12 April 2014 at the Leonardo Museum in Salt Lake City, Utah, provided a venue for lively discussions of many of the issues connected with the question of prophecy and prophetic writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple texts. Three of the scholars—Emanuel Tov, Eugene Ulrich, and James C. VanderKam—were featured as keynote speakers and were also honored for their lifetime work in studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls. An even dozen scholars made presentations at the conference, of which nine are published in the present volume. We believe that each contribution, rigorously reviewed at numerous levels, reflects the high standards set by scholars working in the field of Second Temple literature. We have made an effort to allow the authors to speak for themselves and to retain their individual voices. The conference at the Leonardo Museum, was held in connection with their Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit entitled, “Dead Sea Scrolls: Life and Faith in Biblical Times,” November 22, 2013 through April 27, 2014. In addition to the conference, the museum hosted several academic lectures during the term of the exhibit. Many of the presentations at the conference dealt with the issue of prophecy in the Second Temple Era and at Qumran. David J. Larsen, in his essay on the “Exegete as Prophet? Qumran Methods of Receiving Revelation for Pesher Interpretation” expresses that “from textual indications in the various pesharim … the interpreter saw himself as, essentially, employing the gift of prophecy. He did so in imitation of the biblical oracles, in order to provide the proper understanding of the biblical text.” In his essay, Dana S. Pike concedes that there is a tradition of prophecy and prophetic inspiration at Qumran, but notes that it is of a very different sort than prophecy in earlier eras: “Specifically, I caution against claiming ‘prophets’ and ‘prophecy’ at Qumran without major qualifications, preferring to use other terms that more accurately describe their identity. Despite a recent trend to see the Teacher of Righteousness as a prophet figure for the community, I do not view the Teacher’s Spirit-based interpretation and application of earlier prophetic texts as synonymous with being a prophet or pronouncing prophecy.” He then explains why. Ida Fröhlich looks at “pesharim” (a type of inspired biblical interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and concludes that “the purpose of the Qumran pesharim—at least the pur-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_002

2

introduction

pose of those where references to historical events can be detected—appears to have been delegitimating the Hasmonean dynasty when evoking their sins related with the cult and religious practice, as well as social and economic life.” In his penetrating essay, “Priestly Divination and Illuminating Stones in Second Temple Judaism,” Matthew Grey discusses a plausible scenario for the presence of Urim and Thummim and other oracular paraphernalia at Qumran, and observes that “the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Qumran community saw the illuminating stones as emblematic of the sect’s leadership and its ability to mediate the divine realm.” Other presentations explore issues dealing with prophetic texts at Qumran. Emanuel Tov, in his illuminating essay, “Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative?” explores the issue of authority in scripture and considers criteria for determining scriptural authority. Eugene Ulrich writes about the great popularity of the book of Isaiah, “indicated by the number of copies found in the caves, by the textual developments in the book, by the citation from Isaiah that the group used to express its self-identity, by the explicit statement that God had spoken through Isaiah, by the number of commentaries composed on the book, and by the frequent employment of quotations from the book in the writings produced by that covenant community.” Donald Parry examines possible artificial forms in 1QIsaa: “I will deal with two categories of artificial forms; the first is a ‘word’ that features two or more morphological units, where the stem or one of the inflective components is irregular or artificial … The second category is a ‘word’ that consists of two morphological units, one from Standard Biblical Hebrew and the other from Aramaic.” In “Jubilees as Prophetic History,” James VanderKam insightfully writes: “So, the Book of Jubilees is indeed an example of Rewritten Scripture, but it rewrites not only the stories of Genesis and Exodus but also the relevant prophetic teachings in order to present a covenantal message of warning and hope to the readers.” Joshua Sears argues that some of the authors of the Qumran texts recognized the possible “existence of false prophecy” and false prophets, and then used “false prophets as a rhetorical tool to bolster the religious authority of the sectarian community.” In his significantly subtitled book, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, William Schniedewind observes: “in post-biblical literature ‘prophecy’ came to mean the inspired interpretation of texts.”1 Alex P. Jassen concurs: “Prophets in the Second Temple Period, in contrast, consciously view themselves as heirs to the ancient prophets and view

1 William Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 28.

introduction

3

their activity as the contemporary realization of the ancient prophetic experience” and as “revelatory exegesis.”2 The 2014 Leonardo Museum conference on “The Prophetic Voice at Qumran,” together with this volume that emerged from the conference, contain a lively and informative record of the discussions on the transformation of prophecy at Qumran and an exploration of prophetic writings read, studied, and copied there. 2 Alex P. Jassen, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Qumran Community,” ajs Review 32:2 (2008): 305, 318.

The Prophetic Voice in the Qumran Pesharim Ida Fröhlich

This paper aims to answer two questions: First, by examining the scope of the prophetic texts involved in the interpretations, we try to answer the question, “Whose voice is heard in the Qumran pesharim?” Second, we seek to answer the question, “What was the meaning and purpose of writing such interpretations?” The Qumran pesharim are said to contain a history of the Qumran community written in a coded language. However, they contain almost no information on events concerning the history of the community and “the righteous” are mostly mentioned in relation to the future salvation. However, the pesharim do contain the history of “the other”—Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Hasmonean kings—in references that deal with recurring themes like drunkenness, intoxication, tottering, violence, and cultic sins. The reason of the interest behind even these themes is not obvious. The present study aims at exploring and demonstrating the anthropological background, as well as the historiographic purposes and traditions behind the use of these motifs. George Brooke defined the pesharim as “a form of biblical interpretation peculiar to Qumran, in which prophetic/poetic texts are applied to postbiblical historical/eschatological settings through various literary techniques in order to substantiate a theological conviction pertaining to divine reward and punishment.”1 This definition can be seen to encompass characteristics of form, content, method, and motive.2 Qumran audience found in the texts interpreted meaningful revelations for their own time. This idea is best explained in the Habakkuk-pesher: “Then God told Habakkuk to write down what is going to happen to the generation to come; but when that period would be complete He did not make known to him” (1QpHab vii.1–2). According to their views, it was the Righteous Teacher “to whom God made known all the mysterious revelations of his servants the prophets” (1QpHab vii.4–5); thus, he alone is able to interpret ancient prophetic revelations as references to the present time. Applying prophetic or poetic texts to events of a far later time needs a special attitude to and a particular view of historical time. In Qumran views, the interpreter’s time paralleled historical time (which will be called here “prophetic

1 G. Brooke, “Qumran pesher: Toward the Redefinition of a Genre,”RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503, esp. p. 483. 2 G. Brooke, “Qumran pesher,” 483–503.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_003

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

5

time,” or the time the prophet, the author of the text interpreted lived in). Human groups, persons, and their behavior referred to in the prophetic time appeared again in a remote age—that of the interpreter’s. Parallel ages were considered to be paralleled in every respect: human deeds were similar in any age, and so were their consequences. Sins were followed by punishment in both times, punishment being a fulfilled fact in the prophetic age; analogically, an unavoidable punishment was expected for the time of the interpreter. The fulfillment of the punishment in prophetic time was a guarantee that sins similar to those committed by the prophet’s contemporaries would be followed by a similar punishment in the interpreter’s age. This strong parallelism between the prophet’s age and the interpreter’s age is the basis for the use of nicknames or sobriquets instead of real names of historical persons and groups in the pesharim. However, the origin of the nicknames in most of the cases is different from the prophetic text interpreted. One of the rare exceptions is the case of the Angry Lion in 4QpNah 3–4 i.4–8, which seems to be a topical name; in Nahum’s text, the lion symbolizes the bellicose Assyrian empire and is interpreted in a related pesher as the Angry Lion, designating, in all likelihood a Hasmonean king-priest.3 On the other hand, some of the names in the pesharim are typological, clearly originating from biblical tradition.4

1

Types and Dichotomies

The nicknames reflect a strong dichotomy in the worldview of the interpreters, that human society is divided into two opposite groups: “we” and “the others.” These groups are identified by their attitudes to the Mosaic Law. People who consider the Law and follow it in a right way are identical with the interpreter’s group, and can be called the “we-group,” while those who violate the Law or follow an erroneous legal interpretation (halakhah) belong to the group of “the other.” These groups are characterized, respectively, by holiness and impurity. As mentioned before, the nicknames included in the pesharim usually originate from a source different than the prophetic text that served as a basis for the interpretation. Moreover, several nicknames occur in Qumran works that are older than the pesharim, the final form of which was shaped at about the middle of the first century bce, after the Roman conquest of Syria and neighboring 3 There are only two distinct occurrences of the name “the Lion of Wrath” (kpyr hḥrwn): in the interpretation on Hosea (4Q167 (4QpHosb) 2:2) and in that on Nahum (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 i:5). The pesher of Isaiah mentions “a lion” (kpyr) (4Q163 (4QpIsac) 14:5). 4 Foremost are personal names like Israel, Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh.

6

fröhlich

countries.5 A number of sobriquets like the Interpreters of Smooth Things, the Scoffer, the Liar, and the Pourer of Lies appear in the Damascus Document (cd) composed in the middle of the second century bce.6 The application of these names—completed by several new items—continues on in the pesharim and in some other texts of later origin.7 These phenomena suggest that sobriquets may have had a continuous tradition in the collective memory of the socio-religious group whose literature is represented by the Qumran library. These names may have been adapted to various persons and groups at various times. The sobriquets usually mention persons and groups by names referring to some of their characteristics (e.g., khn hršʿ “The Evil Priest”; ʾyš hkzb “The Liar”; dwršy hḥlqwt, “Interpreters of Smooth Things”; kpyr hḥrwn, “The Angry Lion”).8 These names can be also called symbolic names. Other names, like Ephraim, Manasseh, Judah, Israel, have a clear and wide biblical background, and they

5 The Habakkuk pesher clearly refers to the events of the Roman conquest of Palestine, and it is generally agreed that the name kittim in the Habaqquq commentary refers to the army of Pompey. The composition of the pesharim can be dated to the middle of the first century bce. Based on paleographic pecularities, the manuscripts can be dated to the turn of the millennium and the beginning of the Common Era; on the dating see Minna Lönnqvist and Kenneth Lönnqvist, “Parallels to Be Seen: Manuscripts in Jars from Qumran and Egypt,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the dss in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages and Cultures, ed. A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 471–487, esp. 485. 6 Interpreters of Smooth Things, dwršy hḥlqwt: cd i.18–19; 4QpNah (4Q169) i.2, 7; ii.2–4; iii.3, 7; 4QpIsa 23; 4QCata (4Q177) 10 ii.12; 1QH x (ii).14–17, 31–32; 1QHa xii (iv).10–11. The Scoffer, y’š hlșwn: cd i.14; ʾnšy hlșwn: cd xx.11; 4Q162 (4QpIsb) ii.6, 10. The Liar, y’š hkzb: cd xx.15; 1QpHab ii.1–2, v.9–11; 4QpPsa i.26, iv.14, The Pourer of Lies, myţyp hkzb: cd i.14–17, iv.19, viii.13, xix.25; 1QpHab x.9, 1Q14 (1QpMic) 10 4; 4Q171 (4QpPsa) i.17, 18, iv.14—the latter one being identified with y’š hlșwn in cd i.14–17. 7 Comparing the list of the sobriquets found in the Damascus Document, the pesharim, and in other texts, one finds that the list of the names in the pesharim is conspicuously longer than that of the Damascus Document. Ephraim (ʾprym) and Manasseh (mnšh), the Evil Priest (khn hrš῾), and the Kittim (ktym) are not mentioned in the Damascus Document, only appearing in the pesharim as well as other minor texts. 8 At times, real names are used and their meanings need no elucidation. These are geographical ( yawan, paras), and historical names as “[Deme]trius, king of Greece” ([dmy]ṭrys mlk ywn) (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 i:2). The great historical overview of Dan 10–12 witnesses a similar use of names. Beside symbolical names as King of the South, King of the North used throughout the text some historical and geographical names as “kingdom of Persia” (Dan 10:13, 20, 11:2), and “kingdom of Greece” (Dan 10:20; 11:2) help to settle the data in the historical context of the prophecy.

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

7

are labelled as typological names. However, a thorough analysis shows that at least some of the symbolical names are based on biblical expressions or poetic images, rather than on the personal attributes of a real character. Furthermore, this biblical background may not be apparent at first glance.

2

An Independent History of the Names

Ephraim and Manasseh occur in several times as sobriquets for the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the Damascus Document and in the pesharim.9 While this may seem inconsistent with the character of the well-known sons of Joseph, who received blessing from their grandfather, Jacob (Gen 46:20; 48:1– 22), the names Ephraim and Menashe occur in other biblical texts, with a vastly different connotation. The book of Isaiah mentions Ephraim and Manasseh as representatives of aristocratic groups of the kingdom of Israel (including Gilead) at the prophet’s time (end of the eight century bce). They are presented as enemies of each other—and a common enemy of the southern kingdom of Judah (Isa 9:18–20). The pesher of the prophetic text equates Ephraim and Manasseh with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the two leading socioreligious groups of the interpreter’s time, while Judah, their common enemy, is identified with the community.10 Isaiah 28–30 was also a common prophetic source of several other Qumran nicknames.11 The main theme of this text centers on the opposition of two groups: the group associated with the prophet and his people and the other group, considered to be wicked. Three thematic parts are to be differentiated in the text:

9

10

11

Concerning the identification of the names with the socioreligious groups of the Sadducees and Pharisees, see I.D. Amusin, “The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century b.c. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166),” huca 48 (1977): 123– 152. The names Ephraim and Manasseh are to be meant with an Isaianic background, and not with that of Genesis 49, see Menahem Kister, “Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretations and Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, Magnes Press, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992), 27–39; Ida Fröhlich, “Qumran Names,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Donald W. Parry (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 294–305. This was pointed out by D. Dimant in her article “Pesharim. Qumran,” abd 5:244–251.

8

fröhlich

1. 2. 3.

“Ephraim’s drunkards” (Isa 28:1–6) Priests and prophets losing their way through tippling (Isa 28:7–13) “The arrogants” (ʾnšy lṣwn) and the cornerstone laid in Zion (Isa 28:14–22)

“The arrogants” in Isaiah (ʾnšy lṣwn) are “rulers of this people in Jerusalem” who had “made a treaty with Death and signed a pact with Sheol”; they “have taken refuge in lies.” The prophet accuses them of turning aside from the covenant made with yhwh and foretells the fall of the wicked (Is 28:14–18).12 The name in Isaiah stands for the leading circle (priests and kings) of the Judean state in the prophet’s time (end of the eighth century bce). The interpreters (the spiritual ancestors of the Qumran community) may have actualized the name as referring to a person considered wicked in their own time: ʾyš hlșwn, The Scoffer (cd i.14). The author of the Damascus Document contrasts the Scoffer’s figure with that of a teacher when accusing the Scoffer of “pouring waters of lies over Israel” (bʿmwd ʾyš hlșwn ʾšr hytyp lysrʾl mymy kzb) (cd i.14–15). The Scoffer was a character who, according to the pesharim, embodied lies and deceit. He is also probably identical with the ʾyš hkzb and the mṭyp hkzb, figuring in the Damascus Document (cd i.14–17).13 Isaiah 28:7–13 speaks of priests and prophets who had lost their way due to wine. These “lose their way through tippling, and stumble in judgement” (Isa 28:7). The next verses give a lifelike description of the environment defiled by them (probably the Temple court, the site of the offerings) and of their gibberish speaking. The drunkard priests in Isaiah disseminate unintelligible teachings. However, the passage is not simply a parody and a condemnation of drunkenness. The motif of drunkenness expresses here the violation of the holiness of the sanctuary. The duties of the priests are prescribed as follows in Leviticus: “You and your sons you must not drink wine or strong drink when you are to enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die. This is a binding

12

13

The names were identified with those of the socioreligious groups of the Hellenistic age—the Sadducees and Pharisees; see I.D. Amusin, “Reflection of Historical Events,” 123– 152. The nicknames ʾyš hkzb, mytyp hkzb are based on Mic 2:11. The root nṭp, “drop, drip,” is often used figuratively, especially in prophetic discourse; the Hiphil form of the verb, with the meaning “drip” is used when referring to speech, especially of prophecy. These nicknames are also documented from Mic 2:6, Amos 7:16, 9:13, Ezra 21:2. The nouns ywrh, mwrh, “early rain” (also as participle ywrh, “throwing water, rain”) originate from the root yrh “throw, shoot”; related expressions are known from Hos 6:3, Joel 2:23. The nickname (Righteous) Teacher ( ywrh/mwrh) is an antithese to that of the Pourer (mṭyp) of wrong teachings.

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

9

rule on your descendants for all time, to make a distinction between sacred and profane, between clean and unclean, and to teach the Israelites all the decrees which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:9–10). Thus the state of soberness substantially belongs to priestly functions—first of all to their function as interpreters of the law. The priests’ gibberish makes them unable to transmit right teachings. This is the reason for the words that conclude the prophecy: ʾt my ywrh dʿt, “Who is there that can be taught?” (Isa 28:9). The priests mentioned by Isaiah cannot be accepted as the legitimate interpreters of the law. Their violation of the laws concerning the purity of the holy place filled that holy place with filthiness and impurity and made the priests themselves ritually impure. A later text of Isaiah calls the same priests ršʿ (“impious”; the word means also “ruthless” and “arrogant”), who lay traps for others (Isa 29:20–21).14 The figure of the ršʿ and his deeds followed by a punition is commonplace in the wisdom and poetic literatures. The books of Proverbs and Psalms present the figure of the sinner who turned away from the life of the pious congregation and from a godly life (e.g., Prov 17:23, Ps 1). “Wicked” (ršʿ) and “pious” (șdyq) appear as antithetic parallels representing two opposite ways of life (Prov 10).15 The “wicked” are also depicted attacking the “righteous” and are close to violence (cf. Prov 10:6, Hab 1:4b). In this sense, ršʿ is best rendered “ungodly,” “impious,” or “wicked.” The priests mentioned in Isa 28 are not characterized by violence; however, having been turned from keeping the prescriptions that regulate their duties, they brought impurity into the holy place. Thus they can rightly be called undoubtedly ršʿ—“guilty,” “impious.”

14

15

The word occurs also in other Isaianic texts, though not frequently. It is used also in other prophets like Micah and Malachi, and, very often, in Ezekiel. It appears chiefly in later texts; examples for sectarian use in Qumran are numerous. The adjectival form of ršʿ is found over sixty times in the Qumran texts; see Hakan Bengtsson, “Three Sobriquets, Their Meaning and Function: The Wicked Priest, Synagogue of Satan, and the Woman Jezebel,” in Scripture and the Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (Waco, tx: Baylor University Press, 2006), 183–208. Prov 4:18–19, 13:5–6; see Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, otl (Louisville, ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 111.

10 3

fröhlich

Themes Related with the Wicked

The Wicked Priest or Impious Priest (kwhn hršʿ) of the Qumran pesharim (mentioned in some cases without the attribute ršʿ) is an obvious counterpart of șdyq, represented as the Teacher of Righteousness.16 The Wicked Priest is accused of several sins by the author of the prophetic interpretation: “having ignored God for the sake of riches,” robbing riches of the “violent men,” and taking acts resulting in “every type of defiling impurity (twʿbwt … bkwl ndt ṭmʾh)” (1QpHab viii.8–13). Plundering and violence are repeatedly mentioned in connection with him, as is his attack against the Righteous Teacher (1QpHab ix.8–12) and the teacher’s community (1QpHab xi.2–8). This latter act was also the violation of the sabbatical rest of the community on the day of Yom haKippurim. A further theme of violence is the reference to the Angry Lion who hanged people alive (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 i:7–8). Ephraim, the city of the dwršy hḥlqwt (Interpreters of Smooth-Things, whose sins are lies, deceit, and looting), is called “city of bloodshed” in both the prophetic text (Nah 3:1) and its interpretation (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4, ii.2–3). The Hasmoneans are mentioned in the pesharim as the Wicked Dynasty (byt ʾšm[tm]) who called in the kittim, the enemy ravaging the land (1QpHab iv:10–13). They are guilty of “building a worthless city by bloodshed (dmym) and forming a community by lies (šqr)” (1QpHab x:10).17 The oppression of the holy people is often mentioned in other passages of the pesharim as well.18 A new element among the sins is looting, the collecting of “ill-gotten riches from the plunder of the people” by the “later priests in Jerusalem” (1QpHab ix:5). The Wicked Priest “stole the assets of the poor” in Judah (1QpHab xii.9– 10). The looting of the Wicked Priest—even if the goods he collected were those of the sinners—and his other deeds are characterized as impurities (kl ndt ʾwnh) (1QpHab viii:12–13).19 The mention of the sin of avarice recalls the

16 17

18

19

Other forms of the name are kwhn hʾḥrwn (4QpHos/b frg. 2, 3); kwhny yrwšlym hʾḥrwnym (1QpHab ix.4). The Wicked Priest had a reputation for reliability at the beginning of his term of service, but later on, when he became ruler over Israel, “he became proud and forsook God and betrayed the commandments for the sake of riches” (1QpHab viii:9–11). The oppressors are the Man of the Lie, who turned against the elect (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 iv:14), and “the wicked princes who oppress his holy people, who will perish like smoke that is lost in the wind” (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 iii:7–8). Impurity is termed here as niddah, the impurity of the menstruant. Words for impurity (ṭumah, niddah) were equated with sin or used as metaphors for sin in the rabbinic

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

11

second item on the list called the “three traps of Belial,” contained in the Damascus Document (cd iv.15–18). Otherwise known from a fragment of the pesharim as the “traps of Belial” (pḥy blyʿl), which the Community of the Poor will escape (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 ii:10–11), these traps are fornication (znwt), wealth (ḥwn), and defiling the sanctuary (ṭmʾ hmqdš) (cd iv:17–18). Looting and gathering of riches by force is a specific form of the sin of violence (ḥms), considered by the Essenes (the Qumran community) as leading to destruction. The name of the Wicked Priest is contrasted by other Qumran names like “the sons of Zadoq, the priests” (bny ṣdwq hkhnym), called several times “keepers of the covenant.”20 As to the origin of the nickname “Wicked Priest,” there is no biblical passage that could be a candidate. However, the poetical image of the impious kwhnym in Isa 28–30 as one of the factors that might have inspired this name cannot be ignored. Another source was, of course, the historical reality of the Hasmonean kingdom and the real figures of the Hasmonean kings bearing the title of high priest.21 The name kwhn—with its Isaianic negative connotation—is given to all of the Hasmonean rulers. Although they originated from a priestly family, they did not belong to the Sadducees, traditional bearers of this title. It is also well known that some Hasmonean rulers were blamed with not being suitable to the title of high priest.22 According to Josephus the Pharisees asked John Hyrcanus to renounce his title of high priest. It was rumored that Alexander Jannaeus grandmother had been a captive (a state that involves the probability of the genealogical impurity of her offspring), and the king was pelted with ethrogs while completing his duty as high priest during the New Year festival.23 However, it is not our task to deal here with questions of

20 21

22

23

literature, see Simcha Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: A Collection of SocioAnthropological Essays. brla 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 63. Cf. 1QS v.2, 1Q28a (1QSa) i.2, 24, ii.3, 1Q28b (1QSb) iii.22. In 1QS v.2, the sons of Zadok are called “keepers of covenant.” The title was acquired first by Jonathan, in 152 bce. Simon assumed the leadership in 142 bce, receiving the double office of high priest and prince of Israel. The leadership of the Hasmoneans was established by a resolution, adopted in 141 bce, at a large assembly “of the priests and the people and of the elders of the land, to the effect that Simon should be their leader and High Priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet” (1 Macc 14:41). On the question of the origin and background of the Hasmoneans, see recently Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam, “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” jbl 124 (2005): 73–87; Tessa Rajak, “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, ed. Philip R. Davies (Sheffield, uk: jsot Press, 1990), 260–280. Josephus only reports one specific conflict between the Pharisees and Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.288–296). One year during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Alexander Jannaeus, while officiating as the

12

fröhlich

the identification of khn hršʿ with historical figures; as a name with a collective meaning, it designates various persons in different passages of the pesharim, and the proper meaning of the reference depends on its context.24

4

False Teachings as Cultic Offences in Isaiah

Speaking of kwhnym, Isa 28 points out their function as teachers when posing the question, “Who is there that can be taught?” (ʾt-my ywrh dʿt) (Isa 28:9). The use of the Hebrew root *yrh for expressing teaching activity is a common phenomenon in Isaiah with former prophets, especially Hosea. In Qumran texts, the terms ywrh/mwrh are used as mirror-terms for labeling both righteous and unrighteous teachers. Based on Hos 10:12 (mwrh ṣdq) and Joel 2:23, the Qumran expression “Righteous Teacher” (mwrh ṣdq) continues in the positive tradition of the word in these prophets (the noun originating from the radical yrh that means in Hifil “to drop rain/ dew”). The term is strictly related (also in Hosea) to the idea of ṣdq/ṣdqh, “righteousness.”25 On the other hand, the noun “priest” is supplemented in Isaiah by the adjective ywrh (“teaching, a person who teaches”) in a negative context, as a person who, having violated the prescriptions concerning purity, is not supposed to be able to give correct interpretations.26 Other sobriquets like dwrsy hḥlqwt, “Interpreters of Smooth Things”, have a clear origin in the text of Isaiah (Isa 30:9–10). The prophet speaks here of Israel

24

25

26

high priest in the ceremony at the Temple of Jerusalem, was pelted by the crowd with the citrons (ethrogs) that they were holding in their hands as a sign of displeasure with the ruler, see Josephus Ant. 13:372. Literature on identifying the Wicked Priest is numerous. In earlier literature see Geza Vermes, “The Essenes and History,” jjs 32 (1981): 18–31. The name is interpreted as a collective one, designating the members of the Hasmonean dynasty, in the order of their succession by A.S. Van der Woude, “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary,” jjs 33 (1982): 349– 359. In my opinion, the name is a collective one, but it cannot be related to a whole line of successive rulers; references to the Wicked Priest are to be associated, rather, with Alexandros Iannaios and his two sons, see Ida Fröhlich, “ ‘Time and Times and Half a Time’: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras,” jsp Sup 19 (Sheffield, uk: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 163–165. Hos 10:12–13 is based on the antinomy of wickedness and righteousness. Ephraim and Judah are figured here as heifers broken in that so far “have plowed wickedness,” “have reaped injustice,” and “have eaten the fruit of lies.” Prophets who give wrong teachings are called in Isa 9:14 mwrh šqr, “who teach lies.”

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

13

as rebellious and faithless people who will not hear the instructions of the Lord and who choose to listen to “smooth things (ḥlqwt) and illusions”. The sobriquet, combining an adjective from the root drš with a noun derived from the root ḥlq shapes an expression that refers to false teachers. Similarly, false teachings are associated with the root *tʿʾ (“stagger, totter”) and its derivatives— recurring expressions in the vocabulary of Isa 5, 9, 10, 28 and 30 and regularly cited in the pesharim.

5

Cultic Offences of the Evil Priest, the Priests and Pharisees

Besides being illegitimate and violent, the Wicked Priest is guilty of cultic sins. The Wicked Priest “did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart” (1QpHab xi.8–15) and “committed his abhorrent deeds, defiling the Temple of God” (1QpHab xii:8–9, cf. also 1QpHab xi.17–xii.10). Sins, meaning the non-observance of the Law committed by the Wicked Priest and by leading groups of priests and Pharisees, are recurring themes in the pesharim. This theme is expressed in terms like erring, lies, false teachings, and lack of knowledge, and in symbolical names like the Liar (ʾyš hkzb), the Scoffer ( yš hlṣwn, ʾnšy hlṣwn), and “the Pourer of Lies, who deceived many” (1QpHab x:9).27 The designation of the Pharisees as the Interpreters of SmoothThings (dwršy hḥlqwt) refers at the same time to their halakhah, considered as erroneous (4Q169 (4QpNah) frg. 3–4, 7).28 They are also called, for a similar reason, the misleaders of Ephraim.29 The Wicked Priest (khn hršʿ) “forgot God who had f[ed them,],” and his “ordinances they cast behind them, which he had sent to them [by the hand of] his servants the prophets” (4Q166 (4QpHos) ii.3– 5). “[The priests of Jeru]s[al]em which went astray” (1Q14 (1QpMic) 11, 1). The violent attack of the Evil Priest against the Righteous Teacher, was at the same time an attempt to cause the righteous stumbling (lkšylm), in other words, to dissuade them from the right way of observing the Law (1QpHab ix.4–9). This deed can again be labeled as a “cultic sin” since it is an attempt at forcing a

27 28

29

The sobriquet “Scoffer” is based on Isa 29:20: “the assembly of the Scoffers (ʿdt ʾnšy hlṣwn) who are in Jerusalem” (4Q162 ii.10). The name originates from Isa 30:10, ḥlqwt, “smooth things, delusions.” The Qumran name is a pun based on the similar sounds of the nouns hlk, “to go,” and ḥlqh, “smooth thing, delusion.” They “mislead many (mtʿw rbym) by their false teaching, and their lying tongue and their wily lip; kings, princes, priests, and populace together with the resident alien” (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 ii.8–9).

14

fröhlich

group to misinterpret the religious laws and thus following a wrong halakhah to lead a wrong religious practice. Ancient Near Eastern historiography, especially Mesopotamian and Hittite sources, present cultic sins, violence, and sexual misdeeds as the causes of plagues as well as the reasons for historical catastrophes and the fall of dynasties.30 Biblical historiography has a similar attitude to history. Narrating the history of the Northern Israelite Kingdom, the books of Kings refer repeatedly to the “sin of Jeroboam,” committed by each of the rulers of the Northern Kingdom. The sin referred is the form of the cult of yhwh as it was practiced in the Northern Kingdom—and which was considered a wrong practice by the author (who lived in the Southern Kingdom of Judah). It is this cultic practice that the chronicler sees as the ultimate cause of the fall of the Northern Kingdom. This opinion is explicitly stated in 2Kgs 17:21–23: When he had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat king. Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord and made them commit great sin. The people of Israel continued in all the sins that Jeroboam committed; they did not depart from them until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had foretold through all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day. Qumran historical overviews—texts of the so-called “narrative historiography”—gave a similar reason for the fall of persons and dynasties. One example is the fragmentary text 4Q252–254 (its first part formerly called “Pesher Genesis”). The text evokes biblical narrative traditions of Genesis, in the order of the text referred to but skipping from one pericope to the other, without giving a consecutive narrative.31 The references are arranged in separate paragraphs in consecutive series that show a similar structure among them. The series is com-

30

31

The ethical evaluation of history was demonstrated first by Hans G. Güterbock in “Hittite Historiography: A Survey” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 21–35. See also Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 206–233, especially the chapter “The Birth of History from the Spirit of the Law,” which speaks of a “semiotization of history in the name of ethics” in ancient Near Eastern historiography. A detailed analysis of the text is given in Ida Fröhlich, “Themes, Structure and Genre of Pesher Genesis,” jqr 85 (1995): 81–90.

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

15

posed of contrasting traditions about sinners and the righteous. The sin is connected with the violation of a sexual taboo, and the punishment of the sinner is ruin or subjection. The reward of the righteous is rescue from danger and/or taking possession of land or rule (as in the descendants of Judah). Sexual sins lead to the loss of the land while those who keep the law will inherit it through their offspring. Other texts that overview history and are based on a different principle—taking a different sin as the cause of historical catastrophes—offer a different periodization of history.32 Qumran pesharim interpret the history of the Hasmonean kingdom in terms of the above attitude to history. Examples are given to highlight the special sins (cultic sins, bloodshed) of the Hasmonean dynasty (along with those of the Sadducees and Pharisees) and to contrast them with the correct religious practices and peacefulness of the community. Examples of the sins of the Hasmoneans are based on historical facts, well documented from recognized sources like Josephus. Groups known from historical sources—Hasmoneans, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (the Qumran community) are named with sobriquets, and their names are shaped on the basis of various prophetic— especially Isaianic—texts. According to the common views of Near Eastern historiography where historical facts and events are evaluated according to an ethical viewpoint the meaning of cultic sins that lead to fall is enlarged and it includes also the false interpretation of the Torah and the erroneous religious observance based on this halakhah. Violence and bloodshed were added by looting and were recorded among the causes that lead to the disinheritance of the sinner.

6

Periodization and the End of the Time

History in the pesharim is a continuous time divided into periods. The periods are determined by God; their beginning and ending is a divine secret: “all the times fixed by God will come about in due course as He ordained that they should by his inscrutable insight” (1QpHab vii:13–14). The sins of the wicked will be doubled against them in the time that will precede the judgment, “but the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity” (Hab 2:4b) (1QpHab vii:17). It is their fidelity to the Righteous Teacher and their proper

32

Ida Fröhlich, “Qumran Biblical Interpretation in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Historiography,” The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the dss in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages and Cultures, ed. A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 821–855.

16

fröhlich

religious practice that is the basis of their rescue in the future: “whom God will rescue from among those doomed to judgement, because of their suffering and their loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab viii:1–3). The end of the time will be that of punishment and reward, when the evil deeds of the Misleaders of Ephraim and their deceit “will be ‘revealed’ at the end of time to all Israel” (4Q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 iii:3). The sack of the later priests of Jerusalem will be handed over to the army of the Kittim (1QpHab ix:6–7). The Wicked, together with the idolatrous Gentiles, will be exterminated from the land: “In the day of judgement God will exterminate all those who worship false gods, as well as the wicked, from the earth (1QpHab xiii:1–4). The wi[c]ked princes … will perish like smoke that is los[t in the win]d” (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 iii:7–8); the wicked ones of Israel will be cut off and will be destroyed forever (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 iii:12–13).33 The righteous will be rescued “from among those doomed to judgement, because of their suffering and their loyalty to the Righteous Teacher” (1QpHab viii:1–3), the congregation of the Poor Ones will inherit the land (of Israel) (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 iii:10–11), and the righteous ones will possess the land for a thousand (generations) (4Q171 (4QpPsa) 1– 10 iv:3). Similarly 4Q173 when interpreting Ps 37 speaks of “[those who] take possession of the inheritance” (4Q173 (4QpPsb) 1:7).

7

Turning Points in History and Political Propaganda

Three remote historical texts may be helpful in exploring the purpose of the writing of the prophetic interpretations from Qumran. The three texts are related to the accession to throne of Cyrus in Babylonia. They were written shortly after the victory of the Persian king Cyrus over Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 bce. The first document is the edict of Cyrus, issued following the conquest— a proclamation to the people of Babylon, and a self-legitimation of Cyrus as the king of Babylonia.34 It was written by the Babylonian Marduk priests, in Akkadian, according to the Mesopotamian tradition. The beginning speaks of

33 34

The interpretation is based on a Psalms verse (Ps 37:21–22) in which the ethical principle of the possession of the land is formulated. An English translation of the Cyrus cylinder is found in J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1969), 315–316; hereafter referred to as anet.

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

17

Nabonidus, who is characterized as “a weakling” who committed a series of cultic and other offenses: he removed the correct images of the gods from their thrones and ordered them replaced by imitations.35 He introduced inappropriate rituals in Ur and other sacred cities; he interrupted the regular manner of offerings and he changed the worship of Marduk, “the king of the gods,” into an abomination. He tormented the inhabitants of Babylon by corvée-work (lines 5–8). When the people of the city complained, Marduk—the patron deity of the city and “the lord of the gods”—became terribly angry, and, together with other gods, he left the city. The inhabitants of Babylon became like living dead until Marduk had mercy upon them, and “he scanned and looked through all the countries, looking for a righteous ruler. He pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, to become the ruler of all the world” (lines 11–12). “Cyrus’ good deeds and his upright mind ordered him to march against Babylon which he made him enter without any battle, sparing Babylon any calamity. Nabonidus, who did not worship Marduk, was delivered by the god into Cyrus’ hands” (lines 13–17). The entire country of Sumer and Akkad bowed to Cyrus “and kissed his feet, jubilant that he received the kingship” (line 18). The text continues with Cyrus’s self-glorification as the legitimate king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims of the earth, “whose rule Bel and Nebo love” (line 22). Marduk induced the inhabitants of Babylon to love Cyrus, whose numerous troops walked around Babylon in peace, and nobody was terrorized. He abolished the corvée laid upon Babylon by its previous ruler. He gathered exiled people and returned them to their former habitations. The cults in Babylon were restored by him, and the country enjoyed peace (lines 23–43). The second text, the so-called Verse Account, is based on the same events as the edict of Cyrus and is written by the same group—the Marduk priests of Babylon—in their own name. This writing aims at delegitimizing the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus, and legitimating Cyrus as the first member of a new dynasty over Babylon.36 The text begins with a list of Nabonidus’s sins against the people of Babylon: He is accused of his reign being unlawful, causing the common people and nobles to perish through his despotism and wars, blocking the trade roads, and taking away the property of his subjects (i.1–11). First his subjects became hostile toward him (i.15–18), then he was 35

36

Nabonidus, fearing the devastation of the enemy, ordered all statues of deities in the region to be transported to Babylon, according to the Chronicle of Nabonidus iii.9–11; for a translation see anet 306–339. On the sources and events of the capture of Babylon, see Pierre Briant, Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 40–44. Pritchard, anet, 312–315.

18

fröhlich

abandoned by his protective deity, “and he, the former favorite of the gods,” was seized by misfortunes (i.17–18). This is followed by a lengthy description of Nabonidus’s cultic sins, chief of which was the erection of a cult statue (that of the god Sin), an image “which nobody (had) ever seen in (this) country.” The statue, “the appearance of which is that of the eclipsed moon,” is qualified as a demon-like image, an abomination, and a work of unholiness (i.19–31). Nabonidus’s expedition to Tema and his palace building there are also mentioned, probably with the aim of exemplifying his neglect of his duties as a ruler.37 He is also accused of falsifying historical records (as opposed to Cyrus, the king of the world, “whose triumphs are true” (v.3). Nabonidus is reported to boast of special knowledge and visions received from the gods—but in truth he is ignorant, “he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the (hepatoscopic) oracles” (v.3–13). A further sin is that he handed over the temple of Marduk to Sin (the principal deity of Nabonidus’ homeland, Harran) (v.17–21). The reign of Cyrus is welcomed by the Marduk priests as the time of peace and liberty for the inhabitants of Babylon. Cyrus declared a state of “peace,” and he kept away his troops from the holy precinct of the city (vi. 1–2). The regular offerings given to Marduk were increased by his order, and he repaired the town of Babylon, taking himself “hoe, spade and earth basket” to complete the wall of Babylon (vi.7–8). The statues of deities, “male and female, he returned to their cellas,” thus appeasing their wrath (vi.15–19). Cyrus also annulled his predecessor’s measures: “whatever he (Nabonidus) had created, he (Cyrus) let fire burn up.” (vi.21–22) The inhabitants of Babylon are depicted like prisoners when the prisons are opened; all of them rejoicing “to look upon him as king” (col. vi.23– 26). The author of the third text related to the accession of Cyrus to the Babylonian throne is Deutero-Isaiah, a prophet representing the Jewish exilic group in Babylon. References to the events of the fall of Babylon and to the Persian takeover, as well as the evaluation of the events by the prophet, mean a prophetic legitimation of Cyrus by a Jewish prophet for the Jewish community of the exile and Judah. References that evaluate the situation are scattered in the text. The words at the beginning of the Deutero-Isaianic part—that is, the setting of the prophetic collection that says: “Comfort, o comfort my people— says your God.” “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, that she has served her term, that 37

Nabonidus left his capital and had been living in his palace built in Tema for ten years before the Persian attack; his son Belshazzar was charged with government. During this time, the New Year rituals in Babylon were not performed. See P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539b.c. (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 1989), 12, 90.

the prophetic voice in the qumran pesharim

19

her penalty is paid” (Isa 40:1–2). Texts referring to the takeover of power by Cyrus stress the fall of the gods of Babylon, referred to by the fall of their statues: “Bel bows down, Nebo stoops, their idols (ʿṣbyhm) are on beasts and cattle; these things you carry are loaded as burdens on weary animals” (Isa 46:1–2). The text stresses the powerlessness of the foreign deities: “They stoop, they bow down together, they cannot save the burden, but themselves go into captivity” (Isa 46:2). The name of Nabonidus is not even mentioned because, for the author, it is the fall of the empire that is important and not that of the ruler— the empire whose King Nebuchadnezzar took into captivity, simply a mass of people from Jerusalem and Judah. The empire is represented by its two main deities, Bel (i.e., Marduk, the protecting god of Babylon) and Nebo. Another prophecy deals with the role of Cyrus. “Thus says the Lord to his anointed (mšyḥw), to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him—and the gates shall not be closed” (Isa 45:1–2). Thus, Cyrus is the king chosen and legitimated by God. It is God who ordered and supports Cyrus’ campaigns and makes him victorious over his enemies. In light of these prophecies, the prophetic words over the “daughter of Babylon” and the repeated prophecies on Israel’s salvation and the role of the Servant (ʿbd yhwh) gained new significance. The Sitz im Leben and the special significance of the Deutero-Isaianic text that call Cyrus “anointed” (mšyḥ) lies in the significance attributed to the relation of prophetic words and royal legitimacy. The text expresses ideas related to politics and prophecy, an ancient Near Eastern idea—the demand of the prophetic legitimation for kings. Saul and David were legitimated as kings of Israel by being elected and anointed by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 10:1, cf. 15:1; 16:1–13). Adonijah, the pretender to the throne of David, aimed at being legitimated by the prophet Natan (1Kgs 1:34), while Jehu was elected king by the prophet Elisha and anointed by another prophet sent to him by Elisha (2 Kgs 9:1–10). Cyrus was legitimated by Deutero-Isaiah for the Jews living in the diaspora and for those living in the Judean province. Following Cyrus no foreign kings—neither Persian nor Hellenistic rulers—ruling over “Israel” (meant Jewish population that lived in Judah, and the diaspora) were legitimated by Jewish prophets. However, prophetic legitimation of the ruler was a demand even in Hellenistic time. The Pharisees questioned Johannes Hyrcanus’s claim to the royal title, saying that it needed a prophetic legitimation.38 Legitimation by prophets or by a priestly corporation had been a demand in other Near Eastern kingdoms. In Babylon, the body of the Marduk priests,

38

The story is related in Josephus Ant. 13:288–298.

20

fröhlich

servants of the protecting deity of the Babylonian state, were authorized to legitimate the king. At a dynastic change, it was the same group that delegitimated the last king of the fallen dynasty. Principles for legitimation and delegitimation were the same: the attitude of the king to the practice of the cult and his social practice. Fallen kings were demonstrated to have committed sins related to the cult (neglecting duties and practicing improper forms of the cult) and trespassing the borders of social rules (oppression, exploitation of or violence against the inhabitants, bloodshed). Victorious kings were given a praise for their virtues of piety and social righteousness, which called the help of the protecting deity of the social community over which the king ruled (and similarly, sins of the king called the deity’s anger). The legitimation of a new dynasty needed prophetic or priestly words on the divine election of the new ruler, words that provided a catalogue of his virtues, including the support of the correct practice of the local cult and the benefits concerning the local people. In light of the ancient Near Eastern practice concerning royal legitimation (and delegitimation), the purpose of the Qumran pesharim—at least the purpose of those where references to historical events can be detected—appears to have been delegitimating the Hasmonean dynasty when evoking their sins related with the cult and religious practice, as well as social and economic life. Analogous to prophetic proclamations of legitimation known from the Israelite tradition, the authors of the Qumran prophetic interpretations transmitted it through a double prophetic voice, in a twofold process of interpretation: first, interpreting Isaiah, Hosea, Habakkuk, and other prophets in the texts of the pesharim, and second, through interpreting other prophetic texts that preceded the composition of the pesharim and that were sources of the sobriquets they used consistently in the pesharim.

Priestly Divination and Illuminating Stones in Second Temple Judaism Matthew J. Grey

In recent decades, scholars of ancient Judaism have reevaluated many of the common assumptions regarding the fate of prophecy and prophetic gifts following the First Temple period. Traditionally, treatments of this topic have reflected claims made in rabbinic literature that the Holy Spirit ceased to function in Israel after the pre-exilic “former prophets” and that earlier means of ascertaining the divine will did not exist among Jews in the era of the Second Temple.1 However, while most scholars still agree that the Babylonian exile brought significant changes to ancient Israel’s socio-religious institutions, more recent studies have explored aspects of prophetic continuity between the pre- and post-exilic periods. For example, by broadening the category of Jewish “prophecy” beyond its classical parameters, evidence can be found among some circles for the continuation of various prophetic manifestations into the late Second Temple period, including claims of apocalyptic visions, revelatory exegesis, the interpretation of dreams, predictive foresight, and the appearance of popular prophetic figures.2 Related to this discussion is the practice of priestly divination as a means of obtaining divine revelation. Whereas the Hebrew Bible describes Israel’s high priest as being in possession of illuminating and oracular stones—such as the engraved gems of the breastplate and the enigmatic Urim and Thummim— rabbinic literature and traditional scholarship has claimed that these items

1 L. Stephen Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); for discussion of the rabbinic evidence in particular, see pp. 8–9, 149–173. 2 See Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Richard A. Horsley with John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Harrisburg, pa: Trinity Press International, 1999); George J. Brooke, “Prophecy,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:694–700; Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007); and the collection of essays in Kristin De Troyer, Armin Lange, and Lucas L. Schulte, eds., Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (Leuven: Peeters, 2009).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_004

22

grey

exclusively belonged to the First Temple period and were not in operation among the priests of the Second Temple.3 Recent studies, however, have noted that traditions of priestly divination through the Urim, Thummim, and other oracular stones persisted in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.4 These traditions vary and their historical value is often difficult to determine, but they demonstrate that some Jews viewed the continuation and legitimacy of priestly oracles differently than the rabbinic sages. Such traditions provide valuable insight into the diversity of thought and practice within early Judaism, especially as they pertained to views of religious authority and divine communion; while some circles appear to have downplayed priestly connections to the divine realm and invalidated claims of post-biblical priestly oracles, others continued to view the illuminating stones of the high priest as evidence of the priesthood’s ability to communicate with the divine and to provide mediation between God and Israel. In an attempt to articulate some of this diversity, I will provide a survey of the post-exilic traditions surrounding the precious stones of the high priestly vestments, their oracular use by Jewish priests, and the ongoing interest in their significance among priestly circles during the time of the Second Temple. With the limitations on space, I will not be able to examine each tradition in depth or consider the supernatural phenomena of the stones. Instead, in this survey I will consider the historical claims and ideological implications of these traditions—including those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls—as a way to illustrate the different attitudes toward priestly prophecy that existed within early Judaism and to show that, at least in some circles, practices of priestly divination may have continued into the late Second Temple period. I will begin by summarizing the origins of priestly oracles in the Hebrew Bible and will then examine the disparate views of their fate following the loss of Solomon’s Temple.

3 Scholarship on this specific topic has not been as extensive as the work done on the (dis)continuation of prophecy in general, but when priestly divination is addressed, scholars have traditionally adopted the rabbinic claims that the use of oracular stones ceased after the First Temple period. E.g., Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 27–28n.22 and Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1994), 352–353. 4 Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698; Lisbeth S. Fried, “Did Second Temple High Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim?” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 1–25.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

1

23

Priestly Oracles in the Hebrew Bible

Before examining the different traditions of illuminating stones and priestly oracles within early Judaism, it is necessary to provide a brief summary of their origins in the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, biblical descriptions of these items are often obscure and difficult to date with precision, but there is sufficient evidence that priestly divination was considered by numerous writers to be a valid method of divine communication in ancient Israel.5 Depending on the dating and sequence of the Pentateuchal sources, the earliest direct mention of oracular items used by priests may be found within the Deuteronomic literature of the late First Temple period.6 There the “Blessing of Moses” states that the tribe of Levi was given supernatural objects called Urim and Thummim to assist in its responsibilities to teach God’s law and to officiate in the Jerusalem temple cult:7 And of Levi he said: Give to Levi your Thummim [‫]ֻתֶּמּיָך‬, and your Urim [‫ ] ְואוּ ֶריָך‬to your loyal one … They teach Jacob your ordinances [‫]ִמְשָׁפֶּטיָך‬, and Israel your law; they burn incense before you, and whole burnt offerings on your altar. (Deut 33:8–10)

5 For recent discussions on the broader history and development of cultic prophecy in ancient Israel (though without specific consideration of oracular stones), see John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005) and Mark A. Christian, “Middle-Tier Levites and the Plenary Reception of Revelation,” in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition, eds. Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 173–197. 6 Other references to priestly oracles might also exist from the First Temple period, but they are more tentative. For example, Psalm 43:3 (likely a pre-exilic temple hymn) contains a prayer in which the worshipper petitions God to “send out your light [‫ ]אוֹ ְרָך‬and your truth, let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling. Then I will go to the altar of God … and I will praise you with the harp.” In lxx Psalm 42:3, this language of “light” (φως) and “truth” (ἀλήθειάν) echoes the translation of “Urim” and “Thummim” in other passages throughout the lxx (see below), suggesting that the Psalm may have been understood as a reference to the use of priestly oracles in the temple. 7 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 76. Haran maintains that the blessing in Deuteronomy 33:8–11 is material incorporated from the j source (thus making it earlier than the d source). Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 255, 260. Friedman also suggests that the blessing derived from an earlier source, but does not explain the origins of that source or how it was integrated into Deuteronomy.

24

grey

These items—“lights (‫ )אוּ ִרים‬and perfections (‫ ”)ֻתִמּים‬in the Masoretic Text (mt), or “manifestations (δήλους) and truth (ἀλήθειαν)” in the Septuagint (lxx)—are not described in detail,8 but the Deuteronomistic history presents them as divinatory instruments that, along with dreams and the priest’s ephod, have the ability to reveal the divine will (e.g., 1 Sam 2:28; 28:6). In some instances, the Urim and Thummim are described as lots that provide succinct responses from God. For example, when Saul seeks to know whose sins are hindering the reception of an oracle during his consultation with Phineas the priest (who was “carrying an ephod” at the shrine in Shiloh; 1 Sam 14:3, 36), he said, “‘O Lord God of Israel … if this guilt is in me or in my son Jonathan, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people, Israel, give Thummim.’ And Jonathan and Saul were indicated by the lot, but the people were cleared” (lxx 1 Sam 14:41).9 A fuller description of these and related items is contained in the priestly writings of the Pentateuch.10 Whereas Deuteronomy implies that the entire tribe of Levi had access to the oracles, the p source makes them the exclusive prerogative of the high priest and associates them with the high priest’s gar8

9

10

Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 83–98. Van Dam discusses the various translations for these terms throughout the ancient sources. While the lxx typically translates them as “manifestations and truth,” lxx Ezra 2:63 translates them as “lights (φωτίζουσι) and perfections (τελείοις).” As Van Dam’s study points out, the nature of these items is a matter of debate, including the possibility that they were dice, sticks, pebbles, or other forms of divination. For convenience, in this paper I will refer to them as illuminating stones based on their luminous nature (as implied by the term Urim) and their close association with the other stones of the high priest’s breastplate. Since this is how these items were understood in early Jewish descriptions (see below), this interpretation seems to be the most relevant for the sources discussed in this paper. For discussion of the variants of this passage in the mt and lxx, see Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 34–37, 193–203. Regarding the absence of this reference in the mt, see Alexander Rofé, “‘No Ephod or Teraphim’–oude hierateias oude dēlōn: Hosea 3:4 in the lxx and in the Paraphrases of Chronicles and the Damascus Document,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, eds. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 135–149. In this article, Rofé demonstrates a general trend within the mt to expunge references to the Urim and Thummim. Since Exodus 28 belongs to the p source, its precise date is difficult to determine. Traditionally, most scholars assumed that p was post-exilic, thus dating the description of priestly vestments in Exodus 28 to a time after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple. Other scholars, however, have suggested that p is pre-exilic, or at least incorporated pre-exilic material (e.g., Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 4). Therefore, determining the extent to which Exodus 28 reflects pre-exilic reality may be problematic.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

25

ments. This is most apparent in the description of the vestments that Moses made to consecrate Aaron and his successors in Exodus 28. These included an ephod (‫ )ֵאפוֹד‬with engraved onyx stones fixed to each shoulder (28:6–14), a breastplate of judgment (‫חֶשׁן ִמְשׇׁפּט‬ ֹ ) that contained twelve precious gemstones arranged in four rows with each stone inscribed “like signets” with the name of an Israelite tribe (28:15–21), and the Urim and Thummim, which were placed either “within” (mt: -‫ )ֶאל‬a pouch behind the breastplate or “upon” (lxx: ἐπὶ) the breastplate itself (28:30).11 Together, the Urim, Thummim, and fourteen inscribed stones provided a physical means for the high priest to receive oracular communications and “bear the judgment of the Israelites on his heart” as he ministered in the temple “before the Lord continually [‫( ”]ׇתִּמיד‬Exod 28:29– 30).12 Although the priestly writers do not describe how these items operated, their precise relationship, or how they were thought to be used by the priests consulting them, it appears that they were understood to function in an oracular manner. For instance, the lxx consistently refers to the breastplate containing the Urim and Thummim (or “manifestations and truth”) as an “oracle” (λογειον; e.g. lxx Lev 8:8), and the imperative to consult these items in times of war suggests that they provided the priest with “yes” or “no” answers to specific questions (see Num 27:21). Analogous oracles throughout the ancient Near East suggest that they might also have conveyed more complicated messages through emissions of light, possibly as the Urim and gemstone inscriptions somehow interacted with each other, but the Hebrew Bible only implies this possibility through its use of light-related terminology.13 However these items worked and whatever supernatural phenomena empowered them, it is clear 11

12

13

For classic treatments of these oracles, see De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 350–353, and Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 166–168. If the implications of the mt are correct (that the lots were placed in a pouch behind the breastplate of judgment), there might be an allusion to these items in Proverbs 16:33: “In the fold of the vestment [‫ ]ַבֵּחיק‬the lot [‫ ]ַהגּוֹ ׇרל‬is cast, but its judgment [‫ ]ִמְשָׁפּטוֹ‬comes from the Lord.” According to Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 213–214, this language suggests that p envisions the high priest using the oracles twice a day during the Tamid services of the temple. For possible analogies among other ancient Near Eastern oracles, see De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 349–353; Edward Robertson, “The Urim and Tummim; What Were They?” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 67–74; Anne Marie Kitz, “The Plural Form of Urim and Thummim,” Journal of Biblical Literature 116.3 (1997): 401–410; and Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “True Light on the Urim and Thummim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 88.3/4 (January–April 1998): 263– 274. The only full-length treatment of these items is Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, which is informative if somewhat idiosyncratic.

26

grey

that in ancient Israel they were emblematic of the priestly connection to the divine realm and that they assisted priests in adjudicating, teaching law, and mediating between God and the community.

2

The Loss of Priestly Oracles with Solomon’s Temple: Traditions of Discontinuation

With this brief background of illuminating stones and priestly oracles in the Hebrew Bible, we are now in a position to examine the disparate traditions of their fate following the First Temple period. As mentioned in the introduction, some Jews of later generations believed that this form of divine communication ceased with the destruction of Solomon’s Temple and was not a feature of post-exilic Judaism. This claim is most prominent in teachings that developed within the early strata of rabbinic literature during the second through fourth centuries ce. Throughout the talmudic corpus (and increasingly so in the later traditions), rabbinic circles expressed interest in the oracles— particularly the Urim and Thummim—as a legendary feature of the biblical past.14 However, from its earliest phases of development, rabbinic literature consistently depicted these items as falling out of use after the era of the First Temple. The first rabbinic reference to this claim is an unattributed saying in the Mishnah (ca. 200 ce): “When the First Prophets died, Urim and Thummim ceased. When the [First] Temple was destroyed the Shamir-worm ceased.”15 According to this passage, the loss of the First Temple and former (pre-exilic) prophets marked the cessation of priestly oracles, both in the form of the Urim and Thummim and the supernatural means by which the precious gemstones of the high priest’s breastplate were engraved (the “Shamir”).16 These claims were elaborated upon in the Tosefta (ca. 250 ce), which added the loss of kingship and the Holy Spirit (i.e., prophecy) to the loss of the priestly Urim and Thummim at the time of the Babylonian exile.17 By the fourth century ce,

14 15 16

17

See, for example, the traditions contained in b. Yoma 73b and y. Yoma 7.3. m. Sotah 9:12; cf. b. Sotah 48b. For the Shamir’s supernatural origin and its role in engraving the high priest’s gemstones, see m. Abot 5:6 and C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), 69. “When the first Temple was destroyed, the kingship was removed from the house of David [and] the Urim and Thummim ceased. When the latter prophets died, that is Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, then the Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel” (t. Sotah 13:2–3;

priestly divination and illuminating stones

27

rabbinic circles in Palestine included the oracles in a list of the “five things of the First Temple [that] were lacking in the [Second] Temple. And these are they: Fire, ark, Urim and Thummim, anointing oil, and Holy Spirit.”18 Throughout this trajectory of rabbinic thought, the loss of the Holy Spirit and the Urim and Thummim are simply stated as historical reality without much exposition on their disappearance.19 Perhaps because of the straightforward nature of these claims and the priority afforded to talmudic literature in traditional Jewish historiography, the rabbinic position on the discontinuation of these items significantly influenced the long-held assumptions that post-exilic Judaism was bereft of both prophecy and priestly divination.20 However, modern methodological approaches to rabbinic literature—including an increased caution against reading it as normative and increased sensitivities to the ideological motivations of the rabbis—make an assessment of its historicity more complicated than it once seemed.21 Although it is possible that these statements simply preserved an accurate historical memory, it is important to remember that early rabbis attempted to establish an alternative model of religious authority in the Jewish community by shifting Judaism’s focus away from the traditional reliance on priestly mediation of the divine realm and instead focusing on the efficacy of rabbinic Torah scholarship. To accomplish this shift, the rabbis often challenged the legitimacy of the Second Temple priesthood and attempted to appropriate roles that traditionally belonged to priests, such as halakhic adjudication and instruction—the very roles once facilitated by the Urim and Thummim.22

18 19

20

21 22

cf. y. Sotah 9.13). Another saying in the Tosefta claims that “the Exiles came up, without a king, without Urim [and] without Thummim” (t. Sanhedrin 3:4). y. Taʾanit 2.1, 65a; cf. y. Makkot. 2.6, 32a; y. Horayoth 3.2, 47c; b. Yoma 21b. One version of this list replaces the Urim and Thummim with the cherubim (see Numbers Rabbah 15:10). The only major debate on this issue recorded in rabbinic literature concerns the precise identification of the “former prophets”; see m. Sotah 9.12; y. Sotah 9.13, 24b; b. Sotah 48b; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 18–19. Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 10–45, 149–173. Cook traces the strong influence of rabbinic claims in traditional scholarly assumptions regarding the cessation of prophecy at the end of the First Temple period. Less work has been devoted to the disappearance of priestly oracles in particular, but traditionally when this topic was discussed scholars similarly deferred to rabbinic opinion; see n.3 above. For example, see the debates in Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, eds., Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 1, pt. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 123–230. For the rabbinic criticisms of priests and attempts of the rabbis to appropriate priestly functions, see Chaim Licht, Ten Legends of the Sages: The Image of the Sage in Rabbinic Literature (Hoboken, nj: ktav Publishing, 1991), 88–92, 103–117; Stuart A. Cohen, The Three

28

grey

Therefore, the early rabbis had an ideological reason to dismiss forms of priestly divination that lay beyond their control and that did not conform to their model of religious authority. This motivation does not necessarily invalidate the rabbis’ claims that priestly oracles only existed in the distant past, but it does warrant a reconsideration of them. Before examining competing claims, it is important to note that there is precedent for the rabbinic view among earlier post-exilic texts. For example, some rabbinic statements on this issue refer to a passage in Ezra 2:63/Nehemiah 7:65 that states that priests returning from the Babylon exile could not “partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.”23 This passage does not indicate if the oracles were absent in the return or if there was simply not a priest among the returnees who knew how to operate them.24 However, despite this ambiguity, it may have been sufficient to foster later traditions that the Urim, Thummim, and other oracular stones were removed by God before the exile. Similarly, lxx Hosea 3:4 (a text purporting to be from the eighth century bce) predicted a future time when, because of disobedience to God’s commandments, “Israel shall abide many days without a king … and without a priesthood, and without manifestations” (δήλων; the lxx translation of Urim).25 Either together or independently, these biblical passages may have inspired, influenced, or at least supported the subsequent trajectory of thought regarding the disappearance of the priestly oracles, a trajectory that culminated in the statements of the early rabbis. By the late Second Temple period, the claim that the oracles had disappeared was almost certainly related to popular traditions that vessels from the First

23 24 25

Crowns: Structures of Communal Polemics in Early Rabbinic Jewry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Peter Schäfer, “Rabbis and Priests, or: How to Do Away with the Glorious Past of the Sons of Aaron,” in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, eds. Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 155–173; and Naftali S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). Rabbinic passages that cite this verse include t. Sotah 13:2–3 and y. Kiddushin 4.1, 65b. A related tradition in 1Esdras 5:40 implies that in the return from exile there was no high priest who was then “wearing Urim and Thummim.” An altered version of lxx Hosea 3:4 was incorporated into 2 Chronicles 15:3–4, in which Azariah recalls that in the time of the Judges Israel went “a long time … without a teaching priest.” Josephus, Antiquities 8.296 conflates the two passages by reporting Azariah’s prediction of a future time in which “no true prophet shall be left in your whole multitude, nor a priest who shall deliver you a true answer from the oracle,” thus summarizing 2Chronicles 15:3 but quoting lxx Hosea 3:4. See Rofé, “No Ephod or Teraphim” and Fried, “Second Temple,” 6.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

29

Temple were hidden at the time of its destruction.26 However, as far as can be determined, the earliest surviving text to specifically include the illuminating stones in that scenario is the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (lab), likely written in Palestine during the mid to late first century ce.27 Throughout the lab, Pseudo-Philo acknowledges the existence of the priestly oracles in the biblical period, but creates an alternate history of the stones by providing narrative details not found in the Hebrew Bible.28 In some ways, these additions affirm the oracular potential of the Urim and Thummim (demonstrationem et veritatem), such as in the text’s account of the priests Eleazar and Phineas consulting these items at Shiloh.29 In other ways, Pseudo-Philo downplays the efficacy of the oracles by casting doubt on their reliability, such as in its claim that the Urim and Thummim could lie and deceive the priest consulting them.30 Pseudo-Philo also separates these items from the high priestly vestments (including the ephod and breastplate) as well as diminishes the oracular qualities of the vestments themselves.31 The text does describe the twelve gems on the high priest’s breastplate, but it subordinates them to twelve other inscribed and illuminating stones that had supernatural origins (being provided by an angel) and that outshone the breastplate stones.32 Thus, Pseudo-Philo calls

26

27

28

29 30 31

32

Cf. 2Maccabees 2:4–8 and 4Baruch 3–4. First Maccabees 4:45–46 contains a variation on this tradition by claiming that the stones from the temple altar were stored by the Maccabees “in a convenient place on the temple hill until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them.” For further discussion on the dating and provenance of this text, see D.J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:297–303. See Robert Hayward, “Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly Oracle,” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 43–54, and Pilchan Lee, The New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 190–196. lab 22:8–9; 25:1–6; 28:3. See lab 46:1; 47:2. lab 11:15, 13:1 describes the high priestly vestments (including “the ephod, the breastplate … [and] the precious stones”), but makes no mention of the Urim and Thummim in that context. This concept is introduced by the Israelites’ discovery of seven illuminating and oracular stones in an Amorite temple. After their discovery, an angel replaced them with twelve inscribed and luminous stones that came from the paradisiacal land of Havilah (lab 25:10–12; cf. Genesis 2:11–12). These latter stones were to be placed “on the ephod over against the twelve stones that Moses in the wilderness set on the breastplate” (lab 26:1–15, italics added). For text and commentary relating to this passage, see Harrington, “Pseudo-

30

grey

into question the oracular reliability of the Urim and Thummim, distances the high priestly vestments from the gifts of the divination attributed to them in the Hebrew Bible, and transfers their revelatory powers to other supernatural stones. Along with promoting these views, Pseudo-Philo claims that when Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, all of the stones—both the breastplate gemstones and supernatural luminaries—were hidden by God in paradise as a punishment for Israel’s sins: And God said to Kenaz … “when the sins of my people have reached full measure and enemies begin to have power over my house [the Temple of Solomon], I will take those stones and the former stones along with the tablets [in the Ark of the Covenant], and I will store them in the place from which they were taken in the beginning.”33 Although Pseudo-Philo provides numerous details not found in rabbinic literature (such as alternative supernatural stones and their ultimate concealment in paradise), this text articulates a tradition similar to the rabbis’ claim that the oracles ceased to exist (or ceased to function) following the First Temple period. Another variation on this tradition is found in 2 Baruch, an apocalyptic text that was written in Palestine during the early second century ce and that shares numerous parallels (and possibly source material) with Pseudo-Philo.34 This

33 34

Philo,” 297–377, and Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Regarding the origins of the angel’s supernatural stones in the land of Havilah, this claim may be in polemical conflict with the tradition in Tg. Ps.-J. Exodus 35:27, which claims that the twelve stones of the high priest’s ephod and breastplate (not the angelic replacements) originated in the river Pishon, the river that encompassed the land of Havilah in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:11–12). Like Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Josephus, Antiquities 3.166 also implies that the twelve stones of the high priest’s breastplate came from a supernatural source. For other traditions of precious stones being found in paradise, see Ezekiel 28:13 and 1Enoch 18:6–8. lab 26:12–15. For setting and contents of this text, see A.F.J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983): 615–652 and John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 212–225. For comparisons and points of overlap with PseudoPhilo, see Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 300, 302 and M.R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (New York: Ktav, 1971), 46–54.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

31

text also downplays traditional reliance on the temple and partially blames a corrupt priesthood for its loss.35 Similar to the tradition found in PseudoPhilo, 2Baruch claims that before the destruction of Solomon’s Temple an angel removed the temple vessels—including the priestly garments and precious stones—and hid them in the earth: And I saw that [the angel] descended in the Holy of Holies and that he took from there the veil, the holy ephod, the mercy seat, the two tables, the holy raiment of the priests, the altar of incense, the forty-eight precious stones with which the priests were clothed, and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle. And he said to the earth with a loud voice: … receive the things which I commit to you, and guard them … so that strangers might not get possession of them … And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up.36 Though peculiar in the number of stones it describes and its account of their burial in the earth,37 2Baruch is clearly situated within the trajectory of thought that the priestly oracles and precious stones were not in operation after the First Temple period.38

35

36 37

38

See Klijn, “2Baruch,” 617. F.J. Murphy, “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 671–683. Murphy documents the text’s dismissive attitude toward traditional temple ideology. Set in the narrative context of the destruction of Solomon’s Temple (though likely an implicit reference to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70ce), 2Baruch 10:18 describes the priests throwing the temple keys up to heaven and pleading to God, “Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards” (cf. b. Taʾanit 29a and Leviticus Rabbah 19:6). 2Baruch 6:7–9. As seen previously, most other sources describe only one set of twelve stones worn by the high priest, although lab posits the existence of twenty-four stones total (the twelve of the high priest and the twelve supernatural stones given by the angel). It is not clear if the number of forty-eight stones in 2Baruch represents an orthographic mistake, or if this text envisions four priests each wearing a breastplate of twelve stones. A third variation of this view is found in another pseudepigraphic text (possibly from late first century Palestine) that claims that after the death of Zechariah (the son of Jehoiada, the priest killed by King Joash), “the priests were not able to see a vision of angels of God or to give oracles from the Dabeir, or to inquire by the Ephod, or to answer the people through Urim as formerly” (Lives of the Prophets 23:1–2); see D.R.A. Hare, “The Lives of the Prophets,” in otp 2:398. For the death of Zechariah in the days of King Joash, see 2Chronicles 24:20–22. This tradition dates the loss of priestly divination earlier than most of the rabbinic sources.

32

grey

Without a clear understanding of the authorship or provenance of PseudoPhilo and 2Baruch, it is difficult to know what factors shaped their views of the stones’ disappearance. These texts do, however, share a number of ideological positions with later rabbinic literature.39 For example, in addition to challenging traditional views of the temple, both texts downplay priestly claims to divine communion in favor of Torah study as the ultimate means of revelation. In the case of 2 Baruch, the author consistently shifts the reader’s focus away from spiritual dependence on the temple and priesthood, and instead focuses on obedience to the Law as taught by sages.40 It may be significant, therefore, that both Pseudo-Philo and 2Baruch consistently describe Law-centered revelation in terms of divine light,41 an image used by other traditions to describe priestly divination stones (see below) but that may be intended in these writings to transfer divine power from the priestly oracles to halakhic explication. In short, these two texts seem to reflect an alternative view of divine authority and revelation among some Jews by highlighting sage-led Torah study rather than priestly mediation as the primary means of obtaining divine illumination, a theme that resonated with the early rabbinic worldview developing around that time. As a side note, it is interesting to observe that although Pseudo-Philo and 2Baruch anticipate rabbinic claims about the early disappearance of the priestly oracles, both texts share a notion that is not expressed in classical rabbinic literature: the eventual return of the stones at the end times. Pseudo-Philo states that in a future era when God would “remember the world and visit those inhabiting the earth,” the twelve breastplate gems, the twelve luminous supernatural stones, and “many others better than they are” will be brought forth from their hiding place in paradise to provide the righteous with “the light of those most precious stones,” which “will not lack the brilliance of the sun or the moon.”42 Similarly, 2Baruch predicts that the earth will guard the oracles and

39

40 41

42

For the relationship between these texts and rabbinic literature, see Klijn, “2 Baruch,” 617, 620; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 221–222, 224–225; and Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 302. E.g., 2Baruch 46:4–5; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 221–222; Klijn, “2 Baruch,” 618– 620, and Murphy, “Temple,” 680–683. In 2Baruch the Law is a “lamp to the generations of Israel” (17:4) that “enlightens the darkness and reveals secrets … to those who subjected themselves to it” (54:5; cf. 38:1–2; see Klijn, “2Baruch,” 618–619), while in Pseudo-Philo the Law will “burn an eternal light” (9:8) and “enlighten [God’s] people” (11:1–2; see Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 301). lab 26:13. As will be seen below, there are numerous traditions of the shoulder stones of the high priest being compared to the sun and moon.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

33

other temple vessels “until the last times” when they, along with Jerusalem, “will be restored forever.”43 It appears that these two texts envision an eschatological age in which priests will once again have access to the oracles and illuminating stones that characterized their divine mediation in the biblical past. Such a future, it seems, was not envisioned (or at least not commented upon) by the early rabbis. Rabbinic literature showed a lack of interest in apocalyptic thought generally,44 but the early rabbis’ disinterest in the eventual return and renewed operation of the stones in particular may have been fostered by their hopes of a future Judaism focused exclusively on their own Torah scholarship rather than on the instruments of priestly mediation and divination. Later rabbinic traditions describe the eschatological Jerusalem as paved with illuminating stones (integrating the breastplate gems with the prophecy in Isaiah 54:11–12),45 but the earliest and most formative collections of rabbinic sayings—the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmuds—reflect no interest in the stones’ ultimate return.46 Instead, the early rabbis seemed to believe that the priestly oracles belonged exclusively to the distant biblical past, were not used by priests following the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, and played little or no role in Israel’s future.

43

44

45

46

2Baruch 6:7–9. It should be noted, however, that the composite nature of 2 Baruch leaves hints of contradicting traditions regarding the future restoration of the Jerusalem temple and its vessels; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 214–215, and Murphy, “Temple,” 681– 683. Rabbinic statements that discourage apocalyptic speculation include t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:19; y. Ber. 1.1, 2c; b. Sanh. 97b; Eccl. Rab. 11:5–29. For discussion of early rabbinic resistance to apocalypticism, see M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), 69–71; Moshe Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 42–45; and Oded Irshai, “Dating the Eschaton: Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Calculations in Late Antiquity,” in Apocalyptic Time, ed. Albert I. Baumgarten (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 124, 129, and 136. Exodus Rabbah 15:21; Peskita de-Rav Kahana 18. This exegesis of Isaiah 54 was present among some Jews of the late Second Temple period (cf. 4Q164; see below), but found no expression among rabbinic circles until the late Byzantine or early medieval period. For one late tradition on the hiding and eschatological return of the “twelve fine stones,” see James R. Davila, “The Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim),” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, ed. Richard Baukham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1:393–409 (esp. pp. 408–409). The relationship of this tradition to rabbinic thought, however, remains uncertain.

34 3

grey

Priestly Oracles in the Second Temple Period: Traditions of Continuity

While traditions existed among some Jews that the oracular stones were not used by priests in the Second Temple period, other post-exilic texts show that alternative views existed among circles more sympathetic to the ongoing practice and legitimacy of priestly divination. These alternative traditions are varied and historically complicated, but they show a continued interest in the illuminating stones and their association with the priesthood long after the First Temple period, and they suggest that practices of priestly divination through the use of these items may have persisted at least among some groups. As might be expected, traditions of the oracles’ continuity into the Second Temple period are found in sources that perpetuate the biblical view of a divine realm mediated by priests and that were often the product of priestly writers. In their descriptions of the precious stones, these texts naturally draw upon references to them in the Hebrew Bible—in particular the description of the high priest’s vestments in Exodus 28 and the oracular qualities assigned to them elsewhere—but they also expand upon the biblical material and apply it to more contemporary settings, attesting a dynamic development of thought and practice that derived from the earlier sources. Some texts make claims that are more eschatological or mystical than historical, but that still demonstrate a desire to interact with the luminous stones in a way that is absent in classical rabbinic literature and its antecedents. For example, early apocalyptic Christians who saw themselves as a “kingdom [of] priests” claimed that the stones of the high priest’s breastplate would be key features of the New Jerusalem.47 There, each member of the eschatological temple community will receive their own inscribed stone (Rev 2:17), be clothed in white robes (Rev 3:5), wear crowns on which the name of God is written (Rev 3:11–12), and dwell in a city with light emanating from the twelve precious gemstones at its foundations (Rev 21:9–21).48 In short, members of this community expected soon to become high priests living in a luminous holy of holies with access to their own oracles. More mystical priestly traditions—including material found in Joseph and Aseneth,49 47 48 49

For the early Christian self-understanding as a “kingdom of priests,” see Revelation 1:6; cf. 5:10; 20:6; and Exodus 19:6. See Lee, New Jerusalem, 275–286. Joseph and Aseneth 2:2–20; 3:6; 5:4–7; 6:1–8; 12–13; 18. For the book’s priestly worldview and possible priestly authorship, see Gideon Bohak. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

priestly divination and illuminating stones

35

3 Enoch,50 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan51—also drew upon the imagery of inscribed and illuminating stones in their description of angelic transformation, the obtaining of divine secrets, and interaction with the heavenly temple, showing that various Jewish groups maintained deeply symbolic and metaphysical interests in these items. Other texts, however, make historical claims that the oracles were actually used by high priests of the Second Temple period as a part of their cultic activities. Some of these claims are more direct than others, but they each show that there were post-exilic authors who continued to believe in priestly mediation of the divine realm through the use of oracular stones. The earliest such claim may be in the vision recorded in Zechariah 3:1–10, which states that Joshua the son of Jehozadak (the first high priest of the Second Temple; ca. 520 bce) was invested with divine authority by receiving at the hands of an angel the high priestly garments and a stone engraved with “seven pairs of eyes” (‫ ;ִשְׁבׇﬠה ֵﬠי ׇנ ִים‬Zech 3:9). Although scholars have debated the meaning of this supernatural stone, the “seven pairs” of engraved eyes is most likely an allusion to the fourteen inscribed stones of the high priest in Exodus 28—the two shoulder stones and twelve breastplate gems—which, by absorbing the 50

51

In 3Enoch 12:1–5 and 13:1–2, God fashions for Enoch/Metatron a “majestic robe … in which all kinds of luminaries were set,” including “a kingly crown in which forty-nine refulgent stones were placed, each like the sun’s orb, and its brilliance shone into the four quarters of the heaven of ʿArabot, into the seven heavens, and into the four quarters of the world.” Upon his headpiece, God wrote the twenty-two letters of creation: “Each letter flashed time after time like lightenings, time after time like torches, time after time like flames, time after time like the rising of the sun, moon, and stars.” See P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in otp 1:223–302. Tg. Ps.-J. Exodus 28:30 reads: “You shall put into the ephod of judgment the Urim— the words of which are enlightening and make public the hidden things of the house of Israel—and the Thummim—which fulfills the oracles of the High Priest, who, through them, seeks instruction from before the Lord. On them is clearly inscribed the great and holy Name through which the three hundred and ten worlds were created, and which was clearly inscribed on the foundation stone with which the Lord of the world sealed the mouth of the great deep from the beginning. And everyone who brings this holy Name to mind in the hour of affliction is saved, and hidden things are revealed to him.” See Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 1994), 241–242. For the priestly orientations of this targum, see Paul V.M. Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in their Social and Linguistic Context,” in The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200c.e., ed. Birger Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003), 467–508 and Beverly P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

36

grey

oracular function of the Urim and Thummim within the breastplate, implies a restoration of divine communication after the return from exile.52 If this interpretation is correct, Zechariah’s vision reflects a belief that Joshua had access to priestly oracles after the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. This would be an interesting contrast to the roughly contemporary statement in Ezra that among the returnees there was not a priest who could perform divination by “consult[ing] Urim and Thummim” (Ezra 2:63; cf. Neh 7:65). In light of Ezra’s claim and tendency to downplay Joshua’s high priestly status in the return,53 Zechariah seems to present an alternative view that Joshua in his sacred vestments was the herald of a new age, that the cultic provisions necessary to mediate between God and Israel were fully restored, and that his engraved stone symbolized the post-exilic renewal of divine communication.54 While Zechariah’s vision may have made a somewhat symbolic statement to these ends, a cluster of texts written in the second century bce made more direct historical claims regarding the use of luminous and oracular stones by high priests in the mid-Second Temple period, again by expanding upon the description of high priestly vestments in Exodus 28 and describing their operation in a contemporary setting. For example, the Letter of Aristeas— a text that greatly celebrates the Jerusalem temple liturgy and endorses the divine role of priestly service—describes the ritual activity of Eleazar, a high priest of the Hellenistic era (ca. 283–246bce).55 In its description, the author claims to have seen Eleazar presiding over the temple services wearing “all the glorious vestments, including … the garment with precious stones upon it in which he is vested.”56 After mentioning the breastplate, the text then affirms

52

53 54 55 56

See James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 27, 31 and idem, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 553–570 (esp. pp. 567–570). It is interesting to note that lab 26:9 describes the supernatural stones that trumped the breastplate gems as engraved with “forms of eyes,” while Tg. Neof. Exodus 28:18 claims that one of the high priest’s breastplate gems was called the “calf’s eye.” This suggests that some Jewish traditions associated the priestly stones with eye engravings. C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950), 97–100. Bonner discusses ancient amulets with engraved eyes which appear apotropaic in nature. See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 18–42. VanderKam, “Joshua,” 567–570. See R.J.H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in otp 2:8–9. For more on the description of the stones in Aristeas, see Fried, “Second Temple,” 18–19, and Hayward, Jewish Temple, 34–35. Let. Aris. 96.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

37

its oracular qualities, describes the supernatural illumination of its stones, and recounts the otherworldly experience of those who view this ritual: On his breast [Eleazar] wears what is called the oracle (λόγιον), to which are attached twelve stones of different kinds, set in gold, giving the names of the patriarchs in what was the original order, each stone flashing its own natural distinctive color—quite indescribable … Their appearance makes one awestruck and dumbfounded: A man would think he had come out of this world into another one. I emphatically assert that every man who comes near the spectacle of what I have described will experience astonishment and amazement beyond words, his very being transformed.57 This passage makes no direct mention of the Urim and Thummim, but it claims that the breastplate in which they are stored continued to operate as an oracle (λόγιον; terminology retained from the description of the breastplate in the lxx), apparently as the breastplate gems assumed their luminous qualities by emitting light during the temple services. This last detail is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, making the description in Aristeas one of the earliest accounts of the inscribed breastplate stones glowing while the high priest performed his ritual functions. The inspiration for this expansion of the biblical tradition is not clear—does this detail merely reflect the author’s explication of the biblical material, or does it reflect the actual ritual practices of the period?—but its inclusion in the text shows that by the time of the author (if not earlier in the Hellenistic period) there existed a belief that the oracular stones still functioned in a way that recalled (and even went beyond) their biblical description. Similarly, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (ca. 195–175bce)—another text that extolled the temple services and priesthood—described the “glorious” garments of the high priest mentioned in Exodus 28, including his ephod, “the oracle of judgment (λογείῳ κρίσεως), Urim and Thummim (δήλοις ἀληθείας) … with precious stones engraved like seals,”58 and affirmed their operation in a contemporary setting. Although the author of this text was generally suspicious of dreams and divination,59 he promoted the ongoing legitimacy of priestly

57 58 59

Let. Aris. 97–99. According to the translation in Hayward, Jewish Temple, 29, each stone was “shining forth with its own proper colour in a way which cannot be explained.” Sir 45:6–11; see Fried, “Second Temple,” 9–13. See Sir 34:1–8.

38

grey

inquiry through “a divine oracle [δήλων],”60 and implied that this prerogative of divination would remain with Aaron’s descendants “in perpetuity” and help priests “to enlighten Israel with [God’s] law,”61 thus suggesting that the oracular function of these items were not meant to cease with the destruction of the First Temple. To support this assertion, ben Sira claimed that the high priest Simon ii (ca. 219–199bce) officiated in the temple with the illuminating stones either during the daily sacrifice or on the Day of Atonement; as Simon emerged from the incense-filled sanctuary, he shone with the radiance of his shoulder stones (described as the sun and moon) and multicolored breastplate gems:62 How glorious he was … as he came out of the house of the curtain. Like the morning star among the clouds, like the full moon … like the sun shining on the temple of the Most High, like the rainbow gleaming in splendid clouds … like fire and incense in the censer, like a vessel of hammered gold studded with all kinds of precious stones. When he put on his glorious robe and clothed himself in perfect splendor … he made the court of the sanctuary glorious.63 This luminous moment of epiphany—accentuated by the breastplate gems shining with their various colors—“made the court of the sanctuary glorious,” prompted prostration from the assembled congregation, and demonstrated that the link between the priesthood and the divine realm remained unbroken.64 Although they were written for different purposes and described two different high priests, the Letter of Aristeas and the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira share a number of important elements: both express enthusiastic support for the Jerusalem priesthood, affirm a worldview in which divine communication was mediated through priests, and claim that oracles and illuminating stones continued in use by priests in the mid-Second Temple period. Unfortunately, neither explicitly describes a priestly divination ritual or gives a specific exam-

60 61 62

63 64

Sir 33:3. See above for the use of similar terminology in the description of the Urim and Thummim in the lxx. Sir 45:13, 17. Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the shoulder stones of the high priest as a representation of the sun and moon, attesting to such an association among various priestly circles of the late Second Temple period; see below. Ben Sira’s description of Simon shining like the rainbow is likely a reference to the various colors of the breastplate gems. Sir 50:5–11. Sir 50:11, 17–21; see Hayward, Jewish Temple, 59–61, 78–81.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

39

ple of an oracle being received, but they both assert that the illumination of the high priest’s stones attended the temple’s theophanic rituals in the third and second centuries bce. Of course, the historical claims of these two texts are difficult to assess. On the one hand, both texts clearly contain legendary material and their accounts draw heavily upon the description of high priestly vestments in Exodus 28, leaving us to question the extent to which their descriptions were simply ekphrastic derivations of the biblical tradition. On the other hand, however, these accounts presumably had at least some degree of verisimilitude for their readers, and their independent inclusion of non-biblical details (in particular the stones’ emission of light) points to a developing tradition surrounding the contemporary significance of the stones, perhaps even reflecting ritual practices that had taken shape by the time of the authors. In any case, such an ongoing and dynamic tradition of oracular divination suggests that, contrary to the views of the early rabbis and their predecessors, some Jewish writers believed that high priests during the Hellenistic period continued to possess supernatural stones that connected them to the divine realm in an unbroken continuation of biblical tradition.65

65

Later Samaritan and Christian traditions also implied that high priests of the Hellenistic period had access to the luminous and supernatural oracles. For example, a medieval Samaritan tradition claims that the Samaritan high priest (Hezekiah) at time of Alexander had shining stones when the two met: “When Alexander saw him and the magnificent display of the headgear he was wearing … [Hezekiah said] ‘Your Excellency … when I saw you my breastplate gleamed and light dazzled before my eyes’” (Samaritan Chronicle ii, Folio 130a); see Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “Alexander the Great’s Worship of the High Priest,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. North (London: t&t Clark, 2004), 77, 99–100. Also, a Syriac tradition from late antiquity claims that Eleazar the priest, one of the Maccabean martyrs who suffered under Antiochus iv, placed his regard for the high priesthood and its oracles above his own life: “I reverence the worked tunic which giveth oracles by means of various colours … I reverence the ephod of judgment and the Urim and Thummim which we who are worthy to exercise the priest’s office carry upon our breasts when we enter within the Holy of Holies … that we may be able to judge the things that are fitting, and as in a vision may receive revelations from above and teachings of truth, and may offer answers clear of falsehood to those who are initiated” (Memra of Mar Severa 5); see W.E. Barnes, The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895), xxx. In addition, there was a second-century Christian tradition that Joachim, the father of Mary, sought an oracle from the shining headpiece of a high priest in the early Roman period (Protoevangelium of James 5:1).

40

grey

3.1 Illuminating Stones and Priestly Oracles in Josephus Traditions regarding the existence and use of priestly oracles also persisted among some circles in the Hasmonean and Herodian (early Roman) periods, with some of the most detailed and explicit examples being found in the writings of Josephus from the late first century ce.66 As a priest himself, Josephus naturally promoted priestly ideology and a form of hierocratic government throughout his career.67 Therefore, his writings provide valuable insight into how, in the decades before and after the loss of the Second Temple, some aristocratic priests viewed the significance of the temple cult, including the ongoing relevance of the priestly vestments and oracles. These views, incidentally, were expressed around the same time that early rabbinic ideology was taking shape, confirming that competing Jewish worldviews existed around the time of the temple’s destruction. Throughout his writings, Josephus describes the garments of the high priest and the associated oracular stones in a variety of contexts, including in his paraphrases of Exodus 28, in his reworking of biblical narratives, and in his praise of the Hasmonean high priest, John Hyrcanus. In most of these instances, Josephus resembles the Letter of Aristeas and the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira in his use of biblical imagery and in his addition of non-biblical details, the latter of which presumably reflects first century priestly views and possibly ritual practices relating to the luminous stones. Josephus’s descriptions of the oracles also imply their continued operation through his frequent articulation of their contemporary significance and his narration of events that occurred well into the Second Temple period. In at least two instances Josephus paraphrased Exodus 28 in his descriptions of the high priestly garments worn in the Jerusalem temple, which descriptions appear to fuse biblical details and first century temple practices. These garments included “two very large and very excellent sardonyxes” on the shoulder pieces of the ephod and the twelve engraved gemstones, “extraordinary in size and beauty,” on the breastplate, all engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel.68 In addition to describing their physical appearance, however, Josephus reflected and expanded the extra-biblical tradition in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira by endowing the stones with luminous cosmic significance:

66 67 68

Fried, “Second Temple,” 3–4. See, for example, Josephus’s commentary on the ongoing need for priestly government in Apion 2.185–188, 193–198. Josephus, War 5.233–234; Antiquities 3.162–171.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

41

Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and the moon … And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning.69 Josephus also viewed the stones of the high priest’s vestments as possessing oracular qualities long after the destruction of the First Temple. He curiously omits any mention of the Urim and Thummim but, like Zechariah and the Letter of Aristeas, he subsumes their divinatory functions into his description of the breastplate, “called the Essen [ἐσσὴν], which in the Greek language signifies the Oracle [λόγιον].”70 To show the efficacy of this item as an oracle, Josephus maintained that the breastplate or Essen (Josephus’s Greek transliteration of ‫חֶשׁן‬ ֹ ) provided the high priest with divine communications; in particular, its illuminating stones provided a way for Israel to know God’s will regarding the legitimacy of prophetic claimants and the advisability of going to war. In making these claims, Josephus reaffirmed the biblical institution of priestly mediation, insinuated that priestly divination provided a safeguard against the possibility of false prophecy within the community, and implied that such practices continued into the Second Temple period.71 For example, Josephus claimed that God would manifest his presence during the temple liturgy (and thus validate the community’s current course of action) through the glowing of the stone on the high priest’s right shoulder in sight of the congregation: For as to those stones … the high priest bore on his shoulders, which were sardonyxes … the one of them shined out when God was present at their sacrifices; I mean that which was … on his right shoulder, bright rays darting out from there, and being seen even by those that were most remote; which splendor yet was not before natural to the stone.72

69

70 71 72

Josephus, Antiquities 3.179–187. Although his writings are too vast and peripheral to be considered in this paper, Philo of Alexandria similarly describes the high priest’s shoulder stones as representing the sun and moon and the twelve gems of the breastplate as representing the signs of the zodiac. Philo also refers to the Urim and Thummim (“manifestation and truth”) as connected to the oracular breastplate (λογειον); see Life of Moses 2.112–113, 122–130; cf. Special Laws 1.84–92. Josephus, Antiquities 3.163. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 19; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 25.2 (1974): 252–253. Josephus, Antiquities 3.214–215.

42

grey

Similarly, Josephus claimed that the twelve stones on the high priest’s breastplate provided “divine revelation” on military matters through their shining: Yet will I mention what is still more wonderful than this: for God declared beforehand, but those twelve stones which the high priest bore on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate that he would be present for their assistance. They should know of God’s presence when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march. Thus it came to pass that those Greeks, who had a veneration for our laws, because they could not possibly contradict this, called that breastplate [τὸν ἐσσῆνα] the Oracle [λόγιον].73 With this latter claim, Josephus echoed the injunction in Numbers 27:21 for Joshua to inquire of a priest through the Urim before leading Israel into battle, a function Josephus assigned to the glowing gems of the high priest’s breastplate: “Moses taught … how they should go forth to war, making use of the stones for their direction.”74 Josephus also incorporated this conviction into his rewriting of biblical stories, claiming that on several occasions Saul and David consulted the high priest—vested in his oracular garments—to obtain prophecies regarding the advisability of various military actions.75 Finally, Josephus commented on the longevity of the stones’ operation by stating in Antiquities (written in the late 90s ce) that “this breastplate, and this sardonyx, left off shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God having been displeased at the transgression of his laws.”76 Numerous scholars have pointed out that this statement posits a cessation of the priestly oracles around the death of the Hasmonean high priest John Hyrcanus in 104 bce, thus implying that he was the last high priest to perform these divination rituals.77 In light of this observation, it may be significant that Josephus celebrated John Hyrcanus as the only figure who “was esteemed by God worthy of the three greatest privileges, the government of his nation, the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy; for God was with him, and enabled him to 73 74 75 76 77

Josephus, Antiquities 3.216–217. Josephus, Antiquities 4.311. Josephus, Antiquities 6.115, 359–360; cf. Antiquities 6.257 and 7.76. For others, see Gray, Prophetic Figures, 17–18. Josephus, Antiquities 3.218. See Gray, Prophetic Figures, 16–23, 172n.30; Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 136–138; Fried, “Second Temple,” 3–4.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

43

know the future.”78 These priestly-prophetic gifts allowed John Hyrcanus to predict the fate of his sons and receive heavenly communications in the temple regarding the kingdom’s military affairs.79 Although these latter accounts do not specifically mention the illuminating oracles, they imply a connection with Hyrcanus’s high priestly vestments and their prophetic qualities. Unfortunately, Josephus did not elaborate on the reason the illuminating stones stopped shining other than his brief reference to the community’s transgression of God’s commandments.80 Josephus clearly maintained that inherent gifts of prophecy continued among priests down to his own time (including in his own career),81 but his reasons for claiming that the priestly oracles had ceased to function remain uncertain: Did Josephus simply preserve an accurate memory that the stones stopped glowing around 100 bce? Or was he apologetically trying to exonerate the oracles following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70ce by explaining that they were no longer able to warn of impending disaster?82 The answers to these questions are difficult to determine, but it is clear that Josephus—through his paraphrase of biblical material, his addition of non-biblical details, his accounts of the oracle’s operation at least down to the Hasmonean period, and his interest in the contemporary significance of the luminous stones—reflects the view that the use and relevance of the oracles continued long after the destruction of the First Temple. It is also interesting to note that the traditions found in the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, and Josephus all cluster around the second century bce, suggesting that this was a time of particularly heightened interest in the illuminating stones and their association with priestly mediation. 3.2 Illuminating Stones and Priestly Oracles in the Dead Sea Scrolls Considering the high level of interest in the oracles during the mid to late second century bce, it is likely not a coincidence that the Qumran community—a

78 79 80 81 82

Josephus, Antiquities 13.299–300; cf. War 1.68–69. Josephus, Antiquities 13.282–283 and 13.299–300 (cf. War 1.68–69). In Antiquities 3.128, Josephus said that he would discuss this claim in a subsequent writing, but no such explication is extant. See Gray, Prophetic Figures, 35–79 and Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 239–262. In War 6.389, Josephus claimed that Jesus the son of Thebuthus the priest “delivered to [Titus] the veils and the garments, with the precious stones, and a great number of other precious vessels that belonged to their sacred worship.” Hayward, Jewish Temple, 151 and idem, “Pseudo-Philo,” 53, suggests that Josephus claimed the oracles stopped working previous to that event as a way to explain why they did not protect the Jews from the disastrous consequence of the revolt and why they eventually fell into the hands of the Romans.

44

grey

priestly sectarian movement founded around this time—displayed a particular fascination with the Urim, Thummim, and other luminous stones of the high priest. References and allusions to these items appear in a variety of contexts throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, both in sectarian compositions and in other texts preserved by the community, showing that in many ways the luminous stones symbolized the sect’s worldview and perception of its own religious authority.83 Unfortunately, many of the scrolls containing these references are fragmentary, elliptical, or enigmatic, making it difficult to determine their precise nature; it is often unclear if they merely represent the community’s biblical exegesis or if they were meant to describe the actual use of stones by earthly priests in Jerusalem, the leaders of the sect, the angelic priesthood of the heavenly temple, or an anticipated priestly messiah. Of course, these categories are not always mutually exclusive in the scrolls, which often allows for multiple interpretations. A few examples from different genres will illustrate the wide-ranging ideological value the priestly stones had for the Qumran community. To begin, the Dead Sea Scrolls contained several writings that expanded upon biblical traditions of the oracles.84 For instance, the Temple Scroll—a recasting of Pentateuchal legislation from the Hasmonean period85—affirms the requirement in Numbers 27:21 for Israel’s national leaders to consult the high priest’s Urim and Thummim before leading an army into battle: If [the king] goes to war … he shall not go until he has presented himself before the High Priest who shall inquire on his behalf for a decision by the Urim and Tummim. It is at his word that he shall go and at his word that he shall come, he and all the children of Israel who are with him. He shall not go following his heart’s council until he (the High Priest) has inquired for a decision by the Urim and Tummim. He shall then succeed in all his ways on which he has set out according to the decision which […]86

83 84

85

86

Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698. In some instances, the biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve references to the Urim and Thummim that seem to have been expunged from the mt (e.g., 4QExodLevf [4Q17 ii 1.ii.5–6]); see Fried, “Second Temple,” 7. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 257. Schiffman argues that this text was written during the second half of the reign of John Hyrcanus. 11QT 58:15–20. Curiously, the oracles are not mentioned in the War Scroll.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

45

Although it clearly appropriates biblical language, this passage asserts the authority of the high priest over national military matters and adapts the injunction to consult the Urim and Thummim for a more contemporary (or eschatological) setting, apparently presupposing their ready (or future) availability. Other scrolls more subtly weave Numbers 27:21 into rewritten biblical material. For example, 5Q422 (the Apocryphon of Joshua) blames Joshua’s deception at the hands of the Gibeonites on his failure to consult the high priest Eleazar through the Urim and Thummim, thus integrating the injunction of Numbers 27 with the events described in Joshua 9:14.87 Other biblically oriented texts among the scrolls draw upon the account of the Levites receiving Urim and Thummim in Deuteronomy 33:8–10. Allusions to this passage can be found in fragmentary copies of the Aramaic Testament of Levi, an apocryphal work known previously only in its Greek form.88 This text elaborates upon Levi’s investiture of authority and anticipates an eschatological priestly figure whose mission will be opposed by his own wicked generation.89 For both topics the text used imagery of the high priestly garments and Urim and Thummim to symbolize the transformation of a human priest 87

88

89

In 5Q422 9.2.9–11, Joshua addresses Eleazar: “[The Canaanites/Gibeonites] led me to sin because I did not seek th[e dec]ision (‫ )]מ[שפט‬of the [Urim and Thummim] from you and they deceived me …” This statement contradicts a later rabbinic tradition that Joshua did not need to inquire of the Urim and Thummim since he already possessed prophetic gifts (see b. Eruvin 63a). The Apocryphon of Joshua is extant in three or four copies from Qumran (4Q378, 4Q379, 5Q422, and possibly 5Q9) and one fragment from Masada. Extant copies seem to date to the first century bce, although an allusion to John Hyrcanus might exist in the text and thus suggest a slightly earlier dating. For the text, translation, and commentary, see Devorah Dimant, “The Apocryphon of Joshua–4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–204. For the fragments of the Testament of Levi among the Dead Sea Scrolls, see 4Q213– 214; 1Q21; 4Q537–541; for discussion of the larger manuscript history of this text, see Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). The related Greek Testament of Levi 8:1–4 claims that seven men dressed Levi in the garments of the priesthood, including “the oracle (λόγιον) of understanding, the robe of truth, the breastplate of faith … and the apron for prophetic power.” In chapters 17–18, the text claims that the priestly messiah(?) will bring “the light of knowledge as day is illumined by the sun … will shine forth like the sun in the earth” (18:3–4), and that through him the nations “shall be illumined” (18:9). Not all of these passages are extant in the Aramaic fragments, but the dressing scene and light imagery is alluded to in 4Q537, 4Q541 9 and 24, 1Q21 3, and 4Q213(b) 7–23.

46

grey

into a messenger of God endowed with powers of revelation.90 Although the Testament of Levi was not composed at Qumran, it seems that the community found meaning in its description of priestly oracles and prophecy, and likely used the text to buttress the claims of priestly authority made by the community’s leadership.91 A more direct reference to Deuteronomy 33:3–10 is found in 4Q175 (the Testimonia or Messianic Anthology), a list of biblical proof texts that describe the (eschatological?) offices and qualifications of a legitimate prophet, king, priest, and military leader.92 In the case of a true priest—possibly a reference to the sect’s leader, the priestly messiah, or both—the text cites a variant of Deuteronomy 33:8–10 that highlights the luminous nature of the Urim and Thummim possessed by the Levites; whereas the mt version of this passage states that the Levites were given these items along with the charge to “teach” (‫ )יוֹרוּ‬God’s judgments to Israel, the variant attested at Qumran connects the two concepts more explicitly: “They [the Levites] have made shine [‫ ]ויאירו‬your judgments for Jacob, and Israel your law.”93 This variant suggests that the author of the text understood the light of the Urim and Thummim to play an integral role in the divine mandate for priests to teach and judge the community. Some scholars have suggested that this work was a sectarian polemic against the legitimacy of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean monarch who, according to Josephus, claimed all of the offices mentioned in the text (prophet, king, priest, and military leader).94 If this interpretation is correct, the polemic implies that the community denied the validity of John Hyrcanus (the last high priest whom Josephus claims consulted the oracular stones) in favor of its own priestly leader(s), who legitimately fulfilled the stated criteria by “causing God’s judgments to shine” through the Urim and Thummim. Similar connections between the luminous stones and the sect’s priestly leadership can be found in the biblical exegesis produced by the Qumran com-

90 91 92

93 94

Fried, “Second Temple,” 13–18. Another contemporary text that was preserved by the Qumran community and that similarly associates prophecy with the high priest’s clothing is Jubilees 30:18; 31:14; 32:4. For more on this text, see Theodor H. Gaster, “A Qumran Reading of Deuteronomy xxxiii 10,” Vetus Testamentum 8.2 (April 1958): 217–219; djd 5:57–60; and Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 81–82n.129. 4Q175 14–20; emphasis added. Katell Berthelot, “4QTestamonia as a Polemic against the Prophetic Claims of John Hyrcanus,” in De Troyer, Lange, and Schulte, Prophecy after the Prophets?, 99–116; Crispin Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 225–228.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

47

munity. For example, in one commentary (4Q164/Pesher Isaiahd) the writer understood the precious jewels in Isaiah 54:11–12 to be a reference to the “council of the community” shining forth in judgment like (or with) the gemstones and oracles of the high priest:95 And I will lay your foundations with sapphires. Interpreted, this concerns the Priests and the people who laid the foundations of the Council of the Community … the congregation of His elect (shall sparkle) like a sapphire among stones. [And I will make] all your pinnacles [of agate]. Interpreted, this concerns the twelve who shall enlighten by judgment of the Urim and Thummim [‫[ … ]מאירים במשפט האורים והתומים‬without] any from them missing, like the sun with all its light, and like the moon … [And all your gates of carbuncles]. Interpreted, this concerns the chiefs of the tribes of Israel … his lot [‫]גורלו‬, the offices of […]96 This text is notable for its connections between the community council, the passing of judgment through the illumination of the Urim and Thummim, and the casting of lots. However, because of the fragmentary nature of this text, a few aspects of its interpretation are not clear: Do the “twelve who shall enlighten” refer to the twelve gemstones of the high priest’s breastplate that will shine along with the Urim and Thummim (a minority reading),97 or to twelve priests who lead the community and who pass judgment by using the oracles (the interpretation favored by most scholars)?98 Also, is this pesher a reference to the sectarian leadership at the time of writing, the eschatological New Jerusalem, or both? Either way, it is clear from this text that the Qumran community understood the oracular stones of the high priest to symbolize God’s communications to the sect’s leadership (in the present or future) as it judges Israel. Other sectarian documents that describe a group of twelve priests guiding the community

95 96 97

98

See djd 5:11–30 (esp. pp. 27–28). 4Q164 1.1–7. David Flusser, “The Isaiah Pesher and the Notion of Twelve Apostles in the Early Church,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 1 of Qumran and Apocalypticism, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 305–326. Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 61–62. According to this interpretation, all twelve of the community’s chief priests must possess the full garb of Exodus 28, which accords with the statement in 4Q175 that the Levites (plural) would cause God’s judgments to shine through the Urim and Thummim.

48

grey

through divination (including lots) suggest that this imagery was meant to reflect the actual practices and claims to divine authority of the sect’s governing council (see below).99 Along with biblical expansions and exegesis, other texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls presuppose the regular use of the oracles and resemble traditions of Second Temple period high priests discussed previously. For example, the fragmentary Moses Apocryphon represented in 4Q375–376, 1Q29, and 4Q408—a text likely composed in the Hasmonean period—prescribes a divination ritual for an “anointed priest” to detect false prophets through his use of glowing stones:100 … they shall shed light on you [‫]אירוכה‬. And he shall go out with it with tongues of fire. The left-hand stone on his left side will show itself to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest has completed his speech. And afterwards the … has gone up … And you shall keep and d[o al]l [that] he shall speak to you.101 Fragments of this text represented by 4Q408 indicate that the author envisioned this divination ritual as accompanying the morning and evening prayers of the daily sacrificial service when the high priest emerged from the temple.102 As is immediately apparent, this text shares some remarkable similarities with Josephus’s description of the high priest’s ritual to safeguard against false prophecy; in the Moses Apocryphon the anointed priest’s left shoulder stone shines “with tongues of fire,” while in Josephus the high priest’s right shoulder stone emanates “bright rays,” but both divination rituals are performed by the high priest in the presence of the congregation to reveal God’s will.103 Also, both

99 100

101 102

103

Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 228–232. See djd 19:125–136, djd 36:298–313, and John Strugnell, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 221–256; cf. Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698. 4Q376, 1Q29 1.2; cf. 4Q376 1.1: “… of the anointed priest … [one bullo]ck from the herd, and a ram … for the Urim [‫[ … ]לאורים‬the stone when] …” (djd 19:123). See 4Q408 1; 4Q408 3.5; 4Q408 11. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 193–194. djd 36:298 notes the similarities between the daily prayer rituals described in this text and the sunrise prayers made by the Essenes as described by Josephus in War 2.128. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 3.214–215. It is possible that the Moses Apocryphon once contained a description of the glowing right shoulder stone as well (see 1Q29 2), in which case

priestly divination and illuminating stones

49

texts reflect an ideology in which the high priest possesses judicial authority over prophetic claimants, and both proceed to discuss the role of priestly authority in military matters.104 In light of these similarities, it is difficult to determine if the text refers to priests in the Jerusalem temple (perhaps living before the sect withdrew from Jerusalem) or to the priestly leaders of the Qumran community as they performed the sect’s liturgical services. Compelling arguments can be made for both. At first glance, preference might be given to the former interpretation, especially considering the traditions found in Zechariah, the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, and Josephus, all of which connect the luminous stones and divine communication with specific high priests of the Second Temple (Joshua, Eleazar, Simon ii, and John Hyrcanus, respectively). If one assumes that Josephus was accurate in his claim that the priestly oracles ceased to function around 100 bce, then perhaps the Moses Apocryphon simply preserved a tradition relating to one of the high priests before the death of John Hyrcanus.105 However, considering the popularity of this text at Qumran (it being preserved in at least three manuscripts in two caves),106 it is also possible that the Moses Apocryphon was relevant to rituals performed by sectarian “high priests” and might have actually served as another polemic against the prophetic claims of John Hyrcanus.107 This latter possibility would suggest what all of the other scrolls examined so far have implied: that in the early stages of its development, the Qumran community believed its leaders possessed divine oracles similar to those used in the Jerusalem temple and claimed their divinatory power for themselves. In support of this scenario, some of the most foundational sectarian documents found among the scrolls apply the imagery of the illuminating stones to the

104 105 106 107

the text would provide instructions on detecting false and true prophets; see djd 19:124, 126, and 129. The Moses Apocryphon is fragmentary, but the passage after the reference to the glowing shoulder stone discusses military matters; see 4Q376 1.3. For arguments along these lines, see djd 19:130–131. For the unique sectarian interest in this text, see Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 223–225. The primary purpose of this divination ritual is to detect a false prophet. As mentioned previously, Josephus claimed that John Hyrcanus had prophetic gifts and was the last high priest to perform this ritual. However, the Qumran community possibly listed John Hyrcanus among the false prophets to be condemned (see 4Q399), and may therefore have considered him to be one of the false prophets indicted by the glowing stones of a legitimate (sectarian) high priest.

50

grey

community’s leadership, often referring to leaders functioning as (or with) the high priest’s breastplate gems and the Urim and Thummim. For example, in 1QSb—a series of blessings uttered in anticipation of the messianic era— the Master of the Yahad blesses the Sons of Zadok (the priestly elite among the community) that they will be “splendid jewel[s] set in the midst of the congregation of the saints” and “an [eternal] light [to illumine] the world with knowledge and to enlighten the face of the Congregation.”108 A similar poem (4Q511) describes the Master himself as possessing words that “shine forth” with the knowledge of God’s glory,109 and that cause “light to shine” on those destined for eternal life.110 Later in the poem, the Master declares that “God has caused the knowledge of understanding to shine in my heart” and “hast placed … in my heart the secret … of all human actions and the completion of the deeds of the perfect of way and the judgments regarding all the service done by them,”111 a cluster of imagery that recalls the Urim and Thummim within the high priest’s breastplate that provides oracles of judgment. This language also resembles the self-description of the Teacher of Righteousness in the “Thanksgiving Hymns” (the Hodayot). There, the teacher describes his role and his relationship to God in terms of the Urim and Thummim. First, the teacher thanks God, “for you have illuminated my face … [and have] appeared as perfect light [‫ ]אורתם‬to me.”112 The word ‫ אורתם‬appears up to three times in the Hodayot and an additional three times in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.113 Although it is typically translated as “perfect light,” the word seems to be a unique sectarian conflation of the words Urim and Thummim, meant to evoke both the light of God’s dwelling place and the shin108 109 110 111 112 113

1QSb 3–4. 4Q511 1. 4Q511 2. 4Q511 18; 4Q511 63. 1QHa 12. For different perspectives on the significance of ‫אורתם‬, see Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1985), 231–232, and FletcherLouis, All the Glory of Adam, 232–243. In addition to its appearance in the Hodayot and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, this term—along with the images of sun, moon, and stars often associated with the high priest’s shoulder and gem stones—also appears in a liturgical fragment (4Q392) related to the Hodayot: “… He created darkness [and l]ight is His, and in His dwelling is the most perfect light [‫]אור אורתם‬, and all gloominess ceases before Him. It is not for himself the distinction between light and darkness, for He has distinguished them for the sons of man: light during the day by means of the sun; (and during the) night (by means of) moon and stars. The inscrutable light is with Him … [s]ervants of the most holy pla[ce].”

priestly divination and illuminating stones

51

ing oracles of judgment possessed by the high priest as he emerges from the temple.114 Indeed, the imagery of the high priest entering the temple (God’s dwelling) and emerging with light is applied to the Teacher of Righteousness in the Hodayot; once he has been illuminated himself,115 the teacher is empowered to “illumine the face of the Congregation,”116 “shine in a seven-fold light to the Council of the community,”117 and serve as a conduit for God’s glory to “shine forth” to Israel.118 Thus, after the teacher has had his own encounter with the lights, or Urim, of God, he can then serve in that illuminating role for the sect as he expounds law and unfolds heavenly mysteries; in effect, the teacher becomes the Urim and Thummim mediating the divine realm for the congregation. Other fragmentary but intriguing allusions to the priestly oracles exist among the mystical liturgical scrolls, such as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Because these fragments are so elliptical, it is often impossible to determine if they describe the angelic priests of the heavenly temple, their earthly counterparts of the Qumran community, or a transformative initiatory ritual that brought both into a mystical union. In the case of the thirteenth song, the setting was likely a liturgy celebrating the full investiture of the community’s priests on the Sabbath following Shavuot.119 At the culmination of this celebration, the song describes a ritual in which those performing the services are clothed with the luminous garments of the high priest, including vestments that are “many-coloured like the work of a weaver [with] splendid engraved figures … colours of the most holy spiritual light … in the midst of an appear114 115

116

117

118 119

See Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 232–243. 1QHa 12.20–25: “Thou hast revealed Thyself to me in Thy power as perfect Light”; cf. 1QHa 16: “I [thank Thee, O Lord], for Thou hast enlightened me through Thy truth. In Thy marvelous mysteries … Thou hast granted me knowledge.” 1QHa 12.25–30: “Through me Thou hast illumined the face of the Congregation and hast shown Thine infinite power. For Thou hast given me knowledge through Thy marvelous mysteries, and hast shown Thyself mighty within me in the midst of Thy marvelous Council.” 1QHa 15:20–25: “And I shall shine in a seven-fold light in [the Council appointed by] Thee for Thy glory; for Thou are an everlasting heavenly light to me and wilt establish my feet [upon level ground for ever].” 1QHa 18:25–30: “For in Thy … and my light shall shine forth in Thy glory. Far as a light from out of the darkness, so wilt Thou enlighten me …” See Judith H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hinday Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 29–30, 38–39, 61–67.

52

grey

ance of whiteness.”120 Other fragments of this song also describe the liturgy being performed by multiple priests dressed in multicolored woven “ephods” (‫ )אפודים‬and “breastplates” (‫)חשני‬.121 Once vested in this manner, the priests are prepared to serve in their oracular functions.122 Although the song appears to describe the angelic priests of the heavenly temple, the plurality of “breastplates” in these fragments recalls 4Q164 (Pesher Isaiahd), which suggests that the “council of the community” consisted of twelve chief priests, each dressed in the full high priestly garb of Exodus 28 (see above). Read together, the collection of scrolls examined in this section suggests that members of the Qumran community may have actually had stones that, they believed, illuminated and revealed God’s will to their leaders.123 Such a claim might seem fanciful at first glance; however, in theory it is not impossible. We know from literary and archaeological evidence that the Qumran community physically replicated many activities of temple priests, including wearing white linen clothing, consuming ritual meals, fastidiously performing ritual purity washings, and possibly conducting sacrificial rituals;124 for the community to claim possession of priestly oracles would not be out of place in its overall program. Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence from Qumran cannot confirm the oracular use of stones among the community. Josephus stated that the Essenes sought after peculiar stones for healing purposes,125 and magical engraved gemstones have been discovered in Jewish contexts from late antiquity,126 but ultimately these points do not clarify the use of priestly oracles at Qumran. Nevertheless, support for the plausible existence of such oracles at Qumran might be found in the Community Rule, which indicates that the leaders of the sect made important decisions and judgments for the Yahad through the 120 121 122 123 124 125

126

4Q405 23 ii. 11Q17 9 vi; 4Q405 41. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 346–347, 371–373. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 38–39, 66–67. Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698. See Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 105–162, 193–202. Of the Essenes, Josephus, War 2.136 states: “They display an extraordinary interest in the writings of the ancients, singling out in particular those which make for the welfare of soul and body; with the help of these, and with a view to the treatment of diseases, they make investigations into medicinal roots and the properties of stones.” H. Thackeray, Josephus: The Jewish War: Books i–ii (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard, 1997), 374–375n.c. Thackeray suggests that these stones are “probably charms or amulets.” See Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 158–165.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

53

use of lots (‫)כאשר יצא הגורל‬. These divinatory instruments were used by the priestly leaders of the community to determine the entrance of members into the sect,127 and probably also for passing judgment, expounding Torah, and allotting lands within the community.128 Armin Lange and Florentino García Martínez have both argued persuasively that these lots are the same illuminating stones mentioned in 4Q164 (Pesher Isaiahd) as belonging to the community’s twelve presiding chief priests.129 If they are correct, these texts confirm that the Qumran community believed their leaders had access to legitimate priestly oracles. In any case, it is clear that the sect expressed a high level of interest in the oracles and often used them to symbolize their claims to religious authority, their ideal community, and their conception of the heavenly temple. In fact, the theme is so persistent in the scrolls that scholars might consider revisiting Solomon Zeitlin’s suggestion (made before the scrolls were available) that Josephus’s nickname for the sect—the Essenes (εσσηνοι)130—comes from the word Essen (εσσην), Josephus’s Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for the high priest’s oracular breastplate (‫חֶשׁן‬ ֹ ).131 This suggestion is supported by the shared root of the two words used by Josephus, as well as the qualities Josephus assigns to both; he sees the breastplate (εσσην) as an oracle that allows the high priest to foretell future events,132 and the Essenes (εσσηνοι) as a sect whose prophetic gifts included predictive foresight.133 As seen in this section,

127 128 129

130

131

132 133

1QS 6.16, 18, 21–22. See Armin Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” 408– 409. 1QS 5.3, 9.7; 1QSa 1.16. See Lange, “Essene Position,” 409–410. See Lange, “Essene Position,” 409–410, 422–423; and Florentino García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 305–309. For this spelling or related declensions, see Josephus, Antiquities 13.171–172, 298, 311; 15.372– 373, 378; 18.11, 18; War 2.119, 158–160; 5.145; Life 1.10. Occasionally, however, Josephus also uses the alternative spelling εσσαιος in reference to the sect; see Antiquities 15.371; 17.346; War 1.78; 2.113, 567; 3.11. Josephus, Antiquities 3.163–166, 170–171, 185, 216–218. For the argument connecting these two words, see Solomon Zeitlin, “The Essenes and Messianic Expectations: A Historical Study of the Sects and Ideas during the Second Jewish Commonwealth,” Jewish Quarterly Review 45.2 (October 1954): 87–90. Josephus, Antiquities 3.163. For the many associations between the Essenes and prophecy, see Gray, Prophetic Figures, 80–111; Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 138–139; and Brooke, “Prophecy,” 699.

54

grey

the Dead Sea Scrolls support this possibility by their prominent emphasis on the priestly oracles and glowing stones of the high priestly breastplate, which symbolized the ability of the community leadership to unfold the mysteries and provide mediation between God and the sect. For decades scholars have assumed that the name Essene was both a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word and a nickname given to the group by outsiders, which probably reflects one of the sect’s idiosyncratic habits, such as its peculiar activities, garments, or interests.134 In light of these assumptions, the possibility that outsiders referred to the sect as εσσηνοι (something like “breastplate people”) is an intriguing one. While the community might not have referred to itself as “the Essenes,” it is reasonable to suggest that outsiders noted the sect’s unusually high level of interest in the oracular stones and gave it a nickname that reflected its claim that its leaders performed the function of high priests mediating the divine realm. Curiously, scholars since Zeitlin have not paid much attention to this possibility, despite the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls now provide much more support for it than what previously existed.135 In addition to the scrolls’ fascination with the stones and their symbolism, it is interesting to note that the plural word for breastplate (hosheni; ‫—)חשני‬ the term Josephus likely would have transliterated as Essenoi (εσσηνοι)—does appear in the sectarian scrolls, possibly providing a textual link between the scrolls and the name of the sect described by Josephus.136 In any case, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence for at least one group of Jews in the late Hasmonean and early Roman period who continued to attach high significance and contemporary relevance to the priestly oracles, and who may have continued divination practices with illuminating stones in their community liturgy, decision making, and mystical experiences. As this overview of Qumran material has shown, there appears to have been multifaceted uses of stone imagery among the scrolls. In some instances the scrolls seem to reflect sectarian exegesis of relevant biblical passages that appear more

134 135

136

See Geza Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 8–9. A few scholars have noted this possibility in their treatment of the etymology of Essene, but typically either dismiss or accept it with little discussion. For examples of scholars who dismiss it without much explanation, see Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, 11–12, and John J. Collins, “Essenes,” in abd 2:620. Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 275n.427. Feldman remains open to this possibility, but to date the most extensive argument in its favor is in FletcherLouis, All the Glory of Adam, 248–251. 11Q17 9 vi; 4Q405 41. See Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 248–251, and Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 347.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

55

theoretical in nature, or that create a simile between the luminous stones and the community’s council or master (who play the role of the oracles for the congregation). In other instances, the scrolls seem to reflect more historical claims that oracular lots identified with the priestly illuminating stones were actually used by the community’s leaders, and that their ongoing usage evinced the legitimacy of the sect’s priesthood over and against the claims of the current Jerusalem temple administration. Therefore, the Dead Sea Scroll corpus joins with other priestly texts (such as Aristeas, ben Sira, and the writings of Josephus) in diverging from the rabbinic narrative that the oracular stones and practices of priestly divination ceased to be relevant after the loss of Solomon’s Temple.

Concluding Observations In this paper I have provided a brief survey of the disparate traditions regarding the fate and significance of priestly oracles in the Second Temple period. It is clear from this survey that the claim often made by scholars and rabbinic literature—that priestly divination through the illuminating stones of the high priest ended with the First Temple period—is too simplistic in light of the full range of evidence. On the one hand, rabbinic sources and some post-exilic texts including Ezra, Pseudo-Philo, and 2Baruch do claim that the stones went out of use with the destruction of the First Temple and were not used by priests in the Second Temple period. On the other hand, different sources—including Zechariah, the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, and Josephus— preserve traditions that the oracles were used by high priests long after the return from exile, including in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Hasmonean periods. Similarly, numerous texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Qumran community saw the illuminating stones as emblematic of the sect’s leadership and its ability to mediate the divine realm, and that its leaders may have performed divination rituals with such stones during the first centuries bce and ce. Considering this conflicting evidence, it is extremely difficult to determine the actual history of the priestly oracles with certainty; did they really cease to function with the loss of Solomon’s Temple in 586 bce, or did they continue in use among priestly circles of the post-exilic period? The cumulative evidence seems to favor the latter. It is possible, however, that numerous historical complexities influenced the competing traditions that exist in the ancient sources. For example, the agendas and ideologies of the communities and authors producing the sources certainly affected the way they described the fate and signif-

56

grey

icance of the stones. Early rabbis and some of their predecessors envisioned a Judaism in which priestly mediation of the divine realm was supplanted by the scholarship, teachings, and leadership of the sages, thus emphasizing an alternative means of receiving divine revelation. As the rabbis attempted to shift this long-standing religious powerbase away from the temple and priesthood, it is not surprising to find them promoting traditions that relegated priestly oracles and divination to the distant biblical past and that expressed little or no interest in their return. Other circles, however, continued to support the biblical notion of priestly mediation and claimed that, in one form or another, illuminating priestly oracles continued to operate into the current age, representing an unbroken link between the earthly and heavenly realms. These latter circles apparently included supporters of the Hellenistic-era high priesthood (such as Aristeas and ben Sira), priestly aristocrats of the early Roman period (such as Josephus), and the Qumran sect, which believed that its leaders were heirs to the practices and authority of the Zadokite priesthood. It is also possible that various historical developments fostered the perceptions of different groups regarding the stones’ availability and efficacy. For example, the high priesthood itself experienced numerous social, political, and religious changes throughout the Second Temple period; while Zadokite high priests enjoyed a high degree of political power and religious autonomy during the Persian and early Hellenistic period, by the second century bce the Zadokites had become fractured as they were replaced by Seleucid appointees, Hasmonean monarchs, and other individuals appointed by Herodian and Roman administrators. Ultimately, the high priestly garments, including the stones, came into the custody of Roman governors as a reflection of the shift in political hierarchy during the first century ce.137 Perhaps the ebbs and flows of priestly power and autonomy impacted the legitimacy different groups afforded the high priests and their claims to divine authority, thus impacting the way these groups described the fate of the priestly oracles. One such juncture seems to have been during the reign of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest during the final decades of the second century bce. The accounts preserved in Aristeas and ben Sira demonstrate that this century was a period of heightened interest in the stones of the high priest, reflected by developing traditions of their luminosity and oracular nature. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus was the last high priest to use the illuminating stones in this manner. John Hyrcanus was also one of the Hasmonean high priests opposed by the Qumran community. It might not be a coincidence, therefore,

137

See Josephus, Antiquities 15.404–407; 18.90–93; 20.6–14; and Hayward, “Pseudo-Philo,” 53.

priestly divination and illuminating stones

57

that the Qumran community, which rejected the Hasmonean priesthood and claimed the authority of the Zadokite priesthood for itself, claimed the powers of the oracles and continued to perform priestly divination practices with them through the first century ce. In any case, this confluence of sources and events suggests that an atmosphere existed during the late Second Temple period in which competing claims, speculations, and polemics regarding the illuminating stones circulated within the Jewish community. Whatever the actual history of the stones might have been, the conflicting traditions examined in this paper provide valuable insights into the socio-religious dynamics of postexilic Judaism as a reflection of the disparate ideologies of the circles that produced them.

Exegete as Prophet? Qumran Methods of Receiving Revelation for Pesher Interpretation David Joseph Larsen

The pesher-type interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which a scriptural passage is followed by an interpretation that can generally be classified as “actualizing” or eschatological in nature, has increasingly been recognized as having been considered to be divinely revealed in some manner.1 It appears, from textual indications in the various pesharim, that the interpreter saw himself as, essentially, employing the gift of prophecy. He did so in imitation of the biblical oracles, in order to provide the proper understanding of the biblical text. The process or mechanism for receiving the interpretations through revelation, however, is obscure in the pesharim texts. Edward M. Cook expressed this dilemma with the following questions: What exactly were they doing when they received revelation? Did they hear an audible voice, or did they see or hear figures in a vision, or in a dream? did they experience trances, or see miracles, or what? The question is important, because they claimed to have a revelation that the rest of Israel did not have, and we must try to understand what made them think it was a revelation and why only they had it.2 1 Mauriya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 3; Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 361–362; idem, “The Pesharim and the Rise of Commentary in Early Jewish Scriptural Interpretation,”Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (2012): 363–398; George J. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. M.H. Floyd and R.D. Haak (lhbots 427; London: t&t Clark International, 2006), 151–165; idem, “Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2012); Martti Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination: Qumran Exegesis, Omen Interpretation and Literary Prophecy,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy, ed. Kristin de Troyer and Armin Lange (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 42–60; idem, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scripture in Transition: Essay on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta (JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 513–533. 2 Edward M. Cook, “What Did the Jews of Qumran Know about God and How Did They Know

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_005

exegete as prophet?

59

The current study will evaluate the possible methods used by the authors of the pesharim for obtaining the revelations that provided the interpretations contained in these texts. To arrive at the answer to questions like Cook’s, I will explore likely precedents and traditions that may have influenced the Qumran exegetes’ notions regarding prophecy, including the shift from “biblical” prophecy to the priestly-scribal prophecy that is observable in the Qumran and other Second Temple literature. Texts in the Qumran library that share similar concepts of divine revelation will be analyzed and brought to bear on our understanding of how revelation may have been understood for the authors of the pesharim.

1

Pesher Interpretation as Prophecy

A pesher consisted of a continuous commentary on or interpretation of an authoritative text, which was often (but not always) introduced by a variation on the word pēšer, which is generally taken to mean “interpretation.”3 Most of the pesharim that we see among the Dead Sea Scrolls are on the prophetic books of the Bible and the Psalms, which were likely understood to be prophetic as well. We should understand that the pesher interpretation was a type of “actualizing” exegesis in which the interpreter of the text saw what he was reading as “immediately relevant” to his own situation.4 George Brooke notes that the interpretive material is not presented as “secondary or derivative but as coherent with the divine communication received by the prophet.”5 In other words, the interpretations of scriptural prophecy contained in the pesharim were considered to be authoritative and to be prophecy on the level of the words of the original prophet. The authors of the pesharim apparently believed that the fulfillment of the “mysteries” contained in the writings of the prophets of old had been revealed by God to them, and that, generally speaking, the events that the prophets foretold had been, or would be, realized in the authors’ own time.

It? Revelation and God in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 5: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2: World View, Comparing Judaisms, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton (ho 17; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 7. 3 See Horgan, Pesharim, 1. 4 See George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (jsot ss 29; Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1985), 3. 5 Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 244.

60

larsen

This belief is made clear in texts such as the Pesher Habakkuk, which is well known for its interpretation of Habakkuk 2:2 as referring to “the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of his servants the prophets” (1QpHab vii, 4–5). Lawrence Schiffman, commenting on the authoritativeness of the Teacher’s interpretations, took note of “the notion in Pesher Habakkuk that God gave the teacher the gift of an almost prophetic message.”6 Alex Jassen has suggested that Pesher Habakkuk implies that “the original prophet did not understand the ‘mysterious’ words he uttered” because they did not apply to his time and circumstances (1QpHab 7:1–5), but to the present time of the exegete.7 Brooke, commenting on Pesher Habakkuk, stated that it “clearly indicates that God was considered to be still revealing his mysteries for the first-century reader.”8 The ideas expressed here would seem to go contrary to the belief expressed in much of the Second Temple literature that prophecy had ceased long before.9 However, although much of Second Temple Judaism seems to have dismissed prophecy, or prophets, as a thing of the past, it appears that some groups perpetuated a belief in some form of the prophetic gift. Jassen argues: “Despite the claim made by these passages, other scholars point to several sources from the Second Temple period that seem to indicate the continued vitality of prophetic phenomena that claim continuity with biblical models.”10 Many scholars have argued that, at least for the authors of many of the sectarian texts at Qumran, the gift of prophecy was still active.11 This conclusion is in line

6

7 8 9

10 11

Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 120. Jassen, “Pesharim,” 379–380. Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 245. See, e.g., 1Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1:41; Baruch 1:21; 2 Baruch 85:1; Prayer of Azariah 15; see discussion in Alex P. Jassen, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Qumran Community,” ajs Review 32, no. 2 (Nov., 2008), 302. Jassen, “Prophets,” 302. See, e.g., Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries,” 532; idem, “Pesharim as Divination,” 58–60; Jassen, “Prophets,” 302–308; Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 245; Otto Betz, Offenbarung un Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960); Miller Burrows, “Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B.W. Anderson and W. Harelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 223–232. For discussion of the wider phenomenon of prophecy in Second Temple Judaism and also early Christianity, see David L. Petersen, “Rethinking the End of Prophecy,” in Wünschent Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the xiith

exegete as prophet?

61

with information provided by Josephus, in which he claimed the prophetic ability for multiple individuals, although he refrained from directly labeling them with the term “prophet.”12 For Josephus, these Second Temple figures exercised a somewhat limited prophetic function, restricted mostly to foretelling the future. Jassen notes that the role of prophecy in Josephus is associated with the work of writing histories and was related to the institution of the priesthood.13

2

The Shift from Prophets to Priestly/Scribal Prophecy

Much recent scholarship on the phenomenon of prophecy in the Second Temple period has focused on the shift from the mode of oral prophecy of the classical biblical prophets to a type of modified priestly scribal prophecy. Josephus’ position was that the gift of prophecy had continued from the line of the prophets to the high priesthood, as they were the guardians of the written scriptures.14 Martti Nissinen argued that the apparent shift from oral to

12

13 14

Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986, ed. M. Augustin and K.D. Schunck (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 65–71; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 1983), 103–106, 132–133; Richard A. Horsley, “Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their Principal Features and Social Origins,” in New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader, ed. C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 124–148; Lester L. Grabbe, “Poets, Scribes, or Preachers? The Reality of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning, ed. L.L. Grabbe and R.D. Haak (London: t&t Clark, 2003), 192–215; Daniel B.R. Stawsky, “Prophecy: Crisis and Change at the End of Second Temple Period,” Journal of the Service Internationale de Documentation Judeo-Chrétienne 20 (1987): 13–20; Markus N.A. Bockmuehl, Revelation in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 58–60; Günter Stemberger, “Propheten und Prophetie in der Tradition des nachbiblischen Judentums,” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 14 (1999): 145–174. E.g., War 1:68–69; Ant. 13:299–300; Josephus spoke of an oracular form of prophecy performed by the high priesthood, but that ended with the death of John Hyrcanus (104 b.c.e.); see L. Stephen Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 138; Louis Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” jts 41 (1990): 386–422; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” jjs 25 (1974): 239–262. See Jassen, “Prophets,” 306; Feldman, “Prophets,” 386–422. Benkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 239–262; Steve N. Mason, “Priesthood in Josephus and the ‘Pharisaic Revolution’,” jbl 107, no. 4 (Dec., 1988): 659–661. Mason comments that “the role of

62

larsen

scribal prophecy “also reflects a development in the concept of a prophet from a speaker to a scribe.”15 The authors of the pesharim and other allegedly divinely-inspired texts at Qumran apparently saw themselves in this light. They were inheritors of the prophetic tradition whose function it was to provide an authentically revealed interpretation of the written words of the ancient prophets. For Nissinen, the “fulfillment of the mysteries once revealed to the prophet are now disclosed to [the interpreter], whereby the prophetic process of communications reaches a new, advanced level of interpretation which is possible only through a new act of revelation.”16 Although identifiable exegetical techniques are apparent in the written interpretations, the results of their exegesis were attributed not to the skills of the interpreter, but were understood as “a divinatory act inspired by God.”17 2.1 Functioning as Priests An important element of this, which Nissenen does not emphasize here, is that the Qumran scribes understood themselves to be priests associated with Zadok.18 Nissenen presents the Teacher of Righteousness as “a prototypical character representing the Qumran community as the one to whom the divine mysteries had been revealed and whose interpretations, therefore, were equated with divine knowledge.”19 Pesher Habakkuk 2:5–10 (cf. 7:1–5) declares that the Teacher of Righteousness, the Interpreter of Knowledge,20 is “the priest, to whom God placed into [his heart discernme]nt to interpret all the words of his servants the prophets [whom] through them God enumerated all that is going to come upon his people.”21 4Q511 35:3–5 similarly declares the community to be God’s “priests, his righteous people, his host, and ministers, the angels of his glory.”

15 16 17 18

19 20 21

the priests as protectors and expositors of the law was indispensable … Josephus always assumes the legitimacy and comprehensiveness of the priestly mandate over scriptural exegesis.” Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 58. Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 58–59. Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 59. Beyond the other examples (in 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, etc.) from the Qumran corpus, the pesher on Psalm 1 in 4QFlor identifies the elect group as the Sons of Zadok. The pesher on Psalm 37 in 4Q171 calls the Teacher of Righteousness “the Priest.” Nissinen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 53. As the Teacher is called in 4Q171 (4QpPsa), in the pesher on Ps 37:7. See Jassen, “Prophets,” 324.

exegete as prophet?

63

It appears that the Teacher of Righteousness, and perhaps subsequent leaders of the sectarian community, was seen in a similar light to how Josephus saw the high priesthood, including John Hyrcanus. In this perspective, the high priests received oracles from God through the medium of their high-priestly vestments, likely the ephod, breastplate, and/or Urim and Thummim.22 4QpIsad 1:4–5, from a pesher on Isaiah 54:11–12, makes reference to a council of “twelve [chief priests who] give light by the judgment of the Urim and Thummim,” describing the priests’ reception of revelation by means of light emanating from the oracles associated with the priestly breast-plate.23 Jassen argues that 1QHodayota 12:7, which presents the hymnist as declaring “as [perfe]ct light, you have revealed yourself to me,” should be understood as making reference to the Urim and Thummim and its oracular use.24 2.2 Jaddus the High Priest and Dream Incubation Jaddus was the high priest in Jerusalem, according to Josephus, at the time that Alexander the Great marched into the holy city.25 Robert Gnuse has identified this story as an account of “dream incubation,” the practice of performing a ritual that involves sleeping in a sacred place in order to obtain divine revelation in the form of a dream. Gnuse outlines the pattern followed by Jaddus, as described by Josephus: The general pattern for the account is: (1) sacrifice and prayer, (2) sleep in a sacred place, (3) a divine theophany—a dream, (4) awakening, (5) public proclamation, and (6) fulfillment of divine directives (which are recorded in Ant 11.329–333).26

22 23

24

25 26

See Cook, On the Question, 136–137. See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” jbl 95, no. 1 (Mar., 1976): 59–78, at 62–63. 1QS 8:1 and 1QM 2:1 also mention governing councils composed of, at least partially, priests. Jassen, “Prophets,” 313. See also Eliezer L. Sukenik, Megillot genuzot: sekira sheniyah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950), 43; Menachem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 122–123; Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 95–134. Hughes comments on the possible allusion here to the description of Moses’ shining face as he descended to the people after the Sinai theophany (Exodus 34:19); see Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 105. Ant. 11:326–339. Robert Gnuse, “The Temple Experience of Jaddus in the Antiquities of Josephus: A Report

64

larsen

It is hard to tell how much relevance there is for dream incubation and the pesharim, but this mode for receiving revelation appears to have been in use in the Second Temple period and may have been an influence on the Qumran priests. Dream incubation was also part of the larger phenomenon of the belief in obtaining a revelation/vision through dreams. 2.3 Dream Interpretation The study of dream divination and dream interpretation in the ancient world has become a key facet of recent scholarship on the Qumran pesharim. A. Leo Oppenheim laid the groundwork for making the connection between the dream interpretation texts of Mesopotamia and the pesharim, and his research has been substantiated and expanded upon by several scholars.27 Indeed, the connection has become so well established that Jassen could state: “It has become something of scholarly consensus that ancient Near Eastern dream and omen interpretation represents one of the most significant backdrops for the pesharim.”28 I will not attempt to comment on the vast corpus of scholarship that has been cited here, which establishes well the linguistic and structural parallels

27

28

of Jewish Dream Incubation,” Jewish Quarterly Review 83, no. 3/4 (Jan.–Apr., 1993): 349– 368. See A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 46, no. 3 (1956): 217–225; L.H. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher,”RevQ 3/11 (1961): 224–235; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 455; idem, “The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics,” wcjs 6 (1977): 97–114; Horgan, Pesharim, 231–234; Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 43–60; Jassen, “Pesharim,” 385–396; Shani L. Berrin, “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2005), 110–133; Armin Lange, “Interpretation als Offenbarung: Zum Verhaltnis von Schriftauslegung und Offenbarung,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García Martínez (betl 168; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 17–33; Asher Finkel, “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures,” RevQ 4/15 (1963): 357–370; Isaac Rabinowitz, “ ‘Pēsher/Pittārōn’: Its Biblical Meaning and Its Significance in the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 8/30 (1973): 219–232; Maren Niehoff, “A Dream Which Is Not Interpreted Is like a Letter which Is Not Read,” jjs 43 (1992): 58–84; James C. VanderKam, “Mantic Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” dsd 4 (1997): 336–353, at 350–352; John J. Collins, “Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls,” in Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 301– 314. Jassen, “Pesharim,” 385.

exegete as prophet?

65

between the genre of dream/omen interpretation and the pesharim, but will note that the similarities also include an aspect of ritual praxis. As Nissenen asserted, “the ancient Near Eastern cultures shared largely similar traditions of divinatory practices and methods as well as the theology of divination and the idea of the role of the diviner.”29 Nissinen notes that “the idea of omen-based divination is to acquire divine information on contemporary circumstances by systematic observation of godgiven signs of different kind, which are interpreted with the help of authoritative literature for the community that needs this knowledge.”30 The mediator of this divinely-given knowledge would need to have expert knowledge of the community’s authoritative texts and also be recognized by the community as qualified to receive and reveal the secrets of the celestial realm.31 Nissenen explained that, like the Near Eastern examples, the meaning of the prophecy interpreted in the pesher “can be discerned with the help of certain rules, rituals and techniques available to those few who have learned them, but it is ultimately a matter of divine revelation.”32 Dream interpretation in Mesopotamia often involved priests or priestesses using performative utterances and other rituals, including the invocation of gods, the use of amulets, figurines, and incense, purification, dream provocation, dream incubation, and other methods. The goal of the rituals was often to achieve a divine theophany.33 2.4 Precedents in the Hebrew/Jewish Tradition A key example from the Mesopotamian tradition is the figure of Enmeduranki, founder of an ancient order of dream interpreters and diviners, who was taken up into heaven and taught the heavenly mysteries of divination. Many scholars have expounded on the possible influence of the Enmeduranki myth on the similar Jewish descriptions of Enoch and Daniel. Like the ancient Sumerian hero, Enoch is taken up into heaven and taught the mysteries in a theophanic vision. In 1Enoch 13–14, Enoch’s ascension to heaven occurs during a dream that is induced as he falls asleep by the waters

29 30 31 32 33

Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 49. Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 52. See Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 52–53. Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 53. See Oppenheim, Interpretation of Dreams, 200–201. On the idea of the Dream Book being a collection of prescriptive rituals, see Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 45– 46.

66

larsen

of Dan.34 Enoch is a priest and is depicted performing priestly duties.35 Jassen, building on Stuckenbruck, implies a parallel between Enoch’s scribal duties, his ability to interpret dreams, and the genre of pesher interpretation.36 Much has been written on the similar traits attributed to the biblical character of Daniel. Daniel is given knowledge, wisdom, and “understanding in all visions and dreams” from God (Dan 1:17). He interprets dreams for the king of Babylon (Dan 2, 4) and interprets the divine writing on the wall (Dan 5), following a pattern that has been repeatedly and positively compared to the methodology of the pesharim.37 As Horgan notes, the root pšr and the word rāz (or “mystery”) are used in similar contexts in both the Qumran pesharim and the biblical book of Daniel. She cites the example of the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams in Dan 2, 4, and 5, and demonstrates how the interpretation follows a similar pattern to that of the pesharim, illuminating the mystery (rāz) of God’s prophetic message, by applying it to historical events. She explains: Just as the content of the interpretations in the pesharim refers to the clarification of past history, the present and future circumstances of the community and the world, or eschatological events, so too the interpretations in Daniel refer to history.38

34

35 36 37

38

For more on the parallels between Enmeduranki and Enoch, see Collins, “The Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature,” in Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 339–343; VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (cbqms 16; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984), 23–51; H.S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, (wmant 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988); Andrei A. Orlov, “Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in the Parables of Enoch: A Departure from the Traditional Pattern?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2007), 110–136; William Adler, “A Dead End in the Enoch Trajectory: A Response to Andrei Orlov,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 137–142. See Orlov, “Roles and Titles,” 123. Jassen, “Pesharim,” 394–395; Loren Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Sieveck, 1997), 120–123. See, e.g., Jassen, “Pesharim,” 394–396; Jassen, “Prophets,” 326; Nissenen, “Pesharim as Divination,” 59; Samuel I. Thomas, “‘Riddled’ with Guilt: The Mysteries of Transgression, the Sealed Vision, and the Art of Interpretation in 4Q300 and Related Texts,” dsd 15, no. 1 (2008): 155–171; Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 237; Horgan, Pesharim, 254 ff. Horgan, Pesharim, 254ff. For a helpful discussion on what the mysteries were understood to be at Qumran, see Leo G. Perdue, “Mantic Sages in the Ancient near East, Israel, Judaism,

exegete as prophet?

67

It has become clear that there is a great degree of affinity among the Qumran writings, especially the pesharim, for Daniel and his methods for prophetic interpretation. Daniel’s methods are very much in line with the priestly diviners and dream interpreters of the wider ancient world, with their rituals and divine theophanies. Although Daniel is never described explicitly as a priest, as is Ezekiel or Enoch, Collins has commented on the parallel characteristics between Daniel and the Babylonian priests who specialized in divination and dream/omen interpretation.39 Crispin Fletcher-Louis has outlined the allusions to the high priesthood in Daniel’s heavenly dream vision in Daniel 7.40 These and the many other parallels have led scholars to make further connections between Near Eastern dream reports and the interpretive style of the pesharim. Jassen has stated: “The dream and vision reports and interpretations in Daniel provide an important clue regarding the lines of continuity between the interpretation of dreams in the Near East and the interpretation of scriptural texts in the pesharim.”41 Daniel 7 and 8 are of particular interest to this study as they portray Daniel not interpreting the dreams of others, but as having his own dream visions, which he then writes down and provides the interpretation given him by heavenly beings. The throne theophany in Daniel 7:9–10 closely resembles that of 1Enoch 14, in which Enoch sees the divine figure on the throne with garments white as snow, surrounded by fire and ten thousand times ten thousand angelic attendants. As Enoch’s vision takes place in the heavenly temple after the visionary’s ascension there, the location of Daniel’s night vision should likely be understood in this light. Daniel’s throne vision follows a long line of biblical precedents, including those of Micaiah (1Kgs 22:19), Isaiah (Isa 6), and Ezekiel (Ezek 1; 3:22–24; 10:1). Zechariah 1:8 (cf. 4:1) is also notable, as it relates an account of a night vision experienced by the prophet Zechariah.

39 40

41

and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Prophecy after the Prophets?: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy, eds. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 176ff. See also Samuel I. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Judaism and Its Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). J.J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, mn: Fortress Press, 1993), 138–139. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 1997 (sblsp 36; Chico, ca: Scholars Press, 1997), 161–175. Jassen, “Pesharim,” 394.

68

larsen

2.5 Joshua and His Fellows in the Heavenly Courts It is also fruitful to mention here the accounts of Joshua the high priest found in the book of Zechariah. In Zechariah 3, the prophet sees Joshua standing before the Lord in the heavenly court. In this celestial scene, Joshua is dressed in heavenly garments, which are apparently similar, or even identical, to the priestly vestments described in Exodus 28.42 In this chapter, we can see evidence of the shift from pre-exilic prophets and prophecy towards that of priestly prophecy, as Joshua stands in the place previously held by prophets such as Moses and Isaiah. VanderKam comments: “Here, it appears, the high priest is represented as one who should be able to exercise a prerogative that once belonged to the prophet … [suggesting] expansions of high-priestly power into areas formerly associated with kings and prophets.”43 In Zechariah 3:7, the Lord of hosts promises Joshua that he will be given access to the celestial court, to have a place among the heavenly messengers. Verses 8–10 appear to depict Joshua as accompanied by a group of colleagues (“your friends who sit before you”) that are with him in the presence of the Lord. Verse 9 makes reference to a “stone” upon which the Lord will make an engraving. This may be a reference to something akin to the oracular breastplate with the Urim and Thummim, as described in Exodus 28, which communicated the divine will of God.44 The account of Joshua the high priest is another example of the phenomena associated with priestly prophecy in the Second Temple period, much like the examples discussed above from Josephus. The high priest performed rituals which (directly or indirectly) allowed him to have access to divine revelation, whether in the form of dream visions, ascent to the heavenly realm, divine theophanies, the Urim and Thummim, other media, or a combination of these. 42

43 44

See discussion in James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 158–162. Although the limits of this paper do not allow a full discussion of all of the texts that may have had an influence on the pesher interpreters, I would note that, among others of the apocryphal/pseudepigraphic literature, the traditions regarding Levi found in the Testament of Levi are also of great interest here. Levi has a sleep-induced vision, ascends to heaven, is clothed with the vestments of the priesthood including the ephod “for prophetic power,” is permitted to perform priestly functions in heaven, sees God on his throne, is made to stand near the Lord and be his minister, and is given a mission to declare God’s mysteries to mankind. See T. Levi 2–8. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon, 165. See discussion in VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon, 168–176. VanderKam argues that Zech 3:9 makes reference to seven “pairs” of eyes, which is a reference to the fourteen engraved stones that the high priest wore on his priestly vestments (p. 175).

exegete as prophet?

69

Accounts such as Zechariah 3:8–10 also suggest that the priestly leader may have the right to include his followers, or his fellow priests, in his visionary experiences. In many of the accounts, the visionary receives revelation in the form of symbols, is given an interpretation by a divine being, and writes down the interpretation in order to share it with others. All of these elements are relevant to understanding how priestly scribal prophecy functioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3

The Endowment of Prophetic Authority at Qumran

The foregoing discussion has presented various precedents that could have influenced the priestly-prophetic ideal portrayed in the Qumran texts. We have established that the figures who produced the pesharim and other “revealed” texts followed in the tradition of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Joshua, receiving revelation that could be written down and shared with their community. However, Edward Cook’s question, “What exactly were they doing when they received revelation?”, remains largely unanswered for the Qumran priests. Jassen had a similar query, “How exactly does God reveal this knowledge to the Teacher?”45 Jassen’s extensive research, along with that of Nissenen and others, promotes our understanding to a great degree. His proposal enters into the details of the nature of prophetic interpretation, and he argues that the interpretive process “focuses on the words of the ancient prophets.” The prophetic word “is actualized through a process of reading,” guided by “the divine bestowal of ‘discernment.’”46 Jassen is surely correct in his understanding of these aspects of the process, though he does not speculate on the mechanics of how the Qumran exegetes received the revealed interpretation, beyond the notion that they were being guided by God-given discernment. He does suggest that the Teacher of Righteousness appears as a latter-day Daniel as he applies the techniques of dream interpretation to the process of reading scripture.47 We have discussed briefly the rituals and instruments of the ancient Near Eastern dream interpreters, but what kinds of rituals and/or instruments did the Qumran priests use? We can expect that there were distinctions from the Babylonian approach, for example.

45 46 47

Jassen, “Prophets,” 325. Jassen, “Prophets,” 325–326. Jassen, “Prophets,” 326–327.

70

larsen

George Brooke has observed the extensive corpus of interpretive texts at Qumran and suggested bringing into consideration all of the media mentioned. He reasons: So the study of prophetic interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls should consider … all the means of divine communication that are hinted at in the scrolls: the transmission and interpretation of dreams and visions (as in the Enoch literature and Daniel), the use of lots and priestly means of divination, such as the Urim and Thummim, the writing down of angelic discourse (such as in Jubilees), inspired interpretation of authoritative oracles (as in the pesharim), and the symbolic activity of the community as a whole and of its individual members.48 The following proposal will attempt to answer these questions by following Brooke’s suggestion, at least to the degree possible within the scope of this paper. For me, the evidence of the relevant Qumran texts, including, principally, the Hodayot, but also other sectarian texts that mention “revealed” knowledge, suggests that the priestly figures of the Qumran texts were imitating the biblical prophets’ ascent to the divine council. The ascent of the mortal priest to the heavenly temple to obtain a divine message concerning the mysteries of God, which he will then share with the community, is featured in many Qumran texts, explicitly in texts like the Hodayot and more inferentially in texts like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Regarding the Hodayot, Jassen has noted: The sapiential context of the Hodayot goes beyond the portrait of wisdom in other related Qumran texts. The Hodayot repeatedly emphasize the revelatory framework of the transmission of divine knowledge. The hymnist does more than merely acknowledge the divine origin of this knowledge. Rather, his receipt of divine wisdom is conceptualized as a revelatory experience.49 I would also mention that most of the elements discussed below regarding the reception and distribution of revealed knowledge are not found in the pesher texts themselves. It is important to remember, however, that the pesharim are concerned entirely with the interpretation of the prophetic word, not with explaining the mechanics of how the interpretation was obtained. Some of the pesharim, as noted above, do make mention of the heavenly provenance of this 48 49

Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation,” 237. Jassen, “Prophets,” 331.

exegete as prophet?

71

knowledge, the revelation of the hidden mysteries, the light involved, and so on. The following is an attempt to gather clues from other texts that touch on these same elements, but that give more elaborate descriptions of how the divine knowledge was understood to have been obtained. My research on the Hodayot and similar texts, which I have presented previously in other forums,50 has revealed a number of elements that, when pieced together, can be outlined as follows: a) b) c) d)

an individual speaks as if he has been taken up into heaven to stand in the presence of God in the celestial realm; in that setting, he is instructed in the heavenly “mysteries,” often by God himself in a theophanic experience; the individual is appointed to teach the mysteries that he learned from God to others; his followers are similarly enabled to participate in the heavenly vision, perhaps even ascending to heaven together with the teacher.

3.1 Ascension of Individual to the Celestial Realm There are a number of texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls that can be seen as making reference to an individual ascending to heaven and participating in the divine council.51 For example, there are several places in 1QHodayota where the speaker thanks God for having “raised” him “to the eternal heights.” The language is reminiscent of the stories of Enoch, Joshua the high priest, and others. In 1QHa xi:20–23, the speaker says: I thank you, Lord, that you have redeemed my life from the pit, and that from Sheol-Abaddon You have lifted me up to an eternal height, so that I

50

51

See, e.g., David J. Larsen, “Angels among Us: The Use of Old Testament Passages as Inspiration for Temple Themes in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 5 (2013): 91–110. See discussions in, e.g., Angela Kim Harkins, “A New Proposal for Thinking about 1QHa Sixty Years after Its Discovery,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the ioqs in Ljubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 101–134; James R. Davila, “Exploring the Mystical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 433–454; idem, “Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. J.C. VanderKam and P.W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:477–478.

72

larsen

walk about on a limitless plain. I know that there is hope for one whom you have formed from the dust for an eternal council … that he might take his place with the host of the holy ones and enter into community with the congregation of the children of heaven.52 Elsewhere, the speaker praises God for having purified him from sin, that he “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]” (1QHa xix:14–16).53 4QHodayota 7(ii):8–9 reads: “… (God) lifts up the poor from the dust to [the eternal height], and to the clouds he magnifies him in stature, and (he is) with the heavenly beings in the assembly of the community.”54 The motif of ascension to the celestial courts to stand with the heavenly beings is an important aspect of the prophetic call narrative, as discussed previously. If an individual is to be recognized as possessing divine authority to perform a prophetic function after the manner of Enoch, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, or Joshua the high priest, one must, like them, be given access to the presence of God in the eternal council. 3.2 Revelation of the Heavenly Mysteries Many texts associate the experience of standing in God’s presence with the revelation of heavenly knowledge, or “mysteries.” The mysteries are taught or revealed, in many cases, as part of a theophany—the individual claims that he has seen God, or God’s glory, and that God himself has taught him these things. In some cases, God is represented by a heavenly messenger. In column xii of 1QHa, the speaker declares: “You have made my face to shine by Your covenant” (line 6). “I seek You, and as an enduring dawning, as [perfe]ct light, You have revealed Yourself to me” (line 7). He later says: “For You have given me understanding of the mysteries of Your wonder” (lines 27–28). In column xv, the speaker praises the Lord, saying: “I thank yo[u, O Lor]d, that you have instructed me in your truth, and made known to me your wondrous mysteries (lines 29–30).”55 52 53 54 55

Based on translation by C. Newsom in H. Stegemann and E. Schuller, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert xl: 1QHodayota (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 155. Translation by Newsom, djd xl, 248. Based on translation in B. Nitzan et al, eds., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert xxix: Qumran Cave 4 xx, Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 100. Based on translation in Alex P. Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘the Prophets’: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Prophecy in Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the

exegete as prophet?

73

In 1QHa v:17–20, the speaker (apparently the “Instructor” from line 12) claims that he has been taught regarding the “mysteries of the plan and the beginning.” These “mysteries of wonder” seem to involve things that God has planned and carried out from before the foundation of the earth, including the creation of the cosmos. Human beings do not have access to this knowledge under normal circumstances because they are “hidden” and require special revelation from God to be obtained.56 Some of the texts make reference to “the mystery that is to be,” suggesting that part of the heavenly vision may also include insights into events that are yet to happen. The text of 1QS xi:3–4 reads: “… For from the fount of [God’s] knowledge my light has gone forth; upon his wonders my eye has gazed, and the light of my heart upon the mystery of what shall be.”57 These passages, which include “light” as an element of the revelatory process, are reminiscent of 4QpIsad 1:4–5, the pesher on Isaiah discussed previously, in which the twelve priests “give light by the judgment of the Urim and Thummim.”58 It is possible that all of these texts refer to the sectarian priests’ reception of revelation through oracular instruments.59 Indeed, there are several other texts among the Qumran corpus that suggest that this was, indeed, the case. Fletcher-Louis has made a persuasive argument that the references to the “lot,” “precepts,” and the “light” in 1QSb 4:26–27 are allusions to the priestly oracles.60 The fragmentary text known as The Tongues of Fire (1Q29 + 4Q376) mentions the word Urim (the piece is highly damaged) and states that “the left-hand stone which is on his left hand side shall be revealed to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest finishes speaking.”61 A last example is the thirteenth song of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q405 xxiii:2; 11Q17 ix), which praises “the wonder and pattern of the breastplates,” the “ephodim,” and

56 57 58 59 60 61

Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 582. See discussion in Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 144–145. As translated in Texts Concerned with Religious Law, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 1, ed. Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 41. Josephus indicated that the stones on the priestly vestments functioned by “bright rays” shining out from them (Ant. 3:8 §9). See Baumgarten, “Duodecimal Courts,” 62–63; Jassen, “Prophets,” 313; Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 122–123; Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 95–134. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 155–157. See discussion in Joseph L. Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 119.

74

larsen

the “engravings of figures of splendor” (likely referring to the twelve stones of the breastplate).62 The context of this language in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice will be discussed in greater depth below. The other important aspect of these texts is the notion of “gazing upon” God’s glory. 1QHa xviii presents the speaker as stating, “And as for me, according to my knowledge of [your] truth [I will sing of your kindness] and when I gaze upon your glory, I recount your wonders,” (lines 22–23).63 Elliot Wolfson argues that in some of the writings, it is apparent that “knowledge of divine truth is equated with visually gazing at the glory, which occasions the recitation of God’s mysteries.”64 Again, these elements are characteristic of the prophetic tradition. Moses, Micaiah ben Imlah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Enoch, Daniel, Joshua the high priest, and others, all have a type of theophanic experience. They are given their prophetic commission and the message they are to share with the people. Amos 3:7 states that “the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” Although mentions of the use of the Urim and Thummim are somewhat rare in the Hebrew scriptures, they are mentioned variously in conjunction with prophetic,65 priestly,66 and also royal67 figures, although their use was largely the domain of the chief priest. Although the Targum (tb Yoma 21b), Ezra (Ezra 2:61–63), and Nehemiah (Neh 7:63–65) declared that the Urim and Thummim had ceased to function by the beginning of the Second Temple period, Josephus claimed that they continued to shine until 104bce, when John Hyrcanus died (Ant. 3:163, 216–218). There are also a number of Second Temple texts that support the notion of the high priestly use of the oracles well into the Second Temple period.68 The relevant Qumran texts appear to

62

63 64

65 66 67 68

For more on the topic of the Urim and Thummim at Qumran, see Cornelis van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997). Translation by Newsom, djd xl, 239. Elliot R. Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran e/Sotericism Recovered,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 208. 1Sam 2:18 (although the Urim and Thummim is not mentioned explicitly, reference to the ephod in this context may imply its use). Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1Sam 23:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65; Sir 45:10. 1Sam 14:41; 23:9–13; 28:6; 30:7–8; Hos 3:4. See, e.g., Hecataeus of Abdera in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1:183–204; Ben Sira 45:10; cf. 50:5–10; Greek T. Levi 8:1–4; Letter of Aristeas 96–99.

exegete as prophet?

75

assume that the sectarian priests had access, and the right, to use the Urim and Thummim to receive heavenly knowledge, following the tradition of their priestly forebears. 3.3 Commission to Teach After the visionary has been instructed by God in the heavenly mysteries, he is then appointed to teach others. Thomas explains that in some of the Hodayot, “the protagonist is called upon to translate or interpret his own experience to those under his tutelage.”69 The speaker in 1QHa xii, 27–29 declares that after God has helped him understand the “mysteries of wonder” and “shown” Himself to him, God then “illumined the faces of many” through him. Jassen observed that this passage “transforms the hymnist from an individual recipient of revelation to a prophetic messenger.” In 1QHa xii:5, the Lord made the hymnist’s face shine—a reference, according to Jassen, to “his receipt of revelation.” Jassen continues this line of thinking to suggest that in line 27, there is a parallel created with line 5, except that “instead of the face of the hymnist being illumined, it is the face of the ‘many.’” He concludes that this connection “marks the transformation of this revelation from personal to public. In doing so, the hymnist is not merely one who has unmediated access to God; he is now entrusted with the responsibility to mediate the divine word and will to a larger audience.”70 1QHa x:15 states: “But you have made me a banner for the elect of righteousness and a mediator of knowledge (or: expert interpreter) of wonderful mysteries.”71 The speaker in 4Q381, fragment 1, proclaims that he will tell of God’s marvels, and that his words will be “fitting instruction” given “to the simple that they may understand; and to those without understanding, (that) they may know” (4Q381 1:1–2). 1QHa xvi depicts the hymnist as the keeper of the garden, an Adamic figure chosen to care for the tender plants (his community) through his teachings.72 The teacher’s followers, which he describes as “trees of life at a secret spring” (lines 6–7), are watered by the words that God has given to him. He uses

69 70 71

72

Thomas, “Mysteries” of Qumran, 209. Jassen, “Prophets,” 317–318. Translation by Newsom, djd xl, 142. Compare this passage to 4Q541 9:3–4, which, according to Joseph Angel, “ascribes a teaching function to the eschatological high priest and portrays him as radiating light to ‘all the corners of the world.’” Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood, 116. See discussion in James R. Davila, “The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise,” Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 465.

76

larsen

the metaphors of “early rain,” “a spring of living water” and “a flowing river” to describe his teachings (lines 17–18). His divine message causes the little “plantation of fruit trees” to become a “glorious Eden” (line 21). The speaker of the psalm is an agent of God sent to share the secret waters of God’s mysteries which will allow them to dwell in the holy place.73 Joseph Angel has observed this recurring phenomenon in additional Qumran texts. For example, 1QS 9:18 states, regarding the Teacher, or Maskil: “He shall guide them in knowledge and enlighten them in the mysteries of wonder and truth.” Angel commented on this process of teaching and learning the heavenly knowledge: By means of initiation into the knowledge of the Most High, which corresponds to the “wisdom of the sons of heaven,” the community members return to the original glorious state of pre-fallen Adam, who, according to scriptural tradition, was created in the divine image (Gen 1:26–27; cf. cd 3:19–20). The Maskil, as the figure designated “to instruct and teach all the sons of light” (1QS 3:13), is thus implicitly the instrument through which divine knowledge reaches and transforms the community.74 Leo Perdue has asserted that these motifs indicate that the “elect” who follow the true path are “the initiated ones who understand the larger structure of the mystery of creation and history revealed to them by God through the proper instruction by the teacher or sage who has been inducted into this learning.”75 3.4 Followers Ascend to Heaven with Teacher The teacher, speaking in 1QHa xii, refers to a group of followers, proclaiming to the Lord that they have “gathered together for your covenant,” and that he has “examined” them (line 25). He then explains that “Those who walk in the way of your heart listen to me; they are drawing themselves up before You in the council of the holy ones.” This passage appears to indicate that those who listen to the teacher will likewise have access to the presence of God in the celestial realm. 1QHa xiv contains similar language, declaring that the group of faithful followers, “all the people of your council,” have been brought by God into his

73 74 75

See discussion in Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 168. Joseph L. Angel, “Maskil, Community, and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511),” dsd 19 (2012):1–27, at 10. Perdue, “Mantic Sages,” 176–177.

exegete as prophet?

77

“secret counsel” and “in a common lot with the angels of the presence” (lines 15– 16). They become “princes in the [eternal] lo[t” and are compared to a great tree watered by the “rivers of Eden” (lines 17–19). The author envisions his community as being made princes in the heavenly assembly together with the angels of God’s presence. Perhaps the most striking, albeit highly debated, example from the Dead Sea Scrolls of the theme of human communion with the angels is the collection of songs known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The texts are highly fragmentary, which makes their full content and purpose difficult to interpret. They appear to take worshippers on a tour of the celestial realms, describing the angelic priesthood and the praises they sing to God, the structures and furniture of the heavenly temple, the vision of the throne of God, and descriptions of the glorious apparel of the priesthood. The significance of these hymns will be discussed further below. The motifs discussed here recall the account of Joshua the high priest who is presented by Zechariah (Zech 3:8) as standing in the presence of God, with his fellow priests sitting before him, as discussed previously. It is difficult to know from the text if these companions were with Joshua during his divine investiture, if they have subsequently ascended to heaven with him, or if, in these verses (vv. 8–10), they are in heaven at all. The language used (“Hear now,” “the stone I have laid before Joshua”) suggests that the group is somehow in the Lord’s presence. The concepts discussed here, although somewhat disparate and scattered throughout different sectarian texts from Qumran, can be combined to form a picture of how this priestly group believed that they could receive knowledge, in the form of “divine mysteries,” from God. The community’s leader, the teacher or chief priest, claimed to have been taken up into the celestial realm to stand in God’s presence. He was given the hidden knowledge that he sought in a theophanic experience and was given the mission to share those mysteries with his community. Those who listened and obeyed the teacher were initiated into the mysteries and allowed to participate in the heavenly journey or vision. 3.5 A Christian Example of This Pattern The Christian Epistle to the Hebrews contains several strong parallels with these verses from Zechariah and also the motifs discussed here from the Qumran scrolls. In Hebrews, Jesus is the leader of the community, the teacher who instructs his followers in the celestial “mysteries” that will allow them to ascend to heaven following his lead. Scott Mackie outlined a “divine adoption ceremony” in Hebrews that contains, among others, the following elements:

78

larsen

– Jesus’s ascent to heaven and entry into the celestial temple—“a great high priest that is passed into the heavens” (4:14) – Investiture and enthronement—“Now see Jesus crowned with glory and honor” (2:9); “Sit on my right hand” (1:13) – Declaration of familial relationship between Father and Son—“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (1:5; 2:12–13) – Son confers family membership on community—“Behold I and the children that God hath given me”; “bringing many sons unto glory”; “not ashamed to call them brethren” (2:10–15) – The community is provided access to the heavenly temple by Jesus, their high priest—they are exhorted to boldly “enter” the heavenly sanctuary and “draw near” to God’s throne (4:14–16; 10:19–25).76 Upon entry into the celestial realm, the community hears the declaration, “Ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant” (Heb 12:22–24). These notions found in Hebrews parallel what we find at Qumran very closely. 3.6

The Ascension of the Priestly Group in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Although these elements as found in the Qumran texts discussed above are only aligned in this manner by combing through the texts and speculating on how they fit together, we can see something like this pattern working as an organic whole in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which guides the participants through a tour of the heavenly realm, teaches them the “hidden things” of the angelic priesthood, and places them before the throne of God in the heavenly holy of holies. Without going into extensive detail regarding the Songs, I will attempt to elucidate how we may see in these hymns evidence that they were meant to aid priests in imitating the experience and function of the biblical prophets. Carol Newsom has stated that “the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice provide the means by which those who read and heard it could receive not merely communion with the angels but a virtual experience of presence in the heavenly

76

Scott Mackie, “Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations,” New Testament Studies 58, no. 1 (Jan., 2012): 88–104, at 98–99.

exegete as prophet?

79

temple among the angelic priests,” or in other words, in the heavenly council of God.77 The Maskil, who leads the congregation (or group of priests) in singing the hymns, should be seen as one who has learned the heavenly mysteries for himself previously. Joseph Angel has argued that the “public recitation of the Songs opened up the opportunity for all those present to identify with the Maskil and hence share in his power.”78 The first of this series of thirteen songs describes the establishment, by God, of the heavenly priesthood who serve in the celestial temple and the call for them to praise God. A number of scholars have made strong arguments for identifying the “angelic priests” in the songs as human participants in the weekly liturgy.79 The correspondence of the human and angelic priests becomes more apparent if we take into account Judith Newman’s suggestion that, according to the calendar of the Temple Scroll, “the song for the first Sabbath coincides with the week in which new priests are ordained (11Q19 xv, 3).”80 Song two depicts God strengthening the priesthood—so that they may realize the mysteries of God’s wondrous acts and proclaim the “hidden things” they learn from the “utterance of [his] lips.” My understanding of this fragmentary text is that God possesses the mysteries and the angels/priests receive help from God, who teaches them “hidden things.”81 In song seven, the participants enter the holy of holies of the celestial temple in which, Newman asserts, “the divine King and Creator is made manifest in the throne room of the Temple.” She describes the seventh song as “an expanded depiction of Isaiah’s temple throne vision in Isaiah 6,” with an allusion to Ezekiel 3:12–13—both are prophetic call narratives.82 77

78 79

80

81

82

Carol Newsom, “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2: 889. Angel, “Maskil,” 8. See, e.g., Davila, “Exploring the Mystical Background,” 443; Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “Heavenly Ascent or Incarnational Presence? A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 367– 399. Judith H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hinday Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 46. Davila suggests that in many Qumran texts, “the ‘secret things’ consist of revealed teachings given to the members of the sect (e.g., 1QS v, 11; cd iii, 13–14).” Davila, Liturgical Works (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2000), 110. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 49.

80

larsen

There are obvious parallels here to the throne visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets who were given visions of God seated on his throne. After witnessing the revelation of the wonders of creation, the participants are moved to “proclaim” what they have witnessed, including, according to Newman, “a recounting of the divine mysteries on the part of the holy ones, understood in the song to be the angels and Qumran priests.”83 In a similar manner, songs eleven and twelve take the worshippers through the veil of the heavenly sanctuary into God’s dwelling place, where the divine throne is found. Davila sees these two songs as drawing heavily on the chariotthrone vision in Ezekiel 1 and also on Ps 68:17–20. He observes that these scriptural passages were incorporated into the Jewish Festival of Weeks (Shavuot), which celebrates the divine theophany and giving of the covenant at Sinai, and that songs eleven and twelve would have been performed on either side of that celebration, which served as an annual covenant-renewal ceremony at Qumran.84 Newman notes that this ceremony “included the yearly evaluation of members and initiation of new members into the [community].” “The initiate,” she says, “was required to swear an oath … to turn toward the torah of Moses.”85 This sequence is reminiscent of Exodus 24, in which Moses delivers the words of God to the people of Israel, they covenant to be obedient, and the elders of Israel are permitted to see God. The thirteenth and final song of the series is quite obscure, but Newman, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, and others argue that it describes the human participants (instead of angelic priests), apparently still in the celestial holy of holies, as they perform their priesthood duties while wearing their priestly vestments. These sacred garments are described using the words of Exodus 28, including the ephod (apron) and breastplate (apparently containing the engraved stones of the Urim and Thummim). Fletcher-Louis cites evidence “that the Qumran community believed the garments of Exodus 28 should be worn simultaneously by more than one priest.”86 This aligns the evidence cited previously for the use of the priestly vestments and Urim and Thummim by the Qumran priests. Newman observed, regarding the final song in the sequence, that “a liturgical cycle whose calendrical beginning can be correlated with a ceremony 83 84 85 86

Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 56–57. Davila, Liturgical Works, 90. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 61. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 358. This follows his hypothesis that the angels mentioned in the text are to be understood as exalted human priests.

exegete as prophet?

81

consecrating new priests thus rightly closes as a group of priestly figures are elevated to their proper role and prepared for service.”87 The priests described in this song have been vested in garments of glory, having been instructed and authorized to “reveal the mysteries of the divine purpose in creation and history, past, present, and future” in a manner reminiscent of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai clothed in glory after having spoken with the Lord and having received his law. She further concluded that “the liturgy does more than merely affirm the role of priests in an angel-like status; it also affirms the authority of their inspired teaching. The thirteenth song presents the angel-like priests with the maskil as their head as fully vested and equipped for their oracular performance.”88 The performance of this series of thirteen songs on consecutive Sabbaths in the first quarter of the year included, according to Newman, “the reception of the divine spirit by the purified elect and the production of new spiritual interpretation through oracular means.” She suggests that priestly leadership’s duty after this ritual was “ultimately to offer inspired compositions in imitation angelorum.”89 “Their purpose,” she concludes, “was thus to summon the imminent presence of the divine glory first revealed at Sinai anew, though in a new locale and with a decidedly priestly-prophetic inflection through the influence of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Elijah.”90 It is after a spiritual initiation and theophanic experience such as this that the teacher and his companions would be ready to write down, as did Daniel, the revelations (e.g., in the form of their pesher interpretations) they had received, and share them with the community.

Conclusion If the priests mentioned in the Qumran texts did indeed go through a ritual or ceremony in which they believed themselves to be taken up into heaven and taught mysteries that they were then authorized to share with their community, after the manner of Moses, Isaiah, or Daniel, it is easily conceivable how they could have felt confident in giving an inspired interpretation of scripture that applied to their community and why these interpretations would have been recognized as authoritative by readers/listeners.

87 88 89 90

Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 358. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 39. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 38. Newman, “Priestly Prophets,” 30.

82

larsen

As we look beyond the scriptural commentaries to some of the unique, original texts of the Qumran library such as the rearranged Psalters with previously unknown psalms, the Hodayot hymns and others of the so-called sectarian texts, perhaps we should see these as having been produced through a process of “ongoing revelation” received by ascending into the presence of God to be taught the “mysteries” of his word. This process allowed these prophetic authors to create new texts that were understood by the community to be authentically inspired and authoritative. If the thesis of this paper is correct, these authors saw themselves as priestly-prophetic figures after the order of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Joshua the high priest and believed that the work they were doing to produce these texts and interpretations was simply following the pattern of the ancient prophets in a time when new communication from the heavens was of vital importance.

Artificial Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) Donald W. Parry

The prophetic voice at Qumran is mediated through the written biblical text, which itself is shaped by textual changes and variant readings. This paper explores a specific category of textual changes in the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is one of the most famous of the Qumran biblical texts. Since the discovery of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) in 1947, scholars have established that the scribe(s)1 who copied it from a master copy had a somewhat free approach to the text, characterized by exegetical or editorial pluses, morphological smoothing and updating, harmonizations, phonetic variants, and modernizations of terms. There is also evidence that a well-intended scribe simplified the text for an audience that no longer understood certain classical Hebrew forms. His editorial tendencies resulted in a popularization of certain terms, including some from Aramaic that reflected the language of Palestine in his time period. This free approach, together with errors that occurred during the transmission of the text (e.g., haplography, dittography, graphic similarity, misdivision of words, interchange of letters, transposition of texts), created an environment that occasionally produced an artificial inflection or form. The objective of this paper is to examine several possible artificial forms in 1QIsaa. I will deal with two categories of artificial forms; the first is a “word” that features two or more morphological units, where the stem or one of the inflective components is irregular or artificial. An artificial form is at odds with an authentic, naturally occurring word that is considered to be “meaningful” in both speech and writing. An example in English of an artificial form is uncomprehensible, which features three authentic morphemes (the affixes un-

1 Scholars are divided as to whether there were one, two, or more scribes who copied 1QIsaa. For arguments regarding one versus two or more scribes, see the following discussions together with their respective bibliographies: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Collected Essays, Volume 3, 369–379; M. Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Bibliothèque du Muséon 44–45; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Institut Orientaliste, 1958), 1:65–73; E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). stdj 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974, 564–566; J. Cook, “Orthographical Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls,” RevQ 14 (1989): 293–305, esp. 303–304; and G.J. Brooke, “The Bisection of Isaiah in the Scrolls from Qumran,” in P.S. Alexander et al. (eds.), Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume (JSSSup 16; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 73–94.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_006

84

parry

and -able and the stem comprehend). But uncomprehensible is not an authentic word because of the improper use of the prefix un-. Uncomprehensible stands in contrast to the authentic incomprehensible, which is a meaningful word. Just as uncomprehensible is an artificial word in English, the 1QIsaa scribe produced a number of artificial forms while copying the text of Isaiah from his Vorlage. The second category is a “word” that consists of two morphological units, one from Standard Biblical Hebrew and the other from Aramaic. This second category is sometimes called a hybrid, which (speaking linguistically) is a word that consists of two or more different languages. The second category is also called “Portmanteau blending,”2 but unlike the artificial forms of 1QIsaa, Portmanteau blending generally creates meaningful words, as in the following Israeli (e.g., “Israeli Hebrew”3) examples that combine Hebrew morphemes or stems together with non-Semitic components or affixes: ‫מלחמתי‬-‫“( פוסט‬postwar”); ‫ערבי‬-‫“( פרו‬pro-Arab”); and ‫( כסאולוגיה‬the study of obtaining a political seat), from the Hebrew ‫“( כסא‬seat”) and the suffix -logy. The following example is a slightly complex example: ‫“( מערביזציה‬westernization”), from the Hebrew ‫“( מערב‬west”) and the suffix -ization, which suffix is a hybrid from the Greek iz(e) and the Latin -ation.4 But unlike these hybridized examples, the “hybrids” in 1QIsaa are probably artificial in nature. At least two biblical scholars—Talmon and Kutscher5—have identified three or four instances of hybrid forms in 1QIsaa. These and other scholars sometimes use the terms hybrid and conflation interchangeably; but, to my knowledge, no scholar has attempted to systematically examine possible artificial forms in 1QIsaa. This article does not deal with pure or unblended Aramaic words that exist in 1QIsaa; such unblended Aramaic words in 1QIsaa have been the basis of a number of scholarly publications over the past decades.6

2 Ghil’ad Zuckermann, “Hybridity Versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms, and Patterns,” Journal of Language Contact (2009) Varia 2:40–67 (see especially 62); see also idem, “Cultural Hybridity: Multisourced Neologization in ‘Reinvented’ Languages and in Languages with ‘Phono-Logographic’ Script,” Languages in Contrast (2004), 4:281–318. 3 For the term “Israeli” versus “Israeli Hebrew” and “Modern Hebrew,” see Zuckerman, “Hybridity Versus Revivability,” 40–41. 4 For additional examples of hybridity in Israeli Hebrew, see Zuckerman, “Hybridity Versus Revivability,” 49. 5 For example, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1975), 247, note 55. See also, Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 325. 6 See, for example, M.G. Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” Qumran Cave 1. Vol-

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

85

In recent decades, several scholars have demonstrated that 1QIsaa presents a range of lexical and inflected forms that are not aligned with Masoretic type texts.7 The artificial forms belonging to 1QIsaa, together with scores of other non-aligned forms in this text, suggests that the 1QIsaa scribe was an idiolect (idiolect: the “speech habits to a particular person”) in the sense that he used the language in a unique and idiosyncratic manner, with regard to grammar, phonology, morphology, lexical forms, and more; or if the scribe was not an idiolect, at the very least he possessed idiolectal tendencies. But the artificial forms presented in this article most likely signify scribal mishaps, rather than an idiolect creating new forms.

ume 2: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Edited by E. Ulrich and P.W. Flint. djd 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010, 41; S. Fassberg, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Contribution to the Study of Hebrew and Aramaic,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, Vienna, February 11–14 (ed. A. Lange; E. Tov; and M. Weigold; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:127– 139; Steven E. Fassberg, “The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke (eds.), Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (stdj 114; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 7–24; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 24, plus passim; Elisha Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986, 116, plus passim; and Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), passim. 7 See especially (in alphabetical order), Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, passim; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, passim; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, passim; Eugene C. Ulrich, Peter W. Flint, eds., Qumran Cave 1.ii: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. See also a multitude of writings by Emanuel Tov, including (but not restricted to): E. Tov, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” jjs 39 (1988) 5–37; idem. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, vol. 2. eds. C.C. Broyles and C.A. Evans. 491–511. Supp. to Vetus Testamentum 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997; idem. “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.). stdj 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992, 299–314; idem. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd edition. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015; idem. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 3rd ed. 2012; and idem. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Collected Essays.

86 1

parry

The Issue of Orthography

An important issue that belongs to the present study pertains to the topic of orthographic deviations versus genuine textual variants. For the examples below, a handful of examples may be orthographic deviations rather than textual variants; however, for these same examples, one or more scholars have attributed them to be text critical readings. This leaves open the possibility for a textual understanding that goes beyond orthography. However, as I set forth in the paper, a few of the readings below may be no more than orthographic deviations, especially when the readings deal with the characters ʾālep, hê, wāw, and yôd. I will now examine three possible artificial forms in mt Isaiah (19:6; 23:11; 63:3), followed by seventeen possible artificial forms located in the following verses of 1QIsaa (1:13; 1:21; 11:9; 12:4; 17:11; 19:13; 30:21, 28; 33:17; 34:14; 38:9; 40:19; 42:14; 49:26; 51:4; 57:17, 20).

2

Three Possible Artificial Forms in mt

19:6

‫ ְוֶהֶא ְז ִ֗ניחוּ‬mt 4QIsab (‫ והזניחו | )והא ֯ז ֯נ]יחו‬1QIsaa •

The hapax legomenon ‫( ְוֶהֶא ְז ִ֗ניחוּ‬via √‫)זנח‬, attested in mt and 4QIsab, is an instance of ʾālep prostheticum (or ʾālep prosthesis),8 where a letter or syllable is attached to the beginning of a word. Or, as Oswalt suggests, mt’s verb is “perhaps to be explained as a combination of Hebrew Hiphil and Aramaic Aphel.”9 (an example of a hybrid form in mt?) Driver, too, sees mt’s reading as reflecting the work of “an Aramaizing copyist of the m.t.”10 Wildberger argues that mt’s ‫“ ְוֶהֶא ְז ִניחוּ‬was nothing but a copying mistake.”11 1QIsaa reads ‫והזניחו‬ without the ʾālep. It is also plausible that the primary reading was either ‫והזניחו‬ or ‫ואזניחו‬.12

8 9 10 11 12

See Genenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A.E. Cowley; 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 19m and 53g; cf. Ibn Ezra. John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39. nicot, ed. R.K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 1986), 364. G.R. Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” jts 2 (1951): 18. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27 (Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 230. A suggestion made by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 230.

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

23:11

87

‫ ָמֻﬠ ְז ֶֽניָה‬mt 4QIsac (‫ מעוזיה | )]מעו[ ֯ז ׄניה‬1QIsaa •

The reading of ‫( ָמֻﬠ ְז ֶֽניָה‬mt and 4QIsac, “her strongholds,” from ‫“ עוז‬to take refuge”) with the inclusion of the nûn presents a challenge to grammarians. Ibn Ezra wrote that the nûn was written in place of a dagesh in the zayin (but this departs from his own understanding of grammatical principles, i.e., that only the letters ‫ אהוי‬are able to interchange). A proper suggestion comes from Talmon, who makes a case for a conflation in mt based on two readings—‫מעוז‬ and ‫ָמ֑ﬠוֹן( מעון‬, “habitation”).13 Both readings appear in passages with similar contexts (cf. Jer 16:19 with Ps 90:1, Ps 31:33 with Ps 71:3). Gray, followed by Wildberger, confirms that “the ‫ נ‬is an error rather than a resolution of the reduplicated ‫ז‬.”14 According to Watts, 1QIsaa supplies an acceptable reading (‫)מעוזיה‬, for which he writes that the scroll “omits the nun and makes good sense: ‘her fortresses.’”15 And already, before the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, Knobel had emended mt to read ‫מעוזיה‬.16 63:3

‫ ֶא ְג ָֽאְלִתּי‬mt | ‫ גאלתי‬1QIsaa 1QIsab | > G •

Two chief possibilities arise with this peculiar word: (a) it signifies an Aramaism, or (b) more likely, it represents a conflated reading,17 taking on the elements of an imperfect 1cs verb (i.e., ‫ ;אגאל‬cf. in this verse ‫ ְוֶא ְד ְר ֵ֗כם‬and ‫) ְוֶא ְרְמֵ֖סם‬ and a perfect 1cs verb (i.e., ‫ ;גאלתי‬cf. in this verse, ‫) ָדּ ַ֣רְכִתּי‬. As Talmon wrote, “We suggest to explain ‫ אגאלתי‬as a combination of the not extant ‫ אגאל‬with the alternative variant ‫ =( גאלתי‬Is-a, and S: ‫)פלפלת‬.”18

13 14 15 16 17 18

Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 255–256. George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah (i–xxvii) (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1912), 394. John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33. Vol. 24 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David Hubbard and Glenn Barker (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 303. See also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 342. See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. Shalom Paul, Isaiah 40–66. Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans, 2012), 564. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 255.

88 3

parry

Possible Artificial Forms in 1QIsaa

1QIsaa sets forth several possible artificial forms, including the following: 1:13

‫ ַוֲﬠָצ ָֽרה‬mt α´ σ´ θ´ | καὶ ἀργίαν G | ‫ ועצרתה‬1QIsaa •

Biblical Hebrew attests ‫ ֲﬠֶצ ֶרת‬and ‫ֲﬠָצ ָ֛רה‬, apparently with no difference in meaning (“solemn assembly” or “festive assembly”).19 Klein states that ‫ ֲﬠָצ ָ֛רה‬is “a collateral form of ‫ֲﬠֶצ ֶרת‬.”20 Different possibilities exist to explain the hê belonging to 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫עצרתה‬. If the hê signifies a 3fs suffix (“her solemnity”), there is no immediately apparent antecedent for this suffix (but compare ‫בת‬ ‫ ציון‬in Isa 1:8). ‫ עצרתה‬may be a conflation, combining the forms ‫ עצרת‬and ‫עצרה‬. Or, ‫ ע֗צרתה‬may be an Aramaism (‫)עצרתא‬.21 1:21

‫ ֵאיָכה‬mt | ‫ היכה‬1QIsaa •

In mt, the particles ‫( ֵאיְך‬61×), ‫( ֵאיָכה‬17×), ‫( ֵאיָ֥כָכה‬4×), and ‫( ֵ֚היְך‬2×) are exclamatory interrogatives that mean “how.” In the verse under discussion, 1QIsaa’s reading, ‫היכה‬, is a derivation of ‫ֵהיְך‬, which ‫ ֵהיְך‬appears only in late Biblical Hebrew texts (Dan 10:17, 1Chr 13:12). But compare ‫ היכה‬in 4Q212 (4QEnochg) frg. 1, v. 23, which may indicate that ‫ היכה‬belongs to a particular sociolect (sociolect: “the dialect of a particular social class”), such as the Qumran community. It is also possible that 1QIsaa’s ‫ היכה‬may have been influenced by Aramaic,22 or it may be “a blend of ‫ איכה‬+ ‫היך‬,”23 or it is the result of a phonological change (see Abegg in uf 2:29). Compare also 14:12, where the scroll reads ‫היכ֯ה‬, versus mt’s ‫ֵ֛איך‬. Elsewhere in Isaiah, mt has ‫ ֵאיְך‬where 1QIsaa reads ‫( איכה‬14:4; 36:9 [M = 2Kgs 18:24]; 48:11 [mt, 4QIsad]). mt and 1QIsaa only twice have the equivalent reading of the particle ‫( ֵאיְך‬19:11; 20:6). 11:9

19 20 21

22 23

‫ ָמְלָ֗אה‬mt 4QIsac G V | ‫ תמלאה‬1QIsaa S T •

halot, 1:872. Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: University of Haifa, 1987), 481. See J. Høgenhaven, “The First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran [1QIsa] and the Massoretic Text: Some Reflections with Special Regard to Isaiah 1–12,” jsot 28 (1984): 22; cf. also Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 876. See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 377. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 390.

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

89

The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )תמלאה‬is a conflated verbal form, possessing elements of a perfect feminine singular verb (mt ‫ )מלאה‬and an imperfect feminine prefix (S ‫ ;דתתמלא‬T ‫)תתמלי‬.24 See also the conflated form in mt 63:3 (‫)אגאלתי‬. Because the greater context (see 11:6–10) of this passage pertains to a future, idyllic period when the wolf will dwell with the lamb, it seems the scribe of 1QIsaa attempted to change the qal perfect verb ‫ מלאה‬into a qal imperfect ‫תמלאה‬, but in doing so, he failed to delete the suffixed hê. Further evidence that the scribe was considering a future setting pertains to the fact that the first two verbs of v. 9 are imperfects (i.e., ‫ ירעו‬and ‫)ישׁחיתו‬. 12:4

‫ הוֹ֚דוּ‬mt | ‫ אודו‬1QIsaa •

In both hipʾāl imperatives and perfect forms, 1QIsaa occasionally replaces the consonantal hê with an ʾālep (see 1:10; 12:4; 23:1; 37:20; 42:14; 49:26; 51:4; 54:2; 59:14; note also the hipʾāl infinitive, 64:6).25 These are likely phonetic errors in 1QIsaa which crept into the manuscript during its transmission history. In each of these cases, the scroll’s verbs should be translated as if they possessed the hê, i.e., they should be translated equal to that of mt. The present example from 1QIsaa (‫ )אודו‬demonstrates this replacement. However, there exists a slight possibility that 1QIsaa’s ‫ אודו‬is an artificial form, impacted by ‫ אודכה‬of v. 1 and ‫ ]הוֹ֚דוּ[ הודו‬of v. 4. Or, 1QIsaa’s form is an Aramaism; the Targum of Isaiah in Isa 12:4 reads ‫אוֹדוֹ‬, aph, imperative masculine plural in this verse. 17:11

‫ וְּכֵ֥אב‬mt | ‫ וכאוב‬1QIsaa | καὶ ὡς πατὴρ G (via √‫• )וכאב‬

djd 32 identifies the difference between ‫ וְּכֵ֥אב‬and ‫ וכאוב‬as orthographic,26 which is the most likely explanation for these two words. Support for this orthographic assessment is in the Hodayot readings of ‫ וכאוב‬and ‫( לכאוב‬see 1Q Hodayota 13:30; 16:29). But Kutscher provides an alternative position to the orthographic theory. The noun ‫“( ְכֵּאב‬pain”) occurs twice in mt Isaiah (17:11 and 65:14), but both times, 1QIsaa reads the curious ‫כאוב‬. Kutscher states that 1QIsaa’s “substitution is puzzling” and then asks, “Was the word ‫ כאוב‬found in the scribe’s dialect (either Heb or Aram), but only by chance not used in any of the literary sources? Or did it perhaps come into being as a blend of ‫מכאוב‬ 24 25 26

See Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 248. For statistics and examples regarding the scroll’s replacement of the he, see Ulrich and Flint, djd xxxii, 1:29–30. Ulrich and Flint, djd xxxii, 1:72.

90

parry

(‫ ַמכאוֹב‬appears in the Pent. some fifteen times) + ‫”?כאוב‬27 ‫אב‬ ֹ ‫ ַמְכ‬is found in 53:3– 4, as well as elsewhere in the Bible. G misinterpreted ‫ וכאב‬and wrote καὶ ὡς πατὴρ. 19:13

‫ ֽנוֲֹאל֙וּ‬mt | ‫ נאולו‬1QIsaa •

Three chief possibilities exist for the deviation in this example. The first is that “the weakened ʾalep often … changes position with the following o or u vowel, acting then as a digraph rather than a consonant.”28 The second is that a copyist of 1QIsaa inadvertently transposed the ʾālep and the wāw, a simple error. Finally, the third possibility is that mt has a nipʿal perfect verb (‫)נוֲֹאלוּ‬ based on √‫“( יאל‬to be foolish”). With 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫נאולו‬, it appears that he (unconsciously) combined the verb √‫ יאל‬together with the noun ‫“( ֱא ִויל‬fool”), creating a conflation. Thus, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew states, “1QIsaa ‫ נאולו‬is perhaps from be foolish.”29 30:21

‫ ַתֲאִ֖מינוּ‬mt | ‫ תיאמינו‬1QIsaa •

Some modern textual critics aver that mt’s consonantal framework of ‫תאמינו‬ (via √‫ )אמן‬is in error (see djd 32);30 rather, the word should be formulated as ‫( תימינו‬via √‫)ימן‬. 1QIsaa may be in error with its hybrid form of ‫—תיאמינו‬ a combination of the incorrect ‫( תאמינו‬was this form in the scribe’s Vorlage?) and ‫תימינו‬. Or, alternatively, 1QIsaa’s ‫ תיאמינו‬may include the digraph ‫יא‬-, which is also attested in other forms in Qumran texts.31 30:28

‫ ְלָח ֵ֥יי‬mt | ‫ לוחיי‬1QIsaa •

djd 32 lists ‫ לוחיי‬in its orthographic table, an indication that the deviations ‫ ְלָח ֵ֥יי‬and ‫ לוחיי‬may lack text critical significance. Some text critics, however, set forth another possibility. With its attestation of ‫לוחיי‬, 1QIsaa appears to have a hybrid form, which combines the Hebrew ‫ ְלִ֗חי‬with the Aramaic (‫לוע)א‬ [‫לוּע‬/‫“( ]לוָּﬠא‬jawbone, cheek”).32 See also the comments of Kutscher (following 27 28 29 30 31 32

Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 376. Ulrich and Flint, djd xxxii, 1:29. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 4:71. Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 168, writes that the correct reading is ‫“ ;תימינו‬such a reading is accepted by everyone and is supported now by Qa.” See Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 47, 51–61. See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 621.

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

91

Driver),33 who sets forth that ‫לוח‬, attested in Aramaic, “is equivalent to ‫לוע‬.”34 Thus Kutscher explains, “Since the substitution ‫ ח—ע‬appears in the Gal. Aram. dialect, the result was that heth was sometimes written in place of an original ʿayin, and in fact the parallels have ‫ לוע‬for the Gal. Aram.”35 33:17

‫ ֶתֱּח ֶ֗זי ָנה‬mt | ‫ תחזיון‬1QIsaa •

mt reads a qal third feminine plural imperfect: “Your eyes will envision (‫)חזה‬ the king in his beauty.” The form of 1QIsaa (‫ )תחזיון‬is an “artificial archaic form (hybrid form),”36 writes Kutscher. Compare also the scroll’s reading of ‫תקראון‬ in 41:22, versus mt’s ‫ִתְּק ֶ֑רי ָנה‬. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, mt has two such “artificial archaisms”: “and let thy widows trust (‫ִתְּב ָֽטחוּ‬, Qal imperf 3fp) in me” (Jer 49:11; the Qumran texts are not attested here), and “and the bones (‫ )ֲﬠָצ֔מוֹת‬came together (‫ַוִתְּק ְר֣בו‬ …)” (Ezek 37:7).37 Kutscher asks, “Could these instances (in Jer and Ezek) in conjunction with those from the Scribe be taken to indicate that such improper archaic forms were current in later Biblical Hebrew, which would free our scribe from responsibility for them,” but concludes that these forms may be “relics of archaic forms” or “are an intrusion from a different dialect.”38 Compare also the scroll’s reading of ‫ תקראון‬in 41:22, versus mt’s ‫ִתְּק ֶ֑רי ָנה‬. 34:14

‫ ִא ִ֔יּים‬mt | ‫ אייאמים‬1QIsaa •

Talmon proposes that ‫אייאמים‬, the peculiar variant of 1QIsaa, is a hybrid of ‫איים‬ and ‫ימם‬.39 David Clines offers another point of view when he explains that ‫ אייאמים‬is “perhaps conflation of ‫[ ִאי‬jackal] and ‫ ֵאיָמה‬terror.”40 38:9

‫תוֹ‬ ֹ ‫ ַבֲּחל‬mt | ‫ בחוליותיו‬1QIsaa •

The differences between ‫תוֹ‬ ֹ ‫ ַבֲּחל‬and ‫ בחוליותיו‬most likely have a basis in orthography, thus djd 32 lists these words in its orthographic table. If the readings are

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

G.R. Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1951): 24. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 250. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 250. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 325. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 325. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 325. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 247. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 1:204.

92

parry

indeed spelling deviations, then both words may be designated qal infinitive constructs; however, there exists another possibility—1QIsaa’s reading may be a plural noun. If this is the case, the scroll’s reading is in error, because the masculine singular noun ‫ ֳחִלי‬does not exist in the feminine plural (cf. two masculine plural forms [‫ ]ֳחָל יִ֥י ם‬in Deut 28:59; 2Chr 21:15), and also because the plural does not fit the context that refers to Hezekiah’s sickness. ‫ בחוליותיו‬may be a conflation form based on two of the three final words in the verse: ‫ ;בחלתוּמחליו‬that is to say, a scribe misread the qal infinitive as a feminine plural and then added ‫יו‬- from the final word, thus ‫בחוליותיו > בחלתיו‬. 42:14

‫ ֶהֱחֵשׁיִתי‬mt | ‫ אחשיתי‬1QIsaa •

The primary form was likely ‫( החשיתי‬mt, hipʿil perfect, 1cs), featuring the root ‫“( חשׁה‬to be silent”). There are two alternatives for the scroll’s reading. First, the scroll’s ‫ אחשיתי‬is an artificial form, combining the imperfect preformative ʾālep together with the perfect sufformative ‫תי‬-. A copyist of the scroll tradition may have assimilated the prefixed ʾālep from the five other imperfect 1cs verbs (‫ )אחריש אתאפק … אפעה אשם ואשאף‬that are attested in the verse. Or, second, once again the scroll’s copyist replaced the prefixed hê of the Hiphil with an ʾālep. For other examples of this circumstance, see the discussion above at 12:4. 49:26

‫ ְוַהֲאַכְלִ֤תּי‬mt | ‫ ואוכלתי‬1QIsaa •

In 58:14, 1QIsaa and mt both have the reading of ‫והאכלתיך‬, but in the present verse, the scroll features the unexpected ‫ ואוכלתי‬versus mt’s ‫ ְוַהֲאַכְלִ֤תּי‬. The most straightforward explanation is that 1QIsaa’s reading is related to orthography, based on the fact that the scroll recurrently omits the hipʿil hê in perfect verbal forms. A less straightforward explanation is that 1QIsaa lacks the prefixed hê and adds a wāw following the ʾālep. 1QIsaa’s variant of ‫ ואוכלתי‬may be an artificial form, combining the qal participle (or qal imperfect) with the qal perfect. 51:4

‫ ַהְקִ֤שׁיבוּ‬mt 1QIsab | ‫ אקשיבו‬1QIsaa •

1QIsaa’s reading is another example of the copyist replacing the hê with an ālep. For other examples of this circumstance, see 12:4. But the copyist was inconsistent with this approach, and another possibility in the present verse may explain the textual variant. Was ‫( ארגיע‬also a hipʿil, “to contract, do quickly”) located immediately below ‫ אקשיבו‬in the scribe’s Vorlage? A count of the letters

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

93

and spaces allows for this possibility. If so, the copyist may have appropriated the ʾālep and attached it to ‫אקשיבו‬. 57:17

‫ ַהְס ֵ֗תּר‬mt 1QIsab | ‫ ואהסתר‬1QIsaa 4QIsad (‫• )ואסתר‬

Two Hebrew witnesses—mt and 1QIsab—read the hipʿil infinitive absolute (‫ ;)הסתר‬two other witnesses—1QIsaa and 4QIsad—attest the hipʿil imperfect 1cs (‫)ואסתר‬, although 1QIsaa includes an interposed hê (‫ואהסתר‬, a hybrid form?). Opinions vary with regard to the basis of the hê. Kutscher holds that it is the result of Aramaic influence,41 while Driver states that it signifies a scribal correction (“by an Aramaizing copyist”) from ‫ אסתר‬to ‫הסתר‬.42 More likely, the scroll’s copyist conflated the hê of the hipʿil infinitive with the preformative ʾālep from the two verbs, which precede (‫ )ואכהו‬and follow (‫ )ואקצופה‬the term under discussion. And Talmon writes that it is a case of “a fully developed doublet which may be observed in statu nascendi in mt. The underlying alternative variants then would be ‫ואסתר ואקצ)ו(פ)ה(—הסתר וקצ)ו(ף‬.”43 The primary reading was likely two infinitive absolutes or two imperfect 1cs. For other examples where mt has an infinitive versus a finite verb in 1QIsaa, see 19:22 ‫( ְו ָר֑פוֹא‬mt) and ‫( ונרפו‬1QIsaa); 37:19 ‫תן‬ ֹ ֥ ‫( ְו ָנ‬mt) and ‫( ויתנו‬1QIsaa); 37:30 ‫( ְוָאכוֹל‬mtket; but cf. ‫ ְוִאְכ֥לוּ‬mtqere 2Kgs 19:29) and ‫( ואכולו‬1QIsaa). 57:20

‫ ַהְשֵׁק֙ט‬mt 4QIsad | ‫ לאשקוט‬1QIsaa •

1QIsaa has the plus of the preposition lāmed and a wāw, reading a qal infinitive construct in place of the hipʿil infinitive absolute of mt and 4QIsad. In addition, the scroll substitutes an ʾālep for the hê that belongs to both mt and 4QIsad. Martin writes that 1QIsaa’s “is a hybrid form … and the entire form is erroneous.”44 As for the qal stem, perhaps the copyist is simply using the more common form—‫ שקט‬is attested forty-one times in the Hebrew Bible: thirtyone times as a qal and ten times as a hipʿil. Or, did the copyist inadvertently write the negative particle ‫ לא‬twice, once before the verb and once following, for example, ‫ ?לאשקוט לוא‬However, this would not explain the wāw in the infinitive. It is well known that Mishnaic Hebrew generally attaches the preposition lāmed to the infinitive construct. So, too, Late Hebrew has a tendency to add 41 42 43 44

Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 259. Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 248. Martin, Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:615.

94

parry

the lāmed to the infinitive construct.45 With these points in mind, Kutscher refers to “the marked tendency of the Scroll to add a ‫ ל‬to infinitives.”46 Compare also the following readings (both nouns and verbs) of 1QIsaa, where the scroll has a preposition (versus mt, which lacks it): ‫( להביא‬1:13), ‫( לשמוע‬28:12), ‫ולשכר‬ (29:9), ‫( מיין‬29:9), ‫( לשמוע‬30:9), ‫( לעדרים‬32:14), ‫( לשלום‬32:17), ‫( בבית‬37:38), ‫למשוסה‬ (42:22), ‫( במרום ובקודש‬57:15), ‫( לאשקוט‬57:20), and ‫( מעשות‬58:13).

Conclusion The 1QIsaa scribe’s free approach to the text together with his tendency to create errors while copying the text gave rise to an environment that produced artificial forms. The artificial forms are of two categories: the first constitutes a “word” that features two or more morphological units, where the stem or one of the inflective components is irregular or artificial. More specifically, the inflective components include a blending of two feminine singular nouns (1:13), a perfect feminine singular verb and imperfect feminine prefix (11:9), a verb and noun (19:13), two different nouns (34:14), and a perfect and imperfect verb (42:14; 49:26; 51:4). The second category deals with hybridized “words” that blend features from both Standard Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic (e.g., 1:13, 21; 12:4; 17:11; 30:28; 57:17). But unlike the Portmanteau blending that exists in Israeli (Hebrew) and other languages, the 1QIsaa forms signify irregular and artificial configurations. It is significant that the great majority of 1QIsaa readings in this article are non-aligned (i.e., 1QIsaa 1:13; 11:9; 12:4; 19:13; 30:21, 28; 33:17; 34:14; 38:9; 42:14; 49:26; 51:4; 57:17; and 57:20), meaning they are not attested in other Biblical texts (either the Qumran Bible or mt) or in non-biblical Qumran texts. Two of the readings in this paper, however, do have alignments with other non-biblical Qumran texts: ‫( היכה‬see 1QIsaa 1:21 and 14:12), although not attested elsewhere in Hebrew Bible, is found in 4Q212 (4QEnochg f1v:23). And ‫ כאוב‬is also attested in the Hodayot readings of ‫ וכאוב‬and ‫( לכאוב‬see 1QHodayota 13:30; 16:29). Excluding the two exceptions noted above, these non-alignments provide evidence that 1QIsaa’s artificial readings do not reflect the morphology of Qum45

46

Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 41; see also note 1; see also T. Muraoka, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde; stdj 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 194–195. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 41.

artificial forms in the great isaiah scroll (1qisaa)

95

ran Hebrew, as Qumran Hebrew has been demarcated by Qimron, Reymond, and others.47 Nor is there data that support the idea that the non-alignments reflect older Isaianic readings versus what is presented in the mt. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the copyist was intentionally inventing new forms or that he was writing forms that were dictated to him. Beyond the possibility that these non-aligned forms belong to Qumran Hebrew or that they reflect older Isaianic readings, the chief factor that serves to explain the artificial forms is that the 1QIsaa copyist lacked finesse when copying the text from his Vorlage. It is well-known among scholars that 1QIsaa sets forth multiple examples of haplography, dittography, graphic similarity, misdivision of words, interchange of letters, and transposition of texts; there are other types of errors as well. But unlike these errors that occur during the transmission of the text, the artificial forms are not common errors; rather they are mishaps with inflective components that include a blending of two irregular features. It is difficult or impossible to know whether these errors reflect a subconscious writing of the text by the copyist, wherein he erroneously blended authentic morphemes into artificial forms (perhaps similar to the example of the fabricated English uncomprehensible). In any case, these forms signify a unique category of mishaps. With regard to the hybridized “words” that portray features from both Standard Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic—scholars have already established that the 1QIsaa scribe was conversant with Aramaic. The following three scholars’ statements on the matter serve to demonstrate the scribe’s understanding of Aramaic: Kutscher wrote that “Our scribe, whose mother tongue seems to have been Aramaic, and who was undoubtedly familiar with the Aramaic literature of his day, now and again inadvertently grafted Aramaic forms upon the Hebrew text.”48 After providing numerous examples of Aramaisms in 1QIsaa, Fassberg summarizes: “The sketch above leaves no doubt that the scribe of 1QIsaa was heavily influenced by Aramaic and that other scribes were also influenced, though the manuscripts they wrote or copied show less evidence of it.”49 Most recently, Reymond has explained, “Two texts, 1QS and 1QIsaa, exhibit features in the hiphil that reflect influence from Aramaic … these texts attest verbal forms in which an aleph appears for the heh of the hiphil prefix and this is thought to parallel the alternation in Aramaic between haphel and aphel stems (both of which are causative stems in Aramaic). Alone, the presence of 47 48 49

See, for example, the discussions by Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, passim, and, more recently, Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, passim. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 24. Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls,” 17.

96

parry

an aleph for heh could easily be interpreted as a phonetic confusion. However, both texts exhibit other verbal forms that seem closer to Aramaic causative stems than Hebrew.”50 Reymond provides examples from Isa 3:1; 19:16; and 57:17. Reymond’s words cited immediately above reach to the very heart of the matter under discussion (that a handful of 1QIsaa’s verbal forms have qualities that belong to both Aramaic and Standard Biblical Hebrew). It is highly probable that the hybridized words that are set forth in this paper were random errors by the copyist of 1QIsaa, who subconsciously copied the text and combined two elements from the two languages that he knew and understood. Based on Isaiah’s Hebrew text, Standard Biblical Hebrew was the major contributor to the copyist’s understanding of what he was writing on the leather, but Aramaic was a subordinate contributor. The recent djd publication of Ulrich and Flint51 demonstrates the wide range of inflected and lexical forms in 1QIsaa that are not aligned with the Masoretic Text or Masoretic Text types. These forms, in addition to the nonaligned, artificial forms in this Qumran scroll serve to indicate that the 1QIsaa copyist was an idiolect of some sort; or, if he was not strictly an idiolect, at the very least he possessed idiolectal tendencies. In conclusion, an awareness of the existence of possible artificial forms serves to provide us with additional significant understandings of the textual history of 1QIsaa, and further studies on this topic will continue to yield information regarding this significant scroll. 50 51

Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 194. Ulrich and Flint, djd xxxii, passim.

The Word of the lord and the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts Dana M. Pike

The study of prophets and prophecy in the Qumran texts is complex, but significant in its own right as well as in the greater context of the Second Temple period. Focusing on one particular avenue, my study reaffirms and further highlights the dramatic difference between ancient Israelite prophets and associated prophetic texts on the one hand and the proposed evidences of prophets and prophecy in the Qumran sectarian texts on the other.1 Specifically, I caution against claiming “prophets” and “prophecy” at Qumran without major qualifications, preferring to use other terms that more accurately describe their identity. Despite a recent trend to see the Teacher of Righteousness as a prophet figure for the community, I do not view the Teacher’s Spirit-based interpretation and application of earlier prophetic texts as synonymous with being a prophet or pronouncing prophecy.2 I am therefore arguing for greater delineation and nuance in modern descriptions of inspired activity at Qumran (and elsewhere for that matter, although I do not herein deal with evidence from the broader late Second Temple period3). The community’s own view of their Teacher and

1 I have used the term “ancient” in this study to designate the Israelite prophets cited in the Hebrew Scriptures, realizing that the Qumran community may not have considered them exactly ancient. However, I wanted to clarify the distinction between earlier Israelite prophets and later individuals in the Qumran community itself. 2 See, for example, the seemingly conflicting views of William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, jsots 197 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 128: “In post-biblical literature ‘prophecy’ came to mean the inspired interpretation of texts;” and L. Stephen Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 80: “Contrary to what has been claimed, the Teacher’s Spirit-inspired speech does not necessarily indicate that he (or the community) considered his function to be on par with that of the ancient prophets.” Some of this conflict is a matter of interpretation, and some of it resides in the difference, emphasized by Schniedewind, between the terms “prophet” and “prophecy.” My views are more in line with Cook’s claims, and this paper seeks to further demonstrate why modern readers of the Qumran texts should not consider the Teacher of Righteousness a prophet. 3 For examples of other types of claimed prophetic activity in non-Qumran texts, see Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford, 1993); and Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 122–148.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_007

98

pike

other community members should not be blurred with modern inclinations and interpretations of religious activity at Qumran.4 Thus, the Teacher is best understood as a religious leader possessing divinely inspired insights and direction, but not as a prophet.5 Any discussion of prophets and prophecy at Qumran is clearly definition dependent. Defining “prophet” and “prophecy” in the First or Second Temple periods is fraught with challenges, and attempts to explain these terms and the concepts they represent have resulted in a variety of proposals.6 For my purposes, a prophet, broadly defined, is an individual who considered him- or herself called by God to proclaim God’s will and word to a group or community (i.e., followers who recognized the individual as a prophet, even if their society as a whole did not), in the name of God, as revealed by God to the prophet.

4 See similarly the encouragement of Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 44–45, who also cites on this matter John Barton, Oracles of God (New York: Oxford, 1986), 109–111. My paper reaffirms this perspective, not often followed, and provides a greater basis for this assessment. While I am unaware of any claim that anyone besides the Teacher of Righteousness may have functioned prophetically at Qumran, I will reiterate in what follows that my perspective applies to the Teacher and everyone else in the community. For brief overview comments on community leadership titles found in the Qumran texts, see James H. Charlesworth, “Community Organization,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2., ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 134– 135. 5 For recent overviews of what is known and speculated about the Teacher, his life, mission, status among his followers, and the date of his activities, see Michael A. Knibb, “Teacher of Righteousness,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 2000), 2:918–921; and Michael O. Wise, “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (New York: Oxford, 2010), 92–122, especially 102–119. 6 See the publications cited in the previous three notes. Cook, for example, in On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 174–175, cites some factors to consider when defining prophecy. Interestingly, a number of studies on prophets and prophecy do not provide a definition for these terms. I assume this is due to the challenge of succinctly doing so. See the attempt to provide new definitions of prophecy and related phenomena in Lester L. Grabbe, “Prophetic and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning, The Prophetic, Apocalyptic, and Their Relationship, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. (New York: t&t Clark, 2003), 107–133, especially his comment, “This paper mentioned the need for new definitions. This [is] a difficult issue, however, and I have no new definitions to offer at this point. What I have done is try to introduce new thinking” (127).

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

1

99

A Recent Trend

As recently as 1999, James Bowley claimed, “Studies devoted to prophecy in the [Qumran] scrolls are not numerous.”7 However, this situation has changed significantly in the years since then, with the publication of a number of articles and volumes devoted to this topic (including the contents of this conference volume).8 This development has greatly contributed to the repudiation of the previously widely accepted view that prophecy among Second Temple-period Jews completely ceased after Malachi.9 The current scholarly position is that a variety of Jewish prophetic activities continued into and beyond the late Second Temple period, depending, of course, on one’s definition of “prophet” and “prophecy.”10 For example, Joseph Blenkinsopp has claimed the notion that prophecy ceased in Judaism served

7

8

9

10

James E. Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 2, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Boston: Brill, 1999), 354n1. See similarly, some years later, the assessment of Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2007), 2, including n4. This is not to say that some scholars during the twentieth century had not been addressing the question of prophecy among the Jews post-Malachi; some had, even before the Qumran scrolls were available as a resource, as Cook conveniently makes evident in On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 10–42. In addition to the works cited in the previous notes, see for example, Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (New York: t&t Clark, 2006); and Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, eds., Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (Walpole, ma: Peeters, 2009). See further Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 3n6; and Alex P. Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets’: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Prophecy in Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context, Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, vol. 2, ed. Armin Lange, et al. (Brill: Boston, 2011), 577–578, for additional citations, especially since 1999. See, for example, David A. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 1983), 103–106, for an analysis of passages in the Apocrypha, Josephus, and Rabbinic writings commonly used to support the notion that prophecy ceased after the fifth century bc. See also Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 5–9; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “‘We Pay No Heed to Heavenly Voices’: The ‘End of Prophecy’ and the Formation of the Canon,” in Treasures Old and New, Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2004), 194–198; and Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 12–18. Consider Cook’s observation, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 44, that “the overall picture of scholarship on the present question remains complex, in part because a high number of variations can be found within each school of thought.”

100

pike

to reinforce the worldview of the rabbis and to counteract Christian claims that the gift of prophecy was manifest among them, but that “as a matter of historical fact … prophetic activity did in fact continue … In Judaism charismatic and prophetic phenomena continued throughout the rabbinic period … The ‘end of prophecy’ thesis cannot therefore be explained as an account of what actually happened to prophecy.”11 Similarly, George Brooke has stated, “The phenomenon [of Jewish prophetic activity] should be understood broadly and as ongoing and developing in the late Second Temple period.”12 Under this generally accepted view that during the Second Temple period some forms of prophetic activity continued and other types developed, scholars have routinely noted that the word nābîʾ, “prophet,” is not used in the Qumran texts to describe the Teacher of Righteousness or any other community members.13 Nor are employed such titles as ʾîš ʾĕlohîm, “man of God,” or ḥozeh, “visionary.” (This is in contrast to the use of the term “prophet” by Josephus and some New Testament authors in regards to certain Jews living in the late Second Temple period.14) Nevertheless, a number of scholars encourage understanding the various types of claimed inspired activity illustrated by or alluded to in the Qumran sectarian texts as evidence of “prophecy.”15 For example, M. Eugene Boring

11

12

13

14

15

Joseph Blenkinsopp, “‘We Pay No Heed,’” 199. For a convenient review of the issue of prophecy as presented in the New Testament and in rabbinic sources, see Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 104–121, 149–173. George J. Brooke, “Prophecy,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2., ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 694. See similarly, George J. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (New York: t&t Clark, 2006), where he more emphatically claims regarding late Second Temple-period prophecy: “[It was an] ongoing prophetic activity” (156); “prophecy was a live contemporary issue … an ongoing phenomenon” (160) and an “ongoing prophetic activity” (161, two times). Cook provides a helpful overview of many scholars’ opinions on this question, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 10–42, 184–191. See, for example, Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 371: “There is no text which unequivocally identifies a current teacher or leader of the group with the title ‫ ”;נביא‬and George Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 160, 164. See, for example, Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Why Prophecy Ceased,” in jbl 108/1 (1989): 41, as well as Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus. Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 79, and others have rightly suggested that the absence of this title is not something to be lightly dismissed, but is a significant datum.

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

101

declared without qualification, “Qumran illustrates the presence of prophecy in one Jewish fringe group … within which the gift of prophecy had been renewed. The Teacher of Righteousness did not use the word ‘prophet’ of himself, but functioned as a prophet, speaking from the mouth of God (1QpHab 2:2–3), taught by God himself … Prophecy was related to the interpretation of Scripture and to the eschatological theology of the community.”16 Others such as Brooke have claimed that indicators of prophetic activity at Qumran include the numerous so-called parabiblical and rewritten prophetic texts, the pesharim (the sectarian interpretation of texts later known as biblical prophetic books), and to a lesser extent such factors as the listing of false prophets (implying that some Jews of the era must have been viewed as true prophets), the interpretation of visions and dreams, and divinatory activity.17 More specifically, Brooke has said that the “intellectual transformation of prophetic activity [that he sees in the Qumran texts] has its setting in a complex matrix of apocalyptic, priestly, scribal, and mantological ideas and practices … All this deserves the label ‘prophecy’” in the Qumran community and its broader movement.18 Alex Jassen, as another recent example, also sees forms of prophetic activity at Qumran. Recognizing, as does everyone that these do not fully align with Israelite prophecy and prophetic activity as represented in the Hebrew Bible, Jassen has stated that the Qumran corpus “reconceptualizes ancient prophets and prophetic activity,” presenting “new modes of transformed prophetic activity.”19 The Qumran texts certainly indicate “continued modes of human-divine communication,” including heaven-sent insight, as Jassen has claimed. And I agree with Jassen that “the Qumran community recognizes a distinction between ancient prophecy and the contemporary related phenomenon” (al-

16

17 18 19

M. Eugene Boring, “Prophecy, Early Christian Prophecy,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:497. I take the comment in 1QpHab 2.1–3, in which it is claimed that “traitors” had not trusted or obeyed the words of the Teacher “(which came) from the mouth of God” as a reference to words the Teacher obtained from Habakkuk (and other earlier prophets) and interpreted through inspiration, not that God spoke new words to the Teacher. For comments on these types of activities, see for example, Brooke, in both “Prophecy,” 695; and in “Prophecy and Prophets,” 152–160. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 165, but see 163–165. Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets,’” 579. See also the similar claims in Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 63, 197–198; and in Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 14–15, and elsewhere.

102

pike

though I view the “contemporary phenomenon” differently than he does) and that “Jews in the Second Temple period developed alternative ways to mediate the divine word and will.”20 However, I question Jassen’s claim, and similar claims by others, that “the community views itself and its activity as commensurate with ancient prophetic practice.”21 I also question Brooke’s view, and similar ones, that the Teacher of Righteousness should be considered a prophet.22 My reasoning is based in part on the occurrence patterns of the formulaic phrases “yhwh said” and “the word of yhwh” in the Israelite prophetic texts now in the Hebrew Bible and in the non-biblical Qumran sectarian texts, reviewed in the following paragraphs, and what these patterns represent. Simply stated, “ancient [Israelite] prophetic practice” was not alive and well at Qumran. The claim in the Qumran texts of God-sent inspiration to the Teacher of Righteousness overlaps with but is categorically different from the main language of prophetic activity presented in the Bible and the perceived authority it represented.23 Neither the Teacher of Righteousness nor any other members of the Qumran community fit nor claimed the prophetic role or office and all that was associated with it in ancient Israelite prophetic texts, despite the variety of prophetic activity depicted in the Hebrew scriptures.

20 21 22

23

Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets,’” 579–580. Ibid., 580. George J. Brooke, “Was the Teacher of Righteousness Considered to Be a Prophet?,” 94– 96. (See similarly Bowley’s attempt to express the prophet-like status of the Teacher in, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 371.) In this 2009 paper, Brooke concluded that even though the Teacher was “deserving of the designation ‘prophet,’” he “cannot have been a prophet” for sociological reasons (contrast his earlier claim about the Teacher in “Prophecy,” 698–699, quoted below). I disagree with Brooke’s claim that the Teacher deserved to be called a prophet and with his reasons for wondering if the Teacher can be claimed a prophet. To my mind, asserting “the Teacher cannot have been a prophet because he serves to bring about and represent foundationally the focal identity of the community in each generation. As prophet he would have stood too sharply over against the community he was attempting to serve” (96; see further 86–89) is not a compelling argument, and I can easily imagine some value in the Teacher wanting to be seen as a prophet. See further comments presented throughout this paper. Recognized, for example, by Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 106; and Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 80.

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

2

103

“yhwh Said” and “the Word of yhwh” in the Bible and in Non-Biblical Qumran Texts

While it is true that dreams, visions, and mantic activity are claimed in biblical texts in connection with ancient prophets (e.g., Isaiah 6:1, Ezekiel 20:1, Zechariah 4:1–4), what appears in the Bible as the prominent type of divine communication to humans is the oracular form represented by the phrase “the word of yhwh.” This “word” was received by a prophet when “yhwh said” something, although it is not clear exactly what this process involved nor whether it was consistent among Israelite prophets over centuries of time. These prophets were messengers for deity, considered to be authorized by deity. Some of the many examples in the Hebrew Bible of Israelite prophets receiving or delivering their message will suffice to illustrate this well-known practice:24 dibber ʾēl / God said/spoke: No occurrences. dibber ʾĕlohîm / God said/spoke: Only in Psalms 62:11:

“Once God has spoken; twice have I heard this; that power belongs to God.”

dibber yhwh / yhwh/the lord said/spoke (to): Exod 16:23: Exod 34:32: Deut 5:22: 1 Sam 16:4: 1 Kgs 13:3: 2 Kgs 19:21: Isa 20:2:

24

“[Moses] said to them, ‘This is what the lord has commanded.’” “[Moses] gave them in commandment all that the lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai.” “These words the lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire.” “Samuel did what the lord had said.” “He [the man of God] gave a sign [at Bethel] the same day, saying, ‘This is the sign that the lord has spoken …’ ” “This is the word that the lord has spoken concerning him.” “At that time the lord had spoken to Isaiah son of Amoz, saying …”

All biblical quotations in this paper are from the nrsv unless otherwise noted.

104

pike

Jer 10:1: Hos 1:2: Amos 3:1:

“Hear the word that the lord speaks to you, O house of Israel.” “When the lord first spoke through Hosea, the lord said [ʾmr] to Hosea …” “Hear this word that the lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel.”

dĕbar yhwh / the word of yhwh/the lord: Genesis 15:4–5: “But the word of the lord came to him [Abram].” Deut 5:5: “I stood between the lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the lord.” 1Sam 15:10: “The word of the lord came to Samuel, [saying] …” 2Sam 7:4: “But that night the word of the lord came to Nathan.” 1Kgs 18:1: “After many days the word of the lord came to Elijah, in the third year of the drought.” 2Kgs 7:1: “But Elisha said, ‘Hear the word of the lord.’ ” 2Kgs 20:19: “Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, ‘The word of the lord that you have spoken is good.’” Isa 1:10: “Hear the word of the lord, you rulers of Sodom!” Jer 1:11: “The word of the lord came to me, saying …” Ezek 3:16: “At the end of seven days, the word of the lord came to me.” Amos 7:16: “Now therefore hear the word of the lord.” Mic 1:1: “The word of the lord that came to Micah.” Hag 1:3: “Then the word of the lord came by the prophet Haggai, saying …” Zech 7:8: “The word of the lord came to Zechariah, saying …” 2Chr 11:2: “But the word of the lord came to Shemaiah the man of God.” 2Chr 36:22: “In fulfillment of the word of the lord spoken by Jeremiah.” These two phrases—dibber yhwh and dĕbar yhwh—occur, combined, about 310 times in the Masoretic Text (mt). Although I do not list attestations here, the related phrase ʾāmar yhwh, “yhwh says/said,” occurs about 380 times in the mt (the majority of these in the phrase kōh ʾāmar yhwh), and the phrases wayĕdabbēr yhwh and wayyōʾmer yhwh combined occur another few hundred times therein. Taken together, these phrases present the ongoing encounter with and references to God’s words in the Bible, communicated via prophets, especially in historical, legal, and prophetic texts.25

25

Not surprisingly, verbal forms from the lexical roots d-b-r and ʾ-m-r which have yhwh as

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

105

However, a search for these phrases in connection with the Teacher or other community members in non-biblical Qumran texts produces no real results. For example:26 dibber ʾēl / God said/spoke: No occurrences in the context of God saying something to the Teacher or someone else in the community.27 dibber ʾĕlohîm / God said/spoke [with ʾĕlohîm spelled defectively and plene]: No occurrences in the context of God saying something to the Teacher or someone else in the community. dibber yhwh / yhwh/the lord said/spoke: No occurrences in the context of God saying something to the Teacher or someone else in the community. dĕbar yhwh / the word of yhwh/the lord: No occurrences in the context of God saying something to the Teacher or someone else in the community. ʾāmar yhwh / yhwh/the lord says/said: No occurrences in the context of God saying something to the Teacher or someone else in the community.

26

27

the subject occur about eighty times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers combined (e.g., Exod 4:30, 16:23, 24:3, 32:7, Lev 1:1, 4:1, 8:1, 11:1, Num 1:1, 6:1, 13:1), the majority of them involving Moses. Clearly the authors and redactors responsible for those books sought to portray Moses as yhwh’s great spokesman, having been regularly spoken to by Israel’s God himself. Unless otherwise noted, quoted translations of non-biblical Qumran texts are from Accordance, “Qumran Non-biblical Manuscripts: A New English Translation (qumeng),” version 2.7, which is based on The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New English Translation, ed. Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook (New York: HarperCollins, 2005). Examples of these phrases occurring in parabiblical texts are mentioned later in the body of this study.

106 3

pike

Assessing These Data

Not only are the designations nābîʾ, ʾîš ʾĕlohîm, and ḥozeh not found in nonbiblical Qumran texts in relation to the Teacher of Righteousness or any other community member (as noted above) but, much more significantly, the standard phrases employed to express a predominant form of God-to-prophet communication in ancient texts that became biblical are glaringly absent from non-biblical texts from Qumran.28 Granted, the Bible consists of texts from a longer time period, but proportionally the complete absence of these phrases in connection with the Teacher of Righteousness or anyone else in the Qumran community is remarkably telling. Although Jassen has emphasized “shifting revelatory models” in “late biblical and Second Temple literature,”29 and there were developments taking place in Second Temple-period literature, the early Second Temple period prophetic books Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi still contain numerous occurrences of the phrases dĕbar yhwh and ʾāmar yhwh, phrases not found in association with the Teacher or other community members in Qumran sectarian texts.30 Where these phrases are found in specifically non-biblical Qumran texts is in reworked Bible and otherwise biblically related texts. So, for example, dĕbar yhwh, “the word of yhwh,” occurs twice in 4Q216 (4QJubileesa) and once in 4Q385b (4QPseudo-Ezekielc). And the phrase dibber yhwh, “yhwh said/spoke,” is found in 4Q216 (4QJubileesa), 4Q364 (4QReworked Pentateuchb), and 4Q365 (4QReworked Pentateuchc). Similarly, the phrase ʾāmar yhwh occurs a few times in non-biblical Qumran texts, such as 4Q365 (4QReworked Pentateuchc)

28

29

30

Although some scholars have published general statements similar to this one from Aune—“Many of the more characteristic formal features of ot prophecy are almost entirely absent from the various kinds of early Jewish revelatory speech and writing” (Prophecy in Early Christianity, 106)—I am not aware of anyone presenting a review of these particular phrases in the Bible and in the Qumran sectarian texts. Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 202. See also, for example, Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 164: “The community seems to have envisaged its life as continuous with that of scriptural Israel … The dominant mode for true prophecy … was interpretation … as inspired revelation both continuous with and pointing to the heart of earlier revelation.” Interestingly, Daniel 9:2, which contains the phrase dĕbar yhwh (“I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled”), is the only occurrence of ʾ-m-r or d-b-r with yhwh or ʾĕlohîm as subject to occur in Daniel, and the passage refers to “the word of the lord to the prophet Jeremiah,” exhibiting the practice found in Qumran sectarian texts. See also 2 Chronicles 36:22, cited above.

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

107

and 4Q370 (4QExhortation Based on the Flood).31 But these texts are all biblically related or quote from what became biblical texts. Additionally, Jassen has emphasized the prophetically oriented term byad, used to indicate that yhwh spoke his word or law byad, by the hand of or “through” someone.32 This term does occur in Qumran texts, but when used in a prophetic context, it appears, just as the other phrases reviewed above, in reference to ancient Israelite prophets, not to the Teacher or some other community member (e.g., cd 3.21, 5.21, 19.7; 1QS 1.3, 8.15; 1QM 10.6). As is quite evident, the texts attributed to those ancient Israelite prophets were the community’s main and foundational source of God’s word. (As Bowley has observed, the community shows little interest in the ancient Israelite prophets as people in their own historical context; at Qumran “the prophets are essentially books, books written by God himself.”33) There may have been other sources of inspiration or revelation recognized at Qumran, but decidedly absent is the Lord speaking to someone in the community as a prophetmessenger who employed common biblical formulas or any newer authoritative or legitimizing formulas. Granted, this is a literary-based assessment, what the texts preserve about ancient Israelite prophetic activity, but that is what the community members themselves knew and studied, and the lack of similar language in their own literature illustrates a significant difference in their own view of their situation in contrast to prophetic activity of the past. This practice of citing ancient prophets as the source of God’s word is most evident in the Qumran pesharim. There are pesher-type texts on prophetic passages from Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Psalms.34 But just as important for this study are the references to ancient Israelite prophets in other Qumran texts. For example, the only occurrence of the phrase dibber ʾel, “God said,” in Qumran sectarian texts is in cd 4.13: “Belial is unrestrained in Israel, just as God said by Isaiah the prophet.” Thus, cd looks back to Isaiah; it does not cite a contemporary community leader for its observation and legitimacy. Several other passages illustrate this practice of referencing the divinely given words and the authority of ancient Israelite prophets, without mention of the Teacher or some other community leader. For example: 31 32 33 34

I have not included restored texts in these examples, but biblically-based restorations easily increase the number of expected attestations of these phrases in these types of texts. Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 43–44, 60–61. Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 366. For basic comments on the pesharim, see for example, Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3 (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002).

108

pike

cd 3.21: “God promised them by Ezekiel the prophet, saying, ‘The priests and the Levites’ …” cd 7.10: “… that is when the oracle of the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came true.” cd 8.14: “But as Moses said …” cd 19.7: “When the oracle of the prophet Zechariah comes true …” 1QS 1.1–3: “He [the Instructor] is to teach them to seek God with all their heart and with all their soul, to do that which is good and upright before Him, just as He commanded through Moses and all His servants the prophets.” 1QS 8.15–16: “This [Isa 40:3] means the expounding of the Law, decreed by God through Moses for obedience, that being defined by what has been revealed for each age, and by what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.” The last two passages, in 1QS 1 and 8, serve to clearly highlight the difference between community leaders and “real” ancient prophets. The Instructor, for example, is not to be teaching all that God said through the Teacher of Righteousness, but rather what was communicated through Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel. Even in the oft-cited passage in 1QpHab 7.3–5, which reads, “When it says, ‘so that with ease someone can read it,’ this refers to the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysterious revelations of his servants the prophets,” the prophets in question are the ancient Israelite prophets and the revelations given to them, not the Teacher or any of his contemporaries. While the Teacher in 1QpHab 7.3–5 is claimed to have had God-given interpretive insights to reveal the true meaning of earlier prophetic texts, such interpretations are not presented as “the word of yhwh” to or through the Teacher.35 This

35

See similar sentiments expressed by Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 79–80. Contrast Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 11, who has claimed the distinction between pre-exilic prophets and inspired interpreters in the Second Temple period, but he considers this later “inspired text interpreter” to be “a new kind of prophet” (11), although a few “prophets” reminiscent of the First Temple type were still active in that later period. Schniedewind has also asserted, “The claim that the instruction of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ comes from God is essentially a claim to prophecy as we have defined it in Chronicles—even if it is not a claim that the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ was a prophet” (243). Although Schniedewind seems comfortable delineating between a person receiving “prophecy” and actually being a “prophet,” I am reluctant to use the term “prophecy” for what comes from Qumran, if for no other reason than that most people consider

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

109

suggests that the ancient prophets of Israel, and more particularly the written texts associated with them, had attained an authority and weight of tradition that was not equaled by any person or any new text at Qumran. Thus, contrary to the perspective presented by Brooke and others, it does not appear that the Teacher of Righteousness “viewed himself in the prophetic mold … With charismatic authority he took a stand against some of his fellow Jews … The prophetic role of the Teacher should be understood to include his charismatic interpretation of the prophets.”36 First, I see no solid indicators in the Qumran sectarian texts depicting the Teacher or his followers in the predominant “prophetic mold” in which earlier Israelite prophets communicated God’s words and will to their followers or their opponents. Second, the Teacher is consistently represented as interpreting the words of God given to previous prophets. And third, even the Qumran texts preserving vision reports and admonitions draw upon past figures, not contemporary ones. As Brooke himself has observed, “no sectarian is explicitly credited with a vision or audition.”37 A few final observations from other scholars will suffice to illustrate the contrast between the current majority approach to prophets and prophecy at Qumran and my view. Bowley, for example, has asserted that the claims of inspiration coupled with other titles associated with the Teacher, such as “interpreter of the Law” (e.g., cd 6.7, 7.18), were “reminiscent of the descriptions of ancient prophets, a similarity which could hardly have been accidental.”38 However, what I am emphasizing is the opposite dimension—while the Teacher of Righteousness may be “reminiscent” of the ancient prophets of Israel in some ways, the depiction of him is never complete as such, nor are his teachings or anyone else’s in the community expressed with the characteristically authoritative or legitimizing language from ancient Israelite texts or with distinctly new Qumran-ish ones. Furthermore, while some scholars have called on Qumran texts deploring “false” prophets as support for contemporary prophetic activity at Qumran (or elsewhere in Jewish society), we are left to ask, why is someone in the community never presented as a “true” prophet?39

36 37 38 39

that prophecy comes through prophets, and I do not see contemporary, “living” prophets at Qumran. However, if one accepts certain sectarian texts as containing some type of “prophecy,” the texts still do not equate the Teacher with being a prophet. Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698–699. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 158. Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 371. See also Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 331–342. See, for example, Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 372; and Brooke, “Prophecy

110

pike

Bowley has further commented on “the sect’s apparent reluctance to refer to contemporary persons as prophets.”40 I am asserting that the community was reluctant do so precisely because they did not conceive of “contemporary persons [at Qumran] as prophets.”41 The Qumran texts themselves encourage us to proceed with caution as we attribute prophet-like attributes and status to anyone at Qumran. Having some inspired attributes did not make someone a prophet (again, depending on one’s definition of “prophet”). A distinct gap exists in the Qumran literature between the manner of ancient Israelite prophets and the manner of the Teacher. Lastly, Jassen has stated that the Qumran community saw itself as “the embodiment of biblical Israel,” but due to living in a later time, “the Qumran community was forced to renew the world of the ancient prophets and revelation for its own time.”42 It is not clear to me what Jassen intended to convey by “renew,” but in my opinion, the community’s founding itself on past prophets is different from “renew[ing] the world of the ancient prophets.” If the community truly represented “the world of the ancient prophets,” why are neither the Teacher nor other members clearly depicted as prophets? Why did no one associated with the Qumran movement have phrases such as “yhwh said” or “word of yhwh” used in reference to themselves, nor other terms such as byad?43 Thus, these two prominent factors—(1) the absence of phrases such as “the word of God/yhwh” and “yhwh said” in Qumran sectarian texts, except in reworked and parabiblical texts, and (2) the regular indication in the pesharim and other key texts of the Qumran community that it was ancient Israelite prophets who received and transmitted yhwh’s word, not contemporary individuals—demonstrate a marked difference between the community’s perception of “the world of the ancient prophets” and of their contemporary one,

40 41 42 43

and Prophets,” 158–160. Brooke gives his own answer to my question in his more recent article (2009), “Was the Teacher of Righteousness Considered to Be a Prophet?,” 95–96. Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 376. Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 376. Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 4–5. As Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 362, has stated, “The words of the prophets, along with those of Moses, were [viewed as] the very words of God. This role as conduit of the divine word explains why a person of the past who bore the message of God (e.g., David) might be deemed a prophet.” He refers to what is said of David in 11QPsa 27.3–4, 11: “The lord gave him a brilliant and discerning spirit” and that “all these [psalms and songs] he [David] composed [dbr] through prophecy [nbwʾh] given him by the Most High.” As noted above, this latter claim is never specifically made in reference to the community’s Teacher.

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

111

which latter “world” included the Teacher’s inspired activities but lacked distinctive literary indications of the Teacher’s prophetic powers, role, or office.44 Some scholars contend that biblical-era prophecy transitioned into socalled “literary prophecy” in the late Second Temple period—the product of scribes, not of theological and social activists who presented themselves as divinely commissioned to receive and dispense the “word of yhwh.” Brooke, for example, has asserted, “There is no need for the rewritten [text] forms [at Qumran] explicitly to claim revelatory status for themselves. Such status was inherent in the original authoritative prophetic texts and was transmitted in some way in relationship between the reworked composition and its base text.” However, the “some way” in which this “relationship” developed and “was transmitted” is vague at best. Brooke further claims that no real difference existed between these later rewriters and those earlier prophetic schools who collected prophetic writings and assembled them into the books we know, so it is “most appropriate to view these [later] rewritings of the literary prophetic texts as themselves examples of ongoing prophetic activity.”45 But it appears that Brooke has collapsed two steps in a process: preserving prophetic writings by collecting and assembling them was not necessarily viewed by earlier Israelites or by the Qumran community as the same as producing prophetic pronouncements in the first place. In a related vein, Martti Nissinen has claimed, “It is evident … that the bloom of [Second Temple period] literary prophecy, triggered by the continuation of prophecy on the literary level as a kind of scribal divination, eclipsed the traditional, more or less ecstatic manifestations of prophecy.”46 Even if we partially grant these views, two challenges exist: the nameless and faceless enterprise labelled “literary prophecy” is not in harmony with the 44

45 46

Even Brooke, “Prophecy,” 697–698, has written that “from a formal point of view, there are no new prophetic oracles (‘Thus says the Lord’) in what survives of the Qumran library. However …” It is the “however” that I think comes too quickly, without sufficient consideration of the first statement. See similarly, Edward M. Cook, whose views on this particular point are similar to mine, in “What Did the Jews of Qumran Know about God and How Did They Know It? Revelation and God in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2 of World View, Comparing Judaisms, ed. A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner, and B.D. Chilton, Judaism in Late Antiquity 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 8, 13 (referenced by Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 158, 161). Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets,” 155–156. Martti Nissinen, “The Dubious Image of Prophecy,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, 41. Nissinen’s statement comes in his analysis of four biblical passages that he attributes to the Second Temple period—texts from Deuteronomy, Nehemiah, Zechariah, and Hosea.

112

pike

leadership role of the Teacher in the Qumran community, and the paradigm presented in the texts remains the same: it is the past that grounded the present at Qumran. I see a major difference between the rewriting or reshaping of ancient prophetic texts and traditions and the producing of new, independent pronouncements and texts grounded in their contemporary time period (even as a scribal, literary exercise).47

4

A Stage in History

Since they believed they lived among the wicked at the end of days, the Qumran group saw themselves at a particular stage in history, standing between the relatively distant ancient Israelite prophets and the relatively imminent and anticipated appearance of an eschatological prophet.48 The classic Qumran indication of an eschatological prophet is found in 1QS 9.11: the sons of Aaron were to appropriately govern the community, “doing so until the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel come.” The Teacher of Righteousness, in that crucial time period prior to the arrival of these eschatological leaders, led the group of renewed covenanters and claimed divine inspiration. Although he was given “all the mysteries of the words of his [God’s] servants the [Israelite] prophets” (1QpHab 7.4–5; quoted earlier), the Teacher explicated new views of old words previously given as prophecy, but new “words of yhwh” did not originate with or through him. Notice the distinction in 1QpHab 2.8–10 between the contemporary “Priest” and the ancient prophets: condemnatory words are expressed against those who will not heed “the Priest in whose [heart] God has put [the ability] to explain all the words of his servants the [ancient] prophets, through [whom]

47

48

Perhaps the historical and/or socioreligious contexts of the community were sufficiently different from earlier Israelite periods to produce the difference at Qumran emphasized herein. There was presumably a complex of factors that resulted in the different picture of inspired activity we see at Qumran and its broader contemporary context compared to ancient Israel. And a variety of reasons have been propounded for the decline of the prophetic office in the Second Temple period. For example, Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 16–30, 195–196, reviews several suggested reasons why prophecy “ceased” in the Second Temple period, including the loss of the Israelite monarchy, the rise in importance of the written Torah, and the rise of apocalypticism. It is not my purpose here to analyze or add to Cook’s or other scholars’ suggestions. See, for example, Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 366–370; and Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 5, 157–196.

the word of the lord and the teacher of righteousness

113

God has foretold everything [kwl] that is to come upon his people and [on the Gentiles].” In this passage, the community’s “Priest” (presumably the Teacher49) is declared to have God-given insight to interpret the writings of ancient Israelite prophets, Habakkuk in particular. However, the Teacher only explains and applies the words of the ancient prophets, even though he had some portion of God’s Spirit. It was the Israelite prophets “through [whom] God has foretold everything that is to come.”50 Perhaps it is also relevant that, as indicated in 1QS 8.13–14, those who became part of the community, the collective “they,” went into the wilderness, thus fulfilling Isaiah 40:3. Neither the Teacher himself nor any other person in the community is claimed to individually “prepare the way of the lord.” Given this perspective, it is plausible that the community, waiting for the coming eschatological prophet, did not even conceive of the need for a current prophet to lead them. God had already revealed “everything that is to come” in the past. God then inspired a priestly Teacher to help ensure that the community correctly understood God’s earlier words so as to be prepared for what was to come, which, among others things, included the arrival of “the Prophet and the Messiahs” and a new age.

Concluding Thoughts The Qumran sectarian texts illustrate a distinction between the word of God given through ancient Israelite prophets, as preserved in texts that became part of the Hebrew Bible, and between contemporary teachings expressed in the Qumran sectarian texts. None of this discounts the claimed inspired nature of the pesharim or other community texts or leaders. However, the Qumran texts generally attest to different, less direct and less powerful forms of inspired activity. It is not a question of the origin of the information—God and his inspired word—but of the nature and role of those humans who transmitted that information and the conceptual framework and language in which that

49 50

See, for example, Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Nashville: Abingdon, 2013), 154. A similar depiction is given in 1QpHab 7.4–5 of “the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the [ancient Israelite] prophets.” In the view of the community, the Teacher had an important but apparently different role and status from a prophet. In this regard I see the Teacher’s situation as functionally similar to Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 29, 231, 249, who emphasized the distinction in Chronicles between inspired messengers and the prophetic office.

114

pike

information was presented. The lack of authoritative prophetic markers, such as “yhwh said” and “word of yhwh” (or new and at least somewhat analogous markers), coupled with the concurrent lack of basic prophetic labels (nābîʾ and others, mentioned above) and the emphasis in sectarian texts on what had already been revealed through past prophets, combine to suggest a gap that some scholars have been too quick to overlook or to bridge. And I am not convinced that so-called “literary prophecy” can be claimed as prophecy when viewed from the community’s perspective at Qumran. The Teacher’s inspired interpretations and applications of earlier prophetic texts are best seen as overlapping with but ultimately distinct, in fundamental ways, from the larger “package” of having divinely authorized living messengers declaring “the word of yhwh,” as depicted in those earlier texts.51 Thus, I view the Teacher of Righteousness (and anyone else at Qumran) as a religious leader gifted by God’s Spirit with inspired insights, but not as a prophet. The evaluation of prophets and prophecy at Qumran obviously turns in some measure on how one defines these terms in that time period and in that location. Although many seem satisfied to apply the baggage-laden terms “prophet” and “prophecy” to the leader and to sectarian texts at Qumran, I question the validity and value of so defining these terms rather than using other terminology to designate this phenomenon in the community. Labels such as “inspired” or “divinely given insight and understanding” are less than fully desirable, but they do help differentiate between the status of Israelite prophets and Qumran’s non-prophetic but nevertheless inspired leaders. When critiquing some scholars’ claims that Chronicles presents the Davidic kings as prophets, Schniedewind claimed, “We must be much more circumspect in defining ‘prophecy’ and handing out the label ‘prophet.’” That caution applies equally well to the situation at Qumran.52 51

52

In this claim I agree with Cook, On the “Cessation of Prophecy,” 80, who posits that at Qumran the Teacher was “probably not regarded as a prophet but as a ‘skilled scribe’ (4QpPsa 4.26–27; cf. Ps 45:2b) following in the footsteps of Ezra, the skilled scribe (Ezra 7:6).” On this point, Cook cites Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 128, who, again, differentiates between a prophet at Qumran and prophecy at Qumran. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 207; see also 236–237. As a postscript, I mention that I wrote the first draft of this paper before reading Cook’s volume, On the “Cessation of Prophecy.” So, similarities in our thinking that I have noted above arose independently, but are mutually reinforcing.

False Prophets as a Construction of Authority at Qumran Joshua M. Sears

“Beware of the false prophets,” cautioned Jesus, “who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt 7:15). This warning, given to Jews of the first century, highlights two problems inherent to prophecy: the existence of false prophets and the fact that they can be exasperatingly difficult to distinguish from true ones. As Robert R. Wilson summarizes the dilemma, “[Because] the prophetic experience is basically a private one … the prophet’s audience can never be sure that the experience took place as described or that the prophet is accurately reporting the divine message. Therefore, the reliability of any prophecy can be questioned, and the threat of false prophecy is always present.”1 The ancient Israelites certainly recognized that prophecy as a social institution carried an inherent liability, but although deceitful prophets appear in many books of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical authors did not bequeath to their descendants a conclusive formula for discernment.2 In surveying the biblical corpus one finds only a series of partial solutions, none of which can be applied in every situation and several of which might also implicate a true prophet.3 Post-biblical communities inherited that indefiniteness and had to navigate it in various ways.

1 Robert R. Wilson, “Interpreting Israel’s Religion: An Anthropological Perspective on the Problem of False Prophecy,” in The Place Is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. Robert P. Gordon, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5 (Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 333–334. 2 The Hebrew Bible usually does not make a lexical distinction between “real” prophets and “false” prophets, labeling them a ‫“ נביא‬prophet” regardless. On some occasions a descriptive modifier will nuance the title, such as ‫“ נביא מורה־שׁקר‬the prophet who teaches falsehood” in Isa 9:14. Perhaps recognizing the confusion that this uniform vocabulary might create, the Septuagint translators rendered ‫ נביא‬as pseudoprophētēs on ten contextually appropriate occasions. See James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 46. 3 For a brief introduction to and biography on the biblical problem of false prophecy, see J.E. Brenneman, “True and False Prophecy,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 781– 788.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_008

116

sears

In this article I discuss how false prophets appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I argue that the authors of those texts, recognizing the perceived existence of false prophecy and the ambiguous standards available to identity them, took advantage of those perceptions and ambiguities by using false prophets as a rhetorical tool to bolster the religious authority of the sectarian community. The texts suggest that they enacted this construction of authority through at least three strategies: (a) the authors drew upon Deuteronomy’s focus on correct prophetic teaching and argued that they were the only ones teaching correctly; (b) they slandered their theological enemies by associating them with false prophets; and (c) they expanded the powers of their own priestly leadership by assigning those leaders stewardship over disputed prophetic claims. These approaches to defining, identifying, and dealing with false prophecy served as useful social and religious tools that reinforced the Qumran community’s claims to divine favor while simultaneously undercutting the competing claims of their religious opponents. My analysis will include first, a brief survey of the references to false prophets at Qumran; second, a discussion of the challenges of establishing authority in a religious system that allows for spontaneous divine inspiration; and third, an examination of how each of the relevant texts from Qumran contributes to the community’s construct of authority.

1

A Brief Survey of False-Prophet References at Qumran

1.1 The Temple Scroll The Temple Scroll (11Q19) contains a number of modified biblical quotations.4 Among these are two passages that deal with false prophets, Deut 18:20–22 and Deut 13:2–6.5 These texts from Deuteronomy represent the Bible’s only discussion of false prophets within the context of a law code, and they are the false-prophet passages cited most frequently among the non-biblical texts at Qumran. Because of this prominence both passages are worth examining in detail. Deuteronomy 18:21 asks the question, “How can we recognize the word that the Lord has not spoken?”6 Verse 22 answers, “If a prophet speaks in the 4 See Elisha Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions, jds (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1996). 5 Deuteronomy 18:20–22 is found in 11Q19 lxi; however, because the top of the column is missing, only the second half of Deut 18:20 survives (the previous column ends partway through Deut 18:14). Deuteronomy 13:2–6 is found in liv, 8–18. 6 Deuteronomy 18:20–22 is the conclusion of a larger pericope extending back to 16:18, a block

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

117

name of the Lord but the thing does not happen or come about, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken.7 The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not fear him.” This solution places the burden of prophetic proof on the prophet’s ability to correctly foretell future events. Significantly, this method of discernment only works when there is a negative outcome, that is, when the prophet’s prediction fails to come to pass—the power of good guessing ensures that a positive result will ultimately be inconclusive. However, even a negative result can be problematic since true prophets sometimes give predictions that do not come to pass. For example, even though Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4), the people repented so completely that God “relented concerning the calamity that he had decreed against them and did not act” (3:10).8 Most problematically, the test proposed in Deut 18:22 only works with the benefit of hindsight. If Hananiah quotes God saying “I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon!” (Jer 28:4), and Jeremiah counters by declaring that all nations will “serve [the] king of Babylon” (28:14), their live audience cannot wait until the Babylonians arrive before they decide who was correct. Deuteronomy 18:22 is often considered the quintessential biblical test of true and false prophecy, but its impracticality makes it almost useless.9 The second text is Deut 13:2–6, which takes a different approach to identifying false prophets.10 There it states that a prophet who “speaks apostasy” (‫דבר־סרה‬, 13:6) must be put to death even if that prophet “gives to you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass of which he told you” (13:2–3). Here the test of a prophet is whether or not he provides correct teachings. The

7 8 9

10

of text that describes the responsibilities of and places legal restrictions on various leaders in Israelite society. These include the roles of judges and local officials (16:18–17:13), kings (17:14–20), and the Levitical priests (18:1–8). The text then condemns diviners, soothsayers, and other illegitimate spiritual intermediaries (18:9–14) before establishing prophets as the correct means of communicating with the divine (18:15–22). 11Q19 xvi, 4 reads ‫לוא דברתי‬, “I have not spoken.” The Temple Scroll often rewrites biblical passages to portray God speaking in the first person. See Paul L. Redditt, Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 264–265. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New jps Translation Commentary, The jps Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 177–178. Deuteronomy 13:2–6 follows a section that directs the Israelites to shun or destroy Canaanite religious practices (12:29–13:1) and is part of a larger unit comprising 13:2–19. This larger unit discusses what to do in the event that someone from one of three different groups— prophets, family and friends, or a town—tries to persuade Israelites to worship foreign deities.

118

sears

specific wrongdoing in this context is encouraging others to serve foreign gods, but the crime of “speaking apostasy” could have been expanded very easily to include false teachings of any kind (and, as we will see, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that later Jews did just that). The fact that Deut 18:20–22 and Deut 13:2–6 appear in the Temple Scroll does not in itself tell us very much about how its author(s) perceived the problem of false prophecy. The Temple Scroll includes a great deal of biblical material that does not seem to have reflected any immediate, practical concerns, and we cannot be sure that Deut 13 and 18 were not swept up into the scroll’s collection of biblical quotations for other reasons. Lawrence Schiffman’s analysis of how these particular passages are quoted in the scroll found that the textual differences between them and the standard text of Deuteronomy represent minor exegetical refinements and textual variants, all of which are typical of the kinds of emendations we observe in the rest of the Temple Scroll.11 Based on that analysis, it seems that the author was not overly concerned with adapting the false-prophet laws to meet contemporary needs.12 However, the importance of these passages in shaping how the Qumran community conceptualized false prophecy will become clearer as we examine additional texts. 1.2 4Q339 List of False Prophets One of the most unique texts describing false prophets is a short Aramaic document, 4Q339 or List of False Prophets, named after its opening line: “The lying prophets (‫ ) ̇נ̇בי̇אי ]ש[קרא‬who arose in Israel.”13 It then proceeds to list a halfdozen biblical figures, from Balaam to Shemaiah. The last two lines, unfortunately, are lost, save the last two or three letters of each line. These lacunae have provoked a few different reconstructions. Elisha Qimron proposed that the last line read “Yohanan ben Simeon,” meaning John Hyrcanus i.14 If this were true it could mean the entire list was designed to slander Hyrcanus, who claimed prophetic powers in addition to his priestly and political credentials.

11 12

13

14

See Lawrence Schiffman, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll, ed. Florentino García Martínez, stdj 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 454–456. See Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, ed. Florentino García Martínez, stdj 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 300. Magen Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, djd 19 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 77–79. The translation given in djd is “false prophets,” and the notes point out that this is the earliest Semitic source for the non-biblical phrase ‫נביאי שקר‬, which appeared later in Mishnaic Hebrew as well. Elisha Qimron, “‫לפשרה של רשימת נביאי השקר‬,” Tarbiz 63 (1993–1994): 275.

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

119

Although some still defend that reading, Qimron himself later abandoned it and instead postulated that both lines describe the prophet Hananiah, a reading that Magen Broshi and Ada Yardeni adopt in djd.15 Others, however, object that no other figure on the list takes up two lines.16 No matter the reconstruction, 4Q339 provides evidence for an ongoing concern about false prophecy. However, a great deal of interpretive weight rests on whether we understand it to be a polemic against a contemporary individual (such as John Hyrcanus) or as a list of figures entirely from Israel’s distant past. In the latter case, the list may have been, as George Brooke suggests, “used didactically to provide examples of those who could serve as a measure of false prophecy for the Qumran community.”17 1.3 The Hodayota and the Damascus Document Two other texts at Qumran more clearly refer to false prophets who are contemporary with the authors. The first is the Hodayota (1QHa), whose twelfth column contains a polemic against a group that is ideologically opposed to the author. In a lengthy complaint to God, the author first reviews his own prophetlike credentials by stating, “I give thanks to you, O Lord, for you have caused my face to shine by your covenant, and … I seek you [using the verb ‫]דרש‬, and … you have revealed yourself to me” (xii, 5–6).18 He then contrasts himself with his opponents (lines 13–16): But they, the hypocrites, create the plots of Belial and seek you (‫ )דרש‬with a divided heart. And they are not steadfast in your truth. A root growing poison and wormwood is in their thoughts, and in the stubbornness 15

16 17 18

See Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv, 78. Armin Lange defends the identification of John Hyrcanus in “‘The False Prophets Who Arose against Our God’ (4Q339 1),” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran at Aix-enProvence ( June 30–July 2, 2008), ed. Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, stdj 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 205–218. Geza Vemes notes the objections to the identification of Hananiah in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin, 2004), 621. George J. Brooke, “Prophecy,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford, 2000), 2:698. See Hartmut Stegemann with Eileen M. Schuller, 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota – f, with translation of texts by Carol A. Newsom, djd 40 (Oxford: Claredon, 2009), 157; and Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa, sblejl 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 38. These lines also appear in a small fragment, 4Q430 (4QHd), without any significant variations.

120

sears

of their heart they explore, and they seek you (‫ )דרש‬among idols. The stumbling block of their iniquity they have placed before themselves, and they come seeking you (‫ )דרש‬through the mouth of lying prophets, who are themselves seduced by error. Among the author’s opponents’ many sins is the crime of seeking God through consulting a group of ‫נביאי כזב‬, literally “prophets of a lie” or “prophets of falsehood.”19 The author contrasts himself with his opponents by the repeated use of the verb ‫דרש‬, which distinguishes how the opponents “seek” God insincerely and ineffectively, while the author “seeks” God in such a way that God reveals himself to him. The second text that references contemporary false prophets is the Damascus Document (cd), which begins describing the history of the sectarian community at the end of column 5: In the time of the destruction of the land the movers of the boundary stood up and led Israel away; and the land was devastated, for they had spoken apostasy (‫ )דברו סרה‬against the commandments of God by the hand of Moses and also by the anointed of the spirit. And they prophesied falsehood (‫ )וינבאו שקר‬to turn Israel away from God. (v, 20–vi, 2) Unlike the Hodayota, which was focused on an opposing group that consulted lying prophets, the Damascus Document depicts its ideological enemies as engaging in prophecy themselves. These opponents also “move the boundary”—usually understood as a reference to God’s laws—and “speak apostasy” against the commandments, the same phrase used in Deut 13:6 to describe the crime of false prophets. 1.4 4Q375 and 1Q29/4Q376/4Q408 Other texts do not describe specific historical opponents but describe false prophecy in general. One of the most interesting texts is 4Q375 (4QapocrMosesa).20 Two columns are extant, the first of which begins by paraphrasing the injunction from Deut 18:15, 18–19 to hearken to everything that God shall command through his prophets. It proceeds to paraphrase the instructions from Deut 13:6 that a prophet who rises up and speaks apostasy ([‫ודבר בכה ]סרה‬, 19

20

Some scholars interpret these lying prophets as identical with the main group of opponents; for an explanation of why they should be distinguished, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 286–287. See Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv, 111–119.

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

121

lines 4–5) shall be put to death. 4Q375 then continues with material that has no parallel in the Bible: But, if the tribe which he is from stands up and says, “Let him not be put to death, for he is righteous, he is a faithful prophet,” then you and your elders and your judges will come with that tribe to the place which your God will choose among one of your tribes, before the anointed priest, on whose head the oil of anointing has been poured …21 (1 i, 5–9)

4Q375 is interesting for several reasons. First, the fact that it was created suggests that its Second Temple authors perceived false prophecy to be a (at least theoretical) problem. Second, it reveals a dissatisfaction with the procedures already available in Judaism’s authoritative texts, which offer no consistently useful solution to the problem of false prophecy; 4Q375 represents one postbiblical effort to address the issue. Third, 4Q375 is striking for the relationship it paints between prophet and priest. As Brooke notes, assigning a priest to serve a judiciary role in the case of a questionable prophet creates a hierarchy of power that does not favor the prophet: “prophetic activity is subsumed under priestly authority.”22 The idea that prophecy should be regulated and controlled by the priesthood is suggested by another document that exists only in three small but parallel fragments, 1Q29 (1QapocrMosesb?) 1, 4Q376 (4QapocrMosesb?) ii, and 4Q408 (4QapocrMosesc?) 11.23 The text describes the priest speaking to the assembly, followed by an injunction “to keep and do all that he speaks to you” and a reference to prophets who speak apostasy (‫הנב]יא[ … המדבר סרה‬, another

21

22 23

Column 1 ends at this point and, unfortunately, the first few lines of column 2 are missing and the rest are poorly preserved. What remains appears to describe procedures associated with the Day of Atonement; the link between this material and the crisis of column 1 is not clear, but their proximity suggests that these rituals describe the method the priest would use to decide the prophet’s case. See Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv, 116. Brooke, “Prophecy,” 698. 1Q29 was first published as “1QLiturgy of 3 Tongues of Fire” in D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1, djd 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 130. Some of the words were later re-edited on the basis of parallels with 4Q376. For 4Q376 itself, see Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv, 121–129. For 4Q408, see S.J. Pfann et al., Qumran Cave 4.xxvi: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1, djd 36 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 298–315 (fragment 11 appears on pp. 312–313). Unlike 4Q375, these texts are usually ignored in scholarship discussing false prophecy at Qumran.

122

sears

reference to Deut 13:6). Although we lack the full context, the appearance of Deuteronomy’s false-prophet laws in close proximity with a declaration of priestly power implicitly reinforces the explicit instructions in 4Q375 that questionable prophecy falls under the judicial authority of the priests.24 The fact that multiple copies of this text were created also suggests that people saw both the problem and the solution as part of a discussion worth repeating.

2

Prophecy and Authority

Having now surveyed the most relevant texts, we may now ask why false prophets appear the way they do. What was at stake for the community at Qumran? Some observations from the social sciences can help illuminate their challenge. Picking up on the Weberian idea of Veralltäglichung, the “routinization” of charisma,25 anthropologist I.M. Lewis, in his classic work on ecstatic religion, explains that new religious movements “announce their advent with a flourish of ecstatic revelations” and that the faith’s leaders may continue to emphasize the availability of divine inspiration when they need to strengthen or legitimize their authority. However, they are simultaneously wary of inspiration, because “the religious enthusiast, with his direct claim to divine knowledge, is always a threat to the established order.”26 This wariness, Lewis argues, becomes more pronounced with the passage of time: There is [a] well-defined tendency for successful inspirational religions to lose their ecstatic fervor and harden into ecclesiastical establishments which claim a secure monopoly of doctrinal knowledge. As Ronald Knox wryly reminds us: “Always the first fervours evaporate; prophecy dies out, and the charismatic is merged in the institutional” … Where this hardening of the spiritual arteries ensues, religious authority is ultimately no longer dependent for its validation upon possessional inspiration, but upon ritual and dogma … If inspiration figures at all, it represents little more than a nodding gesture by the gods that they continue to endorse 24

25 26

John Strugnell suggests in Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.xiv, 129–131, that 4Q375 could be part of the same original document as 1Q29 and 4Q376; because this hypothesis is uncertain I treat them separately here. See Max Weber, Economy and Society, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 246–254. I.M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 1989), 29.

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

123

the priestly hierarchy’s management of its spiritual endowment. This form of religious organization … is clearly more stable, more predictable, and more secure in its religious direction than [one based upon] inspirational authority … It is thus no accident that throughout history, and in many different religions, established churches have sought to control and contain personal inspiration.27 This tension that Lewis observes between the benefits and challenges of divine inspiration plays a role in biblical religion and the post-biblical communities that came from it. For example, Stuart Cohen, in his study on early rabbinic Judaism, points to a cool attitude toward contemporary prophets: “Considering themselves to be the only authentic interpreters of God’s word, the early rabbis were bound to regard as suspect any person who claimed spontaneous access to God independent of the rabbinic structure which they were attempting to establish.”28 The challenge for religious authorities was to find a way to claim religious authority that derives from some form of heavenly inspiration while simultaneously limiting the availability of that inspiration to stray individuals or rival groups. In the case of the Qumran community, I argue that references to false prophets were employed in part to reach these goals; false prophecy becomes part of a construction of authority.29

3

Constructing Authority at Qumran

3.1 Constructing Authority by Defining Correct Teachings Employing false prophecy as part of a discourse on authority goes back to the Bible itself, and particularly to Deuteronomy. As demonstrated above, several Qumran texts quote or allude to Deut 18:18–20 and especially Deut 13:2–6, both

27 28 29

Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 156. Stuart A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 69. “Authority” in this context refers to rhetorical or perceived theological authority, not authority that reflects any real political or social power. As Alex P. Jassen points out, “the sectarians viewed themselves as the elect of God … Yet, they simultaneously recognized that they were a disempowered minority.” Jassen, “Power, Politics, and Prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism,” in Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires, ed. Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl, anem 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 177.

124

sears

of which seek to limit prophetic authority by outlining circumstances when people do not need to follow the prophet’s instructions. Deuteronomy 13 goes as far as instructing that if a prophet encourages worshipping foreign deities or otherwise speaks apostasy, he should be put to death even if he provides a confirming sign or wonder. In other words, it does not matter that a prophet can accurately predict the future or provide some impressive miracle—bad theology can still disqualify him. And how should one determine what teachings should be considered acceptable? Deuteronomy’s definition of orthodoxy is found in the rest of the book of Deuteronomy, in its conception of God, God’s law, and the proper way to live God’s law. Bernard M. Levinson has thus argued that in these texts, Conformity to the requirements of the Deuteronomic legal Torah … becomes the new touchstone of authenticity as a prophet. As a consequence, deviation from that Torah becomes stigmatized as apostasy and therefore prohibited as a capital offence … Classical Israelite prophecy is here co-opted by the specific religious, political, and social program of the legal corpus of Deuteronomy.30 If Deuteronomy’s method of controlling rival inspiration is to make prophets beholden to its own written law, I suggest that the authors of the texts from the Dead Sea are similarly trying to control the prophetic narrative. The Temple Scroll quotes Deuteronomy’s false-prophet laws in full, and several other texts quote or allude to them, especially Deut 13’s description of prophets who “speak apostasy.” It seems that the authors of these texts took Deuteronomy’s approach to false prophecy and incorporated it as their own. By their time, however, it is not a simple matter to say that prophets must conform to scriptural law, for the various Jewish sects shared the Torah as a common authority. Instead, the authors of the texts from Qumran claim for themselves the inspirational authority to interpret the biblical prophets and apply the law to contemporary society, and therefore those with different interpretations must be false prophets.31 30

31

Bernard M. Levinson, “The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy,” Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006): 1883–1884; emphasis in original. It is worth pointing out that one can feel a legitimate concern about false prophecy without also believing that “true” prophets are walking around. Attacks against false prophecy by the Qumran community, therefore, do not necessarily prove that they recognized contemporary prophets among them. Very notably, the surviving documents never unam-

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

125

3.2 Constructing Authority by Slandering Opponents Another way the authors of the texts at Qumran construct authority is by slandering their opponents.32 Looking again at the Hodayota, we observe that its author—who some believe may have been the Teacher of Righteousness himself—heaps upon his enemies a number of inflammatory accusations, among them the crime of associating with lying prophets. Several scholars have identified the rival group described in the Hodayota as the Pharisees, based especially on the presumed wordplay between ‫“ חלקות‬smooth things” (1QHa x, 15, 32; xii, 10) and the later rabbinic concept of ‫( הלכות‬referring to Jewish law). However, some, such as Carol Newsom, urge caution in pressing this connection in the Hodayota. Newsom describes the enemies in the Hodayota as “the sect’s own image turned upside down … largely made in their own image, an ‘evil twin.’”33 Whether the language is specific to the Pharisees or is simply schematic, as Newsom suggests, her insight that the enemies are meant to serve as a foil to the author is helpful. Much of the exaggerated polemical language is clearly not meant to be literal, such as the accusation of idol worship. Similarly, the accusation of deceitful prophecy is best understood as a contrast to the author and his followers, who really do have access to the mind and will of God. The Damascus Document also utilizes false prophecy to set up a contrast between the authoring sect and its ideological enemies. These enemies are described as moving the boundary, leading Israel astray, and—invoking Deut 13 again—speaking apostasy and prophesying falsehood (cd v, 20–vi, 2). For the authors of this text, false prophets are false teachers, especially those that claim divine sanction for their alternative interpretations of the law. In fact, column 6 continues to explain that in response to the teachings of these false prophets, God raised up from Aaron men of understanding (‫ )נבונים‬and from Israel men of wisdom (‫ ;)חכמים‬these God taught, and they went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus (cd vi, 2–5). And there we have the origin

32

33

biguously refer to a member of the community as a “prophet.” At the same time, the lack of explicit vocabulary does not mean that figures in the community did not engage in prophetic functions, only that “the prophetic experience for the Qumran community had evolved beyond the classical models found in the Hebrew Bible.” Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 382. Using “the charge of false prophecy … as a means to delegitimize the social and political authority of the targets of these accusations” is also explored in Jassen, “Power, Politics, and Prophecy,” 171–198 (172). Carol Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, stdj 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 308–309.

126

sears

of the sect as they see it—God’s reaction to the lack of understanding and wisdom shown by the prophets of falsehood. As with the Hodayota, it makes little difference whether the author had a specific historical group in mind or whether these apostates represent anyone who is not part of the chosen community: either way, the phrase ‫“( וינבאו שקר‬prophesied falsehood”) is used to draw an ideological division between this new group that God has called and illuminated, and the others who continue to follow their unauthorized and perverted interpretations of the law.34 3.3 Constructing Authority by Reinforcing Priestly Hegemony An effort to define the boundaries of authority is also evident in texts that discuss how to deal with false prophecy. As described above, 4Q375 prescribes that prophets bearing disputed messages must be brought before “the anointed priest” for their case to be decided. The three parallel fragments, 1Q29, 4Q376, and 4Q408, are heavily damaged but seem to make the same point, suggesting that 4Q375’s solution for dealing with false prophets was not unique. Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that prophets must answer to priests in this manner, but for the sectarian community the concept is rather brilliant. This was a community led by priests, after all. The Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community (1QS), and other documents speak of the community selfreferentially as the ‫“ בני צדוק‬sons of Zadok,” a clear reference to the famed priestly line.35 Governed by order, law, and heritage, many priests would have seen their authority to represent God’s will as superior to that of the charismatic prophets, whose position required no training, no education, no pedigree, and which, if we go by biblical examples, could be assumed by anyone regardless of age or experience or even ethnicity or gender.36 Placing prophecy under sacerdotal jurisdiction meant that these priests could—at least in their 34

35

36

In considering false-prophet references that are meant to slander opponents, we might also include 4Q339 and the possibility that its list of false prophets was meant to attack John Hyrcanus. As discussed above, however, it is not certain how the damaged final lines should be reconstructed. ‫ בני צדוק‬is used to refer to leaders in the community in cd iv, 3; 1QS v, 2, 9; 1Q28a (1QSa) i, 2, 24; ii, 3; 1Q28b (1QSb) iii, 22; 4Q163 (4QpIsac) 22 i, 3; and 4Q266 (4QDa) 5 i, 16. It appears in other contexts in cd iii, 21–iv, 1 and 4Q174 (4QFlor) 1–2 i, 17. This list is based on a word search made using Emanuel Tov, ed., Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (Provo, ut: Brill and Brigham Young University, 2006). First Samuel 1–3 describes the young, inexperienced, and non-Levite Samuel as a ‫ נער‬no less than fourteen times before he speaks with God and receives the title prophet (1 Sam 3:20), a sharp contrast with the age, experience, and priestly credentials of Eli. Biblical women who are given the title ‫ נביאה‬include Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4),

false prophets as a construction of authority at qumran

127

ideal conception of the world—ensure that prophecy supported the correct interpretation of the Torah as God had given it to the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers.

Conclusion Members of the sectarian community described in the texts from Qumran saw themselves as enlightened and chosen by God, the true Israel who held the key to correct interpretation and practice. Their constitutional documents, their interpretations of biblical texts, and a variety of other manuscripts attest to their certainty that they were the divinely ordained heirs of the biblical tradition, including the prophetic tradition.37 However, to inherit the biblical concept of prophecy is to inherit the tension caused by competing prophetic voices. The community channeled this tension creatively to bolster its own claims to legitimacy. The surviving texts suggest that members of the community did this by drawing upon Deuteronomy’s focus on correct prophetic teaching and arguing that they were the only ones teaching correctly, slandering their theological enemies by associating them with false prophets, and assigning the community’s own priestly leadership stewardship over disputed prophetic claims. For the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then, the classic problem of discerning between true and false prophets was not really a problem because the solution was so simple: false prophets were those who disagreed with them.

37

Huldah (2Kgs 22:14), Isaiah’s wife (Isa 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh 6:14). Ezekiel also describes a group of women “who prophesy” (‫המתנבאות‬, Ezek 13:17). Balaam (Num 22–24) is usually considered to be an example of a non-Israelite prophet. On the distinction between biblical and Second Temple modes of prophecy, see the chapter by Dana Pike in this volume.

Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative? Emanuel Tov

1

Background

It is well known that early Scripture scrolls, such as those found in the Judean Desert, differ greatly from one another, as do the mt, sp, and lxx texts known from later periods. Textual critics deal with these differences and in so doing advance our knowledge on the textual condition of Scripture in ancient times. This multiplicity of information from antiquity almost requires us to investigate whether all these texts were authoritative, and if so, for whom. This study discusses the authoritative status of these ancient scrolls and sources. Were some or all of them authoritative, if we take into consideration the fact that the scrolls differ from one another? And if all or some of them were authoritative, did they have the same level of authority, and for which communities? Likewise, did individual scrolls have authority before Scripture as a whole became authoritative? These are just some of the questions surrounding the authoritative status of ancient texts. There are no quick answers to these questions, as it is not easy to define authority. Our study pertains to the authority of witnesses of Scripture books and, as a precondition, the content of the Scripture books first needed to have obtained canonical status. Different forms of Scripture were granted an authoritative status by religious communities. The status of the scrolls and the communities using them are closely connected since without such communities, no authority was granted. This status was intended to be valid permanently, but history has taught us that the authority of texts changed over the course of generations.

2

Authority of Hebrew Scripture in Antiquity

In the period preceding the first century ce, it is very difficult to define authority because Scripture was still in the making. Initially, the individual biblical books obtained authoritative status in an abstract way, and that authority was transferred to individual scrolls and manuscripts. The oldest part of Hebrew Scripture, the Torah, perceived as God’s word, carried authority for all later generations, as is evident in the later Scripture books. The books of the Torah influenced the prophets, exemplified by the influence of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_009

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

129

Leviticus on Ezekiel and that of Deuteronomy on Jeremiah. Likewise, the early historical books carried weight in the eyes of the Chronicler, who reworked them. Before the time of the earliest textual witnesses from Qumran—that is, before the middle of the third century bce, authoritative scrolls were circulating that contained different textual forms. It is necessary to make this assumption if the lxx translation of the Torah was indeed prepared in approximately 285 bce, since its Vorlage differed from mt, which probably already existed at that time. However, we have no further tangible evidence for textual plurality in earlier periods, although it must have existed.

3

Different Types of Scripture Scrolls in Ancient Israel

In our discussion of the status of Scripture scrolls before the first century ce, we limit ourselves to the known evidence, thus necessarily focusing on the Judean Desert scrolls. The main question is, were all the copies of Scripture scrolls found there considered authoritative? There is no unequivocal answer to this question, since there is no consensus among scholars regarding the nature of many scrolls considered Scripture by some and non-Scriptural by others. In my definition, authoritative scrolls are scrolls that were considered to contain “Scripture,” which one would study, from which one could quote, which one could read in religious gatherings or in one’s personal meditation, and which formed the basis for religious practice, especially halakhah. I distinguish between such authoritative Scripture scrolls and scrolls with scriptural content, that is, Scripture-like scrolls, that were not authoritative as Scripture, such as partial Scripture scrolls and liturgical scrolls. The latter pertain only to the Torah and Psalms. However, for many scholars, these liturgical and partial scrolls are also considered Scripture, and this view complicates the analysis. In my view, three types of scrolls have been found at Qumran. 1. Authoritative Scripture scrolls. In the Qumran corpus, scholars count some 240 fragmentary Scripture scrolls found in eleven Qumran caves, including the fragments that have surfaced in the beginning of the twenty-first century.1 Most of the fragments are small, and the larger ones among them contain no more

1 For details, see my Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed., revised and expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 96. Henceforth: tchb.

130

tov

than one-tenth of a biblical book, while 1QIsaa contains the complete text of Isaiah. The total number of 240 Scripture scrolls also includes the following two groups, which in my thinking need to be considered separately from the main group, and in this way, the overall number of Scripture scrolls would be reduced by some 40. 2. Partial Scripture scrolls. A small group of scrolls covering only parts of books were probably meant for personal use:2 4QGend, probably covering Gen 1–5;3 4QExodd, covering Exod 13:15–16 and 15:1, thus omitting the narrative sections 13:17–22 and ch. 14; 4QCanta, lacking Cant 4:7–6:11, and 4QCantb, lacking Cant 3:6–8, 4:4–7.4 3. Liturgical scrolls (or personal copies). The liturgical character of scrolls is presumed for several scrolls of the Torah and Psalms. The assumption of such a use for these scrolls is more commonly accepted for the Torah scrolls than for the Psalms scrolls. In the Torah we can easily posit an opposition between liturgical and other scrolls, while in the Qumran Psalms, there is no visible opposition between the presumed liturgical scrolls and a biblical psalter since unmistakable copies of an mt or other Psalter have not been found at Qumran. In other words, the Qumran community did accept the psalter as binding,5 but its Masoretic character, as clearly visible in the Masada psalters, cannot be established for the Qumran evidence, even though that book is represented by 2 See E. Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, idem; tsaj 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 27– 41; L. Doering, “Excerpted Texts in Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of the Evidence,” in Selecta colligere ii: Beiträge zur Technik des Sammelns und Kompilierens griechischer Texte von der Antike bis zum Humanismus, ed. R.M. Piccione and M. Perkams (Allessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2005), 1–38 offered a very broad and helpful analysis of all excerpted texts. See also the study of M.O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini, JSPSup 15 (Sheffield 1994), 125–137. 3 See G.J. Brooke, “4QGenesisd Reconsidered,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera, Florilegium Complutense, ed. A. Piquer Otera and P.A. Torijano Morales; JSSSup 158 (Leiden; Boston, 2012), 51–70. 4 If this view is correct, the notes in the apparatus in bhq about the lack of these segments in the scrolls are misleading since they may represent abbreviated versions. 5 The authors of the pesharim considered the biblical scrolls of the Prophets and the Psalms authoritative (see below, §4). Further, the Psalms are quoted in various sectarian writings (see a list in P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, stdj 17 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 220), introduced by the formula ‫ אשר אמר דויד‬in 4QCatena a (4Q177) 12–13 i 2.

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

131

many copies. Since the assumption of liturgical scrolls is not without doubt, it is also possible that these scrolls were prepared for personal use of individuals in Qumran or elsewhere. In the case of the Torah, a number of “Scripture” texts from the Judean Desert contain only segments of chapters that are also included in the tefillin and mezuzot,6 as well as Deut 8,7 and are therefore often described as liturgical.8 The argument for their liturgical use is supported by the small size of several scrolls,9 precluding the possibility that they would have contained a complete biblical book. The liturgical use of these scrolls would have included devotional reading from these chapters, privately or in religious gatherings: 4QDeutj, containing sections from Deut 5, 8, 10, 11, 32 and Exod 12, 13; 4QDeutk1, containing sections from Deut 5, 11, 32; 4QDeutn, covering Deut 8, 5 (in that sequence); 4QDeutq, probably covering only Deut 32.10 Among the liturgical Psalms scrolls, three scrolls include only the long acrostic Psalm 119: 4QPsg, 4QPsh, 5QPs. It can be no coincidence that this Psalm, which has played an important role in both Jewish liturgy and that of the Orthodox Church until this day, was transmitted in separate scrolls already in Qumran times, probably for liturgical purposes. Likewise, a relatively large group of psalm scrolls from Qumran, including both canonical and “apocryphal” psalms, may be considered liturgical. At least

6

7

8 9 10

The tefillin and mezuzot are no regular biblical texts, although they consist of Torah passages, separated by a vacat in the middle of the line or by a blank line. The range of textual variation in these texts reflects the known variants between biblical manuscripts and is not specific to these literary anthologies. At the same time, the juxtaposition of different texts is not referred to in literary or text-critical analyses. The Scripture chapters from which excerpts are included in the Qumran copies of these tefillin and mezuzot are Exod 12, 13 and Deut 5, 6, 10, 11, 32. See Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 30–32. The assumption of liturgical use is based on an argument from silence, as other fragments of these scrolls may have been lost. Furthermore, in no case has a proven join between chapters of Exod and Deut been preserved in the scrolls mentioned below. For references to the liturgical use of some texts, see J.A. Duncan, djd xiv (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 79; and M. Weinfeld, “Grace after Meals,” jbl 111 (1992): 427–440. 4QDeutj: 14 lines; 4QDeutn: 12–14 lines; 4QDeutq: 11 lines; 4QPsg 8 lines. For the textual critic, this scroll contains very important readings because it was copied from an ancient copy of Deuteronomy. See tchb, 249.

132

tov

five groups of scrolls, as well as individual scrolls,11 differ from the known psalters in both the addition of non-canonical psalms and their sequence12 (for details on all these, see Flint, Lange, and Ulrich).13 Several scholars present these psalm scrolls as biblical texts,14 and in their opinion, the scrolls present a very different picture of the biblical psalter;15 note especially an extensive study by P. Flint.16 However, the view held by other scholars that these scrolls

11 12

13 14

15

16

Due to their fragmentary condition, not all of the thirty-six Qumran scrolls can be ascribed to the five groups. These deviations occur especially in the last two books of the Psalter (Psalms 90–150): (1) 11QPsa, as well as the more fragmentary 4QPse and 11QPsb; (2) 4QPsa and 4QPsq; (3) 4QPsb; (4) 4QPsd; and (5) 4QPsf. For example, both 4QPsa and 4QPsq omit Ps 32, and the former reflects the following sequence: 38, 71; 4QPsd has the following sequence: 147, 104, while 4QPse has the sequence 118, 104, 105, 146. See A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, i: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 583. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms; Lange, Handbuch, 415–450; E. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden; Boston, 2010). The position of J.A. Sanders was formulated with regard to 11QPsa, a position he published in djd iv (1965), but he also referred to the Psalms scrolls from cave 4 in “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed,” in On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W.A. Smalley (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 79–99 (98). G.H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter,” cbq 45 (1983) 377–388; idem, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, sblds 76 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985); and Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls dealt extensively with the Psalms scrolls from all the caves. See further Ulrich (n. 33). It is unclear whether any of the Qumran Psalms scrolls unequivocally supports the sequence of the mt-Psalter against these Qumran collections (see Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 158). Like Sanders and Wilson at an earlier stage of scholarship, Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls suggested that books 1–3 (Ps 1–89) of the collection of Psalms were finalized before books 4–5 (Ps 90–150) and that the major differences between the various Qumran psalm collections and mt reflect different crystallizations of the biblical book. According to Sanders and Wilson, a comparison of mt and 11QPsa shows that alternative collections of psalms circulated before the 1st century ce. This view is reflected not only in Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, but also in the publications by P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and P.W. Flint of the cave 4 texts as biblical Psalms in E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.xi: Psalms to Chronicles, djd xvi (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000); and in Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, with an extensive notation of the deviations of the sequence of all the Psalms scrolls from mt. This view is also reflected in E. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, idem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 99–120 (115–120). As for Skehan, I wonder whether this scholar, whose contribution to djd was published posthumously, would have agreed to the emphasis on the biblical

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

133

are liturgical, and therefore irrelevant to the literary analysis of the canonical book of Psalms, is preferable.17 The arguments used in both directions pertain especially to the longest scroll in this group, 11QPsa.18 Liturgical scrolls were used for the specific purpose of devotional reading, alone or in religious service. They would have carried authority as liturgical texts, but not as Scripture texts. Although they contained Scripture texts, the Qumran covenanters would not have considered them adequate for their Bible study or as a source for Scriptural quotation. The free approach toward the content of these scrolls comes to light in the addition of the prose composition in 11QPsa xxvii and of many non-canonical psalms. Because of all these reasons, these scrolls should not be used in canonical and literary criticism of Hebrew Scripture,19 and yet their small deviations from mt are constantly used in textcritical analysis.

17

18

19

character of the cave 4 scrolls. In his own research, Skehan stressed that the scrolls from cave 4, like those from cave 11, do not provide information on the growth of the biblical book of Psalms: “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” in Qumrân, Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor; betl 46 (Paris-Gembloux: Duculot; Leuven: University Press, 1978), 163–182 (164), critically reviewed by Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 17. S. Talmon, “Pisqah Beʾemsaʿ Pasuq and 11QPsa,” Textus 5 (1966): 11–21; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,” Textus 5 (1966): 22– 33; P.W. Skehan, “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa,” cbq 35 (1973): 195–205; M. Haran, “11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms,” in Minhah le-Nahum—Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSup154 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1993), 193–201; B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. J. Chipman; stdj 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 16–17; H.-J. Fabry, “Der Psalter in Qumran,” in Der Psalter im Judentum und Christentum, ed. E. Zenger; hbs 18 (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 137–163 (153–161); E. Chazon, “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2.710–715 (712); D.K. Falk, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Jewish Liturgy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 617–651 (632). Similar views by other scholars are mentioned in Lange, Handbuch, 427– 430. In favor of the assumption of a liturgical character: (1) The added antiphonal refrains to Ps 145 in col. xvi; (2) more in general, cols. xv–xvii represent a separate liturgical collection; (3) col. ii 1–5 probably represents a hymn based on Ps 146:9–10 and other Psalms; (4) the addition of the extra-canonical hymns “Plea for Deliverance” (col. xix), “Apostrophe to Zion” (col. xxii), and the “Hymn to the Creator” (col. xxvi); (5) the inclusion of the complete text of Ps 119 points to the scroll’s liturgical character because of the prominent place of that Psalm in the liturgy (see above). Thus also U. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion,

134 4

tov

Authority of the Different Types of Scrolls20

While the mentioned liturgical and partial Scripture scrolls probably were not considered authoritative Scripture texts, all others were. Phrased differently, Scripture-like compositions were not authoritative, while Scripture scrolls were. However, how can we prove this point? One person’s Scripture-like scroll is another’s Scripture.21 I suggest that the default assumption should be that most Judean Desert scrolls were authoritative. This assumption implies that the individual scrolls carried authority before the complete Scripture canon existed. As previously mentioned, we suggest that all the Scripture scrolls found at Qumran were considered authoritative by the Qumran community, as well as by all persons and communities in ancient Israel, although in the latter case it is unclear which source—other than tradition—granted that authority. The assumption of the acceptance of scrolls as authoritative outside Qumran is necessary since most Qumran scrolls were probably brought into Qumran from outside. The concept “Scripture” refers to all the books of the Hebrew Bible of mt, and possibly more. This view

20

21

Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran, stdj 49 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 314, referring to 11QPsa. On the other hand, if the large deviations from mt in the Qumran psalms scrolls are taken as authoritative Scripture, they would have to be recorded in the critical apparatuses of Scripture editions, as was indeed done by Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Ulrich consistently records all the different Psalm sequences and includes the non-canonical hymnic compositions such as the “Apostrophe of Zion” and the prose composition in col. xxvii named “David’s Compositions” (pp. 694– 726). See the various studies included in the volume Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 141 (Leiden; Boston, 2010), especially F. García Martínez, “Rethinking the Bible—Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” on pp. 19–36 and my own study “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?),” on pp. 73–91. See also the studies included in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg et al.; bzaw 419; (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011); and G.J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. E.D. Herbert and E. Tov (London: British Library & Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002), 31–40; and idem, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 100 (2012): 507–523. Based on a remark by M. Bernstein quoted in n. 38. M. Segal (“Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature [Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005]: 10–29 [20–26]) suggested a helpful list of criteria for the distinction between Scripture and “Rewritten Bible.”

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

135

on the granting of authority at Qumran and in the Judean Desert in general is based on the following three arguments: (1) “Antiquity implies authority.”22 The fact that the scrolls were copied, and in such quantities, implies their authoritative status. (2) Subsequent authoritative status. If a Judean Desert scroll forms part of a textual tradition or family that subsequently was considered authoritative, the scroll itself was probably already authoritative when it was used in the Judean Desert. This argument pertains to proto-Masoretic scrolls found in the Judean Desert sites other than Qumran (below, § 7). The same argument may be used with regard to the mt-like Qumran scrolls that are somewhat more distant from the medieval tradition. Likewise, the protoSamaritan scrolls from Qumran must have enjoyed the same authority as the later sp, albeit granted by different communities. By the same token, the Greek lxx scrolls from Qumran were authoritative, and so was the early revision of the og toward mt contained in the Nahal Hever scroll of the Minor Prophets. Likewise, the few Hebrew Qumran scrolls that were close to the lxx (like 4QJerb,d) must have been authoritative as well since otherwise the Greek translators would not have used similar scrolls for their translations. (3) Quotation. A scroll was considered authoritative within a community if its members quoted it in one of their writings. In the case of the Qumran community, some authors ascribed authority to specific texts, and some such scrolls can be identified: (a) The author of the sectarian composition 4QTestimonia (4Q175) quoted from three Torah scrolls of a differing textual nature (together with a quotation from a non-biblical composition, 4QPsalmsJoshua), all of them considered authoritative. The first quotation reflects sp in combining two Scripture verses that are remote in mt,23 while the third one, from Deut 33:8–11, may have been based on a scroll like 4QDeuth, a textually independent scroll.24 The second quotation, Num 24:15–17, is of undetermined character.

22 23 24

K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2007), 34. These pericopes (Deut 5:28–29, 18:18–19) are combined in sp (Exod 20:21). 4qrpa (4Q158) frg. 6 likewise juxtaposes the two texts. See E. Tov, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the lxx,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium

136

tov

(b) The authors of the pesharim considered the biblical scrolls of the Prophets and the Psalms authoritative. Otherwise, they would not have applied their sectarian explanations to the Scripture text included in the pesharim. Although these Scripture texts were authoritative in the eyes of the Qumranites, they were incomplete because the meaning of the prophecies was not made known to the original audience of these prophecies, since that was revealed only much later to the Teacher of Righteousness. Even the prophets themselves were unaware of the meaning of their utterances (thus 1QpHab xi:17–xii:20 commenting on Hab 2:17). This understanding renders both the scriptural lemma and the pesher authoritative since the Scripture is incomplete without its explanation included in the pesher.25 In another case, if we can prove that 1QIsaa, probably copied by a sectarian scribe, was quoted exclusively in a Qumran composition—instead of quoting the mt-like 1QIsab—it can be assumed that the former source was considered authoritative by the scribe of that sectarian composition. Indeed, a few convincing examples are available for quotations from this scroll.26 Lange,27 analyzing quotations from the Torah, finds that the sectarian Qumran compositions reflect a variety of sources. To summarize, the biblical literature developed gradually, layer after layer, and the authors of each layer considered the previous layer authoritative. Thus, the Deuteronomist considered the earlier scrolls of Joshua through Kings

25 26

27

on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, Manchester, 1990, ed. G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars; sblscs 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 11–47 (31–35); and J.A. Duncan, “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran,” jbl 114 (1995): 273–290; Lange, Handbuch, 163–164. These points are made by T. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Oxford Handbook, 303–323 (306). For example, Isa 6:10 ‫ השמן‬mt lxx ] 1QIsaa ‫( השמ‬sic) = 1QHa xv 6, xxi 6; 57:15 ‫ להחיות‬mt] 1QIsaa ‫ = לחיות‬1QHa xvi 37; 66:2 ‫ ונכה‬mt] 1QIsaa ‫ = ונכאי‬1QHa xxiii 160 and 1QM xi 10. See Lange, Handbuch, 288. By the same token, in several cases, 4QTanh (4Q176) is close to 1QIsaa against mt, although more often this composition disagrees with the Isaiah scroll. For examples of agreements of 4QTanh (4Q176) and 1QIsaa, see H. Lichtenberger in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, vol. 6b of Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, ed. J.H. Charlesworth and H.W. Rietz (Tübingen; Louisville: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 332 (Isa 49:13, 16), 338–340 (Isa 54:6, 8, 9). Handbuch, 158–168.

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

137

binding, and this was also the approach of the mt edition of Jeremiah toward the earlier edition included in the Vorlage of the lxx and 4QJerb,d, and so on. When applying these considerations to the Judean Desert scrolls, I presume that most of them were considered authoritative. On the other hand, I suggest that the liturgical texts were not regarded as Scripture scrolls, and that this situation allowed the editors/scribes/compilers of these texts to make major changes. It is in this light that we should view the major shuffling of the sequence of the Psalms in 11QPsa, as well as the inclusion of new hymns in that scroll, and the addition of a prose composition. Scribes also took the liberty of creating “partial Scripture scrolls” by copying small sections of Scripture books, e.g., 4QExodd (ch. 14–15), 4QDeutj (ch. 5, 6, 8, 11, 32; Exod 12, 13), 4QDeutk1 (ch. 5, 11, 32), 4QDeutn (ch. 8, 5), and 4QDeutq (ch. 32). It is hard to imagine that the Qumran covenanters, who were instructed to read from Scripture as part of their religious duty,28 would have used these scrolls for the purpose of instruction. Most of these scrolls were probably used only as liturgy or for personal reading. However, not all persons and communities approached the issue of authority in the same way. See below §7.

5

Textual Plurality

In light of the discussion so far, my working hypothesis is that all Scripture scrolls had authority, although they differed from one another—including the liturgical scrolls, although their authority is suspect. A few words on these internal differences are in order. In early centuries, scribes approached their activity with much freedom, inserting many changes in the scrolls. As a result, each scroll was a unicum, and in this way textual plurality was created. This plurality is visible when comparing ancient texts, such as mt, lxx, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, deriving from different locations. Sources found at a single locality, Qumran, likewise reflect plurality. Textual plurality also characterized the manuscripts of all the non-biblical compositions found at Qumran.29

28 29

1QS 6:6 “In any place where is gathered the ten-man quorum, someone must always be engaged in study of the Law, day and night, continually, each one taking his turn.” See C. Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 193–208; and eadem, “Sources and Redaction in the

138

tov

The textual plurality of the Qumran corpus comes to light in these data: (1) Pluralistic collection. The Qumran corpus is pluralistic,30 among other things, due to the different origin and nature of the scrolls. Some had been imported into the community, while others were copied locally. (2) Lack of preference for a specific biblical text, a concept seen in the biblical quotations included in the sectarian Qumran compositions. No specific text or text group is preferred in these quotations in individual compositions and, by implication, in the combined corpus of sectarian writings, as analyzed in detail by Lange, Handbuch, 158–168. We know little about the approach of the Qumranites to this variety within the Scripture scrolls found at Qumran, but it is safe to say that they did not pay any attention to it. The Qumran texts thus attest to a textual plurality between the third century bce and the first century ce.31 On the basis of this plurality, I assume textual plurality for all of Israel since many scrolls had been imported to Qumran. This textual variety had no impact on the recognition of Scripture scrolls as authoritative.32 For the Qumran sectarians, the authority applied to the content of the book, while differences in details were disregarded.33 Seemingly,

30

31

32

33

Dead Sea Scrolls: The Growth of Ancient Texts,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. M.L. Grossman (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 162–181. See Tov, tchb, 107–110; E. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in Madrid Qumran Congress, 1.23–41; and A. Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. N. David and A. Lange; cbet 57 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 43–96. Within that textual plurality, the large number of proto-Masoretic Torah texts from Qumran probably indicates their importance, while the large number of independent texts (in the scrolls of other books) underlines the special status of the transmission of the biblical text. See tchb, 107–110. In individual cases, it is hard to prove the status of the scrolls, but sometimes there is circumstantial evidence. It stands to reason that the large Isaiah scroll was considered authoritative at Qumran. This is made likely by the sectarian marginal notations in the cryptic script and the fact that this scroll was carefully stored in a jar. See my study “Letters of the Cryptic a Script and Paleo-Hebrew Letters Used as Scribal Marks in Some Qumran Scrolls,” dsd 2 (1995): 330–339. Thus also E. Ulrich, “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Later Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, idem (Grand

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

139

there is a contradiction between their strict adherence to the Law and their free approach to the exact wording of the Scripture text, but these approaches pertain to different areas of religious experience.

6

Additional Authoritative Scripture Scrolls and Other Compositions at Qumran?

While all “regular” Scripture scrolls found at Qumran probably were binding for the Qumran community, we should be open to the possibility that additional compositions of scriptural content were also considered authoritative. The authority of the Scripture scrolls described above is not at stake, but we need to define the scope of the collection comprising accepted Qumran writings of any kind. Some so-called rewritten Scripture34 texts that add an exegetical dimension to the base text obtained authoritative status35 at Qumran and elsewhere.36

34

35 36

Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 57: “It is the literary opus, and not the particular wording of that opus, with which canon is concerned. Both in Judaism and in Christianity it is books, not the textual form of the books, that are canonical.” See also J.J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, 23–45 (29). Brooke, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture,” 520: “There can be multiple authoritative forms of a composition, even a scriptural composition.” Although it seems inconceivable for us, the Qumran community accepted as authoritative also texts that differed much from mt, such as the pre-Samaritan texts and the different manuscripts of 4qrp (see the next note). However, it is hard to know whether all of them were used for the required readings in the Torah. See S.W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008); G.J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2.777–781; M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–29; M.M. Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” in Oxford Handbook, 323–336; eadem, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 93–119; and D. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8 (London; New York: t & t Clark, 2007). See Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” 329–331. The definition of what constitutes a rewritten Bible text is less clear now than it was a decade ago. Before the Qumran texts were found, scholars were aware of a series of rewritten biblical texts of very diverse nature, such as Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. However, we now know from Qumran an additional group of rewritten Bible texts, all fragmentary, ranging from compositions that change the biblical

140

tov

These rewritten Scripture compositions differ from Scripture scrolls in their status, but both changed their underlying text. Editors-scribes of Scripture texts such as the sp-group; the Vorlage of the lxx in 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel; and mt-Jeremiah inserted major and minor changes in the text, all of which were integrated into the Scripture texts that circulated in ancient Israel. Similar changes, often much more encompassing, were embedded in rewritten Scripture texts, e.g. in the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, and the so-called apocrypha of Moses, Joshua, and Jeremiah, and several additional compositions. In the Second Temple period, most of these rewritten Scriptures were not authoritative.37 The modern nomenclature “rewritten Scripture” seems to exclude the possibility that these texts were considered as acceptable,38 but such claims were nevertheless made for the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, and First Enoch.39

37

38

39

text only minimally to those in which the substratum of the biblical text is only seldom visible. Each composition is a unicum with regard to its approach to the Bible and the act of rewriting. The second half of 11QTa (cols. li–lxvi) changed the biblical text to a small extent only, while a much greater degree of change is visible in the Jubilees texts from cave 4, 4QExposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464), 4QCommGen a–d (4Q252–254a), and in the various compositions that have the component “apocryphon” or “pseudo-” as part of their title (see djd xiii, xix, xxii). Crawford’s definition of rewritten scripture, Rewriting Scripture, 12–13 is very relevant: “… a category or group of texts which are characterized by a close adherence to a recognizable and already authoritative base text (narrative or legal) and a recognizable degree of scribal intervention into that base text for the purpose of exegesis. Further, the rewritten scriptural text will often (though not always) make a claim to the authority of revealed Scripture, the same authority as its base text. The receiving community will not necessarily accept such a claim.” However, the appeal to the authority of revealed Scripture pertains only to three texts (see below). For a discussion, see M.J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005) 169–196 (p. 181: “One person’s reworked Bible is another’s Bible”); F. García Martínez, “Las fronteras de ‘lo Bíblico’,” Scripta Theologica 23 (1991–1993) 759–784; J.G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10th September 2003, ed. J.G. Campbell et al.; Library of Second Temple Studies 52 (London: t & t Clark International, 2005), 43–68. See the analysis of J.C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 188–189. For a longer list of such texts and an innovative analysis, see A. Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 51–107. Note, e.g., the following quotation from cd 16:2–3 referring to Jubilees as authoritative

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

7

141

Choice of Different Authoritative Texts by Religious Groups

The acceptance of all circulating Scripture scrolls as authoritative was not operative across the board. I assume this to be the case for the Qumran community, and probably for most persons and several communities in the Second Temple period, but not for the Jerusalem circles that created and perpetuated the proto-Masoretic text nor for the Samaritan movement. Circle of the Masoretic Text. The mt was used as the only text in the rabbinic literature and in the rabbinic type tefillin MurPhyl, 34SePhyl, and 8QPhyl i, and we assume that this was also the case for the texts’ forerunners. Starting with the earliest evidence, all twenty-five Scripture texts found in the Judean Desert at sites other than Qumran display almost complete identity with the medieval codex Leningrad (l).40 These texts were found at both the early site of Masada (texts written between 50 bce and 30 ce) and the later sites of Wadi Murabbaʿat, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Hever, Nahal Arugot, and Nahal Seʾelim, dating to the period of the Bar Kochba revolt in 132–135ce (texts written between 20 and 115 ce). Recognizing that few differences exist between l and the other medieval sources of mt, we note that these small discrepancies are of the same nature as those between l and the Judean Desert texts. Since the relation between l and the ancient Judean Desert texts is one of virtual identity, we conclude that the consonantal framework of mt changed very little over the course of more than one thousand years. Samaritans. The sp-group (sp and pre-Samaritan Qumran scrolls) reflects a textual tradition of the Torah that circulated in ancient Israel in the last pre-

40

Scripture: “As for the exact determination of their times to which Israel turns a blind eye, behold it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees and Weeks.” Besides, fourteen or fifteen copies of Jubilees were found at Qumran, showing its popularity among the Qumranites. The book presents itself as divine revelation, with God announcing Israel’s future to Moses on Sinai. A similar claim of authority is implicit in the Temple Scroll, in which Israel’s laws are rewritten according to biblical pericopes, and Deuteronomy is rewritten in cols. li–lxvi. Written in the first person, Jubilees lends greater authority to its contents, in comparison with the third person used in Scripture. The book is known from five Qumran manuscripts (three from cave 11, and two from cave 4), showing its popularity at Qumran. Likewise, the various parts of First Enoch are represented in twenty copies, a very large number when compared with the number of copies of biblical Scripture books. The author of First Enoch claims divine inspiration as he presents his visions as having been shown to him by God or his angels. No book quotes Enoch as Scripture, but its traditions, especially the story of the Watchers, are widely quoted in the Qumran literature. See VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 192–193. See the discussion in tchb, 29–31.

142

tov

Christian centuries, in addition to the proto-Masoretic Text and other texts like the base text of the lxx and many Qumran scrolls.41 In all probability, this was a popular text group circulating throughout ancient Israel, and the Samaritan community chose this text for this reason. Thus, in the period following the first century ce, mt was authoritative for the Jewish people, the sp for the Samaritans, and the Greek lxx for the early Christians. Going back one century to the time of the Masada scrolls (texts written between 50 bce and 30 ce), mt was already authoritative for the protorabbinic movement, and sp for the Samaritan community, while all scrolls must also have had authority for the remainder of Israel since copies of all textual streams had been brought to Qumran.

8

Authority and Revision

It is sometimes claimed that authority granted to one text, particularly mt, was the basis for the revision of other texts.42 Thus, some scholars suggested that several supralinear corrections and linear erasures in the Qumran scrolls show correction toward mt or the lxx, but the evidence for this claim is very weak.43 Milik and Lange presented the data in 5QDeut as corrections toward the Hebrew base of the lxx.44 Likewise, according to Barthélemy, the base text of 1QIsab, as well as that of MurIsa, was corrected several times

41 42

43 44

See tchb, 90–93. The full material in favor of an assumption of revision is provided by A. Lange, “ ‘Nobody Dared to Add to Them, to Take from Them, or to Make Changes’ (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.42): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105–126. Lange focuses on these sources: biblical quotations in early sources, the kaige-Th revision, 4QLXXNum, P. Fouad Inv. 266b–c, and 5QDeut; he compares the phenomena recognized in them with a process of textual standardization in the Graeco-Roman world. Tov, tchb, 202–203. J.T. Milik, djd iii, 169–171; Lange, “They Confirmed” (2009), 62. Thus also N. Fernández Marcos, “5QDt y los tipos textuales bíblicos,” in Biblia Exégesis y Cultura: Estudios en honor del Prof. D. José María Casciaro, ed. G. Aranda et al. (Pamplona: eunsa, 1994), 119–125. For an analysis, see E. Tov, “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Leiden; New York; Cologne: Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992), 299–314 (307–308).

were early hebrew scripture texts authoritative?

143

toward the proto-Masoretic text.45 In these texts, correction toward an external source is not impossible, in which case one would have to assume that texts, which were already very close to the proto-Masoretic text, continued to be corrected in the same direction. Such correction would involve a change toward a central (standard) text, such as the “corrected copy” (‫)ספר מוגה‬, mentioned in b. Pesah. 112a, corrected according to the Scripture scroll in the Temple Court.46 However, most corrections in agreement with mt seem to correct simple scribal errors,47 suggesting that the original or a later scribe or reader corrected the manuscripts toward their base text in the case of an error. This base text was proto-Masoretic.

Summary It is difficult to define authority before the first century ce because Scripture was still in the making. Among the textual witnesses of Scripture, we assume textual plurality, which is particularly noticeable at Qumran, while the (proto-)rabbinic movement adhered only to the proto-mt texts, and the Samaritans only to their own Torah. We described different kinds of Scripture scrolls, assuming that Scripture-like scrolls such as liturgical scrolls had no authoritative Scripture status. Liturgical scrolls may have been authoritative as liturgy, but not as Scripture. Partial Scripture scrolls did not carry full Scripture authority for the Qumran community, but they did have some level of authority. On the other hand, all other scrolls carried full authority. These scrolls were authoritative throughout ancient Israel in spite of the differences between them in matters of content, while it is unclear which source other than tradition granted that authority. We provided some tentative criteria for assuming an authoritative status. 45

46 47

Barthélemy, Critique textuelle 1992, cxiii. This assumption is unlikely because the level of disagreement between 1QIsab and MurIsa on the one hand and the medieval mt on the other is much higher than the details in which the two former texts had presumably been corrected. See Tov, tchb3, 31. See E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, stdj 54 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 223–225.

The Prophet Isaiah At Qumran Eugene Ulrich

The prophet Isaiah and the book transmitted under his name were among the most revered and cherished at Qumran. This is evident in the popularity of the book, indicated by the number of copies found in the caves, by the textual developments in the book, by the citation from Isaiah that the group used to express its self-identity, by the explicit statement that God had spoken through Isaiah, by the number of commentaries composed on the book, and by the frequent employment of quotations from the book in the writings produced by that covenant community. The following pages will address each of these aspects, though rather summarily for some.

1

The Scrolls of Isaiah

Regarding the number of scrolls, the twenty-one copies of Isaiah are surpassed in number only by Psalms and three of the books of Moses: Deuteronomy, Genesis, and Exodus.1 That is, even though the Psalms were considered prophecy and Moses was considered a prophet by the Qumran community, Isaiah is by far the foremost of the traditional prophets.2 It is well known that the first biblical scroll found in the caves at Qumran was the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), almost perfectly intact. What is less well known is that it was not the first biblical scroll to be identified as genuinely ancient; the first was 1QIsab. Though the Great Isaiah Scroll was discovered in the winter of late 1946 or early 1947,3 it was at first thought to be less than three centuries old, or stolen from a synagogue, or worthless. In July 1947, Father Johannes P.M. van der Ploeg of the University of Nijmegen, who was doing research at the École

1 The number of copies at Qumran presented in the official Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series is 36 scrolls of Psalms, 36 of Deuteronomy, 24 of Genesis, and 22 of Exodus. A few small fragments that have recently appeared but are in varying steps of the publication process change the numbers slightly, but the point here remains valid. 2 In contrast to the twenty-one copies of the Book of Isaiah, there are only six of Jeremiah and six of Ezekiel. 3 Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 24. His carefully researched account is now the definitive study on the discovery and subsequent history of the Qumran Scrolls.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_010

the prophet isaiah at qumran

145

Biblique in Jerusalem, was the first person to identify the text of the large scroll as the Book of Isaiah, but he considered the manuscript medieval.4 Eleazar Sukenik, however, was shown 1QIsab and the other two Hebrew University Scrolls (1QHa and 1QM) on November 25, 1947,5 and he quickly realized that the script was ancient, like inscriptions he had seen that were written “before the Roman destruction of the city.”6 The first to understand that 1QIsaa was truly ancient was John Trever, the Interim Director of the American School of Oriental Research, in February or March 1948. A student of William Foxwell Albright, Trever had studied the Nash Papyrus with Albright, and he realized from the script that the scroll should, like the Nash Papyrus, be dated to the second or first century bce.7 1QIsaa is still excitingly beautiful today and still somewhat supple, though it is to varying extents hardened and cracked. It is fully preserved except for one or a few words from a few verses. 1QIsaa together with 1QIsab constitute virtually 25 percent of the preserved biblical corpus.8 1QIsaa is inscribed with a hand from the middle of the Hasmonaean period, dated by Frank Moore Cross to “ca. 125–100 bce.”9 That dating is especially persuasive since the scribe of the Rule of the Community (1QS), usually dated ca. 100–75bce, inserted an addition in the scroll at Isa 40:7. Furthermore, about a century after the original production, one or possibly as many as three clear Herodian hands (ca. 30–1 bce) added one short and three lengthy insertions which by then may have, through custom, become part of the text when the text was recited in the community. A cursive taw, which shows no sign of connection with any of the hands above, was also added supralinearly at Isa 10:28. Finally, one or more readers entered scribal markings in the margins.10 All this scribal activity had to have happened before 68ce.

4 5 6 7 8

9 10

djd 32, 2:4; Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 34–36. Or possibly November 24, 1947; see Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 41–43, and n. 88. djd 32, 2:12–13. William F. Albright, “A Biblical Fragment From the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” jbl 56 (1937): 145–176. Martin Abegg (in djd 32, 2:25) estimates that there are over 94,000 words preserved in the biblical scrolls from the larger Dead Sea area, and that 1QIsaa is by far the greatest, with 22,696 words; MurXII is second, with 4,834; 1QIsab is third, with 4,603; and 4QSama is fourth, with 3,656 preserved words. Frank Moore Cross, “Palaeography,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1998), vol. 1, Plate 10, Line 2. See djd 32, 2:86–88, and Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, stdj 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 178–212.

146

ulrich

In addition to the two large scrolls from Cave 1, eighteen fragmentary scrolls were found in Cave 4, and Cave 5 held three minuscule scraps of a former scroll.11 All these manuscripts display the various spectrums of age (from the late second century bce to the mid first century ce), palaeography (from elegant to unskilled), orthographic practice (from spellings shorter than mt to longer), and textual variants (from small to large and from preferable to erroneous readings).

2

The Text of Isaiah

Observation of that spectrum of Isaiah manuscripts reveals that the mt and the Hebrew Vorlage of the og are simply other manuscripts that must take their egalitarian place among the witnesses to Isaiah. It would be a mistake to think that any particular manuscript (e.g., 1QIsaa, the mt, or the lxx) was a priori better than any other for a specific reading. The main difference between the mt-lxx on the one hand and the Qumran scrolls on the other is not in textual quality but simply in the fact that the mt and lxx had been preserved and available throughout the centuries, as opposed to unknown and hidden in the caves. The text of Isaiah helps us discern four categories of textual variation: orthography, individual variants, larger isolated insertions, and variant editions of a book. These four categories are distinct from each other, operating independently on separate levels. The four categories in turn also help us gain clearer perspective on the text of Isaiah. For unity of focus, the detailed discussion below will center mainly on 1QIsaa, though most points can be seen in other manuscripts as well. Before proceeding, it is necessary to clarify two views that are occasionally expressed about the Great Isaiah Scroll: namely, that it was copied at Qumran and that it is the product of two different scribes. Regarding the first view, it is not impossible that 1QIsaa was copied at Qumran, but it is unlikely, and no evidence has been offered that necessitates that view. The text contains nothing sectarian, and importantly, it was noted above that 1QIsaa had been produced ca. 125–100 bce. Jodi Magness, examining the archaeological evidence of Qumran, writes: “If de Vaux’s Period ia exists, the currently available evidence suggests that it should be dated to the early 1st

11

At Murabbaʿat a single large fragment with one to three partial words at the beginnings of a number of lines from Isa 1:4–14 also survived.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

147

century bce instead of to ca. 130–100bce … it is reasonable to date the establishment of the sectarian settlement to the first half of the first century bce (that is, some time between 100–50 bce).”12 Accordingly, 1QIsaa would have been copied before the start of the sectarian settlement of the site. Should the palaeographic and archaeological dates—which, though dependable, are of course approximate—happen to have overlapped, still 1QIsaa would have been copied from an older, non-Qumran source text that it reproduced reasonably exactly. Thus, the text, as text, is not Qumranian. Even if dating were not considered, there is no indication that 1QIsaa was copied at Qumran. There are no other manuscripts at Qumran penned by the scribe of 1QIsaa, even though there are examples of a single scribe copying several manuscripts from different caves, strongly suggesting that those manuscripts were very likely copied at Qumran.13 The scroll was certainly read and used at Qumran, and there are readers’ marginal markings that suggest that they were inserted at Qumran.14 But there is no indication that the original manuscript was copied there. Contrary to the second view, 1QIsaa was inscribed by a single scribe.15 The view that columns i–xxvii were copied by one scribe and xxviii–liv by a different scribe is often based on the noticeably different orthographic and morphological character of the two sections of the scroll.16 But scribal hands

12 13

14 15

16

Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 63–71, esp. 64–65. The scribe of 1QS also copied other scrolls, including 4QSamc and 4QTest (both biblical and sectarian), and the scribe of 4QIsac also copied 1QPsb and 11QM (both biblical and sectarian); see Ulrich, “4QSamc: A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 14–15 from the Scribe of the Serek Hay-yaḥad (1QS),” basor 235 (1979): 1–25, and idem, “Identification of a Scribe Active at Qumran: 1QPsb–4QIsac–11QM,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 5–6: A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov (Haifa: University of Haifa Publication Project of the Qumran Scrolls; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), *201–*10. See djd 32, 2:86–88; and Tov, Scribal Practices, 203–208. This was also the conclusion of the two exhaustive studies of 1QIsaa by Malachi Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bibliothèque du Muséon 44–45 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Institut Orientalis, 1958), and E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), stdj 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 564– 566. The orthographic and morphological forms are generally longer in the second section, but the individual cases are quite mixed. In the first section, for example, see ‫ כל … וכול‬at Isa 3:1 (two paragraphs below). George J. Brooke, in light of the three-line space between Isa 33 and 34, has made a detailed study regarding the possible bisection of the book of Isaiah

148

ulrich

are determined not by orthography or morphology, but by palaeographic analysis, that is, how the scribe forms the letters. We cannot know precisely how accurately a scribe reproduced the content of the text, including its orthography and morphology; we can know precisely how the scribe penned the letters. The palaeographic chart in djd 32 compared characteristics and idiosyncracies of the script in the first section with those of the second section and determined that a single scribe produced the entire original scroll.17 2.1 Orthography There is no clear system of orthography in 1QIsaa, just as there is none in the mt or in other Qumran manuscripts, though there are general profiles of shorter or fuller spelling in each. It is well known that 1QIsaa usually exhibits longer forms (‫כול‬, ‫כיא‬, ‫לוא‬, etc.) than corresponding forms in the mt (‫כל‬, ‫כי‬, ‫לא‬, etc.). There are, however, more than 120 words in the manuscript for which the mt spelling is longer. Scribes normally attempted to reproduce exactly the source text they were copying, including its orthography. Occasionally, however, scribes either deliberately or inadvertently updated the text with a fuller spelling practice than their source text had used. That is, they may have deliberately used the fuller spelling to help pronunciation, in line with the growing Second Temple practice of using matres lectionis to reduce ambiguity. Or they may have done so inadvertently, seeing a short form but unthinkingly writing the current long form due to routine practice. Such was presumably the case in 1QIsaa at 3:1, where the scribe wrote two forms of ‫ כול‬in the same line: ‫כל משען לחם וכול משען‬ ‫“( מים‬all support of bread and all support of water”). The scribe likely saw the combination of these two phrases in the source text with a single glance and

17

in antiquity in “The Bisection of Isaiah in the Scrolls from Qumran,” in Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume, ed. Philip S. Alexander et al., jss Supplement 16 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 73–94; see also Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 229–253. No other scroll preserves evidence of bisection before Isaiah 34, and neither 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, nor 4QIsab display a bisection at Isaiah 40. It is quite probable that the first part of Isaiah circulated apart from the latter part in the post-exilic period, and this would account for different scribal practices early in the two parts. But the book was copied as a whole at least by the end of the second century bce, as is visible in our four largest scrolls: 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsab, and 4QIsac, and presumably the lxx. There is no positive evidence for bisection in any other Isaiah scrolls. See djd 32, 2:62–64.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

149

for the first ‫ כל‬mirrored the short spelling in the source text. The second ‫כול‬, being more distant in the scribe’s visual memory, was routinely spelled in the more contemporary, longer style. Usually orthographic differences do not affect the meaning of the words but rather aid in pronunciation and interpretation of the correct form amid possibly ambiguous forms. On occasion, however, orthographic insertion of a mater lectionis was deemed quite necessary. For example, at Isa 19:3 both the original form of 1QIsaa and the mt have ‫האבות‬. This, of course, could be taken to mean “fathers” or “ancestors,” as is correct in most cases. But in this case, the scribe of 1QIsaa inserted a supralinear vav after alef in ‫ האובות‬to help the reader know that the word meant “spirits of the dead,” not “fathers.” The Masoretes accomplished the same goal by adding the vowel point holem, ‫אבות‬ ֹ ‫ה‬, but the unvocalized form would have been ambiguous until the Masoretic pointing in the early Middle Ages. The Masoretic tradition also introduced matres lectionis, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly. For example, 1QIsaa has the correct form ‫טלים‬ for “lambs” at 40:11, whereas the mt adds alef as a mater lectionis in ‫ טלאים‬for the pronunciation telaʾim. Similarly, the mt incorrectly adds alef in ‫“( מאזנים‬scales, balances”) at 40:15, for ‫( מזנים‬without alef ) in 1QIsaa.18 Isaiah 14:32 raises a difficult question regarding orthography versus true variant due to the absence or presence of alef. 1QIsaa has ‫( מלכי‬kings), compared with ‫( מלאכי‬messengers) in the mt. But here it is necessary to look at the larger clause, “What will they (or he) say to the kings (or messengers) of the nation?” ‫ ומה יענו מלכי גוי‬1QIsaa ] ‫ ומה יענה מלאכי גוי‬mt; ‫ *ומה יענו מלכי גוים‬lxx (= καὶ τί ἀποκριθήσονται Βασιλεῖς ἐθνῶν)

1QIsaa “What will they say to the kings of the nation?” mt “What will he say to the messengers of the nation?” lxx “What will the kings of the nations say?” For the tiny variants of one letter in each of three words, the three witnesses offer three quite different interpretations of the question. It is difficult to decide among them, since the preceding oracle concerning Philistia mentions neither 18

The roots for these two examples are (1) original ‫( טלה = טלי‬cf. ‫ טלה‬in halot, p. 375, and ‫ טלה‬at mt 1Sam 7:9), and (2) ‫( יזן‬halot, p. 404; see ‫מאזנים‬, p. 539, and “ii‫אזן‬: denom[inative] from a wrongly supposed ‫א ֶזן‬ ֹ in ‫מאזנים‬,” p. 27). For ‫ טלה‬see also Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 137.

150

ulrich

“kings” (except Ahaz in the introduction), nor “messengers,” nor “nation(s)” other than Philistia and the unnamed “rod that struck you,” neither of which has asked for a response.19 The orthographic practice, however, is rarely related to the textual edition of a book. 2.2 Individual Textual Variants Comparison of the Qumran scrolls, the mt, and the lxx results in well over 2,600 textual variants: the full panoply of routine variants in each of the witnesses. Sometimes 1QIsaa or another scroll has the superior reading, and sometimes mtl or an mtqere or other mtmss or the lxx does. Thus, all witnesses, including the mt, must be evaluated word-by-word on an egalitarian basis, with none a priori privileged. A brief sampling of some instructive variants can be presented here:20 3:17 3:18; 8:7 28:16 28:22

· 1QIsaa ] ‫ ֯א֯ד ֯נ]י‬4QIsab mt;

‫ִא ִד ִו ִנ ִי יהוה‬

·

‫ יוי‬Targ; ὁ θεὸς lxx; κύριος lxxc

· · 1QIsaa ] ‫ אדני‬mt; κύριος lxx ‫ אדונייהוה‬1QIsaa ] ‫ אדני יהוה‬mt; κύριος lxx ‫ יהוה‬1QIsaa mtmss lxx Pesh ] ‫ אדני יהוה‬mtl ‫ִיִה ִוִה אדוני‬

It seems clear from the variation here that the scribal transmission of the divine name was in a state of flux in the late Second Temple period. Presumably, the Tetragrammaton was usually original, and a number of replacements were employed (including ‫אדני‬, ‫אלהים‬, Palaeo-Hebrew script, four dots, and others) to avoid pronouncing the sacred name. That 1QIsaa, as opposed to the mt, at times preserves the correct form can be seen in these examples:21 21:8

19

20 21

‫ הראה‬1QIsaa ] ‫ אריה‬mt; Ουρίαν lxx 1QIsaa has the correct text with “watchman”; mt errs with “lion” and lxx with a personal name.

Instead of clarifying the matter, Aquila and Theodotion (according to Jerome) have reges “kings,” whereas Symmachus has angeli “messengers.” But note that the nominative angeli certainly and reges probably (since not dative) both agree with the lxx against 1QIsaa and the mt. See djd 32, 2:119–193. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 90–91.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

49:12

151

‫ סוניים‬1QIsaa ] ‫ סינים‬mt; Περσῶν lxx 1QIsaa correctly preserves “Syene/Aswan”; ‫ סינים‬in Modern Hebrew means “Chinese.” ‫ עריץ‬1QIsaa lxx (ἀδίκως) Pesh Vulg ] ‫ צדיק‬mt (cf. 49:25) Context shows 1QIsaa is correct with “tyrant,” not the mt with “righteous one.”

49:24

Occasionally, all witnesses display erroneous or implausible readings, showing that the problem entered the text prior to any of the preserved witnesses. Scribes often had to choose either to copy a form that they may not have recognized or may have thought erroneous, or to replace it with their lectio facilior to achieve a sentence that made sense. In this final example no extant text preserves the correct form, and many texts tried to compensate: 53:11

‫ יראה אור וישבע‬1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsad([‫ )יראה א ֯ו]ר‬lxx ] ‫ יראה ישבע‬mt

Suprisingly, here 1QIsab departs from its predominant agreement with the mt and agrees with the widespread reading seen in 1QIsaa, 4QIsad, and the lxx: “he shall see light.”22 Especially in light of 1QIsab, it seems that the mt has simply lost the word ‫אור‬, and this could be supported by the fact that ‫ראה‬ virtually never occurs without a direct object. On the other hand, ‫ יראה אור‬looks suspiciously like a lectio facilior, when one recalls constructions such as ‫יראה‬ ‫( אור‬Ps 36:10). Bible translations and commentators offer their interpretations, most, quite understandably, apparently attempting to stay with the preserved textual evidence: jps nrsv nab/re Baltzer 22

23

Out of his anguish he shall see it [i.e., “the arm of the Lord”]; he shall enjoy it to the full. Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction. Because of his anguish he shall see the light; … he shall be content. After the trouble of his life he shall see light and be satisfied.23

The lxx, though reading φῶς, divides the verses differently and interprets ‫ יראה‬as a Hiphil. Note that the og should read πλήσαι (“fill”), not πλάσαι (“form, mold”) as in the Göttingen edition. No Greek manuscript preserves πλήσαι, since it seems that πλάσαι infested the entire lxx transmission at an early stage, but Aquila and Theodotion attest ἐμπλησθήσεται. Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. Peter Machinist; trans.

152

ulrich

Barthélemy Blenkinsopp Paul

Emergeant de ce qu’il a souffert, il verra la lumière, il s’ en rassasiera.24 After his painful life he will see light and be satisfied. Because of his anguish he shall be sated and saturated with light.25

The Jewish Publication Society translates the mt (without ‫)אור‬, whereas most others choose to include “light.” But in this poem, it is necessary to pay attention to the synonymous parallel: the parallel to ‫ יראה‬is ‫“( ישבע‬be sated, satisfied”). This has led some scholars (see Paul’s translation and bhs n. 11a) to suggest ‫ רוה‬for ‫ראה‬. The word ‫“( רוה‬be filled, refreshed”) is the expected parallel to ‫( שבע‬see Jer 31:14; 46:10; and Lam 3:15). Moreover, 1QIsaa makes the identical error of slipping from ‫ רותה‬to ‫ תראה‬in Isa 34:5. Thus, it appears that the original text was ‫“( מעמל נפשו ירוה ישבע בדעתו‬After his anguish he will be sated; he will find satisfaction through his knowledge”). No manuscript survives, however, to attest it. Rather, an early form transmitted by the mt slipped into the lectio facilior ‫( יראה‬note the possible influence by ‫ יראה‬in the previous verse). Subsequently, most manuscript traditions, accepting that reading, filled in a suitable object, ‫( אור‬cf. 9:1; 44:16; ‫ יהוה אורי‬Ps 27:1; ‫ יראה אור‬Ps 36:10). There are also numerous instances in which 1QIsaa agrees with one of the Masoretic forms (Leningradensis, Aleppo, other mt manuscripts, or a qerê) where the Masoretic witnesses disagree among themselves.26 2.3 Isolated Insertions Isolated insertions are large intentional additions that a scribe introduces into the text being copied or read, thereby putting one manuscript tradition at variance with the remaining streams of the tradition. Isolated insertions are

24

25

26

Margaret Kohl; Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 393; his full translation is: “After [or ‘because of’?] the trouble/anguish of his life/soul he shall see ⟨light⟩ ⟨and⟩ be satisfied.” Dominique Barthélemy chooses this conclusion even though he notes that a scholar as early as Cappel suggested a “glissment” from ‫ רוה‬to ‫ראה‬: Critique textuelle de l’ Ancien Testament: 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 405. Paul (Isaiah 40–66, 412) adduces two other instances in which ‫ ראה‬appears in place of ‫רוה‬: Ps 91:16 and Job 10:15. Even closer, note that 1QIsaa makes the identical error in 34:5, writing ‫ תראה‬for ‫רותה‬. See, e.g., Isa 22:5, 15; 25:10; 26:15, 20; 28:16; 29:3, 8.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

153

usually one or more sentences or verses that the scribe knows from some other source, such as a community’s oral or liturgical commentary, pious or apocalyptic utterances, learned information, related passages from elsewhere, and the like. Comparison of 1QIsaa with the mt and the lxx reveals a number of insertions that appear to be isolated from each other—that is, inserted by different scribes at different times for different reasons. They do not show a clear pattern of revisional principles, and thus should be classified as isolated insertions, not as a revised edition. The shorter Greek text shows that 1QIsaa and mt add two isolated insertions at Isa 2:22 and 36:7b. The scroll in turn shows that the mt apparently has seven more insertions that were added to the mt stream of the tradition but did not affect the 1QIsaa tradition. In contrast, there are no large insertions in 1QIsaa that are lacking in the mt.27 Four examples can be presented here. One of the mt insertions is shown to be a secondary addition by the double attestation of the shorter og and 1QIsaa at 40:7. 2.3.1 Isaiah 2:9b–10 (djd 32, 1:4–5; bqs 334) The first insertion is at Isa 2:9b–10; 1QIsaa reads: 9

So humankind is humbled, and everyone brought low.

11

The haughty eyes of humankind will be brought low and human pride will be humbled; the Lord alone will be exalted on that day.

Note that the scroll is using third-person narrative and is concerned with the humbling of human pride. The mt and the lxx contain a large plus (in italics) between verse 9 and verse 11: 9

So humankind is humbled, and everyone brought low— Do not forgive them!

27

Paul (Isaiah 40–66, 64) does list a number of smaller additions in the scroll that do not appear in the mt, but they are single-word individual variants, except for one four-word formula at 52:12 that is echoed from 54:5.

154 10

11

ulrich

Enter into the rock and hide in the dust from the terror of the Lord and from the glory of his majesty (+ when he rises to terrify the earth lxx). The haughty eyes of humankind will be brought low and human pride will be humbled; the Lord alone will be exalted on that day.

Note in the mt-lxx additions a second-singular negative command addressed probably to God or possibly to an unspecified human, followed by a second, positive command of an apocalyptic nature clearly addressed to a human but unrelated to the first command; the Greek adds yet another line perhaps influenced by verses 19 and 21. There is no indicator to suspect parablepsis in the scroll, whereas the pluses sit awkwardly in the flow of the poem; thus, this plus should be judged as an addition. 2.3.2 Isaiah 2:22 (djd 32, 1:6–7; bqs 335) A second large expansion occurs at Isa 2:22. The Greek concludes its chapter with verse 21, but the scroll and the mt expand with the unrelated imperative of verse 22: Avoid mortals, who have only breath in their nostrils, for of what account are they? Again, there are no grounds to suspect that the longer text has dropped out of the lxx; on the other hand, the change to second-person command contrasts with the previous verses, strongly indicating that this verse too is a later isolated insertion.28 2.3.3 Isaiah 36:7 (djd 32, 1:58–59; bqs 399) The lxx of Isa 36:7–8 highlights yet a third insertion into the Hebrew text tradition, an addition shared by both 1QIsaa and the mt. The context is Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and the Rabshakeh’s address to the Judaean leaders, speaking of the futility of resistence. The lxx has the simple taunt contrasting the Judaeans’ reliance on their national God against the might of the Assyrian army:

28

Joseph Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 193) also considers verses 2:9b and 22 among the “probable editorial additions” to the chapter.

the prophet isaiah at qumran 7

But if you say to me, “We rely on the Lord our God,”

8

come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria …

155

1QIsaa and the mt, however, insert an inner-Judaean reflection: 7

8

But if you say to me, “We rely on the Lord our God,” —is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, “you shall worship before this altar”?29— come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria …

This more complex and pointed question in 1QIsaa and the mt seems unlikely on Assyrian lips; it presumes a knowledge on the part of the Assyrian of internal Judahite religious politics. It must be admitted, however, that this address is not a historical transcript of the Rabshakeh’s speech but a formulation by the Judaean author of the passage, and so the awareness of Hezekiah’s centralization would have been known to the author. Nonetheless, there is no reason to suspect that the lxx would have deliberately left it out, had it been in its Vorlage, or would have unconsciously skipped over it. What is clear is that a rhetorically pointed question has been inserted into one stream of the Hebrew text tradition that was not included in the short text tradition inherited by the lxx translator. 2.3.4 Isaiah 40:7–8 (djd 32, 1:66–67; bqs 407) For a final example, we explore Isaiah 40. This overture to Second Isaiah’s corpus has inspired many: the audience of Second Isaiah himself, the Qumran community, all four evangelists, Georg Friedrich Händel, and contemporary readers of the Bible. Proposals to emend the traditional text therefore face potential animosity. But it seems that the mt has added a secondary and disruptive thought in the traditional text. Evidence for this claim is twofold: both 1QIsaa and the og. The original scribe of 1QIsaa, like the lxx, produced a short text which, if approached with fresh eyes, flows smoothly and forms an excellent prophetic salvation oracle, proclaiming the trustworthiness of God’s promises in contrast to the transience of mortals, which fits perfectly as a reassurance to the exiles that the fulfillment of God’s promise to save Israel was imminent:

29

That is, the Jerusalem altar; see 2Kgs 18:3–5 and 2Chr 29:3–6.

156 6 7 8

ulrich

A voice says, “Proclaim!” And I said, “What shall I proclaim?” “All flesh is grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”

The mt inserts a somewhat unrelated but conflicting thought, plus an additional scribal gloss: 6 7

8

A voice says, “Proclaim!” And I said, “What shall I proclaim?” “All flesh is grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people is ‘the grass.’ The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”

7aβ is, admittedly, related to the exile as a lament that the downhearted exiles might typically express: “God had blessed us in the past, but that is over, and we are lost.” Shalom Paul gives a rich and well-developed commentary on these verses, pointing to the many parallels in Ps 103:15–17, and thus appears to agree with most other interpreters.30 But the short text as in 1QIsaa and the og, which has faithfully translated a Hebrew Vorlage virtually identical with 1QIsaa, is perfect both in itself and as a balanced poem worthy of Second Isaiah. It basically confirms that God’s promise just proclaimed in verses 1–2 (not to mention all the other promises of saving Israel) will indeed come true; the inserted lament seems to distrust that promise. 1QIsaa was originally copied in approximately 125–100 bce, and the easily identifiable, not highly skilled scribe who copied 4QSamc, the Community Rule (1QS), and 4QTest (4Q175) in the next generation (approximately 100–75bce) inserted what he probably considered important or missing text. He presumably either inserted a comment currently known and used in his community or thought that verses 7aβ–8a were “original” but that the main scribe had skipped from the first occurrence of ‫ יבש חציר נבל ציץ‬to the second, thus losing a line through parablepsis. Parablepsis, however, is a possibility, and that leaves the alternative of a loss of original text as a viable explanation; either conclusion is reasonable. In fact, both Brevard Childs and (with qualification) Klaus Baltzer treat the longer

30

Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 132–134.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

157

text as integral in their translation and commentary. Baltzer labels verse 7 a “communal lament” and says that “the vocabulary is DtIsa’s own.” But, whereas Childs does not even mention the 1QIsaa-lxx reading, Baltzer does add that “[t]extually, the sentence could be a gloss, and has been presumed to be such ever since the eighteenth century, with Koppe. The sentence is missing in the lxx. That it is a later gloss would seem to be confirmed by 1QIsaa, where it has been interpolated between the lines and in the margin.” Nonetheless, Baltzer then moves on, endorsing the longer text and presenting verse 8 as “the reversal of 7a both in its form and its content.”31 At the least, it is clear that one Hebrew tradition, witnessed by 1QIsaa and the lxx, contained the shorter text, while another tradition contained the fuller text. The 1QS scribe knew the longer tradition and revised 1QIsaa according to it. In my view, the evidence—the short, sound text with double witness in the original 1QIsaa and in the lxx; the disruptive theme of the lament; and the other similar, secondary, large insertions—favors a short original that has been glossed by a somewhat discordant insertion. 2.4 Variant Editions? Sometimes several larger insertions are intentionally added at multiple places in the book, and if these appear to be motivated by a clear set of revisional principles and thus the work of a single scribe, they constitute a contrasting category, a single macrovariant that can be called a revised edition of the work. Do our witnesses document variant editions of the Book of Isaiah? The preserved manuscripts of Isaiah do not show that pattern. All available manuscript traditions of Isaiah, despite their pluriformity, witness to a single edition. Though they contain thousands of textual variants, and though there are two isolated insertions in 1QIsaa and at least nine in the mt, the expansions do not seem to be expressions of a single set of principles or themes. Each appears to have been inserted separately by a different scribe with a different concern. The Book of Isaiah certainly accumulated and grew through a number of major additions (e.g., Isaiah 40–66; 13–23; 36–39) as the text developed in its literary history, but all those major components were already absorbed into the transmitted text before any of the preserved witnesses were copied. Within that single literary edition, the proximity of 1QIsab and the Masoretic witnesses—Leningradensis, Aleppo, other Masoretic manuscripts, and instances of qerê, which agree to a great extent in details—shows that they form

31

Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 57–58.

158

ulrich

a close text-family grouping. In contrast, the distance between the witnesses 1QIsaa, the mt family, and the og is sufficient to indicate that those texts belong to three different text families, though not sufficient to amount to variant editions.

3

The Use of Isaiah by the Community

3.1 Self-Identity Regarding self-identity, just as all four of the Gospels use Isa 40:3 to depict John the Baptist as “the voice of one crying in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,’” the Qumran community used the same quotation to depict their situation. They were to segregate themselves from the sons of darkness “to walk to the desert to open there his path, as it is written: ‘In the desert prepare the way of [Yhwh]’” (1QS 8:12–14). The community considered itself and identified itself as the specific recipient of God’s command through Isaiah. 3.2 Speaking the Word of God Regarding the claim that God spoke through Isaiah, while the community in general believed that certain written texts originated as the word of God, the Damascus Document explicitly states this claim with a clear scriptural formula—“As God said through Isaiah the prophet”—and then gives a quote from Isa 24:17 (cd 4:13–14).32 An additional probable witness is the final word on the 1QIsaa manuscript. The final column of the manuscript has eighteen inscribed lines that conclude the text of Isaiah, and its eleven remaining lines are blank, except for the reasonably certain word ֹ ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫“( א‬He has spoken”), presumably affirming that the text of the scroll was spoken (through Isaiah) by God33 (cf. Isa 57:14, 15; 4QpIsab [4Q162] 1:3; 4QFlor 1:7 [4Q174]; 11QMelch [11Q13] 2:15; etc.). 3.3 Commentaries on Isaiah 3.3.1 Principles of Interpretation A three-stage schema of the Qumran community’s principles of biblical interpretation can be detected in the Pesharim:

32 33

This parallels the belief in 1QM 10:6–8 that “you (God) said through Moses …,” introducing a quote of Num 10:9. See the parallel in 11QPsa col. 27:11: “All these [Psalms David] uttered through prophecy which had been given him from the Most High.”

the prophet isaiah at qumran

1. 2. 3.

159

God in his divine wisdom has a plan for Israel’s salvation. He has made known this plan through his servants the prophets. Though the words of the ancient prophets may have had their historical settings and applications in the distant past, God’s word through the prophets was intended specifically for the Covenanters in the “End Time,” which is their own time.

This way of thinking is in line with the apocalyptic spirit of the times. Earlier in Israelite theology, wisdom had been “folk wisdom,” wisdom that can be attained through normal human effort and normal human processes of thought and reflection; the Book of Proverbs serves as an example. In the latter part of the Second Temple period, however, under influences such as Second Isaiah and Job, wisdom was seen increasingly as the possession of God alone. The infinitely wise God who created the universe, the wise and powerful God who was Lord of History, was seen as transcendent. True wisdom was not something that could normally be attained by mortals, but was the incomprensible blueprint of the universe and the program for the interplay of nations and great historical periods. Wisdom was the realm of God alone—and of the chosen ones to whom God specially granted wisdom through a chosen mediator. So there was a strong belief that, just as God had a grand plan that was the blueprint for the created universe, he also had a grand plan for the course of history; this plan was seen as a “mystery” (raz), known to God but unknowable to humans without a revealed “interpretation” (pesher) transmitted through a divinely chosen mediator. This approach to the interpretation of the prophetic material has a clear biblical background.34 We can see this mystery-interpretation pattern already in the Book of Daniel in three ways. In the first half of the book, a mysterious look into the future is granted to the king in the form of a dream, vision, or handwriting on the wall,35 and Daniel provides the interpretation once it is communicated to him from God—“there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has disclosed …”36 In the second half of the book, Daniel has

34

35 36

More broadly, Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold (Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, Journal of Ancient Jewish Studies 5 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011], 21) note that “the way in which ancient Jewish literature uses intertextual references is not specific but reflects an overall approach to intertextuality in the cultures of the ancient world.” They cite in pp. 19–21 the parallel to “lemmatic allegorical commentary on an Orphic poem” of Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus. Dan 2:1; 4:5; 5:5. Dan 2:28; 4:18; 5:14.

160

ulrich

a dream or is given a mysterious vision,37 and an angelic figure is required to provide the interpretation from God.38 Third, and even more pointedly, in chapter 9 Daniel is concerned about the terrible things that are happening in Jerusalem and receives a revelation: “I, Daniel, perceived in the books [of Scripture] the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years” (Dan 9:2). The passages that Daniel found are in Jer 25:11–12 and Jer 29:10, where Jeremiah says that, because of the evils of the people of Judah, God is going to bring the Babylonians to defeat them and take them into exile, where they will serve the Babylonians for seventy years. Thus, the seventy years in Jeremiah’s understanding is a period in the sixth century. But for the author of Daniel, the time of tribulation from which he and his community seek deliverance is around 168 bce. The Seleucid overlord then is Antiochus iv Epiphanes, who has ordered a halt to the Jewish Temple service and who has desecrated the Temple by erecting a statue of Zeus in it. Daniel looks to the prophetic books to seek God’s revelation concerning the manner in which God will save the community at the “End Time.” At the end of Daniel’s prayer, the heavenly messenger Gabriel comes to him and says, “Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding …: Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city” (Dan 9:22–24). In its original context, the words of Jeremiah meant that approximately seventy years in the sixth century would end the punishment by the Babylonians. As reinterpreted in Daniel, the 70 years becomes 70 times 7, or 490 years, bringing God’s salvation down into Daniel’s time in the second century bce, and thus salvation from the Seleucid Greek rulers. Thus, the principles of interpretation employed by the Qumran community were largely derived from earlier biblical precedents. Similar principles are also operative in many parts of the New Testament.39 This approach was a widespread characteristic of major portions of Judaism in the apocalyptic age. 3.3.2 Commentaries on Isaiah40 There are six commentaries, or pesharim, on the Book of Isaiah, but they are fragmentary and offer only small bits of information. 37 38 39 40

Dan 7:1; 8:1; 10:1, 7. Dan 7:16; 8:15–16; 10:14, 21. Passim; see especially Matt 1–2. The Isaiah pesharim are published: 3QpIsa (3Q4) in djd 3:95–96 + Pl. xviii, and 4QpIsaa–e (4Q161–165) in djd 5:11–30 + Pls. iv–ix. A more recent publication of all the pesharim together in one volume is The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with

the prophet isaiah at qumran

161

3QpIsa. This manuscript is quite small and has no significant information to offer in the attempt to understand how the Covenanters interpreted the text of Isaiah. 4QpIsaa. Frgs. 2–7 col. 2, of this manuscript quotes 10:28–32 and continues, “The interpretation of the word for the latter days involves […],” the “latter days” being one of the group’s principal foci. Again, frgs. 8–10 col. 3 quotes Isa 10:34 and says, “[They are the] Kittim, who will fa[ll] by the power of Israel.” A quote of 10:33b follows with the interpretation, “They are the warriors of the Kittim.” In the Hebrew Bible, the “Kittim” refers to the those who live in the Mediterranean islands, but in the late Second Temple period, it refers to the Romans. Later in the same column, the pesher speaks of presumably an eschatological “David, who takes his stand in the lat[ter days].” 4QpIsab. Column 2 of this commentary has a long quotation of Isa 5:11–14, with the interpretation, “These are the men of mockery who are in Jerusalem. They are those who”—which leads directly into the next biblical quotation from the middle of 5:24—“rejected the instruction of Yhwh and the word of the Holy One of Israel.” Other passages make clear that “the men of mockery who are in Jerusalem” are their contemporary adversaries in the Temple. And the fact that the text skips from 5:11–14 to 5:24c seems to indicate that the pesher did not interpret the full text of Isaiah continuously, though there is not sufficient additional commentary to prove this. 4QpIsac. Though many fragments of this manuscript are extant, they provide only a few examples of significant interpretation. Frgs. 6–7, after quoting Isa 10:20–22bα, says that “the interpretation of the passage concerns the latter [days].” Again, frg. 23 col. ii quotes 30:15–18, then says, “The interpretation of the word for the latter days involves the s[eekers of] smooth things.” The term, those who “seek smooth things” (‫)חלקות‬, is the group’s play on words against the Pharisees, who seek a looser interpretation of halakhah (‫)הלכה‬.

English Translations, vol. 6b: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 35–111. For a detailed discussion of the Isaiah pesharim, see George J. Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans; fiotl 1,2; VTSup 70,2 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 609–632.

162

ulrich

4QpIsad. The three fragments of this commentary treat Isa 54:11–12. Only frg. 1 has more than four words per line, and none of its lines is fully preserved. But the interpretation refers to well-known groups of the community, comparing the precious stones to “the Council of the Community,” “the Congregation of his chosen ones,” and “the twelve [men of the Council of the Community]” (cf. 1QS 8:1).41 4QpIsae. The small fragments of this manuscript preserve virtually nothing of interest regarding their method of interpretation. Thus, the Qumran group saw in the ancient words of Isaiah God’s message to them in their own day, applied to the various groups and time periods that constituted their world: the Kittim in the political realm; the “seekers after smooth things” (that is, the Pharisees) in the halakhic or spiritual realm; “the Council” in their own Congregation; “the men of mockery in Jerusalem” as their spiritual adversaries; and “the latter days” as the period of the “End Time” in which they lived. 3.4 Quotations of Isaiah in Community Writings There are significant differences in the ways the Qumran community used the books of the prophets in their own writings. Though they used quotations from and allusions to each of the books, they copied twenty-one manuscripts of Isaiah but only nine of the Twelve Prophets and six each of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They wrote pesharim on Isaiah and the Twelve, but none are preserved for Jeremiah and Ezekiel. On the other hand, they produced “rewritten” texts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but none of Isaiah.42 With respect to quotations and the spectrum of allusions, echoes, and anthological use, precision is impossible, but general lists (though containing more entries than solid, provable quotations) are nonetheless highly indicative. The list by Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold includes fourteen and a half pages for Isaiah. In contrast, they list the approximate numbers of pages for other books as follows:43 41 42 43

See Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim, Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979), 111. See Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts,” 609. Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions. Their lists are more, rather than less, inclusive, insofar as their focus is on “anterior-posterior intertextuality, namely the intertextual reference which includes quotations, allusions, references, and reminiscences” (23).

163

the prophet isaiah at qumran

Genesis 13 Exodus 13.75 Leviticus 8.5

Numbers 7.5 Deuteronomy 15.5 Psalms 15.5

Twelve Prophets 10 Jeremiah 6.5 Ezekiel 5

Only Deuteronomy and Psalms are quoted or used more frequently than Isaiah, and Isaiah is quoted or used more than twice as often as Jeremiah or Ezekiel. Three examples of quotations can suffice. First, 11QMelchizedek (11Q13, col. ii, lines 15–18, speaking of the year of Jubilee), quotes and interprets Isa 52:7: This … is the day of [peace about whi]ch he said [… through Isa]iah the prophet, who said: [“How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet [of] the messen[ger who] announces peace, the mess[enger of good who announces salvati]on, [sa]ying to Zion: your God [reigns.”] Its interpretation: The mountains [are] the prophet[s … And the messenger i[s] the anointed of the spir[it]. Second, the War Scroll (1QM, col. xi, lines 11–12, speaking of the Romans) quotes and interprets Isa 31:8: From of old [you] foretold [us the appoin]ted time of the power of your hand against the Kittim saying: “Ashur will fall by the sword of not a man, the sword of not a human being will devour it.” For you will deliver into the hands of the poor the [ene]mies of all the countries. Finally and curiously, the verse (Isa 2:22) noted above as lacking in the og but as a large insertion in 1QIsaa and the mt, Avoid mortals, who have only breath in their nostrils, for of what account are they? occurs in yet another situation. The same scribe who inserted 40:7 in the Isaiah scroll also quotes this verse in the Rule of the Community (1QS v 17), using it in the community’s intense interest in purity, as a basis for avoiding those impure persons who are “not included in his covenant.” This quote from Scripture, however, is not in the Rule manuscripts 4QSb,d. Agreeing with Sarianna Metso’s hypothesis that the shorter texts of 4QSb,d represent an earlier edition of the Rule than the expanded 1QS manuscript, we conclude that the inclusion of Isa 2:22 is secondary in 1QS, just as it is in the ancient text of Isaiah itself.44 44

See Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, stdj 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 151–155.

164

ulrich

Conclusion The very first scriptural manuscript discovered at Qumran and published already by 1950 is, in a condensed form, a compendium of most of the learnings to be gained about the Scriptures in the Second Temple period. 1QIsaa is so different from the familiar Masoretic textus receptus of Isaiah that scholars were simply unprepared to see that it was not a “vulgar” text impaired by the Qumran community. It is a beautiful manuscript of the commonly shared edition of the Book of Isaiah. Though found and used at Qumran, it was likely not copied there but in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Judah and brought to Qumran. Its age indicates that it had been copied before the settlement at Qumran; but if it had been copied at Qumran, it must have been copied by the first generation there, and it must have been copied from a pre-Qumran source text. There is no clear system of orthography in 1QIsaa, just as there is none in the mt or in most other Qumran manuscripts. In general, 1QIsaa employs longer forms than those of the mt, but the mt also displays the longer form occasionally. We agree with Kutscher and Sukenik that the orthography and other “Qumranic features” were not peculiar to Qumran, but reflect the language and spelling common in Palestine at the time. The more than 2,600 textual variants compared with other Qumran manuscripts, the mt, and the lxx span the full panoply of known types of variants within each tradition. Sometimes the scroll is superior, and sometimes the mt, the lxx, or another scroll is superior. This teaches us that all manuscripts, including the mt, must be seriously weighed on an egalitarian basis, word by word. Nine large insertions of text—of a sentence or a verse, or even several sentences or verses—were discovered in the mt, seven of which were not yet present in the text of 1QIsaa, and three not yet in the lxx (for one insertion at 40:7, both 1QIsaa and the lxx preserve the unexpanded form). This requires that we clarify Kutscher’s judgment that “1[Q]Isaa reflects a later textual type than the Masoretic Text.”45 His judgment centered on linguistic clues— “orthography, morphology, syntax”—and we can fully agree with him that, with regard to the majority of individual linguistic features, 1QIsaa does exhibit a later profile. With regard to the development of the text, however, the case is the reverse. 1QIsaa appears, in many, if not all, of those seven major secondary additions in the mt, to be the earlier textual form from which the mt descended.

45

Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, 2–3.

the prophet isaiah at qumran

165

The mt routinely represents the later, secondary textual form, even if the linguistic features of the mt did not undergo as much updating as those of 1QIsaa. The realization that the Book of Isaiah was composite, which became common knowledge with Bernhard Duhm’s separation of First, Second, and Third Isaiah,46 continues to expand. William L. Holladay’s subtitle, Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage,47 is insightful and instructive: the book of Isaiah continually experienced growth and development. The recognition has also long been operative that the composite nature of the book extends even to short exclamations such as “There is no peace for the wicked, says the Lord” (Isa 48:22). But even when the additions are not so unrelated to the preceding material, we should expect that numerous hands have contributed in a wide variety of styles to the developing text that eventuated in the Book of Isaiah. We should not be surprised that there are numerous late insertions into the text of Isaiah. Nor should we be surprised that, when we are able to detect an expansion in an extant manuscript, we may find two or even three expansions added together. Sometimes there are clear categories of inserted reflections or comments, such as “a prose comment on a verse oracle beginning ‘on that day’ (bayyôm hahûʾ),” which is a “frequent occurrence throughout the book.”48 But often the insertions are simply ad hoc. The fact that manuscripts that are still extant witness at times to both the earlier unexpanded text and the later expanded text suggests that those expansions are relatively late, perhaps from the third or second or even first centuries bce. Moreover, the fact that sometimes 1QIsaa preserves the earlier unexpanded text in contrast to the lxx, while sometimes the lxx does so in contrast to 1QIsaa, suggests that the nine expansions presented do not all stem from the same source and were not all added at the same time. It should also be stated explicitly that there is no reason to doubt that the og of Isaiah simply translated as faithfully as possible its Hebrew Vorlage, and that it either lacked or included the expansions depending upon whether its Vorlage lacked or included them. We should also not discount the possibility that the received Greek text has at certain points been secondarily revised to agree with the mt. Finally, we can note that neither the nine large expansions in the mt nor any other set of variants show an intentional pattern to create a new edition, such as that observable in 4QpaleoExodm, 4QNumb, the sp, or the mt of Jeremiah. Thus, we have only a single edition of the book—recall Kutscher’s comment

46 47 48

Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). William L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194.

166

ulrich

that philologically, “the Masoretic Text is descended from a text of the type of [1Q]Isaa.” The time and circumstances of the nine isolated insertions were varied, showing no signs of coordination. All Isaiah manuscripts are genetically related, but the various exemplars, despite the numerous and significant variants, are not differentiated by a pattern of variants sufficiently defined to indicate a variant edition. The large number of copies of the book of Isaiah at Qumran and the conviction that it contained the word of God, as well as the numerous important ways the book was quoted, interpreted, and used for self-identification show that the prophet and his book were among the most treasured by the community at Qumran.

Jubilees as Prophetic History James C. VanderKam

1

Introduction

For the last few years, I have been writing a commentary on the Book of Jubilees, an older work valued and copied by the people of Qumran and perhaps those of like mind residing elsewhere. Preparing a commentary for the Hermeneia series involves sorting out innumerable details as one moves verse by verse through a long text, but the mass of data, once organized, provides the basis for thinking about larger issues in connection with the book. Among those issues is the nature of the book itself. The theme of our conference has provided a welcome opportunity to hone my thinking about the kind of book Jubilees is.1 Jubilees is in great part another version of the stories in Genesis and the first twenty-four chapters of Exodus. For that reason it is classified these days among the books called Rewritten Bible, or better, Rewritten Scriptures. Works of this kind began to appear in the Hebrew Bible itself—one thinks immediately of cases such as First and Second Chronicles vis-à-vis its sources, primarily Samuel through Kings—and continued to be written for a long time and to take various forms. While Jubilees belongs among such works and indeed is often considered the poster child for the category,2 it is more than a retelling or rewriting of Genesis and Exodus. In a structural sense, Jubilees reminds me of the Deuteronomistic history. A longstanding scholarly view holds that Deuteronomy, or at least some of it, serves as a theological introduction to the narrative books that follow it— Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; the introduction supplies the covenantal context and some major themes—for example, a single sanctuary—for evaluating the history related in Joshua through Second Kings.3 Deuteronomy, with

1 For a short introduction to and brief commentary on the book, see my The Book of Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 2 See the insightful survey by Molly Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 323–336. 3 Martin Noth, The Deuteronomic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 12–17. This book is an English translation of the German work Überlieferungsgeschicht-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004349797_011

168

vanderkam

its laws giving definition to the agreement between the Lord and Israel, is indeed a theological introduction to the narratives, but one might be more precise and label it a prophetic preface to them—a message delivered to Israel through Moses, the greatest of the prophets and the first in a long line of them (Deut 18:15–22), a message that offers a framework for critiquing the nation and its behavior, just as the prophets were wont to do. Jubilees, like the Deuteronomistic history, begins with an introductory section (the short prologue and especially ch. 1) before a lengthy narrative; that prefatory section draws heavily on the end of Deuteronomy and on other prophetic works, and, like Deuteronomy, it looks ahead over the entire story about to unfold and condemns Israel for violations of the covenant that are certainly going to happen. A second way in which Jubilees resembles the Deuteronomistic history is that, in addition to the introduction, there are interludes in the narratives in which larger themes of the work are more clearly expressed. A series of speeches such as 1Sam 12 or other addresses like 2 Kgs 17 serve that function in the Deuteronomistic history,4 and in Jubilees, several expansions, especially ch. 23 (also a speech), operate in a similar fashion. These expansions, many of which draw upon prophetic material in the Hebrew Bible, (along with the prefatory content in ch. 1) give to the book the character of a prophetic history—a story looking to the past and future and offering a covenantal evaluation of them. That is, Jubilees takes the overall form of a narrative encased within a prophetic perspective that more forcefully communicates the author’s theological message than the narratives alone are able to do.

2

Prophetic Elements in Jubilees5

In this paper “prophetic” is used in a broad sense to mean material in the Latter Prophets and also material related to prophets elsewhere in the Hebrew

liche Studien, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957), 1–110 (the first edition was published in 1943). 4 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 4–11. 5 Hindy Najman writes, “If we are to characterize Jubilees as a whole, we should pay attention to its self-presentation. The book claims to be revelatory and to have a divine, angelic, and heavenly origin. It is, by its own account, part of the larger family of works from earlier exilic and postexilic traditions that we have come to know as biblical prophecy. My claim, then, is that Jubilees should be contextualized within the traditions of biblical prophecy, especially exilic and postexilic prophecy.” “Reconsidering Jubilees: Prophecy and Exemplarity,” in Enoch

jubilees as prophetic history

169

Bible. “Prophets” is understood to include individuals so designated in the Hebrew Bible or in second-temple texts. I want to examine some parts of Jubilees in which the prophet Moses receives revelations that derive from or are heavily influenced by prophetic works in the Bible and that perform the task of contextualizing and commenting on the narrative, from creation to Sinai and beyond. 2.1 A Prophetic Introduction (Prologue and Jub. 1)6 In a way, the Book of Jubilees is a Bible with an introduction. Genesis begins with creation, but in Jubilees, the story about creation has to wait until ch. 2. The prologue and ch. 1 precede it and explain the circumstances in which the revelation of the book came about, the book’s purpose(s), and the message it conveys. This preliminary unit draws from Exod 24 for the immediate setting,7 but the first chapter is also heavily dependent on prophetic material. The primary sources for this material are the end of Deuteronomy and the book of Isaiah.8 Another contributing source that could be regarded as prophetic is Ps 51, since Psalms are regarded as prophecies in some texts from Qumran9 and seem to be used in that way in Jubilees. The author of Jubilees claims that the book contains a revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai the first time he stayed there for forty days and forty nights—that is, the scene that begins in Exod 24, the day after the covenant was made at the mountain. The prologue and 1:1–4a describe Moses’s ascent of

6

7 8

9

and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. Gabrielle Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2009), 232. George Brooke has drawn attention to the prophetic nature of Jubilees on the basis of his careful study of the fragments of 4Q216 (4QJuba). He concludes: “For the Book of Jubilees as a whole, this study has pointed to how it may be presented as prophetic law, an understanding of the authority of what is written on the heavenly tablets which is consistent with the view of Moses as a prophet” (55). “Exegetical Strategies in Jubilees 1–2: New Light from 4QJubileesa,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange, tsaj 65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 39–57. Jonathan Stökl, “The Book Formerly Known as Genesis: A Study of the Use of Biblical Language in the Hebrew Fragments of the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 22/87 (2006): 441–444, 447–448. Jacques van Ruiten, “The Rewriting of Exodus 24:12–18 in Jubilees 1:1–4,” bn 79 (1995): 25– 29. For identifications of texts reflected in 1:4–29, see, for example, R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 2–10; Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, StPB 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 19–31. According to 11QPsa xxvii 2–11, David composed his 4050 poetic works through prophecy from God.

170

vanderkam

the mountain by God’s command, but most of the remaining verses in ch. 1 (1:5– 26) contain a conversation between God himself and Moses, while at the end of the chapter, God orders an Angel of the Presence to dictate to Moses the story in the rest of the book (1:27–28; the angel complies in v. 29). The source from which the angel dictates chs. 2–50 is the heavenly tablets. So, all of the book’s contents—the first chapter says—come from God, but the stories in 2–50 are conveyed via an angel who quotes from what is etched on an unimpeachable source—the celestial tablets.10 It is worth pausing to point out that through the introductory sections— the prologue and ch. 1—the author of Jubilees makes a radical change in the text he rewrites. A reader of Gen 1–2 could rightly ask, although it may rarely be done, Who is telling this story about creation, Adam and Eve, and so on, and why is he telling it to me? No answer is ever given. There is an anonymous narrator who relates the stories, and he never discloses his identity or even hints at his presence, although long ago it became accepted to regard Moses as the writer of Genesis and Exodus. The Book of Jubilees is the earliest witness to this idea, but it presents Mosaic authorship of these books only in a limited sense: he wrote them, but he was actually taking dictation from an Angel of the Presence whom God had appointed to the task. Though the writer of Jubilees supplies the Sinaitic setting for the book, he still leaves the reader somewhat in the dark because he never discloses who wrote the prologue and ch. 1—that is, the material that precedes God’s order that the angel dictate to Moses and the command itself. There are three major prophetic sources for ch. 1. 1. Isaiah: The most obvious prophetic borrowing in Jubilees 1 comes in 1:4, where God speaks to Moses about “the divisions of the times—both of the law and of the testimony.”11 Later, in 1:26 he orders Moses: “Now you write all these words that I will tell you on this mountain: what is first and what is last and what is to come during all the divisions of time which are for the law and for the testimony.” Finally, in 1:29 the angel, after receiving his orders from God, “took the tablets (which told) of the divisions of the years from the time the law and the testimony were created.” The word pair law (‫)תורה‬

10 11

Hindy Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies,” jsj 30 (1999): 379–410. The quotations from Jubilees in this paper are from the translation in James VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2 vols., csco 510–511, Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88 (Louvain: Peters, 1989), vol. 2, as I have revised it for the commentary mentioned above.

jubilees as prophetic history

171

and testimony (‫)תעודה‬,12 mentioned three times in the chapter, is transparently important to the writer; as a result, both terms, especially testimony, have elicited a number of studies. As all scholars recognize, the terms come from Isa 8. In that context, the prophet has just gone through a painful experience: he received a message from the Lord that he duly delivered to the king, who promptly rejected it (ch. 7). King Ahaz preferred the military hardware of Assyria to the assurance of divine protection delivered by Isaiah. Isaiah himself is then told to remain strongly reliant on the Lord through the difficult times that are to come as a consequence of the king’s defiance. Then we read: “Bind up the testimony (‫)תעדה‬, seal the teaching (‫ )תורה‬among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him” (8:16–17).13 Just a few lines later, Isaiah mocks those who consult “ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter” (v. 19) and says that people should consult their gods “for teaching (‫ )תורה‬and for instruction (‫”)תעודה‬ (v. 20). Isaiah also has some potentially helpful words about the function served by the entities law and testimony that he mentions twice. After the first reference, he says, “I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him” (8:17). The message he had received from the Lord was recorded and hidden among his disciples; it was being kept for the coming day when the Lord would no longer hide his face from his people. The writer of Jubilees took this reference and apparently saw in “the teaching/Torah” the law of Moses and in “the testimony” a reference to his own book that would serve the same purpose as Isaiah’s testimony.14 Isaiah 30 uses some language that reminds one of Isa 8, and it too may have been in the mind of Jubilees’s author in writing ch. 1. The Lord says to the prophet: “Go now, write it before them on a tablet, / and inscribe it in a book, /

12

13 14

Enough of the relevant texts have survived in 4Q216 to demonstrate that the two words were ‫ תורה‬and ‫תעודה‬: all but the last letter of ‫ תורה‬can be read on i 11 (for Jub. 1:4) and the first three letters of ‫ תעודה‬are legible on iv 4 (1:26). For the texts, see James VanderKam and J.T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4 viii Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, djd 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 5, 11. Scriptural quotations are from the nrsv. James Kugel maintains that the use of testimony in Isa 8 suggested to the writer of Jubilees that there was an early and unknown testimony and that he could present his book as that testimony. See his essay “Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, stdj 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 168–169.

172

vanderkam

so that it may be for the time to come as a witness (‫ֵﬠד‬, an emendation of mt’s vocalization ‫)ַﬠד‬15 forever. / For they are a rebellious people, / faithless children, / children who will not hear the instruction (‫ )תורת‬of the Lord” (30:8–9). Here again one meets the terms witness and instruction, which are to be put into writing, and the idea that the written document(s) will serve a juridical purpose—as a witness “for a time to come.” These passages in Isaiah constitute some of the prophetic inspiration for the role of law and testimony in Jubilees 1. Note in particular 1:5–6: He said to him: “Pay attention to all the words that I tell you on this mountain. Write them in a book so that their generations may know that I have not abandoned them because of all the evil they have done in breaking the covenant between me and your children which I am making today on Mt. Sinai for their offspring. So it will be that when all these things befall them they will recognize that I have been more faithful than they in all their judgments and in all their curses. They will recognize that I have indeed been with them.” The words Moses is to inscribe in a book will, like those Isaiah was to record, document at a future time the justice of God. They will serve an apologetic purpose against a people who will be guilty of disobeying the Lord.16 2. Deuteronomy: The influence of Deuteronomy—like Jubilees, a Mosaic work—on ch. 1 helps the reader to see how the testimony plays out.17 One

15 16

17

See, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 414–415. For a survey of the Isaiah passages and the terms law and testimony throughout the book of Jubilees, along with the scholarship on them, see James VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller, stdj 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 33–42. It is no accident that the writer begins his book just as Deut 1:1 begins: “These are the words …” (Prologue). Brooke (“Exegetical Strategies,” 44–45) says regarding the phrase ‫בדבר יהוה‬ in 4Q216 i 3 (from the Prologue), that it “strongly suggests that the author of Jubilees in his deliberate choice of phraseology understood the content of the Book of Jubilees not primarily as law but as prophecy” (45). He notes that the phrase is used several times in connection with the man of God in 1Kgs 13 and that the writer may be using it “knowing that this would strengthen his view of the prophetic status he was subtly ascribing Moses and his own work through his careful choice of phraseology” (45).

jubilees as prophetic history

173

Deuteronomic influence that experts have spotted in Jubilees 1 is the pattern present in the Lord’s first speech to Moses (vv. 5–18). The speech falls into two parts: vv. 5–6: the book and its function (quoted above), and vv. 7–18: prediction of Israel’s apostasy and return. In vv. 7–18, there is an outline familiar from Deuteronomy and Deuteronomyrelated literature: starting from the context of a newly minted covenant between God and his people, the texts report that the Israelites will become comfortable and will sin; eventually, despite his patience and efforts, the Lord will punish the nation with exile to foreign lands where they will come to their senses and repent, and he then will deliver them (in the so-called sin-exilereturn pattern).18 Such a scheme is evident in this section: vv. 8–12—Israel’s sin; 13–14—divine punishment and exile; 15—the people’s repentance; and 15b– 18—God’s deliverance. It is present, too, in other compositions written in the Second Temple period (e.g., the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs).19 However, one might rightly object that the pattern is so general and nonexceptional that it need not be traced specifically to Deuteronomy. The reason for thinking that Deuteronomy, especially ch. 31, is the source or influence behind the text is that the writer of Jubilees nearly cites it in several instances in the early verses of the Lord’s speech, and throughout the entire address, he draws heavily upon Deuteronomic phrases and expressions. Here are two examples from vv. 5 and 8: 1:5: “He said to him: ‘Pay attention to all the words which I tell you on this mountain. Write them in a book so that their generations may know that I have not abandoned them.’” The part of special interest here is the command to write God’s words in a book. The passage, while influenced by Isaiah (see Isa 30:8 quoted above), is also related to Deut 31:9: “Then Moses wrote down this law.” In the lxx form of the verse, it reads: “And Moyses wrote down the words of this law in a book.”20 The phrase “in a book” is partially supported by 4QDeuth frg. 10 1, which preserves the preposition ‫ על‬after “this law,” suggesting

18 19 20

See, for example, G. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, hts 26 (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1972), 43–47. H. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, svtp 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 53–56. The rendering is that of M. Peters, “Deuteronomium,” in A New Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pietersma and B. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

174

vanderkam

it too had a prepositional phase indicating where Moses was to write the law.21 So Moses here, as in Jubilees 1:5, receives orders to write a law in a book. In the paragraph that follows in Deut 31, the law is to be read every seventh year in the future when they are living in their new land so the people may learn to fear the Lord and carefully obey his words (Deut 31:10–13). 1:8: “Then the testimony is to correspond with this testimony.” This unusual sentence, now partly documented in 4Q216 ii 4–522 is related to Deut 31:19–22. In Deut 31:19, the Lord commands Moses: “Now therefore write this song, and teach it to the Israelites; put it in their mouths, in order that this song may be a witness for me against the Israelites.” Moses must write the song (often taken to be Deut 32)23 and teach it to the people so that some day it will serve as a witness. The entire context of this verse in Deut 31 is important for Jubilees 1. For instance, Jubilees 1:7 derives largely from Deut 31:20–22, which reads, “For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I promised on oath to their ancestors, and they have eaten their fill and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, despising me and breaking my covenant. And when many terrible troubles come upon them, then this song will confront them as a witness, because it will not be lost from the mouths of their descendants. For I know what they are inclined to do even now, before I have brought them into the land that I promised them on oath.” That very day Moses wrote this song and taught it to the Israelites. Deuteronomy, like Jubilees, is addressing a time even before Israel enters the land, and already, as in Jubilees 1, the Lord knows the apostasy that will take place. When Israel violates the covenant, the song will be a witness against them. The writer of Jubilees uses this situation and replaces the word song with testimony. The testimony—that is, Jubilees—will serve the same juridical function as the song of Moses in Deut 31—and the testimony of the prophet in Isa 8 and 30.24

21 22 23 24

For the text, see E. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 237. In 4Q216 ii 4–5 (djd 13.8); in line 5, the expression “this testimony” is fully preserved: ‫התעודה הזאת‬. See S. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, icc (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902), 339–342. On the use of testimony here, see Brooke, “Exegetical Strategies,” 43, 50–51.

jubilees as prophetic history

175

3. Psalms: A third prophetic passage that makes a major contribution to the first chapter of Jubilees is Ps 51, traditionally the penitential psalm sung by David after his sin with Bathsheba. The psalm puts in its first appearance in Moses’s response (Jub. 1:19–21)25 to the Lord’s overview of Israel’s coming history. He objects to what God predicts will happen—that Israel’s future will follow the sin-exile-return pattern—and requests: “May your mercy, Lord, be lifted over your people. Create for them a just spirit” (1:20). A few lines later, he adds: “Create for them a pure mind and a holy spirit” (1:21). Moses’s words are reflections of the psalmist’s plea: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, / and put a new and right spirit within me” (Ps 51:10 [Heb 12]). Note also Ps 51:11 (Heb 13), where he prays, “Do not take your holy spirit from me.”26 Moses’s prayer of intercession before God (intercession is one of Moses’s prophetic tasks [e.g., Num 14:13–19]) requests that God make a fundamental change in the people of Israel so that they do not behave the way the Lord predicts they will, just as the psalmist pleads for a new nature so that he will not repeat his transgression. When the Lord answers Moses, he too alludes to Ps 51 in saying that only after Israel repents will he transform them as Moses asked: “I will create a holy spirit for them and will purify them in order that they may not turn away from me from that time forever” (Jub. 1:23). Three prophetic books, then—Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms—function as key sources for the prophetic introduction that the author of Jubilees uses for his retelling of Israel’s history before Sinai. 2.2 A Prophetic View of History ( Jub. 23) As noted above, a trait Jubilees shares with the Deuteronomistic History is the presence of speeches at key junctures in the narrative. One of these appears in Jubilees 23:8–32, where the Angel of the Presence speaks to Moses about a common pattern in human history. 1. Introduction: Jubilees 23 is an unusual chapter in that it contains an apocalypse.27 The author inserted it into the text at the point in the story where Abraham has just died (23:1–7). Genesis (25:7) and Jubilees (23:8) agree that 25 26 27

The passage is closely related to Deut 9:25–29. See David Lambert, “Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1,” cbq 68 (2006): 644–646. See John Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. John Collins; Semeia 14 (1979), 32–33. For an analysis of Jub. 23 in the wider context of contemporary apocalypses, see Todd Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, sblejl 34 (Atlanta: sbl, 2012).

176

vanderkam

the life of the great patriarch came to an end when he was 175 years of age. The number is simply noted in Genesis, but it posed a problem for the author of Jubilees: Why did a man as righteous as Abraham live for just 175 years when his ancestors, some of whom were hardly of his caliber, lived much longer lives? The issue leads the writer to articulate a theory regarding an overarching pattern that he saw operative in human history, and he bases that theory squarely on two of the sources that were so important to him in ch. 1—Isaiah and Psalms. In particular, he appeals to Isa 65 and Ps 90 to supply crucial data for interpreting the changes in human longevity attested in history.28 The pattern he sees has the shape of an inverted arc: At the beginning, people lived very long lives (the pre-flood patriarchs in Gen 5), but after that time, life spans started gradually to grow shorter. The downward trend in ages is to continue, so the angel informs Moses, until it hits a low point, after which the number of years people live will start increasing and will become as many as or more than in the first generation. This simple picture the author bases on some scriptural numbers and on Isa 65 and Ps 90.29 Those two passages allowed him not only to see the overall shape of history but the reasons for the pattern. It is not difficult to discern in the biblical stories how the lengths of people’s lives diminished over time. The patriarchs from Adam to Noah (see Gen 5) lived to tremendous ages—almost 1,000 years (Methuselah’s 969 is the highest number in mt), but after Noah, whose age at death was 950 years, the numbers take a tumble. In the next ten generations they shrink to a low of 148 years for Nahor (Gen 11:24–25). According to the Angel of the Presence, the downward arc is the context in which the 175 years of Abraham should be evaluated. The writer of Jubilees wanted to show that Abraham lived a much shorter life than most of those who preceded him because he lived in a time when the decay in morals, that had started long before, was continuing to take its toll on longevity. Things were getting worse in Abraham’s day and would deteriorate further after him. Psalm 90 provided the necessary documentation for the author’s defense of Abraham’s relatively short life.

28

29

See the survey in James Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees, JSJSup 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 103–125. David N. DeJong, “The Decline of Human Longevity in the Book of Jubilees,” jsp 21 (2012): especially 353–357. Throughout the essay (pp. 340–365), DeJong ties the issue of longevity in ch. 23 as well as in 5:7–9 and in the death notices of patriarchs to key themes in the book such as divine justice. I have developed the role of these two passages at greater length in “Psalm 90 and Isaiah 65 in Jubilees 23,” in Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. John Ashton, agju 88 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 73–86.

jubilees as prophetic history

177

2. Psalm 90:30 The writer of Jubilees, like a number of ancient interpreters, used Ps 90:4 to explain puzzling phenomena. “For a thousand years in your sight / are like yesterday when it is past, / or like a watch in the night.” The connection the verse makes between 1,000 years and a day (“like yesterday” is expressed as ‫כיום‬ ‫ )אתמול‬allowed expositors to identify the two in the mind of God—1,000 years was for him like a day. Take, for example, the time when the Lord threatened the first man, saying that on the day when he ate from the fruit growing on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die (Gen 2:17). Of course, Adam and his wife did not die on the very day they ate the fruit—they lived many years after the transgression—but, by applying the equation of 1,000 years = 1 day for God, the writer of Jubilees could say that what God predicted was true: Adam lived 930 years—that is, he did not complete a day (one of God’s days) because he fell seventy years short of 1,000 (Jub. 4:29–30). While his exegetical procedure is clear enough, the writer may be implying more: if Adam had not eaten the fruit, he would have lived 1,000 years—something God intended for people to do but that sin made unrealizable. Sin is what causes a reduction in length of life. Under sin-free conditions, people will live to be 1,000 years old (see below). Psalm 90 provided even more valuable information on the subject. It talks about the reduction in the length of human lives under evil and trying conditions. “The days of our lives are seventy years, / or perhaps eighty, if we are strong; / even then their span is only toil and trouble; / they are soon gone, and we fly away” (90:10). In the Bible, life spans keep decreasing in length to the time of Moses, who lived to be 120 years old; after him, virtually no one reaches 100. Instead, long lives are regularly in the range of seventy to eighty years, as the psalmist laments, and those years are lived under duress. For the writer of Jubilees, sin is the reason why lives have decreased in length from more than nine hundred years to the seventy to eighty years that the psalm places at the lower end of the spectrum. Abraham lived his life of 175 years between the era of exceptional longevity and the time when people survived for much shorter spans. In speaking about the low ebb for the length of human life and especially the upswing from it is where Isa 65 made its contribution. 3. Isaiah 65: In v. 17, the Lord says that he is “about to create new heavens and a new earth,” as he once had created the present heavens and earth. In the new

30

On the Psalm in Jub. 23, see J. van Ruiten, “Van tekst tot tekst: Psalm 90 en Jubileeën 23:12–15,”ntt 47 (1993): 177–185; James Kugel, “The Jubilees Apocalypse,”dsd 1 (1994): 322– 337.

178

vanderkam

creation, the negative characteristics that mark the old one will no longer exist. Instead, God will take pleasure in his people and “no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, / or the cry of distress” (v. 19). At this point we begin to read about life spans. No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered accursed. v. 20

In the new age, people will live far longer lives—when even one hundred years will be deemed a short life. But in the sequel, the prophet uses another image that reminds one of the original creation: They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree (‫ )העץ‬shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. v. 22

The tree (not “a tree” as in nrsv; though 1QIsaa lacks the definite article, 1QIsab has it)31 to which the days of God’s people are compared makes one wonder, what tree could be so important as to be “the tree” in this context? In the context of the creation language in Isa 65, it makes one think of the tree of life; in fact, the Greek reading in v. 22 is precisely that: the tree of life (του ξυλου της ζωης), as in lxx Gen 3:12. The identification makes excellent sense in this passage where life spans are the subject. The Lord compares the future days of God’s servants to the long life associated with the tree of life—a prize withheld from the first couple because of sin. It will be part of the new age when humans will live a very long time, like that tree.32 Further confirmation for this understanding of the tree derives from the fact that there are other echoes of the early Genesis stories in this context in Isa 65: for example, “the work of their hands” in v. 22 31 32

For the readings, see Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 460, 554. 1Enoch 24:3–25:6 also speaks about this tree of life in the future (the time of judgment) and the long lives the righteous and pious will enjoy because they have its fragrance in their bones. See also T. Levi 18:11. On the Isaiah passage, see J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 19 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 283–290.

jubilees as prophetic history

179

recalls Gen 5:29 (Noah will give relief from this), which in turn refers back to the result of the curse on the man in Gen 3; it also ties in with Ps 90:17, where the poet calls on God to establish the work of our hands. The writer of Jubilees took these biblical passages (perhaps using other sources as well) and traced the devolution in human life spans from those of the ancients (19 jubilees—931 years in his system [19 × 49]) down to less than two jubilees (i.e., less than 98 years), and finally down to the point where one who lives one and one-half jubilees (73.5 years) will be considered long-lived (Jub. 23:9–12). All of this will take place due to wickedness, and times will be wretched. “Then it will be said: ‘The days of the ancients were numerous— as many as 1,000 years33—and good. But now the days of our lives, if a man has lived for a long time, are 70 years, and, if he is strong, 80 years.’ All are evil and there is no peace during the days of that evil generation” (23:15). The angel predicts to Moses that there will arise an evil generation against whom the Lord will send cruel, wicked nations. Conditions will grow so horrible that “the children’s heads will turn white with gray hair. A child who is three weeks of age will look like one whose years are 100, and their condition will be destroyed through distress and pain” (23:25; recall the infants who live only a few days in Isa 65:20). The big change will come after “children will begin to study the laws.” When that happens, the great downward spiral of human lives will start to reverse itself: “The days will begin to become numerous and increase, and mankind as well—generation by generation and day by day until their lifetimes approach 1000 years and to more years than the number of days (had been). There will be no old man, nor anyone who has lived out (his) lifetime, because all of them will be infants and children. They will complete and live their entire lifetimes peacefully and joyfully” (23:27–29a). Here, the language of Isa 65, with its allusions to Gen 2–3, asserts itself as lives lengthen to what they were originally intended to be. 2.3 Prophetic Interpretations of Individuals and Nations Another way in which Jubilees stamps the imprint of prophecy on its stories is through the use of passages from prophetic literature to fill out the picture of certain characters and to define the ultimate fates of some nations. 1. Characters: Two figures immediately suggest themselves as good examples.

33

This seems like another hint that the original expectation for the length of human lives was 1,000 years.

180

vanderkam

a. Levi: One of the major figures in Jubilees is Levi, the third son of Jacob and Leah.34 In Genesis he is a minor figure whose major role is in ch. 34, where he and his brother Simeon avenge the rape of their full sister Dinah by massacring the residents of Shechem and killing the young man Shechem himself, the perpetrator of the crime. The brothers receive some criticism from Jacob for their violence (Gen 34:30), and in his so-called blessing of his sons in Gen 49, he curses both of them (vv. 5–7). The picture of Levi left by Genesis must have been disconcerting to ancient readers who knew that Levi was the ancestor of the priests and Levites. How could a minor yet clearly negative character in Genesis become the progenitor of the priesthood? Efforts were made to burnish his image, efforts that had already begun in the Hebrew Bible. The place where Levi’s stature is raised the highest is in Mal 2:4–7. The prophet of this book attacks the priests of his time for improprieties in connection with offerings (like the writer of Jubilees, he is also concerned about intermarriage with other nationalities), and as he criticizes them he holds up before them the example of their ancestor Levi: Know, then, that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may hold, says the Lord of hosts. My covenant with him was a covenant of life and wellbeing, which I gave him; this called for reverence, and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in integrity and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord of hosts. Reading this passage in light of what Genesis says about Levi, one is left wondering, When did the Lord make a covenant with him, and when did he revere God or stand in awe of his name? Or when was true instruction in his mouth, and when did he walk with God in integrity or turn many from

34

There have been a number of studies on Levi in Jubilees and related literature. See, for example, Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” htr 86 (1993): 1–64; Robert Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, sblejl 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); and VanderKam, “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest,” RevQ 17/65–68 (1996): 359– 373.

jubilees as prophetic history

181

iniquity?35 In sharp contrast to his portrait in Genesis, Malachi paints an exceedingly favorable picture of Levi. In Jubilees, Levi becomes a praiseworthy individual who, because of his merit in slaughtering the people of Shechem and thus also preventing intermarriage with them, was awarded the priesthood that he began to exercise already in his own lifetime (30:18–20; 32:1–9). An act that in Genesis is judged to be excessively violent becomes in Jubilees and other texts (e.g., Aramaic Levi Document; the Testament of Levi) an expression of commendable zeal like that exercised by the Levites after the sin of the golden calf (Exod 32:25–29) and by Phinehas when he executed an Israelite man and Midianite woman for engaging in illicit sex (Num 25:10–13). Words from the prophecy of Malachi inform two passages about Levi in Jubilees. The first figures at the end of the Shechem story, where the result of his zeal is pictured: he and his descendants were eternally chosen to be priests and Levites. So blessing and justice before the God of all are entered for him as a testimony on the heavenly tablets. We ourselves remember the justice that the man performed during his lifetime at all times of the year. As far as 1000 generations will they enter (it). It will come to him and his family after him. He has been recorded on the heavenly tablets as a friend and a just man. 30:19–20

We should note the echoes of Malachi’s description of him as reverent and in awe of God, one who walked with him in integrity and righteousness. The second passage is the blessing Levi’s grandfather Isaac gives to him.36 As the elderly man envisions their future, he predicts that Levi and his descendants will serve in the temple like the angels (note Malachi’s, “he is a messenger [angel] of the Lord”); they will also carry out the teaching function Malachi describes.

35

36

It is possible that “he turned many from iniquity” alludes to the fact that the massacre of the Shechemites in which he was involved prevented the intermarriages between them and Jacob’s family that were being discussed (see Gen 34:16, 21). See James VanderKam, “Isaac’s Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald Parry and Eugene Ulrich, stdj 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 497–519.

182

vanderkam

b. Esau: A second individual whose character is filled out by drawing on prophetic commentary is Esau. Because he was the ancestor of the Edomites, his descendants also become the subject of prophetic interpretation in Jubilees (see the next section). In Genesis, Esau, the slightly older twin brother of Jacob, is not a completely positive character, but he is not entirely negative either. This hairy outdoorsman makes some poor decisions, providing openings that Jacob, also not a fully positive figure in Genesis, is able to exploit to his brother’s serious disadvantage. By giving his brother some food when he was hungry, Jacob wrested the right of firstborn away from Esau (Gen 25:29–34), and later, at his mother’s bidding, he deceived his father into giving him the blessing of the firstborn when Isaac thought he was blessing Esau (Gen 27). As a result, Jacob had the blessing but also had to run for his life to escape his brother’s murderous wrath. His place of refuge was in Haran with another branch of the family. One bonus of contact with that family was that Jacob married women with the appropriate genealogical credentials, while Esau grieved his parents by marrying ladies from Canaan (see Gen 28:6–9). Eventually the two became reconciled, although Jacob seems happy that some distance separates them (Gen 32–33). Esau lived in Mount Seir, where he became the ancestor of the Edomites, and Jacob lived on the other side of the Jordan, where he became the father of the Israelites. In Jubilees, these two brothers undergo a serious makeover. In the book, Esau can hardly do any right and Jacob can virtually do no wrong. Jacob was, one might say, the firstborn from the beginning: not only did his mother, Rebekah, love him more than his brother but Abraham did as well and recognized him as his true heir, the one to whom the patriarchal promises would come and through whom the blessings would flow to future generations (Jub. 19:13–31; 22:10–30). So, if Jacob took the birthright under slightly dubious circumstances, it was only right that he gained it (Jub. 24:3–7). Moreover, the deception of his father worked, however implausible the disguise seemed, because God saw to it that Isaac did not recognize him (26:18). Jacob was, after all, the one deserving of the blessing—something Isaac should have recognized by this time. The author almost completely omits the scene of reconciliation between the brothers—the long Genesis story (two chapters) is summarized in part of just one verse (29:13). The biggest change from Genesis comes, however, after the death of their parents. When Jacob did in fact receive the portion of the firstborn from his father and Esau swore his agreement to the arrangement (Jub. 36), Esau’s family reacted violently. Despite his initial protests, Esau’s sons convinced him to accompany them and the troops they had hired from neighboring peoples to attack Jacob secretly while he was mourning the death of his wife Leah. Jacob tried to avoid warfare, but Esau, in complete violation of

jubilees as prophetic history

183

the oaths he had sworn to both parents to love his brother, refused his efforts. A battle ensued, and in it, Jacob killed Esau, while Jacob’s sons defeated Esau’s sons and subjected the Edomites to tribute (Jub. 37:1–38:13).37 Obviously, the writer has moved well beyond Genesis, although he works closely with the text of it. The hostility to Esau on the part of the author arises from various motives, not the least of which was a strong dislike for his descendants the Edomites, one of Israel’s ancient and enduring enemies. But in speaking so negatively of Esau and his descendants, the writer is following not only his own prejudices but also a tradition of prophetic venom against them. One stunning example is Mal 1:2–3: “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau.” The account of the war between Esau and Jacob has been a text of interest to interpreters of Jubilees and of the other sources in which it occurs. One reason for its attraction is that it is a major expansion on Genesis, one the writer must have really wanted to include if he devoted most of two chapters to it. Why was it so important to him? Again, there may have been different reasons, but one suggestion argued by a number of expositors is that in this battle account (and in other non-Genesis wars in Jubilees) the author is reflecting events in his own day and retrojecting them into the far past. In this case, some have suggested that he is rewriting the battles between Judas the Maccabee and the Edomites (especially 1Maccabees 5) or is echoing features of the warfare waged against them later by John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.257–258).38 There is a certain appeal to this approach, but others have pointed out that the parallels between the Hasmonean battles with the Edomites and the one between Esau and Jacob are not that close. In addition, there is a better way in which to explain the origin of the story, even if it does not account for all the details.39 The most helpful passage in this respect is from Amos. In the first two chapters of the book, the prophet delivers oracles against the small nations around Israel, and naturally, one of these is Edom (Amos 1:11–12):

37

38 39

For the section covering from the parental instructions to the death of Esau, see John Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, cbqms 18 (Washington, dc: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 173–182. There is a long tradition of reading the passages in this way. One early exponent of the approach was Charles, The Book of Jubilees. Jonathan Goldstein, “The Date of the Book of Jubilees,” paajr 50 (1983): 63–86; Robert Doran, “The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub 34–38; 23:14–32 in Narrative Context,” jsj 20 (1989): 1–11.

184

vanderkam

Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity; he maintained his anger perpetually, and kept his wrath forever. So I will send a fire on Teman, and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah. The writer speaks about Edom but uses the language of brotherhood and in this way makes the reader think about the twins in Genesis. Here Edom (Esau) pursues his brother (Jacob) with a sword and keeps his anger without end, showing no pity. A natural question would be, When did Esau pursue Jacob with a sword, show no mercy, and act angrily all the time? The writer of Jubilees took the passage to be describing a battle (the sword) and the complete lack of pity as pointing to Esau’s attack on Jacob while he was mourning the death of his wife. The result was a total defeat of Esau and those with him and subjection of the survivors to Israel. 2. Nations: The pictures of several nations mentioned a few times in Genesis are enlarged and their focus sharpened in Jubilees by addition of material from prophetic books. a. The Edomites: There are several anti-Edom passages in prophetic literature; in fact, the book of Obadiah is entirely directed against them, and it details the destruction their land would experience. Another book that contributes to this anti-Edom belief is the book of Malachi. As the prophecy of Malachi provided material for enhancing the reputation of Levi, so it adds documentation for tarnishing the reputation of Esau and his descendants. The first section of the prophecy, after the title in v. 1, reads, I have loved you, says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: I have made his hill country a desolation and his heritage a desert for jackals. If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says: they may build but I will tear down, until they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the Lord is angry forever. 1:2–4

jubilees as prophetic history

185

It is not surprising, with the words said about Edom in such passages and in the oracles against the nations in various prophetic books, that some have spoken about a Damn Edom theology in the prophets.40 In Jubilees, Esau and his descendants will suffer annihilation (see above). Among the words Isaac speaks to him after the failed blessing is a rewriting of Gen 27:40 in Jubilees 26:34: “You will live by your sword and will serve your brother. May it be that, if you become great and remove his yoke from your neck, then you will commit an offence fully worthy of death and your descendants will be eradicated from beneath the sky” (cf. also 35:14–15). b. The Philistines: A second nation to receive such treatment is the Philistines. They are mentioned in Genesis, but little more than that. However, some characters in Genesis lived in the area that would later be occupied by the Philistines. Among these was King Abimelech, with whom Abraham and Isaac had occasional dealings, especially negotiations and disputes about some wells (see Gen 20 and 26). This king also took Sarah and Rebekah, although Jubilees does not recount either incident. A problem that the author of Jubilees found in these stories was that Isaac made a covenant with Abimelech (Gen 26:26–31). One is not supposed to make alliances with other nations according to the Bible (e.g., Exod 23:32; 34:12; Deut 7:2) and Jubilees (e.g., 22:16), so the writer had to deal with Isaac’s action. The solution he adopted was to have Isaac realize that he entered the covenant with the Philistines under pressure (24:26–27), and as a result, he cursed the Philistines roundly. This is not in Genesis, but the writer felt justified in introducing such words into his text because of the prophecy of Amos regarding the Philistines. The writer cites a number of expressions from Amos 9:2–4 (understood as referring to Caphtor),41 but the elements do not always appear in the same order. Here are the two passages in parallel columns.

40

41

An oft-cited essay on this theme is Bruce Cresson, “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. J.M. Efird (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1972), 125–148. The words translated “Strike the capitals (‫ ”)הך הכפתור‬in Amos 9:1 were apparently understood to mean “Strike Caphtor,” the place from which the Philistines came (Amos 9:7). See Menahem Kister, “Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretations and Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, stdj 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 28–29.

186

vanderkam

Amos 9:2–4

Jubilees 24:31–32

Though they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; though they climb up to heaven,

For even if he should go up to the sky, from there he would come down; even if he should become powerful on the earth, from there he will be torn out. Even if he should hide himself among the nations, from there he will be uprooted;

from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, from there I will search out and take them; and though they hide from my sight at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the sea-serpent, and it shall bite them. And though they go into captivity in front of their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes on them for harm and not for good.

even if he should go down to Sheol, there his punishment will increase. There he will have no peace. Even if he should go into captivity through the power of those who seek his life, they will kill him along the way. There will remain for him neither name nor descendants on the entire earth, because he is going to an eternal curse.

The arrangement of the two texts differs,42 but from a comparison, one can see that their message is the same: the Philistines will be unable to escape; wherever they go, punishment will find them and lead to their deaths (as Amos 9:1 indicates). In Jubilees there are a few extra elements that make the point about the unavoidable fate of the Philistines even more emphatic. At the end of Isaac’s words of malediction, the angel explains that they conform to what is etched on the tablets of heaven. That is, the fate of annihilation he has predicted for them must materialize because those words are written on the definitive source. The future of the Philistines is fixed and will not change.

42

In Amos 9:2–4 there are two elements with opposite terms (Sheol/heaven; top of Carmel/ bottom of the sea) followed by a reference to captivity; in Jubilees there is a progression from sky to earth to Sheol before the reference to captivity.

jubilees as prophetic history

187

Caphtor will, says the angel, meet his fate “on the day of judgment so that he may be eradicated from the earth” (v. 33). There is no hope for the Philistines who had coerced Isaac into making a treaty with them.

Conclusions In the several examples explored above, what does the author of Jubilees accomplish by resorting to prophetic literature to augment his rewriting of the stories in Genesis and Exodus? a.

b.

c.

43

He demonstrates a unified teaching throughout the narrative and prophetic works in the older scriptures. By assembling texts that speak of the same subject (e.g., Esau), he exploits the full range of revealed teachings to furnish the reader with more integrally developed portraits of events, characters, and peoples in Genesis and Exodus. He shows that the past and the present fall within God’s plan for history, which is running its course just as he ordained for it. The bad times his readers are experiencing do not mean there is no hope. The covenant with his people remained intact, and better times would come once there was a return to it.43 The fates of the various nations show what happens when one cuts oneself off from the covenant, and the blessings experienced by the patriarchs demonstrate the opposite—those who obey receive great rewards. He casts his book as a covenantal work that, like the message of the prophets, serves a warning, juridical function. There was one eternal covenant that joined God and his people, and the law was always part of that arrangement. Living by that law was essential for maintaining the covenantal relationship, and the ancient stories illustrated the point repeatedly. In Jubilees, those stories are not for entertainment and certainly not for drawing antinomian conclusions. They are stories with a message, just as was the case for the prophets when they referred to patriarchal events and characters (e.g., Hos 12:1–6).

On this point, see Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of its Creation, JSJSup 156 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 5–9. He takes this as the view of the author, whom he distinguishes from an interpolator responsible, as Kugel understands the book, for inserting the passages about the heavenly tablets.

188

vanderkam

So, the Book of Jubilees is indeed an example of Rewritten Scriptures, but it rewrites not only the stories of Genesis and Exodus but also the relevant prophetic teachings in order to present a covenantal message of warning and hope to the readers.

Index of Ancient Sources a

Hebrew Scriptures

Genesis 1:26–27 2:11–12 2:17 3 5:29 11:24–25 15:4–5 20 25:7 25:29–34 26 26:26–31 27 27:40 28:6–9 32–33 34:16 34:21 34:30 46:20 48:1–22 49 49:5–7

76 29n7, 30 177 179 179 176 104 185 175 182 185 182 182 185 182 182 181n 181n 180 7 7 7n2 180

Exodus 4:30 12 13 13:15–16 14–15 15:1 15:20 16:23 19:6 23:32 24 24:3 28 28:6–14 28:15–21 28:29–30 28:30 32:7

104n 131n, 137 131n, 137 130 137 130 126n3 103, 104n 34n 185 80, 169 105 25, 34, 68, 80 25 25 25 25, 74n5 104n

34:12 34:19 34:32

185 63n4 103

Leviticus 1:1 4:1 8:1 8:8 10:9–10 11:1

104n 105 105 74n5 9 104n

Numbers 1:1 6:1 13:1 14:13–19 22–24 24:15–17 25:10–13 27:21

104n 104n 104n 175 126n3 135 181 25, 44–45, 74n5

Deuteronomy 5 5:5 5:22 5:28–29 6 7:2 8 9:25–29 10 10:9 11 12:29–13:1 13:2–6 13:2–19 13:6 16:18 16:18–17:13 17:14–20 18:1–8 18:9–14 18:14

125 131n, 137 104 103 135n2 131n, 137 185 131, 137 175n 131n 158 131n, 137 117n3 116–118, 123 117 117, 120, 121 116n3 116n3 116n3 116n3 116n3 116

190 Deuteronomy (cont.) 18:15 18:15–22 18:18–19 18:18–20 18:20–22 18:21 18:22 28:59 31:9 31:10–13 31:19 31:19–22 31:20–22 32 33:8 33:3–10 33:8–10 33:8–11 Joshua 9:14

index of ancient sources

120 116n3, 168 120, 135 123 116n2, 116n3, 118 116 117 92 173 174 174 174 174 131n, 137, 174 74n5 46 23, 45 23n3, 135

19 172 103 104 67

2Kings 7:1 9:1–10 17 17:21–23 18:3–5 18:24 19:21 19:29 20:19 22:14

104 19 168 14 155n 88 103 93 104 126n3

1Chronicles 13:12

88

2Chronicles 11:2 15:3–4 21:15 24:20–22 29:3–6 36:22

104 28n3 92 31n4 155n 104, 106n3

Ezra 2:61–63 2:63 21:2 7:6

74 28, 36, 74n5 8n2 114

Nehemiah 6:14 7:63–65 7:65

126n3 74 28, 36, 74n5

Job 10:15

152n2

Psalms 1 1–89 27:1 31:33

9 132n5 152 87

45

Judges 4:4

126n3

1Samuel 1–3 2:18 2:28 3:20 7:9 10:1 12 14:3 14:36 14:41 15:1 15:10 16:1–13 16:4 23:6 23:9–13 28:6 30:7–8

126n3 74n4 24 126n3 149n 19 168 24 24 74n6 19 104 19 103 74n5 74n6 24, 74 74n6

2Samuel 7:4

1Kings 1:34 13 13:3 18:1 22:19

104

191

index of ancient sources 36:10 37:7 37:21–22 42:3 43:3 45:2b 51 51:10 51:11 68:17–20 71:3 90 90–150 90:1 90:4 90:10 90:17 91:16 103:15–17 119 145 146:9–10

151, 152 62 16n 23n2 23n2 114n 169, 175 175 175 80 87 177 132n5 87 177 177 179 152n2 156 131, 133n2 133 133

Proverbs 4:18–19 13:5–6 10 10:6 16:33 17:23

9n2 9n2 9 9 25n 9

Song of Solomon 3:6–8 4:4–7 4:7–6:11

130 130 130

Isaiah 1:4–14 1:8 1:10 1:13 1:21 2:1–2 2:9b 2:9b–10 2:22 3:1 3:17 3:18

146n 88 104 88, 94 88, 94 156 154n 153 153, 154n, 163 96, 147n5 150 150

5 5:11–14 5:24 6 6:1 6:10 7 8 8:3 8:7 8:16–17 8:17 8:19 8:20 9 9:1 9:14 9:18–20 10 10:28–32 10:33b 10:34 11:6–10 11:9 12:4 13–23 14:12 14:32 17:11 19:3 19:6 19:11 19:13 19:16 19:22 20:2 20:6 21:8 22:5 22:15 23:11 24:17 25:10 26:15 26:20 28 28–30 28:1–6 28:7

13 161 161 67 103 136n2 171 171 126n3 150 171 171 171 171 13 152 12n2, 115n2 7 13 161 161 161 89 88 89, 92, 94 157 88 149 89, 94 149 86 88 90 96 93 103 88 150 152n3 152n3 86, 87 158 152n3 152n3 152n3 9, 12, 13 7, 11 8 8

192 Isaiah (cont.) 28:7–13 28:9 28:12 28:14–18 28:14–22 28:16 28:22 29:3 29:8 29:9 29:20 29:20–21 30 30:8–9 30:9 30:9–10 30:10 30:15–18 30:21 30:28 31:8 32:14 32:17 33–34 33:17 34 34:5 34:14 36–39 36:7–8 36:7b 37:19 37:30 37:38 38:9 40 40–66 40:1–2 40:3 40:7 40:7–8 40:15 41:22 42:14 42:22 44:16 45:1–2 46:1–2

index of ancient sources

8 9, 12 94 8 8 150, 152n3 150 152n3 152n3 94 13n 9 171 172 94 12 13n2 161 90 90, 94 163 94 94 147 91 147n5 152n2 91 157 154–155 153 93 93 94 91 148, 155 157 19 108, 158 145, 163, 164 155–157 149 91 92 94 152 19 19

46:2 48:11 48:22 49:12 49:13 49:16 49:25 49:26 51:4 52:7 53:3–4 53:11 54:6 54:8 54:9 54:11–12 57:14 57:15 57:17 57:20 58:13 58:14 63:3 65 65:14 65:17 65:19 65:20 65:22 66:2

19 88 165 151 136n2 136n2 151 92 92 163 90 151 136n2 136n2 136n2 33, 47, 63, 162 158 94, 136, 158 93, 94, 96 93, 94 94 92 86–87, 89 177–179 89 177 178 178, 179 178 136n2

Jeremiah 1:11 10:1 16:19 25:11–12 28:4 28:14 29:10 31:14 46:10 49:11

140 104 104 87 160 117 117 160 152 152 91

Lamentations 3:15

152

Ezekiel 1 3:12–13

67, 80 79

193

index of ancient sources 3:16 3:22–24 10:1 13:17 20:1 28:13 37:7

104 67 67 126n3 103 29n7 91

Amos 1:11–12 3:1 3:7 7:16 9:1 9:2–4 9:13

183–184 104 74 8n2, 104 185n2, 186 185–187 8n2

Daniel 1:17 2 2:1 2:28 4 4:5 4:18 5 5:5 5:14 7:1 7:9–10 7:16 8:1 8:15–16 9:2 9:22–24 10:1 10:7 10:13 10:14 10:17 10:20 10:21 11:2

66 66 159n2 159n3 66 159n2 159n3 66 159n2 159n3 160 67 160n2 160n 160n2 106n3, 160 160 160n 160n 6n4 160n2 88 6n4 160n2 6n4

Jonah 3:4 3:10

117 117

Micah 1:1 2:6 2:11

104 8n2 8n2

Nahum 3:1

10

Habakkuk 1:4b 2:4b 2:17

9 15 136

Haggai 1:3

104

Hosea 1:2 3:4 6:3 10:12 10:12–13 12:1–6

104 74n6 8n2 12 12n2 187

Zechariah 1:8 3 3:1–10 3:7 3:8 3:8–10 3:9 4:1 4:1–4 7:8

67 67 35 68 77 69, 77 68n3 67 103 104

Malachi 1:2–3 1:2–4 2:4–7

183 184 18

Joel 2:23

8n2, 12

194 b

index of ancient sources Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Ben Sira [Sirach] 33:3 34:1–8 45:6–11 45:10 45:13 45:17 50:5–10 50:5–11 50:11 50:17–21

38n 37n3 37n2 74n5, 74n7 38n2 38 74n7 38 38n4, 38n5 38n5

1Maccabees 4:45–46 4:46 9:27 14:41

29n 60n4 60n4 11n2, 60n4

2Maccabees 2:4–8

29n

1Esdras 5:40

28n2

1Baruch 1:21

60n4

2Baruch 6:7–9 10:18 38:1–2 46:4–5 54:5 85:1

30–33 31n2, 33n 31n 32n3 32n2 32n3 60n4

4Baruch 3–4

29n

Prayer of Azariah 15

60n4

1Enoch 13–14 14 18:6–8 24:3–25:6

141 65 67 29n7 178n2

3Enoch 12:1–5 13:1–2

35n 35n

l.a.b. (Pseudo-Philo) 9:8 11:1–2 11:15 13:1 22:8–9 25:1 26:9 25:10–12 26:1–15 26:12–15 26:13 28:3 46:1 47:2

29–33 32 32 29n4 29n4 29n4 29n4 36n 29n7 29n7 30n 32n4 29n4 29n5 29n5

Testament of Levi 2–8 8:1–4 18:3–4 18:9 18:11

68n 45, 74n7 45 45 178n2

Lives of the Prophets 23:1–2

31n4

otp 1:223–302 2:8–9 2:398

35n 36 n4 31n4

Jubilees prologue 1 1:4 1:1–4a 1:4–29 1:5 1:5–6 1:5–18 1:5–26 1:7 1:8

167–188 169–175 169–175 170, 171n 169 169n3 173, 174 172 173 170 174 174

195

index of ancient sources 1:19–21 1:23 1:26 1:27–28 1:29 2–50 4:29–30 19:13–31 22:10–30 22:16 23 23:1–7 23:8 23:8–32 23:9–12 23:15

c

175 175 170, 171n 170 170 170 177 182 182 185 168, 175–179 175 175 175 179 179

23:25 23:27–29a 24:3–7 24:26–27 24:31–32 26:18 26:34 29:13 30:18–20 30:19–20 32:1–9 32:25–29 36 35:14–15 37:1–38:13

179 179 182 185 186–187 182 185 182 181 181 181 181 182 185 18

Ancient Versions

Septuagint Gen 3:12 Lev 8:8 1Sam 14:41 1Kings Ezra 2:63 Ester Isa 3:17 10:20–22bα 21:8 28:22 36:7–8 40:7aβ 40:7aβ–8a 49:12

d

144–166 178 25 24 140 24n 140 150 161 150 150 154–155 156 155–157 151

49:24 53:11 65:22 Hos 3:4 Dan

151 151 178 28n3 140

Samaritan Pentateuch Exod 20:21 135n2 Peshitta Isa 28:22 49:24

150 151

Vulgate Isa 49:24

15

Dead Sea Scrolls

Qumran 1QIsaa 1:10 1:13

83–96, 130, 136, 144– 166, 178 89 86, 88, 94

1:21 2:9b–10 2:22 3:1 3:17

86, 94 153 153, 154 148 150

196 1QIsaa (cont.) 3:18 6:10 8:7 8:12–14 10:28 11:9 12:4 14:12 14:32 17:11 19:11 19:13 19:22 20:6 21:8 23:1 23:11 28:12 28:16 28:22 29:9 30:9 30:21 30:28 32:14 32:17 33:17 34:5 34:14 36:7–8 36:9 37:19 37:20 37:30 37:38 38:9 40:7 40:7–8 40:11 40:19 41:22 42:14 42:22 49:12 49:24 49:26 51:4 52:12

index of ancient sources

150 136 150 158 145 86, 88, 94 86, 89, 92, 94 88, 94 149 86, 89 88 86, 90, 94 93 88 150 89 87 94 150 150 94 94 86, 90, 94 86, 90, 94 94 94 86, 91, 94 152 86, 91, 94 153, 154–155 88 93 89 93 94 86, 91, 94 145, 153 155–157 149 86 91 86, 89, 92, 94 94 151 151 86, 89, 92, 94 86, 89, 92, 94 153n

53:11 54:2 54:5 57:15 57:17 57:20 58:13 58:14 59:14 63:3 64:6 66:2 1q8 (1QIsab) 3:17 51:4 53:11 57:17 63:3 1q11 (1QPsb) 1QpHab (Habakkuk) 2:1–3 2:2–3 2:5–10 2:8–10 7:1–2 7:1–5 7:3–5 7:4–5 ii.1–2 iv:10–13 v.9–11 vii.1–2 vii.4–5 vii:13–14 vii:17 viii:1–3 viii.8–13 viii:9–11 viii:12–13 ix.4 ix.4–9 ix:5 ix:6–7 ix.8–12 x.9 x:10 xi.17–xii.10 xi:17–xii:20

151 89 153n 94, 136n2 86, 93, 94 86, 93, 94 94 92 89 87 89 136n2 136, 142, 143, 144–166, 178 150 92 151 93 87 147 101n 101 62 112 4 60, 62 108 4, 112, 113n2 6n2 10 Lookup 4–9 4 4, 60 15 15 16 10 10n2 10 10n 13 10 16 10 6n2, 13 10 13 136

197

index of ancient sources xi.2–8 xi.8–15 xii:8–9 xii.9–10 xiii:1–4 1q14 (1QpMic) 1 10 4 11 1q21 3 1qs (Community Rule) 1.1–3 1:3 3:13 5:3 6:6 6:16 6:18 6:21–22 8:1 8:3–14 8:15 8:15–16 9:7 9:11 9:18 11 v v:2 v:9 v 17 xi:3–4 1Q28a (1qsa) 1:16 24 i,2 i.24 ii.3 1Q28b (1qsb) iii.22 3–4 4:26–27 1qh x (ii).14–17 31–32 1q29 (1QapocrMosesb)

10 13 13 10 16 13 6n2 13 45n2 126, 145, 147n2, 156, 157, 163 108 107 76 53n2 137n 53n 53n 53n 162 112 107 108 53n2 112 76 79n5 79n5 11n, 126n2 126 163 73 53n2 11 11n, 126n2 11n, 126n2 11n, 126n2 11n, 126n2 50n 73 6n2 6n2 73,120–122, 126

1 1:2 2 1qm (1q33) 10:6 10:6–8 xi 10 xi 11–12 1qha (Hodayot) 12 12:7 12:20–25 12:25–30 13:30 15:20–25 16 16:29 18:25–30 27–29 v:17–20 ix:20–23 x:15 x:32 xii xii (iv).10–11 xii:5 xii:5–6 xii:6–7 xii xii:13–16 xii:27–28 xxiii 160 xiv xv 6 xv:29–30 xvi xvi 37 xviii:22–23 xix:14–16 xxi 6 3q4 (3QpIsa) 4q4 (4QGend) 4q15 (4QExodd) 4q17 (4QExod-Levf) ii 1.ii.5–6 4q22 (4QpaleoExodm) 4q27 (4QNumb) 4q35 (4QDeuth) Frg 10 1

121 46 48n3 145 107 158n 136n2 163 125, 145 50n5 63 51n2, 51n4 51n3, 51n5 89, 94 51 51n2 89, 94 51 75 73 71 75, 125 125 75–76 6n2 75 119 72 125 119 72 136n2 76–77 136n2 72 75–76 136n2 74 72 136n2 160n4, 161 130 130, 137 44n2 165 165 135 173

198 4q37 (4QDeutj) 4q38 (4QDeutk1) 4q41 (4QDeutn) 4q44 (4QDeutq) 4q51 (4QSama) 4q53 (4QSamc) 4q57 (4QIsac) 4q58 (4QIsad) 4q71 (4QJerb) 4q71a (4QJerd) 4q83 (4QPsa) 4q84 (4QPsb) 4q86 (4QPsd) 4q87 (4QPse) 4q88 (4QPsf) 4q89 (4QPsg) 4q90 (4QPsh) 4q98 (QPsq) 4q106 (4QCanta) 4q107 (4QCantb) 4q121 (4QLXXNum) 4q158 (4qrpa) Frg 6 4q161–165 (4QpIsa–e) 4q161 (4QpIsa) 23 Frg 2–7 col. 2 Frg 8–10 col. 3 4q162 (4QpIsb) 1:3 ii.6 ii.10 4q163 (4QpIsac) 14:5 11:9 22 i 22:3 23:11 Frg 6–7 Frg 23 col. ii 4q164 (4QpIsad) 1:4–5 1:1–7 48:11 57:17 57:20 Frg 1 4q165 (4QpIsae)

index of ancient sources 131, 137 131, 137 131, 137 131, 137 145 147n2, 156 147n2 151 135, 137 135, 137 132n2 132n2 132n2 132n2 132n2 131 131 132n2 130 130 142n2 139n 135n2 160n4 6n2 161 161 86, 161 158 6n2 6n2, 13n 87, 147, 161 5n 88 126n2 126n2 87 161 161 33n3;52, 162 63, 73 47n2 88 93 93 162 162

4q166 (4QpHos) ii.3–5 4q167 (4QpHosb) 2:2 Frg 2 Frg 3 4q169 (4QpNah) 3–4 3–4 i:2 3–4 i.4–8 3–4 i:5 3–4 i:7–8 3–4 ii.8–9 3–4 iii:3 i.2 i.7 ii.2–4 iii.3 iii.7 ii.2–3 Frg 3–4 Frg 7 4q171 (4QpPsa) 1–10 ii:10–11 1–10 iii:7–8 1–10 iii:10–11 1–10 iii:12–13 1–10 iv:3 1–10 iv:14 4:26–27 i.17 i.18 i.26 iv.14 4q173 (4QpPsb) 1:7 4q174 (4QFlor) 1:7 1–2 i, 17 4q175 (4QTest) 14–20 4q176 (4QTanh) 4q177 (4QCatena a) 10 ii.12 12–13 i 2 4q212 (4QEnochg) Frg 1 f1V:23 v.23

13 5n 10n 10n 10 6n4 5 5n 10 13n3 16 6n2 6n2 6n2 6n2 6n2 10 13 13 62n4, 62n5 11 10n3, 16 16 16 16 10n3 114n 6n2 6n2 6n2 6n2 16 62n4 158 126n2 47, 135, 147n2, 156 46n4 136n2 6n2 130n4 88 94 88

199

index of ancient sources 4q213(b) 7–23 45n2 4q214 45 4q216 (4QJuba) 106, 169n, 171n 2:4–5 174n2 i3 172n3 i 11 171 ii 4–5 174 iv 4 171n 4q252–254a (4QCommGen a–d) 14, 139n3 4q256 (4qsb) 163 4q258 (4qsd) 163 4q266 (4qda) 5 i, 16 126n2 4q339 118, 126n 1 119 4q364 (4QReworked Pentateuchb) 106 4q365 (4QReworked Pentateuchc) 106 4q370 107 4q375 (4QapocrMosesa) 120–122, 126 1 i,5–9 120–121 4q376 (4QapocrMosesb) 73, 120–122, 126 1.1 48n3 1.3 49n ii 121 4q378 (4QapocrJosha) 45n 4q379 (4QPsalmsJoshua) 45n, 135 4q381 1:1–2 75 4q385b (4QPseudo-Ezekielc) 106 4q392 50n6 4q399 49n4 4q405 23 ii 52n 41 52n2, 54n3 xxiii:2 73 4q408 (4QapocrMosesc) 120–122, 126 1 48n4 3.5 48n4 11 48n4, 121

4q427 (4QHodayota) 7(ii):8–9 72 4q430 (4QHodayotd) 119n4 4q464 (4QExposistion on the Patriarchs) 139n3 4q511 (Shirb) 1 50n2 2 50n3 18 50n4 35:3–5 62 63 50n4 4q522 9 ii 45n 4q537–541 45n2 9 45n3 24 45n3 4q541 9:3–4 75n3 5q1 (5QDeut) 142n2 5q5 (5QPs) 131 5q9 (5QapocrJosh) 45 5q422 9.2.9–11 45n 11q5 (11QPsa) 132–134, 137 27:3–4 110n4 27:11 110, 158n2 ii 1–5 133 xv–xvii 133n2 xvi 133n2 xix 133n2 xxii 133n2 xxvi 133n2 xxvii 133 xxvii 2–11 169n4 11q6 (11QPsb) 132 11q13 (11QMelch) 147n2 21:15 158 ii 15–18 163 11qt17 9 vi 52n2, 54n3 ix 73 11q19 (11qta) 3 79 58:15–20 44n4 xv 79 xvi 4 117n li–lxvi 139n3, 140n3 liv 8–18 116n2 lxi 116n2

200

index of ancient sources

MurXII

145n5

cd (Cairo Damascus Document) 3:21 107–108 4:13 107 4:13–14 158 5:21 107 6:7 109 7:10 108 7:18 109 8:14 108 16:2–3 140n3

e

19:7 i:14 i:14–17 iii 13–14 iii, 21–iv, 1 iv, 3 iv:19 v, 20–vi, 2 vi, 2–5 viii:13 xix:25

107–108 6n2 6n2 79n5 126n2 126n2 6n2 120, 125 1 6n2 6n2

Classical Authors

Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3:128 3:162–171 3:163 3.163–166 3:166 3:170–171 3:179–187 3:185 3:214–215 3:216–217 3:216–218 3:218 3:8 §9 4:311 6:115 6:257 6:359–360 7:76 8:296 11:326–339 11:329–333 13:171–172 13:257–258 13:282–283 13:288–298 13:298 13:299–300 13:311 13:372 15:371 15:372–373

43n3 40n3 41n2, 53n5, 74 53n6 29n7 53n5 41n 53n5 41n4, 48n5 42n 53n5, 74 42n4 73n3 42n2 42n3 42n3 42n3 42n3 28n3 63 63 53n4 183 43 19n 53n4 43n, 61n 53n4 12n 53n4 53n4

15:378 15:404–407 17:346 18:11 18:18 18:90–93 20:6–14 Jewish War 1:68–69 1:78 2:113 2:119 2:128 2:136 2:158–160 2:567 3:11 5:145 5:233–234 6:389 Against Apion 1:41 1:42 1:183–204 2:185–188 2:193–198 Life of Flavius Josephus 1:10 Gregory of Nyssa Life of Moses 2:112–113 2:122–130

53n4 56n 53n4 53n4 53n4 56n 56n 43n, 61n 53 53 53n4 48n4 52n6 53 53n4 53n4 53 40n3 43n5 60n4 142 74n6 40n2 40n2 53

41n 41n

201

index of ancient sources Philo of Alexandria Special Laws 1:84–92

f

41n

New Testament Scriptures

Matthew 7:15

115

Hebrews 1:5 1:13 2:9 2:10–15 2:12–13 4:14 4:14–16 10:19–25

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

g

Revelations 1:6 2:17 3:5 3:11–12 5:10 20:6 21:9–2

175 175

34n 34 34 34 34n 34n 34

Targum

Septuagint Isa 3:17 Ps.-Jonathan Exod 28:30 35:27

h

12 13

150

Neofiti Exod 28:18 Isaiah 12:4

36n 89

35n2 29n7

Rabbinic Literature

Mishnah Sotah 9:12 Tosefta Sanhedrin 3:4 Aboda Zara 1:19 Sotah 9:12 9.13 13:2–3

26n2, 27n2

26n4 33n2 26 27 26n3, 28n

Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 63a Pesachim 112a Sanhedrin 97b Sotah 48b Ta’anit 29a Yoma 21b

45n

143 33n2 26n2 31n 27, 74

202

index of ancient sources

Yoma (cont.) 73b Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:1 2c Horayoth 3:2 47c Makkot 2:6 32a Kiddushin 4.1 65b Sotah 9:13 24b Ta’anit 2:1 65a

i

26n

33n2 33 27n 27n 27n 27n 28n 28n 26n4, 27n2 27n2

Yoma 7:3 Midrash Exodus Rabbah 15:21 Leviticus Rabbah 19:6 Numbers Rabbah 15:10 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 11:5–29 Peskita de-Rav Kahana 18

26n

33n3 31n 27n 33n2 33n3

Tefillin MurPhyl 34SePhyl

141

Joseph and Aseneth 2:2–20 3:6 5:4–7 6:1–8 6:12–13 18

34n 34n 34n 34n 34n 34n

27n 27n

Ancient Near Eastern Literature

Chronicle of Nabonidus iii.9–11 17n Letters of Aristeas 96 96–99 97–99

36n5 74n7 37n

Index of Subjects 2Baruch 30–32 3Baruch 35, 35n Arrogants, The 8 Artificial Forms 83–96 1QIsaa 88–94 Masoretic Text 86–87 Authority 69–71, 115–127, 134–137, 142– 143 Circle of the Masoretic Text

141

Daniel 66–67, 106n3 Deutero-Isaiah 18–20 Deuteronomistic History 167–168, 175– 179 Deuteronomy 116–118, 172–175 Dichotomy 5–7 Divination Priestly 21–57, 22n Word of yhwh 103–105 Dream Interpretation 64–65

Jubilees 167–188 Prophets Discussed 179–187 Prophets in 168–169 Prophet Instruction 169–175 View of History 175–179 Legitimation 19–20 Letter of Aristeas 36–37 Levi 68n, 180–181 Lion, The Angry 5 List of False Prophets 118–119 Manasseh 7, 7n2 Marduk 17 Man of the Lie 10n3 Matres Lectionis 149 Mezuzot 131 Nabonidus 17–18 Nicknames 5–7, 8n Nissenen 62–63, 65 Orthography

Edict of Cyrus 16–17 Edom/Edomite 183–184, 184–185 Enoch 65–66 Ephraim 7, 7n2, 10 Esau 182 Exegete 58–82 Habakkuk 4–5, 6n Hasmoneans 10, 11, 11n3, 15 Hebrews, Epistle to 77–78 Hodayot 70–72, 119–120, 125 Impurity 10n4 Idiolect 85 Isaiah 7–8, 144–166, 170–172, 177–178 Community us of 158–163 Interpreters of Smooth Things 6n2, 12– 13 Jaddus 63–64 Jassen 69 Joseph and Aseneth Joshua 68–69

34–35, 34n3

86

Pesharim 4–20, 59–61, 130n4, 136 Pesher Habakkuk 60 Philistines 185–187 Priest 9, 61–63, 112–113 Ascension of 78–81 Drunk 8–9 High 11n2 Impious see Priest, Wicked Marduk 16–20 Wicked 10n, 10–13, 12n Priestly Oracles 23–57 Dead Sea Scrolls 43–55 First Temple Period 23n2 Hebrew Bible 23–26 Josephus 40–43 Rabbinic Literature 26–33 Second Temple Period 34–39 Prophecy 21–57, 58–82, 97–114, 122–123, 168– 188 Cultic 23n False 13, 123–124 Qumran 109–112, 120–122

204 Prophet 21n2, 97–114 False 26n3, 115–127 Psalms 175, 177 Pseudo-Philo 29–30 Pseudepigrapha 31n4 p Source 24–25 Revelation 21–57, 58–82 Heavenly Mysteries 72–75 Rewritten Scripture 139–140, 142–143 Samaritans 14–142, 142 Scoffer, The 8 Scrolls Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls 132n2–6, 133n Hodayot 119–120 Isaiah 83–97, 144–166 Jubilees 167–188 Liturgical 130–133 Scripture 129–130, 139–140 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 78–81 Temple 116–118 Shamir 26, 26n3 Sin 13 Avarice 10 Cultic 12–15 Sitz im Leben 19 Sobriquets see Names, Nicknames Stones Oracular see Stones, Illuminating Illuminating 21–57

index of subjects Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 35, 35n2 Teacher Ascension to Heaven 7677 Righteous, of 12, 13, 15, 62–63, 97–114 Teachings Commission to Teach 75–76 False see Prophesy, False Tefillin 131n Texts Authoritative 128–143 Cairo Document 107–108, 125 Damascus Document 6n3, 119–120 Prophetic 97–114 Qumran 106–107, 126–127, 135–137 Textual Insertions 152–157 Textual Plurality 137–139 Textual Variants 150–152, 157–158 Time End of 15–16 Three Traps of Belial 11 Urim and Thummim 21–57 Masoretic Text 24, 24n lxx 24 Verse Account

17–18

Wine 8 Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira Zadok 62 Zechariah 35–36, 68–69

37–38