The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28–30 May, 2013 9789004384231, 9004384235

Citation preview

The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls

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 127

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

The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28–30 May, 2013

Edited by

Ruth A. Clements Menahem Kister Michael Segal

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated  Literature. International Symposium (14th : 2013 : Hebrew University of  Jerusalem), author. | Clements, Ruth, editor. | Kister, Menahem, editor. |  Segal, Michael, 1972– editor. Title: The religious worldviews reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls :  proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center  for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 28–30  May, 2013 / edited by Ruth A. Clements, Menahem Kister, Michael Segal. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2018] | Series: Studies on the texts  of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; volume 127 |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018035515 (print) | LCCN 2018044942 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004384231 (Ebook) | ISBN 9789004384224 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Dead Sea scrolls—Congresses. | Judaism—History—Post-exilic  period, 586 B.C.–210 A.D.—Congresses. | Excavations (Archaeology)—West  Bank—Qumran Site—Congresses. | Qumran Site (West  Bank)—Antiquities—Congresses. Classification: LCC BM487 (ebook) | LCC BM487 .O75 2013 (print) |  DDC 296.1/55—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018035515

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill.” See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9962 isbn 978-90-04-38422-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-38423-1 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 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 Preface VII Abbreviations ix List of Contributors xiii An Investigation into the Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls 1 Jonathan Ben-Dov Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls 25 John J. Collins Concealing and Revealing in the Ideology of the Qumran Community 48 Devorah Dimant Between Divine Justice and Doxology: Images of Heaven in the Dead Sea Scrolls 63 Beate Ego The Notion of the Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Texts of the Early Jesus Movement 83 Jörg Frey Qumran, Jubilees, and the Jewish Dimensions of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 103 Menahem Kister The Divine Name in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in New Testament Writings 140 Hermann Lichtenberger God, Gods, and Godhead in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 161 Noam Mizrahi Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot 193 Carol A. Newsom Interpreting History in Qumran Texts 212 Michael Segal

vi

Contents

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah 245 Loren T. Stuckenbruck Two Creations for One Nation: Apocalyptic Worldviews in Jubilees and Qumran Writings 264 Cana Werman Index of Modern Authors 285 Index of Ancient Sources 289

Preface The theme of the Fourteenth International Orion Symposium, “Religious Worldviews in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” had its genesis in the realization that the theological thought-worlds reflected in the scrolls corpus continue to represent an underexplored area of study. The scrolls offer a window onto the rich religious landscape of Judaism in the Second Temple period. Study of the scrolls in conjunction with other ancient writings allows the opportunity to refine our understanding, both of the religious ideologies reflected in the scrolls themselves, and of the wider social and religious contexts within which these texts and traditions took shape. In the Fourteenth Orion Symposium, scholars from Israel, Europe, and North America addressed broad themes (dualism, determinism, election, covenant, moral agency); more specific religious concepts within individual scrolls (notions of heaven, the spirit, apocalyptic); and particular exegetical or interpretive problems that point to theological reflectiveness on the part of the scrolls community. The papers collected here draw on a variety of methodological perspectives, including linguistic and literary analyses, sociology and memory studies. The focus of the articles is first and foremost on the texts themselves, elucidating beliefs, aspects of religious experience, and broader themes reflected in the scrolls and in related writings. The articles explore dualism and esoteric knowledge, eschatology and covenant, the nature of the divine, development of the self, the religious framing of history, and more; as well as connections between concepts expressed in the Qumran corpus and in later Jewish and Christian literature. The religious worldviews reflected in the Scrolls are part and parcel of the ideological complex of Second Temple Judaism, and the analysis of these texts is essential for the reconstruction of its many facets. Taken together, these studies indicate the breadth and depth of theological reflection in the Second Temple period. We would like to thank the Orion Foundation, the Sir Zelman Cowen Universities Fund, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for their generous support of the Fourteenth Orion Symposium as well as the ongoing work of the Orion Center, including the present volume. We extend our appreciation to the Orion Center staff, headed by Ms. Ariella Amir, which was responsible for the efficient running of the symposium; and to Orion research assistant, Ms. Shiran Shevah, for her editorial assistance with the volume. The editors are grateful to George Brooke for accepting the volume into the series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, and to Marjolein

viii

Preface

Van Zuylen and Maaike Langerak of Brill Academic Publishers, for guiding the volume through production. Ruth A. Clements Menahem Kister Michael Segal

Jerusalem 5778 // 2018

Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity ANRW  Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BJS Brown Judaic Studies BThS Biblisch-Theologische Studien BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CQS Companion to the Qumran Scrolls CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CrStHB Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2012 DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DSSEL Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2006 DSSSE Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998 EDSS Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

x

Abbreviations

FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FB Forschung zur Bibel FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HAL Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 2004 HALOT Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. 2-volume Study Edition, 2001 HBS Herders biblische Studien HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HThKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JA Journal Asiatique JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism: Supplement Series JAGNES Journal of the Association of Graduates in Near Eastern Studies JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series LHB/OTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies NovT Novum Testamentum NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

Abbreviations

xi

OTP  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–1985 PL Patrologia Latina [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864 PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by T. Klauser et al. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950– RB Revue biblique REJ Revue des études juives RevQ Revue de Qumrân RVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum = Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TBNJCT Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions TDOT  Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Tr. J. T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study THAT Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–1976 THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament TRE  Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Muller. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977– TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur UF Ugarit-Forschungen VF Verkündigung und Forschung VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements

xii WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZNW ZTK

Abbreviations Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Contributors Jonathan Ben-Dov The University of Haifa John J. Collins Yale University Devorah Dimant The University of Haifa Beate Ego Ruhr-University Bochum Jörg Frey The University of Zürich Menahem Kister The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hermann Lichtenberger The Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen Noam Mizrahi Tel Aviv University Carol A. Newsom Emory University Michael Segal The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Loren T. Stuckenbruck Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich Cana Werman Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

An Investigation into the Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls Jonathan Ben-Dov Numerous studies have underscored the continuity of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the biblical tradition. This continuity has become a central scholarly construct in the study of Second Temple literature, taking shape in various formulations which all revolve around the allocation of authority to texts. Scholars investigate the nature of the authority invested in the Torah of Moses and other writings known today as parts of the Hebrew Bible. They ask whether similar writings, sometimes called parabiblical, possess the same kind of authority; and if not, what kind of authority they do hold. This debate is especially pertinent for the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature because of the abundance of texts which look like biblical books and sometimes even compete directly with them as sources of authority. The concept of “continuity” between the classical writings and their newly authored counterparts is therefore crucial for evaluating the authority of the respective writings. The concept of continuity, however, is rather elusive and may be misleading. In this paper I wish to reflect on this concept and expose several different implications which arise from it. I will make use of a historiographical conceptual framework known as “the invention of tradition,” articulated by historian Eric Hobsbawm, which offers critical tools for unpacking cases of alleged continuity. I will 1) survey current ideas about the continuity of the biblical tradition; 2) briefly describe Hobsbawm’s conceptual framework; 3) critically examine cases of misunderstood continuity between the Bible and sectarian halakhah; and finally, 4) address a case where alleged continuity has mistakenly been construed: the history of the 364-day calendar. What I would like to stress is that even those scholars who endorse continuity and defy canonical divisions need to be aware of potential pitfalls in the application of their theory. 1

Continuity: A Survey of Research

For the sake of convenience, let me set out two opposing opinions concerning continuity with the biblical tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Menahem Kister, in a programmatic article on the phenomenon of biblical interpretation, sees the scrolls as forerunners of the phenomenon of “biblical

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_002

2

Ben-Dov

interpretation.”1 According to him, while earlier tradition proceeded by way of paraphrasing the Bible, the presence of pesharim at Qumran denotes a closure of the biblical base text. Further, Qumran writings take part in a chain of subsequent exegetical writings, which all share the distinctive traits of a stable tradition of postbiblical interpretation. Thus, the same verse might be alluded to in similar ways by Qumran pesharim and later by Philo of Alexandria, Paul, and/or rabbinic midrashim. Kister thus concludes that Qumran interpretation constitutes an initial step following the stabilization of a biblical corpus. Kister thus reinforces the use of canonical categories: biblical literature existed as such and was being interpreted in various ways. In contrast, in a recent study, Hindy Najman—representative of many other authors—calls for annulling the canonical boundaries, endorsing instead a notion of the “generative vitality” of the classical texts.2 The great figures of the past, like Moses, Enoch, and David, retain an authoritative power which generates ongoing authorial activity. All of the texts connected with a primordial figure constitute links in the same chain, or rather nodes on the same continuum. While later canonical lists marginalized some of these writings, this act of marginalization is foreign to the thought of readers in the Second Temple period, who assigned equal authority to all links in the chain. In general, Najman warns against reading the rewritten Bible texts forwards or backwards; i.e., reading them in a way which is aimed at the outset at placing them in the canonical continuum of either Jewish or Christian tradition. Many scholars and studies take positions along the imaginary axis drawn here, emphasizing either the continuity or the disruption in Jewish literary creativity of the Second Temple period. The present survey draws samples from the vast scholarly discussion of this axis. It has been pointed out that the same mechanisms of composition and redaction which underlie the books of the Hebrew Bible in fact also served for later texts. As the final redaction stage of some HB texts is now considered to have taken place late in the Hellenistic period, the time gap between those two corpora has accordingly narrowed down, and could be altogether annulled.3 1  M. Kister, “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implications,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996, ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 101–11. 2  H. Najman, “The Vitality of Scripture Within and Beyond the ‘Canon,’” JSJ 43 (2012): 497–518. 3  This claim was eloquently made by C. Hempel, “The Emerging Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Common Milieu,” in eadem, The Qumran Rule Texts in Context, TSAJ 154 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 231–99, esp. 285–99. See also the thematic issue of Dead Sea Discoveries, “The

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

3

These mechanisms continued in use not only in the creation of parabiblical texts but also in the creation of free-standing sectarian literature.4 Ultimately, some foundational texts from Qumran claim for themselves an authority similar to that accorded to biblical books, albeit in different ways: the Temple Scroll claims for itself theonymous attribution,5 while Serekh Ha-Yaḥad rests on the authority of the anonymous sectarian leader. In the pesharim, the Moreh is an inspired prophet, on a par with figures like Joshua and Jeremiah.6 Through a different lens, it can be seen that the stream of authority worked both ways. Not only were later texts legitimized through the adoption and adaptation of biblical composition techniques, but the opposite also obtained: the very reuse of earlier, “biblical” writings—either in a rewritten form or in a “biblicized narrative”—lent authority to the biblical writings themselves.7 That is, the very canonical status of core biblical texts was in continuous construction during the Second Temple period, with rewritten Bible being one of the tools for this construction. Yet other scholars have paid attention to the continuity of biblical schools of thought in later writings. One such example is the seeming continuity of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible,” ed. R. G. Kratz and M. Popović, DSD 20/3 (2013); and especially R. G. Kratz, “Der Penal Code und das Verhältnis von Serekh ha-Yachad (S) und Damaskusschrift (D),” RevQ 25/2 (2011): 199–227; G. J. Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. G. Campbell (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 26–42. 4  For these biblical mechanisms, see the convenient summary in D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 57–101; for their persistence at Qumran see Kratz, “Der Penal Code”; Hempel, “The Emerging Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls”; M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28. 5  For this term, see B. M. Levinson, A More Perfect Torah: At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll, CrStHB 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 14. 6  F. García Martínez, “Beyond the Sectarian Divide: The ‘Voice of the Teacher’ as an AuthorityConferring Strategy in some Qumran Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. S. Metso et al., STDJ 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 227–44. 7  For the act of rewriting as lending authority to the earlier texts, see 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: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002), 31–40. Tzvi Novick has argued that the evocation of Genesis 22 in Tobit 6 constitutes neither merely an allusion nor an echo. That is, this usage neither adds to the design of the plot nor frames the message of Tobit in itself; rather, it witnesses to the authority of the biblical text, insofar as the biblical paradigm is imposed on the later narrative. See T. Novick, “Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22,” JBL 126 (2007): 755–64.

4

Ben-Dov

deuteronomistic thought, which raises the question whether it is relevant to speak of deuteronomists in the late Second Temple period.8 On the other side of the spectrum, the Israeli scholars Israel Knohl and Shlomo Naeh have traced the way that sectarian and rabbinic legists place themselves on the biblical map of ideas, the former identifying with Priestly ideals while the latter identify with Deuteronomy.9 While Odil Steck seems to imply the ongoing existence of a deuteronomistic school into the late period, Knohl and Naeh operate with the conception that the biblical schools no longer existed, and that later Jewish legists attuned themselves to one of the earlier schools as a point of orientation. Stressing the element of continuity between “biblical literature” and “rewritten Bible,” recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls is wary of even using the word “Bible” or the adjective “biblical.” The term “Bible” is heavily loaded, with a long and winding theological history in both Jewish and Christian traditions; hence, some would prefer not to project this heavy burden upon the usage of books like Deuteronomy and Psalms in the second–first centuries BCE.10 The adjective “authoritative,” with the somewhat cumbersome “authoritative writings,” is used as a replacement.11 On the other hand, scholars emphasizing the canonical divide, even partly so, claim that an authoritative collection of earlier writings did exist, possibly as early as the Persian period but certainly by the second century BCE, which is often referred to by the Hebrew word ‫ספר‬.12 The exact contents of this collection—i.e., how many books, or whether any specific book was contained in the collection or not, or even what was the exact textual shape of the sacred book—is not at issue here, but rather the very existence of a corpus of authoritative books. In the words of Eibert Tigchelaar:13 8  See O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum, WMANT 23 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); see the recent assessment by K. Finsterbusch, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Deuteronomistic Movement,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. N. Dávid et al., FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 143–54. 9  I. Knohl and S. Naeh, “Miluim and Kippurim,” Tarbiz 62/1 (1993): 17–44 (in Hebrew); and see Naeh, “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Script of the Torah Differently from the Authorized Reading?” Tarbiz 61/3–4 (1992): 401–48 (in Hebrew). 10  See especially K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, “Introduction,” and G. Boccaccini, “Is Biblical Literature Still a Useful Term in Scholarship?” in What is Bible?, ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), xi–xx and 41–51, respectively. 11  E.g., M. Popović, ed., Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 12  M. Segal, “Biblical Interpretation—Yes and No,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, What is Bible?, 63–80. 13  E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, ed. J. Frey et al., WUNT 1/246 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 85–101 (85).

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

5

We may call those manuscripts “biblical” or “canonical” which contain the text (or part of the text) of one or more books or compositions that would later be included in Tanakh. It is clear from quotations and commentaries within the corpus that most of those “biblical” texts had a special position for those who composed other texts that are found in the corpus. However, many of the characteristics of the later canon of biblical books should not anachronistically be assumed for this corpus of Dead Sea Scrolls from the period around the turn of the era. Shemaryahu Talmon has typically analyzed the concept of continuity from a conceptual point of view. In his seminal article, “Between the Bible and the Mishna,” he declared:14 (Proto-)rabbinic Jewry viewed the biblical era as a closed chapter and their own times as being profoundly different from the preceding age. In contradistinction, the Covenanters perceived themselves as standing within the orbit of the biblical era and their community as the rejuvenated embodiment of biblical Israel: they were the “righteous remnant” whom God had spared when he delivered Judah and Jerusalem to the sword of the Babylonians; they were divinely appointed to reconstitute Israel of old in the present (CD i 1ff.) and to write the next chapter in the yet ongoing history of the biblical people. The above-noted elements lend the scrolls a biblical aura, creating the impression that the priestly-oriented Qumran community is the true heir of the biblical priesthood, and that its writings stand side by side with, or even supersede, the inherited holy writings that came to be called “Bible.” However, in the same article, Talmon recognizes the ideological drive behind this pronounced “biblicity”: The conceptual proclivity to identify with and present themselves as biblical Israel finds a salient expression in the socioreligious vocabulary of the ‫יחד‬.15

14  S. Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishna,” in idem, The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 11–52 (25). 15  Talmon, “Between Bible and Mishna,” 41. On p. 44, Talmon noted several scholars, early on in Qumran scholarship, who “interpret this circumstance [i.e., similarity of vocabulary and imagery between the scrolls and biblical literature, J.B.D.] as revealing a real historical connection, or else a parallelism between the ‫ יחד‬and the community of returnees of which the biblical book speaks.” Talmon dismisses these attempts as unsubstantiated.

6

Ben-Dov

In this latter statement Talmon opines that this apparent continuity with biblical writings should not be taken “at face value,”16 but is rather a constructed, or better, an invented continuity. This is important to keep in mind, since in some cases the notion of continuity from the Bible to the yaḥad is taken as a point of departure for historical deductions. Such is the case when one reads back into biblical literature notions that are found only at Qumran and in the Book of Jubilees. This methodology is problematic, as I discuss below. 2

Theoretical Considerations

Recent historiographical studies have taught us not to accept historical statements and manifestations at face value. How should we conceive of the crea­ tion of new “biblical” texts, and similarly of the utter commitment to biblical paradigms, at Qumran? Do these denote an uninterrupted proximity to the Bible, or rather do they reflect an invented tradition of commitment to the classics? The fact that some kind of biblical corpus existed as authoritative did not preclude sectarian writers from interfering in its contents. On the contrary, sectarian writers constantly updated the Bible by expansion or rewriting. This is the canonical paradox, put forward by Bernard Levinson: Canon is not a barrier to innovation but rather a catalyst for it.17 If a piece of literature is unimportant, nobody cares to update it; in contrast, a piece of meaningful and authoritative literature like the Torah must be constantly updated, as part of the process of maintaining its authority. While in earlier generations, the work of updating authoritative literature was carried out by reworking or paraphrasing earlier texts, in other cases and in later periods it manifested itself by the interpretation of scripture “from the outside.” The fact that the yaḥad produced rewritten editions of the Bible does not suggest a diminished canonical awareness: on the contrary—it stands as a marker of the group’s indebtedness towards biblical literature as an authoritative collection. As noted at the outset, in the present paper I utilize Hobsbawm’s conceptual framework, “the invention of tradition,” which addresses the problem of bridging the time gaps between diverse diachronic manifestations of seemingly the 16  Talmon, “Between Bible and Mishna,” 45. 17  B. M. Levinson, “ ‘ You Must Not Add Anything to what I Command You’: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel,” Numen 50 (2003): 1–51; idem, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). See earlier, M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

7

same phenomenon.18 Hobsbawm asserted that, “ ‘traditions’ which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”19 He pointed out that a society, or a social or cultural institution, may present itself as the manifestation of an old and revered establishment, while in fact it is an artificial revival of that institution, carefully designed to reflect it in order to anchor a new claim to power. While “the object and characteristic of ‘traditions,’ including invented ones, is invariance,”20 it is the historian’s task to expose the variability behind the alleged stability. Invented traditions are often “governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature,” because the ritual harnesses the old institutions to the new setting. Importantly, [O]bjects or practices are liberated for symbolic and ritual use when no longer fettered by practical use. The spurs of cavalry officers’ dress uniforms are more important for “tradition” when there are no horses,… the wigs of lawyers could hardly acquire their modern significance until other people stopped wearing wigs.”21 Or, put differently, “Where the old ways are alive, traditions need be neither revived nor invented.”22 Hobsbawm intended his concept of invented tradition to be used in relation to the modern age, especially for developments since the French Revolution; this watershed introduced new concepts into world history, mainly pertaining to nations and nationality, which facilitated the mechanisms for the invention of tradition.23 However, there is nothing in this method to overrule in principle its application with regard to antiquity.24 One such attempt has been carried out by Tessa Rajak, who applied this framework to the ideology

18  E. Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–14. 19  Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” 1. 20  Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” 2. 21  Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” 4. 22  Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” 8. 23  Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” 9–14. 24  For a theoretical discussion of this possibility, and for an application of Hobsbawm’s idea to the discipline of Jewish history, see A. Baumgarten and M. Rustow, “Judaism and Tradition: Continuity, Change, and Innovation,” in Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History, ed. R. S. Boustan, O. Kosansky, and M. Rustow (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 207–37.

8

Ben-Dov

of the Hasmonean Kingdom and the book of 1 Maccabees in particular.25 First Maccabees is a particularly good example for such a project, since it takes pains to depict the Judean history of the second century BCE as the natural continuation of the Deuteronomistic History.26 It employs historiographical patterns similar to those that prevail in the books of Kings, including the synchronistic formulas and the concluding reports that summarize the reigns of various rulers (e.g., 1 Macc 7:50; 9:19–22; 13:25; 16:23–24). It uses biblical stories and figures as prototypes for the design of new narratives; and above all, it was written in Hebrew rather than in Aramaic or Greek.27 The landscape of Second Temple Judaism is often evaluated as a battleground over the continuity of the biblical tradition: who are the true heirs of biblical religion—the priestly-oriented sectaries or their opponents, the Pharisees?28 According to a common view, Second Temple priestly traditions—which include those of the Sadducees and the yaḥad—constitute sequels to the Priestly biblical chain, while the Pharisees represent a persistent attempt to eradicate that tradition.29 This kind of argument might be 25  T. Rajak, “Hasmonaean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,” in eadem, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, AGJU 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2001 [orig. publ. 1996]), 39–60. Rajak highlights two ideological points of continuity: 1) kingship, which in 1 Maccabees has a negative value (according to her interpretation of Judas’s letter to Rome), reflecting the negative attitude towards kingship in Deuteronomy 17; and 2) the forced circumcision of the Idumeans, which although unattested in the Bible, signaled, according to Rajak an enactment of the biblical idea of the purification of the Land. 26  H. Lichtenberger, “History-Writing and History-Telling in First and Second Maccabees,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity, ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, and B. G. Wold, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 95–110, esp. 98–102; U. Rappaport, 1 Maccabees (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2004), 26–35 (in Hebrew). 27  Rappaport, 1 Maccabees, 9–10 (see bibliography cited there). On the use of Hebrew for Jewish writings in the second–first centuries BCE, see S. Schwartz, “Language, Power, and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” Past and Present 148 (1995): 3–47; contrast D. Goodblatt, “Constructing Jewish Nationalism: The Hebrew Language,” in idem, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 49–70. 28  Consider for example the chapter entitled, “The True Traditionalists,” in R. T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 182–86. 29  This claim has not been sounded as such in research, but a rather similar claim is made by R. Elior, Memory and Oblivion: The Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: Van Leer, 2009) (in Hebrew). Chapter 9 of Elior’s book, called “Between Myth and History,” opens with a statement that, “… according to the priests who wrote … the past, all of the patrilineal sacred priestly dynasty is an historical fact which is consistently documented in literature. This entity … is genetically linked from generation to generation …” (279; my translation [J.B.D.]). From this statement, it seems that according to Elior, the genetic dynasty exists only in the minds of the scrolls’ authors (“according to the priests”); i.e., no claim is made about actual historical reality (note the frequent use of the adjective

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

9

appropriate to the field of halakhah, where indeed the sectarian legislation is closer to the biblical Priestly laws in both style and content. However, even here much nuancing is required, and straightforward continuity between the two corpora cannot simply be assumed.30 According to the argumentation presented here, the attempt to assess who is the real heir misses the point: all factions in the postbiblical era made attempts to associate themselves with the ancient sources of authority, while at the same time propagating new sets of values. In other words, as historians we should not be led to believe the claims made by our historical objects of study. Rather, we should be able to view the larger picture and evaluate their claims critically. 3

Continuities in Halakhah Critically Examined

My point of departure for this examination could be the following quote from the recent work by Vered Noam on the laws of impurity:31 In contrast to the tannaitic halakhah, the Qumranic halakhah on the impurity of the dead does not reflect a whole new halakhic edifice. It is a rather conservative halakhah, which does not go far from the basic sense of scripture. Deviations from scripture are clearly discerned on the background of their well-established biblical foundation.

“imagined” in this chapter, as well as p. 280, “in the mind of its authors”). However, somewhere in the course of chapter 9, the border between myth and reality weakens, as the imagined quality of the dynasty is obfuscated; thus, the extensive debates of the Second Temple period indicate “a living pulse, and an entity in reality” (p. 280). As the thrust of this chapter turns against those who seek to “forget and make forgotten” (p. 281)—i.e., the Pharisees and later the rabbis—Elior’s book eventually makes a very clear statement that the sectarian priests carry the real memory, while their opponents sought to obliterate it. 30  A sophisticated attempt to trace the history of sectarian halakhah was made by A. Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis, Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), esp. 80–95. See further on this attempt below. Vered Noam speaks of a “tannaitic revolution”; i.e., according to her, the sectaries stayed closer to biblical law while the early Tannaim revolutionized it. See V. Noam, From Qumran to the Tannaitic Revolution (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010) (in Hebrew); eadem, “Stringency in Qumran: A Reassessment,” JSJ 40 (2009): 342–55. 31  Noam, From Qumran, 320; translations from this book are my own. While in this quotation Noam underscored the continuity of Qumran halakhah with the biblical laws, elsewhere in her book she gives ample evidence of how this continuity should not be taken at face value and could often be problematized (e.g., From Qumran, 324–30).

10

Ben-Dov

Indeed, sectarian stringency evinces the continuity between biblical Priestly law and Qumran. Not only are the materials of the Qumranic system biblical materials, but the matrix of reasoning which underlies the system follows that of the biblical Priestly writers. Quite often, when the biblical Vorlage is too laconic to supply a full halakhic solution, sectarian legists fill the gaps using perfectly biblical-looking reasoning. This habit is often contrasted with tannaitic halakhah of two or three or even four centuries later, which frequently reflects wide-ranging ideological divergences away from the biblical stance. The sectarian system does not possess the advanced hermeneutical and judiciary tools which, in time, would allow the rabbis to produce their own innovative system.32 Hence, in Talmon’s terms, Qumran halakhah continues the biblical system. Adapting Hobsbawm’s perspective to our period and corpora, however, allows a lot more, in terms of this question, to be discovered below the surface level. One such study was initiated by Adiel Schremer and carried further by Aharon Shemesh.33 Schremer investigated the commitment of various Second Temple era sects to scripture versus their commitment to tradition (παράδοσις). This was a central bone of contention at the time, attested in various sources (Matt 15:1–9; Josephus, Ant.13.10.6, etc.), which assert that the Pharisees follow the tradition of their elders while other groups adhere to scripture. Schremer, however, reached the conclusion that notwithstanding its declared ideology, sectarian halakhah had also originally been based on an antique layer of tradition, which preceded the sectarian divide and was common to all Jewish sects.34 According to Schremer, Priestly thinkers invented the idea that hala­khah should be based on scripture rather than on tradition, as we find expressed in CD 15:9 ‫[וב]אל ̇תו̇ ̇ר ̇ת משה‬ ֯ ‫לש‬ ̇ “to retu[rn]to the Torah of Moses.” This idea had originally been sectarian but was subsequently adopted by the Pharisees and the rabbis. While Schremer’s historical reconstruction might not be fully 32  For an expansion of this point see Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making, esp. 95–98. 33  A. Schremer, “ ‘They Did Not Read in the Sealed Book’: Qumran Halakhic Revolution and the Emergence of Torah Study in Second Temple Judaism,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhva in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999, ed. D. Goodblatt et al., STDJ 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 105–26; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making, 95–98; idem, “The History of the Halakhic Concept ‫פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת‬,” Tarbiz 80/4 (2012): 481–505, esp. 504–5 (in Hebrew). 34  This historical reconstruction was corroborated in some respects by V. Noam, “Qumranic Exegesis and Rabbinic Midrash: Common Interpretations and Implied Polemics,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 7, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009): 71–98 (in Hebrew).

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

11

provable, it nevertheless offers new ways to question the conventional perception of continuity between the Bible and Second Temple thought. Even without recourse to such far-reaching hypotheses, a critical examination of Qumranic halakhah will reveal its detachment from biblical law. In sectarian halakhah, one encounters signs of reflectivity and exegetical considerations that exceed the sort of reasoning employed in the Torah, and that march the juridical discourse into unexplored land. I cite here one example in which the sectarian halakhic ruling deliberately changes a law from the Torah; the motivation seems to have been the wish to create a unified, across-theboard ruling, smoothing out the inconsistency of the pentateuchal law codes. Other examples with a similar modus operandi can be cited, but their elaboration exceeds the scope of the present article. The Temple Scroll dictates the exclusion of various impure individuals from Jerusalem (“the Temple city”) and/or from all cities in the country.35 The scroll reads (11QTa 48:14–17):36 ‫ובכול עיר ועיר תעשו מקומות למנוגעים בצרעת ובנגע ובנתק אשר לוא יבואו‬ ‫לעריכמה וטמאום וגם לזבים ולנשים בהיותמה בנידת טמאתמה ובלדתמה אשר לוא‬ ‫יטמאו בנדת טמאתם‬

And in every city you shall allot places for those afflicted with leprosy or with plague or with scab, who may not enter your cities and defile them, and also for those who have a discharge, and for women during their menstrual uncleanness and after giving birth, so that they may not defile in their midst with their menstrual uncleanness. According to this law, the person with a discharge, the leper, the menstruating woman, and the woman after labor are all forbidden to stay within any city.37 In contrast, the same text tells us that one who has been defiled by a corpse is barred only from the Temple city, but still allowed to dwell in other cities (11QTa 45:17). This distinction between impurities is not self-evident, inasmuch as it contradicts the explicit scriptural law in Num 5:2, which excludes from the cities even one who is affected by corpse impurity: ‫צו את בני ישראל וישלחו‬ 35  I follow the analysis by Noam, From Qumran, 170–90, where one may find references to earlier literature. Dissenting opinions will be mentioned below where relevant. 36  Translations of the Temple Scroll (11Q19) follow Y. Yadin (as represented digitally in the DSSEL). Bible translations follow NJPS. 37  J. Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 501–23 suggested that the man with a discharge and the menstruating woman are not expelled from the cities altogether, but only assigned places within them. But see Noam’s answer in From Qumran, 168 n. 463.

12

Ben-Dov

‫“ מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש‬Command the Israelites to put out of the camp everyone who is leprous, or has a discharge, and everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse.” Admittedly the biblical tradition is itself inconsistent in this regard, since Num 5:2 is exceedingly stringent (compare, for example, Num 19:13, 20). The conflict is solved in the Temple Scroll by a lenient ruling for corpse impurity, in accord with Numbers 19 and against the anomalous ruling of Numbers 5. A stringent ruling is applied also to the laboring woman (48:16); in the Temple Scroll, she is expelled from all cities, while in Lev 12:4 she is expelled only from the Temple. Overall, the attitudes to various impurities in the Pentateuch are not entirely consistent; hence, the sectarian legists were forced to redraw the board, tracing new judiciary guidelines. Precisely what these guidelines are is not easy to determine. Kister claimed that the Qumran legists construct uniform rules for explaining the term ‫ ;מחנה‬it is construed as “the Temple city” whenever the laws of sacrifices are at stake (‫)דיני קדשים‬, and as “any city” in all other legal matters.38 In contrast, Noam argued that the classification of the leper, the man with discharge, and the menstruating and laboring women in a single category, and the exclusion of the person with corpse impurity from that category, are motivated by the desire to create a unified law for all the impurities mentioned in Leviticus 11–14. Since corpse impurity is not dealt with in Leviticus, the Temple Scroll treats this issue separately, basing its ruling on Numbers 19.39 Be as it may, the ruling in 11QTa 48:14–17 involved a reflective move, which took into account not only the nature of impurity but also a metascriptural concern for systematization, and which resulted in a broader legal matrix. This move is not typical of biblical legislation and in many ways suggests the rabbinic mode of thought. To conclude this section, the sectarian system—despite its essential primitiveness and its proximity to biblical law—applied a juridical-formalistic principle that actually broke the continuity with biblical law. It is impossible to speak of the maintenance of a living priestly tradition from Leviticus to Qumran, because the Qumranic legislation modifies scriptural Priestly laws in order to achieve other juridical aims.

38  M. Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71, esp. 339 (in Hebrew). Note that according to Kister, the motivation for the sectarian construal of ‫ מחנה‬is the attempt to create a unified policy for the interpretation of this word. In contrast, says Kister, rabbinic halakhah fails to maintain such a unified hermeneutical policy. 39  Noam, From Qumran, 170; see also her arguments on p. 169 against Kister’s proposal.

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

4

13

Continuities in the Calendrical System

Let us now examine a scholarly argument which assumes a continuity between biblical literature and sectarian writings. This argument revolves around the antiquity of the 364-day calendar. This calendar is promoted in the words of God to Noah in Jub. 6:30–36: All the days of the commandments will be fifty-two weeks of days; (they will make the entire year complete). So it has been ordained and engraved on the heavenly tablets. One is not allowed to transgress a single year, year by year. Now you command the Israelites to keep the years in this number—364 days. Then the year will be complete and it will not disturb its time from its days or from its festivals because everything will happen in harmony with their testimonies. They will neither omit a day nor disturb a festival. If they transgress and do not celebrate them in accord with his command, then all of them will disturb their times. The years will be moved from this; they will disturb the times and the years will be moved. They will transgress their prescribed pattern … lest they forget the covenantal festivals and walk in the festivals of the nations, after their error and after their ignorance. There will be people who carefully observe the moon with lunar observations because it is corrupt (with respect to) the seasons and is early from year to year by ten days. Therefore the years will come about for them when they will disturb (the year) and make a day of testimony something worthless and a profane day a festival.40 This passage depicts a peculiar kind of year, never attested before, which is constructed of exactly fifty-two weeks.41 But the passage is even more remarkable due to the rhetoric employed in it, which presents the 364-day calendar as an ancient tradition anchored in hoary antiquity. It was already utilized by Noah, and by Moses and the Israelites at the time of the first revelation at Sinai; but this reckoning has been interrupted quite recently by some transgressing Israelites, who have shifted to a lunar calendar. This kind of claim is typical for those who invent a tradition. Note that the tradition is not imputed to figures from the relatively recent past, nor even from the classical past, like David 40  English translation: J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, 2 vols., CSCO 510–511 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 2:42–43. 41  For the unique features of the calendar in Jubilees 6, which differs from all other manifestations of the 364-day year, see J. Ben-Dov, “Tradition and Innovation in the Calendar of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 276–93.

14

Ben-Dov

(cf. CD 5:2–6) or Hezekiah; but rather to the patriarchal figures of Noah and Moses, and from them backwards to the creation of the world.42 The calendar has been forgotten from after it was introduced by Moses until the days of the author. In a recent study I demonstrated how the very attempt in Jubilees 6 to posit Sabbatarian time-reckoning as a constitutive marker of Jewish identity is a novelty, and itself constitutes a break from the biblical tradition.43 This kind of nationalist claim concerning the measurement of time is foreign to biblical thought, but corresponds to contemporary Hellenistic sources, and is characteristic of the nationalistic agenda of Jubilees. It therefore constitutes a typical attempt by the author to anchor his ideas about Jewish identity in the patriarchal age. Was the 364-day year indeed used in the biblical past, or rather was it an entirely new construction, created in the Hellenistic era and projected backwards in time? The influential studies by Annie Jaubert in the 1950s claimed that indeed the 364-day calendar was ancient and had been used by priests in the classical biblical period.44 Jaubert showed how the calendar of the Book of Jubilees, if projected onto the date formulas from the Priestly writings of the Torah, wields surprising results with regard to the “weekly” structure of biblical time. For example, she showed how the ancient Israelites abstained from travelling on the Sabbath, since not one of the dates of travel in the Pentateuch, if geared to the weekdays according to Jubilees, falls on a Sabbath. Moreover, she claimed that the Israelites placed their sacred feasts on concrete days of the week, again according to the Jubilees calendar. VanderKam, although he modified Jaubert’s conclusions, agreed with her that Israelites were using this calendar “during the early centuries of the Second Temple.”45 Other scholars claimed, in a more sweeping manner, that the 364-day year was the exclusive calendar of the priests in Achaemenid Judea, and that it was used as a framework for the composition of the Priestly source.46 42  I owe this observation to Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun. 43  J. Ben-Dov, “Time and Identity: The Hellenistic Background of the Calendar Treatise in Jubilees 6,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 10, ed. J. Ben-Dov, M. Mor, M. Morgenstern, and H. I. Newman (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013), 31–56 (in Hebrew). 44  Conveniently collected in A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, trans. I. Rafferty (New York: Society of St. Paul, 1965). 45  J. C. VanderKam, “The Origin, Character and Early History of the 364-Day Solar Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypothesis,” in idem, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 81–104 (97). 46  See recently P. Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18, LHB/OTS 391 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009). The historical background suggested

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

15

At this point, the assumption of continuity between the biblical Priestly tradition and that of Jubilees and Qumran becomes strongly apparent. There is no evidence intrinsic to the biblical Priestly dates proving that they are based on a 364-day calendar. The main motivation and proof for Jaubert’s hypothesis (and those who have adopted it) is the projection of data from Jubilees—the only place where calendar dates are explicit—onto the biblical evidence.47 The evidence for this argument therefore rests solely on statistical analysis, i.e., on the coincidence that all dates mentioned in the Pentateuch occurred on two or three weekdays, when converted into the 364-day year. However, statistics is a tricky business: what seems evident and secure when examined from one direction, may also find an entirely different explanation of other grounds. Indeed, the curiosities of biblical dates as pointed out by Jaubert were supplied with other, more technical, explanations by J. M. Baumgarten and B. Z. Wacholder.48 The projection of Jubilees’s calendar onto the Pentateuch ignores the differences between the date formulas in biblical Priestly writings and those in by Guillaume (177–87) for the establishment of the 364-day year by Judean priests in the early Achaemenid period is too specific and rests on too many assumptions about the connections between Jewish writings and Persian politics. One wonders whether such a concrete historical placement supports Guillaume’s case or rather harms it. For a critique against dating biblical texts by their ideology see B. Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. B. Dozeman et al., FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 85–108. 47  Several writers have tried to muster positive evidence from the Priestly writings for the presence of a 364-day year. Many of these concentrate on the flood narrative, on which see below. A more comprehensive effort was attempted by B. K. Gardner, The Genesis Calendar: The Synchronistic Tradition in Genesis 1–11 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001). In this book, the author tries to expose the sabbatical calendar which was hidden in the chronologies of Genesis 5–11, but the details of his argument are unsound. As a rule, one should be wary of “exposing” hidden keys or unknown mysterious principles in any given text, unless there is a good reason to believe that concealment was adopted as a policy in that particular text. Had the prohibition against national-scale travel on the Sabbath been important enough so as to serve as a key for the entire Torah, more explicit signs should have been found for its centrality throughout. The fact this principle is not explicit in the Torah (Exod 16:29 is a personal exhortation rather than a national regulation) gives more probability to Beckwith’s opinion that the framework of dates was imposed on the Torah at a late redactional level: R. T. Beckwith, Calendar, Chronology, and Worship: Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, AJEC 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 54–66. 48  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees and the Bible,” in idem, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 101–14; B. Z. Wacholder and S. Wacholder, “Patterns of Biblical Dates and Qumran Calendar: The Fallacy of Jaubert’s Hypothesis,” HUCA 66 (1995): 1–40; see further P. R. Davies, “Calendrical Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory,” CBQ 45 (1983): 80–89.

16

Ben-Dov

Jubilees, the most glaring being the absence of a count of jubilees in the Torah. In fact, as Liora Ravid points out, not even the Book of Jubilees itself mentions the days of the week, which constitute the central component of Jaubert’s hypothesis.49 The attempt to see a 364-day year in preexilic Israel is thus motivated by a projection of sectarian practice backwards in time. However, as Roger Beckwith prudently pointed out, one should distinguish the message of the pentateuchal chronology as it was written from the way it was conceived later on, in the second or third century BCE, when the 364-day year was practiced, at least in some circles.50 At this stage the pentateuchal narratives were reread; the sabbatical calendar was read into them, or possibly written into them. At the bottom line, the existence of a 364-day year in ancient Judea cannot be shown to precede its earliest attestation in the Astronomical Book of Enoch.51 Several implications of this reasoning should be clarified. It is indeed true that biblical thought, especially Priestly conceptions, puts much stress on the number seven and its derivatives. This idea comes to the fore in Genesis 1, where the unit of seven days is introduced as inherent in world order. However, in that chapter, the septenary framework is not used to construct the ephemeris for an entire year.52 Any attempt to read Genesis 1 as promoting an annual Sabbatarian calendar forces an external framework onto the biblical pericope. Furthermore, even Lev 23:9–23, where the weekly framework is extended to a unit of seven weeks between the two harvest festivals, is a far cry

49  L. Ravid, “The Book of Jubilees and Its Calendar—A Reexamination,” DSD 10 (2003): 371– 94. The earliest mention of the days of the week in the flood narrative is therefore found in Qumran literature, most probably in 4Q252; see J. Ben-Dov, Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context, STDJ 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 62–66; Baumgarten, “Calendar,” 106–7. It is hard to date the indications of weekdays in the titles of LXX Psalms; see P. L. Trudinger, The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple, VTSup 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Y. L. Libreich, “The Psalms of the Levites for the Days of the Week,” Eretz-Israel 3 (1954): 170–73 (in Hebrew). 50  Beckwith, Calendar, Chronology, and Worship, 56. 51  See Ben-Dov, Head of All Years, 2; and see now the more extensive argumentation in S. Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 197–204. 52  Contra Guillaume, who sees in Genesis 1 the blueprint for an annual calendar, extending the septenary structure from one week to the entire year (Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 42–44). While according to him, Gen 1:14 ‫ והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים‬imposes the weekly structure upon the entire year, I fail to see how this is intended by the wording of the verse. On the contrary, the order of years is dictated by all the luminaries—sun, moon, and stars (note the plural verb “they shall be”)—rather than by an arithmetical count of years.

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

17

from constructing a complete septenary or pentecontad year.53 Chapter 25 of Leviticus uses a similar edifice of 7 × 7, this time counting weeks of years rather than weeks of days; however, this source does not amount to a full septenary year either. In the Temple Scroll (cols. 19–22) this seven-based calculation is extended to additional pentecontad units, thus accommodating additional harvest festivals. However, this extension also does not amount to a full-fledged year of 364 days, calculated from a whole number of complete weeks. To the best of my knowledge, an elaboration of the weekly principle into the structure of the year did not take place before the Book of Jubilees in the second century BCE.54 Aligning the whole year with the pentecontad element occurred even later, either in Philo or later on.55 It is unattested in biblical literature. Finally, discussion is due to the flood narrative itself, since it is often considered a proof for the early existence of the 364-day year.56 Let me, however, quote the biblical scholar Fred Cryer: “[T]he only system not reflected in P’s system is the 364-day schematic solar calendar of Qumran, Jubilees and the Book of Enoch.”57 I believe this statement is correct and will shortly elaborate on it. The conception that the flood lasted for one full year appears already in preQumranic sources (1 En. 106:15). The connection of the flood with calendrical markers is attested even in prebiblical accounts of the flood, as in a fragmentary Akkadian flood account from Ugarit.58 However, neither of these earlier traditions indicates what kind of year dictated the length of the flood, whether lunar or solar or otherwise. The original account in Genesis was originally an 53  See J. Ben-Dov, “The History of Pentecontad Time Units (I),” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. E. Mason et al., 2 vols., JSJSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1:93–111. In that article I addressed the work of earlier scholars who sought to view Leviticus 23 as the source for a pentecontad year. 54  Since the 364-day year already appears already in the Astronomical Book of Enoch, one may wish to view it as a manifestation of the pentecontad or Sabbatarian principle in operation as early as the third century BCE (as does, for example, Beckwith, Calendar, Chronology, and Worship, 30–33). However, the Astronomical Book is not aware of the week as a sacred time unit, nor of festivals, priests, or any other sacred institution (see Ben-Dov, Head of All Years, 53–55). Rather, the number 364 in this source originated either from a cognate Mesopotamian tradition or from the addition of the four cardinal days unto the schematic year of 360 days (see 1 En. 72:19, 27; 75:1–3; 82:4b–8*). 55  Philo, De vita contemplativa, §65; see V. Nikiprowetzky, “Le De Vita contemplativa revisité,” in idem, Études philoniennes (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 199–216 (212). 56  Most recently Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 69–79. 57  F. H. Cryer, “The Interrelationships of Gen 5,32; 11,10–11 and the Chronology of the Flood (Gen 6–9),” Biblica 66 (1985): 241–61 (260). 58  G. Darshan, “The Calendrical Framework of the Priestly Flood Story in Light of a New Akkadian Text from Ugarit (RS 94.2953),” JAOS 136 (2016): 507–14. I am grateful to the author for sharing his manuscript with me prior to publication.

18

Ben-Dov

innocent Priestly narrative, which did not strive to make a point about any length of any year. As Cryer correctly discerned, the Priestly account originally made use of a schematic 360-day year,59 as is sometimes the case in biblical Priestly writings.60 This framework for calculations was used in the Ancient Near East by clerks and administrators who sought to calculate long-term accounts in advance without access to the exact fixation of the calendar.61 The dates encountered by the present-day reader of Genesis 6–9 (especially those in Gen 7:11; 8:4, 5, 13, 14) in fact reflect numerous attempts to convert the year of the flood and make it correspond to the “right” kind of year—whether a lunar year, a 364-day year, or even a Julian year of 365 days (as proposed later by Ephrem).62 This exegetical tendency did not arise before the great calendar wars in the second or possibly third centuries BCE. The various dates in MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Jubilees, and the Genesis Commentary 4Q252, are all exegetical products, aimed at harnessing the flood narrative to a battle that it was never meant to fight. These dates were created deliberately, rather than through technical or copying mistakes, in attempts to anchor a specific kind of year to the biblical data.63 Kister rightly states that all the various flood chronologies in Second Temple literature seem forced and detached 59  Cryer, “The Interrelationship,” as well as M. Rösel, “Die Chronologie der Flut in Gen 7–8: Keine neuen textkritischen Lösungen,” ZAW 110 (1998): 590–93. The strongest evidence for the presence of a schematic calendar is the period of 150 days covering exactly five complete months according to Gen 7:11, 8:4. The attempt by Guillaume and Najm (S. Najm and P. Guillaume, “Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative,” JHS 5 [2005]: http:// www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_31.pdf) to bypass this difficulty fails to work. The latter authors take Jaubert’s hypothesis as a point of departure, striving to prove that the flood narrative corresponds to a preexisting 364-day year, instead of searching objectively for the best possible solution. They are thus drawn into circular reasoning, as in p. 2: “Since the result is not a whole number of weeks, we consider it an unlikely representation of P’s system.” But the very expectation that the entire scheme results in a whole number of weeks is based on the presupposition that the story works with a 364-day year. If this presupposition is avoided, other avenues of explanation open up, which the authors did not consider. 60  On the idea that the Priestly writings use a schematic 360-day year, with sequences of 30day months, see J. W. McKay, “The Date of Passover and Its Significance,” ZAW 84 (1972): 435–47; and J. Ben-Dov, “A 360-Day Administrative Year in Ancient Israel: Judahite Desk Calendars and the Flood Account,” in What Difference Does Time Make?, ed. J. Scurlock and R. Beal (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns), forthcoming. 61  See R. Englund, “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JESHO 31 (1988): 121–85; L. Brack-Bernsen, “The 360-Day Year in Mesopotamia,” in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Steele (Oxford: Oxbow, 2007), 83–100. 62  Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis 6.12; quoted in Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah,” 362. 63  See Rösel, “Chronologie der Flut”; M. Zipor, “The Flood Chronology: Too Many an Accident,” DSD 4 (1997): 207–10; contra R. Hendel, “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

19

from the original account, and thus cannot be taken as the organic continuation of the biblical tradition.64 On the basis of this reasoning, I favor the LXX reading in Genesis 7:11, which assigns the beginning of the flood to the date II/27, rather than the date II/17 in MT. The date in LXX corresponds to the date II/27 in Gen 8:14, which marks the end of the flood year, and together they denote one year exactly. This reading is preferable because these dates do not supply any indications of a preference for some particular kind of year. This seems to capture the original spirit of the flood account, with its proposed schematic year of 360 days.65 In contrast, the reading of MT, which measures the length of the flood as a year + 11 days (from II/17 until II/27 in the next year), seems like a “sectarian” reading: it aims to show that, while the flood indeed lasted for one complete solar circuit of 365(!) days, the actual dates are not counted by that system but rather by the shorter lunar year of 354 days, the one used by the Pharisees. The MT chronology is thus involved in the calendar wars, while that of LXX seems to be indifferent to them, hence also earlier. To sum up this section, the calendar indicates the discontinuity between the biblical tradition and the sectarian writers, rather than any natural flow between the two. The rhetoric of the 364-day calendar tradition cries out as the invention of tradition, showing how new ideas native to the second century BCE crept into the calendrical tradition, hiding in biblical guise. The attempts by Jaubert and her followers force onto the biblical data a set of assumptions they were not meant to indulge. 5 Conclusion The present paper has attempted to problematize what has been perceived as a smooth developmental flow of tradition from the Bible to the Qumran scrolls. This perception, in turn, has caused much confusion in contemporary research, obscuring the boundaries between earlier biblical writings and their later, sectarian rewritings. This discussion has shown that scrolls scholars can benefit methodologically from a greater awareness of contemporary models Genesis 7–8: A Text-Critical Solution,” DSD 2 (1995): 72–79. For the move from the 360-day year to the 364-day year of the flood in Jubilees, see Ben-Dov, “Tradition and Innovation.” 64  Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah,” 363. 65  This reasoning modifies the argument of Kister, “4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah,” 363. Although I agree with Kister’s general line of argument, I reject his preference for MT over LXX. Kister was not aware of the possibility that the biblical account utilized a schematic 360-day year and was thus free of connections with any other calendrical tradition.

20

Ben-Dov

for understanding the workings of cultural memory; the present study has benefitted greatly from Hobsbawm’s notion of the “invention of tradition.” The constructed continuity with the biblical tradition was demonstrated here by means of examples in the fields of halakhah and calendrical history. In these cases, what appears to the eye as a biblical formulation—whether in biblical paraphrases or even within the canonical biblical text itself—in fact reflects various later interests. Scholars should be able to transcend the historical view depicted by the ancient authors, and employ a wider, critical historical lens. The religious and national discourse of Judea of the Second Temple period relied, to a great extent, on the claim for continuity with the revered writings. However, this claim took shape in a wide variety of forms. The Aramaic apocalyptic writings, for example, constructed this continuity by mythologizing the tradition, with minimal commitment to legal traditions. Wisdom writings like Ben Sira stressed the concept of Torah and refashioned the ancient narrative traditions. The Hasmoneans in 1 Maccabees recreated the biblical Deuteronomistic school as part of their invention of tradition. Contemporary priests naturally emphasized the role of sacrificial halakhah, purity, and the didactic role of priests. As part of this milieu, the yaḥad community paved its own, sui generis, path of continuity with tradition. The question of which of these literary manifestations is the “true heir” of the biblical tradition is thus invalid, even misleading. The yaḥad tradition of interpretation, like that of other factions, is not an organic sequel to the biblical tradition, but rather its conscious revivification. Bibliography Brack-Bernsen, L. “The 360-Day Year in Mesopotamia.” Pages 83–100 in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Steele. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007. Baumgarten, A. and M. Rustow. “Judaism and Tradition: Continuity, Change, and Innovation.” Pages 207–37 in Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History. Edited by R. S. Boustan, O. Kosansky, and M. Rustow. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Baumgarten, J. M. “The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees and the Bible.” Pages 101–14 in J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Beckwith, R. T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Beckwith, R. T. Calendar, Chronology and Worship: Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. AJEC 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

21

Ben-Dov, J. “A 360-Day Administrative Year in Ancient Israel: Judahite Desk Calendars and the Flood Account.” In What Difference Does Time Make? Edited by J. Scurlock and R. Beal. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming. Ben-Dov, J. Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context. STDJ 78. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ben-Dov, J. “The History of Pentecontad Time Units (I).” Pages 93–111 in vol. 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by E. Mason et al. 2 vols. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Ben-Dov, J. “Time and Identity: The Hellenistic Background of the Calendar Treatise in Jubilees 6.” Pages 31–56 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 10. Edited by J. Ben-Dov, M. Mor, M. Morgenstern, and H. I. Newman. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013 (in Hebrew). Ben-Dov, J. “Tradition and Innovation in the Calendar of Jubilees.” Pages 276–93 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Boccaccini, G. “Is Biblical Literature Still a Useful Term in Scholarship?” Pages 41–51 in What is Bible? Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. CBET 67. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Brooke, G. J. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism.” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. G. Campbell. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Brooke, G. J. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets, and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and E. Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Carr, D. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Cryer, F. H. “The Interrelationships of Gen 5,32; 11,10–11 and the Chronology of the Flood (Gen 6–9).” Biblica 66 (1985): 241–61. Darshan, G. “The Calendrical Framework of the Priestly Flood Story in Light of a New Akkadian Text from Ugarit (RS 94.2953).” JAOS 136 (2016): 507–14. Davies, P. R. “Calendrical Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory.” CBQ 45 (1983): 80–89. Elior, R. Memory and Oblivion: The Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Van Leer, 2009 (in Hebrew). Englund, R. K. “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JESHO 31 (1988): 121–85. Finsterbusch, K. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Deuteronomistic Movement.” Pages 143–54 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by N. Dávid et al. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

22

Ben-Dov

Finsterbusch K. and A. Lange, “Introduction.” Pages xi–xx in What is Bible? Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. CBET 67. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. García-Martínez, F. “Beyond the Sectarian Divide: The ‘Voice of the Teacher’ as an Authority-Conferring Strategy in some Qumran Texts.” Pages 227–44 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by S. Metso et al. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gardner, B. K. The Genesis Calendar: The Synchronistic Tradition in Genesis 1–11. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001. Goodblatt, D. “Constructing Jewish Nationalism: The Hebrew Language.” Pages 49–70 in D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Guillaume, P. Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18. LHB/OTS 391. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Hempel, C. “The Emerging Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Common Milieu.” Pages 231–99 in C. Hempel, The Qumran Rule Texts in Context. TSAJ 154. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Hendel, R. “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of Genesis 7–8: A Text-Critical Solution.” DSD 2 (1995): 72–79. Hobsbawm, E. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” Pages 1–14 in The Invention of Tradition. Edited by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Jaubert, A. The Date of the Last Supper. trans. I. Rafferty. New York: Society of St. Paul, 1965. Kister, M. “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and Its Implica­ tions.” Pages 101–11 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kister, M. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts.” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71 (in Hebrew). Knohl, I. and S. Naeh, “Miluim and Kippurim.” Tarbiz 62/1 (1992): 17–44 (in Hebrew). Kratz, R. G. “Der Penal Code und das Verhältnis von Serekh Ha–yachad (S) und Damaskusschrift (D).” RevQ 25/2 (2011): 199–227. Levinson, B. M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Levinson, B. M. A More Perfect Torah: At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll. CrStHB 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

Continuity between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls ?

23

Levinson, B. M. “ ‘You Must Not Add Anything to what I Command You’: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel.” Numen 50 (2003): 1–51. Libreich, Y. L. “The Psalms of the Levites for the Days of the Week.” Eretz-Israel 3 (1954): 170–73 (in Hebrew). Lichtenberger, H. “History-Writing and History-Telling in First and Second Maccabees.” Pages 95–110 in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity. Edited by L. T. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, and B. G. Wold. WUNT 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. McKay, J. W. “The Date of Passover and Its Significance.” ZAW 84 (1972): 435–47. Milgrom, J. “Studies in the Temple Scroll.” JBL 97 (1978): 501–23. Naeh, S. “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Script of the Torah Differently from the Authorized Reading?” Tarbiz 61/3–4 (1992): 401–48 (in Hebrew). Najm, S. and P. Guillaume, “Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative.” JHS 5 (2005): http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_31.pdf. Najman, H. “The Vitality of Scripture Within and Beyond the ‘Canon.’” JSJ 43 (2012): 497–518. Nikiprowetzky, V. “Le De vita contemplativa revisité.” Pages 199–216 in V. Nikiprowetzky, Études philoniennes. Paris: Cerf, 1996. Noam, V. From Qumran to the Tannaitic Revolution. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010 (in Hebrew). Noam, V. “Qumranic Exegesis and Rabbinic Midrash: Common Interpretations and Implied Polemics.” Pages 71–98 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 7. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009 (in Hebrew). Noam, V. “Stringency in Qumran: A Reassessment.” JSJ 40 (2009): 342–55. Novick, T. “Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22.” JBL 126 (2007): 755–64. Popović, M. ed., Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Rajak, T. “Hasmonaean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition.” Pages 39–60 in T. Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. AGJU 48. Leiden: Brill, 2001 [orig. publ. 1996]. Rappaport, U. 1 Maccabees. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2004 (in Hebrew). Ravid, L. “The Book of Jubilees and Its Calendar—A Reexamination.” DSD 10 (2003): 371–94. Rösel, M. “Die Chronologie der Flut in Gen 7–8: Keine neuen textkritischen Lösungen.” ZAW 110 (1998): 590–93. Schremer, A. “The History of the Halakhic Concept ‫פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת‬.” Tarbiz 80/4 (2012): 481–505 (in Hebrew). Schremer, A. “ ‘They Did Not Read in the Sealed Book’: Qumran Halakhic Revolution and the Emergence of Torah Study in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 105–26 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhva in Light of the Dead Sea

24

Ben-Dov

Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999. Edited by D. Goodblatt et al. STDJ 37. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Schwartz, S. “Language, Power, and Identity in Ancient Palestine.” Past and Present 148 (1995): 3–47. Segal, M. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Segal, M. “Biblical Interpretation—Yes and No.” Pages 63–80 in What is Bible? Edited by K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange. CBET 67. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Shemesh, A. Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Shemesh, A. “The History of the Halakhic Concept ‫פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת‬.” Tarbiz 80/4 (2012): 481–505 (in Hebrew). Sommer, B. “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism.” Pages 85–108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. B. Dozeman et al. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Steck, O. H. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Stern, S. Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Talmon, S. “Between the Bible and the Mishna.” Pages 11–52 in S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “Forms of Pseudepigraphy in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 85–101 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by J. Frey et al. WUNT 1.246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Trudinger, P. L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple. VTSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2004. VanderKam, J. C. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. 2 vols. CSCO 510–511. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VanderKam, J. C. “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Solar Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypothesis [1979].” Pages 81–104 in J. C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Wacholder B. Z. and S. Wacholder. “Patterns of Biblical Dates and Qumran Calendar: The Fallacy of Jaubert’s Hypothesis.” HUCA 66 (1995): 1–40. Zipor, M. “The Flood Chronology: Too Many an Accident.” DSD 4/2 (1997): 207–10.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls John J. Collins The sectarian movement known from the Dead Sea Scrolls was first of all a movement of covenant renewal.1 This is especially clear in the Damascus Document, which like most but not all scholars I take to contain an earlier formulation of sectarian rules than the Community Rule;2 but the latter, too, at least in the form preserved in 1QS, begins with a covenant renewal ceremony. But the sectarian Scrolls also reflect theological perspectives that stand in tension with the traditional understanding of the covenant. These perspectives are broadly apocalyptic in character, insofar as they posit a revelation higher than that given to Moses, which provides a necessary supplement, if not a corrective, to the Mosaic revelation.3 In this essay, I begin by describing the traditional covenantal theology; I then turn to the dualism of the “two spirits” doctrine, as expressed primarily in 1QS cols. 3–4, and reflect on the way these different worldviews are held together in the theology of the sect. 1

Covenantal Nomism

The centrality of the Mosaic covenant for Second Temple Judaism is amply clear. E. P. Sanders argued that most Jewish literature of that period subscribed to a pattern of religion that he dubbed covenantal nomism. By a pattern of religion he meant “how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function,” specifically “how getting in and staying in are understood.”4 The biblical basis of this pattern was set out especially in the book of Deuteronomy, although Sanders expounded it primarily on the basis of tannaitic literature. At the heart of the Deuteronomic covenant was the demand for obedience to the commandments, reinforced by curses for disobedience and blessings

1  For a comprehensive treatment of the covenantal ideologies in the scrolls, see S. Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community, STDJ 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 2  J. J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 12–87. 3  See my book, The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), 114–33. 4  E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 17.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_003

26

Collins

for observance.5 But there was also an antecedent history, which explained how the covenant had been initiated by the gracious acts of God. Sanders was at pains to counteract Christian scholarly caricatures of Jewish legalism. He insisted that “entrance into the covenant was prior to the fulfillment of commandments; in other words, that the covenant was not earned, but that obedience to the commandments is the consequence of the prior election of Israel by God.”6 Again, in this covenantal schema, “the election was of all Israel … the individual’s place in God’s plan was accomplished by his being a member of the group…. The question is whether or not one is an Israelite in good standing.”7 While Deuteronomy envisioned the consequences of the covenant in this-worldly terms, many Jews in the later Second Temple period believed in resurrection and a differentiated afterlife. In the rabbinic literature, the pervasive view is that “all Israel has a share in the world to come” (m. Sanh. 10:1), although there are exceptions.8 2

A Sectarian Covenant?

A sectarian movement that distinguished itself from “the multitude of the people,” in the phrase of 4QMMT, obviously required some modification of the Deuteronomic understanding of the covenant. In fact, as Sanders also noted, the sectarian view of the covenant is formulated in two distinct ways in the Scrolls. On the one hand, we read of a new covenant (1QpHab 2:3), sometimes specified as “the new covenant in the land of Damascus” (CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12).9

5  For a lucid exposition, see J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1987), 15–86. 6  Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 85. 7  Ibid., 237; citing E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1975), 1:538–40. 8  I. J. Yuval, “All Israel Have a Portion in the World to Come,” in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders, ed. F. Udoh, with S. Heschel, M. Chancey, and G. Tatum (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 114–38, argues that the statement about all Israel sharing in the world to come is a late anti-Christian addition to the mishnah. I will return to this issue at the end of this article. 9  On the biblical and theological foundations of the “new” covenant, see Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant, 77–140. See also my article, “The Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part 5, Volume 1: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner, and B. Chilton (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 25–42.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

27

On the other, the covenant is the one God made with Moses, but it contained hidden things that are known only to this community. So we read in CD 3:12–15: But with those who remained steadfast in God’s precepts, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel forever, revealing to them hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray: his holy Sabbaths and his glorious feasts, his just stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of his will which a person must do in order to live by them. The sectarians believed that they had the only correct interpretation of the Torah of Moses, even though it was meant for all Israel. Consequently, the members are said to enter the covenant for all Israel (CD 15:5), and to take “the oath of the covenant which Moses established with Israel, the covenant to return to the Torah of Moses with all one’s heart and with all one’s soul” (CD 15:8–9). Also, the sectarians believed that all Israel would walk according to their regulations in the end of days (1QSa 1:1–2). Sanders notes in both 1QSa and 1QM a terminological difference from 1QH and 1QS. In the latter two, the sect does not employ the title Israel for itself, and its enemies are nonsectarian Israelites. In the former, the saved become “Israel,” and the enemies are Gentiles. The distinction is clearly that 1QSa and 1QM are addressed to the time of the eschatological war. At that time the sect will become identical with Israel.10 For the present, however, even if all Israel should follow the “correct” interpretation of the Torah, it was painfully obvious that it did not. Consequently, “ ‘returning to the Law of Moses’ is in fact equivalent to joining the ‘new covenant.’”11 This “return” required joining a voluntary association, with its own rituals for admission and expulsion, and instruction in the rulings peculiar to that association. Similarly, in 1QS 5:8–9: Whoever enters the council of the yaḥad enters the covenant of God…. He shall swear with a binding oath to revert to the Law of Moses, according to all that he commanded, with whole heart and whole soul, in compliance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the 10  Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 249–50. 11  Ibid., 241.

28

Collins

priests who keep the covenant … and to the multitude of the men of their covenant. The expression “their covenant” is telling. Even though it is identified as “the covenant of God,” it is defined by the distinctive interpretation of the yaḥad. Since the Community Rule, unlike the Damascus Document, does not locate the community in the history of Israel, its consciousness of belonging to a covenant people has been questioned,12 but in fact it clearly affirms the need “to return to his covenant through the community” (1QS 5:22). There is some ambiguity as to how one comes to be in the covenant in the first place. God establishes his covenant with those who remained faithful (CD 3:12–15). Those who formed “the new covenant” have often been categorized as a penitential movement. They realized their iniquity and realized that they were guilty (CD 1:8–9). Yet this alone would have been of no avail had God not raised up for them a Teacher of Righteousness. There is, in short, a dialectic between human merit and divine grace.13 It remains true, however, that the covenant provides the context in which people can please God by obeying his commandments, and this covenant is clearly continuous with the traditional Mosaic covenant. Sanders insisted that all of this could comfortably be subsumed under the heading of “covenantal nomism,” but some of the modifications of Deuteronomic theology are significant. The Scrolls never deny that the covenant is intended for all Israel, and the authors were well aware that their movement was not identical with all Israel in the present. They hoped it would be so in the eschatological future; but even then, the War Scroll acknowledged that “the violators of the covenant” would share the lot of the Kittim. In short, from the perspective of the sect, it is not true that all Israel has a share in the world to come. 3

The Treatise on the Two Spirits

The manuscript 1QS, however, introduces another pattern of thought that is quite different from Deuteronomic theology, in the Treatise on the Two Spirits. 12  E. J. Christiansen, “The Consciousness of Belonging to God’s Covenant and What It Entails, according to the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 87. 13  D. Lambert, “Was the Dead Sea Sect a Penitential Movement?” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T. H. Lim, and J. J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 501–13, questions the appropriateness of describing the sect as a penitential movement.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

29

Here we read that “from the God of knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design.” Not only has God created the human being to rule the world, as described in Genesis 1, but he has also appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of his visitation: the spirits of truth and injustice. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness. The Angel of Darkness leads all the children of righteousness astray; and until his end, all their sin, iniquities, wickedness, and all their unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion in accordance with the mysteries of God. (1QS 3:15–23) The Treatise on the Two Spirits is a complex and carefully constructed passage.14 As Philip Alexander has remarked, it is one of the most remarkable theological texts to survive from early Judaism, at least in Hebrew or Aramaic. “I know of no other theological work in either of these languages so systemic and so propositional in its presentation, until we come to the little cosmological treatise known as the Sefer Yeṣirah,” many centuries later.15 It begins with a veritable table of contents: It is for the Maskil to instruct and teach all the Sons of Light concerning the nature of all the sons of man, with respect to all the kinds of spirits with their distinctions for their works in their generations, and with respect to the visitation of their afflictions together with their times of peace. (1QS 3:13–15a) This is followed by an account of creation (3:15–18); then by an outline of the workings of the two spirits (3:18–4:1); then by an account of their effects in the 14  See now the thorough discussion by M. Popović, “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13–4:26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Sibyls, Scriptures and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, ed. J. Baden, H. Najman, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, 2 vols., JSJSup 175 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 2:1028– 67, especially 1036–61. 15  P. S. Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, ed. J. M. G. Barclay and S. Gathercole, LNTS 335 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 27–49 (27).

30

Collins

world (4:2–14; 2–8 on the spirit of light and 9–14 on the spirit of darkness). Finally, the last section, 4:15–26, describes the struggle of the two spirits for control of humanity.16 Several scholars have attempted to distinguish redactional layers in this text.17 So, for example, Peter von der Osten-Sacken posited a first expansion in 1QS 4:15–23a, which introduces the idea of a division within every human being, and a second one in 4:23b–26, which elaborates the first addition.18 Jean Duhaime discerned another layer of additions in 1QS 3:18b–25.19 Against such proposals, Jörg Frey has argued that the extant text conforms to the introductory heading, and should be read as a literary unit.20 Frey finds a “multidimensional pattern of dualism” in the text, combining cosmic dualism, in the opposition of two spiritual beings, the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness; ethical dualism, in the opposition of two classes of human beings with virtues and vices; and psychological dualism, which posits the presence of the two spirits within each individual. Cosmic dualism is found without the other layers in some other texts from Qumran (the Testament of Amram, the War Scroll). Ethical dualism is rooted in the wisdom tradition. The psychological dualism is peculiar to the Treatise on the Two Spirits.21 Only one other text, 4Q186, a physiognomic text in Aramaic, posits partial shares of light 16  See J. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Evil, Dualism and Community: Who/What Did the Yaḥad Not Want to Be?” in Dualism in Qumran, ed. G. G. Xeravits, LSTS 76 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 121–47 (131). Compare J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335 (290). 17  For a convenient overview see C. Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Xeravits, Dualism in Qumran, 102–20 (110–13). 18  P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1969), 17–27, 116–89. 19  J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56, especially 40–43. For a different redactional analysis, based on varying levels of terminological and theological overlap of the Treatise with 4QInstruction, see E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction, STDJ 44 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 201–3. 20  See Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 289–95. So also D. Dimant, “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997), ed. J. H. Charlesworth (North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1998), 55–73, especially 58. Alexander, “Predestination and Freewill,” 27–28, also favors literary unity. 21  Popović questions whether we should speak of anthropological dualism in the Treatise on the grounds that there may be more than two spirits (“Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology,” 1060).

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

31

and darkness within individuals, and its relevance to the Treatise in 1QS is disputed, since its frame of reference is astrological rather than a doctrine of creation.22 This “psychological dualism” stands in some logical tension with the cosmological dualism, which more easily envisions a clean separation into two parties; but if a redactor of the Treatise could regard them as compatible, it is not apparent why the author of the Treatise could not have done so. The tension lies between the underlying traditions, which are brought together in a distinctive way in the Treatise. As Philip Alexander has remarked, “haggadah and midrash are conspicuous by their absence” from the Treatise, and there is no explicit appeal to normative scripture.23 Nonetheless, the text presupposes a distinctive reading of Genesis 1–3.24 The statement that God created ‘enosh to rule the world echoes Gen 1:28. God gave the two spirits to human beings “so that they might know good [and evil].”25 The ultimate goal is to inherit “the glory of Adam” (4:23). In Genesis, the primal couple are forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Here, however, God wants people to have that knowledge. 3.1 Wisdom Precedents? The Treatise on the Two Spirits was neither the first or nor the only text to claim that God had given humanity the knowledge of good and evil. According to Ben Sira, The Lord created human beings out of the earth and makes them return to it again … He endowed them with strength like his own And made them in his own image … He filled them with knowledge and understanding And showed them good and evil. (Sir 17:1–7) 22  M. Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic–Early Roman Period Judaism, STDJ 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 186–91. See also Popović, “Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS III 13–IV 26) and in 4Q186,” in Xeravits, Dualism in Qumran, 148–65 (158–65). In contrast, Dimant, “Dualism at Qumran,” 59–66 suggests that the dualism of light and darkness may be grounded in natural phenomena and related to the solar calendar and to the physiognomy of 4Q186. 23  Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 27. 24  See my essay, “The Interpretation of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007, ed. A. Moriya and G. Hata, JSJSup 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 157–75. 25  1QS 4:26; “[and evil]” has to be restored.

32

Collins

It was inconceivable to the sage that God would have denied people knowledge and understanding, and he read the creation story accordingly. Ben Sira also hints at a dualistic structure in creation: All human beings come from the ground and humankind was created out of the dust. In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them And appointed their different ways. Some he blessed and exalted, And some he made holy and brought near to himself; But some he cursed and brought low, And turned them out of their place. Like clay in the hand of the potter to be molded as he pleases, So all are in the hand of their maker, to be given whatever he decides. (Sir 33:10–13) Ben Sira goes on to say that all the works of the Most High come in pairs, one the opposite of the other. Ben Sira is notoriously inconsistent, and on other occasions he affirms a vigorous belief in the human freedom to choose. He is still far from the dualism of the Two Spirits Treatise, but his musings may well reflect an early stage of the debate in wisdom circles about the origin of evil.26 Another important stage in that debate is illustrated by 4QInstruction, a long wisdom text from Qumran that was only published in the 1990’s.27 In a much-discussed passage we read: Engraved is the ordinance, and ordained is all the punishment. For engraved is that which is ordained by God against all the iniquities of the children of Seth. And written in His presence is a book of remembrance of those who keep His word, and it is the Vision of Meditation (Hagu/i) and a Book of Remembrance. He gave it as an inheritance to ‘enosh, together with a spiritual people, for he fashioned him after the likeness of the Holy Ones. But the Meditation is no longer given to the spirit of flesh, for it did not distinguish between good and evil, according to the judgment of its spirit. (4Q417 1 i 14–18)

26  See my essay, “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in idem, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic–Roman Judaism, JSJSup 54 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 369–83. 27  J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, “417. 4QInstructionc,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2, ed. J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin, DJD 34 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 151–72.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

33

While many details of this passage are disputed, it clearly envisions a binary division of humanity. In the words of Jörg Frey: It is obvious that wisdom is not accessible to everyone, but limited to a certain group of people, and that the fact that only the knowledgeable have access to that hidden wisdom is explained from a primordial act in which insight was revealed to the “spiritual people,” not to the “fleshly spirit.”28 The statement that the “spiritual people” was fashioned in the likeness of the Holy Ones, or angels, is a reading of Gen 1:26, in which adam is created in the image of elohim. The statement that the Hagu was denied to the spirit of flesh because it did not distinguish between good and evil alludes to the second creation story in Genesis 2–3. In this text, however, God does not prevent people from attaining the knowledge of good and evil. Rather, because the spirit of flesh fails to distinguish them, God denies it the revelation.29 Armin Lange and Jörg Frey have argued that these sapiential reflections on the creation stories provide the context for the emergence of dualism in the Treatise on the Two Spirits.30 They certainly provide one relevant context, but as Frey admits, they provide no precedent for cosmic dualism, the idea of two conflicting spirits, or light and darkness, truth and falsehood.31 (Another wisdom text, 1Q27, or 1QMysteries, says that evil will vanish as darkness before the light, but this metaphorical usage is quite different from the cosmic dualism of the Treatise). The only precedent for cosmic dualism of this sort is found in another Qumran text, the Testament of Amram (4Q543–548, 549?), an Aramaic text that has been dated to the late third or early second century BCE on the basis of language and paleography, and so appears to come from a time before 28  J. Frey, “Apocalyptic Dualism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. J. J. Collins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 271–94 (283). 29  See further my essay, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 609–18. 30  A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran, STDJ 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 121–70; idem, “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002), 3–30, especially 25–26; Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 295–300. 31  M. Goff, “Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran,” in Xeravits, Dualism in Qumran, 20–38, rightly warns that there is no “smooth, unilinear development” from the wisdom tradition to the dualism of the Treatise.

34

Collins

the emergence of the sectarian movement known from the Scrolls.32 In one of the fragments of this work, Amram recounts a vision of two angelic beings who are fighting over him. One of them rules over darkness and all that pertains to it, while the other rules over the sons of light. They ask him by which of them he chooses to be ruled. The two angelic beings each have three names, but only one of the names of the Angel of Darkness is preserved: Melchiresha.33 It is reasonable to infer that his adversary is Melchizedek, who is known as an angelic or divine figure from 11QMelchizedek. It is apparent from this text that humanity was thought to be divided between sons of light and sons of darkness, or “sons of the lie” and “sons of truth.” The surviving fragments do not list the ethical characteristics of either group, and Amram, at least, appears to have a choice between them.34 There is no precedent for this kind of dualism in the Hebrew Bible. When Deutero-Isaiah says that YHWH forms light and creates darkness (Isa 45:7), he is not speaking of spirits in which humanity must walk. 3.2 Persian Dualism There was, of course, a well-known precedent for cosmic dualism in the Hellenistic Near East, in the teachings of the Persian prophet Zoroaster.35 While most of the Zoroastrian writings are preserved in Pahlavi texts from the early Middle Ages, the Gathas are recognized as old, possibly deriving from Zoroaster himself;36 we also have accounts in Greek and Roman authors, most 32  É. Puech, “I. Visions de Amram,” in Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, Première Partie: 4Q529–549, ed. É. Puech, DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 283–405. On the dating, see 285–87. 33  4Q544 2 13. See also P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchirešaʿ, CBQMS 10 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 24–36. 34  L. Goldman, “Dualism in the Visions of Amram,” RevQ 95 (2010): 421–32, underlines the differences between the dualism of 4QAmram and that of 1QS, insofar as the Aramaic text is not so clearly deterministic. She also questions whether 4Q548, which mentions “sons of light” and “sons of darkness,” belongs to the same text as the other fragments. On the similarities and differences between the Testament of Amram and the Treatise see also Popović, “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology,” 1061–64. 35  See G. Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko, Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien, Recherches intertestamentaires 2 (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1995); A. Hultgård, “Persian Apocalypticism,” in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. J. Collins (New York: Continuum, 1998), 39–83; P. O. Skjaervø, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, ed. A. Lange et al, JAJSup 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 55–91. 36  A. de Jong, “Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 479–500 (480).

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

35

notably in Plutarch, who claims to derive his account from Theopompus (ca. 300 BCE).37 The Gathas already speak of two spirits: In the beginning those two spirits who are the well-endowed twins were known as the one good and the other evil, in thought, word, and deed. Between them the wise chose rightly, not so the fools. And when these spirits met they established in the beginning life and death that in the end the followers of the Lie should meet with the worst existence, but the followers of Truth with the Best Mind. Of these two spirits he who was of the Lie chose to do the worst things; but the Most Holy Spirit, clothed in rugged heaven, [chose] Truth as did [all] who sought with zeal to do the pleasure of the Wise Lord by [doing] good works.38 The Gathas do not associate the two spirits with light and darkness, but Plutarch, citing Theopompus, says that “Horomazes (Ahura Mazda) is born from the purest light and Areimanius (Ahriman) from darkness, and they are at war with one another.”39 In classical, medieval Zoroastrianism, the two spirits are coeval, uncreated beings, and this seems to be the case already in Plutarch’s account. In the Gathas, however, at least on the usual interpretation, the two spirits (identified as Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu) were thought to be the twin children of Ahura Mazda, who was therefore the sole supreme god above them.40 The affinity of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS to Persian Zoroastrian dualism was pointed out by the German scholar K. G. Kuhn shortly after the text was published, and remains compelling.41 In the words of Albert de Jong,

37  See A. de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 157–204 on Plutarch. 38  Yasna 30; trans. R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1961), 42. 39  Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 47; J. G. Griffiths, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1970), 46–47. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Evil, Dualism, and Community,” 129, claims that “the contrasting terms light—darkness do not play any part in the Iranian myth.” 40  De Jong, “Iranian Connections,” 481. He notes that this interpretation has been questioned on philological grounds by J. Kellens and E. Pirart, “La strophe des jumeaux: Stagnation, extravagance et autres methods d’approche,” JA 285 (1997): 31–72. 41  K. G. Kuhn, “Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion,” ZTK 49 (1952): 296–316. See J. J. Collins, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 154–57.

36

Collins

If we restrict ourselves, for the sake of the argument, to the description of the two spirits, the system of 1QS is almost wholly parallel to the Iranian one. That is to say, the two spirits are wholly opposed to each other and do not share a single common trait. They are associated with two distinct realms, described in (predictable) opposing terms. The one is described as “truth,” has his origins in a source of light, and is located—occasionally— in the highest realms of reality, being with God. The other is described as “deceit,” has his origins in a source of darkness, and belongs, more clearly, to a lower realm (the “abyss”) where darkness itself is located.42 But there are differences, too. As de Jong also points out, “the Zoroastrian sources … do not at any moment suggest that Ahura Mazda has preordained everything.”43 In that respect, the Testament of Amram, where Amram is supposed to choose between the two spirits, provides a closer parallel to the Gathas than does the Treatise on the Two Spirits. But the structural similarity is striking, and can hardly be coincidental. Judah had been ruled by Persia for two hundred years, and the distinctive Persian beliefs aroused the interest of Greek writers in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, so while we do not know how the doctrine of the two spirits came to the attention of an Essene, the possibility of an encounter with Persian ideas poses no great problem. Many scholars have been reluctant to accept the idea of Persian influence on the Scrolls, for various reasons. For Paul Heger, it is decisive that “dualism conflicts with Israelite doctrines,” as if these were always and ever the same, and he insists that the Treatise on the Two Spirits must be explained from Scripture.44 Other scholars are deterred by their lack of familiarity with Persian religion, and the problems of dating the Persian sources. It is not uncommon for serious scholars to suggest that if we can find Jewish parallels for ideas in the Scrolls we can spare ourselves the exertion of looking further. There is no doubt that the Treatise draws phraseology from the older scriptures, or that it relates to Jewish traditions in many ways. It is a Jewish text, not a Persian one, and it was not attempting to reproduce Persian ideas as they might have been understood in their original context. Cultural influence is always shaped to meet the needs of the borrower. Even if the author of the Treatise had encountered a form of Persian dualism in which the two spirits were primeval, he would surely have 42  De Jong, “Iranian Connections,” 493–94. 43  Ibid., 492. 44  P. Heger, “Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings,” in Xeravits, Dualism in Qumran, 39–101 (quote p. 41). This essay is reprinted in Heger, Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues, STDJ 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 227–310.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

37

subordinated them to the creator God, in accordance with Isa 45:7. But nonetheless the Treatise on the Two Spirits was a novelty in Jewish tradition, and its novelty is due primarily to its balanced cosmic dualism, which is characteristic of Zoroastrianism and alien to the biblical tradition. But it is also apparent that the Treatise adapted the dualism of the two spirits for its own purposes. Most notably, human beings are not allowed to choose between them, but their allegiance is determined at creation. The idea that the conflict between the spirits takes place within the individual person, and that everyone has a share in both spirits is also most probably an innovation. 3.3 The Provenance of the Treatise It is now apparent that the Treatise on the Two Spirits was not an invariable part of the Community Rule. It is found in only one other manuscript besides 1QS—a papyrus manuscript, 4QSc.45 It was clearly not part of 4QSe and 4QSd, which began at 1QS 5, and Sarianna Metso has argued persuasively that these manuscripts contain a form of the Rule that is more original than 1QS.46 Hartmut Stegemann suggested that “the Essenes adopted this didactic piece unchanged from older tradition”47 and in this he has been followed by Armin Lange48 and Jörg Frey.49 One way of testing this hypothesis is to see whether the doctrine is modified when it appears in a text that is clearly sectarian. 4

Covenant and Dualism

In 1QS, the Treatise on the Two Spirits follows immediately upon a covenant renewal ceremony, which itself has a distinctly dualistic coloring (1QS 1:16–3:13). The juxtaposition raises the question, how such a dualistic and deterministic worldview can be reconciled with the covenantal nomism that is so widely attested in the Scrolls. Klaus Baltzer argued that the Treatise itself could be understood as an adaptation of what he called “the covenant formulary.” To be sure, Baltzer granted that the historical prologue that characterizes the 45  Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 38; Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits,” 107–10. 46  S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 107. This is disputed by P. S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17/4 (1996): 437–53. 47  H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 110. 48  Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127–28. 49  Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 289; “Apocalyptic Dualism,” 279.

38

Collins

covenantal texts in the Hebrew Bible is replaced here by a “dogmatic section,” which gives a dualistic account of the human condition. But since the passage goes on to contrast two ways of living, and to associate them with different outcomes, he reasoned that the covenantal structure is intact.50 But this is to miss the significance of the account of cosmic dualism. The traditional covenant presupposed a vigorous doctrine of free will, by which the Israelites were to choose to obey the commandments or not, and were fully responsible for their actions. The suggestion that human beings are determined by angelic or demonic forces, and that their design is established in advance, departs radically from this view, and has very little precedent in the Hebrew Bible. The covenant ceremony at the beginning of the Community Rule is designed for those who enter “the covenant of God” during the reign of Belial. The priests recount the wondrous works of God and his merciful acts of love towards Israel. Then the Levites enumerate the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their guilty transgressions during the reign of Belial. And all those who cross over into the covenant confess after them, saying, “We have perverted ourselves, we have rebel[led] we [have sin]ned, we have acted impiously, we [and] our [fath]ers before us….” They acknowledge that God had been righteous in his judgment “against us and our fathers.” (1QS 1:22–26) The confession of sin would seem to presuppose free will, and to go against the deterministic theology of the Treatise on the Two Spirits. The passage continues, however, by blessing “the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in all his ways,” and cursing the lot of Belial. At this point it is not apparent that those who “walk perfectly” have any sin to confess. The question arises whether the sins confessed by the Levites are those of the members of the yaḥad, or those of their ancestors. In short, those entering the covenant acknowledge the righteousness of God’s judgment on past generations, in accordance with traditional covenantal theology, but they give thanks that they have been assigned a better lot, and correspondingly curse those who have not. The question of free will arises again in connection with defection from the community: “Cursed be he who enters into this covenant and puts the stumbling-block of his iniquity before him so that he backslides (stumbling) over it…. May his spirit be destroyed, (suffering) thirst along with saturation, without forgiveness … May all the curses of this covenant stick to him” (1QS 2:11–17). It is not clear here whether the backsliders are thought to have been genuinely members of the covenant, who changed over time, or impostors, who were never truly members of the covenant in the first place. 50  K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 99–109.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

39

The covenant renewal ceremony in 1QS 1:16–3:13 says nothing about spirits battling within the individual heart. Consequently, Jörg Frey judges it to exhibit a different kind of dualism from the Treatise on the Two Spirits, and to confirm that the latter is not itself a product of the yaḥad.51 There is no room for ambiguity, or for partial adherence, in the covenant. It seems to me, however, that the evidence could be read otherwise. If the spirits struggle within the individual, then presumably a person may be tugged this way or that. If a person sins, this is due to the Spirit of Darkness, but the person is culpable nonetheless. As Philip Alexander has argued, “whether a man is counted righteous or wicked depends on the preponderance of Truth and Falsehood in his make-up: ‘According to a man’s share in Truth shall he be righteous and thus hate falsehood, and according to his inheritance in the lot of Falsehood shall he be wicked.’”52 The very fact that the covenantal ceremony makes provision for expulsion shows that a member’s status may vary, even if his end-state is predetermined. Various scholars have pointed to aspects of life in the yaḥad that seem to imply free will. These include the use of petitionary prayer,53 voluntary actions such as entering the community, and the presence of a penal code.54 Some might infer that the Treatise on the Two Spirits is atypical of the movement, but Alexander has recently argued for extensive influence.55 In addition to the War Scroll, which clearly exhibits cosmic dualism, he points to 4Q502, the so-called “Ritual of Marriage,” which appears to quote 1QS 4:4–6; 4Q186, the physiognomic text, where he finds “strong intertextuality” with the Treatise; and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which contain “a significant allusion” to it (“For from the God of knowledge comes all that exists forever …”).56 Most notable for our purposes is the presence of dualistic elements in the Damascus Document. One recension of this text begins with an exhortation “for the So] ns of Light to keep apart from the wa[ys of Darkness.”57 CD 5:17–19 portrays the struggle between Moses and Aaron and the Egyptian magicians Jannes 51  Frey, “Apocalyptic Dualism,” 287. 52  Alexander, “Predestination and Freewill,” 32; 1QS 4:24; cf. 4:15–16. 53  E. M. Schuller, “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 29–45. 54  See M. Popović, “Apocalyptic Determinism,” in Collins, Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, 255–70 (264). 55  Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 39–47. 56  4Q402 4 12–15; 4Q406 1  1–2; Mas1k i 1–7. See J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Newsom, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 152–53. 57  4Q266 (4QDa).

40

Collins

and Jambres in terms of the struggle between the Prince of Light and Belial. CD 2:2–13 is introduced as an address to those who enter the covenant. It does not mention spirits of light and darkness, but it has a strongly deterministic tone. It says of the wicked: “From the beginning God chose them not. He knew their deeds before ever they were created and he hated their generations.” Conversely, in every generation God raised up for himself men called by name, so that a remnant might be left to the land.58 This kind of deterministic language seems to be at odds with the centrality of the covenant, which is usually thought to require free will. We should remember, however, that even Ben Sira, who is usually regarded as a staunch defender of free will, uses deterministic language on occasion and says that human beings are left in the power of their yetzer, or inclination.59 The yetzer is not an external force like the spirits are, but nonetheless it cannot be equated with free will, and it is not entirely subject to rational control.60 Many Judeans in the late Second Temple period subscribed to some combination of fate and free will. According to Josephus, the Pharisees “attribute everything to fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with men, but that in each action fate cooperates.”61 Or, in the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiba, “all is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is granted.”62 There are, to be sure, significant differences between the positions attributed to the Pharisees and the Essenes, but they are differences along a spectrum rather than absolute contrast.63 Traces of dualism and determinism in the Damascus Document pose a problem for those, including myself, who think that CD preserves an earlier sectarian rule than the Community Rule. Jean Duhaime suggested that the reference to the Prince of Light and Prince of Darkness in CD 5:17–19 was an instance of “dualistic reworking.”64 4QDa may reflect a recension of the older rule to bring it into line with the Community Rule. Perhaps. The interactions between the two rules are complex and should not all be attributed to one-way 58  Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 42–44; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 233–70. 59  Sir 15:14. See J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 80–84. 60  On the yetzer in rabbinic literature, see now I. Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–39, who argues that the idea of two inclinations is marginal in the rabbinic corpus, and that the evil yetzer is predominant. 61  Josephus, J.W. 2.163. Compare Ant. 18.13. 62  M. ʾAbot 3:16. 63  See the discussion of various kinds of “compatibilism” in ancient Judaism by J. Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), chapter 2. 64  Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 51–55.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

41

influence. But in any case, the forms of the Damascus Document that have survived include dualistic and deterministic language at several points. Philip Alexander has argued, following the philosopher P. F. Strawson, that “however philosophically strong the arguments may be for determinism, we all—even those of us who may theoretically subscribe to it—normally interact with each other in everyday life on the assumption that we free agents.”65 This was undoubtedly true for the Essenes as well as for anyone else. Seth Schwartz has argued that the doctrine of the Two Spirits is only the “most poignant and self-conscious form” of “the juxtaposition of incongruous systems” that characterized much of Judaism around the turn of the era.66 In his view, what he calls “the apocalyptic myth” in all its forms is in “stark contradiction of the covenantal ideology.”67 I would like to suggest, however, that what we find in the Community Rule is not merely the juxtaposition of incongruous systems. Rather, the dualistic and deterministic ideas are combined with the idea of covenant in an integral way, which entailed a serious revision of the traditional covenant. Those who entered the covenant affirmed their election and their allegiance to the lot of Light, and this was regarded as meritorious, even though they were predetermined to do so. Conversely, those who rejected the covenant or defected from it displayed the abject nature that had been assigned to their lot, and were rightly cursed for it. The new covenant, in short, operated differently from Deuteronomy. Election was not only an offer made by God to select humans, but actually determined their fate. As Jeremiah might have said, it was a covenant written in the heart (Jer 31:33). The covenant left to human free choice had long ago been shown to be a failure. 5 Conclusions Unlike the rabbis, the authors of these texts, the Damascus Document as well as the Community Rule, rejected the notion that all Israel has a share in the world to come, even if they still tended to equate the Sons of Light with Israel in texts like the War Scroll, which referred to the eschatological time. The division between Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness was not universalistic—Gentiles

65   Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 49; citing P. F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1974). 66  S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 79. 67  Ibid., 78.

42

Collins

were presumed to belong to the Sons of Darkness except in the poorly attested case of proselytes. But the covenantal community was no longer equated with ethnic Israel. The continued use of covenantal language thus gives an impression of continuity, but in fact masks a sharp rupture with biblical tradition. This rupture was not necessarily peculiar to the communities that produced the Scrolls. In discussing m. Sanh. 10:1, Israel Yuval claims that the Pharisees “believed that only the righteous shall be worthy of a place in the world to come,” although he does not document this claim.68 Moreover, the continuation of the mishnah, which states that one who denies the resurrection has no share in the world to come, would seem to exclude the Sadducees. Yuval also notes that the saying of Jesus that the meek will inherit the earth (Matt 5:5) assumes “an ethical and personal criterion.”69 Nonetheless, the idea that “all Israel will be saved” is affirmed by Paul in Rom 11:26, an affirmation that is all the more remarkable because Paul believed that salvation depended on faith in Christ, and that “a hardening” had come upon part of Israel (Rom 11:25). As Joseph Fitzmyer has shown, the phrase “all Israel,” which occurs 148 times in the Hebrew Bible, “always designates historic, ethnic Israel, usually in the synchronic sense of the generations of Israel contemporary with the author.”70 The Pauline statement shows that the idea that all Israel has a share in the world to come was current in the first century CE; but in fact it had been undercut to a great degree by the belief in a judgment after death that was based, not on ethnicity, but on individual merit. The sectarian scrolls envision a new kind of community, one that is determined by divine election, even if the members can still be held responsible for their actions. This theology was shaped not only by Israelite and Judean traditions, but also by ideas derived from Persian dualism, although these ideas were also adapted and reformulated to produce a theology that was new and distinctive in the ancient world. The “profoundly dualistic and deterministic worldview”71 expressed in the Treatise on the Two Spirits fits a sectarian mentality remarkably well. I am not persuaded that the Treatise was an older composition taken over by the Essenes; I think it is more easily explained as a sectarian composition. Whether its worldview was “all-pervasive in Qumran 68  Yuval, “All Israel,” 120. He seems to infer this from the importance the Pharisees attached to the observance of the Torah. 69  Ibid., 120. 70  J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 623. Yuval (“All Israel,” 120) assumes that Paul is referring to Israel according to the spirit, or Christianity. 71  Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 47.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

43

theology,” as Alexander argues,72 may still be debatable; but the fact that the Treatise was included in some editions of the Community Rule cannot be lightly dismissed. In any case, even compositions like the Damascus Document, where dualism and determinism are present but not central, still entail a radical revision of the traditional covenant, and a redefinition of what it meant to belong to the Israel of God. Seth Schwartz has argued that “the repeated juxtaposition of the covenant and the [apocalyptic] myth in ancient Jewish writing indicates that though the systems are logically incongruous, they did not for the most part generate social division.”73 The case of the new covenant and the yaḥad, however, is clearly an exception to this. (The case of the Enoch literature is less clear, but may also imply social division.) The dualism of light and darkness went hand in hand with the separation of the sect from the rest of Judaism. It is probably fruitless to argue whether the division or the myth came first. If we may judge by 4QMMT, the initial separation of the sect was primarily due to legal disagreements, and so we might suppose that the doctrine of the two spirits was adopted secondarily to provide a theological explanation for the social division. Acceptance of this doctrine did not entail a rejection of the covenantal tradition, but it did entail a new way of understanding that tradition that had far-reaching implications for the Jewish identity of the sectarian movement.

Author’s Note

An earlier form of this article was published under the title, “Covenant and Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in my book of collected studies, Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls, WUNT 2/332 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 179–94 (paperback edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). Bibliography Alexander, P. S. “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 27–49 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by J. M. G. Barclay and S. Gathercole. LNTS 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Alexander, P. S. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal.” RevQ 17/4 (1996): 437–53. 72  Ibid. 73  Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 81.

44

Collins

Baltzer, K. The Covenant Formulary. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Charlesworth, J. H., and C. A. Newsom. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Christiansen, E. J. “The Consciousness of Belonging to God’s Covenant and What It Entails, according to the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.” Pages 69–97 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Collins, J. J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, J. J. “The Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books.” Pages 25–42 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part 5, Volume 1: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner, and B. Chilton. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Collins, J. J. “Covenant and Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 179–94 in J. J. Collins, Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls. WUNT 2/332. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Collins, J. J. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Collins, J. J. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran.” Pages 609–18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry, and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Collins, J. J. “The Interpretation of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 157–75 in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007. Edited by A. Moriya and G. Hata. JSJSup 158. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Collins, J. J. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017. Collins, J. J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Collins, J. J. Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic–Roman Judaism. JSJSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Collins, J. J. “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 369–83 in J. J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. JSJSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Dimant, D. “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives.” Pages 55–73 in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997). Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1998.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

45

Duhaime, J. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. Fitzmyer, J. A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frey, J. “Apocalyptic Dualism.” Pages 271–94 in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by J. J. Collins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Frey, J. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Goff, M. “Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran.” Pages 20–38 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Goldman, L. “Dualism in the Visions of Amram.” RevQ 24/3 (2010): 421–32. Griffiths, J. G. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1970. Heger, P. “Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings.” Pages 39–101 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hempel, C. “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community.” Pages 102–20 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hultgård, A. “Persian Apocalypticism.” Pages 39–83 in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. J. Collins. New York: Continuum, 1998. Hultgren, S. From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community. STDJ 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jong, A. de. “Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 479–500 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Jong, A. de. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kellens, J. and E. Pirart. “La strophe des jumeaux: Stagnation, extravagance et autres methods d’approche.” JA 285 (1997): 31–72. Klawans, J. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Kobelski, P. J. Melchizedek and Melchirešaʿ. CBQMS 10. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Kuhn, K. G. “Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion.” ZTK 49 (1952): 296–316. Lambert, D. “Was the Dead Sea Sect a Penitential Movement?” Pages 501–13 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lange, A. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

46

Collins

Lange, A. “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung.” Pages 3–30 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002. Leonhardt-Balzer, J. “Evil, Dualism and Community: Who/What Did the Yaḥad Not Want to Be?” Pages 121–47 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Levenson, J. D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper, 1987. Metso, S. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1969. Popović, M. “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13–4:26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 1028–67 in vol. 2 of Sibyls, Scriptures and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by J. Baden, H. Najman, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Popović, M. “Apocalyptic Determinism.” Pages 255–70 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Popović, M. “Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS III 13–IV 26) and in 4Q186.” Pages 148–65 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Popović, M. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic–Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Puech, É. “I. Visions de Amram.” Pages 283–405 in Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, Première Partie, 4Q529–549. Edited by É. Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Rosen-Zvi, I. “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma.” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–39. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schuller, E. M. “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 29–45 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Schwartz, S. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Skjaervø, P. O. “Zoroastrian Dualism.” Pages 55–91 in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by A. Lange et al. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Theologies in Tension in the Dead Sea Scrolls

47

Stegemann, H. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, John the Baptist and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Strawson, P. F. Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. London: Methuen, 1974. Strugnell, J., and D. J. Harrington. “417. 4QInstructionc.” Pages 151–72 in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. Edited by J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Urbach, E. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by I. Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1975. Widengren, G., A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko. Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien. Recherches intertestamentaires 2. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1995. Yuval, I. J. “All Israel Have a Portion in the World to Come.” Pages 114–38 in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders. Edited by F. Udoh, with S. Heschel, M. Chancey, and G. Tatum. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Zaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1961.

Concealing and Revealing in the Ideology of the Qumran Community Devorah Dimant 1 Introduction The opposition between concealing and revealing is one of the major concerns of Qumran sectarian literature, but it has not yet been the subject of a systematic analysis. Research has usually concentrated on the terms ‫ רז‬and ‫סוד‬ (“mystery,” and “secret”),1 often comparing them with similar notions in early Christian literature. In this type of survey, the particular Qumran perspective has been often circumscribed, and frequently vague.2 In other cases, investigations have been confined to specific texts and occurrences.3 Another flaw of these discussions is the lack of a distinction between sectarian and nonsectarian texts, or between Hebrew and Aramaic texts.4 Likewise, a number of studies have been devoted to the term ‫“( נסתרות‬hidden matters”).5 This is usually recognized as part of the characteristic sectarian nomenclature, and discussed as such, but it is usually treated independently of other related terms.6 By 1  See HALOT 2:745; 5:1980–81; DCH 6:126. 2  Cf., for instance, M. N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 2/36 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1990). Of the volume of some 300 pages, only a dozen are devoted to Qumran (42–56) and the focus is on ‫ נסתרות‬and ‫נגלות‬. Typical of such imprecise treatment is S. I. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, SBLEJL 25 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). See the survey of previous literature given by Thomas, ibid., 4–14. 3  As in the case of the enigmatic term ‫רז נהיה‬, which is frequently found in the sapiential work Instruction, but rarely in other sectarian works. Cf., e.g., T. Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 113–50. 4  Typically, Thomas discusses the occurrences of ‫ רז‬in the Qumran writings without making this distinction. Cf. idem, “Mysteries” of Qumran, 4–5. 5  Cf. HALOT 2:771; DCH 6:203. 6  Cf. L. H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, SJLA 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). Although later discussions offer a more nuanced analysis, they remain centered on this single term. See, e.g., A. Shemesh and C. Werman, “Hidden Things and Their Revelation,” RevQ 18/3 (1998): 409–27; P. Heger, “The Development of Qumran Law: Nistarot, Niglot and the Issue of ‘Contemporization,’ ” RevQ 23/2 (2007): 167–206; S. Tzoref, “The ‘Hidden’ and the ‘Revealed’: Esotericism, Election, and Culpability in Qumran and Related Literature,” in The Dead Sea

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_004

Concealing and Revealing

49

focusing on specific, isolated terms in this way, these discussions neither touch upon nor exhaust the full lexical range of the pertinent sectarian terms, nor do they define the full spectrum of meanings attached to the notion of concealing/ revealing in the Qumranic system of ideas. The present survey aims to fill this gap. In order to unfold the full breadth of the concealing/revealing theme in the sectarian context, I will survey the verbs expressing concealment, ‫חבא‬ (“hide”) and ‫“( סתר‬conceal”), as well as ‫“( גלה‬reveal, uncover”),7 which expresses revelation, in their linguistic settings.8 However, as this study is of limited scope, I will be able to trace here only the main contours of this thematic nexus, embedded as it is in the allusive, idiosyncratic style of the sectarian Hebrew texts; the Aramaic material will not be discussed here. Nevertheless, even this limited review will illustrate once again the dense and complex character of the sectarian mode of expression and the world of ideas to which it refers. 2

Concealment, Knowledge, and Mystery

One of the most outspoken formulations relevant to the present subject is this phrase in the Community Rule: ‫“( והצנע לכת בערמת כול וחבא לאמת רזי דעת‬and walking with discreetness9 by discernment about everything, and concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge”; 1QS 4:5–6).10 The sentence is part of  Scrolls at Sixty: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref, STDJ 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 299–324. 7  The verb ‫“( חזה‬see, perceive”; HALOT 1:301; DCH 3:182) is largely used in the Qumran Aramaic texts, but is absent from most of the Hebrew texts. Currently it appears only in the plural participle ‫“( חוזים‬seers”), usually as the nomen regens in construct pairs (e.g., 1QM 11:8; 1QHa 10:17; 12:11). 8  Heger, “The Development of Qumran Law,” 170–71, provides only a cursory survey of the meaning and usages of ‫ גלה‬and ‫סתר‬, in the service of elucidating the terms ‫ נסתרות‬and ‫נגלות‬. 9  “Modesty” and “humility” are the traditional renderings for the locution ‫הצנע לכת‬, taken here from Mic 6:8 (‫“( והצנע לכת (עם אלהיך‬to be modest/humble [with your God]”). The form ‫ הצנע‬is a hiphil infinitive of ‫צנע‬. As the only verbal form of this root in the Hebrew Bible (compare the plural substantive ‫ צנועים‬in Prov 11:2), it has been variously translated: “being cautious, wise, modest, discreet.” Cf. HALOT 3:1039; DCH 7:136–7. The parallelism of the verb ‫ צנע‬with ‫ חבא‬in the Qumranic phrase cited here suggests that the sense of “discreet” is the appropriate one in this context. 10  The translation of the Community Rule used in this article, unless otherwise stated, is that of E. Qimron and J. H. Charlesworth, with sporadic alterations. See Qimron and Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1–51.

50

Dimant

the code of conduct binding the Sons of Light, namely the members of the Qumran community. As is often the case with sectarian statements, the phrase is not easily understood, and no clarification is offered by its immediate context; but it may be elucidated by the broader context of the sectarian notion of concealment. Two immediate questions arise from this concise assertion: what is the “truth of the mysteries of knowledge”? and why should it be concealed? The first question may partially be answered by considering the parallel phrase in the first part of the citation. It suggests that concealment is analogous to discreetness, ‫והצנע לכת‬,11 while the “mysteries of knowledge” correlate with the “discernment of everything,” ‫ערמת כול‬. The combination of “truth” with “mysteries of knowledge” is further illuminated by the study of the term “truth,” which denotes a central sectarian notion. God is defined as the God of Truth (‫ ;אל אמת‬1QHa 7:38; 4Q416 1 14); the spirit of light is also called the “spirit of truth” (‫ ;רוח האמת‬1QS 2:18–19); the members of the community are known as “men of truth” (‫ ;אנשי האמת‬1QpHab 7:10; 1QHa 6:13); and the community itself is designated “a community of truth” (‫ ;יחד אמת‬1QS 2:24). In line with this significance, other aspects of the community’s activity and beliefs are also described by this term. In fact, the term “truth” is associated with both the knowledge and the mysteries mentioned in our initial citation. The regulations for the Maskil laid down in the Community Rule, pertaining to how he is to conduct himself with his fellow members, instruct him “to teach true knowledge and righteous judgment to those who choose the path” (‫ ;ולהורות דעת אמת ומשפט צדק לביחרי ]= בחירי[ דרך‬1QS 9:17). Particularly illuminating is the directive “to guide them with knowledge, and to instruct them in mysteries of wonder and truth” (‫להנחותם בדעה וכן להשכילם‬ ‫ ;ברזי פלא ואמת‬1QS 9:18–19).12 This directive contains the three terms specified in the dictate of concealment in 1QS 4:5–6 above cited: knowledge, mysteries, and truth (‫רזים‬, ‫דעה‬, and ‫)אמת‬. So the terminological association of 1QS 4:5–6 with the statement of 1QS 9:18–19 suggests that the mysteries to be concealed form part of the particular teaching dispensed by the Maskil to the members of the yaḥad community. The content of the “mysteries of knowledge” is further elucidated by other parallels in the sectarian literature. The locution from our initial quotation, ‫אמת רזי דעת‬, “the truth of mysteries of knowledge,” is itself unique in the Scrolls, but the construct pair “mysteries of knowledge,” ‫רזי דעת‬, appears once more, in the sectarian Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. According to the eighth Song in this composition, seven “mysteries of knowledge” are sung by the priestly 11  See n. 9 above. 12  The final words may alternatively be translated “wondrous and truthful mysteries.”

Concealing and Revealing

51

angels in the upper mansions of the heavenly temple (4Q403 1 ii 27). From this, it is clear that the human community and this angelic group share some particular knowledge, a notion that is evoked in other sectarian texts (e.g., 1QS 4:22; 9:8; 1QHa 11:23); this concept is in line with the analogy between the righteous humans and the angels, an idea central to the self-image of the sectaries.13 While the combination ‫ רזי דעת‬is rare in the sectarian literature, the term ‫דעת‬, “knowledge,” is used frequently. In the sectarian texts, ‫ דעת‬appears in a twofold perspective. From the human perspective, it represents the information and understanding that human beings acquire or receive. Among the qualities displayed by the Sons of Light is the “spirit of knowledge in all the plans of action” (‫ ;ורוח דעת בכול מחשבת מעשה‬1QS 4:4). Indeed, the obligation imposed on the members of the Qumran community is to “refine their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees” (‫ ;לברר דעתם באמת חוקי אל‬1QS 1:12). From the divine perspective, God’s particular predilection is knowledge, as stated by the Damascus Document: “God loves knowledge” (‫ ;אל אהב דעת‬CD 2:2) and further on: “Prudence and knowledge shall serve him” (‫ערמה ודעת הם ישרתוהו‬ (CD 2:4).14 In fact, God himself is the fountain of wisdom, which is the source of this knowledge. But in the divine sphere wisdom and mysteries are intertwined, and so may illuminate our initial expression “mysteries of knowledge,” ‫רזי דעת‬. For the divine wisdom is mysterious and is referred to by the locutions, “the mysteries of his/your intelligence,” ‫שכלכה‬/‫( רזי שכלו‬1QS 4:18; 1QHa 5:30; 20:16); “the mystery 13  From the angelic perspective, the clearest analogy to the yaḥad community appears in the first Song of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which describes the community of the priestly angels in terms applied elsewhere to the human community of the Qumranites. Cf. 4Q400 1 i 6–19. From the human Qumranite perspective the yaḥad is depicted as a group sharing wisdom with the angels. Cf. 1QS 4:22; 11:8; 1QHa 11:22–23; 4Q181 1 ii 3–4. Compare the analogy between the heavenly angels of the presence and the people of Israel elaborated by Jubilees. Both are circumcised (Jub. 15:26–28); both keep the Sabbath (Jub. 2:18, 21); and the angels celebrate the feast of Shavuot until the days of Noah (Jub. 6:18). See my comments in, “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community,” in D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 465–72; eadem, “ ‘Sons of Heaven’: The Teachings about Angels in Jubilees and in the Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in eadem, Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 141–60 (146) (in Hebrew). 14  The translation of the Damascus Document (CD) used in this article is that of Baumgarten and Schwartz, with sporadic alterations. See J. M. Baumgarten and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 4–57.

52

Dimant

of your wisdom”; “the mysteries of his prudence” (‫ ;רז חכמתכה ;רזי עורמתו‬1QHa 17:23; 1QpHab 7:14; 4Q491 11 i 10). Such expressions are frequently related to the divine omniscience, which is expressed in the acts of creation and the preestablished plan for human history. But this omniscience remains enigmatic; it is not accessible to the human grasp, and therefore it remains mysterious. This applies to divine knowledge of the created world, as well as of human history. This is why the term “mysteries” is applied to the final demise of evil forces, an end which is predetermined in the divine blueprint. According to the Community Rule, “in the mysteries of his intelligence and in the wisdom of his glory, God has determined an end to the existence of injustice” (‫ואל ברזי‬ ‫ ;שכלו ובחכמת כבודו נתן קץ להוית עולה‬1QS 4:18). Even more articulate is the Pesher on Habakkuk, which speaks of the periods of history that God has preestablished: “for all the periods of God will come at the right order as he had established for them in the mysteries of his prudence” (‫ ;כיא כול קיצי אל יבואו לתכונם כאשר חקק להם ברזי ערמתו‬1QpHab 7:13–14).15 The sectarian sapiential work Mysteries also associates mysteries with the knowledge of the laws governing history. It relates the enigmatic term ‫רז נהיה‬, “the mystery of being,” to the laws of history, when it states that the wicked are ignorant of history: “But they did not know the mystery of being, and on ancient matters they did not meditate; so they did not know what shall befall on them” (‫ולוא ידעו רז נהיה ובקדמוניות לוא התבוננו ולא ידעו מה אשר יבוא‬ ‫ ;עליהמה‬1Q27 1 i 3–4).16 The term “mysteries,” ‫רזים‬, is also applied to history in other contexts. Thus, for instance, the Pesher on Habakkuk defines as “mysteries” the allusions to contemporary historical events embedded in biblical prophecies. These mysteries have been revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness, “to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the Prophets” (‫אשר‬ ‫ ;הודיעו אל את כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנביאים‬1QpHab 7:4–5).17 But what is a mystery 15  In the present article citations from the Pesher on Habakkuk are taken, with sporadic alterations, from the following volume, unless otherwise stated: M. P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 157–85. 16  The translation, with alterations, is taken from L. H. Schiffman, “B. Mysteries,” in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1, ed. T. Elgvin et al., DJD 20 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 31–123 (36). 17  Cf. the comments in D. Dimant, “Time, Torah, and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der früen Kaiserzeit, ed. R. Hirsch-Luipold, H. Görgemanns, and M. von Albrecht, STAC 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 147–98; eadem, “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran,” REJ 168 (2009): 373–93.

Concealing and Revealing

53

for human understanding is clear and transparent for God, as stated by the Hodayot: “Everything is engraved before you with a stylus of memory for all eternal periods and seasons of the number of eternal years in all their appointed times, and they are not concealed or absent from you”18 (1QHa 9:25–27). Here the all-inclusive knowledge possessed by God is an aspect of the concept of predestination. Because everything is predetermined from the beginning, it is also known, calculated, and planned for, from the initial creation. But this encompassing science remains within the divine domain. In other formulations, the link between creation and wisdom is ingrained in the mysteries of the divine intelligence, ‫( רזי שכלכה‬1QHa 5:30). After describing the act of creation as unfolding the predetermined plan, the hodayah goes on to state: “In the mysteries of your intelligence [you] apportioned all these in order to make known your glory” (‫;וברזי שכלכה פלג[תה] כול אלה להודיע כבודך‬ 1QHa 5:30).19 Another hodayah asserts that the divine might and wondrous nature is expressed, among other things, by “sealing up mysteries and revealing hidden matters”;20 namely, by both preserving the mysterious character of hidden matters and revealing them to the elect ones. Further light may be shed on the matter by examining the use of the term “mysteries” itself. As has already been indicated, the knowledge imparted to the sectaries is of a “mysterious” nature as well. This enigmatic character is sometimes expressed by the use of the phrase “the mysteries of God,” ‫רזי אל‬, especially in connection to historical events. In its exposition of the dualistic laws governing human existence, the Community Rule asserts that the errors of the Sons of Righteousness, namely the Sons of Light, are caused by the Angel of Darkness, “according to the mysteries of God until his end” (‫לפי‬ ‫ ;רזי אל עד קצו‬1QS 3:23), which denotes the apocalyptic demise of the Angel of Darkness. Another passage, this time from the War Scroll, notes that the trumpets of ambush in the final battle against the forces of evil will have the inscription: “God’s mysteries for the destruction of wickedness” (‫רזי אל לשחת‬ ‫ ;רשעה‬1QM 3:9).21 18  ‫הכול חקוק לפניכה בחרת זכרון לכול קצי נצח ותקופות מספר שני עולם בכול מועדיהם ולוא‬ .‫נסתרו ולא נעדרו מפניכה‬ 19  Translations of 1QHa are taken (with occasional alterations) from Carol Newsom’s rendering in The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa, ed. E. M. Schuller and C. A. Newsom, SBLEJL 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 20  … ‫“( ברכו המפליא גאות ומודיע עוז ידו לחתום רזים ולגלות נסתרות‬Bless the one who wondrously does majestic deeds and who makes known the strength of his hand, sealing up mysteries and revealing hidden matters …”), 4Q427 7 i 18–19. 21  Translations of citations from the War Scroll are taken, with alterations, from J. Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in Charlesworth, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, 80–142.

54

Dimant

Perhaps the clearest expression of the meaning of this phrase appears in a line from the Pesher on Habakkuk. The passage addresses the difficulties experienced by the sectaries as they live through the protracted final period, immediately preceding the eschatological era. This period is to be longer than the prophetic passages suggest, “because the mysteries of God are wondrous” (‫כיא‬ ‫ ;רזי אל להפלה‬1QpHab 7:8). Since these mysteries are embedded in the divine program for history, they may be imparted only by way of a special revelation, as they were divulged to the Qumranites. Being worthy of such a revelation and being granted it is due to the particular merit of the community. The cognizance of having been elected to receive such special wisdom is particularly keen in certain Hodayot. Their author, perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness, or another sectarian leader, or a Maskil, communicates his gratitude for the divine knowledge divulged to him: “You have opened up knowledge within me through the mystery of your intelligence” (‫ ;[פ]תחתה לתוכי דעת ברז שכלכה‬1QHa 20:16). This author therefore considers himself an “interpreter of knowledge” (‫ ;מליץ דעת‬1QHa 10:15). The author’s self-attributed title—“an interpreter of knowledge in wondrous mysteries” (‫ ;מליץ דעת ברזי פלא‬1QHa 10:15)—connects the mysteries with the revelation of knowledge, like the “mysteries of knowledge” in the initial citation from Community Rule 4:5–6. In other formulations the author speaks of God revealing to him “torot” in the plural (1QHa 19:20),22 or concealing within him a divine “torah” (1QHa 13:13);23 here “torah” is used in a broader sense than the specific “Torah of Moses.” This context should be understood according to a line from the Melchizedek Pesher that speaks of the covenanters’ teachers who were concealed when wickedness ruled the world.24 We may conclude this section of the survey by citing the closing poem of the Community Rule, which summarizes all the aspects of the ideological nexus surveyed above: My eyes beheld wisdom, which is concealed from humankind; knowledge and prudent plans (concealed) from humans; a fountain of righteousness and a sea of might, with a spring of glory (hidden) from an assembly of flesh; for those whom God has chosen he set as an eternal possession, and he gave them as an inheritance the lot of the holy ones; and with the sons of heaven he has joined them in a council of the community and an 22  ‫ט‬  ‫“( תרותיכה גליתה לי ואבי‬your torot you have revealed to me so that I have gazed upon …”). 23   … ]‫“( כי אתה אל סתרתני נגד בני אדם ותורתכה חבתה ב[י‬For you, God, have concealed/ sheltered me against mortals, and your torah you have hidden in m[e]….”). 24  11Q13 2:5: ]‫“( מוריהמה החבאו וסתר[ו‬their teachers were hidden and conceal[ed]”).

Concealing and Revealing

55

assembly of a holy structure, for the eternal plant, during all the periods to come.” (1QS 11:6–9)25 Here the divine wisdom appears to be all-encompassing and again is dispensed only within the community.26 Interestingly, the passage also affirms that both community members and angels share this hidden knowledge. The above review clarifies the content and nature of the “mysteries of knowledge.” The term refers to the particular knowledge and understanding of the creation of the world and of human history that were revealed to the founder of the community, the Teacher of Righteousness, and to the community at large. The divine source of this knowledge is evident because it springs from the principles of the creation of the world and the historical process engraved in the divine premeditated plan. The enigmatic nature of these mysteries and the hidden logic they impose on historical events belong to the domain of divine wisdom; and therefore, it appears, they should only be revealed to and guarded by those who merit knowing them. 3

Terms of Concealment

Thus is answered the first question regarding the nature of the knowledge that needs to remain hidden. But still unanswered is the second question: why are those to whom these mysteries may be revealed required to conceal them? The aspect of concealment required of the members of the yaḥad is also formulated in col. 9 of the Cave 1 copy of the Community Rule. This passage forms a part of the directives to the Maskil and is thus binding for all the members of the community. The Maskil’s duty is twofold: he must define what is to be hidden and indicate what is to be revealed. The concealment mandated by the Community Rule is formulated in the following phrase: “he (i.e., the Maskil) should not reproach or argue with the men of the pit, but conceal the community of the Torah27 in the midst of the men of injustice” (‫ואשר‬ 25  ‫ה‬  ‫ מקור צדקה ומקו‬,‫הביטה עיני תושיה אשר נסתרה מאנוש דעה ומזמת ערמה מבני אדם‬ ‫ לאשר בחר אל נתנם לאוחזת עולם וינחילם בגורל קדושים ועם בני‬.‫גבורה עם מעין כבוד‬ .‫שמים חבר סודם לעצת יחד וסוד מבנית קודש למטעת עולם עם כול קצ נהיה‬ 26  Tzoref, “ ‘Hidden’ and ‘Revealed,’ ” 310, cites this passage for the use of the term ‫נסתרה‬. In her opinion, the hidden knowledge mentioned here, as in other texts she cites, carries an eschatological meaning. In my judgment, the formulation here lacks any specificity so it must refer to divine wisdom in general. 27  Most of the translations render the locution ‫ עצת התורה‬as “the counsel of the Torah.” See, e.g., Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, 27. But the context clearly indicates that here

56

Dimant

‫ ;לוא ולהוכיח ולהתרובב עם אנשי השחת ולסתר את עצת התורה בתוכ אנשי העול‬1QS

9:16–17).28 In contrast, the Maskil “should reproach with truthful knowledge and righteous judgment those who choose the path” (‫ולהוכיח דעת אמת ומשפט‬ ‫ ;צדק לביחרי (= לבחירי) דרכ‬1QS 9:18). The antithetical phrasing of the address to the wicked and the address to the righteous is in harmony with the dualistic worldview of the Qumranites. Indeed, the author/s of the Hodayot state/s, “But in order to show [your] gr[eatness] through me, and on account of their guilt, you have hidden the spring of understanding and the foundation of truth.”29 So this knowledge is kept hidden not only in order that it might be revealed solely to the meritorious, but also in order that it might be denied to the sinful. In different terms, the Community Rule 9:21–22 formulates the directive to the Maskil as nurturing “eternal hatred against the men of pit in the spirit of concealment” (‫)שנאת עולם עם אנשי שחת ברוח הסתר‬. Here, concealment is paired with eternal animosity towards the wicked. The passage suggests that the secrecy maintained by the community vis-à-vis all outsiders was also imposed out of fear of betraying the Qumranites’ most cherished body of knowledge.30 Thus, the precious knowledge divinely imparted to the Qumranites and their leaders was to be totally concealed from the evil, unworthy men outside the community. The true purpose of concealment, as expressed here, is to bar the impure wicked from access to pure divinely imparted knowledge. Exclusion from the community and exclusion from access to divine knowledge go hand in hand. The exclusion of outsiders sheds interesting light on the dictate of Community Rule 6:6–8, which requires all community members to regularly study the Torah in groups, and thus to share among themselves knowledge and new insights accumulated in this way.31 The rule stresses two aspects of this the substantive ‫ עצה‬stands for the entire community, as it does in the common construct pair ‫( עצת היחד‬e.g., 1Q14 8–10 8; 1QpHab 12:4; 1QS 3:2; 5:7; 7:2; 4Q164 1 2). The expression ‫עצת‬ ‫ התורה‬is also mentioned earlier in the same column of the Community Rule (1QS 9:9), as well as in a fragment of a cave 4 papyrus copy of the Damascus Document (4Q273 5 3). 28  The translation is that of F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar in DSSSE 1:93, with some alterations. 29  ‫( ובעבור הגבי[רכה] בי ולמען אשמתם סתרת מעין בינה וסוד אמת‬1QHa 13:27–28). 30  As noted by Aharon Shemesh and Menachem Kister during the exchange at the symposium following this paper. 31  The text is given here:  ‫ואל ימש במקום אשר יהיו שם העשרה איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה תמיד עליפות‬ ‫‏ (= חליפות‏) איש לרעהו והרבים ישקודו ביחד את שלישית כול לילות השנה לקרוא‬ .‫בספר ולדרוש משפט ולברכ ביחד‬

Concealing and Revealing

57

activity: first, the communality of study and the results gained by it; and second, the confinement of this study within the framework of the community. This practice was evidently used to nurture and develop the exclusive learning and knowledge garnered within the communal circle of the yaḥad. The type of knowledge shared here, ‫דעת‬, is intended only for the inner circles of the yaḥad, and its exclusiveness is made clear by the instruction to conceal it from others. The duality between revealing to the initiated and concealing from outsiders is expressed most blatantly by the Community Rule: “and every matter hidden from Israel but which has been found out by the person who interprets, he should not keep it hidden from them” (‫וכול דבר הנסתר מישראל ונמצא לאיש‬ ‫ ;הדורש אל יסתרהו מאלה‬1QS 8:11–12). So, while some matters are to be concealed from Israel as a whole, once they are revealed to a member of the community, they must be shared with all the members.32 By living within the self-imposed limits of a selected group that possesses exclusive knowledge, the community itself becomes a secretive organization. This is expressed by the Hodayot through the metaphor of a small, young plant, hidden among large trees: “trees of life at a mysterious spring are hidden in the midst of all the trees by the water; and they were (there) so that a shoot might sprout into eternal planting” (‫עצי חיים במעין רז מחובאים בתוך כול עצי מים‬ ‫ ;והיו להפריח נצר למטעת עולם‬1QHa 16:6–7). 4

The Nature of the Revelation

This survey would not be complete without considering the other side of the concealment idea, namely, that of revelation. For a major feature of the cluster of concepts surveyed above is the idea that the hidden nature of divine wisdom and mysteries is divulged to the meritorious sectarians. Yet it is notable that the verb ‫גלה‬, which is the main lexical vehicle for expressing revelation, occurs And where there are ten [members] there must not be lacking there a man who studies the Torah day and night continually, each man relieving the other. The Many shall spend the third part of every night of the year in unity [or “in the community”], reading the Book, studying judgment and saying together [or “in the community”] benedictions. 32  Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, 28, explains the communality of learning required here by the fact that, as full members of the yaḥad, the Qumranites do not need to conceal the knowledge from one another. But this explanation accounts for only one aspect of the complex picture presented by this practice. As explained above, the confinement of knowledge to the community also reflects the elective and meritorious character of the Qumranites.

58

Dimant

less frequently in the sectarian texts than the terms ‫חבא‬, ‫סתר‬, which express concealment. Moreover, there is a subtle distinction between the use of ‫ גלה‬as a piel verb and as a niphal participle. The piel verb is less common but usually denotes the uncovering of the divine in general. Revelations accorded to the Qumranites and their leaders concern mysteries (‫ )רזים‬in general, the mystery of being (‫)רז נהיה‬, the ways of truth (‫)דרכי אמת‬, and hidden matters (‫)נסתרות‬.33 So, disclosing knowledge of both history and cosmology is intended. However, the substantive, ‫נגלות‬/‫“( נגלה‬revealed matter/matters”), is occasionally employed in more specific contexts, related to Torah injunctions.34 The term exemplifies the tendency prevalent during Second Temple times to attain to knowledge and wisdom through the study of texts.35 This sense is clear in various statements of the Community Rule (1QS 5:9, 12; 8:1–2, 15; perhaps also in 1QS 9:19). But the full significance of the term may be judged only by examining its usage in conjunction with the term ‫נסתרות‬, a plural niphal participle of the verb ‫סתר‬. The two terms, ‫ נגלות‬and ‫נסתרות‬, help articulate the contrast between the members of the yaḥad and outsiders in Col. 5 of the Community Rule. The members of the yaḥad are here directed to separate from sinful men: “for they cannot be accounted in his covenant, since they have neither sought nor searched him through his statutes, in order to know the hidden matters in which they erred incurring guilt, and the revealed matters they practiced with a ‛high hand’ ” (1QS 5:11–12).36 The pair “hidden matters” (‫ )נסתרות‬and “revealed matters” (‫ )נגלות‬is clearly taken from Deut 29:28, where they are explicitly linked to “this Torah” (‫)התורה הזאת‬. The Deuteronomistic overtones are still detectable in the Qumranic formulation, which seems to interpret the biblical statement.37 It is generally agreed that for the Qumran text the ‫ נגלות‬are the 33  Cf. CD 2:2, 14; 1Q26 1 i 5; 1QHa 9:23; 14:7; 19:20; 26:12, 15. 34  Wisdom is also combined with “knowledge of the Torah” in 4QMMT C 28, as noted by M. Kister, “Wisdom Literature and its Relation to other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20–22 May, 2001, ed. J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling, and R. A. Clements, STDJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 13–47 (18). 35  A tendency pointed out by Kister, “Wisdom Literature and its Relation to other Genres,” 21. His general discussion touches on several points raised in the present article. 36  ‫כיא לוא החשבו בבריתו כיא לוא בקשו ולוא דרשהו לדעת הנסתרות אשר תעו בם לאששמה‬ ‫ ;(= לאשמה) והנגלות עשו ביד רמה‬1QS 5:11–12. 37  See, e.g., G. A. Anderson, “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Friedman and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 49–64 (54–57); Shemesh and Werman, “Hidden

Concealing and Revealing

59

precepts of the Torah, transmitted by Moses, whereas the ‫ נסתרות‬are the injunctions embedded in the Torah and revealed only through its interpretation according to principles revealed to the Qumran community (note CD 3:13–16; 6:2–11; 15:13).38 In other legal contexts the single participle ‫“( נגלה‬revealed matter”) signifies something that is specifically disclosed to the sectaries “from time to time” (1QS 5:9; 8:15; 9:13), rather than what is accessible of the Torah to all Israel. But this formulation does not necessarily contradict the description of the wicked in 1QS 5:11–12, cited above. It may rather be viewed as broadening the meaning of ‫ נגלות‬in 1QS 5:11: the matters that were revealed “from time to time” did in fact constitute hidden things embedded in the Torah statements, unknown to Israel at large but made known to the sectaries through the process of interpreting the Torah in their particular manner. The dynamic character of the “revealed matter” is indicated by its temporal dimension, since it is revealed “from time to time.”39 However, ‫ נסתרות‬appear to carry broader meanings as well, since it occurs in contexts other than legal.40 Thus, the term ‫ נסתרות‬clearly refers to the mysteries of history in the introductory section of the Damascus Document, which is preserved in two cave 4 copies: “and he (God) uncovered their eyes to hidden matters (‫)נסתרות‬, and opened their ears so that they heard profound matters and grasped every event that is to be before it comes upon them.”41 This reflects the same usage of ‫ נסתרות‬mentioned in 4Q427 7 i 18–19, cited above. In the Community Rule (1QS 11:6–9) the divine knowledge is defined by the singular term “hidden” (‫)נסתרה‬. Such statements illuminate the elusive character of history and the divine wisdom embedded in it. Therefore, revelation of the mysteries pertaining to human history may take place only within the community, evolving through communal study. In this respect, there is an interesting analogy between the yaḥad’s communal study and knowledge and its Things,” 409–11. In the opinion of Shemesh and Werman, “Deut 29–30 as a whole was read as a pesher and applied to the sect” (ibid., 413–14). 38  See Anderson, “Intentional and Unintentional Sin,” 51; Shemesh and Werman, “Hidden Things,” 410–11. 39  The notion that the “hidden” meaning of the Torah is gradually revealed through time is expressed by several sectarian texts (e.g., 1QS 1:8–9; 8:15; 9:13), as was recognized long ago. 40  Heger argued in a similar vein (“The Development of Qumran Law,” 184); as well as Tzoref, “ ‘Hidden’ and ‛Revealed,’ ” 323, but in less detail. 41   ‫ויגל עיניהמה בנסתרות ואוזנמה פתח וישמעו עמוקות ויבינו בכול נהיות עד מה יבוא במה‬ (4Q266 2 i 5 + 4Q268 1 7–8). As is clear from the broader context of the passage, the term refers to the entire course of history; which, of course, also includes the final eschatological conclusion of the historical process, so such statements cannot convey only eschatological meaning (contra Tzoref, “ ‘Hidden’ and ‘Revealed,’ ” 310–11).

60

Dimant

communal property. Both are kept strictly within the community, and both are put exclusively to the use of its full members, those who have completed their process of purification from external evils.42 5 Conclusion The foregoing survey has demonstrated that in sectarian thinking, concealing and revealing present two aspects of one and the same notion, which is manifested on several levels. Knowledge of the mysterious laws controlling both history and the creation of the world is divulged to the yaḥad alone, by special revelation. One aspect of granting such knowledge is revealing the hidden meaning of the Torah laws and the prophets’ forecasts. The two domains are but different facets of a single divine omnipresent wisdom, which controls and administers this totality. This sacred and divine knowledge imparts to humans a particular understanding of the world and its history but is given only to the meritorious righteous members of the community. Within the community’s boundaries, such knowledge is dispensed to and shared by all its members equally, but it is entirely concealed from all outsiders, for they are evil and impure. Thus, the interplay between concealing and revealing forms an essential part of the mentality and ethos of the Qumran community, and may explain the often enigmatic and concise formulations of the sectarian texts. It is yet another aspect of the fundamentally dichotomous vision of the Qumran yaḥad. Bibliography Anderson, G. A. “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49–64 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Friedman and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Baumgarten, J. M. and D. R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

42  Note that the property and money of new applicants to the yaḥad are kept separate during their three years of probation and are annexed to the communal possessions only when these candidates become full members. See 1QS 6:17, 19, 22.

Concealing and Revealing

61

Bockmuehl, M. N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. WUNT 2/36. Tübingen: Mohr, 1990. Dimant, D. “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran.” REJ 168 (2009): 373–93. Dimant, D. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 465–72 in D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Dimant, D. “ ‘Sons of Heaven’: The Teachings about Angels in Jubilees and in the Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 141–60 in D. Dimant, Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010 (in Hebrew). Dimant, D. “Time, Torah, and Prophecy at Qumran.” Pages 147–98 in Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der früen Kaiserzeit. Edited by R. HirschLuipold, H. Görgemanns, and M. von Albrecht. STAC 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Duhaime, J. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–142 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Elgvin, T. “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation.” Pages 113–50 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Heger, P. “The Development of Qumran Law: Nistarot, Niglot and the Issue of ‘Contemporization.’ ” RevQ 23/2 (2007): 167–206. Horgan, M. P. “Habakkuk Pesher.” Pages 157–85 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Kister, M. “Wisdom Literature and its Relation to other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries.” Pages 13–47 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20–22 May, 2001. Edited by J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling, and R. A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Qimron, E. and J. H. Charlesworth. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 1–51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Schiffman, L. H. “B. Mysteries,” Pages 31–123 in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1. Edited by T. Elgvin et al. DJD 20. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Schiffman, L. H. The Halakhah at Qumran. SJLA 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

62

Dimant

Schuller, E. M. and C. Newsom, eds. The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. SBLEJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Shemesh, A. and C. Werman. “Hidden Things and Their Revelation.” RevQ 18/3 (1998): 409–27. Thomas, S. I. The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. SBLEJL 25. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Tzoref, S. “The ‘Hidden’ and the ‘Revealed’: Esotericism, Election, and Culpability in Qumran and Related Literature.” Pages 299–324 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Sixty: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology: Images of Heaven in the Dead Sea Scrolls Beate Ego Recent research into ancient cosmology refers specifically to the symbolic dimension of cosmological conceptions and demonstrates that these conceptions need to be regarded as elements of a religious symbol system. This means that, apart from addressing the question of how Jews or Christians imagined or depicted cosmological elements such as heaven1 and earth, we also have to contemplate the symbolic dimensions of these elements: that is, the worldviews or ideas concerning the “general order of existence” which are implied in such descriptions of the cosmos. As is usual in such discussions, we should first refer to the three-volume work entitled, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, by neo-Kantian philosopher Ernst Cassirer, particularly the second volume, Das mythische Denken (1925).2 In this volume, Cassirer argues that the human being is a “symbolic animal.” Whereas animals perceive their world by instincts and through direct sensory perception, humans create a universe of symbolic meanings. Cassirer emphasized that in this context, space is experienced as “accentuated space,” which can be used to illustrate conceptions of a general order of existence. With regard to this symbolic approach, other scholars also require a mention, such as philosopher Susanne Langer (1895–1985)3 and anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006), both of whom were influenced by Cassirer. In his famous article entitled “Religion as a Cultural System,” published in 1973,4 Geertz defines religion as: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating 1  Regarding the general depiction of heaven in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see C. Newsom, “Heaven,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press), 1:338–40. 2  See E. Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, 2. Band: Das mythische Denken (Berlin: Cassirer, 1925). 3  See S. K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key: A Study of the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art, Mentor Books 25 (New York: New American Library of World Literature, 1952). 4  See C. Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. M. Banton (London: Tavistock, 1966), 1–46.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_005

64

Ego

conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.5 To put it more simply: religious symbols formulate conceptions of a general order of existence and create an aura of factuality that leads to long-lasting moods and motivations. It should furthermore be noted that Hebrew Bible scholars such as Othmar Keel and Hartmut Gese have been endeavoring to integrate this symbolic approach into biblical studies since the early 1990s. In particular, investigations have been carried out into the symbolic dimensions of biblical cosmologies.6 Bernd Janowski, for example, explicitly referred to Geertz’s approach in his investigation of the Temple of Jerusalem and its cosmological meaning in the Hebrew Bible.7 However, it seems to be a research desideratum to subject the cosmological ideas contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls to a rereading, and to consider them with regard to their functions in the religious symbol system in which they participate. Bearing this in mind, in this article I would like to focus on the motif of heaven as one of the important religious symbols in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since the Astronomical Book, the Book of Watchers, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are the most important writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls that feature images of heaven, I will offer a brief review of these texts, emphasizing the symbolic and religious functions of their descriptions of the heavenly world. The results will be summarized in a short systematic overview at the end of this article. 1

The Astronomical Book

The Astronomical Book, which is part of the Enochic textual tradition, is the earliest significant source that provides insight into late Second Temple

5  Geertz, “Religion,” 4. 6  Cf. H. Gese, “Die Frage des Weltbilds,” in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge, ed. H. Gese, 3d ed., BEvT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 202–22 (211–12); and O. Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 47. 7  B. Janowski, “Das biblische Weltbild: Eine methodologische Skizze,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte, ed. B. Janowski and B. Ego, FAT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–26 (13).

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

65

conceptions of the heavenly realm.8 The Qumran findings suggest that the Astronomical Book of Enoch, with its Babylonian roots, dates back to the third, perhaps even to the fourth century BCE;9 thus, this text is probably the earliest extrabiblical document containing information about early Jewish conceptions of heaven. Klaus Koch was one of the first to point out that the Astronomical Book of Enoch was an independent book before it was combined with the Book of Watchers (1–36) and the Book of Dreams (83–90), thus receiving a new contextualization.10 In our context, this text can therefore be regarded as an independent entity. However, the question of the earliest version of the Astronomical Book of Enoch is fraught with a considerable number of problems and uncertainties.11 The comparison of Aramaic fragments with the Ethiopian Enoch text reveals that the Ethiopian version probably constitutes an abridgement of the Aramaic original. Since the Aramaic texts are fragmentary, no “original version” can be fully reconstructed.12 Owing to the complexity of the matter, only the key elements of this cosmological system can be illustrated here. First of all, the sun plays a dominant role in this system because it determines the basic spatio-temporal structures in Enochic astronomy. At the centre of celestial geography lies the idea that 8  Concerning the symbolic meaning of motifs of heaven in the Astronomical Book, see my article entitled, “Denkbilder für Gottes Einzigkeit, Herrlichkeit und Richtermacht— Himmelsvorstellungen im Antiken Judentum,” in Der Himmel, ed. M. Ebner et al., Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 25 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 151–88. 9  Concerning the dating, see M. Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube: Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch, WMANT 68 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994), 39–41; H. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 95–104; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 273–97; see also S. Uhlig, Das Äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ 5/6 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984), 636; J. Ben-Dov, Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context, STDJ 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 69–118; H. Drawnel, The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–4Q211): Text, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 46–53. 10   K. Koch, “Die Anfänge der Apokalyptik und die Rolle des astronomischen Henochbuchs,” in Vor der Wende der Zeiten: Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur, ed. K. Koch, Gesammelte Aufsätze 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 3–44 (8–15; 30–38). K. Koch, “The Astral Laws as the Basis of Time, Universal History, and the Eschatological Turn in the Astronomical Book and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. G. Boccaccini and J. J. Collins, JSJSup 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 119–37. See also Ben-Dov, Head of All Years, 280–81. 11  J. T. Milik listed the following equivalents between 4QEnastr and the Ethiopic text: 1 En. 76:3–10; 76:13–77:4; 78:6–8; 78:9–12; 78:17–79:2; 79:3–5; 82:9–13; the text that comes after 82:20 (see n. 16 below). See Milik, Enoch, 296–97; 365; see also Albani, Astronomie, 39. 12  Concerning this issue, cf. Albani, Astronomie, 38–41; Drawnel, Astronomical Book, 45; Koch, “Anfänge,” 8–15.

66

Ego

there are six gates each in the east and west of the earth, through which the sun passes in the morning and the evening. There is sometimes reference to a sun chariot; in any case, the element of ‫ רוח‬drives the sun forward (1 En. 72:5). Since there are several sun gates in the east and west, the sun’s paths are not equally long, providing an explanation for the different lengths of days within the annual cycle. The moon and the stars also pass through these gates (1 En. 72:3); the lunar phases (1 En. 73:1–8; 78:2–17) or lunar cycle (1 En. 79:1–80:1) are described in some detail and set in relation to the cycle of the sun (1 En. 79:4–5; cf. 4Q209 26 3–5). Again, ‫ רוח‬is the driving force when the moon rides a chariot driven by the wind (1 En. 73:1). In addition to the twelve sun gates, there are another twelve gates from which heat, winds and dew appear (1 En. 75:4–5). The winds are differentiated in 1 En. 76:1–13. Along with winds of dew, rain, cold, drought, hoar frost, frost and fog, the winds of devastation, cold and drought, destruction, fire, scorching winds, and winds that bring locusts emerge from these gates. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned phenomena are clearly rated: from four of the gates, namely from the middle gate of each direction, “emerge winds of blessing and peace, but, from those (other) eight, winds of punishment emerge; when they are sent they bring devastation to the entire earth and the water on it, all that live on it, and all that are in the water and on the land”13 (1 En. 76:4).14 According to the Aramaic version of this passage, there are winds emerging from the four middle gates that heal the earth and refresh it, while the other eight gates produce winds that corrupt the world (cf. 4Q210 1 ii 2–14). This means that some of the aforementioned elements, such as rain and dew, are ambivalent because they emerge from both the middle gates and the side gates. It thus becomes apparent that the “structures of the cosmos and the forces of nature acting therein are not neutral but need to be distinguished, as is the case with the realm of humans, between good and evil.”15 In addition, the Astronomical Book contains an astral component that was probably based on a 360-day calendar. It is the task of the stars, all of which have been subordinated to Uriel by God, to “rule the firmament, appear above the earth, and be leaders of days and nights” (1 En. 75:3). A more detailed description of this task can be found in 1 En. 82:9–13, where the names of some of the stars are given, all of which contain the syllable -el, showing that stars are 13  All quotes from the Astronomical Book are cited according to the translation of the Ethiopic version by G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). 14  In this context, compare also the vivid portrayal in Uhlig, Henochbuch, 654. 15  Albani, Astronomie, 54.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

67

supernatural forces and therefore angel-like beings. Four angelic beings that divide the year into its four parts (1 En. 82:11) are placed in charge of the seasons. Ever since August Dillmann’s translation of the Ethiopian Book of Enoch (1853), in which the star-beings were labelled with military ranks of the Greek army, these angelic beings have also been known as toparchs. Using Dillmann’s nomenclature, these are followed by the taxiarchs, which divide the months (1 En. 82:11). Forming groups of threes, they are subordinate to the toparchs. The lowest-ranking group are the so-called chiliarchs, which divide the year into 360 days (1 En. 82:11). This 360-day year was probably expanded in a secondary step because there are also star-beings that are in charge of four leap days (1 En. 75:1; 82:11 to the end of 82).16 The insertion of these leap days thus brings the year to a close approximation of the actual length of the year. Since the number 364 can be divided by seven, this calendrical system is determined by a structure of seven. The year consists of exactly 52 weeks, with the Sabbath falling on the same day every year.17 This rough outline of the astrological system presented in the Astronomical Book of Enoch should suffice to highlight a number of key aspects of its design.18 First of all, it must be noted that the main characteristic of this system is the emphasis on the harmony in the movement, of celestial bodies. This is expressed by the fundamental conviction that the cosmic order is controlled by certain holy numbers (3, 4, 7, 12). The intention is to make the reader aware of this numerical structure of the heavenly bodies that have been created by God and entrusted to Uriel.19 In order not to disturb the image of the totally harmonious heavenly structure, more complicated sequences of movement, such as the movements of planets, or cycles of eclipses, or other complex astronomical phenomena, could be omitted. What is more important for the Astronomical Book is the exemplary principle of order visible in the movements of the sun, moon and stars, and not the exact details or complete record of every astronomical phenomenon, even though the title in 1 En. 72:1 seems to suggest just that.20 16  The last part of 1 Enoch 82 is apparently lacking from the Ethiopic version; 82:14 introduces the leaders of the four seasons of the year, but 82:20 ends with the description of summer. 4QEnastrd supplies fragmentary remains of the descriptions of winter and of the movement of the stars, which may likely have concluded the Astronomical Book. See Milik, Enoch, 296-97; Albani, Astronomie, 57–58. 17  On the overall issue, see Albani, Astronomie, 42–98. 18  For more detailed discussions of the astrological system of the Astronomical Book of Enoch, see also Ben-Dov, Head of All Years, 21–151; and Drawnel, Astronomical Book, 237–420. 19  Albani, Astronomie, 272. 20  Albani, Astronomie, 98.

68

Ego

Compared to other cosmological conceptions of that era, it becomes apparent, as Klaus Koch stated in his article on the beginnings of apocalyptic, that the element of ‫ רוח‬plays an important role in this system. In fact, ‫רוח‬ can be seen as the driving force of the astral system, since both the sun and the moon are led by this element on their paths through the heavenly realm (1 En. 72:5; 73:2). In addition, it is the winds, and not the stars, that influence earthly events. Assuming, as Koch has suggested, that ‫ רוח‬should not be interpreted as a mere meteorological phenomenon but that it also entails a spiritual dimension and expresses the will of a personal creator, this concept differs significantly from other concepts of the era that were in play among Israel’s neighbors. Back then, astronomy and its preliminary Mesopotamian expressions usually attributed meteorological appearances such as winds to the origin of the planets and the zodiacal beings, not the other way around.21 For the Phoenicians, however, a deified wind sometimes belonged to a material element in the creation of all things.22 The Enochic system, furthermore, deprives star-beings of their power because, quite contrary to Egyptian, Babylonian, or Greek belief, they are not considered to be deities, but are subordinated in a hierarchical system to the angel Uriel (1 En. 74:2), who again has been appointed to this position by God.23 We encounter a cosmological conception that stresses the principle of order underlying the various cosmological phenomena, and that is ultimately based on the actions of the one God. It is therefore possible to speak of a monotheistic cosmology that is a consistent further development of the story of creation in the priestly source. Initially, the creatio prima was described alongside the process of how the sun, moon and stars were set into the firmament; now the focus is on cosmic processes and how they are kept in motion by the celestial bodies created by God, ‫ רוח‬and the angel Uriel. Modern researchers encounter a number of difficulties regarding a more detailed description of the historical or theological-historical context of this conception and its concrete function. Not only is the cosmological conception of the Astronomical Book of Enoch extremely complicated with regard to its content, but the material itself does not reveal much about the intention of its message, because of its rather scientific and plain style, which includes numerous lists. Explicit indications of the particular significance of this concept 21  Koch, “Anfänge,” 21. 22  Koch, “Anfänge,” 26. 23  Koch, “Anfänge,” 27. Concerning the astral cults of Mesopotamia or Hellenistic times, see K. von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie: Jüdische und christliche Beiträge zum anti­ ken Zeitverständnis, RVV 49 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 512–20.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

69

cannot be found until the closing chapters 80:2–8 and 82:4–20. First Enoch 80:2–8 contains a vision of the future that prophesies a time of great cosmic disorder. During the days of the sinners, the rain will be withheld, and the harvest season of root and tree crops will be delayed (1 En. 80:2–3); at the same time, the moon and also many “heads of the stars” (1 En. 80:6) will alter their order or orbit and will not rise at their specified times (1 En. 80:4–6). This cosmic disorder involving both heaven and earth has a counterpart in the human sphere that will lead to sin, especially on a cognitive level: “the entire law of the stars will be closed to the sinners, and the thoughts of those on the earth will err regarding them” (1 En. 80:7). A further aspect of this heresy is given in the following description, where it is written that human beings will fail to recognize the character of the stars and will look upon them as gods. Disaster and plagues will therefore come upon humanity (1 En. 80:7–8). First Enoch 82:4 contains a macarism that beatifies those who act against the renegade sinners. In this context, it seems important to stress several elements of this cosmological view. If the deification of the stars is named as one of the sins of wrongdoers, then this statement can be regarded as an explicit polemic against the astral cult and astral religious elements that increasingly influenced Israel’s religion in exilic and postexilic times and also played an important role during Hellenistic times.24 The monotheistic character of the cosmological concept of the Astronomical Book of Enoch, which has already been set out in the preceding analysis, seems not only to have theoretical significance, but also to be set in a particular polemic context. In addition, this text seems to contain polemics against the wrong use of the calendar. If the order of the stars is closed off to the sinners, this implies that there is a certain group, in this case with a negative connotation, which does not participate in the knowledge of the cosmological order, as revealed in the Astronomical Book. First Enoch 82:5–6 also mentions the error as to the importance of epagonal days. It seems safe to assume that this error in the calendar calculations of the sinners has a causal connection to the deviation of the stars; the wrong appearance of the stars led them to count the year incorrectly. According to Albani, this passage represents a dispute with another group that did not have a 364-day calendar, but a shorter year calculated with reference to the moon and certain stars.25 These sinners are opposed by the righteous, who orient themselves towards the correct order of the times. Like the stars that righteously go in their courses (1 En. 75:2), this second group leads a life “in the 24  Koch in particular refers to this aspect, “Anfänge,” 31; see also Albani, Astronomie, 122–23; K. von Stuckrad, Ringen, 330. 25  Concerning this point, see Albani, Astronomie, 113.

70

Ego

way of righteousness” (1 En. 82:4). The “right” cosmological knowledge seems to be “insider knowledge”; it functions as a marker that distinguishes between sinners and the righteous. The text therefore offers not only theoretical and scientific knowledge, but also implies a clear recommendation for action, namely to remind the addressees to stay away from the veneration of cosmological elements as idols. The order of the celestial bodies is an impressive testament to the absolute sovereignty of God and his power over these very elements. 2

The Book of Watchers

In this section, I will focus on the symbolic dimensions of heaven in the Book of Watchers.26 This text, which, according to Josef Milik,27 probably dates back to the early second or even late third century BCE,28 relates Enoch’s heavenly journey and includes a passage describing the heavenly realm. Since the symbolic dimension of this paragraph reveals itself within its narrative location, I will first take a closer look at the narrative framing of Enoch’s heavenly journey. A synchronic approach to this text is therefore sufficient for our purposes, while the literary critical issues can be set aside.29 As is commonly known, Enoch’s heavenly journey is part of the story of the Fall of the Watchers, which can easily be grasped with the help of the Ethiopian Enoch tradition. First Enoch 6–11 reports that the angels desire the beautiful human women and want to beget children with them. A group of two 26  Concerning the symbolic meaning of heaven in this text, see also my articles, “Henochs Reise vor den Thron Gottes (1 Hen 14,8–16,4): Zur Funktion des Motivs der Himmelsreise im ‘Wächterbuch’ (1Hen 1–36),” in Apokalyptik und Qumran, ed. J. Frey and M. Becker (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2005), 105–12 and “Denkbilder,” 160–68. Due to the fragmentary character of the Qumran texts, I will base my arguments on the Ethiopian version of the Book of Watchers. All citations are quoted according to the translation of G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). 27  Concerning the tradition of the Book of Watchers in Qumran, cf. the overview by Milik, Enoch, 6; and see also Uhlig, Henochbuch, 479–82 (which differs slightly from Milik’s account). 28  Concerning the dating of the Book of Watchers, cf. Milik, Enoch, 24; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 506, n. Ia, with additional references. According to this argument, the terminus ad quem for the dating of the Book of Watchers is the late third century; terminus ante quem is the time of the Maccabees. A good overview of research into the Book of Watchers can be found in V. Bachmann, Die Welt im Ausnahmezustand: Eine Untersuchung zu Aussagegehalt und Theologie des Wächterbuches (1 Hen 1–36), BZAW 409 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 3–18. 29  For a diachronic analysis of the narrative, see the survey of research in Bachmann, Ausnahmezustand, 9–14.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

71

hundred angels, commanded by a certain Shemihazah,30 therefore descends to earth to unite with the women. The women become pregnant and give birth to giants, and a time of chaos and destruction begins. Since the earth is unable to feed the giants, they start feeding on animals, humans, and possibly even one another, and start drinking their victims’ blood (1 En. 7:4–5; for the context, see 1 En. 6:1–7:6).31 In addition, it is reported that the angels reveal all sorts of esoteric and secret knowledge to humankind. This includes the use of charms and enchantments, as well as root-cutting (1 En. 7:1b); the production of weapons, jewellery, and make-up; and astronomical and astrological knowledge (1 En. 8:1, 3). These developments have a devastating effect on humankind because now godlessness, fornication, and unjust behavior rule everywhere (1 En. 8:2). The angels Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel bring before God the lamentations of humankind about the increasing violence and the deeds of the giants (1 En. 9:1–3), whereupon God commands his angels to punish the Watchers and humankind. Sariel has the task of proclaiming the flood to Noah so that he can escape along with his family. Raphael has the task of telling Asael, who played a key role during the teaching of the secrets, that he is to be abandoned in the desert until he is killed by fire on the Day of Judgment. The earth, however, is to be healed (1 En. 10:4–8). Gabriel has the task of driving the children of the Watchers against each other in a war that will destroy them (1 En. 10:9–10). Finally, it is Michael’s task to let Shemihazah and the other Watchers know that they will perish for their impurity. After being bound for seventy generations, they will be burnt on the Day of Judgment (1 En. 10:11–15). Following this, a time of salvation will begin, justice and truth will rule, and God will bless the earth (1 En. 10:16–11:2). At this point, Enoch comes into the story. First Enoch 12:3–6 reports that he, as the “scribe of righteousness,” is given the task of informing the Watchers about the divine judgment. After Enoch announces to the Watchers that they will be punished, they beseech him to intercede32 with God on their behalf 30  Compare the Aramaic name ‫ שׁמיחזה‬in 4Q201 [Ena] 3:6 and elsewhere; cf. Milik, Enoch, Glossary s.v. First Enoch 6:7 names ten additional leaders besides Shemihazah. It is remarkable that these names often bear astral or meteorological connections, such as Kokabel (“star of God”), Ramel (probably “thunder of God”), Baraqel (“lightening of God”), or Ananel (“cloud of God”); concerning the issue overall, cf. M. Black, The Book of Enoch, or, 1 Enoch: A New English Edition, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 118–24; Milik, Enoch, 152–54; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 179–80; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 518–19. 31  The Ethiopian text seems to refer to cannibalism among the giants at this point. Black, Enoch, 126, wants to understand the phrasing of the Aramaic text “‫—בשר[הן‬their flesh” (4Q201 3:21) as indicating eating the meat of animals. 32  Concerning the task of an angel as intercessor, cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 208.

72

Ego

(1 En. 13:4–5). Enoch writes a petition which he reads aloud at the river Dan.33 However, a dream vision confirms that the judgment against the Watchers cannot be avoided. Enoch is to be responsible for scolding the Watchers, who are not allowed to return to the heavenly sphere; in addition, they will be forced to witness their sons’ eradication before they themselves perish (1 En. 13:6–14:7). This vision actually resolves the element of suspense in the plot, because the fate of the Watchers seems to be sealed. Now, and rather unexpectedly within the narrative scheme, the story continues with the account of Enoch’s heavenly journey, which takes him to the heavenly palace and the divine throne, and which concludes with God’s proclamation to Enoch of judgment against the Watchers (1 En. 14:8–16:4). Let us now take a closer look at the depiction of the heavenly realm. After Enoch’s elevation to heaven, he reaches “a wall built of hailstones” surrounded by “tongues of fire” (1 En. 14:9). He then draws near to “a great house built of hailstones,” with walls and a floor made of snow; “the ceiling was like shooting stars and lightning flashes; and among them were fiery cherubim, and their heaven was water” (1 En. 14:10–11). Enoch then enters a second house that is bigger than the first one. Whereas the wall and the outer room are described using contradictory images, now the element of fire is predominant. According to Enoch’s description: “it was built of tongues of fire…. Its floor was of fire, and its upper part was flashes of lightning and shooting stars, and its ceiling was a flaming fire” (1 En. 14:15–17). Finally, Enoch envisions God’s “lofty throne; and its appearance was like ice, and its wheels were like the shining sun; and its ‹guardians› were cherubim; and from beneath the throne issued streams of flaming fire” (1 En. 14:18). Enoch’s description ends with the vision of the deity: “his raiment was like the appearance of the sun and whiter than much snow” (1 En. 14:20). The description of the heavenly world is striking because of its references to meteorological phenomena. This creates the overall impression that atmospheric elements, such as hailstones, ice, snow, fire, thunder, and lightning constitute the heavenly temple. The combination of these meteorological elements expresses the transcendent, numinous character of the heavenly realm. It is also important to note that the author brings together contradictory images such as fire and ice or hailstones. By combining such elements, he 33  This localization is remarkable, and on the basis of it, attempts have been made to derive the northern Galilean origin of the group that handed on the Enoch tradition; cf. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600 (582–87). The revelation at the river is reminiscent of Ezek 1:1 or Dan 8:2 and 10:4; this element could refer to the ecstatic technique of “hydromancy.”

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

73

transcends common human experience and expresses the different quality of the heavenly domain. This stance is also apparent in Enoch’s own statement that he is “unable to describe … (the) glory and majesty” of the second building in the heavenly world (1 En. 14:16).34 Furthermore, if we speak about the heavenly realm, we must also consider how to interpret the statement that the second house is bigger than the first one. Some interpreters of this tradition understand this detail in the sense of a paradox according to which the second, bigger house is situated within the first house. Moreover, the description of the second house as made solely of fiery material implies a comparative that expresses the increasing level of holiness within this temple building. This dynamic culminates with the description of the throne and the deity sitting upon it, including the element of fire and even the motif of the radiance of the sun. Regarding the symbolic dimensions of this heavenly scene, we may conclude that the narrative context of this setting in heaven illustrates the function of this episode, namely, the demonstration of God’s power to administer justice. The description of the heavenly realm makes the reader and listener aware of God’s greatness and the power of his judgment—and thus also of his power to heal the world. In addition, the detailed description of the heavenly realm and of God’s throne has the task of illustrating the divine reward for the angels. This news of God’s healing justice, which is also expressed in the first part of the story in 1 Enoch 6–11, is emphasized and exemplified by its connection with the figure of Enoch, who announces the divine judgment to the Watchers in 1 En. 13:6–14:7. In addition, the narrative about the heavenly journey in 1 En. 14:8–16:4 not only reports on God’s judgment, but also rather vividly portrays it in action and thus substantiates it.35 In this context, the numinous character 34  Concerning this aspect, see J. R. Trotter, “The Tradition of the Throne Vision in the Second Temple Period: Daniel 7:9–10, 1 Enoch 14:18–23, and the Book of the Giants (4Q530),” RevQ 25/3 (2012): 451–66 (458). 35  The following paragraphs from the Book of Watchers, 1 En. 17–19; 20–27, which describe the two cosmic journeys to the “edges” of the world that come after Enoch’s heavenly journey, need to be understood in the same context. These traditions, or at least fragments thereof, are also preserved among the texts from Qumran. Although it goes beyond the scope of this article to discuss the complex structure of the worldview behind these “cosmic excursions,” it may be said that Enoch not only gains insight into meteorological and cosmological secrets during this cosmic journey, but also sees different places where those who have violated God’s commands are punished. Concerning this tradition, see M.-T. Wacker, Weltordnung und Gericht: Studien zu 1 Henoch 22, FB 45 (Würzburg: Echter, 1982); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 276–332. Concerning the concept of God in the context of Enoch’s cosmic journeys, see the study by K. Coblentz-Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

74

Ego

of the heavenly realm therefore functions as a vivid realization of divine greatness and God’s power as judge. The task is now to connect this symbolic content of the portrayal of the heavenly realm with its function within the Book of the Watchers. As Veronika Bachmann pointed out, it would be incorrect to determine the striving for information as the text’s dominating function of communication. An additional function of the text can be identified in the introduction to the work that addresses readers directly, involving them in the communication process. This is also achieved by stating that Enoch addresses remote generations (1 En. 1:2) and by the use of the second person plural in chapters 2–3, which address the readers directly. These grammatical structures clearly unveil the character of appeal underlying the text that makes a plea for a life lived in loyalty to God, the creator, and in general for traditional religious values. Therefore, the dream vision of the heavenly palace underscores the message, addressed to the text’s present audience, that God as a judge is still in residence, presiding over the fate of the evildoers of the readers’ own day.36 3

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

Finally, I turn to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The so-called Shirot ʿolat ha-Shabbat, which probably date back to the second century BCE,37 is another example that sheds light on the concept of heaven and its function among the Dead Sea Scrolls.38 The main topic of this collection of songs is the song of praise and the service of God performed in the heavenly realm. This song is portrayed through pleonastic descriptions that refer to the heavenly beings and elements in the third person, albeit with direct appeals. Numerous heavenly beings are named in this context, such as angels (‫)מלאכים‬, ‫ אלים‬and ‫אלוהים‬, priests (‫)כהנים‬, holy ones (‫)קדושים‬, spirits (‫)רוחות‬, ministers (‫)משרתים‬, princes (‫ )שרים‬and chiefs (‫ ;)ראשים‬the thirteenth song mentions not only songs of praise but also the sacrifices offered by the holy ones, the “odor of their offerings” and the “o[do]r 36  Concerning the overall issue, see Bachmann, Ausnahmezustand, 204–28. 37  Concerning the dating, see the editio princeps by C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, HSS 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). The edition by J. H. Charlesworth and C. Newsom, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), also offers the “composite text” of the songs. 38  See also Ego, “Denkbilder,” 168–78.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

75

of their drink offerings” (11Q17 8–7 2–3).39 Since the term ‫ תרומה‬is always combined with the term ‫ לשון‬in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400 2 7; 4Q403 1 ii 26; 4Q405 23 ii 12), it seems that we should assume here a nonmaterialistic understanding of sacrifice.40 Given the particular information on space that can be found in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, it becomes apparent that this service in the heavenly realm is connected to the concept of a heavenly temple. This heavenly sanctuary—referred to as a dwelling (‫)מעון‬, building/structure (‫)מבנים‬, tabernacle (‫)משכן‬, holy place (‫)קודשים‬, sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬or temple (‫—)היכל‬has gates (‫ )שערים‬or portals (‫)פתחים‬, pillars (‫ )עמודים‬and walls (‫)קירות‬. In addition, the debir (‫ )דביר‬is also mentioned rather frequently. Separated by a veil (‫;פרוכת‬ cf. 4Q405 15–16 ii 3–5), this is the location of the Throne Chariot, the Merkabah (‫ ;מרכבה‬for the location, cf. 4Q403 1 ii 10–16; 4Q405 20 ii–22 2), which stands on the firmament (cf. ‫ רקיע‬4Q403 1 i 41–42), above the cherubim (4Q405 20 ii–22 8–9; compare Ezek 1:25). Furthermore, the building seems to be furnished with graphical representations engraved in the walls (4Q405 19ABCD 5–6).41 The heavenly sanctuary is not explicitly set in relation to heaven as such at any point in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. It is safe to assume, however, that the heavenly sanctuary has a cosmic dimension. It can be identified with the heaven itself; which seems to have been perceived as a gigantic building with gates that is set on pillars, the firmament of which provides the basis for the heavenly throne. H. Löhr describes this process of identification as follows: “Heaven is the location of the sanctuary; heaven and sanctuary become indistinguishable.”42 Furthermore, it is most striking that, when referring to the heavenly temple and its furnishings, the composer of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice uses 39  All citations from the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are quoted according to the reconstruction and translation by C. Newsom, Songs. 40  B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, STDJ 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 288, 290–91. 41  For the various terms used for the heavenly temple, see Newsom, Songs, 39–45; see also Charlesworth and Newsom, Angelic Liturgy, 7–8. As explained in detail in Carol Newsom’s dissertation, different terms are combined with each other that describe the tabernacle or Temple in the biblical tradition. In particular, Exodus 25–40, 1 Kings 6 (and the corresponding passages contained in Chronicles) and Ezekiel 40–48 are worth mentioning; cf. Newsom, Songs, 39–45. 42   “Der Himmel ist der Ort des Heiligtumes; Himmel und Heiligtum werden ununter­ scheidbar”; H. Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult: im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hel­ lenistischen Welt, ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 185–205 (190).

76

Ego

terms that de-concretize the things described, obscure them, and make them to some extent more opaque. To give but one example, ‫ תבנית‬is mentioned in the description of the Merkabah (4Q405 20 ii–22 8); likewise, the nonbiblical term ‫ בדן‬is used along with ‫ דביר‬in the context of describing the temple (4Q405 19ABCD 3). This de-concretization is further suggested by the fact that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice mention not just one but seven sanctuaries or debirim (e.g., 4Q403 1 ii 10–16). This means that there is no consistent use of a given term, but rather a “fluctuation between singular and plural forms.”43 As Carol Newsom points out, it seems likely “that one is often dealing with plurals of majesty and even with intentional violations of ordinary syntax and meaning in a text which is attempting to communicate something of the elusive transcendence of heavenly reality.”44 Against this background, I would like to further explore two aspects. The identification of the heavenly sanctuary with heaven itself was explored in depth by K. von Stuckrad in his habilitation thesis, published in 2000. In suggesting the cosmological interpretation of the gates,45 von Stuckrad also argues plausibly that the mention of rays of light or tongues of fire, etc., which is characteristic of descriptions of the heavenly realm, refers to astral entities.46 This argument is supported by the fact that the number seven occupies an important role within the portrayal of the angels (cf. especially the sixth, seventh, and eighth Songs). This pattern of seven—according to von Stuckrad—can be interpreted as an indication of planetary angels. In this context, the passage in 4Q405 20 ii–22 12 should also be mentioned. It includes a statement that there is “a still sound of blessing in the tumult of their movement. And they praise (His) holiness as they return on their paths” (‫)בהשיב דרכיהם‬. As von Stuckrad demonstrated, this is well-known terminology from Babylonian astrological texts that refer to the movement of the planets.47 If we attempt to translate the poetical statements of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice into our language, we need to bear in mind that cosmological phenomena, such as stars, are concealed in the beings that give praise to God in the heavenly world. Ultimately, they are star-angels that follow their particular paths in the form of light, and praise God or are urged to offer praise. This cosmological interpretation of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice gains even greater depth if we bear in mind that

43  Newsom, Songs, 49. 44  Newsom, Songs, 49. 45  Cf. Stuckrad, Ringen, 174. 46  Cf. Stuckrad, Ringen, 179. 47  Cf. Stuckrad, Ringen, 175.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

77

the ruḥot also possess such a twofold aspect: they are both a cosmic element, namely the wind, and a spirit being. The close relationship between the stars, which again are part of the heavenly building, and angelic beings can also help to explain the phenomenon that Ra’anan S. Boustan has called the “animation” of the Temple and its architecture. As Boustan demonstrated in his article “Angels in the Architecture,” the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice contain numerous passages that show how the figures engraved in the heavenly sanctuary come to life and start singing praises to God. The most striking example given by Boustan is “Song 11’s description of the ‘wondrous mosaic’ (‫ )דבקי פלא‬composed of multihued ‘images of godlike beings’” (4Q405 19ABCD 3–7). “Here,” to quote Boustan, “the animated figures engraved into the ‘floor’ of the celestial shrine (‫)מפלא דבקי סרד‬ and the brickwork under the divine chariot (‫ )לבני כבודם‬throne are explicitly equated with the ‘holy angels’ who offer blessings and praise to God.”48 Thus, it becomes obvious that the crucial motif lying behind the depiction of the heavenly world in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is the idea of Divine glory and the importance of doxology, giving praise. Not only do the elim or the ruḥot praise God―the stars and finally the heavenly temple itself also perform the task of singing praises to God. If we place the ideas of heavenly worship, as presented above, into a traditiocritical frame, we can conclude that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, with the motif of the celestial temple and the stars offering praise, can be interpreted as a vivid development of a number of images found in the Book of Psalms. In Psalm 148, for example, we hear the exhortation to the sun, moon, and shining stars as well as to the “highest heavens” to praise the Lord. With regard to heaven’s praise, we can also refer to Ps 19:2, according to which the heavens will praise God’s glory and the firmament will proclaim the works of his hands.49 In this context, heaven―as in the case of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice―is the subject of the divine praise.

48  R. S. Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 195–212 (205). 49  Regarding Psalm 19, see the work by A. Grund, Die Himmel erzählen die Herrlichkeit Gottes: Psalm 19 im Kontext der nachexilischen Toraweisheit, WMANT 103 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004); concerning heavenly praise, see ibid., 140–60. Grund clearly shows that the praise of heaven mentioned in Psalm 19 might mean the praise performed by heavenly beings; on the basis of different Babylonian and biblical parallels, it is also possible, however, to envisage the personification of heaven as a cosmic entity.

78

Ego

This discussion raises the question of the significance of praise in the heavenly world and of the appeal to praise. It is rather difficult to evaluate this factor. If, however, the psalms contain many passages that ask the peoples and even “all the world” to praise God, it seems safe to assume that the person at prayer wants to express the idea that only this kind of universal or cosmic praise is adequate for God’s greatness.50 For the interpretation of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, this means that the persons at prayer make use of a rather well-known genre when they integrate the motif of heavenly worship; and that it is the fullness of the praise and how the prayers appeal for heavenly praise that constitute the remarkable elements of this composition. Although we cannot discuss the complex matter of the Sitz im Leben and the function of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice at this point, we can note the following: it cannot be ruled out that reciting these texts may have caused numinous feelings that we would probably call “mystical” today, nor can we know whether such recitation caused a feeling of being united with the angels. It is also possible that the heavenly service, mentioned both in the form of an appeal for it and in a description of it, functioned as a replacement for the mundane temple cult for those living at Qumran.51 When we examine explicit remarks in the Songs that continue this line of interpretation, we can note that the persons at prayer refer to the distance between heaven and earth in the second Song, meaning that the idea of a ritual community seems rather unlikely. Secondly, which is equally interesting in our context, there is mention of the “offering of our tongues of dust” in the context of the description of the heavenly service (4Q400 2 7; 4Q403 1 ii 26; 4Q405 23 ii 12). This phenomenon was termed “spiritualization” in earlier research. More recent works speak of “metaphorization,” and seek to stress that remarks such as these should not be understood as a devaluation of offerings. Both prayer and offerings are alike considered to be offerings for the deity. Similar tendencies are observable in the younger psalms of the Hebrew Bible. According to these, prayers can replace sacrifices; they can even be 50  Concerning praise in general, see also F. Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel, WMANT 32 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); and L. Ruppert, “Aufforderung an die Schöpfung zum Lob Gottes: Zur Literatur-, Form-, und Traditionskritik von Psalm 148,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen, ed. E. Haag, F.-L. Hossfeld, SBB 13 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 275–96. 51  Concerning the different approaches to the function of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and their Sitz im Leben, see the research overview by B. Ego “Le ‘Temple Imaginaire’: Himmlischer und irdischer Kultus im antiken Judentum am Beispiel der Sabbatopferlieder,” VF 56 (2011): 58–62 (59–61) (including a compilation of relevant literature).

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

79

regarded as more pleasing (Ps 51:18–19; 141:2; compare 119:108); Psalms 104 and 19 should also be mentioned here because they combine the term “‫צרה‬,” a genuinely sacrificial term, with prayer. In the light of this traditio-historical background, I would like to argue that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice should be interpreted in the tradition of the psalms. If the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice can be equated with sacrifices, this generally means that the prayer itself assumes the role of a sacrifice. These hymns could thus truly function as a kind of replacement for sacrifice and sacrificial services, in particular for those living in Qumran because they had excluded themselves from the physical sacrificial Temple service in Jerusalem. 4

Conclusions

Since “heaven” can be regarded as a religious symbol, we may conclude that the traditions of the Dead Sea Scrolls analyzed above regard the conception of a “general order of existence” as integral to God’s kingship and his rule over the cosmos, and also as implying his active administration of justice and his power to save. The motif of the angelic cult clearly shows that this divine power must be acknowledged even by the heavenly elements that fulfill the task of moving according to God’s will and praising his majesty before his heavenly throne. All texts presented here create an aura of factuality with their strong and persuasive language, which is crucial for confirming and reestablishing the religious ideas of the communities to which they are addressed. It needs to be stressed, however, that this factuality is expressed in very sophisticated ways. To do justice to the complexity of the concepts of heaven in these texts, it must be noted that both the Book of Watchers and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice display the tendency to de-concretize the concept of heaven and make it more abstract, albeit in different ways. De-concretization is achieved by using “mystical” stylistic techiques, such as contradictory imagery (“fire and ice”), para­ doxa (the inner house as bigger than the outer one), and syntactic fuzziness (cf. the use of plurals), as well as the animation of the heavenly sanctuary; all of these techniques cast the heavenly realm as a “parallel universe” that is fundamentally opposed to the terrestrial world. However, the moods and motivations created by these traditions differ. The Book of Watchers aims at demonstrating—if I may use the expression coined by Rudolf Otto—the Tremendum, or fearful aspect, of the Divine by emphasizing God’s judicial power. Furthermore, it should also be stressed that the depiction of the heavenly world in the Book of Watchers implies an admonition to its audience, since this tradition clearly indicates considerable criticism of

80

Ego

the use of weapons technology and other cultural elements such as medicine and cosmetics. However, the text also consoles its readers by formulating hope for salvation of the earth.52 The symbolism of the Astronomical Book takes a similar direction, expressing God’s power and greatness through his direction of the movements of the heavenly bodies. It also implies a recommendation for action that is directed at achieving unity with God by abjuring idolatry and the incorrect use of the calendar. In contrast, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice create an aura of admiration; that is, again in Otto’s terms, they suggest the Fascinosum, or captivating aspect, of the Divine. Although I am unable to enter into the complex debate of the function and Sitz im Leben of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice in this context, it can be said that the doxological dimension of heaven emphasizes the significance of praising God in general. To wrap it up: These three texts, then, have shown different theological functions of images of heaven. They make statements about God’s unity, his power, his constancy in judgement and his magnificence—all these aspects are expressed with the help of the depictions of heaven presented here and are illustrated vividly thereby. Whereas the Astronomical Book emphasizes God’s power over the entire creation, the Book of the Watchers stresses the hope for and promise of salvation for the entire world. Finally, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice strongly expresses the significance of the worship of God by both humans and angels, and thereby underlines God’s majesty. Bibliography Albani, M. Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch. WMANT 68. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994. Bachmann, V. Die Welt im Ausnahmezustand: Eine Untersuchung zu Aussagegehalt und Theologie des Wächterbuches (1 Hen 1–36). BZAW 409. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Black, M. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Ben-Dov, J. Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context. STDJ 78. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Boustan, R. S. “Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 195–212 in Heavenly Realms and Earthly 52  Heaven as a symbol of God’s judgment can be found in several other texts containing apocalyptic notions; cf. 4Q511 10 11–12; 11Q11 2 6–8; these passages are referred to by Newsom, “Heaven,” 1:338.

Between Divine Justice and Doxology

81

Realities in Late Antique Religions. Edited by R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Cassirer, E. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, 2. Band: Das mythische Denken. Berlin: Cassirer, 1925. Charlesworth, J. H. and C. A. Newsom. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Coblentz-Bautch, K. A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen.” JSJSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Crüsemann, F. Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Drawnel, H. The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–4Q211): Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ego, B. “Denkbilder für Gottes Einzigkeit, Herrlichkeit und Richtermacht— Himmelsvorstellungen im Antiken Judentum.” Pages 151–88 in Der Himmel. Edited by M. Ebner et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Ego, B. “Henochs Reise vor den Thron Gottes (1 Hen 14,8–16,4): Zur Funktion des Motivs der Himmelsreise im ‘Wächterbuch’ (1 Hen 1–36).” Pages 105–12 in Apokalyptik und Qumran. Edited by J. Frey and M. Becker. Paderborn: Bonifatius 2005. Ego, B. “Le ‘Temple Imaginaire: Himmlischer und irdischer Kultus im antiken Judentum am Beispiel der Sabbatopferlieder.” VF 56 (2011): 58–62. Geertz, C. “Religion as a Cultural System.” Pages 1–46 in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. Edited by M. Banton. London: Tavistock, 1966. Gese, H. “Die Frage des Weltbilds.” Pages 202–22 in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge. Edited by H. Gese. 3d ed. BEvT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Grund, A. Die Himmel erzählen die Herrlichkeit Gottes: Psalm 19 im Kontext der nach­ exilischen Toraweisheit. WMANT 103. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Janowski, B. “Das biblische Weltbild: Eine methodologische Skizze.” Pages 3–26 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by B. Janowski and B. Ego. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Keel, O. Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Koch, K. “Die Anfänge der Apokalyptik und die Rolle des astronomischen Henochbuchs.” Pages 3–44 in K. Koch, Vor der Wende der Zeiten: Beiträge zur apo­ kalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996.

82

Ego

Koch, K. “The Astral Laws as the Basis of Time, Universal History, and the Eschatological Turn in the Astronomical Book and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch.” Pages 119– 37 in The Early Enoch Literature. Edited by G. Boccaccini and J. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kvanvig, H. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Langer, S. K. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study of the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art. Mentor Books 25. New York: New American Library of World Literature, 1952. Löhr, H. “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himm­ lischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran.” Pages 185–205 in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult: im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt. Edited by M. Hengel, A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Newsom, C. “Heaven.” Pages 1:338–40 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Newsom, C. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81– 108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee.” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Ruppert, L. “Aufforderung an die Schöpfung zum Lob Gottes: Zur Literatur-, Form-, und Traditionskritik von Psalm 148.” Pages 275–96 in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Edited by E. Haag, F.-L. Hossfeld. SBB 13. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986. Stuckrad, K. von. Das Ringen um die Astrologie: Jüdische und christliche Beiträge zum antiken Zeitverständnis. RVV 49. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Trotter, J. R. “The Tradition of the Throne Vision in the Second Temple Period: Daniel 7:9–10, 1 Enoch 14:18–23, and the Book of the Giants (4Q530).” RevQ 25/3 (2012): 451–66. Uhlig, S. Das Äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5/6. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984. Wacker, M.-T. Weltordnung und Gericht: Studien zu 1 Henoch 22. FB 45. Würzburg: Echter, 1982.

The Notion of the Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Texts of the Early Jesus Movement Jörg Frey 1 Introduction1 “Spirit” is an umbrella term. This is true not only for most modern languages, but also in the biblical languages—in Hebrew (for ‫)רוח‬, as well as in Greek (for πνεῦμα). If we browse through standard dictionaries for the range of meanings covered by this term, there is a remarkably wide span. In the Septuagint and the New Testament,2 πνεῦμα can denote air in motion, i.e., a wind or a human breathing; an animating principle or influence; a state of mind or 1  The research for the present contribution is rooted in an interdisciplinary project on “The Historical Origins of the Holy Spirit,” launched by myself together with John R. Levison (Seattle Pacific University), and funded jointly by the German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the American International Catacomb Society. The project brought together a team of specialists in different fields to explore the historical origins of the early Christian notion of the Spirit by evaluating different textual corpora, early Jewish and Greco–Roman: The Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish mystical traditions, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco–Roman divination, Greco–Roman philosophy, and ancient medical texts. The results, presented at a conference held in Leiden, September 1–3, 2011, were published as The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. J. Frey and J. R. Levison, in collaboration with A. Bowden, Ekstasis 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014). The interdisciplinary discussion showed that only a broad inquiry of this sort can bring together all the elements needed for an appropriate historical understanding of the early Christian notion of the Spirit. The scrolls are merely one facet of that multidimensional web, albeit an important one. Their influence should not be the only one studied, but neither may they be ignored. I am highly indebted to my dear colleague Eibert Tigchelaar whose work has furthered my own research. See his collection of texts and commentary included in the abovementioned volume: E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” ibid., 167–240. Cf. also my previous publications related to this topic: “How did the Spirit become a Person?” ibid., 343–71; and more extensively, idem, “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi und zur trinitarischen Person: Stationen einer Geschichte des Heiligen Geistes im Neuen Testament,” in Der Heilige Geist, ed. J. Frey and D. Sattler, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 121–54; and, with focus on Paul, idem, “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. J.-S. Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 237–60. Some parts of the latter publication are adapted and further elaborated in the present article. 2  Cf. T. Muraoka, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 567; F. W. Danker, ed., A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 832–36.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_006

84

Frey

disposition; the inner or nonmaterial part of the human person; similarly, a rational or intelligent being with no material existence, a spirit-being; and— finally, of course—a or the divine spirit or the Holy Spirit. In the Hebrew Bible,3 the range of meanings is similar: the physical dimension of air in motion; the anthropological dimension of the human disposition or—in a holistic understanding—spirit, as the place where not only human feelings and emotions, but also insight and spiritual disposition are located; and finally, the notion of a divine spirit or the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. However, only one third of the instances in which ‫ רוח‬is used refer to such a divine spirit, from the spirit of the creator in Genesis 1 to the spirit that empowers the judges or falls upon prophets. Notably, the term “holy spirit” appears only twice in Hebrew, in Isa 63:10–11 and Ps 51:13, two relatively late texts; it also appears in Aramaic, in two passages in Daniel (Dan 5:12; 6:4).4 It increasingly happens, however, that God’s spirit is connected with God’s own “holiness,”5 and can thus be called not only “God’s spirit” but also “holy spirit.”6 This term is much more frequent in postbiblical literature from the land of Israel, including that of Qumran,7 3  Cf. HAL 4:1117–21; W. Gesenius, R. Meyer, and H. Donner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed. (Heidelberg: Springer 2009), 5:1225–27; D. J. A. Clines, ed., DCH 7:427–40 (with a very helpful list of definitions); R. Albertz and C. Westermann, “‫רוח‬,” in THAT 2:726–53; H.-J. Fabry, “‫רוח‬,” in TDOT 13:365–402. Apart from the dictionary articles, see M. Dreytza, Der theologische Gebrauch von Ruaḥ im Alten Testament: Eine wort- und satzsemantische Studie (Giessen: Brunnen, 1990); R. Koch, Der Geist Gottes im Alten Testament (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1991); A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Aspekte des alttestamentlichen Geistverständnisses,” in Sola scriptura: Beiträge zu Exegese und Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments, ed. P. Höffken (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 96–106; J. Schreiner, “Wirken des Geistes Gottes in alttestamentlicher Sicht,” in idem, Der eine Gott Israels: Gesammelte Schriften zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol. 3, ed. E. Zenger (Würzburg: Echter, 1997), 83–136; and K.-D. Schunck, “Wesen und Wirksamkeit des Geistes nach der Überlieferung des Alten Testaments,” in idem, Altes Testament und Heiliges Land: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament und zur biblischen Landeskunde, 2 vols. (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1989), 1:137–51. 4  Schunck, “Wesen und Wirksamkeit,” 137. 5  On the development of a “spirit monotheism” according to which the spirit is increasingly linked with God’s creating activity, see the article by A. W. Pitts and S. Pollinger, “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts, TENTS 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 135–76. 6  For this development in postbiblical times, see A. Klein, “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 and 1QS,” in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran, ed. D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz, FAT 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 171–91. 7  Note, e.g., the Daniel tradition in the LXX: Dan 5:12; 6:3 LXX (and more instances in the Theodotion version); cf. also Sus 34 (θ’); on these passages see J. R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 127–30. Furthermore, note Wis 1:5; 7:22; 9:17; Pss. Sol. 17:37; Jub. 1:21–23; L.A.B. 18:11; 28:6; 32:14; 60:1; 62:2; T. Levi 3:6 (see, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary, ed. J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel,

The Notion of the Spirit

85

whereas it is absent from Philo and Josephus, and also from the non-Jewish Greek literature. From this, we may conclude that the concept of the Holy Spirit (or a holy spirit), sharing in and conveying God’s holiness, is most probably a concept rooted and developed within the Palestinian Jewish tradition. Strikingly, it is this term that then also became the most characteristic designation for the Spirit in the New Testament. 2

The Notion of the Spirit in Postbiblical Jewish Texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls

In the scrolls, ‫ רוח‬is generally used in continuity with its usage in the Hebrew Bible.8 Beyond the biblical idiom, the texts from the Qumran corpus frequently use ‫ רוח‬for spirit personae, i.e., angels and demons, most prominently in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. This is a development linked with the rise of angelology and dualistic concepts in, e.g., the Enochic tradition and other major traditions of Second Temple Judaism.9 For the present purpose, we can leave aside these references, and concentrate on the texts that help us to understand the idea of the divine or holy spirit. Here, I will particularly focus on two most important texts, the Treatise on the Two Spirits in the Community Rule, and the Hodayot (because in that text, the term “holy spirit” occurs most frequently). Rather than revealing any consistent pneumatology,10 the investigation will reveal significant differences between those texts and thus confirm other considerations about the respective historical location of those texts.

 S VTP 19 [Leiden: Brill, 2004], ad. loc.; T. Ab. 20:15; T. Job 51:2; Apoc. Zeph. (quoted in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.77.2); some relevant passages in the As. Mos. might be Christian. Among Qumran texts, see 1QS 3:7; 4:21; 8:16; 9:3; 1QSb 2:24; 1QHa 4:38; 6:24; 8:20, 21, 25, 30; 15:10; 16:13; 17:32; 20:15; 23:29, 33; CD 2:12–13; 5:11; 7:4; 4Q270 2 ii 11; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q213a 1 13; 4Q416 2 ii 6 par 4Q 418 8 6; 4Q 418 76 1–3; 4Q422 1:7; 4Q444 1–4 i+5 1; 4Q504 1+2 v recto 11–18; 4Q504 4 5 par 4Q506 131–132 11; 1Q39 1 6; 4Q434 1 i 11. A related expression “spirits of the holiest holiness,” used in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407; 11Q17), refers to angelic beings. 8  For the basic information, see Fabry, “‫רוח‬.” The work by A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, SBLDS 110 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), is now outdated. 9  See also the article by C. Werman in the present volume, with a discussion of the 4Q parallels to Jubilees 2. 10  Cf. already R. W. Kvalvaag, “The Spirit in Human Beings in some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson, JSOTSup 290 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 159–80 (159–60). The inconsistency can be explained, however, by the fact that some of the texts discussed by Kvalvaag, especially the Treatise on the Two Spirits and also 4Q186, were probably not composed within the yaḥad community.

86

Frey

2.1 The Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13–4:26) The Treatise on the Two Spirits, in my view, predates the Qumran community and is rooted in a particular sapiential tradition that is also present in some of the Qumran wisdom texts.11 It is an originally independent passage that was incorporated into the manuscript 1QS (but not into all 4QS manuscripts),12 as an appendix to the preceding liturgical section. The instruction provides a kind of explanation for the presence and power of evil, not only in the world in general, but especially as it influences the pious and wise, and expresses an ultimate perspective of hope for a final extinction of evil and a purification of the righteous. In present scholarship it is quite clear (but this was debated for a long time in earlier decades of Qumran scholarship) that the two spirits mentioned at the beginning of the Treatise (1QS 3:18) are not merely human attitudes and ethical orientations,13 but angelic beings who rule over humans. Later in the text, they are called not simply spirits, but explicitly the “Prince of Lights” and “Angel of Darkness” (1QS 3:20–21). It is, however, much more difficult to define the relationship between the “Spirit of Truth” (1QS 3:18–19) and the Holy Spirit introduced at the end of the treatise.14 As the text stands, however, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned before 1QS 4:21, and it is not identical with the Spirit of Truth, the angelic being set in dominion over his particular lot of humans according to 1QS 3:18. The Holy Spirit is not described as a primordial figure, nor 11  In language and content, this text is closely related to presectarian sapiential texts from the Qumran library (Instruction; Book of Mysteries), in which sapiential and apocalyptic ideas are combined and a dualistic worldview is developed. See my introduction to the Treatise in “The Rule of the Community,” in Early Jewish Literature: An Anthology, ed. A. Wright et al., 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 2:95–127 (95–115); see also J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335 (289–300). For the connections between the Treatise and the sapiential texts, see A. Lange, “In Diskussion mit dem Tempel,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors, BETL 136 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1998), 113–59. 12  Apart from 1QS, the Treatise is attested in the preserved parts of only one other manuscript (4QSc); it was definitely not contained in 4QSd and 4QSe. For details, see S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). 13  Thus, e.g., P. Wernberg-Møller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QSerek III,13–IV,26),” RevQ 3 (1961/62): 413–41 (419). 14  A very close relationship was suggested by analogy with later, Christian texts in particular, especially the Gospel of John, where both terms are used interchangeably for the same figure, the “Spirit–Paraclete”: cf. “Spirit of Truth” in John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13, and “Holy Spirit” in John 14:26; cf. 1:33 and 20:22.

The Notion of the Spirit

87

as a figure acting within human history, but only as an eschatological means of purification.15 It is, however, clearly associated with the positive lot of humans who belong to or act according to the Spirit of Truth. In the final passage of the Treatise, the two terms, “Holy Spirit” and “Spirit of Truth” are closely related, but the term “Spirit of Truth” may be used here with two different nuances. The text reads (1QS 4:20–23):16 Then God will purify by his truth17 all the works of man and purge for himself the sons of man. He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from the veins of (21) his flesh. He will purify him by the Holy Spirit from all ungodly acts and sprinkle upon him the Spirit of Truth like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of falsehood and from being polluted (22) by a spirit of impurity, so that upright ones may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven, and the perfect in the Way may receive understanding. For those God has chosen for an eternal covenant, (23) and all the glory of Adam shall be theirs without deceit. All false works will be put to shame. According to this passage, all humans have a certain share in the “good” Spirit of Truth, but also a portion in the “negative” spirit; these two spirits struggle not only in the world as a whole, but also within every human heart, even within the heart of the pious and wise one (1QS 3:23).18 This idea may be connected with other (nonsectarian) texts about the proportion of light and darkness within the human being;19 but in the Treatise on the Two Spirits we cannot find any interest in the diagnosis of any human being, or in determining his or her respective portion in light or in the good spirit. Nor is it said here that 15  Cf. also Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, 207–8. 16  Translation according to E. Qimron and J. H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al., PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1–52 (19), slightly adjusted. 17  Or: “His faithfulness.” 18  This is probably the most important difference from the Qumran sectarian view, in which the demarcation between the realm of light and the realm of darkness is much clearer at the borders of the community. The idea that the human self is divided, and that there are two opposed powers fighting within the human heart, is never adopted in the sectarian compositions. 19  Cf., on the zodiacal physiognomic text 4Q186, M. Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic–Early Roman Period Judaism, STDJ 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

88

Frey

every human has some share in the Holy Spirit. In this framework, the Holy Spirit is not seen to be active during the course of history. Only at the end, concerning the expected time of visitation, is the Holy Spirit’s activity mentioned, and there imagined in a rather “medical” fashion. The image is that of spiritual transfusion: the spirit of deceit in the person’s veins (i.e., in the person’s inner self) is to be removed, and (the) Holy Spirit is imagined as a purifying fluid, or even as replacing the former spirit of deceit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is viewed as an eschatological means of purification. Closely related to the medical image of a blood transfusion is the second image of sprinkling water, taken from cultic field. Here, the term “Spirit of Truth” is used, but obviously not in the sense of the primordial angelic being mentioned at the beginning of the Treatise. Here, rather, the meaning is similar to that of the term “Holy Spirit”: that is, it denotes an eschatological means of purification. Like water during the rites of purification, the “spirit of truth” will be sprinkled over the chosen ones to purify them from pollution; i.e., from the portions of darkness they also have in themselves, or more precisely, from falsehood and abomination. Apart from its purifying function, the Holy Spirit is considered to have a revelatory function, but this is also confined to the expected time of visitation: Its purifying work, or even its dispensation over the chosen ones, will give them insight into the divine knowledge and the wisdom of the angels and a perfect understanding. Eschatological purification and eschatological revelation are closely linked, and according to the text, purification seems to be the precondition for perfect understanding. This revelation is probably to be understood as the disclosure of the true meaning of the Torah and the perfect understanding of the ways of history—conveyed through the spirit, not in the present but only at the end, at the expected time of “visitation.” The hope expressed here for the end of times, when God will establish his eternal covenant, is very similar to what other texts claim has been realized already in the yaḥad community. Knowledge of the divine mysteries, increased or even perfect purity, and a place within the community of the angels is said to have been fulfilled within the yaḥad, for those who have entered the yaḥad community or—as it is said in 1QS 1:7, 16, 18, etc.—who have entered the covenant (which is considered to be identical with the social realm of the yaḥad community). This is a strong argument for the view that the Treatise is a presectarian text incorporated into the Community Rule, and that the yaḥad only partially adopted its ideas.20 20  For further arguments see H. Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von IQS III,13–IV,16,” RevQ 13 (1988): 95–131 (96–100); A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran, STDJ 18

The Notion of the Spirit

89

2.2 The Hodayot Turning now to the typically sectarian views in the texts composed by the yaḥad itself, I will focus on the work in which the term ‫ רוח‬occurs most frequently and densely, the Thanksgiving Hymns Scroll or Hodayot (1QHa).21 The range of meanings for the term in this text22 is almost as wide as it is in the whole Qumran corpus. ‫ רוח‬can mean wind or breath;23 the human mindset or the human spirit;24 and also an angelic or demonic being.25 ‫ רוח‬can also simply mean creature;26 and as in some of the presectarian wisdom texts,27 the human is also called a “spirit of flesh” (i.e., a fleshly being which cannot stand before God).28 A number of passages also speak of the spirit as God’s spirit or his holy spirit. But we must note that the percentage of passages which explicitly refer to God’s spirit is smaller than in the Hebrew Bible where roughly a third of the instances of ‫ רוח‬point to God’s spirit. This may be explained by the fact that the Hodayot are quite strongly concerned with anthropology, or even psychology, much more so than the Hebrew Bible texts. On the other hand, whereas the expression “holy spirit” is very rare in the Hebrew Bible, and only (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 121–32, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger, “Qumran,” TRE 28:45–79 (56–57). 21  I refer to this document according to the reconstruction and edition of Hartmut Stegemann, completed by Eileen Schuller: Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb, ed. H. Stegemann and E. Schuller, trans. C. Newsom, DJD 40 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2009); except where noted, translations of the Hodayot in this paper follow DJD 40. All earlier editions, especially the editio princeps by E. L. Sukenik (according to which most earlier scholars referred to the text), and also the editions that changed the counting of columns correctly but kept the counting of the lines according to the editio princeps, are now outdated. The concordance in Stegemann and Schuller, 1QHodayota, 323–402 (391–92), lists 82 occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in the parts of the text preserved in 1QHa and the 4QH texts. 22  On the meanings of ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot, see C. A. Newsom, “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, ed. J. Penner, K. M. Penner and C. Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 339–54. 23  1QHa 6:41; 9:30–31; 14:26; 15:26, 32; 18:34; 21:26. 24  Cf., e.g., 1QHa 6:14; 8:16, 24, 28; 9:30–31. 25  1QHa 5:25; 9:13; 16:13; 19:16; 25:6, 8, 23(?). For a more extensive list of the notions of ‫ רוח‬in the Hodayot, see Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit,” 253. 26  1QHa 18:24. 27  Cf. J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. C. Hempel et al., BETL 159 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002), 367– 404; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “bāśār,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, ed. H.-J. Fabry (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 1:537–47. 28  Cf. 1QHa 4:27; 5:14, 15, 30. Newsom, “Flesh,” 351, links this with terms like “spirit of error” or “perverted spirit.”

90

Frey

slightly more frequent in the LXX, in the Hodayot, the majority of the passages referring to God’s spirit use the term “holy” to characterize it. For the concept of the divine spirit in this text, a number of passages are particularly significant. In 1QHa 4:38, the speaker prays: “[Blessed are you, God Most High, that] you have sprinkled your holy spirit upon your servant [and you] have purified from […] his heart.”29 And similarly, 1QHa 15:9: “I thank you, O Lord, that you have sustained me by your strength, and that you have sprinkled your holy spirit upon me, so that I am not shaken.”30 Here, an individual (probably serving as a model for other members of the community), praises God for dispensing his holy spirit upon him, for purifying his heart, and strengthening him in his struggles against wickedness. As in the final passage of the Treatise on the Two Spirits, the image chosen is that of sprinkling purification water, but in contrast with the viewpoint of the Treatise on the Two Spirits, the members of the yaḥad obviously consider the purification to be completed. They have been cleansed by a (metaphorical) act of sprinkling; they have been purified to live a life in perfect obedience. In a somewhat fragmentary passage in col. 8, the speaker praises God for having transformed his inner being. First, he speaks of a “perverted spirit” (1QHa 8:18) that ruled over a “vessel of dust”; then we can read “from dust” and “righteousness” (1QHa 8:19); and at the end, “by means of your holy spirit which you placed in me” (1QHa 8:20). This phrase is particularly important, and it occurs repeatedly in the Hodayot.31 God’s (holy) spirit is not only sprinkled upon people, but placed in them. According to the present passage, this placement is the means of removing the “perverted spirit,” of exalting the human being from the dust, or even the means of justification; and it is explicitly stated that humans as such cannot achieve this state on their own, but only by an action of God’s grace.32 Not all similar passages use the adjective “holy”; others express the same ideas without it.33 Thus a few lines later in the aforementioned passage, it is said: “I entreat you with the spirit that you have given to me” (1QHa 8:29). A similar phrase, focusing on knowledge, occurs in 1QHa 5:36: “and I, your servant, know by means of the spirit you have given me”; similarly in 1QHa 21:34: “I know by the spirit that you have placed in me….” The last two passages refer to 29  Translation according to Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins,” 188. 30  Translation according to Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins,” 194. 31  Cf. also 1QHa 4:29; 5:36; 20:15; 21:34. See also Newsom, “Flesh,” 349f., on the difference between (Heb. ‫“ )נוף על‬sprinkle over” and (Heb. ‫“ )נתן ב‬place in.” 32  Cf., e.g., 1QHa 8:18–20. 33  Newsom, “Flesh,” 349–50., also says that there is no essential difference between “the spirit” and “your holy spirit.”

The Notion of the Spirit

91

knowledge, or revelation. But all three hymns use the image of God giving his spirit to or emplacing it into a human being. And the spirit meant is undoubtedly the Holy Spirit, as in 1QHa 8:20. In 1QHa 8:29–30 we find the idea of a two-stage process: “I entreat you with the spirit that you have given to me that you make your kindness to your servant complete forever, cleansing me by your holy spirit and drawing me nearer by your good favor.” The cleansing expressed here is imagined, not as an eschatological cleansing (as hoped for in 1QS 4:21–23), but rather as a present and continuous process of a growing closeness to God, which is granted by his kindness and favor. God has chosen to favor those who love him, has given them his spirit; imbued by this spirit, they pray for further purification and completion, in order to get still closer to him. The internalization of the spirit in these compositions is significant: “What had been seen as an external spirit applied to a fundamentally autonomous self is no longer the operative model. Rather, the originally external spirit from God becomes conceptualized as moving from outside to inside.”34 Thus, the spirit also enables the human subject to pray, and and likewise to know and to choose the truth: 1QHa 6:36 says: “you have favored me with the spirit of knowledge to choose truth.” God’s spirit also causes joy, as 17:32 phrases it: “in your holy spirit you have made me rejoice.” The most explicit passage is 1QHa 20:13–17: And I, the Instructor (Maskil), I know you, my God, by the spirit that you have placed in me. Faithfully have I heeded your wondrous secret counsel. By your holy spirit you have opened up knowledge within me through the mystery of your wisdom and the fountainhead of your power in the midst of those who fear you, for abundant kindness…. Here we can find a number of important aspects closely linked: The text mentions the “holy spirit” and the “spirit” synonymously; it uses the metaphor of God giving the spirit to or placing it within the human person; and the effect of the gift is the revelation of God’s mysteries and knowledge of God himself. Apart from purity, then, the spirit primarily grants knowledge, as was expected only for the future in the Treatise on the Two Spirits. In the Hodayot, by contrast, the knowledge and revelation of God’s mysteries, or even of God himself, is considered a present gift, obtainable within the community. The divine spirit is further described as the power that draws the human closer to God, changes the fundamental orientation of life, or elevates the human from 34  Newsom, “Flesh,” 350.

92

Frey

the dust into the community of angels. It motivates prayer, strengthens the human subject for the struggle against evil, and causes joy. A number of aspects, however, remain somewhat unclear. The first is the question whether the spirit given is the (Holy) Spirit from God or merely a (holy) spirit. The singularity of the spirit mentioned is not totally clear in the passages from the Hodayot—and even where the spirit is closely associated with God and his creative, purifying, or inspiring activity, it is not conceived of as a quasi-personal agent. According to Newsom, the spirit given from God is rather identified with the speaker’s human subjectivity.35 It is, in some respect, also the human spirit as inspired or shaped by God. So 1QHa 6:24 can state: “I know … that through your goodwill toward a person you multiply his portion in your holy spirit.” According to this phrase, a portion in God’s holy spirit can be increased or strengthened. Even if the Qumran sectarians confess that God gave his holy spirit to them or placed it in them, there might be some uncertainty or diversity of thought regarding what portion of the divine spirit is given to the human or how completely the human person is guided by the divine spirit. So there is no clear-cut distinction between the human spirit, which may have some portion in the divine spirit or in the Spirit of Truth, and the divine power of God’s spirit. 2.3 Other Texts If we take a brief look at other sectarian texts, we find some of the elements discovered in the Hodayot in other documents as well. So in Barkhi Nafshi, a praying person similarly states: “An evil inclination [you] rebuked away [from my kidneys and a hol]y spirit you set in my heart; … wrathful anger you removed [from me] and you gave me a spirit of long-suffering; … a spirit of deceit you have destroyed [ ] and a [bro]ken heart you have given me.”36 4Q444 1–4 i + 5 2–3 states: “And a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness, God put in my heart.” But whereas the Hodayot mostly focus on the gift of the spirit to the individual, other texts more strongly focus on the community, and on the spirit given to, or being present in, the community. A most important text is the closure of the liturgical section in 1QS 3:6–9, only a few lines before the beginning of the appended Treatise on the Two Spirits. Here, the spirit is not only linked with the community but also with atonement for sins, which is said to be effected “by the spirit of the true counsel of God” (1QS 3:6) or, in the parallel line, “by the holy spirit of the community” 35  Newsom, “Flesh,” 350. 36  4Q436 1 i 10–ii 4 // 4Q435 2, text and translation according to Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins,” 208.

The Notion of the Spirit

93

(1QS 3:7). So apparently, the expiation traditionally achieved by the sacrifices in the Temple is now attributed to the spirit within the community. And this spirit is closely connected with the high degree of purity and separation from any external uncleanness.37 But again, this spirit is not simply considered the Holy Spirit; it is also described as a kind of spiritual attitude of the members. The abovementioned phrases are complemented by other expressions, such as “by an upright and humble spirit” (1QS 3:8); or, “by humbling his soul” and “sprinkling with waters of purification” (1QS 3:8–9). As we can see here, there is no divide between spirit and ritual, no clear-cut distinction between the human spirit, the spirit considered present in the community, and the spirit that belongs to God. Another important aspect should be mentioned: How is the revelation of the spirit conceptualized? Of course, the sectarian texts share the view that it is the Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets in the past; i.e., those who produced the Scriptures.38 But on the other hand, it is most remarkable that the Qumran texts do not link the spirit given to the community or to its members with any prophetic activities or with ecstatic or otherwise altered states of consciousness. Instead, revelation is described as a rational element, as insight and knowledge, and as an aid to choosing the truth and to proceeding on the perfect way, in the life according to God’s commandments. Thus we may conclude that the revelation of the spirit is primarily conceived of as interpretation of the Scriptures, or (paraphrasing 4QMMT C 9–11) the books of Moses and of the prophets and David,39 and the exposition of their true meaning. This matches the insight noted elsewhere that the Qumran sectarian texts do not point to mantic practices or to the interpretation of dreams and visions.40 Within the Qumran community, such practices, quite widespread in other parts of Second Temple Judaism, were probably to be replaced by the interpretation of the prophetic writings. Thus, in the texts from the community, the term “interpretation” (Heb. pesher; Aram. pitaron), which refers to dreams and visions in other early Jewish texts, is associated only with 37  This is said in CD 7:3–4: “to separate themselves from all kinds of uncleanness according to the rule about them and for each man not to contaminate his holy spirit according to the separation which God made for them….” (translation according to Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins,” 199.). 38  Cf. CD 2:12–13. 39  There is no need to discuss here the issues of the authority of certain books and the concept of canon in the Qumran community. For basic discussions see J. Frey, “Qumran und der biblische Kanon: Eine thematische Einführung,” in Qumran und der biblische Kanon, ed. M. Becker and J. Frey, BThS 92 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 1–63. 40  Cf. A. Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Bernstein et al., Legal Texts and Legal Issues, 377–435.

94

Frey

the books of the prophets and the Psalms and some other writings. So the revelatory work of the holy spirit should be seen as the revelation of the true meaning of the Torah and the other writings. 3

The Notion of the Spirit in the Early Jesus Movement, and a Particular Line of Influence

From the early period of the Qumran debate, scholars have asked whether there is any direct or indirect influence of Qumranic views on early Christianity. Although more recent research has become much more sober, and tends to a negative answer with respect to social, personal, or literary links between the Qumran sectarians and the early Jesus movement,41 there are some parallels or analogies in particular phrases, motifs, or concepts, which deserve a more nuanced explanation. It is quite interesting that early Christian pneumatology is a field where we can find some particular analogies with the Qumran sectarian texts (rather than with the nonsectarian documents). So, in the concluding section of this paper, I want to point to these interesting parallels, without, however, giving any kind of comprehensive view of early Christian, or even Pauline pneumatology. At the outset, however, we must recognize that the earliest Jesus movement was inspired by experiences, rather than by distinct concepts or even “theology.” This is even true for Paul who is in some way the first one to develop a “theology” of the Spirit but is still strongly rooted in the experiences of the spirit felt by himself and his addressees.42 3.1 The Beginnings Apparently, the earliest followers of Jesus shared the view that the spirit that had empowered the earthly Jesus to act and preach (cf. Isa 61:1–2) had now been given to his followers, empowering them and dwelling among or even 41  Cf. the discussion in J. Frey, “Die Bedeutung der Qumran-Funde für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments,” in Qumran—Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer: Vorträge des St. Galler Qumran-Symposiums vom 2./3. Juli 1999, ed. M. Fieger, K. Schmid and P. Schwagmaier, NTOA 47 (Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 129–208 (133–52); idem, “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Collins and T. H. Lim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 517–45 (519–25). 42  For the rehabilitation of “experience” in recent scholarship see the account by C. Tibbs, Religious Experience of the Pneuma: Communication with the Spirit World in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, WUNT 2/230 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007), 94–108, and the references mentioned there; and more recently Levison, Filled with the Spirit.

The Notion of the Spirit

95

within them.43 Here we find a very early analogy to the concepts found in the sectarian Qumran texts, an analogy which is certainly not due to any direct influence but to a parallel indebtedness to Second Temple Jewish concepts of eschatological revelation and fulfillment. At a very early stage, Jesus’s resurrection was attributed to the power of the divine spirit; thus, it could be considered the beginning of the manifestation of the spirit that was to characterize the end times. This dynamic is still visible in an early christological formula preserved in Rom 1:4, which attributes Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation to the power of the “spirit of holiness.” Such a view is rooted in the Scriptures, especially Ezekiel 37, where the resurrection of Israel is attributed to the Spirit; and in Second Temple Judaism, this passage was used in support of the hope for an individual resurrection of the dead (esp. 4QPseudoEzekiel),44 understood as the work of the divine spirit. So the visions of the risen Christ, interpreted in the context of a common belief in the eschatological resurrection of the dead, could be conceived of as a sign that the eschatological period of restitution and salvation had now begun. The earliest mission spread under the influence of that “enthusiasm,” which was closely connected with and largely based upon experiences of the Spirit. 3.2 Paul and Some Distinctive Features of his View of the Spirit While remaining a part of that experience-based movement,45 Paul was the first “Christian” author to develop a theology of the Spirit and its (or his) work.46 His views, however, are still fluid, dependent as they are on his own experiences, and partly in reaction to the phenomena he had to deal with in

43  “God has given us the Spirit” (cf. Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; 1 Thess 4:8; Acts 5:32; 15:8 etc.); those who believe have “received the Spirit” (cf. Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2, 14; 1 John 2:27) or “The Spirit of God dwells within you” (cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:9). 44  Here, the most important insights can be gained from the Pseudo-Ezekiel text preserved fragmentarily in the Qumran library: On 4Q385 frg. 2, see A. L. A. Hogeterp, “Resurrection and Biblical Tradition: Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsidered,” Biblica 89 (2008): 59–69. 45  Paul knew of phenomena such as prophecy (1 Thess 5:19) and ecstatic speech (glossolalia; 1 Cor 14:18), etc.; he had visionary experiences (2 Cor 12:1) and auditory revelations (2 Cor 12:4; and even his calling, interpreted as an encounter with the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1), can be viewed as such an experience. 46  Here, the language already indicates a problem, as we have to decide whether to deal with the spirit as a neuter (a power, Fluidum, or inspiration), or whether to change pronouns into male (or female) forms. The notion of the Spirit as a “personal” entity acting in analogy to the risen Christ is initially developed in in Paul and then, more strongly, later in Johannine theology with the notion of the Spirit–Paraclete; see Frey, “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi,” 137–43 and 146–53; idem, “How did the Spirit become a Person?”

96

Frey

his communities. But Paul himself was part of the spirit movement, himself a charismatic.47 But what is distinctive for Paul’s view of the spirit? His earliest letter already makes the claim that God gave (or even in present tense, “gives”) his Holy Spirit to the community (1 Thess 4:8); Galatians states that the Gentile Christian addressees initially experienced the manifestation of the spirit (Gal 3:2–5) and— even as Gentiles—received “the promise of the spirit” (Gal 3:14). This is a phrase that points to the prophetic expectation that the spirit will be poured out in the end time (cf. Ezek 36:26–27) on Israel—or, as in Paul’s view, even on the Gentiles.48 From the scriptural background one could also infer that this bestowal of the Spirit was to be accompanied by visionary and prophetic phenomena (Joel 3:1–5). Paul does share this view, but it was much more strongly stressed by Luke and, most probably, by some of the addressees of Paul in Corinth and elsewhere. The spiritual phenomenon of ecstatic speech (glossolalia) could be interpreted as “tongues of the angels” (1 Cor 13:1), but also as a kind of dionysiac or even manic behavior. This may be the reason why Paul, in his critical debate with the Corinthian “pneumatics,” decisively stresses the prophetic, and thus revelatory, function of the spirit, in distinction from the manifestation of “tongues.” Such a distinction is made only in Paul, so that we can conclude that he himself introduced it in order to bring the Corinthians to reason. Paul puts all the weight on the aspect of comprehensibility, on speaking in clear and understandable words (1 Cor 14:5, 12, 14–19); so that in the community gatherings in Corinth, people should understand the message in order to be led to repentance and faith (1 Cor 14:24–25). Thus, in contrast to his addressees and other early Christian circles, Paul subordinates the extraordinary physical or miraculous manifestations of the spirit to its revelatory function. For Paul, the Spirit is primarily a medium of revelation, including the revelation of the hidden wisdom of God (1 Cor 2:10); this can only be understood by those who have the Spirit, or even by “spiritual” beings,49 whereas the natural being is incapable of understanding (1 Cor 2:13–16). Thus, like Lady Wisdom in 47  On Paul’s view of the Spirit, see M. Wolter, “Der heilige Geist bei Paulus,” in Frey and Sattler, Der Heilige Geist, 93–119; U. Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 244–50; quite extensively, G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994); and more recently, Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 253–316. 48  On Paul’s adoption of Ezekiel’s vision see also Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 253–63. 49  In 1 Cor 2:13, Paul can call his addressees “spiritual” beings (πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες, which should correctly be translated: “interpreting spiritual matters to spiritual people”).

The Notion of the Spirit

97

some traditions of Jewish wisdom theology (esp. Wisdom 7–9), it is ultimately the Spirit, which (or rather: who) conveys the true meaning of the Scriptures and reveals the hidden plan of God’s work. Again Paul conceptualizes the Spirit predominantly not in ecstatic, but in revelatory, terms. Here we can find again a very strong analogy with the view of the Qumran texts. Another analogy is well known: Because of the dwelling of the spirit in the community, the community is a temple of God (1 Cor 3:16). The sanctity of the community (and also of the individual believer), which is implicit in this concept, has ethical implications. Paul is concerned with the purity of the communities, especially with regard to severe sins, including sexual behavior. Here, there are analogies also with the Qumranic concept of the spirit of the community which is characterized by the purity of the community and might eventually be contaminated if members open themselves for aspects of the world outside the community. Of course, one element in Paul is a quite distinctive early Christian development unparalleled at Qumran. It is the fact that Paul describes the work of the spirit in strong analogy with the work of Christ: The Spirit is sent (Gal 4:6) as Christ was sent (Gal 4:4); the Spirit represents the believers before God (Rom 8:26), as does Christ (Rom 8:34); liberates from the deathly power of the law (Rom 8:2) as did Christ (Gal 5:1); gives gifts to anyone “according to his will” (1 Cor 12:11; cf. 12:6); and has its own “intention” (φρόνημα: Rom 8:6, 27).50 These analogies increasingly lead to the notion of the Spirit as a discrete persona. This is, of course a distinctive Christian innovation which is not paralleled in the Qumran texts. But apart from that, Paul’s decisive focus on the revelatory function of the spirit, and his critical evaluation of charismatic and ecstatic phenomena and experiences, provide a strong analogy with the Qumran texts (and especially with those of sectarian provenance). 3.3 The Johannine Notion of the Spirit51 In a later development, it is most significant that Johannine pneumatology almost completely limits the work of the Spirit to a revelatory, explaining, reminding or witnessing function, with almost complete disregard of prophetic, ecstatic, visionary or auditory experiences. This is, in the context of a

50  Cf. Frey, “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi,” 141–43. 51  Cf. C. Dietzfelbinger, “Paraklet und theologischer Anspruch im Johannesevangelium,” ZTK 82/4 (1985): 389–408; U. Schnelle, “Johannes als Geisttheologe,” NovT 40 (1998): 17–31; idem, Theologie, 664–72; and more recently, D. Pastorelli, Le Paraclet dans le corpus johannique, BZNW 142 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006).

98

Frey

Greco–Roman milieu, a strong continuation of the Jewish line of thought as attested in the scrolls. The Johannine tradition also shows a number of very striking terminological parallels with the Qumran texts. The most important of these is the term “Spirit of Truth,” which is one of the terms for the Spirit–Paraclete in John and appears several times in Qumran texts, most prominently, as we have seen, in the Treatise on the Two Spirits. But whereas earlier research has primarily stressed the connections between the two corpora, we may now see also the remarkable differences. Most notably, the dualistic framework in the Treatise (which, as noted above, is presectarian in origin and thus is not fully representative of the dualism of the Qumran community) is not matched by the Gospel of John, which adopts some dualistic expressions but uses them in a very different rhetorical framework.52 Thus all speculations about Johannine borrowing from Qumran should be dismissed. The use of the same term for a quite different conception deserves a different explanation. A dualism of spirits is adopted in 1 John which reproduces the structure shown in Jude 19–20; but in this context, the dualism frames an antithesis of different christological views, which are then characterized as the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. Here, the “spirit of truth” is not identical with the Holy Spirit (nor with the “Spirit of Truth” in John 14–16). The example shows that terminological similarities can sometimes be misleading. Not every parallel term means the same, although a matching term can point to a shared conceptual background in a broader sense. Both the interpretation of these terms in the scrolls themselves, as well as the seeming parallels in the New Testament writings, call for caution and hermeneutical awareness. 4 Conclusion As briefly demonstrated, the revelatory function of the Spirit, prominently developed in the Qumran sectarian texts, is also significant for some early Christian traditions. Paul not only adopts the idea of the Spirit given (in)to a 52  For more extensive discussion, see J. Frey, “Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and its Background,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004, ed. R. A. Clements and D. R. Schwartz, STDJ 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 127–57.

The Notion of the Spirit

99

person, but also stresses its revelatory function, thus subordinating all kinds of extraordinary manifestations. This is, of course, not a proof of direct dependence on Qumran texts, but it is certainly an important indication of Paul’s Palestinian–Jewish heritage. In view of other conceptions of the Spirit, which focus much more on miraculous and ecstatic manifestations (e.g., in Luke– Acts), it is striking that in the Johannine circle, the work of the Spirit is almost completely limited to its revelatory activity, or even more simply, to speech. The Spirit explains, reminds, or gives testimony; whereas prophetic, ecstatic, or visionary experiences are almost absent. The Johannine “Holy Spirit,” though also called “Spirit of Truth,” has its primary parallel not in the Spirit of Truth in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (where an angelic being is actually meant), but in the idea of the revelatory function of the spirit which developed in Qumran sectarian texts, and similarly in Pauline thought. Bibliography Albertz, R., and C. Westermann. “‫רוח‬.” Pages 726–53 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser; Zürich: Theologische Verlag Zürich, 1971–1976. Clines, D. J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2012. Danker, F. W., ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dietzfelbinger, C. “Paraklet und theologischer Anspruch im Johannesevangelium.” ZTK 82 (1985): 389–408. Dreytza, M. Der theologische Gebrauch von Ruaḥ im Alten Testament: Eine wort- und satzsemantische Studie. Giessen: Brunnen, 1990. Fabry, H.-J. “‫רוח‬.” Pages 365–402 in vol. 13 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by J. Botterweck et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Fee, G. D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Frey, J. “Die Bedeutung der Qumran-Funde für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 129–208 in Qumran—Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer: Vorträge des St. Galler Qumran-Symposiums vom 2./3. Juli 1999. Edited by M. Fieger, K. Schmid, and P. Schwagmaier. NTOA 47. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Frey, J. “Critical Issues in the Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 517–45 in Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. J. Collins and T. H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

100

Frey

Frey, J. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Frey, J. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts.” Pages 367–404 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Develop­ ment of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel et al. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002. Frey, J. “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran.” Pages 237–60 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by J.-S. Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Frey, J. “Qumran und der biblische Kanon: Eine thematische Einführung.” Pages 1–63 in Qumran und der biblische Kanon. Edited by M. Becker and J. Frey. BThS 92. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Frey, J. “Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and its Background.” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by R. A. Clements and D. R. Schwartz, STDJ 84. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 127–57. Frey, J. “The Rule of the Community: Introduction.” Pages 95–115 in vol. 2 of Early Jewish Literature: An Anthology. Edited by A. Wright et al. 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018). Frey, J. “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi und zur trinitarischen Person: Stationen einer Geschichte des Heiligen Geistes im Neuen Testament.” Pages 121–54 in Der Heilige Geist. Edited by J. Frey, and D. Sattler. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. Frey, J. and J. R. Levison, eds. The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Ekstasis 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. Gesenius, W., R. Meyer, and H. Donner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 5. Lieferung. 18th ed. Heidelberg: Springer 2009. Gunneweg, A. H. J. “Aspekte des alttestamentlichen Geistverständnisses.” Pages 96–106 in Sola scriptura: Beiträge zu Exegese und Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments. Edited by P. Höffken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Hogeterp, A. L. A. “Resurrection and Biblical Tradition: Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsidered.” Biblica 89 (2008): 59–69. Klein, A. “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 and 1QS.” Pages 171–91 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz. FAT 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

The Notion of the Spirit

101

Koch, R. Der Geist Gottes im Alten Testament. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1991. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Lieferung IV. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Kvalvaag, R. W. “The Spirit in Human Beings in some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts.” Pages 159–80 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Lange, A. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination.” Pages 377–435 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lange, A. “In Diskussion mit dem Tempel.” Pages 113–59 in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. BETL 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Lange, A. Weisheit und Pradestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lange, A., and H. Lichtenberger. “Qumran.” Pages 45–79 in vol. 28 of Theologische Realenzyklopadie. Edited by G. Müller. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Levison, J. R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Metso, S. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21 Leiden: Brill, 1996. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Newsom, C. A. “Flesh, Spirit, and the Indigenous Psychology of the Hodayot.” Pages 339–54 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by J. Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Pastorelli, D. Le Paraclet dans le corpus johannique. BZNW 142. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Pitts, A. W., and S. Pollinger. “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology.” Pages 135–76 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts. TENTS 10. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Popović, M. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic–Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Qimron, E., and J. H. Charlesworth. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 1–51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Schnelle, U. “Johannes als Geisttheologe.” NovT 40 (1998): 17–31. Schnelle, U. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

102

Frey

Schreiner, J. “Wirken des Geistes Gottes in alttestamentlicher Sicht.” Pages 83–136 in J. Schreiner, Der eine Gott Israels: Gesammelte Schriften zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol 3. Edited by E. Zenger. Würzburg: Echter, 1997. Schunck, K.-D. “Wesen und Wirksamkeit des Geistes nach der Überlieferung des Alten Testaments.” Pages 137–51 in vol. 1. of K.-D. Schunck, Altes Testament und Heiliges Land: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament und zur biblischen Landeskunde. 2 vols. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1989. Sekki, A. E. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Stegemann, H. “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von IQS III, 13–IV, 16.” RevQ 13 (1988): 95–131. Stegemann, H., and E. Schuller. Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb. Translated by C. Newsom. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Tibbs, C. Religious Experience of the Pneuma: Communication with the Spirit World in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. WUNT 2/230. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “bāśār.” Pages 537–47 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by H.-J. Fabry. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011–2016. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 167–240 in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by J. Frey and J. R. Levison. Ekstasis 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Wernberg-Møller, P. “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QSerek III,13–IV,26).” RevQ 3 (1961/62): 413–41. Wolter, M. “Der heilige Geist bei Paulus.” Pages 93–119 in Der Heilige Geist, Edited by J. Frey and D. Sattler. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011.

Qumran, Jubilees, and the Jewish Dimensions of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 Menahem Kister The affinities of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 with Qumranic and other Jewish writings have been much discussed. Still, there is much more to do, in terms of both new data and refined analysis, to situate this unusual unit in relation to the religious worldview reflected in the Qumran writings and the Book of Jubilees. 1 Introduction The unit 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 is a crux of long standing for New Testament scholarship. These verses must be a unit: on the one hand they express a closely related set of ideas, while on the other hand they differ both in theme and in style from the verses that frame the unit, 2 Cor 6:11–13 and 7:2–3. In fact, the unit 6:14–7:1 interrupts the train of thought between 6:13 and 7:2. The passage is attested in all the textual witnesses, and thus there is no objective reason to suspect its originality. Nevertheless, it has been argued by a number of scholars that this unit is an interpolation. Some New Testament scholars contend that the ideas and phraseology of these verses mark them as non-Pauline (e.g., the concept of purified bodies in 7:1; the high concentration of hapax legomena); while others insist that this passage may well be Pauline. Arguments in the debate, for and against Pauline authorship, were initiated before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.1 1  For surveys of scholarship see, e.g., M. E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., ICC 34 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–2000), 1:471–85; J. Lambrecht, “The Fragment 2 Corinthians 6,14–7,1: A Plea for its Authenticity,” in Studies on 2 Corinthians, ed. idem and R. Bieringer, BETL 112 (Leuven: Peeters, 1994), 531–49; R. Bieringer, “2 Korinther 6,14–7,1 im Kontext des 2. Korintherbriefes,” in Lambrecht and Bieringer, Studies, 551–70; F. Wilk, “Gottes Wort und Gottes Verheissung: Zur Eigenart Schriftverwendung in 2 Kor 6,14–7,1,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus, WUNT 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 673–96; F. Albrecht, “Dominus Deus, Pater Omnipotens: Die Verheissungen von 2 Kor 6,16–18,” in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, ed. F. Albrecht and M. Feldmeier, TBNJCT 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 277–92. For advocates of the interpolation theory, see V. P. Furnish, 2 Corinthians, AB 32A (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 371–83; W. O. Walker, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, JSNTSup 213 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 199–209.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_007

104

Kister

That “the paraenesis [in this passage] is typically Jewish” was already noted by Bultmann; he asks, “has it been revised in a Christian fashion? Was Χριστοῦ (v. 15) substituted for θεοῦ?”2 K. G. Kuhn, Gnilka, Fitzmyer and others have pointed out that this unit has close affinities with the Qumran scrolls (as well as with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees);3 in consequence, they consider it an Essene text that was only slightly Christianized (mainly by replacing “God” with “Christ” and calling the “insiders” “believers” [i.e., believers in Christ] in v. 15). The view that this unit was fundamentally an “Essene” text is based on cumulative evidence of resemblance to Qumran passages.4 A number of affinities have been noted between this passage and the Qumran literature: – The remarkable dualism in play throughout this unit has a number of parallels or near parallels at Qumran: the opposition of light and darkness, righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and lawlessness (ἀνομία);5 the naming of Beliar

2  R. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, ed. E. Dinkler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 182 (English translation: The Second Letter to the Corinthians, trans. R. A. Harrisville [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985], 180). He relies in his comments to this verse on T. Levi 19 and T. Naphtali 3. 3  On the Qumran texts, see K. G. Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre de Qumrân,” RB 61 (1954): 193– 205 (203); J. Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis, ed. J. MurphyO’Connor (London: Chapman, 1968), 48–68; J. A. Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6,14–7,1,” in idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971), 205–17. For the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 66. Dahl (who was inclined to think that this unit was Pauline) stressed its “remarkable similarities to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Jubilees”; see N. A. Dahl, “A Fragment and its Context: 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 62–69, citation from 68 n. 12. 4  The cumulative nature of the argument is emphatically stressed by those who subscribe to this view (e.g., Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 216–17). Thus, although there are some general parallels to Philo, for example, these do not undermine the cumulative weight of the similarities to Qumran. Contrast J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Relating 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 to its Context,” and “Philo and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1,” both included in idem, Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 116–20 and 121–39, respectively. He states: “The quality of the parallels [of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 to Qumran] is not in dispute. Yet we must be realistic. Qumran was a closed community…. Specifically Qumran ideas, therefore, are extremely unlikely to have penetrated Jewish life in Palestine….” (“Philo,” 124; note also “Relating,” 120). It should be emphatically stated, however, that the isolation of the Dead Sea sect cannot, and should not, be postulated a priori. In my view, a detailed examination of the data will reveal that such isolation did not obtain. 5  Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre,” 203 n. 2; Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 64–65; Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 187–217.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

105

(6:15)—i.e., the Hebrew Belial—as the leader of the evil realm (opposed here to Christ).6 – The purification phraseology, “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit,” (7:1), is akin to Qumranic phraseology; e.g., “perfect in spirit and in body” (‫ תמימי בשר ורוח‬1QM 7:5).7 – The separatist stance of the community (6:17), based on a dualistic theological foundation, has its counterpart in the Qumran community.8 – The idea of the community as the temple of God (6:16; albeit this idea is documented elsewhere in Paul’s writings) is also known at Qumran.9 – It has been suggested that the word μερίς (“part”) in 6:15b reflects the Qumran notion of ‫“( גורל‬lot”): the members of the Qumran community regarded themselves as being of the “lot of God.”10 – If the term “idols” (6:16a) refers by extension to the false notions held by unbelievers in general (rather than merely to idols in the strict sense), this usage also has a parallel in the Qumran scrolls (see discussion in 3.1 below).11 6  See, e.g., Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre,” 203 n. 2; Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 54–56; Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 211–13. P. J. Tomson’s thematic study, “Christ, Belial, and Women: 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 Compared with Ancient Judaism and with the Pauline Corpus,” in Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism, ed. R. Bieringer et al., CRINT 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 85–99, is less suggestive; to my mind, phraseology and terminology, rather than dualistic conceptions, serve as the touchstones for the origins of this unit. 7  See Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 58, and the discussion of 7:1 in section 3.4 below. 8  Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 61–63. 9  Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre,” 203 n. 1; Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 213–14 with n. 20; B. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 56. According to Dahl, however, “The clause, ‘For we are the temple of the living God’ (6:16), has a closer analogy in 1 Cor 3:16 than in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Dahl, “A Fragment,” 68 n. 12); similarly Wilk, “Gottes Wort,” 677 n. 26, 678, 681. 10  Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre,” 203 n. 2; followed by Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 209–11; Gärtner, The Temple, 50. Fitzmyer implicitly compares the phrase εἰς τἠν μερίδα τοῦ κληροῦ τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ ϕωτί (Col 1:12) with the expression ‫גורל‬ ‫ אור‬in the Qumran texts (1QM 13:9; CD 13:12). 11  This is implied in Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 213. After comparing the usage in this unit with Qumran, Gärtner writes: “It is reasonable to suppose that by ‘idols’ he meant not the actual images, but that from which the Christian must be separated” (The Temple, 50–51). On the problem of interpreting “idols” in this verse see, e.g., W. J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context of 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1, JSNTSup 85 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 193–95. Note that Webb’s exclamation, “What common element or shared association is there between idols and Jewish false teachers? None,” (194) does not take into account the usage in the scrolls, where Jewish false teachers and apostates are designated as “idolatrous” (see the

106

Kister

– In addition, it has been pointed out that the unique citation formula “as God said” (6:16) has its counterpart in the formula ‫ אשר אמר אל‬in the Damascus Document (CD 8:9).12 Exhaustive surveys of the relevant scholarship demonstrate the divergence of opinions concerning this passage.13 The three problems—(a) the authorship of this unit (Pauline or non-Pauline); (b) the possibility that it is an interpolation;14 and (c) its affinities with texts of the Dead Sea scrolls and their significance— have not been settled. The proposed answers to the problems impact upon one another, but the problems should be treated as distinct. Most of this essay will be devoted to a renewed scrutiny of the affinities of 6:14–7:1 with the literature of Second Temple period. I believe there is some fresh material which is of importance for the study of this unit.15 But before I proceed to discussing these matters, I will briefly consider the question of the context of this passage in 2 Corinthians. Although this is a distinct problem, it has some bearing on the possibility of reading 6:14–7:1 as a separate fragment. 2

Towards Understanding the Placement of this Unit

For those who maintain that these verses are integral to 2 Corinthians, the abrupt shifts between 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 and the preceding and following verses still poses a problem. To be sure, there are digressions in texts, and the phenomenon certainly exists in the Pauline epistles; what is unusual in this case is that there is no transition at all between this unit and the preceding and discussion in section 3.1 below). To my mind, it is plausible that “idols” (16a) refers to unbelievers in general, not necessarily idolatrous pagans only (see 2 Cor 4:4). 12  Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 58; Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 216. It has also been argued (e.g., Fitzmyer, ibid., 215–16) that the Qumran scrolls have somewhat similar passages of testimonia or combined biblical texts. I do not find this argument suggestive, because there is no compelling correspondence in form between 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 and any text at Qumran. 13  See, e.g., Lambrecht, “The Fragment”; Bieringer, “2 Kor im Kontext”; as well as the commentaries to this passage (and see above, n. 1). 14  The question of authorship and the question of interpolation are therefore two separate matters, as the possibility that an interpolated passage might be Pauline (i.e., a passage from another epistle) cannot be ruled out a priori. 15  I will not remark on the many exegetical problems with which the interpreters of the epistle are engaged. My discussion will be confined to the new light that can be shed on this passage by studying it along with material of the Second Temple period, especially the Dead Sea scrolls and the Book of Jubilees.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

107

following verses, nor is there any overt link between the unit and its surroundings that might enable the reader to follow Paul’s train of thought; it is unclear what might have caused such a digression. Several overarching thematic solutions have been suggested,16 but the abruptness of the text fails to provide conclusive evidence for the correctness of any of these solutions. On the other hand, those who view these verses as an interpolation have not answered the crucial question from a philological point of view: i.e., why these verses were interpolated at this specific point.17 I would like to propose a possible solution that has not yet been suggested, to the best of my knowledge: that the hook for the interpolation into the main text is the sentence, “I speak as to children (ὡς τέκνοις λέγω)” (6:13). Paul probably means, “I speak (to you) as my children,” but someone could take these words as meaning, “I speak (to you) as God’s children”; the meaning then corresponds to the sentence in our unit, “I will be a father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters” (6:18; for τέκνα θεοῦ see, e.g., Rom 8:16; 9:8; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1–2, 10). The interpolator, according to this suggestion, took the opportunity to insert at this point a midrashlike reading of Paul’s words; the interpolator hung on this hook, namely the word τέκνα, a ready-made unit that has the theme of “God’s children” (“sons and daughters”) as its culmination. According to this suggestion, the unit was not incorporated by Paul. Whether he might have been the author of the fragment is a question that should be considered by others. 3

2 Cor 6:14–7:1: Structural Analysis and Jewish Textual Parallels

In this study, I will deal with the components of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 verse by verse, in isolation from its setting in 2 Corinthians, drawing close comparisons with Jewish material of the Second Temple period. Some fresh evidence, I contend, corroborates the view that this is indeed a textual unit akin to the Qumran scrolls and related texts. Reading this unit on the heuristic assumption that it is originally a Jewish literary fragment, rather than a Pauline or early Christian

16  See, e.g., Webb, Returning Home. 17  “With regard to the second option [of interpolation] … we are faced with the perplexing question of why it is put in here at this precise place”; see R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), 194; “But none … seems to have offered a rational explanation for the interpolation of our fragment between 6:13 and 7:2” (Dahl, “A Fragment,” 65); G. Sass, “Noch Einmal: 2 Kor 6,14–7,1. Literarkritische Waffen gegen einen ‘unpaulinischen’ Paulus?” ZNW 84 (1993): 36–64, esp. 36.

108

Kister

composition, proves worthwhile, to my mind. Moreover, as we shall see, such an integrative study is no less important for the scrutiny of the Jewish sources.18 3.1 The Text and its Structure The short fragment with which we are dealing consists of three sections.19 I first present the text and its units:20 [A] (14) Do not be misyoked with unbelievers (Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις). For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (15) What accord has Christ with Beliar [Belial]? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (16) What agreement (συγκατάθεσις) has the Temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; [B] as God said, (a) “I will dwell in them and walk [in them], and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (17) Therefore (b) “go out of their midst, and be separate (from them), says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean”; (c) “and I will gather you” (κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς), (18) and (d) “I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” [C] (7:1) Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and attain (ἐπιτελοῦντες) holiness in the fear of God. Section A speaks against being “misyoked” with unbelievers, and illustrates the dualistic dichotomy between believer and unbeliever by five rhetorical questions culminating in the question, “What agreement has the Temple of 18  On the concept of integrative study, see M. Kister, “Hellenistic Jewish Writers and Palestinian Traditions: Early and Late,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011, ed. M. Kister, H. I. Newman, M. Segal, and R. A. Clements, STDJ 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 150–78 (151–52). 19  Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 371–75; Tomson, “Christ, Belial, and Women,” 79–131, esp. 81. 20  The translation of this passage is my own; I have consulted a number of contemporary English translations.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

109

God with idols?” While in any other context, idolatry might be tolerable or contained to some extent, the presence of idols profanes the Temple of the monotheistic God. For this reason, for example, Jews were not ready to accept Caligula’s decree, which would have involved idolatry in the Temple itself, notwithstanding the fact that many idolatrous objects were tolerated elsewhere in Roman Palestine. The section presents a good argument for absolute separation from “unbelievers,” in opposition to more tolerant views. The argument runs as follows: (a) idolatry profanes the Temple; (b) “outsiders” are considered idolatrous; (c) we are the temple of God; (d) therefore, if we do not distance ourselves from “outsiders” (unbelievers) we will commit the most severe sin, i.e., desecration of the Temple. It seems to me plausible that “idolatry” is meant here in a broad sense,21 to include apostates or unbelievers; this is especially likely in view of noteworthy Jewish parallels in Qumranic texts, in which the so-called “idolatry” of the Jewish opponents is the reason to demand complete separation.22 The sentence “For we are the temple of the living God” concludes the argument; but it is also the bridge to the next section, B, which consists of a catena of biblical or quasi-biblical proof texts (on the relationship between the two sentences, see below). Section C concludes the unit with paraenesis concerning purification of flesh and spirit (following the purity ideology in section B, 6:17), holiness, and the fear of God. 3.2 Section A 1. The key sentence of this section is: “Do not be misyoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor 6:14)—Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις. As has been noted by all those who have dealt with this passage, the term ἑτερόζυγος renders in the Septuagint 21  See above, n. 11 for previous discussions in scholarship. 22  The most telling example (as noted by Gärtner, The Temple, 51–52) is 4Q174 1+2+21 iii 14–17: … ]‫מדרש מאשרי [ה]איש אשר לוא הלך בעצת רשעים פשר הדב[ר לס]ור סרי מדרך [העם‬ ‫והמה אשר כתוב עליהמה בספר יחזקאל הנביא אשר לו[א יטמאו עוד בכול] גלוליהמה המה‬ … ‫בני צדוק וא[נ]שי עצת[מ]ה‬, “Midrash of ‘Blessed be [the] man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked’ (Ps 1:1) The interpretation of this phr[ase]: those who turn aside from the path of the people … and those are about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel the prophet: ‘[they should not defile themselves any more with all] their idols’ (Ezek 44:10), those are the sons of Zadok and the men of their council….” For further discussion of this text and its relationship to 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 see also G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, JSOTSup 29 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 116–19; 211–17, esp. 212. The text is cited here according to the reading of E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:289 (in Hebrew); the translation follows F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, DSSSE 2:353–55, with alterations.

110

Kister

‫( כלאים‬Lev 19:19: ‫ ;בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים‬τὰ κτήνη σου οὐ κατοχεύσεις ἑτεροζύγῳ). Some scholars interpret 2 Cor 6:14 as referring specifically to intermarriage; others interpret it as referring to separation from the unbelievers in general.23 A strong argument in favor of the latter interpretation is the lack of any mention of the issue of marriage in this passage. Both interpretations of the rule of kilʾayim are in fact attested in the Qumran texts. A. In 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah, Lev 19:19 serves as a proof text against intermarriage:24 ‫ועל הזונות הנעסה בתוך העם והמה ב[ני זרע] קדש משכתוב קודש ישראל ועל‬ ‫בה[מתו הטהור]ה כתוב שלוא לרבעה כלאים ועל לבוש[ו כתוב שלוא] יהיה שעטנז‬ ]‫ושלוא לזרוע שדו וכ[רמו כלאי]ם בגלל שהמה קדושים ובני אהרון ק[דושי קדושים‬

And concerning the fornication25 carried out in the midst of the people: they are s[ons of] holy [offspring], as it is written, “holy is Israel” (Jer 2:3), and concerning [his clean] ani[mal] it is written that he shall not let two species mate (‫)כלאים‬, and concerning [his] clothing [it is written] that no materials are to be mixed (‫)שעטנז‬, and he shall not sow his field or [his] vineyard with two species (‫])כלאים‬, because they [i.e., Israel] are holy and the sons of Aaron are ho[ly of holies].26 B. The wisdom text 4QInstruction interprets the rule of kilʾayim as forbidding the mixing of one’s wealth with that of others:27 23  Thrall, Second Corinthians, 2:473; Webb, Returning Home, 200–214. 24  In my opinion the text in MMT deals with women who are considered non-Israelite by the author, perhaps proselytes; see M. Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71, esp. 343–47 (in Hebrew), where parallels from rabbinic and Karaite literature are adduced. The interpretation of E. Qimron and J. Strugnell is that intermarriage of Israelites and priests is under consideration here; see Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah, DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 171–75. 25  The term ‫“( זנות‬fornication”) is very broad. In the present context it refers to intermarriage either of Jews and Gentiles (or Jews and proselytes, considered to be Gentiles), as I prefer to interpret it, or of nonpriests and priests, as suggested by other scholars; see Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah,” 344–47. 26  4QMMT B 75–80; see Qimron and Strugnell, DJD 10.20, 27, 54–56 (composite text). The translation is based on García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 2:797–99, with many alterations. 27  4Q418 103 ii 6–9. See J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington and T. Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār le-Mēvin): 4Q415 ff., DJD 34 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 329–34. I disagree with the interpretation of the editors: “The text of lines 7–8 concerns the Law of Diverse Kinds, apparently in its literal agricultural senses,

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

111

[ ‫ [ב]מסחורכה אל תערוב אשר‬6 ‫ למה יהיה כלאים כפרד והייתה כלוב[ש בשעטנז] בצמר ובפשתים ועבודתכה‬7 ]‫כחור[ש‬ ‫ בשור ובח[מו]ר [י]חד[ו] וגם תבואתכה תג[רע כאיש]זורע כלאים אשר הזרע‬8 ]‫והמלאה ותבוא[ת‬ ‫ הכרם יקדש[ו וכלה] הונכה עם בשרכה [וימי]חייכה יתמו יחד ובחייכה לוא‬9 [ ‫תמצא‬ 6. In your trade do not mix what belongs to [ 7. lest it be mixed kinds (‫ )כלאים‬like a mule, and lest you become like someone who wea[rs clothes woven of two kinds of yarn,] wool and flax, and your work be like (that of) someone who ploug[hs] 8. with an ox and an a[s]s [to]geth[er], or also your produce will b[e diminished like (that of) someone who] sows mixed kinds, for the seed, the yield, and the produc[e of] 9. the [vineyard] will be sancti[fied (?)28 and]your wealth together with your flesh [will be destroyed, and the days of] your life will end together, and during your life you shall not find [29 All the similes in this passage are taken from the prohibitions against mixtures in the Hebrew Bible: the mule (line 7) is the product of breeding two kinds of domestic animals, a donkey and a mare; the other prohibitions (wearing a cloth made of wool and flax; ploughing with ox and ass; sowing mixed kinds of plants) are explicitly mentioned in Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11. The results of mixing with others’ possessions are most severe, according to this work: such mixing affects not only one’s own wealth, but one’s life as well. Unfortunately it is unclear with whom one should not mix his wealth; the last words at the end of line 6, ]—‫אשר [ל‬, could be reconstructed in a number of ways; e.g., “what belongs to [a sinner],” or “what belongs to [someone else].”30 The general idea that mixture with outsiders can be fatal occurs elsewhere in 4QInstruction as well: and not extended allegorically” (330). The text as cited here is based on the reading of Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:169 (in Hebrew). 28  It is unclear how Deut 22:9 (on which the phrase at the end of line 8 and the beginning of line 9 is based) was interpreted by the author of this work, and therefore the translation is uncertain. 29  The translation is based on García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 2:875, with alterations. 30  Strugnell and Harrington (DJD 34.329–30) reconstruct ]‫ אשר [לרעכה‬and translate it: “that which is [thy associate’s].”

112

Kister

‫וגם מכל איש אשר לוא ידעתה אל תקח הון פן יוסיף על רישכה‬

Do not take wealth from any man unknown to you, lest he [or: it] add to your poverty. (4Q416 2 iii 5–6)31 Clearly, the point at issue here is not the financial risk; rather it is the religious problem of mixing one’s wealth with that of others. Those “others,” “those who are unknown to you,” may well be “outsiders” (if this text is sectarian or semisectarian, as I tend to think).32 “Insiders,” however, are allowed to mix their wealth. This might be the meaning of the sentence, ‫( ואתה אם תחסר טרף מחסורכה ומותריכה הבא ביחד‬4Q416 2 i 17 + 4Q418 7 1–2) “And you, if you are in want of livelihood,33 [br]ing your want and your surplus together.”34 Even if the word ‫ ביחד‬is an adverb meaning “together”—rather than a noun, “to the community” (which cannot be entirely excluded)—we have here a strong sense of communal solidarity: the sentence can hardly refer to the wealth of an individual, for how can one bring together his surplus if he is lacking wealth? (The usage of singular forms for general instructions is not impossible in Hebrew). This interpretation gains strength if we compare this text to the instruction concerning wealth in another passage in 2 Corinthians: “Your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want” (2 Cor 8:14). The author of 4QInstruction is apparently concerned about mixing wealth with those whose portion is inferior, and certainly with the wicked. Statements to the effect that mixing the wealth of others with one’s own may be disastrous 31  Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.110; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:156; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 2:851. 32  The relation of 4QInstruction to sectarian literature is contested. Many scholars contend that the cause for the similar terminology is the use of 4QInstruction by the authors of the sectarian writings. My view is different: the terminology and phraseology are so close because they represent the same worldview and were created in the context of the same movement (see, e.g., M. Kister, “Wisdom Literature at Qumran,” in The Qumran Scrolls and their World, ed. M. Kister, 2 vols. [Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009], 1:299–319, esp. 304–16 [in Hebrew]). Devorah Dimant also considers this work “sectarian” (see her History, Ideology, and Bible Interpretation [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 91–93. See also the detailed discussion and survey of previous research by Arjen Bakker, “The Figure of the Sage in Musar le-Mevin and Serekh ha-Yaḥad” (PhD diss., KU Leuven, 2015). If the interpretation proposed below is plausible, it would imply that the sage and the addressees of 4QInstruction were not as integrated into the surrounding society as is often assumed. 33  This phrase in 4QInstruction is based on Prov 30:8. 34  The translation is based on García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 2:855, with a major alteration.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

113

occur elsewhere in 4QInstruction. For instance: ‫… אל‬ ‫[אל תמ]כור נפשכה בהון‬ ‫“ תערב הון בנחלתכה פן יוריש גויתכה‬do not sell your soul for wealth … do not mix wealth with your inheritance, lest it destroy your body.”35 The latter passage does not explicitly identify the person to whom one should not “sell his soul for wealth.”36 We have seen, then, that the Qumran texts use the notion of kilʾayim in relation both to intermarriage and to social separation from outsiders, and that both meanings have been applied in scholarship to 2 Cor 6:14. As I said above, the lack of any mention of the issue of marriage in this passage speaks in favor of the meaning of separation from outsiders, as in 4QInstruction. This is not a common application of these laws in antiquity; it seems noteworthy that such a usage occurs in comparable contexts in both our passage and a (semisectarian) work found at Qumran.37 This new parallel should be added to the cumulative evidence of similarities between 6:14–7:1 and the literary works found at Qumran, although by itself, this parallel does not prove a necessary relationship between our passage and the Qumranic one; similar use can be independently made of these biblical prohibitions.38 35  4Q416 2 ii 17–18 + 4Q417 2 ii 21–23. See Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34.90, 192; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:154; my translation. The reading ‫ תערב הון‬follows 4Q417; 4Q416 reads: ‫תערבהו‬. 36  Some lines before the latter passage it is stated that debts must be repaid as soon as possible, because by becoming a partner with someone else (by borrowing his money), one may lose one’s life and diminish one’s “holy spirit” (4Q416 2 ii 4–7). It is also stated (4Q417 2 i 17–22 [Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:152]) that it is dangerous to borrow money from others, because by exceeding the limits of one’s own portion, one runs the risk of shortening one’s own life. These stark prohibitions are based on the notion that one should accept one’s God-given inheritance, ‫נחלה‬, which constitutes both mundane conditions and spiritual gifts (4Q416 2 ii 18 + 4Q417 2 ii 23). 37  See above, n. 32. 38  Compare the interpretation given by Anan (proto-Karaite, eighth century) to the laws of ‫כלאים‬: according to him, these biblical verses call for separation from the Gentiles as well as from those “who do not worship God like us”; Anan insists that every Jew who does not observe the Torah (correctly) is considered a Gentile; see A. Harkavy, Ha-Śarid ṿeha-paliṭ mi-sifre ha-mitsṿot ha-rishonim li-vene Miḳra: Sefer ha-Mizvot = Studien und Mitteilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg: 8. Teil: Likkute Kadmoniot II zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der Karäischen Literatur: Ersten Heft: Aus den ältesten Karäischen Gesetzbüchern von Anan, Beniamin Nehwendi und Daniel Kummisi (St. Petersburg: Pushkarskaja, 1903), 4–7, esp. 6–7. See also Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah,” 346. It has been suggested by J. D. M. Derrett, “2 Cor 6,14ff.: A Midrash on Dt 22,10,” Biblica 59 (1978): 231–50, that 2 Cor 6:14 deals with avoiding business partnerships; this suggestion was based on the very late medieval commentary (thirteenth/ fourteenth century!) of Jacob ben Asher Baʿal ha-Ṭurim to Deut 22:10. See Y. K. Reinitz,

114

Kister

2. A rhetorical opposition akin to the formulation, “What fellowship has light with darkness or what accord has Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor 6:15) occurs twice in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as noted by Gnilka:39 “Choose between light and darkness, either the law of the Lord or the works of Belial” (T. Levi 19:1);40 “They will abandon the commandments of the Lord and follow Belial” (T. Iss. 6:1).41 In this formulation, Belial is obviously contrasted with God himself; it should be noted, however, that in other Jewish texts Belial is contrasted not with God, but rather with God’s heavenly agent, the Prince of Light.42 Thus the Damascus Document reads: ‫כי מלפנים עמד משה ואהרן ביד שר האורים ויקם‬ ‫בליעל את יחנה ואת אחיהו‬, “for in ancient times Moses and Aaron arose by the hand of the Prince of Light, whereas Belial raised up Jannes and his brother” (CD 5:17–19). The opposition here between Belial and the “Prince of Light,” is noteworthy in view of the juxtaposition of “light and darkness” with “Christ and Beliar” in 2 Cor 6:14–15. A more complicated instance of the shift between God and God’s agents in the confrontation with Belial may be seen in T. Dan 5:10–11, which opposes Belial to the Messiah. Gnilka rightly considers this passage to have undergone Christian reworking.43 Nonetheless, it is intriguing that the phraseology of this passage is remarkably close to that of 11QMelchizedek (11Q13):

ed., Perush Baʿal ha-Ṭurim ʿal ha-Torah (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1996), 499. I do not accept Derrett’s interpretation of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. In any case, there is no genealogical relationship between Qumran and this medieval commentary. 39  Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 55. 40  Cf. J. L. Kugel’s interpretation of T. Levi 19:1; see idem, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. L. H. Feldman et al., 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 2:1697–855 (1747). 41  For the significance of this dichotomy for the Qumran community and its antecedents see also M. Kister, “Demons, Theology, and Abraham’s Covenant,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings, ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller, SBLEJL 15 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 167–84, esp. 170– 73. For T. Levi 19:1, see Deut 11:26–28, 30:19, and cf. 1QS 3:20. 42  Dahl, “A Fragment,” 63. 43  Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” 55–56.

115

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

T. Dan 5:10–13 (10) And from the race of Judah and Levi salvation of the Lord will arise unto you. And he himself [= the Messiah] will wage war against Belial, and carry out vengeance of victory for our fathers, (11) and he will take [the ones in] captivity away from Belial, the souls of the holy ones.

He will turn disobedient hearts to the Lord and give to them that call upon him eternal peace…. (13) and no longer shall Jerusalem endure desolation, nor Israel be led captive

11QMelchizedek 2

(13) And Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of God’s judgments [and on that day he will re]sc[ue them from] Belial and from all the sp[irits of his lot] (4–5) Its interpretation for the last days refers to the captives [ ]a from the inheritance of Melchizedek … (15–16) “proclaims peace” (Isa 52:7) (23) “says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns” (Isa 52:7)b

a At the beginning of line 5, Alexei Yuditsky and Esther Haber read: ‫הדיחמה מדרכי התורה‬ ‫ומנחלת מלכי צדק‬, “he removed them from the ways of the Torah and from the inheritance of Melchizedek.” The continuation of this line and the beginning of the next reads, “he will cause them to return to them” (‫)אשר ישיבמה אליהמה‬. I suggest that this text should be understood to mean, “He will cause the (former) captives to return to the ways of the Torah”; thus, this passage might be an equivalent to, “he will turn disobedient hearts to the Lord” in T. Dan 5:11. The reading of Yuditsky and Haber is discussed in C. Ariel, “Semantic and Exegetical Observations on Metaphors for Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 13, ed. J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Magnes Press; Haifa: The University of Haifa Press, 2017), 3–25 (18–20) (in Hebrew). b Note that later on, the text of 11QMelchizedek mentions “[rebuilding] the walls of Judah” (3:9–10); and “the wall of J[erusalem]” (frg. 7 3); compare Isa 52:9.

116

Kister

The phrases “he himself” (T. Dan 5:10) and “them that call upon him” (5:11) indicate that the passage originally referred to God.44 In the present form of T. Dan 5, however, it is the Messiah who carries out the war with Belial and redeems those who were captured by him; in the Qumranic text it is Melchizedek who is God’s agent. Note also As. Mos. 10:1–2: “Then will be filled the hands of the messenger who has been appointed on high, who will immediately avenge them against their enemies.”45 It seems that two opposing traditions are intertwined in these verses—God’s vengeance will be carried out either by himself or (according to the alternative tradition) by his angel / messenger.46 Although I do think that T. Dan 5:10–13 is a Christianized version of a Jewish passage,47 44  Compare the following tannaitic midrash, in which God speaks: “‘Vengeance is mine and recompense’ (Deut 32:35)—I will carry out vengeance against them [i.e., the nations] myself, not by an angel and not by a messenger”; Sifre Deut. 325; see L. Finkelstein, ed., Siphre ad Deuteronomium (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), 376; my translation. Concerning the two conflicting options and the replacement of the role of God by that of an agent, see W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 80–81. 45   My translation. The parallel between 11QMelchizedek and this passage from the Assumption of Moses has been recognized since the publication of the former; see M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, “11QMelchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1965–1966): 301–26, esp. 306. For a thorough discussion of the verses in the Assumption of Moses see J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, SVTP 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 228–31. For the question of whether the expression “fill his hand(s)” refers only to ordination of priests or to inauguration in general, see D. C. Carlson, “Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament of Moses 9 and 10,” JBL 101 (1982), 85–95, esp. 94 (and compare J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” OTP 1:919–34 [932] n. a). The figure in the parallel text, Melchizedek, is a (heavenly) priest (Gen 14:18); but—as agreed by all who have commented on As. Mos. 10—the priestly role is not integral here, notwithstanding Carlson’s interpretation. 46  The Latin text has here nuntius, that is, messenger; the Greek Vorlage of the Latin text was probably ἄγγελος, which can mean not only “messenger” but also “angel.” See J. Tromp, “Taxo, the Messenger of the Lord,” JSJ 21 (1990): 200–209; Carlson, “Vengeance and Angelic Mediation,” 93 n. 37; see also the considerations of William Horbury in his review of Tromp’s Assumption of Moses, VT 45 (1995): 398–403, esp. 400–401. I tend to consider both the figure in As. Mos. 10:2 and Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek as angels. 47  There are opposing scholarly opinions concerning the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Here suffice it to say that I am of the opinion that this compilation is a reworked and Christianized version of Hebrew or Aramaic Jewish texts; the task of reconstructing the “original” text is often extremely difficult. See also, e.g., J. L. Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), passim (see his index, 269); S. Efrati, “The Second Exile: A Note on the Development of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12, ed. J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Magnes Press; Haifa: The University of Haifa Press, 2014–2015), 221–56 (in Hebrew).

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

117

I contend that 11QMelchizedek and the Assumption of Moses demonstrate that the transference from God to an exalted figure is not uniquely Christian, but rather has its antecedents in Jewish thought of the Second Temple period.48 3. The dualistic content of the rhetorical questions in our unit (section A, 6:14– 16), is reminiscent of themes and motifs from various Qumranic texts. Some of them have already been adduced by scholars who hold that the unit is related to the Qumran literature. Particularly central for scholarship has been the Teaching on the Two Spirits, which posits an ontological dichotomy between good and evil, light and darkness—realms that “cannot walk together” (1QS 4:18). The similarity of this notion to the ideas in our unit is clear and instructive; it may be argued, however, that this is a rather general theme. It seems to me that it is in two other passages in the scrolls, with evident phraseological interconnections, that we can find most of the affinities with 2 Cor 6:14–16. Unlike the Teaching on the Two Spirits, the topic of these passages is not “abstract” theology, but the same issue as that of our unit: the problem of associating or mixing with outsiders (and rebellious members) in the framework of a “dualistic” religious worldview. In the Damascus Document it is said: ‫אשר שמו גלולים על‬ … ‫אל יאות איש עמו בהון ובעבודה כי אררוהו כל קדושי עליון‬ .‫אין להם חלק בבית התורה‬ … ‫לבם וילכו בשרירות לבם‬

No one should associate49 with him in wealth or work, for all the holy ones of the Most High have cursed him … for they have placed idols in their heart and have walked according to the will of their own heart…. they shall have no part in the house of the Torah. (CD B 20:7–10) A similar text in the Serekh (1QS 2:5–18) refers to those outside the community or leaving it as belonging to “the lot of Belial” (‫ ;)אנשי גורל בליעל‬idolatrous (‫“ ;)בגלולי לבו‬cut down from among the sons of light” (‫ונכרת מתוך כול בני‬ ‫ ;)אור‬and having attained the “lot of the cursed” (‫)גורלו בתוך ארורי עולמים‬. The

48  Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 80–81, refers to most of the passages discussed here; moreover, his book as a whole seeks to demonstrate the Jewish antecedents to early Christian conceptions, especially in regard to divine agents. The textual affinities among these passages should be added to his discussion. 49  Literally: “mix”; see J. Joosten, “Sectarian Terminology and Biblical Exegesis: The Meaning of the Verb ‫ אות‬in Qumranic Writings,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute; Haifa: The University of Haifa Press, 2003), 219–26 (in Hebrew).

118

Kister

resemblance in the phraseology between CD and 1QS is evident.50 The two passages seem to be related to section A of our unit, as will become apparent from the following table: 2 Cor 6:14–16

CD b 20:7–10

Do not be misyoked with unbelievers what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness? what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part (μερίς) has a believer with an unbeliever?

no-one should associate with him

no part (‫ )חלק‬in the house of the Torah; the holy ones … have cursed him What agreement has the the idols of his heart temple of God with idols?

1QS 2:5–18

cut down from the sons of light the men of the lot of Belial his lot (‫)גורלו‬ among those cursed forever the idols of his heart

It seems, then, that 2 Cor 6:14–16 (section A) shares with these two interrelated sectarian passages, not only the general notion of separation, but also some specific affinities of phraseology. 4. The last sentence in this section is: “For we are the temple of the living God.” The image of the believers or community as temple51 occurs in 1 Cor 3:16–17,52 50  Note especially the phrases ‫ בגלוליו ומכשול עונו‬,‫ בשרירות לבי אלך‬,‫ ארור בגלולי לבו‬and ‫ ארורי עולמים‬in 1QS 2:11, 14, 17. 51  The reading ἡμεῖς … ναοὶ … ἐσμεν in some manuscripts is not the original reading in this verse, but it is not necessarily just a “pedantic correction”; see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies 1971), 580; the issue at hand is whether the community is the temple of God (“we [i.e., the members of the community] are the temple of God” in the singular) or whether every individual is a temple (“we are the temples of God” in the plural). The difference between these ideas is significant, and the ideological background of each of them is quite distinctive. Compare Thrall, Second Corinthians, 2:475–76 (and nn. 2025–2031); Martin, 2 Corinthians, 202. 52  See above, n. 9.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

119

as well as in 1 Cor 6:19 (where it seems to have a different meaning). In addition to these genuine Pauline passages, the same imagery is found in Eph 2:21. The mere existence of this image in our passage in itself, then, is not an indication of linkage with Qumranic ideas. Scholars who have suggested an Essene origin for 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 have emphasized the fact that the community is described as a temple in the Dead Sea scrolls. In point of fact, the community is called ‫בית‬ ‫ קודש‬in the Serekh, and cultic imagery does accompany some of the occurrences of this term.53 It remains a matter of debate, however, to what extent the conceptions found in the Serekh and 2 Corinthians can be considered the same.54 An additional Qumranic text, from the so-called Songs of the Maskil, should also be brought into this discussion:55 53  For a synopsis of these passages in the Serekh and an analysis of their evolution see M. Kister, “The Root NDB in the Scrolls and the Growth of Qumran Texts: Lexicography and Theology,” in Ben-Dov and Kister, Meghillot 11–12, 111–30, esp. 121–23 (in Hebrew). The expression ‫ מקדש אדם‬in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174 1–2 i 6) is often considered relevant as well, but while many scholars consider it to mean “temple consisting of men,” and interpret it as referring to the community as a temple, I interpret the phrase to mean a temple built by human beings, and therefore irrelevant to the matter at hand. For surveys of the literature, see M. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991): 103–32; D. Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Homage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. A. Caquot et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 165–89; G. J. Brooke, “Eden and the Qumran Community,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. B. Ego et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 285–301. For my own view, see M. Kister, “Marginalia Qumranica,” Tarbiz 57/3 (1988): 319–21 (in Hebrew). 54  It is plausible that the house metaphor in these texts has its roots in the Hebrew usage of “house” for ethnic groups and communities (‫ בית אהרן‬,‫[ בית ישראל‬e.g., Ps 135:19]; cf. ‫[ בית פלג‬CD B 20:22; 4Q169 3–4 iv 1] and ‫[ בית אבשלום‬1QpHab 5:9]; note also the usage ‫ בית התורה‬for the community [CD b 20:10]; and the building of “the house of Abraham” [Jub. 22:24] for the people of Israel). See D. R. Schwartz, “Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifices: Opposition and Spiritualization in the Late Second Temple Period” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979, 90–100 [in Hebrew]); and J. Maier, “Bausymbolik, Heiligtum und Gemeinde in den Qumrantexten,” in Volk Gottes als Tempel, ed. A. Vonach and R. Messner (Vienna: Lit, 2008), 49–106. The fact that this metaphor is accompanied in the Serekh by expressions that indicate the cultic function of the community makes it probable that we have in these texts temple imagery, combined with the “house” terminology for designating religious and ethnic groups. For other views, minimizing the relationship of this theme to the Dead Sea scrolls, see E. Regev, “The Community–Temple Identification in Qumran and the New Testament: Their Differences and Relationships,” in Ben-Dov and Kister, Meghillot 13, 197–229 (in Hebrew). 55  4Q511 35. The entire passage is: ]‫] בכול בשר ומשפט נקמות לכל〈ו〉ת רשעה ולש[יב‬ ‫אפי אלוהים במזוקקי שבעתים ובקדושים יקדיש‬ ‫אלוהים לו למקדש עולמים וטהרה בנברים והיו‬ ‫כוהנים עם צדקו צבאו ומשרתים מלאכי כבודו‬ ‫יהללוהו בהפלא נוראות‬

120

Kister

‫ובקדושים יקדיש אלוהים לו למקדש עולמים וטהרה בנברים‬

and by the holy ones God will sanctify for Himself to (be) an everlasting sanctuary,56 and purity—in the purified ones (‫)נברים‬. The text in this passage is rather enigmatic. The rough style of my English translation intends to transfer the roughness of the Hebrew original. The words, however, can hardly mean anything else than that the holy ones will be God’s eternal temple in the eschaton.57 According to Ezekiel, ‫וידעו הגוים כי אני ה׳ מקדש את ישראל בהיות מקדשי בתוכם‬ … ‫וטהרתי אתם‬ ‫לעולם‬

I will purify them … the nations will know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore. (Ezek 37:23–28)58 While the eschatological promise in Ezekiel connects Israel’s sanctification with the sanctuary in its midst, the text from Qumran apparently designates the righteous themselves as an everlasting sanctuary (‫)מקדש עולמים‬. The passage in the Songs of the Maskil refers to the eschatological future, but the aforementioned passages in the Serekh, in which the sect is called ‫בית קודש‬, “offering the pleasing aroma of sacrifices” (1QS 8:5–10),59 refer to the present. The tension discernible in 2 Cor 6:16, between being the temple of God in the present (section A) and the implied allusion to God’s temple in eschatological prophecies (section B), is reminiscent of the tension in Jewish sources. In the foregoing discussion I have highlighted numerous parallels between 2 Cor 6:14–16 (section A) and passages found in the Qumran writings. Some of these parallels have hitherto gone unnoticed. Affinities between these passages 56  In the present context, which also mentions “priests” and is based on Ezek 37:28 (see below), the meaning “temple, sanctuary,” for the word ‫ מקדש‬seems secure. 57  If the text had read ‫ובקדושים יקדיש אלוהים לו מקדש עולמים‬, it might have been interpreted to mean that the sanctuary is in the midst of the holy ones; the reading ‫למקדש‬ makes the meaning unequivocal: the holy ones will be the sanctuary. 58  According to the Book of Jubilees, “may His sanctuary (maqdasu) be built among them into all ages [probably: ‫( ”]לכל עולמים‬Jub. 25:21). The Hebrew words have not been preserved, and they are suggested here according to the Geʿez. The plural form ‫עולמים‬ is current in the Dead Sea scrolls; more specifically, see the Genesis Apocryphon 10:10; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary, 3d ed., BibOr 18B (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004), 82. 59  See above, nn. 53, 54.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

121

may be seen not only at the level of general themes and ideas, but also at that of the use of more specific phraseology. 3.3 Section B Section B (vv. 16–18) consists of a chain of proof texts, only some of which can be identified with certainty. A tentative list of these proof texts (see Appendix) demonstrates not only the eschatological context of them all, but also the related thematic context of the biblical passages alluded to: virtually all of them, when seen as a chain of biblical verses, deal with the ingathering of Israel and with the restoration of the relationship between YHWH, as the God of Israel, and His people.60 Nils Dahl wrote in a concise footnote: “In some respects, the Book of Jubilees contains even closer parallels to 2 Cor 6:14ff. than any of the clearly sectarian writings, cf. Jubil. 1:15–26, 2:19–22, 22:14–24 (30:11, 33:11–20).”61 Other scholars have mentioned in passing chapter 1 of the Book of Jubilees,62 but it was Sass who actually contended that 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 is very close to this chapter.63 In other recent studies, however, the affinities with the Book of Jubilees have been briefly mentioned or ignored.64 I think it is possible to shed more light on the relationship between the unit under discussion and the Book of Jubilees, and I shall try to do so. 1. In chapter 1 of the Book of Jubilees there are two eschatological units (15–18; 23–25). The sequence of events, according to this chapter and according to the scheme that—as I have argued elsewhere—can be uncovered in T. Jud. 23:5–24:3, is:65

60  This was recognized by Webb, Returning Home, 31–71. I fully agree with the notion that it is fruitful to examine the context of the verses from the Hebrew Bible cited as proof texts, as it is in rabbinic literature, in Paul’s letters and other ancient Jewish writings; I have some reservations concerning Webb’s invocation of the notion of “second exodus”—in the strict sense of analogy to the exodus from Egypt—as the organizing theme of our passage; see n. 108 below. 61  Dahl, “A Fragment,” 63 n. 4; see also ibid., 68 n. 12. 62  J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of huiothesia in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 210–11 n. 104. 63  Sass, “Noch Einmal,” 43 n. 38, 45–47, 61. 64  E.g., G. J. Brooke, “2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 Again: A Change in Perspective,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. J.-S. Rey. STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1–16. 65  M. Kister, “Body and Sin: Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts,” in Rey, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, 171–207, esp. 184–88.

122

Kister

Jubilees 1:15–17

Jubilees 1:23–25

T. Judah 23:5–24:3

Israel will repent → God will gather Israel from the nations →

Israel will repent →

Israel will repent → God will gather Israel from the nations → God will pour the spirit of grace on them →

God will grant them new heart and purify them →

God will establish them → God will build His temple and dwell in them, He will become their God God will be their father, Israel will be God’s children. and they will become His and they will be His people. children. If one reads the proof texts of unit B (2 Cor 6:16–18) through the lens of these passages, a similar scheme is discernible here, although the eschatological events are mentioned in slightly different order: (b) Go out of their midst, and be separate (from them), says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean” (17a) → (c) I will gather you” (κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς) (17b) → (a) I will dwell in them and walk [in them], and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (16d) → (d) I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters,66 says the Lord Almighty. (18) I take the words κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς to mean “I will gather you,” as has been suggested by some scholars (the word εἰσδέχομαι renders Hebrew ‫ קבץ‬in the Septuagint), rather than “I will receive you.”67 While both interpretations of the text are possible, an integrative reading of our passage with its Jewish 66  It has been suggested that the phrase “sons and daughters” might echo Isa 43:5–6 (see Appendix). 67  See, e.g., W. Grundmann, “δέχομαι,” TDNT 2:57; H. D. Betz, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment,” JBL 92 (1973): 88–108, esp. 96–97; Scott, Adoption, 205–8; Webb, Returning Home, 46–52 (who tries to reconcile both meanings); Sass, “Noch Einmal,” 46; Wilk, “Gottes Wort,” 686, 689; Albrecht, “Dominus Deus,” 282–83.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

123

counterparts speaks for the sense “gather.” This is underscored by the invocation of Isa 52:11(–12) as a proof text; the latter verse ends:68 ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ַא ִּס ְפ ֶכם ֱא‬ ְ (MT); ὁ ἐπισυνάγων ὑμᾶς κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ (LXX).69 It is plausible that the reason for the present order of the proof texts in 2 Cor 6:16–18 (beginning with proof text a) is the wish to juxtapose proof text a with the statements concerning the temple in the first part of verse 16.70 2. Some scholars have briefly observed the resemblance between proof text d (2 Cor 6:18), “I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters,” and these statements in chapter 1 of the Book of Jubilees (1:17, 24–25):71 68  Wilk, “Gottes Wort,” 695. 69  Compare also “the Lord will gather (ἐπισυνάξει) you in faith (ἐν πίστει) through the hope of his compassion” (T. Ash. 7:7) with, “until He will again visit (you?), and in pity receive (προσδέξεθαι) you in faith (ἐν πίστει) and water” (T. Levi 16:5); it is plausible that the verb προσδέχομαι (“receive”; Grundmann, “δέχομαι,” 57) in T. Levi replaces the verb *εἰσδέχομαι, which is the synonym of the verb (ἐπι)συνάγω. The words “and water” in T. Levi are certainly a Christian addition. On the resemblances between T. Levi 16 and T. Asher 7 see Efrati, “Second Exile,” 248 and 245 n. 88. 70  Webb, Returning Home, 32–33, suggests that the order of the verses forms a chiastic structure: promise of presence (6:16)—imperative of separation (6:17)—promise of presence and relationship (covenant formula) (6:17–18). While this is possible, the comparison with other Jewish eschatological texts corroborates, in my opinion, the argument advanced here, including the possibility that the present order of these verses reflects a redactional change. 71  Compare Charles’s note: “‘I shall be their father and they shall be my children (or: “sons”)’—These words are used in 2 Sam 7:14 in reference to Solomon; elsewhere in the OT only in references to the nation or sections of it…. In 2 Cor 6:18 St. Paul takes directly these words of 2 Sam 7:14 and applies them to all the Christians. In the text [of Jubilees, M.K.] they embrace all Israelites”; see R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees, or, the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited, With Introduction, Notes and Indices (London: Black, 1902), 7, [ad 1:24]. Wilk states: “Immerhin kann 2Sam 7, 14 bzw. 1Chron 17, 13a als basistext eindeutig identifiziert werden…. Demzufolge erklärt sich die Textgestalt von 2Kor 6, 17d–18a als Einbettung der—in Analogie zu Jub 1 endzeitlich-kollektiv gewendeten—Verheissung aus 2Sam 7, 14… in die Jes 43,5 ff. entlehnte Zusage”; see Wilk, “Gottes Wort,” 688–90; see also ibid., 680–81, 694, where the promise to David is explicitly related to Christ. Note also Sass, “Noch Einmal,” 45, who sees in Jubilees, as well as in 2 Cor 6:18, “charakteristisch veränderte und nun in einem eschatologischen Zusammenhang auf das ganze Volk bezogene Zusage aus 2Sam 7, 14 angeführt (Jub 1, 24).” Doering asserts: “In Jub. 1 the adoption formula known from 2 Sam 7:14 is transferred to the people of Israel”; see L. Doering, “God as Father in the Texts from Qumran,” in Albrecht and Feldmeier, The Divine Father, 107–35; this cautious formulation is acceptable. Tomson writes: “One of the key verses is from 2 Sam 7:13–14”; see Tomson, “Christ, Belial, and Women” 81, 113, 115. It is clear that this transferal took place in the Hebrew Bible. See the many references adduced by Charles (omitted in the foregoing citation); and the discussion of G. Brin, “The History of the Formula, ‘He Shall Be to Me a Son and I will Be to Him a Father,’” in Bible and Jewish

124

Kister

(17) I will become their God and they will become my true and righteous people…. (24) I will become their father and they will become my children. (25) All of them will be called children of the living God. Every angel and every spirit will know them. They will know that they are my sons and that I am their father in truth and in justice and that I love them. The implications of this striking parallel have to be spelled out. When 2 Cor 6:18 is read as a Christian text, the natural assumption is that the sonship of the believers is to be related to the sonship of Jesus, the Davidic Messiah; of whom it is said in 2 Sam 7:14: “I will be his father and He shall be My son.” There is indeed a general consensus in scholarship that 2 Sam 7:14 is alluded to in 6:18, and therefore that the addressees’ status as children of God is necessarily related to the sonship of Christ.72 The parallel in the Book of Jubilees, however, problematizes this assumption, for Jubilees does not have in mind any messianic figure. Each sentence in this chapter of Jubilees is derived from an eschatological verse in the Bible;73 the notion of Israel’s sonship in this passage, “all of them will be called sons of the living God” (1:25), alludes to Hos 1:10 (MT 2:1): “In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘Sons of the living God.’” Another verse that has influenced both Jubilees and T. Judah is Zech 8:8: “and they shall be my people and I will be their God, in truth and in justice.” Jubilees 1:25 combines this verse with Hos 1:10 stating, “they are my sons and I am their father in truth and in justice”; Jub. 1:17 also paraphrases Zech 8:8.74

History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uffenheimer (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1971), 57–64 (in Hebrew). Elsewhere I attempt to depict the development of the conception of sonship in the Second Temple period; see M. Kister, “Son(s) of God: Israel and Christ,” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. G. Allen, K. Akagi, P. Sloan, and M. Nevader (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). Concerning the Book of Jubilees, see also J. van Ruiten, “Divine Sonship in the Book of Jubilees,” in Albrecht and Feldmeier, The Divine Father, 85–105, esp. 88–89. 72   See, e.g., C. K. Barrett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Black, 1973), 201: “The promise of 2 Sam 7:14 was originally addressed to a king; the king is Jesus and in him men and women participate in his status before God” (and see the literature cited there). 73  For a table of these verses, see Kister, “Son(s) of God.” 74  In both the Book of Jubilees and the Testament of Judah, the formula of the mutual covenant relationship between God and Israel has been transferred to the formula of sonship; Kister, “Body and Sin,” 187 n. 58. See Webb’s survey of scholarship, Returning Home, 53–56, esp. 55 n. 3. Webb, however, holds to the general view that the Jewish texts are based on 2 Sam 7:14.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

125

Notwithstanding the possibility that the formulation in 2 Sam 7:14 might have some bearing on the wording of Jubilees, Jub. 1:25 cannot be conceived of as an allusion to this verse and its context.75 The comparison of these closely related texts suggests that 2 Cor 6:18 (proof text d) need not be read christologically, but should rather be read eschatologically, in a manner similar to Jubilees and T. Judah.76 3. The cluster of proof texts a + c + d has interesting parallels (although less suggestive than the parallel for proof text d just discussed) in two other passages of the Book of Jubilees, hitherto unnoticed: (a) In Jubilees 25, Jacob swears not to marry a descendent of Canaan’s daughter (v. 9), and thereby gains Rebecca’s blessing, “May the most high God be their God; may the righteous God dwell with them; and may His sanctuary (maqdasu) be built among them into all ages [= ‫( ”]לכל עולמים‬v. 21).77 The separation from the wicked Gentiles is the basis for the promise that God will dwell in His temple, in the midst of Israel, for all eternity (Ezek 37:26–27). (b) In Jubilees 22, Abraham’s blessing of Jacob, “May He truly and rightly be God for you and your descendants throughout all the time of the earth,” is immediately followed by the demand for complete separation from the nations: “Separate from the nations … for all their actions are something that is impure, and all their ways are defiled.” (Jub. 22:15–16).78 4. Another dimension of the sequence of eschatological events described in Jubilees chapter 1 (as discussed above) may be drawn from a composite text of two tiny fragments from Qumran.79 The composite text reads:80 75  For a more detailed discussion, see Kister, “Son(s) of God.” 76  Compare Sass, “Noch Einmal,” 46–47. 77  See above, n. 58. 78  Aharon Shemesh has called attention to the remarkable resemblances of this exhortation, dealing with separation from Gentiles, to Qumran texts that mandate separation from Jewish outsiders; see his article “He who Separates the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, Israel and the Nations,” in Atara L’Haim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval Rabbinic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky, ed. D. Boyarin et al. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2000), 209–20 (in Hebrew). 79  The combined text of the two fragments was reconstructed by Ariel Feldman; see A. Feldman, “An Unknown Prayer from 4Q160 and 4Q382,” in Ben-Dov and Kister, Meghillot 11–12, 99–109 (in Hebrew); see also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 3:149 (following Feldman). The readings of Feldman significantly improve previous readings, and thus enable us to see new dimensions that were inaccessible to Doering when he dealt with this text; see Doering, “God as Father,” 116. 80  4Q382 104 ii 1–4 + 4Q160 frgs. 2, 6, 9. The translation is mine.

126

Kister

]‫[ולא לסור‬

81‫ מדבריך ולתמוך בבריתכה ולהיות לבבם [ל]ך לקדשך אותם ולהבר‬1 [ ‫ כפים למען יהיו לך ואתה להם ותצדק ב[ד]בריכה‬2 ]‫ כי אתה למירישונה בעלתם והייתה להם לאב ולא[לוהים ולא‬3 [ ‫ עזבתם בידי מלכים [ולא] המשלתה בעמך‬4



[they (will) not deviate] 1. from Your words; and they (will) keep Your covenant,82 and their hearts (will) be [Yo]urs, so that You (will) sanctify them; and they (will) purify (their) 2. hands83 so that they will be Yours and You will be theirs; and You will be righteous in Your [w]ords84 [  ] 3. because You had dominion over them since the beginning, and You will85 be their father and G[od. You did not] 4. leave them in the hands of angels, and [did] not make [????] rule over your nation. Textual note: It is preferable to interpret the word ‫ מלכים‬in line 4 as “angels”86 rather than “kings.” The words ‫ [ולא] עזבתם ביד מלכים‬should be compared to the sentence ‫( ועזבתי את הארץ ביד מלאכי המשטמות‬4Q387 2 iii 3–4).87 Compare the words ‫ [ולא] המשלתה בעמך‬to Jub. 15:32: “But over Israel He made no angel or spirit rule because He alone is their ruler … so that they may be His and He theirs from now and forever”; Jub. 19:28: “May the spirits of Mastema not rule over you [= Abraham].” The sequence of events according to this Qumran fragment is like that in Jubilees chapter 1 as well as 2 Cor 6:16–18. This will become clear from the following table (the parallel catena verses from proof texts of Section B of our 2 Corinthians passage are indicated by the letters in the right-hand column of the table): 81  The bolded words have not been preserved in 4Q382; they are preserved in 4Q160. 82  The infinitive form at Qumran can replace any tense of the finite verbs; see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 70–72. 83  According to my reading, there are two parallel sentences in lines 1–2: They (will) keep Your covenant, and their hearts (will) be [yo]urs → so that You (will) sanctify them; They (will) purify (their) hands → so that they will be yours and you will be theirs. 84  Or: verdict. 85  See below. 86  Feldman, “An Unknown Prayer,” 105–6. 87  See the composite text in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, ed. D. Dimant, DJD 30 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 186; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:98.

127

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

4Q382 104 + 4Q160

Jub. 1:15–18

Israel [will not deviate] They will return to Me … from your words … and with all their minds and their hearts will be yours all their souls They will purify their handsa I will gather them … I will transform (?) them into a righteous plant … You will sanctify them;

they will be Yours and You will be theirs

You will be their father

I will build My temple among them. I will become their God and they will become My true and righteous people

[You did not] leave them in the hands of angels, and [did] not make [????] rule over your nation.”

Jub. 1:23–25 They will return to Me … with all their minds and all their souls

b c

I will create a holy spirit for them and will purify them …

a a

d I will become their father, and they will become My children. Every angel and every spirit will know them. They will know that they are my children and that I am their father.

a See above, n. 83, and below, n. 90.

The general sequence of events is clearly shared by the new Qumran fragments and the Book of Jubilees. Moreover, both compositions share the emphasis on the father-son relationship of God and Israel and on the unique status of Israel vis-à-vis the angels. While in Jubilees the reason for referring to the angels at this point is not obvious,88 the Qumran fragment spells it out (if the interpretation of the word ‫ מלכים‬is correct).89 The Qumran fragment, unlike Jubilees, 88  Compare van Ruiten, “Divine Sonship,” 88–89. 89  See the textual note on this passage, p. 126 above, concerning both phraseology and conceptions.

128

Kister

says that Israel “(will) purify their hands, so that they will be yours and you will be theirs.” The eschatological process begins, then, by the Israelites purifying themselves; to be sure, ethical purification is meant here.90 The element of (ethical) purification occurs emphatically in proof text b of our unit, section B (v. 17a). The father–son relationship of God and Israel in the eschatological period is depicted in the Book of Jubilees as well as in 2 Corinthians and the Qumran fragment. The wording in the Qumran text, ‫ והייתה להם לאב‬in line 3 (based on the very similar formula in Jer 31:9)91 is ambivalent: it could be translated either as “you have been,” or “you will be.” On the basis of the context (especially line 2) and the striking parallel in the Book of Jubilees, it is likely that it refers to the eschatological future. But—one may ask—wasn’t God always Israel’s God and father?92 This question is answered at the beginning of line 3 of the fragment: ‫כי אתה למירישונה‬ ‫בעלתם‬. This is based on other verses in the same chapter of Jeremiah, 31:31–33: (31) Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, (32) not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, ‫ואנכי בעלתי בם‬, says the Lord. (33) But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. The meaning of the words ‫ ואנכי בעלתי בם‬was unclear in antiquity (the Septuagint translates the word ‫ בעלתי‬as ἠμέλησα, “was indifferent to them”; the Peshitta renders it as ‫ܒܣܝܬ‬, “despised them”; whereas the Targum has ‫אתרעית‬ “was pleased with them”). The Qumran fragment must have interpreted the verb ‫ בעל‬in this verse as expressing a positive relationship. The sense that best suits the context in the fragment is “possessed them, had dominion over them”; so the Septuagint renders the same Hebrew word in Jer 3:14 (κατακυριεύω). God’s attitude towards Israel has not changed, then. He has been their God and 90  Cf.: ‫“ ואני בחרתי להבר כפי כרצונך‬and I have chosen to purify my hands in accordance with your will” (1QHa 8:28); only after the person purifies himself will God in His turn purify the speaker by His holy spirit (8:30). 91  The numbering of chapters and verses in Jeremiah 31 reflects the chapter divisions in the BHS. 92  See J. L. Kugel, “The Prayer about Jacob and Israel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in idem, The Ladder of Jacob, 193–99.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

129

their father since the original covenant was made between them; but only after the eschatological transformation of Israel, as described by Jeremiah, will the relationship between Israel and God be restored and become as it should be. 3.4 Section C This section consists of one sentence: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and attain (ἐπιτελοῦντες) holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). The vocative “beloved” is well attested elsewhere in epistles in the New Testament and does not have parallels in Second Temple Jewish literature. In terms of content, scholars have noted the likeness between the conjunction of the phrases σάρξ καὶ πνεῦμα and ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην in 7:1 and the expression “perfect in spirit and in body” in one of the Dead Sea scrolls (‫ ;תמימי בשר ורוח‬1QM 7:5). This seeming parallel should be qualified, however, by noting that the latter expression refers mostly to the absence of blemishes (rather than to purification as such).93 A passage that should be added to the discussion is Josephus’s account of John the Baptist. He writes: “They must not employ it [= baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by righteousness (ἀλλʹ ἐφʹ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δἠ καἰ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένη).”94 There is a suggestive similarity between what is attributed here to John and 2 Cor 7:1, which of course does not necessarily imply any direct relationship between them. A passage in 1QS (3:6–9) is noteworthy in this context: ‫ובענות נפשו לכול חוקי‬ … ‫כיא ברוח עצת אמת אל דרכי איש יכופרו כול עוונותו‬ ‫אל יטהר בשרו‬

The awkward Hebrew makes the translation of this passage problematic. The wording ‫ ברוח עצת אמת אל דרכי איש‬is a midrashic rendering of ‫ברצות הי דרכי‬ ‫“( איש‬when a man’s ways please the Lord,” Prov 16:7), whereas the following words, ‫יכופרו כול עוונותו‬, is based on the preceding verse in Proverbs: ‫בחסד ואמת‬ ‫“( יכופר עוון וביראת ה׳ סור מרע‬by ḥesed and ʾemet95 iniquity is atoned for, and by 93  For the context of the expression, see Kister, “The Root NDB,” 119. For another nuance see Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph,” 215. 94  Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.117; see L. H. Feldman, Josephus, with an English Translation (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1981), 80–83. 95  I did not translate these charged terms, which may have been understood in various ways by authors of the Second Temple period, and specifically by the author of this passage from Serekh ha-Yaḥad.

130

Kister

the fear of the Lord [a man] avoids evil,” Prov 16:6). The passage in the Serekh not only merges these two verses and gives them a sectarian coloring, but also adds the component of purification that was not mentioned in Proverbs. Indeed, “the fear of the Lord” (Prov 16:6) is not explicitly mentioned in the Serekh; in 2 Cor 7:1 it is a prerequisite to attaining holiness. In this instance, Josephus’s description of John, 1QS, and 2 Cor 7:1 might be read together as reflecting similar views (although the similarity in this case is less compelling than that of other instances discussed above). 4 Conclusion A careful comparison of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 with Jewish texts—some of them texts that have not hitherto received due attention—sheds light on the unit in 2 Corinthians: it demonstrates that this passage is thoroughly Jewish (apart from the words “Christ,” “believer/unbeliever,” and the vocative “beloved”). When this unit is read in isolation from its context, one has the feeling of having stumbled upon a fragment of an entirely Jewish text. Moreover, it seems that this text is closely related to a specific trend of Judaism. The counterparts of this text are passages in the Serekh, the Damascus Document, the Book of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a few other Qumranic fragments, and a report about John the Baptist. All these sources reflect the same pietist, dissident, religious current. It may be argued that our unit, 2 Cor 6:14– 7:1, originated in this current.96 When looking at this unit, we realize that section A represents the ideology of a rather closed community, whereas section B consists of a cluster of expressions naming eschatological hopes (or a sequence of eschatological events), drawn mainly from Scripture (with the exception of 6:18, which is not a direct quotation of a known verse in the Hebrew Bible). The two sections reflect two distinctive genres, two sources of influence, and perhaps somewhat different settings. This is what causes the “alteration between present reality and future

96  This more narrowly drawn picture of interconnections undermines attempts to see our passage as part of a broad discourse common to many currents within Second Temple Judaism. See, on the one hand, Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” and Dahl, “A Fragment”; and on the other hand, e.g., Gärtner, The Temple, 54; Brooke, “A Change in Perspective,” esp. 15; and Murphy-O’Connor, “Relating.” See also Sass, “Noch Einmal,” 44, 61.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

131

expectation.”97 The rough shift in v. 16 between the present “temple” (the community) in section A and the allusion to the future temple (God’s dwelling “in them”) in section B is significant, but may have a precedent in texts from Qumran. The sequence of events in section B is like that in Jewish texts (the Book of Jubilees, the Qumran fragment); it is possible that proof text a (v. 16d) was moved from its original place (following proof text c) in order to connect section B to the end of section A (above, p. 123). The aim of the proof texts of section B is apparently to support some themes in section A, including that of separation from others and purification, and to lead to the admonition in section C. In the Appendix, I conclude that the catena of proof texts found in this passage could have taken shape in a Hebrew source. In this article, I have sought to read 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in its Jewish context. It is noteworthy how easily such a unit could be adopted and adapted into a Pauline epistle, and into early Christianity, virtually without alteration.98 The subtle reshaping of Jewish religious constructions in early Christianity is part of a much larger picture.

Appendix: Proof Texts—Greek and Hebrew

A question that has generally been overlooked but needs to be asked is: Do the proof texts in section B work in Greek, in Hebrew, or in both languages? After all, it will be more difficult to argue that this fragment is originally “Essene” (including vv. 16–18) if the proof texts work only in Greek. A close reading of the proof texts in their biblical context is important for recognizing their chain format, and likewise for a better understanding of their theme.99 The following table is relevant for both issues.

97  The wording is that of Thrall, Second Corinthians, 2:479; her interpretation is that this is “the familiar Pauline tension between ‘already’ and ‘not yet’”; she also suggests the possibility that this tension is even more understandable “if Paul is re-using baptismal material.” 98  The meaning attached to 6:14–7:1 in the context of 2 Corinthians as an integral epistle is beyond the scope of the present article. 99  Much of the work on this has been done by Webb, Returning Home; see above, n. 60.

132

Kister

Table

v.

HB ref.

MT

LXX

2 Cor

16

Lev 26: 11–12a

… ‫תֹוכ ֶכם‬ ְ ‫וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ִמ ְׁש ָּכנִ י ְּב‬ ‫תֹוכ ֶכם‬ ְ ‫וְ ִה ְת ַה ַּל ְכ ִּתי ְּב‬ ‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫יתי ָל ֶכם ֵל‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ָהי‬ :‫וְ ַא ֶּתם ִּת ְהיּו ִלי ְל ָעם‬

Ezek 37: 26–27 (?)b

‫וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ֶאת ִמ ְק ָּד ִׁשי‬ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬:‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫תֹוכם ְל‬ ָ ‫ְּב‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫יהם וְ ָהי‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְׁש ָּכנִ י ֲע ֵל‬ ‫אֹלהים וְ ֵה ָּמה יִ ְהיּו‬ ִ ‫ָל ֶהם ֵל‬ :‫ִלי ְל ָעם‬

Ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεός, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός. Ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεός, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός.

17

Isa 52: 11–12

‫סּורּו סּורּו‬ ‫ְצאּו ִמ ָּׁשם ָט ֵמא ַאל‬ ‫ִּתּגָ עּו‬ ‫ּתֹוכּה ִה ָּברּו נ ְֹׂש ֵאי‬ ָ ‫ְצאּו ִמ‬ …‫ְּכ ֵלי ה׳‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ַא ִּס ְפ ֶכם ֱא‬ ְ

17

Ezek 11: 17–20

18

Jer 31: 1,c 8–9

‫וְ ִק ַּב ְצ ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמן‬ ‫ָה ַע ִּמים וְ ָא ַס ְפ ִּתי‬ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמן ָה ֲא ָרצֹות‬ ‫ֹצֹותם ָּב ֶהם‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר נְ פ‬ ‫וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ָל ֶכם ֶאת ַא ְד ַמת‬ ‫… וְ ָהיּו ִלי‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ְל ָעם וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶהם‬ :‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֵל‬ ‫אֹלהים ְלכֹל‬ ִ ‫) ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֵל‬1( ‫ִמ ְׁש ְּפחֹות יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ֵה ָּמה‬ … ‫יִ ְהיּו ִלי ְל ָעם‬ ‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫) ִהנְ נִ י ֵמ ִביא‬9–8( ‫ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפֹון וְ ִק ַּב ְצ ִּתים‬ … ‫ִמּיַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫יתי ְליִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ָאב‬ ִ ִ‫ִּכי ָהי‬

καὶ θήσω τὴν διαθήκην [or: σκηνήν] μου ἐν ὑμῖν … καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μου λαός καὶ θήσω τὰ ἅγιά μου ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός, καὶ αὐτοί μου ἔσονται λαός. ἀπόστητε ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε, ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς ἀφορίσθητε, οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου … καὶ ὁ ἐπισυνάγων ὑμᾶς κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ. Καὶ εἰσδέξομαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ συνάξω αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῶν χωρῶν … καὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν.

ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε· κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς· κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς·

ἔσομαι εἰς θεὸν τῷ γένει Ισραηλ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν … ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἄγω αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ συνάξω αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς … ὅτι ἐγενόμην τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς εἰς πατέρα, πατέρα

133

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 Table (cont.)

v.

HB ref.

18

Isa 43: 5–6

MT ‫ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח ָא ִביא זַ ְר ֶעָך‬ …  ָ‫ּומ ַּמ ֲע ָרב ֲא ַק ְּב ֶצּך‬ ִ ‫יאי ָבנַ י ֵמ ָרחֹוק‬ ִ ‫ָה ִב‬ :‫נֹותי ִמ ְק ֵצה ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ

LXX

2 Cor

ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἄξω τὸ σπέρμα σου καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν συνάξω σε… ἄγε τοὺς υἱούς μου ἀπὸ γῆς πόρρωθεν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας μου ἀπ᾿ ἄκρων τῆς γῆς.

καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας

a Both Lev 26:11–12 and Ezek 37:26–27 have been considered (individually or together) the main underlying proof text(s) for 2 Cor 6:16. For a survey of the literature on this question, see Webb, Returning Home, 34–37. See also G. J. Brooke, “Shared Intertextual Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996, ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 35–57, esp. 52–54. b This allusion is less certain than Lev 26:11–12; see preceding note. See also ‫ושכנתי בתוך בני‬ ‫ישראל‬, Exod 29:45. c See Webb, Returning Home, 35 n. 3.

The Greek word ἐνοικήσω (6:16) is a good rendering of the Hebrew ‫ ונתתי משכני‬in Lev 26:11–12 (“I will make my abode,” cf. also Ezek 37:26–27; Exod 29:45).100 It does not, however, fit the renderings of the Septuagint (θήσω τὴν διαθήκην [or: σκηνήν]).101 The inherent contrast between ‫“( ונתתי משכני בתוככם‬I will make my abode in the midst of them,” Lev 26:11–12) and ‫מתוכם‬/‫“( צאו מתוכה‬go out from the midst of them,” Isa 52:11) works better in Hebrew (in the Septuagint: ‫ = בתוככם‬ἐν ὑμῖν; ‫ = מתוכה‬ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου ἀυτῆς). If indeed Jer 31:9 is alluded to in 6:18, the Hebrew ‫כי הייתי לישראל לאב‬ 100  The Greek rendering does not follow the Septuagint conventions, but it is an appropriate rendering of the Hebrew. 101  Both readings, διαθήκην and σκηνήν, are attested in manuscripts of the Septuagint; the latter might signify a correction of a lapse in Septuagintal diction, in accordance with the Hebrew. The proof text in our passage suits neither of these readings. See also P. Harlé and D. Pralon, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Le Lévitique, (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 206, according to whom the version of the Septuagint underlying 2 Cor 6:16 might have been σκηνήν (but ἐνοικήσω is much closer to the Hebrew than σκηνήν). Wilk, “Gottes Wort,” 679, thinks that this proof text in 2 Corinthians is based on a Septuagint manuscript corresponding to the MT (see also ibid., 694). Tomson, “Christ, Belial, and Women,” 115, thinks that “the combination of Lev 26:11 and Ezek 37:27, which is understandable via the Hebrew, suggests familiarity with the Hebrew Bible.”

134

Kister

could be understood as referring to the future, but in the Septuagint the Jeremiah verse is rendered as referring to the past (“I became a father to Israel”); note also the usage of the verb γίγνωμαι in the Septuagint, and ἐιμι in our unit (both good translations of ‫)הייתי‬. The verb ‫ קבץ‬used in MT in these proof texts is rendered by two different verbs in the Septuagint, συνάγω and εἰσδέχομαι.102 The citation of Isa 52:11 in v. 17 seems to be a paraphrase of the Septuagint rendering of this verse. This is especially clear in the rendering of the word ‫ ִה ָּברּו‬in Isa 52:11 MT (“become purified”) by the Septuagint’s term, ἀφορίσθητε, “separate.”103 This is the keyword in the proof text (separation from the unbelievers). Yet this proof text is not necessarily based on the Greek translation rather than on the Hebrew. It is possible that a similar interpretation for the word ‫ הברו‬existed in Semitic-speaking circles (cf. Ezek 20:38, where ‫רֹותי‬ ִ ‫ּוב‬ ָ is rendered by the Targum as ‫)ואפריש‬.104 It should also be noted105 that Isa 52:11, ‫סורו סורו‬, was readily applied by the Qumran sectarians to their own dissident community; they describe themselves as ‫סרים מלכת בדרך העם‬.106 Thus, the catena of proof texts certainly works in Greek; but as shown here, the same succession of verses can also work in Hebrew. It remains at least a possibility that an originally Hebrew source was reworked in Greek.

Bibliography Albrecht, F. “Dominus Deus, Pater Omnipotens: Die Verheissungen von 2 Kor 6,16–18.” Pages 277–92 in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine 102  See Albrecht, “Dominus Deus,” 283, who considers the possibility that Paul either used a version of the Septuagint closer to MT, or himself translated from the Hebrew in constructing this passage. 103  Webb states: “the MT ‫‘ הברו‬purify yourselves’ (as well as the quoted portion, ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε) probably accounts for the closing admonition, καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς, ‘let us cleanse ourselves’ (2 Cor 7:1). The closing thought, then, simply extends the ritual cleansing imagery begun in the catena” (Returning Home, 41). Note, however, that the word ‫הברו‬ is rendered in v. 17 as “separate yourselves” (as in the Septuagint), rather than “purify yourselves,” as in the MT. 104  I am grateful to Dr. R. A. Clements for drawing my attention to Ezek 20:38. 105  See Gärtner, The Temple, 49–56. 106  The appellation itself is based on Isa 8:11. See 11Q13 2:23–24; see also 4Q174 1–2 i 14–17. The expression “go out” (Isa 52:11) is associated with separation from ‫ דרך העם‬in the Damascus Document (CD b 20:22–24). It is therefore more likely that the phrase “go out of their midst” in 2 Cor 6:17 refers to separation from the wicked than to a “second exodus”; contrast Webb, Returning Home, 42. The words in Isaiah may well refer to a second exodus, but this is not necessarily how the base text was understood by the author of the proof texts catena.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

135

Parenthood in Antiquity. Edited by F. Albrecht and M. Feldmeier. TBNJCT 18. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Ariel, C. “Semantic and Exegetical Observations on Metaphors for Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 3–25 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 13. Edited by J. BenDov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2017 (in Hebrew). Bakker, A. “The Figure of the Sage in Musar le-Mevin and Serekh ha-Yaḥad.” PhD diss., KU Leuven, 2015. Barrett, C. K. Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Black, 1973. Betz, H. D. “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment.” JBL 92 (1973): 88–108. Bieringer, R. “2 Korinther 6,14–7,1 im Kontext des 2. Korintherbriefes.” Pages 551–70 in Studies on 2 Corinthians. Edited by J. Lambrecht and R. Bieringer. BETL 112. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Brooke, G. J. “2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 Again: A Change in Perspective.” Pages 1–16 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by J.-S. Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Brooke, G. J. “Eden and the Qumran Community.” Pages 285–301 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Edited by B. Ego et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Brooke, G. J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Brooke, G. J. “Shared Intertextual Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 35–57 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Brin, G. “The History of the Formula, ‘He Shall Be to Me a Son and I will Be to Him a Father.’” Pages 57–64 in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Edited by B. Uffenheimer. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1971 (in Hebrew). Bultmann, R. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Edited by E. Dinkler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. English translation: The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Translated by R. A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. Carlson, D. C. “Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament of Moses 9 and 10.” JBL 101 (1982): 85–95. Charles, R. H. The Book of Jubilees, or, the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited, With Introduction, Notes and Indices. London: Black, 1902. Dahl, N. A. “A Fragment and its Context: 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1.” Pages 62–69 in N. A. Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.

136

Kister

Derrett, J. D. M. “2 Cor 6,14ff. A Midrash on Dt 22,10.” Biblica 59 (1978): 231–50. Dimant, D. “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple.” Pages 165–89 in Hellenica et Judaica: Homage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot et al. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Dimant, D. Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Doering, L. “God as Father in the Texts from Qumran.” Pages 107–35 in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity. Edited by F. Albrecht and M. Feldmeier. TBNJCT 18. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Efrati, S. “The Second Exile: A Note on the Development of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 221–56 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12. Edited by J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014–2015 (in Hebrew). Feldman, A. “An Unknown Prayer from 4Q160 and 4Q382.” Pages 99–109 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12. Edited by J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014–2015 (in Hebrew). Feldman, L. H. Josephus, with an English Translation. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1981. Finkelstein, L., ed. Siphre ad Deuteronomium. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. 3d ed. BibOr 18B. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004. Fitzmyer, J. A. “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6,14–7,1.” Pages 205–17 in J. A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Chapman, 1971. Furnish, V. P. 2 Corinthians. AB 32A. New York: Doubleday, 1984. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. Gärtner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gnilka, J. “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 48–68 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. Murphy-O’Connor. London: Chapman, 1968. Harkavy, A. Ha-Śarid ṿeha-paliṭ mi-sifre ha-mitsṿot ha-rishonim li-vene Miḳra: Sefer haMizvot = Studien und Mitteilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg: 8. Teil: Likkute Kadmoniot II zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der Karäischen Literatur: Ersten Heft: Aus den ältesten Karäischen Gesetzbüchern von Anan, Beniamin Nehwendi und Daniel Kummisi. St. Petersburg: Pushkarskaja, 1903. Harlé, P. and D. Pralon. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Le Lévitique. Paris: Cerf, 1988.

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

137

Horbury, W. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1998. Horbury, W. “Review: J. Tromp’s Assumption of Moses.” VT 45 (1995): 398–403. Jonge, M. de, and A. S. van der Woude. “11QMelchizedek and the New Testament.” NTS 12 (1965–1966): 301–26. Joosten, J. “Sectarian Terminology and Biblical Exegesis: The Meaning of the Verb ‫אות‬ in Qumranic Writings.” Pages 219–26 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2003 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “Body and Sin: Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts.” Pages 171–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. Edited by J.-S. Rey. STDJ 102. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Kister, M. “Demons, Theology, and Abraham’s Covenant.” Pages 167–84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings. Edited by R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller. SBLEJL 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Kister, M. “Hellenistic Jewish Writers and Palestinian Traditions: Early and Late.” Pages 150–78 in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 22–24 February, 2011. Edited by M. Kister, H. I. Newman, M. Segal, and R. A. Clements. STDJ 113. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kister, M. “Marginalia Qumranica.” Tarbiz 57/3 (1988): 319–21 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “The Root NDB in the Scrolls and the Growth of Qumran Texts: Lexicography and Theology.” Pages 111–30 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12. Edited by J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014–2015 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “Son(s) of God: Israel and Christ.” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity. Edited by G. Allen et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming. Kister, M. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar.” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “Wisdom Literature at Qumran.” Pages 299–319 in vol. 1 of The Qumran Scrolls and their World. Edited by M. Kister. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (in Hebrew). Kugel, J. L. The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Kugel, J. L. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 1697–855 in vol. 2 of Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by L. H. Feldman, L. H. Schiffman and J. L. Kugel. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

138

Kister

Kuhn, K. G. “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre de Qumrân.” RB 61 (1954): 193–205. Lambrecht, J. “The Fragment 2 Corinthians 6,14–7,1: A Plea for its Authenticity.” Pages 351–49 in Studies on 2 Corinthians. Edited by J. Lambrecht and R. Bieringer. BETL 112. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Maier, J. “Bausymbolik, Heiligtum und Gemeinde in den Qumrantexten.” Pages 49–106 in Volk Gottes als Tempel. Edited by A. Vonach and R. Messner. Vienna: Lit, 2008. Martin, R. P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. Metzger, B. M. Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies 1971. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Philo and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1,” Pages 121–39 in J. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Relating 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 to its Context.” Pages 116–20 in J. MurphyO’Connor, Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Priest, J. “Testament of Moses.” Pages 919–34 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985 Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi, 2013 (in Hebrew). Qimron, E. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Regev, E. “The Community–Temple Identification in Qumran and the New Testament, their Differences and Relationships.” Pages 197–229 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 13. Edited by. J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2017 (in Hebrew). Reinitz, Y. K., ed. Perush Baʿal ha-Ṭurim ʿal ha-Torah. Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1996. Ruiten, J. van. “Divine Sonship in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 85–105 in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity. Edited by F. Albrecht and M. Feldmeier. TBNJCT 18. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Sass, G. “Noch Einmal: 2 Kor 6,14–7,1. Literarkritische Waffen gegen einen ‘unpaulinischen’ Paulus?” ZNW 84 (1993): 36–64. Schwartz, D. R. “Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifices: Opposition and Spiritualization in the Late Second Temple Period.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979 (in Hebrew). Scott, J. M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of huiothesia in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Shemesh, A. “He who Separates the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, Israel and the Nations.” Pages 209–20 in Atara L’Haim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval

Qumran, Jubilees, and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1

139

Rabbinic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky. Edited by D. Boyarin et al. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2000 (in Hebrew). Strugnell, J., D. J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin. Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār le-Mēvîn): 4Q415 ff. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Thrall, M. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. ICC 34. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–2000. Tomson, P. J. “Christ, Belial, and Women: 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 Compared with Ancient Judaism and with the Pauline Corpus.” Pages 85–99 in Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism. Edited by R. Bieringer et al. CRINT 14. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Tromp, J. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. SVTP 10. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Tromp, J. “Taxo, the Messenger of the Lord.” JSJ 21 (1990): 200–209. Walker, W. O. Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. JSNTSup 213. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Webb, W. J. Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context of 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1. JSNTSup 85. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Wilk, F. “Gottes Wort und Gottes Verheissung: Zur Eigenart Schriftverwendung in 2 Kor 6,14–7,1.” Pages 673–96 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. WUNT 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wise, M. “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam.” RevQ 15 (1991): 103–32.

The Divine Name in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in New Testament Writings Hermann Lichtenberger 1

Introduction: The Status Quaestionis

In the present article I will first concentrate on the writing of the Tetragrammaton in the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 The emphasis will be on the accentuation and/or substitution of the Tetragrammaton. In the second section of the paper, I will discuss substitutions for “God” in 1 Maccabees and in New Testament writings. The theological significance of the writing practices surrounding the representation of or substitutions for the Tetragrammaton can hardly be overestimated. The scribal practice is certainly an expression of Jewish monotheism, as stated rightly by David Hamidović.2 The manuscripts from the Dead Sea give insight into a scribal tradition of more than two centuries and show special characteristics related to the use and writing of the Divine Name in extra-sectarian and sectarian manuscripts. In the texts of the ‫ יחד‬such as 1QS we never find the Tetragrammaton, but always ‫ אל‬or the replacement of the Tetragrammaton by pronouns. In 1QpHab, in the biblical lemmata, the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew characters; but in the interpretation, it is replaced by ‫ אל‬in square script. This leads to the conclusion that the Essene community showed 1  For basic information, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992), 216, 220; idem, Der Text der Hebräischen Bibel: Handbuch der Textkritik (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997), 177, 180. On the Tetragrammaton in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see P. W. Skehan, “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 13 (1980): 14–44; E. Tov, “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Shrine of the Book, The Israel Museum, 2000), 199–216; M. Rösel, Adonaj: Warum Gott ‘Herr’ genannt wird, FAT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 207–11; K. De Troyer, “The Pronunciation of the Names of God: With some Notes Regarding the nomina sacra,” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143–72; H. Lichtenberger, “‫יהוה‬,” ThWQ 2:101–6; for additional literature, see ibid., 101–2. 2  See D. Hamidović, “Les théonymes témoignent-ils d’une évolution du monothéisme juif à l’aube de l’ère chrétienne?” in Le Monothéisme Biblique: Évolution, Contextes et Perspectives, ed. E. Bons and T. Legrand, Lectio Divina 244 (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 285–97.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_008

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

141

its high veneration of God and his name by not using the Tetragrammaton, apart from biblical texts and quotations. Similar observations may be made in regard to 1QHa, where the introductory formula of the psalms usually runs ‫ אודכה אדוני‬or ‫ ;ברוך אתה אדוני‬although sometimes instead of ‫אדוני‬, we find ‫אלי‬ (written in paleo-Hebrew script). The avoidance of the Tetragrammaton in this text is also striking. As the above observation indicates, within the Scrolls corpus, other divine names were also written in paleo-Hebrew characters and/or replaced by other designations for God. In some manuscripts only the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew characters (e.g., 11QPsa), in others ‫ אל‬is sometimes written in paleo-Hebrew characters (1QHa 7:38; 9:28; 1Q35 1 5; ‫ אלי‬1QHa 10:36).3 In 4Q57 (Isac), not only is the Tetragrammaton, together with its prepositions and conjunctions, written in paleo-Hebrew script, but also ‫אלוהים‬, together with its suffixed forms.4 ‫ צבאות‬occurs here in paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic square script, as well as ‫ אדוני ;אל‬never appears in 4Q57.5 Here, in one and the same manuscript, occur various forms attested elsewhere in diverse contexts.6 Apart from this evidence, it must be recognized that in the majority of manuscripts from the Dead Sea, divine names are written in the same script as the surrounding text. In scholarship, this special writing practice is often said to be associated with the nonerasability of the Divine Name, by analogy with the later regulations of the second and third centuries CE. But the concept of the nonerasibility of the Divine Name is independent of the manner in which such names were written; thus, the use of paleo-Hebrew characters has nothing to do with the question of nonerasibility. The only alternative seems to be that this practice reflects a tradition of nonpronunciation. But this is also far from convincing. 3  For the occasional paleo-Hebrew ‫ אל‬in a document in square script see also 4Q267 (4QDb 9 i 2; 9 iv 4; 9 v 4; the same word is found in the same document in square script in fragments 2 5, 7, 13; and 9 iv 7). In the manuscript of D in 6Q15, the preserved instances of ‫ אל‬in fragments 3 and 5 are written in paleo-Hebrew script, except for one instance in 5 5. ‫ אל‬is also written in paleo-Hebrew in 4Q180 11 and 4Q183 1 ii 3 (the Tetragrammaton is found in paleo-Hebrew in 4Q183 2 1 and 3 1); in 1Q14 (pMic) 12 3, the only preserved ‫ אל‬is written in paleo-Hebrew script; this is also true for the preserved Tetragrammata in 1Q14 1–5 1 and 2. In 6Q18 all preserved examples of ‫ אל‬are written in paleo-Hebrew script (6 5; 8 1; 10 3); see J. S. Burnett, “‫אלוהים‬,” in ThWQ 1:178–90, esp. 181. 4  For ‫ אלוהים‬in paleo-Hebrew script see also 4Q406 1 2; 3 2 (?). 5  P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets: Isaiah, DJD 15 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 7–143 (46). 6  On 4Q57 (Isac) see D. Green, “Divine Names: Rabbinic and Qumran Scribal Techniques,” in Schiffman, Tov, and VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery, 497– 511; idem, “4QIsc: A Rabbinic Production of Isaiah Found at Qumran?” JJS 53 (2002): 120–45.

142

Lichtenberger

Why should someone who knows how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton be deterred by paleo-Hebrew characters, with which he, of course, was also familiar? On the other hand, for someone who does not know how to pronounce the Divine Name, this sort of encoding would be irrelevant. It is my opinion that the high veneration of the Divine Name, independently of any reading or pronunciation practice, led to the representation of the Tetragrammaton by paleo-Hebrew script and/or other substitutes (Tetrapuncta, etc). The special way and the consistency with which, in sectarian manuscripts, the Divine Name is avoided or replaced may reflect a theological conception in regard of the holiness of God and his name(s). Wolters’ observations on 11QPsa are helpful in this regard.7 Wolters refers to two (perhaps three) examples where the Tetragrammaton was mistakably inserted and afterwards deleted by dots, but not erased. On the other hand, there is one instance where the gap left by the first writer was so small that the later writer did not realize that this was a place left for the Tetragrammaton (11QPsa 3:4). I agree with Wolters that in 11QPsa the Tetragrammata were later added, and—as he argues—by a later scribe or scribes. The reasons for this practice will be discussed later on. Why were the Divine Name(s) accentuated, or replaced, or even omitted in various ways? Before I try to answer these questions, I first will give an overview of the evidence. I will primarily restrict the discussion to the writing of the Tetragrammaton itself. Only occasionally will I consider other designations for God. 2

The Writing of the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew Characters

2.1 The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts8 Preliminary note: In antiquity, the notion of “Bible” is not as clearly defined as we should expect. The “Bible” of the Jewish Septuagint—what was it like? We do not exactly know. What was the “Bible” of the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls? If the term “Bible” connotes something like a collection of religiously authoritative texts, we have some important indirect information on this question, e.g., from the number of manuscripts of particular books, such as Isaiah or Psalms, or the frequency of quotations with introductory formulae; 7  A. Wolters, “The Tetragrammaton in the Psalms Scroll,” Textus 18 (1995): 87–99. 8  See What is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange (Leuven: Peeters, 2012); A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 14–16.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

143

but there is no list of “biblical” (or authoritative) books. Even if there existed such a list, if it included e.g., Psalms we would not know, for example, which selection of psalms was regarded as “canonical” by the community of the Dead Sea (the Psalter of the Masoretic Text, or the selections of either 11QPsa or any of the other editions represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls). In the following discussion, I use the term “Bible” in the sense of the authoritative collection that later on, at the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries CE, became the Jewish “Hebrew/Aramaic Bible.” 2.1.1 Biblical Manuscripts in Paleo-Hebrew Characters Of course, in these manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton is also written in paleoHebrew characters, and thus not distinguished by its script from the surrounding text. I will list here only those manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton is either completely represented or secured by single letters: 1QpaleoLev– Num;9 4QpaleoGen–Exodl; 4QpaleoGenm; 4QpaleoExodm (in 17:33 the Tetragrammaton is inserted by a later hand above the line); 11QpaleoLeva; 4QpaleoDeutr; 4QpaleoParaJosh. 2.1.2

Biblical Manuscripts in Square Script with the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew Characters There are various different examples of this usage: – Manuscripts in which the Tetragrammaton is always written in paleoHebrew characters: 1QPsb; 2QExodb; 4QExodj; 4QIsac; 11QLevb; 11QPsa. – Manuscripts in which the Tetragrammaton is written in both paleo-Hebrew characters 4QLevg (4Q26b 8) and in square script (same manuscript line 2). – Manuscripts containing both biblical and nonbiblical passages, in which the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton occurs in both types (including prose text): 11QPsa (11Q5).10 The Tetragrammaton in Biblical Quotations: Commentaries in Square Script with the Tetragrammaton in the Biblical Lemmata Some commentaries in square script represent the Tetragrammaton in paleoHebrew characters in biblical lemmata, but use substitutions such as ‫ אל‬in the interpretation of the passage, as in 1QpHab. In this text, the Tetragrammaton is preserved in paleo-Hebrew characters, but in the interpretations, we find ‫אל‬, in square script: 6:14 Tetragrammaton, 7:1 ‫ ;אל‬10:7 Tetragrammaton, 10:13 ‫ ;אל‬11:11 Tetragrammaton, 11:15 ‫ ;אל‬10:14 Tetragrammaton, in the interpretation of this 2.2

9  See Lange, Handbuch, 66–68. 10  For the omission of the Tetragrammaton in 11QPsa 3:4, see below.

144

Lichtenberger

passage, ‫ אל‬is not preserved. In several passages, the Tetragrammaton may be presumed to have been used in the biblical lemma but is not preserved; in the interpretations, ‫ אל‬is written in square script: 5:1–2 (line 3–4 ‫ ;)אל‬12:17 (13:3 ‫)אל‬. In 4QIsaa 8–10 13 the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew; in 8–10 18 we read ‫אל‬. In 4QpPsa 1–2 ii 4, we find the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew; in the interpretation, no ‫ ;אל‬1–2 ii 12 has the Tetragrammaton, line 14 ‫ ;אל‬1–2 ii 24 has the Tetragrammaton, in the interpretation, no ‫ אל‬is preserved; 1, 3–4 iii 14–15 has the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew, in the interpretation line 16 has ‫;אל‬ 3–10 iv 7 has the Tetragrammaton, line 9 in the interpretation uses ‫ ;אל‬3–10 iv 10 uses the Tetragrammaton, in the interpretation ‫ אל‬is not preserved. In 4QpPsa 1, 3–4 iii 5, the Tetragrammaton was added in square script by a second scribe above the line in the place where the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew script. Related Representations Paleo-Hebrew Characters for the Tetragrammaton in Greek Bible Manuscripts In 8ḤevXII gr, the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew characters.11 2.3 2.3.1

2.3.2 The Tetragrammaton in Greek Phonetic Representation 4QpapLXXLevb (4Q120) 20–21 4 reads ΙΑΩ. This is very close to the form of the Divine Name in the Elephantine papyri, ‫יהו‬. I am inclined to relate these forms to a tradition of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. 3

The Replacement of the Tetragrammaton by Tetrapuncta

3.1 Tetrapuncta in Biblical Manuscripts The use of tetrapuncta entails the replacement of the four letters of the Divine Name by four dots, usually placed in the line of text or above the line. Tetrapuncta replace the Tetragrammaton in 4QSamc (4Q53) 1 3; 9–10 iii 7 (bis). – In 1QIsaa 33:7, Tetrapuncta are found instead of the Tetragrammaton in the correction of an omission above the line of the text of Isa 40:7. – 1QIsaa 35:15: an omitted Tetragrammaton in Isa 42:6 is represented by five points above the line (denoting ‫)אדוני‬.

11  See E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr): The Seiyâl Collection 1, DJD 8 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 12.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

145

3.2 Tetrapuncta in Biblical Quotations Tetrapuncta sometimes replace the Tetragrammaton in biblical quotations within nonbiblical texts: – Tetrapuncta are found instead of the Tetragrammaton in 1QS 8:14, in the quotation of Isa 40:3. – Tetrapuncta are used in 4QTest (4Q175) 19, in the quotation of Deut 33:11. – 4QTanḥ (4Q176) 1–2 i 6 features Tetrapuncta in the quotation of Isa 40:2; 1–2 ii 3 in the quotation of Isa 49:14; 8–11 6 in the quotation of Isa 54:4; 8–11 8 (bis) in the quotation of Isa 54:6; 8–11 10 in the quotation of Isa 54:8. 3.3 Tetrapuncta in Nonbiblical Texts Tetrapuncta also occur in nonbiblical texts, outside of biblical quotations, but they are not always completely preserved: – 4QpapTobita (4Q196) 18 15: three points preserved. – 4Qpap paraKings (4Q382) 9 5: Tetrapuncta. – 4QpapPseudo-Ezekiele (4Q391) 36 1, 4; 52 5; 65 5: Tetrapuncta; 26 3: only one point preserved. – 4QNarrative C (4Q462) 1 7, 12: Tetrapuncta in the following pattern: .. .. – 4Q524; 4Q306 3 5: Tetrapuncta. Within this category, a few unusual examples may be seen: – 4Q248 5: the use of five short strokes. – XḤev/Se 6 2 7: the use of four short strokes. 4

Peculiarities in the Writing or Replacement of the Tetragrammaton

4.1 Biblical Manuscripts – In 4QNumb (4Q27) 13 ii 15–17 i 21 the Tetragrammaton is written in square script with red ink in a line which is written as a rubric. 4.2 Nonbiblical Manuscripts – In 1QS 8:13 the Tetragrammaton is replaced by ‫הואהא‬.12 – The construction ‫ אונ הו‬in 4QDa (4Q266) 11 9 is, according to Baumgarten,13 a replacement for the Divine Name. 12  See already W. H. Brownlee, “Excerpts from the Translation of the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” BASOR 121 (1951): 8–13 (11); M. Rösel, “‫אדון‬,” ThWQ 1:37–46 (40); D. Markl, “‫הוא‬,” ThWQ 1:749–52 (752). 13  J. M. Baumgarten et al., “Damascus Document 4Q266–273 (4QDa-h),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 3: Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth,

146 5

Lichtenberger

The Replacement of the Tetragrammaton by other Designations for God

5.1 Biblical Manuscripts 5.1.1 Replacement of the Tetragrammaton in Biblical Manuscripts In biblical manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton is sometimes replaced by ‫אדוני‬.14 This does not happen mechanically, as can be demonstrated by the case of Isa 3:15–18:15 – Isa 3:15 MT ‫אדני יהוה צבאות‬ – 1QIsaa ‫ יהוה צבאות‬and ‫ אדוני‬superscript – LXX κύριος κύριος στρατίων (manuscripts L and C) – Isa 3:17 MT ‫אדני‬ – 1QIsaa ‫ אדוני‬deleted, superscript ‫יהוה‬ – LXX ὁ θεός – Isa 3:18 ‫אדני‬ – 1QIsaa ‫ יהוה‬deleted, superscript ‫אדוני‬ – LXX ὁ θεός The replacement of various designations for God occurs not only as the substitution of ‫ אדוני‬for the Tetragrammaton but also as the replacement of other divine names by the Tetragrammaton. 5.1.2 The Tetragrammaton is Replaced by ‫אדוני‬ – In 1QDeutb (1Q5) 20 4 (Deut 33:15), instead of the Tetragrammaton we read ‫א]דוני‬. 5.2 Substitutions for the Tetragrammaton in Nonbiblical Manuscripts In the Hodayot, ‫ אדוני‬replaces the Tetragrammaton in the poems’ incipits, in their address to God; we find ‫ אודכה אדוני‬and ‫ברוך אתה אדוני‬, and also, but PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 1–185 (68 n. 540); idem, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), DJD 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 77; idem, “A New Qumran Substitute for the Divine Name,” JQR 83 (1993): 1–5. Baumgarten discusses the similarity between this locution and the expression ‫אני והו‬, a form of divine name mentioned in m. Sukk. 4:5 and used in the rabbinic Hoshanot liturgy for Sukkot. 14  Rösel, “‫אדון‬,” 40. 15  1QIsaa 3:20–25. For this example, see also Rösel, Adonaj, 211–12.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

147

rarely, ‫( אודכה אלי‬19:3, 15).16 Additional examples may be found in a variety of manuscripts: – For the exchange of the Tetragrammaton and ‫אדוני‬, see 4QApocMos (4Q408) 3+3a 6a–6: ‫ אתה אדוני‬is written above ‫ ברוך יהוה‬in line 6. – Of special interest is the replacement of the Tetragrammaton by ‫ אדוני‬in the Priestly Blessing (Num 6:24–26), as found in 1QSb 2:1; 3:1. – By far the dominant replacement for the Tetragrammaton in nonbiblical manuscripts is ‫אל‬. In 1QpHab, the biblical lemmata feature the Tetragrammaton written in paleo-Hebrew characters, but in the interpretation ‫ אל‬is always used (see above). 1QS always uses ‫ אל‬for God, except in the quotation of Isa 40:3 where Tetrapuncta replace the Tetragrammaton, as noted above; in the continuation of the quotation, ‫ אלוהינו‬is written in square script. – In the curses following the expanded form of the Priestly Blessing in 1QS 2:2–4, we find ‫ אל‬instead of the Tetragrammaton (1QS 2:6, 8). 6

Omission of the Tetragrammaton without Replacement

– A special case is 11QPsa 3:4, where, in a biblical psalm (Ps 121:5), a lacuna appears instead of the Tetragrammaton. The Tetragrammaton is not only required by the blank space, but it is also attested in MT and LXX (κύριος). It seems that the omission happened by mistake (for further discussion see below). – In the quotation of Ps 146:8 in 4Q521 2 ii 8, the Tetragrammaton is omitted three times, but no space is left for it. – In 1QS 2:2–4, the extended Priestly Blessing, the Tetragrammaton is entirely omitted. In these last two instances, the passages are simply phrased so that the name of God does not need to be written; there is no lacuna waiting to be filled in. 7

Evaluation of the Evidence

The evidence is multifaceted and difficult to interpret. The difficulties are best demonstrated in the case of the 11QPsa manuscript. This manuscript is dated to Herodian times, but the texts go back to pre-Maccabean and Maccabean times. The manuscript is written in square script, but the Tetragrammaton is 16  See as a model, Isa 12:1 ‫ ;אודכה יהוה‬see 1QIsaa 11:7.

148

Lichtenberger

always written in paleo-Hebrew characters—whether in biblical psalms, in nonbiblical psalms or in nonbiblical prose. There must have been an older Vorlage for this manuscript that already represented the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script. The omission of the Tetragrammaton in 3:4 is clear evidence that when this scroll was copied, the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton was inserted later, presumably by a second scribe; this scribe overlooked the blank left for him in 3:4. This can be confirmed by the fact that there are also erroneous insertions of the Tetragrammaton, which were later deleted by dots, but not erased. The texts of the community of the Dead Sea show an increasing avoidance of the Tetragrammaton. It is avoided even in biblical quotations, either by omission or by substitution. On the other hand, we do find in some nonbiblical manuscripts the use of the Tetragrammaton (e.g., 4Q185, in square script), representing a presectarian origin. 8

Was the Divine Name Pronounced? The Special Case of ΙΑΩ

8.1 Preliminary Considerations In what way, if any, do these writing practices bear on the question of pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, and how does the question of pronunciation bear in turn on the question of veneration of the name? We may consider the following possibilities: – The Tetragrammaton was written in paleo-Hebrew characters because in reading the Divine Name was not to be pronounced. – The Tetragrammaton was either written in paleo-Hebrew characters, or replaced by Tetrapuncta, or totally omitted because of the high veneration given to the Divine Name. – A combination of both. In the following discussion I will opt for the interpretation that all these practices—the writing of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters; its replacement by other designations for God; or the total avoidance of the Tetragrammaton—are evidence for the high esteem in which the Divine Name was held. A secondary consequence was the avoidance of the pronouncing of the Divine Name. This was not the main reason for the practice, however; paleoHebrew script was known and read throughout the Second Temple period, as is evident from the coins of the First and Second Revolts against Rome (and thus its use would not obscure the pronunciation of the Divine Name).17 17  See Y. Meshorer, Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel-Aviv: Am Ha-sefer, 1967), Plates 19–28; L. Mildenberg, ed., The Abraham Bromberg Collection of Jewish Coins, Part I:

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

149

The pronunciation of the Divine Name was presumably even partially known, as can be seen from its Greek transcription in 4Q120papLXXLevb. In this section I will review the evidence for the use and significance of the transcription ΙΑΩ as a nomen sacrum, to see what this can tell us about the pronunciation and / or veneration of the Divine Name. 8.2 ΙΑΩ in Jewish and Pagan Usage 8.2.1 Jewish Usage 8.2.1.1 Septuagint The Greek biblical manuscript tradition features diverse representations of the Tetragrammaton: – ΙΑΩ appears in 4Q120 (papLXXLevb). – The Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew in the Greek manuscript 8Ḥev XII gr. – The Tetragrammaton is found in Hebrew square script in the LXX manuscript, Papyrus Fouad 266 (Hanhart 848).18 The Tetragrammata were inserted by a second scribe in blanks left by the first scribe, which were marked by a “high dot at its beginning.”19 – The Hebrew Tetragrammaton was graphically represented in some Greek manuscripts by ΠΙΠΙ. Jerome, in Prologus Galeatus, writes: “Nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam Graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimur.”20 In Epistula 25 ad Marcellam he says: “(Dei nomen est) tetragrammum, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, id est ineffabile, putaverunt et his litteris scribitur: iod, he, vau, he. Quod quidam non intellegentes propter elementorum similitudinem, cum in Graecis libris reppererint, ΠΙΠΙ legere consueverunt.”21 The use of Ιαω in 4Q120 confronts us with the question of how the Divine Name was originally represented in the Septuagint. Opinio communis is by the term κύριος, but the evidence given here may indicate that there is a

5 December, 1991 (Zürich: Superior-Leu, 1991); see also M. D. McLean, “The Use and Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” PhD diss. (Harvard University, 1982). 18  Z. Aly and L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 28 (Bonn: Habelt Verlag, 1980). 19  Aly, and Koenen, Three Rolls, 5. 20  Jerome, Prologus Galeatus (PL 28:594–595). 21  In I. Hilberg, ed., Hieronymus, Epistulae 1–70, CSEL 54 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1910), 219; quoted from E. Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973), 176.

150

Lichtenberger

prehistory concerning κύριος. We either find Ιαω as in 4Q120 or the paleoHebrew Tetragrammaton as in 8Ḥev XII gr.22 8.2.1.2 The Evidence from the Onomastica Sacra23 It is evident that at least the earliest lists of nomina sacra24 go back to Jewish onomastica, and that in numerous biblical names, the theophoric element is understood and written as Ιαω. For instance, the name of ΙΩΝΑΘΑΝ is rendered as ΙΑΩΔΟΜΑ in the Heidelberg Papyrus Onomasticon sacrum (line 13).25 There is no doubt that onomastica documented in Christian tradition predate Philo; or that he himself had to use these Jewish onomastica, because his knowledge of Hebrew was minimal or nonexistent.26 In any case, the onomastica demonstrate that the theophoric element in many names was read as Ιαω.27 8.2.1.3 The Jewish Mantic Use of the Divine Name The Jewish prohibition against the use of the Divine Name for mantic procedures comes from the Decalogue: Exod 20:7, Deut 5:11, and especially the LXX-version of Lev 24:16 (which expresses the command not to pronounce the name). Notwithstanding the prohibition, the Divine Name was used in both Jewish and non-Jewish spells:28 A Jewish spell naming Ιαω, known as the

22  See De Troyer, “Pronunciation,” 164. 23  P. de Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra, 2d ed. (Göttingen: Horstmann, 1887; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966); F. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus, 2 vols., TUGAL 3/1 41 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914– 1915); for the latest discussion see F. Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω, CBET 70 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014). 24  See especially A. Deissmann, “Papyrus Onomasticon sacrum,” in idem, Die Septuaginta: Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung (Heidelberg: Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1905), 86–93. 25  Deissmann, “Onomasticon sacrum,” 89. 26  See L. L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo, BJS 115 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); and most recently Shaw, Ιαω. 27  See Wutz, Onomastica Sacra, 1133 s.v. ιαω. 28  For full bibliography, see W. M. Brashear, “The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey. Annotated Bibliography (1928–1994),” in ANRW 18.5:3380–3684; and most recently Shaw, Ιαω, 185–244, 357–69. The texts are in K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, ed. A. Henrichs, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Munich: Saur, 2001); H. D. Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells I (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986). For Ιαω in the Greek magical papyri, see Brashear, “Greek Magical Papyri,” 3427–28, 3588; Shaw, Ιαω, 357–69.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

151

“Prayer of Jacob,” is found in PGM XXIIb.29 The text may be understood as a prayer of Israel as a whole or as the prayer of any Jew:30 (10) the one enthroned upon holy Mount Sinai … I .. BO .. ATHEM The one enthroned upon the sea; … EA … BL … D…. K …E… THES .. PARACHTHE …, the one enthroned upon the serpentine gods; the [god enthrone]d u[pon the s]un, ΙAO the one enthroned upon […] TA…O.. I …CH the one enthroned upon the … THE ../ …MA .. SI, ABRIEL LOUEL […]M .. .. the] resting chamber of the ch[erubim] … ]CHIRE  ….OZ …. I .. // .. (15) / to the ages of ages, O God, .  A BAOTH….ABRATHIAOTH , [SA]BA[OTH, A]DONAI, ASTRA  … E/ K]AI BRILEONAI In addition to the Jewish theophoric elements in the names of God, the text features biblical motifs which prove the Jewish origin and use of this prayer/ spell. Full names of God found in the prayer are IAO, ADONAI, SABAOTH. Clusters of theophoric names of Jewish origin including ΙΑΩ are also to be found in PGM xiii.74–80, 145–46, 200–209.31 8.2.1.4 The Non-Jewish Mantic Use of the Divine Name According to David E. Aune,32 ΙΑΩ is the most frequently used divine name in syncretistic magical texts. This is true for spells, gems, and amulets. The evidence is presented by William M. Brashear33 and Frank Shaw34 for the papyri, 29  Preisendanz, PGM 2:148–49; see the translation of D. E. Aune, “PGM XXIIb 1–26,” in Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, 261; J. H. Newman, “The Prayer of Jacob,” in Early Jewish Prayers in Greek, ed. P. W. van der Horst and J. H. Newman, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 215– 46; German translation: J. H. Newman, Gebet Jakobs, JSHRZ 2/3 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015). 30  For the Jewish character, see Newman, “Prayer of Jacob,” 224, and Newman, Gebet Jakobs, 7. The translation is according to Newman, “Prayer of Jacob,” 230; lines according to Preisendanz, PGM 2:148–49. 31  D. E. Aune, “Iao,” RAC 17 (1996): 1–12 (5). 32  Aune, “Iao,” 5–6. 33  Brashear, “Greek Magical Papyri,” 3380–3684. 34  Shaw, Ιαω, 191–97.

152

Lichtenberger

and by Simone Michel35 and Frank Shaw36 for the gemstones, lead tablets and amulets. The most important result of their research into these manifold, complicated, and centuries-old magical practices is the fact that the Jewish God was known in the non-Jewish world as ΙΑΩ. This is confirmed by both pagan37 and patristic38 texts. Thus, there may be a double reason for Jewish avoidance of the Divine Name: First, the high veneration of the Divine Name; and second, the misuse of the Divine Name in Jewish and pagan mantic activity. 8.3 The Veneration of the Divine Name The different writing practices and substitutions for the Tetragrammaton testify to the high esteem in which the Divine Name was held, but are not clear testimony to the avoidance of pronunciation. Particular indications for this high esteem are: – the use of paleo-Hebrew characters – the use of Tetrapuncta – the evidence in at least some cases, the writing of the Tetragrammaton was done by a second scribe. This last observation leads to additional considerations: Was the writing of the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton at Qumran reserved for scribes of special or higher status? There are further observations to strengthen the assumption that not every corrector was allowed to write the Tetragrammaton: The corrector of 1QIsaa 33:4 writes Tetrapuncta in his correction of Isa 40:7. In the same manuscript, at 35:15, the Tetragrammaton was omitted by the scribe of the manuscript; the corrector added the Divine Name by using five points (for ‫ )?אדוני‬above the line. This means that the corrector(s) seem(s) to have been of lower rank than the scribes of the manuscript, who were allowed to write the Tetragrammata where needed. The case of 1QS 8:14 is different: In the entire manuscript, not a single instance of the Tetragrammaton appears. In the quotation of Isa 40:3, the Tetragrammaton is replaced by Tetrapuncta; in the same quote, ‫ אלוהינו‬is written in square script; this is the only occurrence of ‫אלוהים‬ in the whole manuscript. The standard designation for God is ‫אל‬, but even this is avoided as much as possible (note the example of the extended Priestly Blessing, mentioned above, and its reversal in a curse). 35  S. Michel, Die Magischen Gemmen: Zu Bildern und Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen der Antike und Neuzeit, Studien aus dem Warburg-Haus 7 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004). 36  Shaw, Ιαω, 198–230, 357–69. 37  Shaw, Ιαω, 73–107. 38  Shaw, Ιαω, 109–18.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

153

The evidence is twofold: On the one hand, there seem to have been special scribes of a very high rank who alone were allowed to write the Tetragrammaton; on the other hand, there were other scribes who, in contrast to these higherranking scribes, were not allowed to write the Tetragrammaton; they had to either leave a space for others to fill in, or use Tetrapuncta or other divine names in its place. In fact, the Damascus Document contains halachic regulations concerning divine names. CD 15:1–3 reads: “(1) He shall (not) swear, not even with (the divine names) ʾAleph and Lamedh, nor ʾAleph and Daleth, except for the oath of those who enter (2) by the curses of the covenant. And the Torah of Moses he shall not mention for […]. (3) If he does swear and transgresses, he profanes the name.”39 It seems that in the oaths of the covenant the divine names ‫ אלוהים‬and ‫ אדוני‬were used, but not the Tetragrammaton. The writing, replacement, and avoidance of the Divine Name give testimony to the high esteem God’s Name was shown in the Qumran community. We have good reasons to conclude from the evidence that already at the end of the second century BCE the Divine Name was avoided and/or indicated by pronouns (“He”) or by other designations for God (1QS). As a rule, the Tetragrammaton was written in various kinds of characters in biblical manuscripts, but not all later correctors were entitled to write the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, we find Tetrapuncta in biblical manuscripts and in biblical quotations in texts of the ‫יחד‬. The Divine Name is “the name honored above all” (1QS 6:27). The reason for the avoidance of the Divine Name is evidently the high esteem it had had since the second century BCE. But on the other hand, the fact that there was an ongoing tradition about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton can be seen from the Greek translation 4Q120 (papLXXLevb). 9

The Substitution of other Designations for “God” in Later Traditions

The avoidance of the Divine Name (Tetragrammaton) and/or its replacement by other designations of God or pronomina is to be seen in the context of a development starting in the late parts of the Bible, as well as, e.g., in 1 Maccabees. Evidence for this development is found in the LXX translation of Lev 24:16 MT: “He who uses the Name of God in vain shall die,” is rendered by the LXX, “He 39  Translation by J. M. Baumgarten, and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 4–57 (37).

154

Lichtenberger

who pronounces the name of God shall die.” Because the Pentateuch was already translated in the third century BC, we can rather exactly determine the beginning of concern with the pronunciation (or nonpronunciation) of the Tetragrammaton. The halachic prescriptions in 1QS and CD (see above) are affirmed by the much later mishnah in m. Sanh. 10:1: “Those who have no share in the world to come,” include, according to Abba Saul: “He that pronounces the Name with its proper letters” (see also 7:5).40 A second, perhaps later version of the tradition is also found in m. Sanh. 10:1: R. Akiba teaches that one who “reads the heretical books, or that utters charms over a wound and says: I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord (Tetragrammaton; Exod 15:26) that healeth thee,” likewise has no share in the world to come. This mishnah reflects a usage of the Divine Name that is often labelled “mystical,” but should better be called mantic. As noted earlier, we encounter abundant uses of the Divine Name in this way in both Jewish and non-Jewish mantic texts. Neither Jewish nor pagan magicians felt obliged to follow rabbinic rules. 9.1 Substitutions for “God” in 1 Maccabees 1 Maccabees never41 uses θεός for the God of Israel, but always employs substitutions, especially (ὁ) οὐρανός: 3:19, 50, 60; 4:10, 24, 40, 55; 5:31; 9:46; 12:15; 16:3.42 Sometimes “God” is replaced by a personal pronoun (2:21, 61; 3:22, 53; 7:37, 42) or omitted (1:64);43 sometimes passive voice may be used to express divine action (3:23).44 A striking example of substitution for the Divine Name is found in 1 Macc 4:24, where the traditional acclamation, “For he is good, for his mercy endures forever” (Ps 106:1 et passim) is referred to οὐρανός. Other substitutes:

40  Translations of the Mishnah in this paper follow H. Danby, The Mishnah Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938; repr. 1980), 397. 41  In 3:18 the addition τοῦ θεοῦ or (τοῦ) κυρίου is a secondary variant and textcritically not original. The plural in 5:68 refers to pagan gods. 42  This fact is observed by most commentators; for an early such view see C. L. W. Grimm, Das erste Buch der Maccabäer, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes 3 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853), 55; for the most recent expression of this view, see M. Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 115 et passim. 43  K.-D. Schunck, 1. Makkabäerbuch, JSHRZ 1/4 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980), 293; see also 1 Macc 2:55; 3:8. 44  D. Arenhoevel, Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch, Walberger Studien 3 (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1967), 36; see, e.g., 1 Macc 2:52–64.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

155

Participle 4:11 ὁ λυτρούμενος και σῴζων τὸν Ισραηλ.45 Verbal 4:10: “heaven” is the one who μνησθήσεται διαθήκης πατέρων.46 Nominal 4:30: ὁ σωτὴρ Ισραηλ. In 1 Macc 2:22, the refusal to transgress τὴν λατρείαν ἡμῶν opposes the λόγοι τοῦ βασιλέως. Λατρεία here is a substitution for God’s commands.47 To some extent νόμος and διατήκη (2:28) likewise represent “God.”48 Perhaps also the representation of ‫ בית יהוה‬from Jer 41:5 in 1 Macc 3:46 as τόπος προσευχῆς belongs to the category of substitution.49 9.2 Substitutions for “God” in the New Testament 9.2.1 “Heaven” as a Substitute for “God” in Matthew and Luke The most prominent instance of this substitution is in the parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:18, 21: πάτερ ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου. The Gospel of Matthew features the distinctive expression, βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, in the plural: 3:2; 4:17; 5:3; 5:19 [bis]; 5:20; 7:21 [bis]; 11:11, 12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3, 4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23, 24; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1. Luke, on the other hand, never uses βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, but always βασιλεία (τοῦ) θεοῦ: 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28, 29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20[bis], 21; 18:16, 17, 24, 25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18. In Matthew there are only four instances of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (singular): 6:33; 12:28; 21:31, 43. The fact that this substitution of “Heavens” for “God” is an intentional authorial technique in Matthew is evident where Matthew and Luke have a common source; e.g., in the first beatitude of the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew: βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (5:3) Luke: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (6:20) The same thing happens in Jesus’s words on John the Baptist: Matthew: βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (11:11) Luke: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (7:28).50 45  For the origin of the notion, see Arenhoevel, Theokratie, 35; see also 1 Macc 4:55. 46  See Exod 2:24; Lev 26:42; Ps 104:8 LXX; 105:45 LXX; Luke 1:72–73. 47  J. A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday), 230 translates “religion.” 48  See also 1 Macc 2:50. 49  Schunck, 1. Makkabäer, 312. 50  Many additional pairs confirm the deliberate use of this technique in the Gospel of Matthew: Matt 13:11–Luke 8:10; Matt 13:31–Luke 13:18; Matt 13:33–Luke 13:20; Matt 19:14– Luke 18:16; Matt 19:23–Luke 18:25.

156

Lichtenberger

This technique is in perfect accord with the Jewish character of the Gospel of Matthew. 9.2.2 The Expression “Father/Father in Heaven” in Matthew In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), θεός is used five times (5:8, 9, 34; 6:24, 30); however, it is replaced by ὁ πατήρ in seventeen instances, in the following variations: “my father” 7:21 “your father” (sing.) 6:4, 6[bis], 18[bis] “our father in heaven” 6:9 “your father” (pl.) 6:8, 15 “your father in heaven” (pl.) 5:16, 45; 6:26; 7:11 “your heavenly father” (pl.) 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32 These three chapters feature more instances of God as father than the whole Hebrew Bible.51 “Father” (always with a personal pronoun) has become a substitute for “God.” 9.2.3 “God” in the Book of Revelation Revelation 1:4: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This verse creates a substitution for θεός (see 1:8)52 consisting of three temporal definitions: present, past and future.53 The construction reflects Exod 3:14. The later midrash, Exod Rab 3:6, crafts a similar construction as an interpretation of Exod 3:14: ‫אני שׁהייתי ואני הוא עכשׁיו ואני הוא לעתיד לבא‬

According to R. Isaac, God said to Moses: “Tell them that I am who was, and I am who is now, and I am who will be in the future.”54 The fact that in Rev 1:4, 51  According to J. Jeremias, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 16, there are 15 instances: Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Ps 68:6; 89:27; Isa 63:16[bis]; 64:7; Jer 3:3, 19; 31:9; Mal 1:6; 2:10. 52  S. Vollenweider, “ ‘Der Name, der über jedem andern Namen ist.’ Jesus als Träger des Gottesnamens im Neuen Testament,” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 173–86 (175–76), demonstrated that Rev 1:4 is an interpretation of the Tetragrammaton. 53  For the grammatical problems see H. Lichtenberger, Die Apokalypse, THKNT 23 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 64. 54  I am fully aware that the composition of Exodus Rabbah is at least a thousand years later than Revelation, but it represents an interpretation of Exod 3:14 which might be far older (as Rev 1:4 demonstrates).

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

157

the tripartite formula is a substitution for the Tetragrammaton, is also evident from the fact that following ἀπό (which requires the genitive), ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not declined, but in nominative. A sort of substitution for “God” in Revelation is the term: ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου “the one who sits on the throne” (4:2; 5:1, 7, 13; 6:16; 7:10, 15; 11:16; 19:4; 21:5). This is a reference to Isa 6:1: εἶδον τὸν κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ καὶ ἐπερμένου. These substitutions are a substantial element of the Jewish character of this book. 10

Final Reflections

Revelation 1:4, with its replacements for the Tetragrammaton, brings us back to our starting point: the question of the meaning of the replacement of the Divine Name by other expressions in Jewish tradition. In the manuscripts from the Dead Sea, we encountered a variety of scribal practices geared towards expressing the holiness of the Divine Name. In 1 Maccabees we encounter the further step of using the term “Heaven” as a substitution for “God.” The veneration of the Divine Name also taken into early Christianity; the practice of using other expressions to replace the Name is particularly prominent in New Testament texts coming from a Jewish background. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), the expression “Father in Heaven” is the predominant designation for God and is also a form of address in prayer (Isa 63:16; Matt 6:9). Underlying the practice of Maccabees and the New Testament passages is, of course, the idea that heaven is God’s realm; in a metonymic transfer, the place (“heaven”) becomes the name of its most important inhabitant (see, e.g., Ps 2:4). Therefore, the Prodigal Son can confess: “Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you” (Luke 15:18, 21). On the other hand, the phrase “joy in heaven” (e.g., Luke 15:7) expresses God’s pleasure. The replacement of the Divine Name served to secure the remoteness and holiness of God and at the same time enables speaking of God in an anthropomorphic way (e.g., “father”). Although the practice of the Qumran scribes may seem distant from the literary techniques of the later authors of Maccabees and Matthew, I suggest that a constant thread runs throughout: This is the veneration of the Divine Name, which ultimately is an expression of the veneration of the God of Israel.

158

Lichtenberger

Bibliography Aly, Z. and L. Koenen. Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 28. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1980. Arenhoevel, D. Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch. Walberger Studien 3. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1967. Aune, D. E. “Iao.” RAC 17 (1996): 1–12. Aune, D. E. “PGM XXIIb 1–26.” Page 261 in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells I. Edited by H. D. Betz. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. Baumgarten, J. M. “A New Qumran Substitute for the Divine Name.” JQR 83 (1993): 1–5. Baumgarten, J. M. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Baumgarten, J. M. and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Baumgarten, J. M. et al., “Damascus Document 4Q266–273 (4QDa-h).” Pages 1–185 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations Vol. 3. Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Betz, H. D., ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. Brashear, W. M. “The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey. Annotated Bibliography (1928–1994).” ANRW 18.5:3380–3684. Part 2, Principat 18.5. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Brownlee, W. H. “Excerpts from the Translation of the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline.” BASOR 121 (1951): 8–13. Danby, H. The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938; repr. 1980. Deissmann, A. “Papyrus Onomasticon sacrum.” Pages 86–93 in Die Septuaginta: Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung. Edited by A. Deissmann. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1905. De Troyer, K. “The Pronunciation of the Names of God: With some Notes Regarding the nomina sacra.” Pages 143–72 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Finsterbusch, K., and A. Lange. What is Bible? Leuven: Peeters, 2012.

The Divine Name in the DSS and NT

159

Goldstein, J. A. 1 Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Grabbe, L. L. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo. BJS 115. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Green, D. “4QIsc: A Rabbinic Production of Isaiah Found at Qumran?” JJS 53 (2002): 120–45. Green, D. “Divine Names: Rabbinic and Qumran Scribal Techniques.” Pages 497–511 in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. Grimm, C. L. W. Das erste Buch der Maccabäer. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes 3. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853. Hamidović, D. “Les théonymes témoignent-ils d’une évolution du monothéisme juif à l’aube de l’ère chrétienne?” Pages 285–97 in Le Monothéisme Biblique: Évolution, Contextes, et Perspectives. Edited by E. Bons and T. Legrand. Lectio Divina 244. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Jeremias, J. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Lagarde, P. de. Onomastica Sacra. 2d ed. Göttingen: Horstmann, 1887; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Lange, A. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lichtenberger, H. Die Apokalypse. HThKNT 23. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. McLean, M. D. “The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1982. Meshorer, Y. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel-Aviv: Am Ha-sefer, 1967. Michel, S. Die Magischen Gemmen: Zu Bildern und Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen der Antike und Neuzeit. Studien aus dem Warburg-Haus 7. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004. Mildenberg, L. ed. The Abraham Bromberg Collection of Jewish Coins, Part I: 5 December, 1991. Zürich: Superior-Leu, 1991. Newman, J. H. Gebet Jakobs. JSHRZ 2/3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015. Newman, J. H. “The Prayer of Jacob.” Pages 215–46 in Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. Edited by P. W. van der Horst and J. H. Newman. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Preisendanz, K. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by A. Henrichs. 2d ed. 2 vols. Munich: Saur, 2001. Rösel, M. Adonaj: Warum Gott ‘Herr’ genannt wird. FAT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Schunck, K.-D. 1. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 1/4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980. Shaw, F. The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω. CBET 70. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

160

Lichtenberger

Skehan, P. W. “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint.” BIOSCS 13 (1980): 14–44. Skehan, P. W. and E. Ulrich. Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, Isaiah. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Tilly, M. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Tov, E. “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School.” Pages 199–216 in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. Tov, E. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr): The Seiyâl Collection 1. DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, E. Der Text der Hebräischen Bibel: Handbuch der Textkritik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Vollenweider, S. “‘Der Name, der über jedem andern Namen ist.’ Jesus als Träger des Gottesnamens im Neuen Testament.” Pages 173–86 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by I. U. Dalferth and P. Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wolters, A. “The Tetragrammaton in the Psalms Scroll.” Textus 18 (1995): 87–99. Würthwein, E. Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973. Wutz, F. Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus. 2 vols. TUGAL 3/1 41. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914–1915.

God, Gods, and Godhead in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Noam Mizrahi 1 Introduction The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is a liturgical composition found in about ten fragmentary copies among the Dead Sea scrolls.1 The Songs is acknowledged to be one of the most enigmatic works discovered among the scrolls, especially because of its notoriously ambiguous language, which renders difficult the precise interpretation of many passages. Little wonder, then, that its original provenance remains a matter of debate, and that scholars disagree as to whether it was composed within sectarian circles or imported from another (either distant or adjacent) group of Second Temple Judaism.2 Be that as it 1  Two passages of the work (now designated as 4Q403 1 i 16–26; 4Q405 20 ii–22 7–14 [= J 17–24]) were first made known to the scholarly community by J. Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran: 4Q Serek Šîrôt ʿÔlat Haššabbāt,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959, ed. G. W. Anderson et al., VTSup 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 318–45. The manuscripts were fully published in the admirable preliminary edition of C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, HSS 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). For the official publication of the 4Q and Masada manuscripts see C. Newsom, “Shirot ʿOlat Hashabbat,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1, ed. E. Eshel et al., DJD 11 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 173– 401, pl. xvi–xxxi; cf. Y. Yadin and C. Newsom, “The Masada Fragment of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in S. Talmon, ed., Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports, 6: Hebrew Fragments from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999), 120–32. For the 11Q material, see F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, “17. 11QShirot ʿOlat ha-Shabbat,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD 23 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 259–304, pl. xxx–xxxiv, liii; cf. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “Reconstructing 11Q17 Shirot ʿOlat Ha-Shabbat,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 171–85. A new composite edition is that of E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014), 2:358–84 (in Hebrew). In citing the Songs, I usually follow Qimron’s readings. 2  Newsom herself changed her mind on the matter. In the preliminary edition, she favored— albeit not too decidedly—a sectarian provenance; see Newsom, Songs, 1–4, 73–74. But later on she preferred to view the work as a presectarian composition that was adopted by the Qumran community; see C. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167–87. More recently, attempts have been made to use evidence culled from phraseology to support a notion of sectarian provenance. See H. W. M. Rietz,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_009

162

Mizrahi

may, the sheer number of its copies indicates that the Songs held a central place in the cultic practice and hence, presumably, also in the religious worldview of the community or communities whose writings were unearthed in the Judean Desert. The purpose of the present study is to explore the possibility that some of the diverse difficulties tackled by all commentators on the text are caused not so much by its dazzling language as by a radical conception of the nature of the divinity. This proposal is not intended to be viewed as a definitive statement but rather as a working hypothesis. It came up as part of my ongoing work on a new philological commentary on the Songs, and I present here only a sketch that requires much further contemplation.3 Still, and notwithstanding the provisional nature of the thesis presented herein, there seems to be enough evidence to suggest the need for at least rethinking the common assumptions concerning the concept of the deity that underlies the Songs. Current consensus on this matter has been concisely and effectively summarized by Philip Alexander in a recent discussion of the type of religious experience reflected in the Songs:4 There is no absorption into God in Qumran mysticism: the gulf between the Creator and his creatures is not crossed. A superficial reading of the texts might suggest that there is a constant blurring of the boundaries between God and the highest angels. For example, one of the ubiquitous titles of the angels is “Gods” (ʾElohim), but closer analysis shows that there is no real confusion in the minds of the writers. They explicitly stress that the angels are God’s creatures, and they are constantly shown “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a Test Case,” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. M. T. Davies and B. A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 29–52; H. W. M. Rietz and B. A. Strawn, “(More) Sectarian Terminology in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: The Case of ‫תמימי דרך‬,” ibid., 53–64; D. Dimant, “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Qumran und die Archäologie, ed. J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler, WUNT 278 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 347–95, especially 390–91. 3  Any deduction concerning the theological content of a text obviously relies on a particular interpretation of its wording. In this respect, my understanding of the Songs differs in many points from Newsom’s influential edition and translation, which had shaped the contemporary consensus. Still, it was not possible to defend in detail the rendition of each and every passage of the Songs that is quoted below, and I had to contend with references to other publications of mine, in which I discuss some such philological matters. I ask the reader to bear with the resulting extensive self-referencing. 4  P. S. Alexander, “Qumran and the Genealogy of Western Mysticism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005, ed. E. G. Chazon, B. HalpernAmaru, and R. A. Clements, STDJ 88 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 215–35 (222–23).

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

163

in a relationship of worship, adoration and total submission to God the King…. It would never have crossed their minds that anyone could have been misled by such language … into blurring the distinction between the Creator and his creatures. It is indeed undeniable that several key passages of the Songs highlight the creative power of God, which distinguishes God from all other beings, including the angels.5 However, from a methodological point of view, it does not necessarily follow that such passages must take precedence over other portions of the text that express quite a different set of ideas. Needless to say, the resulting ideological inconsistency presents its own set of problems. The existence of different or even incompatible theological trajectories within the same literary work can be interpreted in a number of ways, be they synchronic or diachronic. Moreover, such trajectories may be expected to continuously interact in contemporaneous and other sources, which contain related or comparable traditions that have their own internal dynamic of development.6 Yet all such explanations must be deferred to a later stage of the critical inquiry; the compositional problems can only be discussed (and hopefully solved) after the distinct nature of each of the various theological convictions embedded in the text has been disclosed and clarified.7 Indeed, while some of the details discussed below have long been known, their recontextualization exposes essential aspects that have not been fully discerned thus far. The present study aims to contribute to this preliminary stage, seeking to demonstrate that there are certain passages of the Songs—as well as general features that characterize the composition as a whole—which are not consistent with the theological reasoning as summarized by Alexander. Such passages and features, I submit, appear to express a different thinking that stands in potential tension with the former view, which is also well grounded in the text. The title of this paper, as well as some features of its structure, are inspired by an essay of John Collins, entitled, “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Collins presents a masterful synthesis of a wide range 5  I myself have elsewhere dealt in some detail with one of the most prominent passages of this kind. See N. Mizrahi, “The Cycle of Summons: A Hymn from the Seventh Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q403 1 i 31–40),” DSD 22 (2015): 43–67. 6  For an intricate demonstration of such processes see M. Kister, “Metatron, God, and the ‘Two Powers’: The Dynamics of Tradition, Exegesis, and Polemic,” Tarbiz 82/1 (2014): 43–88 (in Hebrew). 7  Note, in passing, that comparable cases of ideological inconsistency abound in the Qumran scrolls, including all the major sectarian compositions. In fact, such ideological inconsistency may be the rule rather the exception. See, for instance, C. Newsom, “Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot,” in this volume.

164

Mizrahi

of theological notions on the basis of evidence culled from the entire corpus of the Qumran scrolls. He situates the available evidence within a broader context of a historical development that is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, continues into Second Temple literature, and reaches to the New Testament and Jewish works of late antiquity (such as 3 Enoch).8 The present attempt, by contrast, has a much more modest goal, focusing as it does on only one aspect of a single work and pursuing a line of reasoning that is phenomenological rather than historical. Furthermore, I propose, as a hermeneutical exercise, to consciously refrain from reading the Songs in the light of other, better understood, texts from Qumran; and to try to hear instead what this particular text may be saying, precisely because its voice is so faint and difficult to comprehend. It is my hope that narrowing our view to a few specific details will enable us to grasp more clearly those aspects that have hitherto been illuminated to only a limited degree.9 2

Ambiguous Epithets

We begin with some intriguing exegetical difficulties raised by the very beginning of the work, namely, the first lines of Song I: ‫השב]ת הראישונה‬ ̇ ‫[למשכיל שיר עולת‬ ‫בארבעה לחודש הראישון‬ ‫…]ה אלוהי כול קדושי קדושים‬ ‫הללו | [לאלוהי‬ ]…[ | }‫ובאלוהות{ו‬

8  J. J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–28. 9  In citing texts from the scrolls I utilize certain conventions that require clarification. Line numbers of fragments whose position within the column is not determined are marked with a prime sign (e.g., 2′), while fragments whose original position can be reconstructed are marked by both fragment number and, in square brackets, column designation, with its re-aligned line numbers (e.g., 4Q405 20 ii–22 6′ [= J 16]); for 11Q17, restored column numbers are given in Roman numerals (e.g., 11Q17 16–18 [= VII] 9. Safe restorations based on overlapping text are printed in regular letters (e.g., [‫)]אבגד‬, whereas conjectural restorations are printed in light font (e.g., [‫)]אבגד‬. Ambiguous cases in which one can read either waw or yod, and the choice between them is made on grammatical or exegetical grounds, are marked with a macron (e.g., ֿ‫ ו‬or ֿ‫)י‬. Line breaks are marked by a vertical line (|), whereas poetic lines are distinguished by a slash (/). A double vertical line (||) marks a textual overlap between different witnesses (e.g., 4Q403 1 i 1 || Mas1k ii 6), whereas a double slash (//) marks poetic parallelisms. A maqqeph marks a nominal form in the construct state (e.g., ‫אלי־‬, “gods of …”) or a proclitic particle (e.g., ‫)ל־‬. English translations from the Hebrew Bible usually follow the NRSV, unless noted otherwise; translations of passages from the Dead Sea scrolls are usually my own.

165

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

[For the Instructor: A song of] the first [Sabba]th [sacrifice], on the fourth of the first month. Praise [the God of …], O God/gods of all the holiest among the holy ones, and [exalt?] his (the) divinity [of …] (4Q400 1 i[= I] 1–3) Based on the available evidence it appears that each of the Sabbath Songs originally began with a superscription that contains several components. The designation “for the Instructor” (‫ )למשכיל‬is followed by a phrase describing the generic character of the text as a “song for the Sabbath sacrifice” (‫שיר עולת‬ ‫)השבת‬, and the Sabbath is then numbered and dated to one of the thirteen consecutive Sabbaths that fall on the first quarter of the year according to the 364-day calendar. This superscription is followed by an invocation, calling the angels to praise God. Seven such invocations are preserved, to a greater or lesser extent. They follow a largely uniform syntactical pattern, while exhibiting variation in phraseological details. They begin with the imperative ‫“ הללו‬praise ye,” followed by two epithets, which vary from one song to another: Epithet B Song Ia Song IIb Song IVc Song VId Song VIIe Song VIIIf Song XIIg a b c d e f g

‫אלוהי כול קדושי קדושים‬ ]… ]… ‫יושבי מרומי רומים‬ ‫הרמים בכול | אלי דעת‬ ]‫קדושי֯ [עולמים‬ ̇ ‫כו]ל‬ ̇ ‫הכ ̇בו̇ ֯ד‬ ̇ ֯‫ומ ֯מ[ו]ה֯ ֯ו ֯ב ֯פי‬ ֯ ‫ור‬

Epithet A ‫…]ה‬ ‫[לאלוהי‬ … ‫הנכבד[ים‬ ֯ | ̇‫̇אלוהי‬ … ‫לאל[והי‬ ̇ ‫א]ל[וה]י֯ אלים‬ ̇ ‫למלך‬ ‫אלוהי מרומים‬ …[‫̇ל ̇א ̇לוהי כול ̇מ‬ ‫לאלוהי | נשיאי משני פ֯ ] ̇ל ֯א‬

Verb | ‫הללו‬ ]‫[הללו‬ ‫הללו‬ ‫[הללו‬ ‫הללו‬ ‫֯ה ̇ל ̇לו‬ ‫[הללו‬

4Q400 1 i [= I] 1–2. 4Q400 3 ii–5 [= IV] 8–9. 4Q401 1–2 2. Mas1k ii 9 || 4Q406 1 5′. 4Q403 1 i 30–31. 4Q405 8–9 [= E] 2 || 4Q403 1 ii 18–19. 4Q405 20 ii–22 6′–7′ [= J 16–17] || 11Q17 16–18 [= VII] 9. Only in Song XII does the text that occupies the slot of Epithet B not fit the expected content; thus, it may represent a deviation from the formulaic structure evident in other invocations.

Who is referred to by the rich repertoire of epithets employed in these invocations, God or the angels? Some epithets are patently angelic, such as the B-epithet of Song VI: ‫“ יושבי מרומי רום‬inhabitants of the highest heights,” or

166

Mizrahi

of Song VII: ‫“ הרמים בכול אלי דעת‬highest ones among all gods of knowledge.” Other epithets are ambiguous, at least if taken in isolation; the most conspicuous example is the B-epithet of Song I: ‫אלוהי כול קדושי קדושים‬. Newsom elegantly solved this exegetical ambiguity by comparing the structures of the parallel invocations. She observed that, on the one hand, in two cases (Songs IV and VIII), the A-epithet is preceded by the preposition ‫ל־‬, which marks the following phrase as the object of the angelic praise, indicating that it is a divine epithet.10 On the other hand, in at least three cases (Songs VI, VII, and VIII), the B-epithet evidently refers to the angels, since it takes a plural form (‫ כול קדושי־‬,‫ רמים‬,‫)יושבי־‬. If all invocations follow the same pattern, then the B-epithet of Song I, ‫אלוהי כול קדושי קדושים‬, should likewise be interpreted as an angelic epithet, even though it may look ambiguous when detached from its context.11 So far the analysis is indeed compelling, yet the referential ambiguity pertains not only to the term ‫—אלוהים‬as has been repeatedly noticed in previous scholarship12—but also, and more subversively, to the phrase ‫קדושי קדושים‬.13 Admittedly, ‫ קדושים‬is a well-known designation of the heavenly beings that accompany God in Second Temple literature,14 and ‫ קדושי קדושים‬logically refers to the senior angels, those that command lower-ranking ones.15 However, the nonbiblical superlative construction ‫ קדוש קדושים‬is reserved in other Hebrew sources to God alone. Take, for instance, the Hymn to the Creator, which unequivocally asserts:

10  This is true regardless of the syntactical question as to whether the preposition has accusative or dative force. 11  Newsom, Songs, 96–97 = DJD 11.179. 12   Note, in passing, that such a use finds parallels in other Jewish sources of the Hellenistic period. For instance, LXX Psalms sometimes renders ‫ אלהים‬by ἄγγελοι, as noted by H. Gzella, “Beobachtungen zur Angelologie der Sabbatopferlieder im Spiegel ihrer theologiegeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen,” ETL 78/4 (2002): 468–81 (470). Cf. M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, TSAJ 34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 74–75. 13  This epithet was previously studied by J. W. Ludlow, “What are the Qdôšê Qdôšîm in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice?” JAGNES 7/2 (1997): 42–51. Unfortunately, Ludlow takes ‫ קדושי‬to be a plural form of the noun ‫ קודש‬rather than of the adjective ‫—קדוש‬a linguistic misinterpretation that damages much of his discussion. 14  See, for instance, the listings in M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran, JSPSup 11 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 328–29 (Appendix B, s.v. “holy ones”), 336–37 (Appendix C, s.v. ‫)קדושים‬. 15  A similar usage is reflected in 1 En. 14:23, but only according to some of the textual witnesses (as detailed below, n. 49).

167

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

‫ קדוש קדושים לדור ודור‬/ ‫גדול וקדוש יהוה‬

The Lord is great and holy, holiest (lit. holy of holies, or holy of holy ones) for all generations (11QPsa 26:9) In another poetic work, one finds a similarly unambiguous parallelism: ‫ גורל מלך מלכים‬// ‫[עד]ת קדוש קדושים‬

The congregation of the holy of holy ones, the lot of the king of kings (4Q381 76–77 7) As rightly noted by the editor, the very parallelism with ‫מלך מלכים‬, as well as the structural equivalence to expressions such as ‫ אדוני אדונים‬and ‫אלוהי האלוהים‬, render it virtually certain that ‫ קדוש קדושים‬is used here as a divine epithet—a usage that may be traced further in later rabbinic liturgy.16 In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, however, such an interpretation is prevented by the plural form of ‫ קדושי‬as well as the preceding quantifier ‫כול‬, both of which force the reader to take the phrase as an angelic epithet. In other words, a phrase that is elsewhere used as a divine epithet is transformed into an angelic one in the Songs. 3

Adaptation of Scriptural Epithets

This is by no means a solitary example. A similar pattern can be discerned with respect to epithets that are rooted in scriptural phraseology, and it is most easily evident when the biblical precedent is a hapax expression, in which case there can be little doubt where the Songs had borrowed it from. Two illustrative examples may demonstrate this point. (a) One example is furnished by the phrase ‫אלי עולמים‬, which occurs once in Song XI: … ‫ו̇ שבחהו בדני אלוהים רוחי ̇ק[ודש קודשים‬ ‫בדני]כ֯ ̇בוד מדרס | דבירי פלא‬ ]…[‫כול‬ ֯ ‫רוחי̇ ̇אלי עולמים‬ 16  E. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection, HSS 28 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 220–21 = eadem, “381. Non-Canonical Psalms B,” in DJD 11.87–172 (157–58).

168

Mizrahi

Praise him, O divine forms, spirits of the h[oly of holies] … Glorious forms—the tread of wondrous sanctuaries, Spirits of eternal gods—all […] (4Q405 19a–d 2′–3′ [= I 18–19] || 11Q17 12–15 [= VI] 3–4) The plural form ‫ אלי־‬as well as the close association with ‫ רוחי־‬point to its use as an angelic epithet. But the closest parallels to this phrase, both in its single occurrence in biblical literature as well as its uses in the Qumran scrolls, are all in the singular: ‫עֹולם‬ ֽ ָ ‫הו֖ה ֵ ֥אל‬ ָ ְ‫א־ׁשם ְּב ֵ ׁ֥שם י‬ ָ֔ ‫וַ ּיִ ַ ּ֥טע ֶ ֖א ֶׁשל ִּב ְב ֵ ֣אר ָ ׁ֑ש ַבע וַ ִּ֨י ְק ָר‬

He (i.e., Abraham) planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God. (Gen 21:33 [NRSV, slightly modified]) ‫כי אל עולם אתה‬ ‫וכול דרכיכה יכונו לנצח | נ֯ צחי֯ ֯ם‬ ‫ואין זולתכה‬

For you are the eternal God, And all your ways are established for eternal eternity, And there is nothing except you. (1QHa 15:34–35) The phrase ‫ אל עולם‬is attested only once in the Hebrew Bible, in the story concerning Abraham in Beersheba, where it functions as an appositive of the Tetragrammaton. Its employment in the Hodayot as a divine epithet is in keeping with the biblical precedent for the term.17 If so, the Songs clearly transforms an originally divine epithet into an angelic one, grammatically adapting it to its new angelological usage by pluralizing both the nomen regens and the nomen rectum, as is commonly done in Second Temple Hebrew for the plural marking of attributive construct phrases.18

17  In addition to the example cited below, the phrase ‫ אל עולם‬occurs again in a broken context within the sectarian work 4QBlessings (4Q286 8 1). 18  E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 74–75, §400.06*.

169

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

(b) A more complicated case is presented by a set of epithets that highlights the esoteric knowledge shared by members of the divine sphere but withheld from humans, namely, the closely related pair of ‫ אלי דעת‬and ‫אלוהי דעת‬.19 The phrase ‫אלי דעת‬, “knowledgeable gods,” which is peculiar to the Songs, appears to refer to the angels in all its occurrences, as demonstrated by the parallelism with other angelic epithets or the employment of the quantifier ‫ כול‬beforehand: Song II ‫באלי דעת‬ ̇ ‫להלל כבודכה פלא‬ ]‫ותשבוחות מלכותכה בקדושי ק֯ [דושים‬

To praise your glory, O Wonder,20 among the gods of knowledge, And the acclamations of your kingship—by the holiest among the holy ones. (4Q400 2 [= V] 1 || 4Q401 14 i 7) Song VII ‫הללו אלוהי מרומים הרמים בכול אלי דעת‬

Praise the God of heavens, O highest among all gods of knowledge (4Q403 1 i 30)

19  This is not the place to discuss the contents of this knowledge. For the basic data, see F. Zanella, “‫ דעה‬deʿāh, ‫ דעת‬daʿat,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, ed. H-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011–2016), 1:708–16. For an attempt to interpret this notion within the contexts of the Songs, see E. R. Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman, JSJSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177–213. 20  The word ‫ פלא‬is used in this passage as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. See, for the time being, N. Mizrahi, “The Lexicon and Phraseology of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), 68–71 (in Hebrew). Note, however, the opposing view of C. Ariel, “The Influence of Aramaic over the NonBiblical Qumran Scrolls” (MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013), 44–45 (in Hebrew).

170

Mizrahi

Song XII ‫במבואוֿ אלי דעת בפתחי כבוד‬ ̇ ‫מלאכי קודש לממשלתם‬ ֯ ֿ‫ו̇ בכול מוצאו‬

When he enters, gods of knowledge (stand) at the glorious entries, And whenever he exits, holy angels (stand) by their dominions. (4Q405 23 i 8′ [= K 19]) By contrast, the seemingly synonymous phrase ‫ אלוהי דעת‬exclusively refers to God: Song II ‫נרוממה לאלוהי דעת‬

Let us exalt the God of knowledge (4Q400 2 [= V] 8) Song V ‫דעת נהיו כול [ה ̇ו ̇י עד‬ ̇ ‫֯כיא מאלוהי‬ ̇ ̇ ̇ ̇ ̇ ‫כבוד[ו היו כול תעודות עולמ]י֯ם‬ ̇ ‫ומד ̇עתו] | ו֯מזמת‬

For it is by the God of knowledge that all everlasting beings came into being; And it is by his knowledge and his glorious plan that all eternal assignments have come into being. (4Q402 4 12–13 || Mas1k i 2–3) Song XIII

‫[י]ברכו לאלוהי ֯דעת בכול מעשי כבודו‬

They shall bless the God of knowledge for all his glorious deeds. (4Q405 23 ii 12′ [= L 23]) At first glance, then, we have here clear terminological distinction between divine and angelic epithets. Things become more complicated, however, when we examine the source of these epithets, for it is difficult to divorce them from the phrase ‫אל דעות‬, which occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, in the Prayer of Hannah:

171

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

‫ יֵ ֵ ֥צא ָע ָ ֖תק ִמ ִּפ ֶיכ֑ם‬/ ‫רּו ּגְ ב ָ ֹ֣הה גְ ב ָֹ֔הה‬ ֙ ‫ל־ּת ְר ּ֤בּו ְת ַד ְּב‬ ַ ‫ַא‬ ‫ ולא (וְ ֥לֹו) נִ ְת ְּכנ֖ ּו ֲע ִל ֽלֹות‬/ ‫הוה‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫עֹות י‬ ֙ ‫ִ ּ֣כי ֵ ֤אל ֵּד‬

No longer speak so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; For the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him21 actions are weighed. (1 Sam 2:3 NRSV, slightly modified) The epithet ‫ אל דעות‬is further attested in some Qumran scrolls, with only a slight syntactic adaptation—the addition of the definite article.22 See, for instance: ‫מאל הדעות כול הויה ונהייה‬ ‫ולפני היותם הכין כול מחשבתם‬

From the God of knowledge is all that exists and that comes into being, And before they came into being, he had prepared all their plans. (1QS 3:15)23

‫לכה אתה אל הדעות כול מעשי הצדקה וסוד האמת‬ ‫ולבני האדם עבודת העוון ומעשי רמייה‬

Yours, O God of knowledge, are all the righteous deeds and the foundation of truth, Whereas of humans are the sinful worship and deceitful deeds. (1QHa 9:28–29) ]…[ | ]‫הכינות[ה‬ ̇ ‫ברוך אתה אל הדעות אשר‬ Bless be you, O God of knowledge, who prepare[d]… (1QHa 22:34) 21  The NRSV renders here the Qere reading. For the meaning and theological implications of the Ketib reading see M. Segal, “1 Samuel 2:3: Text, Exegesis, and Theology,” Shnaton 13 (2002): 83–95 (in Hebrew). 22  The only exception to this generalization is found in the Joshua Apocryphon (4Q379 22 i 6′), which is also unique in reading ‫אלדעות‬ ̇ as a single word. Unfortunately, the context is too broken to be certain of the significance of this orthography. 23  As noted by all commentators, this passage offers a very close parallel, in both form and content, to the above-quoted passage from Song V (see especially Newsom, Songs, 160–61 = DJD 11.231–32). This fact confers special weight on the equivalence between ‫ אל דעות‬in the opening of the Treatise on the Two Spirits and ‫ אלי דעת‬in Song V.

172

Mizrahi

Both in the original biblical passage and in the scrolls, ‫ אל דעות‬is consistently used to designate God, not the angels, even though its nomen rectum is formally plural.24 If we can assume that all three epithets (‫אל דעות‬, ‫אלי דעת‬, ‫ )אלוהי דעת‬are indeed related, it appears that a double adaptation of the biblical expression took place in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. First, there has been a stylistic adaptation, morphologically marked by the transfer of the plural marker from the nomen rectum (ʾel deʿot) to the nomen regens (ʾelohê daʿat, ʾelê daʿat). Second, there has been a phraseological split, in which the originally divine epithet has been fitted to two complementary uses by using the otherwise closely related nouns ‫ אל‬and ‫אלוהים‬: the former referring to the angels, the latter to God. The resulting two phrases, ‫“ אלי דעת‬gods of knowledge” and ‫אלוהי‬ ‫“ דעת‬God of knowledge,” may appear to be well distinguished, but a more penetrating analysis suggests that they represent a secondary development and that they both go back to a single source. These examples of the terminological adaptation of an originally divine epithet and its transformation into an angelic one demonstrate that the phenomenon is hardly an incidental matter. If this is the case, it becomes an exegetical duty to at least consider the possibility that the terminological fluctuation encodes an essential aspect of the religious sensitivities embedded in the Songs. 4

Transference of Literary Descriptions

An additional impetus for such a reconsideration is to be found in the recognition that the aforementioned process of adaptation transcends the terminological realm and can be further traced in the systematic transference of whole literary descriptions from one theological realm to the other. An instructive example is offered by an oft-discussed passage from Song XII, which depicts God’s throne, the divine chariot, with particular attention to the cherubs and chariot wheels: | ‫הכרובים‬ ̇ ‫…תבנית כסא מרכבה מברכים ממעל לרקיע‬17 ‫{מ}מתחת מושב ̇כבודו‬ ̇ ‫[מבע]ד רקיע האור י̇ ̇רננו‬ ̇ 18 ‫ובלכת האופנים ישיֿ ̇בו מלאכי קודש‬ ‫כמראי אש‬ ̇ ‫[ג]לגלי כבודו‬ ̇ 19 | ‫יצא ומבין‬ 24  In addition to the examples from the Hodayot cited above, see 1QHa 20:13; 21:32. Cf. Mysteries (4Q299 35 1′; 73 3′), Instruction (4Q417 1 i 8 || 4Q418 43–45 i 6′; 4Q418 55 5′), and Words of the Luminaries (4Q504 4 [= V] 4′).

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

173

‫רוחות קודש קדשים ̇ס ֯ביב‬ ‫מראי שבולי אש בדמות חשמל‬ ̇ ‫ברוקמת‬ ̇ ‫ [נ]וגה‬20 | ‫ומעשי‬ ‫כבו̇ ד‬ ⟩‫צבעי פלא ממולח טוה⟨ר‬ ̇ ‫רוחות [א]לוהים חיים‬ ‫ [ה]פלא‬21 | ‫מתהלכים תמיד עם כבוד המרכבות‬ … ‫לכתם‬ ̇ ‫וקול דממת ברכ בהמון‬

The cherubs bless, from above the firmament, the structure of the chariot-throne, And they chant [throu]gh the luminous firmament, from beneath his glorious seat. And as the wheels move, the holy angels reply; They leave25 from between his glorious wheels, like the appearance of fire, Most holy spirits (or: the spirits of the holy of holies) are all around, The appearance of fiery streams in a bright figure; Shining workmanships in glorious decoration, Wondrous colors, pure polychromy;26 Spirits of living gods constantly accompanying the glory of [the] wondrous chariots, And the voice of silent blessing is by the sound of their movement. (4Q405 20 ii–22 8′–13′ [= J 17–21] || 11Q17 16–18 [= VII] 11–14) Newsom has astutely observed that the passage owes much to Ezekiel’s vision and may possibly represent a kind of exegetical reworking of that prophetic vision.27 This interpretive relation is particularly prominent with regard to the depiction that opens Ezekiel:

25  Even though both 4Q405 and 11Q17 witness to the reading ‫יצא ומבין‬, it is better to emend it to ‫יצאו מבין‬, as first suggested by J. Strugnell, “Angelic Liturgy,” 336 (transcription), 337 (translation), 340 §11 and §12 (comments). 26  For the rendition of ‫ ממולח‬as “polychromy,” cf. N. Mizrahi, “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Compared with Biblical Priestly Literature: Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects,” HTR 104/1 (2011): 33–57 (48–56). 27  C. A. Newsom, “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” JJS 38/1 (1987): 11–30, especially 20–27. Pertinent observations—albeit from substantially different exegetical assumptions—are to be found in C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Heavenly Ascent or Incarnational Presence? A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in SBL 1998 Seminar Papers, 2 vols., SBLSP 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 1:367–99 (384– 88) = idem, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 346–50.

174

Mizrahi

‫ן־ס ִ ּ֖פיר ְּד ֣מּות ִּכ ֵ ּ֑סא וְ ַעל֙ ְּד ֣מּות ַה ִּכ ֵּ֔סא‬ ַ ‫אׁשם ְּכ ַמ ְר ֵ ֥אה ֶ ֽא ֶב‬ ָ֔ ֹ ‫ׁשר ַעל־ר‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ּומ ַּ֗מ ַעל ָ ֽל ָר ִ֨ק ַ ֙יע ֲא‬ ִ 26 ‫ית־ל ּ֙ה ָס ִ֔ביב‬ ָ ‫ה־אׁש ֵ ּֽב‬ ֤ ֵ ‫ וָ ֵ ֣א ֶרא ׀ ְּכ ֵע֣ין ַח ְׁש ַ̇מל ְּכ ַמ ְר ֵא‬27 ‫ְּד ֞מּות ְּכ ַמ ְר ֵ ֥אה ָא ָ ֛דם ָע ָל֖יו ִמ ְל ָ ֽמ ְע ָלה׃‬ ‫ה־אׁש וְ ֹ֥נ ַ ֽגּה ֖לֹו ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬ ֵ֔ ‫יתי ְּכ ַמ ְר ֵא‬ ֙ ִ ‫ּול ַ֔מ ָּטה ָר ִ֨א‬ ְ ‫ּומ ַּמ ְר ֵ ֤אה ָמ ְתנָ ֙יו‬ ִ ‫ּול ָ ֑מ ְע ָלה‬ ְ ‫ִמ ַּמ ְר ֵ ֥אה ָמ ְת ָנ֖יו‬ ‫ ְּכ ַמ ְר ֵ ֣אה ַה ֶ ּ֡ק ֶׁשת ֲא ֶׁשר֩ יִ ְֽה ֶ֨יה ֶ ֽב ָע ָ֜נן ְּבי֣ ֹום ַה ֗ ֶּג ֶׁשם ֵּכ֣ן ַמ ְר ֵ ֤אה ַה ּ֨נ ֹגַ ּ֙ה ָס ִ֔ביב ֕הּוא ַמ ְר ֵ ֖אה ְּד ֣מּות‬28 ‫ל־ּפ ַ֔ני ָ ֽו ֶא ְׁש ַ ֖מע ֥קֹול ְמ ַד ֵ ּֽבר׃‬ ָ ‫הו֑ה ָ ֽו ֶא ְר ֶא ֙ה ָ ֽו ֶא ֣ ֹּפל ַע‬ ָ ְ‫ְּכבֹוד־י‬

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form. Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of someone speaking. (Ezek 1:26–28) The crucial point for the present analysis is the observation that properties which in the prophetic intertext are uniquely attributed to God, are consistently assigned in the Songs to the cherubs and the wheels. This feature was underscored by Peter Schäfer:28 This whole passage reads like an interpretation of Ezekiel, taking up many of his key terms…. What is most striking, however, and quite unlike Ezekiel’s vision: these angelic spirits are described in a way that in Ezek 1:27 is reserved for the human-like figure seated on the throne, that is, for God himself. Whereas Ezekiel sees the “appearance of a human being” (God), who from his loins upward, looks like hashmal surrounded with fire; and from his loins downward, looks like fire surrounded by radiance (nogah); the song assigns precisely these terms—the appearance of a fire like hashmal and a radiant substance (maʿaseh nogah)—to the angelic spirits. It is now the angels who appear as a miraculous fiery substance—… no longer God. In other words, what Ezekiel encounters as a vision of God has been transferred to the angels in Song XII.

28  P. Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 130–46, quotation on 137–38. Cf. Newsom, “Merkabah Exegesis,” 27: “Thus, the angelic spirits who accompany the movement of the ophannim have an appearance that is like that of the Glory itself.”

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

175

While one cannot but fully subscribe to this analysis, a more nuanced approach may be called for in evaluating the conclusion drawn by Schäfer from this state of affairs: The angels move to the center-stage; God’s physical appearance recedes into the background and is hardly mentioned at all. That which remains important is only his praise, not the vision of his shape. Admittedly, this is a perfectly legitimate understanding of the passage, when read on its own. Nevertheless, if we take into account the observations made earlier concerning the fuzziness of some of the epithets scattered throughout the Songs, it becomes equally possible—if not preferable—to propose an almost diametrically opposite reading: God does not vanish at all from the world portrayed in the Songs; the godhead rather expands to an unprecedented extent and now embraces the divine chariot, as well as the entire heavenly sanctuary.29 God’s throne, the emblematic representation of divine kingship, is no longer conceived of as an object differentiated from its owner. It is rather deified and absorbed into the divinity. The still vehicle thus becomes animated, not simply because the cherubs and the wheels are angelic beings, but because they are imbued with the spirit of divinity, ‫רוחות אלוהים חיים‬. 5

Subverting Scriptural Terminology

This last turn of phrase brings us to the core of what is perhaps the most striking expression of the novel conceptualization of the relationship between God and the angelic sphere, namely, the innovative use of the phrase ‫אלוהים חיים‬. To be sure, the locution itself is biblical; but in the Hebrew Bible, this expression is used exclusively as an epithet for the God of Israel, and it is usually evoked over against the false gods of other peoples.30 29  For the “angelification” of the heavenly temple and its architectural elements, see R. S. Boustan, “Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 195–212. See further the discussion below. 30  Anyone who consults critical commentaries with respect to the biblical passages quoted below will immediately notice that they raise text-critical or other issues, a fact which suggests that the phrase ‫ אלוהים חיים‬may have been secondarily introduced into each of its attested contexts—together with other elements—at relatively late stages of their growth: (a) 1 Sam 17:26, 36 are witnessed by MT but not by the OG; (b) Jer 10:10 is also missing from the LXX, together with many other verses in this oracle; (c) Deuteronomy

176

Mizrahi

(a) Note, for instance, the famous characterization of Goliath in the words of David: “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?!” (1 Sam 17:26, 36)—words that hint that Goliath’s own gods, by contrast, are nothing but nonliving idols. (b) Another telling passage for our concern is Jer 10:10, which is embedded in a longer prophetic complex. The oracle mocks idolatry in a style that closely resembles the satirical polemics of Deutero-Isaiah, and it culminates in a hymn-like confirmation of God’s sovereignty over the entire universe: unlike the lifeless idols worshiped by the foreign nations, ‫עֹול֑ם‬ ָ ‫ּומ ֶלְך‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ֹלהים ַח ִּי֖ים‬ ֥ ִ ‫ּוא־א‬ ֱ ‫ ֽה‬/ ‫ֹלה ֙ים ֱא ֶ֔מת‬ ִ ‫יהו֤ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ַ ֽו‬ ‫ וְ ֽל ֹא־יָ ִ ֥כלּו גֹויִ ֖ם זַ ְע ֽמֹו׃‬/ ‫ּפֹו ִּת ְר ַ ֣עׁש ָה ָ֔א ֶרץ‬ ֙ ‫ִמ ִּק ְצ‬

The Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. (c) The theological weight of the polemical insistence that only the God of Israel is a “living God” receives a special emphasis in the admonitory orations that frame the book of Deuteronomy, referring to the revelation at Horeb. In chapter 5, Moses poses a rhetorical question: ‫מנּו וַ ֶּי ִֽחי‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ּתֹוְך־ה ֵ ֛אׁש ָּכ‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ַח ִּ֜יים ְמ ַד ֵ ּ֧בר ִמ‬ ִ֨ ‫ׁשר ָׁש ַ ֣מע קֹו ֩ל ֱא‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ל־ּב ָׂ֡שר ֲא‬ ָ ‫ִ ּ֣כי ִ ֣מי ָכ‬

For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and remained alive? (Deut 5:26)

5 presents a whole range of literary and compositional complexities. Similarly, a few related occurrences in Daniel exhibit their own complications; see most recently D. Amara, “Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship Between Theodotion and the Old Greek,” in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. C. Werman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 125–47, especially 137–46. Nevertheless, the point that concerns us here is not the compositional history of these passages but rather the theological signification of this particular collocation within its present contexts. For this reason, I refrain from undertaking a detailed historical-literary analysis of these passages, each of which deserves a special treatment. For a detailed discussion of the phrase ‫ אלוהים חיים‬see S. Kreuzer, Der lebendige Gott: Bedeutung, Herkunft und Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1983).

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

177

In its present configuration, this passage alludes to the more detailed account of chapter 4, which underscores time and again the representation of God as a speaking voice without form: ‫ּול ִ ֥תי‬ ָ ֽ‫מּונ֛ה ֵ ֽאינְ ֶ ֥כם ר ִ ֹ֖אים ז‬ ָ ‫ּות‬ ְ ‫הו֛ה ֲא ֵל ֶיכ֖ם ִמ ּ֣תֹוְך ָה ֵ ֑אׁש ֤קֹול ְּד ָב ִר ֙ים ַא ֶ ּ֣תם ֽׁש ֹ ְמ ֔ ִעים‬ ָ ְ‫ וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּ֧בר י‬12 ‫הו֧ה ֲא ֵל ֶיכ֛ם‬ ָ ְ‫מּונה ְּבי֗ ֹום ִּד ֶּ֨בר י‬ ָ֔ ‫ל־ּת‬ ְ ‫ית ֙ם ָּכ‬ ֶ ‫אד ְלנַ ְפ ֽׁש ֹ ֵת ֶיכ֑ם ִ ּ֣כי ֤ל ֹא ְר ִא‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ וְ נִ ְׁש ַמ ְר ֶ ּ֥תם ְמ‬15 …‫ֽקֹול׃‬ ‫ל־ס ֶמל ַּת ְב ִנ֥ית זָ ָ ֖כר ֥אֹו‬ ֑ ָ ‫מּונ֣ת ָּכ‬ ַ ‫יתם ָל ֶכ֛ם ֶ ּ֖פ ֶסל ְּת‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ן־ּת ְׁש ִח ֔תּון ַ ֽו ֲע ִׂש‬ ַ ‫ ֨ ֶּפ‬16 ‫ְּבח ֵ ֹ֖רב ִמ ּ֥תֹוְך ָה ֵ ֽאׁש׃‬ ִ֜ ‫ ֲה ָ ׁ֣ש ַ ֽמע ָע ֩ם ֨קֹול ֱא‬33 …‫נְ ֵק ָ ֽבה׃‬ ‫ר־ׁש ַ ֥מ ְע ָּת‬ ָ ‫ּתֹוְך־ה ֵ ֛אׁש ַ ּֽכ ֲא ֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ ] ְמ ַד ֵ ּ֧בר ִמ‬lxx ‫ חיים‬+[ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ַא ָ ּ֖תה וַ ֶּי ִֽחי׃‬

Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice…. Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female…. Has any people ever heard the voice of [LXX: the living] God speaking out of a fire, as you have heard, and lived? (Deut 4:12, 15–16, 33) All these passages are permeated with the notion that the expression ‫אלוהים‬ ‫ חיים‬represents the very essence of God, emphatically contrasting his invisible yet vital presence with the visual notions of “form,” “image,” “figure,” and “idol.” It is only against this background that one can fully appreciate the radical boldness inherent in the use of the phrase ‫ אלוהים חיים‬as employed in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, in which this phrase modifies time and again the terms that it is supposed to negate: (a) Song VII describes the nature of “the most holy spirits” that comprise the very structure of the heavenly temple: ‫כול ֯ק[ורותו] וקירותו‬ ‫תבנ֯ [יתו‬ ̇ ‫[ו]ל | [מבנ]יתו מעשי‬ ֯ ‫֯כ‬ ‫רו]ח֯ י ק֯ ו֯ד֯ [ש] קודשים אלוהים חיים‬ ]‫[מ]כו֯ ל ̇ק ̇דו[שים‬ ֯ | ‫]חי קוד֯ [ש עו]ל֯ מים ממעל‬ ̇ ‫[רו‬

All [its] b[eams] and its walls, A[l]l its [struc]ture, the workmanship of [its con]struction— Most hol[y] spirits (or: spirits of the holy of holies), living gods, Eternally holy spirits above all the hol[y ones]. (4Q403 1 i 44 || 4Q405 6 5′ [= C 18])

178

Mizrahi

(b) Song IX depicts something (plausibly restored as ‫[דמו]ת‬, “image”),31 which is carved on the walls of the vestibule. This term in turn is attached to the term ‫בדן‬, another word that denotes “form” or “figure” and is a cognate of Arabic badan “body”:32 ‫[ודמו]ת אלוהים חיים מפותח באלמי מבואי מלך‬ ̇ ‫֯בדני רוח אורים[בת]ו֯ ך בדני ֯א[ור] כבוד‬ ‫ב]תוך רוחי הדר‬ ֯ …[ | ‫רוחי‬ ‫מעשי רוקמות ֯פלא בדני אלוהים חיים‬

[And the figur]e of living gods is carved on the vestibules of the king’s entrance, Luminous spiritual forms [with]in forms of glorious l[ight], […] spirits [wi]thin spirits of splendor The workmanships of wondrous decorations,33 forms of living gods (or: living divine forms (4Q405 14–15 i 5′–6′ [= G 20–21]) (c) This seemingly sacrilegious use is made even more explicit in Song XI, which utilizes construct phrases such as ‫ צורי רוחות מאירים‬,‫צורות אלוהים חיים‬, “shapes of living gods, shapes of luminous spirits” (or “living divine shapes, luminous spiritual shapes”), employing the word ‫“ צורה‬shape, form, figure,” and even goes as far as applying the term ‫ אלוהים חיים‬to the images portrayed on the shining bricks that comprise the heavenly temple: ‫בקודש[ ק]ו̇ דשים‬ ֯ ‫אמת[ו] ̇צדק‬ ̇ ‫[רו]חי דעת‬ ‫[צ]ורות אלוהים ̇חיים צורי̇ רוחות | מאירים ̇כ[ו] ̇ל[מע‬ …‫שי]הם‬ ֯ ̇ ‫[כ]בודם‬ ֯ ‫[ב]דני צורות אלוהים מחוקקי | סביב ללבני‬ ]‫צורות כבוד למעשי ̇ל[בנ]י הוד והד[ר‬ ‫אלוהים חיים כול מעשיהם‬ ‫וצורות בדניהם מל ֯אכי קודש‬

31  Qimron, Hebrew Writings, 2:373, prefers to restore ‫]ופתוח צור[ ̇ת‬, but this is perhaps less likely in consideration of the available space; see the discussions of the expected width of the column in Newsom, Songs, 279 ≈ DJD 11.331. 32  For the etymology and semantics of ‫ בדן‬see N. Mizrahi, “A Body Refigured: The History and Meaning of Hebrew BDN,” JAOS 130/4 (2011): 541–49. 33  For this sense of the lexeme ‫ רקמה‬see Mizrahi, “Lexicon and Phraseology of the Songs,” 165–79.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

179

[Sp]irits of knowledge, truth [and] justice are in the holy of [h]olies All their workmanships are living divine [sh]apes, shapes of luminous spirits … [F]orms and shapes of gods are engraved around their [gl]orious bricks, Glorious shapes of the workmanships of splendid and ador[ned] b[rick]s; Livings gods are all their workmanships And the shapes of their forms are holy angels (4Q405 19a–d 4′–6′ [= I 20–22] || 11Q17 12–15 [= VI] 5–7) Note, in passing, that this passage is instructive for the adaptation of literary descriptions discussed above (Section 3). Mark Smith noted that the biblical antecedent to this description is Exod 24:10, which describes God’s appearance under whose feet there was “a brickwork of lapis lazuli” (‫)כמעשה לבנת הספיר‬.34 Smith observed the conspicuous discrepancy between the seemingly single brick mentioned in Exodus and the numerous animated bricks of the Songs; he adduced a Ugaritic parallel which suggests that, according to the underlying architectural plan of the divine abode, not only its pavement but also its walls are constructed of bricks. Notwithstanding this explanation, it is noteworthy that even this technical, architectural detail again reflects the process of multiplying divine qualities and transferring them to the angelic realm. (d) Finally, in Song XII, the phrase ‫ אלוהים חיים‬refers to the fiery beings that surround the chariot; a comparison to Ezekiel’s vision suggests that these have the form of cherubs: ‫רוחות קודש קדשים ̇ס ֯ביב‬ ‫מראי שבולי אש בדמות חשמל‬ ֗ ‫מעשי | [נ]וגה‬ ‫ברוקמת כב֗ ו̇ ד‬ ⟩‫צבעי פלא ממולח טוה⟨ר‬ ‫מתהלכים תמיד עם כבוד מרכבות | [ה]פלא‬ ̇ ‫רוחות [א]לוהים חיים‬

Most holy spirits (or: the spirits of the holy of holies) are all around, The appearance of fiery streams in a bright figure; Shining workmanships in glorious decoration, Wondrous colors, pure polychromy; 34  M. S. Smith, “Biblical and Canaanite Notes to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran,” RevQ 12/4 (1987): 585–88 (587–88). My idiomatic translation of Exod 24:10 follows the analysis of J. N. Ford, “The Ugaritic Letter RS 18.038 (KTU2 2.39) and the Meaning of the Term spr ‘lapis lazuli’ (= BH ‫‘ ַס ִפיר‬lapis lazuli’),” UF 40 (2008): 277–338, esp. 302–10. As Ford persuasively shows, Exod 24:10 actually refers to blue-glazed brickwork.

180

Mizrahi

Spirits of living gods constantly accompanying the glory of [the] wondrous chariots (4Q405 20 ii–22 10′–12′ [= J 20–22] || 11Q17 16–18 [= VII] 12–13) For any reader who is versed in scriptures—and all Second Temple literature operates on the assumption that the potential readership of the period was well informed in this respect—such formulations cannot but appear as internally contradictory. Whatever entity is denoted by terms such as ‫ בדן‬and ‫צורה‬, one does not expect it to be described as ‫אלוהים חיים‬. At the same time, the number and scope of the passages that exhibit this phenomenon accumulate to a critical mass that cannot be explained away by assuming that these expressions represent a mere fanciful or promiscuous use of biblical phraseology, as they go in their theological daring far beyond anything else that we know in Second Temple literature. This accumulation of passages cannot be accounted for, to my mind, by the common assumption that the Songs conceive of the various entities in the celestial temple merely as “angels.” What the text itself seems to be asserting is that the heavenly shrine is not just a creation of God that is totally separate from him; it rather partakes in the divine essence itself. 6 Precedents A similar interpretation of the Songs had already been proposed by Gary Anderson, on other grounds and from a different direction, and it merits close attention.35 His thesis focuses on biblical literature, particularly the priestly source of the Pentateuch (P), arguing that it reflects a deeply held view in ancient Israel that God really dwelt in the Tabernacle and that all the pieces of the structure shared in some fashion his tangible and visible presence. To use a modern metaphor, one might imagine the Temple as a giant electrical generating plant that powered the land 35  G. A. Anderson, “To See Where God Dwells: The Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition,” Letter and Spirit 4 (2008): 15–47; idem, “Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004, ed. R. A. Clements and D. R. Schwartz, STDJ 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 161–94.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

181

of Israel. In its core was a nuclear reactor in which the radioactive rods emitted divine energy that was absorbed by the entire infrastructure of the building.36 P’s detailed interest in every piece of furniture and in all the appurtenances of the Tabernacle (as demonstrated most forcefully in Exod 25–40) is therefore taken to witness to a conception that elevates such objects—as well as the structure as a whole—to the divine realm. Within this conceptual matrix, viewing the furniture is, in fact, akin to seeing God. This aspect of priestly theology continues, in Anderson’s view, well into Second Temple literature, although in some late works it took shape in innovative ways that actually have little to do with its original function within P. Anderson demonstrates that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice integrates into this line of tradition:37 By having the building break into song in this fashion, the difference between the angelic host and the building in which they serve has been dramatically eclipsed. But even more striking is the vacillation the text demonstrates concerning precisely what is the object of praise. Whereas with the angels one is never in doubt that they are the ones who must offer praise, it is occasionally the case that the divinized Temple not only offers praise, but becomes itself the object of praise…. Either the Temple is such an overpoweringly holy structure that angelic spirits literally ooze from its various surfaces, or those surfaces themselves slip into the realm of divine being. Hebrew constructions such as elohim ḥayyim (“the living God”), which one would normally construe as divine titles, now become attributes of the supernal Temple (“a living pulsating godlike [building]”). The evidence adduced above supplements Anderson’s arguments and amplifies his reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. At the same time, and notwithstanding the essential similarity between our positions, my own account of the situation in the Songs differs from Anderson’s in two respects.38

36  Anderson, “Towards a Theology,” 167. 37  Anderson, “Towards a Theology,” 168–71 (170). 38  The argument that the Songs reflects a continuation of an older priestly tradition is a diachronic issue that exceeds the confines of the present, phenomenological study, and it cannot be addressed here.

182

Mizrahi

First, in terms of the textual and linguistic evidence, it is not only the ambiguous use of ‫אלוהים‬, or even the surprisingly inclusive employment of ‫אלוהים‬ ‫חיים‬, that reflect the conception that the divinity is a “radioactive” quality that infuses the entire heavenly sanctuary, including its angelic residents. As I have argued, this theologoumenon also left its impression on the angelological terminology used throughout the Songs, and it manifests itself in a whole range of divine/angelic epithets. Second, my understanding of the theological thinking implied by such ambiguous epithets is not identical to that of Anderson. The divinity conceptualized in this work needs to be seen, not as a singular entity, but rather as a complex of powers that is characterized by an internal plurality of constituents. This conception also necessarily entails a hierarchical correlation between the various elements of this complex and implies an internally dynamic relationship between them. If so, the religious worldview of the Songs is not founded on the notion of a monistic deity, but prefers in its stead a bewildering configuration of ‫רוחות קודש קודשים אלוהים חיים‬, that is, a vast complex of divine powers that together form a whole construction.39 This structure, epitomized in the powerful symbol of the heavenly temple, is not simply God’s abode; it is better described as an extension of the divinity. An additional noteworthy aspect of Anderson’s insightful analysis is his demonstration that the (near-)divinization of the Temple is not an innovation of Israelite culture but rather a well-rooted feature of ancient Near Eastern cultic literature. Integral into his discussion of the divine qualities ascribed to the Temple and its furniture in biblical and postbiblical literature is the analogy to a practice of Mesopotamian scribes to mark such objects with the dingir sign, which functions as a determinative for divinities.40 One may add to this illuminating analogy an observation made by Thorkild Jacobsen in an analysis of the cultic names of Mesopotamian temples, which are appellations that sometimes take the form of elaborate declarations:41

39  A phenomenologically comparable—albeit not identical—concept may be found in Hekhalot literature, if one adopts the analysis of several key passages in this corpus (especially 3 Enoch 17–30) as reflecting a Gnostic-like notion of pleroma; so suggested by J. Dan, “The Concept of the Pleroma in Hekhalot Mystical Literature,” in Rivkah ShatzUffenheimer Memorial Volume, ed. R. Elior and J. Dan, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12–13 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1996), 1:61–140 (in Hebrew). 40  Anderson, “Towards a Theology,” 162, 167–68, and the literature adduced there. 41  T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 16–17.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

183

The Sumerian and Akkadian words for temple … imply between the divine owner and his house not only all the emotional closeness of a human owner and his home, but beyond that a closeness of essence, of being, amounting more nearly to embodiment than to habitation. In some sense the temple, no less than the ritual drama and the cult image, was a representation of the form of the power that was meant to fill it. For our investigation it should be noted that, although the Songs is most probably a product of the Hellenistic age, and as such remote by a good number of centuries from the heyday of Mesopotamian cult and religion, the aforementioned Mesopotamian phenomena at least suggest that the theological thinking expressed in the Songs is not alien to the cultural heritage of Israelite and ancient Near Eastern conceptualizations of the deity. 7

Methodological Restrictions

Two cautionary comments should be made at this point. First, the foregoing analysis raises the issue of the appropriate nomenclature for describing a theological construct such as the one I ascribe to the Songs. It is tempting to regard the existence of several divine powers as challenging or even breaching the notion of monotheism.42 One should bear in mind, though, that the question of whether or not the religious worldview of the Songs is to be considered monotheistic reflects, at least to some extent, a conceptual problem characteristic of modern scholars, who work with analytical distinctions that are somewhat alien to the ancient sources themselves. The heavenly beings depicted in the Songs do not compete with one another, but rather appear to function in harmony, as elements of a comprehensive divine system. Indeed, for the original readership of the Songs, the multiplicity of divine powers and the unity of God were not necessarily mutually exclusive notions; more probably, they were perceived as two sides of the same coin. After all, the idea of plurality within the divinity is

42  Cf. Collins, “Powers in Heaven,” 27: “monotheism hardly seems the right word to describe the religion of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” A similar conclusion that specifically concerns the Songs has been reached by Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries,” 197 n. 75: “The reference to the angels collectively as ʾelohim underscores the lack of clear demarcation between angelic and divine to the point that monotheism, strictly speaking, cannot be applied to these texts unless one understands that term to mean that in the host of divine beings there is one who stands out from the rest and is considered the supreme deity.”

184

Mizrahi

already inherent in the grammatical form of the Hebrew word for God, namely, ‫אלוהים‬.43 A second restriction is imposed by the inherent ambiguity of the literary evidence. As a poetic work, the Songs reveals the full complexity of its religious worldview, not through explicit statements but more often by way of scattered hints, which must be carefully collected and decoded—a task hampered by the poor preservation of all the copies of the work and our insufficient understanding of its language. These complications preclude any easy attempt to capture the intricate religious worldview of the work. It must be conceded that the proposed reading of the Songs cannot exhaust the potential range of meanings for the notion of the heavenly shrine. As a poetic symbol, the “temple” here evidently encodes more than one sense, both from the point of view of its implied author and for its intended audience.44 Of particular importance is the emblematic relation between the living spiritual temple depicted in the Songs and the self-image of the covenantal community as a human temple.45 In my view, this signification is momentous, regardless of the question of whether or not sectarian community members were the original audience of the Songs.46 These considerations impose methodological limitations on the scope of the above analysis. Nonetheless, the proposed reading of the Songs offers an explanation for a perplexing range of terminological phenomena. The use of divine epithets to refer to the highest-ranking angels is now seen to be a purposeful 43  It may also be relevant to note, in this context, that explicitly monotheistic conceptions were often formulated in response to well-defined alternatives, that is, within polemical contexts; see M. Mach, “Concepts of Jewish Monotheism during the Hellenistic Period,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 21–42. Since such a polemical context is not evident in the case of the Songs, the work was apparently not motivated to formulate its construal of divinity as either explicitly monotheistic or the opposite. 44  It has been suggested, for instance, that one should consider the cosmological implications of the heavenly temple; see C. R. A. Morray-Jones, “The Temple Within: The Embodied Divine Image and its Worship in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish and Christian Sources,” in SBL 1998 Seminar Papers, 1:399–431. For a more general perspective, see G. J. Brooke, “The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day, LHB/OTS 422 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 417–34; J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), especially 12–24. 45  See D. Dimant, “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. Berlin (Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1996), 93–103. 46  Cf. above, n. 2.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

185

marking of their essential identification with God. The internal dynamic that pervades the heavenly temple, so forcefully depicted in the Songs—that is, the unceasing liturgical call that summons all of its constituents, components, and residents—is thus directed inwards, into this divine complex itself. In this case, it is somewhat inaccurate to refer to these entities as “angels,” a term better reserved for other types of superhuman beings that fulfill specific tasks directed toward the earthly realm.47 According to my reading of the Songs, then, the referential ambiguity of the various epithets employed in the work is not an unsolvable exegetical problem but rather an inherent expression of the theology encoded in the language of the work. God’s numinous presence is not at all pushed to the background. On the contrary, it emanates from every detail of the heavenly shrine that the reader or performer of the Songs is touring by reading and chanting it. 8

The Anonymity of Heavenly Powers

In light of the analysis up to this point, I would further suggest that it is no coincidence that, while Second Temple literature knows several eminent angels by their proper names, the entities described in the Songs are all anonymous. This fact suggests that while the former are indeed “angels,” in charge of natural and cosmological phenomena, the latter are better viewed as extensions of the divinity itself.48 They have no names of their own just as they have no independent essence; they are indeed ‫אלוהים‬, strictly speaking.49 47  Note that I refer here to “angels” as a theological concept (denoting nonhuman beings that serve God but are nevertheless distinguished from him), not to any specific term in the original text. To be sure, the Hebrew term ‫ מלאכים‬is well attested in the Songs. Interestingly, though, this term is usually modified in the Songs by qualities that are normally characteristic of God. Consider, for instance, the phrases ‫( מלאכי קודש‬Song XI: 4Q405 19a–d 7′ [= I 23] || 11Q17 12–15 [= VI] 7; Song XII: 4Q405 20 ii–22 9′ [= J 19]; 4Q405 23 i 8′ [= K 19]), ‫מלאכי תפארת‬ … ‫( מלאכי כבוד‬Song X: 4Q405 17 4′–5′ [= H 12–13]), and ‫מלאכי‬ ‫( הדעת‬Song XIII: 11Q17 24 [= X] 6). Such construct phrases suggest that the original sense of ‫ מלאכים‬as “messengers” (including human messengers) was rendered obsolete, and the term shifted to denote only superhuman (and potentially divine) beings. 48  The special status of the chief and deputy princes may also be reflected in the fact that some passages treat these figures not only as performers of angelic praise but also as objects of this very praise. See L. T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 45–70, esp. 60–62. 49  A possible parallel for this feature is supplied by the vision of 1 En. 14:8–25 (as noted to me by Prof. Devorah Dimant). Enoch enters the heavenly temple and gets into the

186

Mizrahi

I am therefore reluctant to accept the restoration of the name of Melchizedek in three broken contexts of the Songs.50 These restorations, which have significant ramifications for understanding the figure of Melchizedek, have been embraced by some scholars. They have even been integrated into some general appreciations of the angelology and theology of the work.51 The text, however, is too fragmentary to warrant a restoration of such far-reaching consequences; even more important, this reconstruction should be weighed against the theoretical possibility that the anonymity of the powers described in the Songs may well be a fundamental aspect of their being, as I propose. From a methodological point of view, then, it is better to avoid restoring of the name of Melchizedek anywhere in the Songs.52

second, innermost house, where he encounters angelic figures that accompany the divine glory seated on its throne. Unlike similar figures described in the previous and following chapters, these highest-ranking angels remain anonymous; they are not referred to by any proper name, only by a descriptive epithet, found in 1 En. 14:23. Unfortunately, the wording of the epithet employed at this point is text-critically opaque. According to some of the Ethiopian manuscripts, it is “the holiest among the holy ones,” which is evidently comparable to the expression ‫( קדושי קדושים‬discussed above, §1). The wording varies between the textual witnesses, however, and the Greek text reads “the holiest of the angels” (οἱ ἅγιοι τῶν ἀγγέλων). For details and discussion see R. H. Charles, ed., The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906), 40–41; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, 2 vols. Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 2011), 1:258–59. 50  4Q401 11 3′ and 22 3′ (Newsom, Songs, 133–34, 143–44 = DJD 11.205, 213); 11Q17 3 [= II] 7 (van der Woude, García Martínez, and Tigchelaar, DJD 23.269–70). 51  See, e.g., J. R. Davila, “Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven,” in SBL 1996 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 259–72, especially 262–64; J. C. Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly Context, WUNT 2/349 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), especially 152–53. Cf. U. Dahmen and H.-J. Fabry, “Melchizedek in Bibel und Qumran,” in “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift für Walter Groß zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Gaß und H.-J. Stipp, HBS 62 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011), 377–98, especially 386–87. A more cautious approach is taken by P. Alexander, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts, LSTS 61 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 22, 70. 52  Cf. R. M. M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy: A Study in Their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian, STAC 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 125–26, 132, who similarly rejects the restoration of Melchizedek’s name, although on grounds different from those presented here.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

187

9 Conclusions The foregoing discussion offered an analysis of a number of phenomena, arguing that they are all interrelated. Previous scholarship had already noted that specific passages that describe the angels are actually modeled after scriptural descriptions of God (e.g., Song XII, which utilizes the language of Ezekiel 1), and had similarly noticed the ambiguity of the Songs’ use of the term ‫אלוהים‬ to denote both God and the angels. As my analysis has shown, a related and pervasive feature can be traced throughout the angelological terminology employed in the work, which very often applies originally divine appellations to the angelic sphere, as well as to the architectural elements of the heavenly temple. When taken together, all these phenomena suggest that the Songs gives expression to a theological conception that takes the senior-most angels, together with God’s celestial abode, to be extensions of the deity that partake in its divinity. In its insistence that the heavenly temple, each of its architectural elements, and especially the chariot throne, are all ‫אלוהים חיים‬, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice exceeds the highly developed angelologies that are embedded in other works of the Second Temple period. At the same time, one must bear in mind that the Songs is not a self-reflective theological work; unlike the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS 3–4), it does not systematically marshal its set of beliefs, nor does it aim to convince the reader of a particular doctrine. Rather, it is a poetic work; like all poetic symbols, the heavenly temple portrayed in the Songs does not serve a single function but simultaneously operates on multiple levels; it thus encodes not only a peculiar theological concept but also a specific self-image of communal identity. Despite all these difficulties, through a glimpse into this aspect of the multifaceted spiritual universe of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, one may realize how this composition, which is at times radically innovative in its literary forms and poetic modes, is also breathtaking in its theological thinking. At the same time, one must bear in mind that this really is only a glimpse, not the full picture. As mentioned at the beginning of this study, the theological trajectory traced in the present discussion is by no means the only theological worldview reflected in the Songs. However, as argued above, it is only after establishing and elucidating this multiplicity of viewpoints (at least to a certain degree), that one is able to pose such intriguing questions as: What is the relationship between the different lines of thinking reflected within the Songs? How do they interact with other traditions of the Second Temple period? Which other

188

Mizrahi

factors do they motivate or are they being motivated by? Do these trajectories integrate into a broader, dynamic matrix that can be traced in other, comparable works? The significance of the findings presented in this study cannot be fully appreciated without addressing such questions, but exploring them remains the task of future research.

Author’s Note

I am grateful to the participants in the Orion Symposium for their helpful comments on the oral presentation from which this paper stems. I have also benefitted from valuable remarks, made on various versions of the text, by Professors Gary Anderson, Michael Mach, and particularly Menahem Kister, to all of whom I extend my sincere thanks. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any fault that remains in it and for the opinions expressed herewith. Last but not least, I gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Israel Science Foundation, grant no. 723/13: “Hearing the Angels Sing: A New Commentary on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Bibliography Alexander, P. S. The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts. LSTS 61. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Alexander, P. S. “Qumran and the Genealogy of Western Mysticism.” Pages 215–35 in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005. Edited by E. G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, and R. A. Clements. STDJ 88. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Amara, D. “Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship Between Theodotion and the Old Greek.” Pages 125–47 in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by C. Werman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Anderson, G. A. “To See Where God Dwells: The Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition.” Letter and Spirit 4 (2008): 15–47. Anderson, G. A. “Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture.” Pages 161–94 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

189

for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by R. A. Clements and D. R. Schwartz. STDJ 84. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ariel, C. “The Influence of Aramaic on the Non-Biblical Qumran Scrolls.” MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013 (in Hebrew). Boustan, R. S. “Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 195–212 in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions. Edited by R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Brooke, G. J. “The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 417–34 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by J. Day. LHB/OTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Calaway, J. C. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly Context. WUNT 2/349. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Charles, R. H., ed. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Collins, J. J. Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998. Collins, J. J. “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 9–28 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dahmen, U. and H.-J. Fabry. “Melchizedek in Bibel und Qumran.” Pages 377–98 in “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!” Ri 2,1: Festschrift für Walter Groß zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Gaß and H.-J. Stipp. HBS 62. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011. Dan, J. “The Concept of the Pleroma in Hekhalot Mystical Literature.” Pages 61–140 in vol. 1 of Rivkah Shatz-Uffenheimer Memorial Volume. Edited by R. Elior and J. Dan. 2 vols. Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12–13. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1996 (in Hebrew). Davidson, M. J. Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran. JSPSup 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Davila, J. R. “Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven.” Pages 259–72 in SBL 1996 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Dimant, D. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 93–103 in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by A. Berlin. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1996. Dimant, D. “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts.” Pages 347–95 in Qumran und die Archäologie. Edited by J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler. WUNT 278. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

190

Mizrahi

Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. “Heavenly Ascent or Incarnational Presence? A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 367–99 in vol. 1 of SBL 1998 Seminar Papers. 2 vols. SBLSP 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Ford, J. N. “The Ugaritic Letter RS 18.038 KTU2 2.39 and the Meaning of the Term spr ‘lapis lazuli’ = BH ‫‘ ַס ִפיר‬lapis lazuli.’” UF 40 (2008): 277–338. García Martínez F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude. “17. 11QShirot ʿOlat haShabbat.” Pages 259–304, pl. xxx–xxxiv, liii, in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Gzella, H. “Beobachtungen zur Angelologie der Sabbatopferlieder im Spiegel ihrer theologiegeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen.” ETL 78 (2002): 468–81. Jacobsen, T. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Kister, M. “Metatron, God, and the ‘Two Powers’: The Dynamics of Tradition, Exegesis, and Polemic.” Tarbiz 82/1 (2014): 43–88 (in Hebrew). Kreuzer, S. Der lebendige Gott: Bedeutung, Herkunft und Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1983. Ludlow, J. W. “What are the Qdôšê Qdôšîm in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice?” JAGNES 7 (1997): 42–51. Mach, M. “Concepts of Jewish Monotheism during the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 21–42 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Mach, M. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. TSAJ 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Mizrahi, N. “A Body Refigured: The History and Meaning of Hebrew BDN.” JAOS 130 (2011): 541–49. Mizrahi, N. “The Cycle of Summons: A Hymn from the Seventh Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice 4Q403 1 i 31–40.” DSD 22 (2015): 43–67. Mizrahi, N. “The Lexicon and Phraseology of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008 (in Hebrew). Mizrahi, N. “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Compared with Biblical Priestly Literature: Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects.” HTR 104 (2011): 33–57. Morray-Jones, C. R. A. “The Temple Within: The Embodied Divine Image and its Worship in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish and Christian Sources.” Pages 399–431 in vol. 1 of SBL 1998 Seminar Papers. 2 vols. SBLSP 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Newsom, C. “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot.” JJS 38 (1987): 11–30.

God, Gods, and Godhead in ShirShabb

191

Newsom, C. “ ‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by W. H. Propp, B. Halpern and D. N. Freedman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Newsom, C. “Shirot ʿOlat Hashabbat.” Pages 173–401, pl. xvi–xxxi, in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Edited by E. Eshel et al. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Newsom, C. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27 Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 2011. Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Qimron, E. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Rietz, H. W. M. “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a Test Case.” Pages 29–52 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by M. T. Davies and B. A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Rietz, H. W. M. and B. A. Strawn. “More Sectarian Terminology in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: The Case of ‫תמימי דרך‬.” Pages 53–64 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by M. T. Davies and B. A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Schäfer, P. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schuller, E. “381. Non-Canonical Psalms B.” Pages 87–172 in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Edited by E. Eshel et al. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Schuller, E. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. HSS 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Segal, M. “1 Samuel 2:3: Text, Exegesis, and Theology.” Shnaton 13 (2002): 83–95 (in Hebrew). Smith, M. S. “Biblical and Canaanite Notes to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran.” RevQ 12/4 (1987): 585–88. Strugnell, J. “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran: 4Q Serek Šîrôt ʿÔlat Haššabbāt.” Pages 318–45 in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism.” Page 45–70 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North. JSNTSup 263. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “Reconstructing 11Q17 Shirot ʿOlat Ha-Shabbat.” Pages 171–85 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

192

Mizrahi

Tuschling, R. M. M. Angels and Orthodoxy: A Study in Their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian. STAC 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wolfson, E. R. “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered.” Pages 177–213 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by H. Najman and J. H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Yadin, Y. and C. Newsom. “The Masada Fragment of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 120–32 in Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports, 6: Hebrew Fragments from Masada. Edited by S. Talmon et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Zanella, F. “‫ דעה‬deʿāh, ‫ דעת‬daʿat.” Pages 708–16 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by H-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen. 3 volumes. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011–2016.

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot Carol A. Newsom 1 Introduction For reasons that are not yet entirely clear, sharp disagreements about predeterminism and free will became a significant feature of Jewish theological stances in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Josephus provides the most explicit consideration of these issues in ancient Jewish sources, as he attempts to distinguish the positions of the three major Jewish sects with respect to the philosophical category of “fate” (εἱμαρμένη). Josephus identifies the position of the Essenes as believing strongly in fate, to the apparent exclusion of free will (Ant. 13.172). Similarly, modern scholarly treatments of the Qumran yaḥad have acknowledged the very strong predeterminist element in their thinking, attested in a variety of sectarian or closely related texts.1 At the same time, there has been a degree of perplexity as to what to do with the obviously voluntarist statements and assumptions that are present in these same documents. A variety of suggestions have been made, mostly to the effect that the sectarians were inconsistent or not fully systematic in their beliefs.2 This may indeed be the case, though Jonathan Klawans argues that, properly understood, all deterministic systems are consistent with voluntarism in a rather minimal

1  I take the Qumran yaḥad movement to be Essene, though I consider it possible that the term “Essene” may also have referred to groups not formally part of the yaḥad. For examinations of the phenomenon of predestination in Qumran sectarian literature and closely related texts, see J. Licht, “The Concept of Free Will in the Writings of the Sect of the Judean Desert,” in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Lectures Delivered at the Third Annual Conference (1957) in Memory of E. L. Sukenik, ed. J. Liver (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957), 77–84 (in Hebrew); E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns, STDJ 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1975); A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran, STDJ 18 (Leiden, Brill, 1995); J. Klawans, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. M. L. Grossman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 264–83. See also J. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90; and idem, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 2  So Merrill, Qumran and Predestination, 58; E. Schuller, “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 29–45 (45); A. Jassen, “Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Religion Compass 1 (2007): 1–25 (11).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_010

194

Newsom

way, in that they distinguish “between intended and unintended behavior.”3 Moreover, some systems of predeterminism are really more about divine foreknowledge of actions that are undertaken freely than about divine causation of actions.4 The form of predeterminism Klawans considers most similar to that found in Qumran literature, however, is one in which God predetermines the dispositions of persons, who then choose according to those dispositions.5 In my opinion, Klawans is correct in identifying the predetermining of dispositions as key to understanding Qumran predestinarian beliefs, at least as these are articulated in the Hodayot. Moreover, if this is the case, then examining how moral agency is constructed and represented in the Hodayot may provide a more detailed understanding of how predeterminism functioned to provide a distinctive sense of self for Qumran sectarians. One might object, of course, that the very term “moral agency” is a voluntarist category and so incompatible with a predeterminist system of belief. I do not think that is the case, though the agency constructed within predeterminism will have different characteristics than agency within a voluntarist system of thought, as I will attempt to demonstrate with respect to the Hodayot. Since the term moral agency could be subject to somewhat different definitions, it is important to clarify how I will use the term here. When I speak of a moral agent, I mean a self who has (1) personal awareness and knowledge, coupled with (2) emotional investment (desire/aversion), which can be directed toward (3) intentional, purposeful action. Agency is “moral” in that the person is held accountable for his or her understanding, affect, and action. Agency in general is a key component of what it means to be a self, and so at various points discussions about the nature of the self will be relevant to the issues at hand. The texts that are the focus of my study are the so-called Hymns of the Community in the Hodayot; that is, the compositions in cols. 1–9 and from col. 18 to the end of the scroll.6 These compositions are more explicitly concerned with issues of moral agency than are those often designated as the Hymns of the Teacher in cols. 10–17. In what follows, I will focus on three aspects of the problem of predeterminism and moral agency. The first aspect is the issue of apparently contradictory claims. What others have observed with respect to contradictory assertions about radical divine predeterminism and voluntary human action within Qumran thought 3  Klawans, “Compatibilism,” 63. 4  Klawans, “Compatibilism,” 63. 5  Klawans, “Compatibilism,” 64; citing Schuller, “Petitionary Prayer,” 40–41. 6  Column and line numbers are cited according to the edition of H. Stegemann and E. Schuller, translation by C. Newsom, Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f, DJD 40 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2009).

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

195

in general can also be found within individual compositions in the Hodayot. Thus, these texts provide good test cases for the various explanations of this phenomenon. Do these seeming contradictions merely indicate internal inconsistency? If so, what implications does such inconsistency have for the self who both denies and affirms possessing moral agency? Or do these contradictions represent a paradox that is resolved once one grasps the underlying assumptions about the origin and functioning of moral agency implicit in the Hodayot? This issue is similar in many respects to an important debate within anthropological theory about how contradictions in self-presentation are to be understood in relation to broader theories of the self, and I will attempt to situate the present inquiry in relation to that debate. Second, the representations of moral agency in the Hodayot (as in many other Second Temple texts) are keyed to—and probably derived from—interpretations of scriptural texts. Thus, assertions about moral agency in these texts are part of a larger cultural practice that derives critical knowledge about many subjects from the study of scripture. Identifying the constellation of texts involved in the Hodayot’s representation of the moral self is key to understanding both its model of agency and how predeterminist assumptions can be derived from earlier texts that clearly operate with a voluntarist framework. Third, I am interested in the relationship between texts and lived experience. Given that the Hodayot are clearly literary documents of considerable sophistication, can these texts tell us anything about what it “felt like” to be a Qumran sectarian—specifically, what it felt like to possess the type of agency constructed in the Hodayot? Or, is there such an abyss between text and lived experience that we are simply falling prey to romanticist illusions in thinking that we have access to experience through the Hodayot? In this part of the discussion, I will return briefly to the anthropological debate about exactly what one is studying when one studies self-representations. 2

Predeterminism and Moral Agency: Contradiction or Paradox?

One could illustrate the juxtaposition of voluntarist and predeterministic language from many texts in the Hodayot, but a particularly good example is to be found in 1QHa 7:23–27. The introduction to the hodayah is in lines 21–22, so this passage comes from the beginning of the composition. And I love you freely. With all (my) heart and with all (my) soul I have purified (myself) from iniquity. [And upon] my [li]fe [I] have sw[orn no]t to turn aside from all that you have commanded. I will stand firm

196

Newsom

against the many appointed for the [day of slaughter, no]t abandoning any of your statutes. vacat And as for me, I know, by the understanding that comes from you, that it is not through the power of flesh [that] an individual [may perfect] his way, nor is a person able to direct his steps. And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit [and all] its [activi]ty you determined before you created it.7 ‫ ) ואהבכה בנדבה ובכול לב ובכול נפשׁ בררתי מעוון [ ועל נפ]שׁי‬23( ‫) הקי[מותי לבלת]י סור מכול אשׁר צויתה ואחזיקה על רבים מועדים ל[יום‬24( ‫הרגה לבלת]י‬ ]‫) עזוב מכול חוקיך  ואני ידעתי בבינתך כיא לא ביד בשׂר [יוכל להתם‬25( ‫אדם‬ ‫) דרכו ולא יוכל אנושׁ להכין צעדו ואדעה כי בידך יצר כול רוח[ וכול פֺול]תו‬26( ‫) הכינותה בטרם בראתו‬27(

In the first part of the passage, the unselfconscious use of voluntarist language is evident in the adverbial phrase ‫“( בנדבה‬freely”), which claims agency with respect to the speaker’s emotional commitment to God.8 Such language is also present in the use of ‫ בכול לב‬and ‫בכול נפשׁ‬, the terms that identify the centers of will, intention, and desire, drawn from Deut 6:5 (cf. 10:12; 30:2). These efforts are directed toward the actions of moral purification and obedience. If the restoration is correct, there is also a reference to taking an oath, a strong assertion of moral agency. These self-assertions are similar to expressions that can be found elsewhere in the Hodayot (e.g., 1QHa 6:28–29, 37) and in the Serekh haYaḥad (e.g., 1QS 1:1–18; 5:7–11). Following the vacat, however, the depiction of the locus of moral agency is drastically different. The parallelism of the passage is the key to the author’s thought. Although line 25 is broken and requires some restoration,9 the basic structure of the thought of the beginning of this section is established by the repeated negative particle, verb, and infinitive that describes the activity, plus the 7  Text and translation follow DJD 40 with minor adjustments in the translation: Stegemann, Schuller, and Newsom, DJD 40.106. 8  This is the way the noun ‫ נדבה‬is normally understood (HALOT 2:672, “free motivation”; TDOT 9:226, “free decision,” “free motivation”). Recently, Menachem Kister has argued that the nuance of ‫ נדבה‬is more properly “zealousness.” See “The Root NDB in the Scrolls and the Growth of Qumran Texts: Lexicography and Theology,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12, ed. J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015), 111–30 (in Hebrew). However one resolves the semantics of that noun, the context of lines 23–25 is clearly voluntarist. 9  See Stegemann and Schuller, DJD 40.103, for discussion of the basis for the restoration. Qimron’s restoration differs (‫)כיא לא ביד בשׂר [רוחו ולא ל]אדם דרכו‬, but it expresses a

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

197

object of that activity and a term for the human subject. Thus, human moral agency appears to be denied, at least to a significant extent. This claim is introduced with the phrase “in the power of flesh.” Here “flesh” appears in its relatively neutral sense as a synonym for ‫ אדם‬and ‫אנושׁ‬. The speaker appears to say that humans qua humans do not have moral agency. The next line establishes a new contrast parallel between ‫ כיא לא ביד בשר‬and ‫כי בידך‬. Here “flesh” and its incapacity is contrasted with God and God’s capacity. The agency that does not belong to humans belongs to God (reinforced at the end of the statement with the repetition of the key verbal root ‫)כון‬. The following phrase, ‫כי בידך יצר כול‬ ‫ רוח‬refers to a person’s moral agency, which is determined by God. The assertion is completed with a temporal reference that all of this was established “before you created it.” Thus, the conceptual context is strongly predeterministic. On the face of it there appears to be a strong contradiction between the lines before the vacat and those following, concerning the locus and nature of moral agency. How should one make sense of the contradiction? Here it is useful to look at the discussion anthropologists have conducted in recent decades regarding incompatible and contradictory assertions about the self. Katherine Ewing’s 1990 article, “The Illusion of Wholeness: Culture, Self, and the Experience of Inconsistency,”10 presents what has come to be the dominant theory in anthropology for this phenomenon:11 I argue that in all cultures people can be observed to project multiple, inconsistent self-representations that are context-dependent and may shift rapidly. At any particular moment, a person usually experiences his or her articulated self as a symbolic, timeless whole, but this self may quickly be displaced by another, quite different “self,” which is based on a different definition of the situation. The person will often be unaware of these shifts and inconsistencies and may experience wholeness and continuity despite their presence.12 These inconsistencies are often not simply within persons but within cultural systems themselves.13 Her example from her fieldwork is of a young Pakistani woman who switches between several inconsistent and incompatible comparable sentiment. See E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010), 1:66. 10  K. Ewing, “The Illusion of Wholeness: Culture, Self, and the Experience of Inconsistency,” Ethos 18 (1990): 251–78. 11  N. Quinn, “The Self,” Anthropological Theory 6 (2006): 362–84 (365). 12  Ewing, “Illusion,” 251. 13  Ewing, “Illusion,” 252.

198

Newsom

self-models, literally from sentence to sentence. Indeed, many anthropologists would argue that there is no transcendent, “cohesive” self that ties everything together. And yet, the subjective experience is not one of fragmentation or contradiction. The anthropologists explain this situation through a semiotic model of the self. Each self-representation makes sense with respect to a frame of reference with which it is coordinated. Typically, Ewing says, people “often keep only one frame of reference in mind at any particular moment…. The same individual may shift frames of reference from one context to another, even from one moment to the next, and may tolerate considerable inconsistency in his or her own beliefs and opinions, often without realizing it….”14 These self-representations are understood by means of performance theory as “performances” of self.15 If we invited Dr. Ewing to read this hodayah with us, she would likely shrug and say, “What do you expect? When the speaker orients himself to the traditional voluntarist frame of reference, he speaks as a moral agent. When he orients himself to a frame of reference focused on God’s sovereignty in creation, he speaks as someone whose whole activity is determined by God. There is really nothing more to explain here. The author performs one type of self, then performs another contextually appropriate type of self.” Understood this way, the phenomenon would be analogous to what linguists call code-switching— the use of different dialectical forms of speech that are dependent upon the audience or social context within which one is speaking. So here, what occurs in the hodayah would be a kind of conceptual code-switching, dependent on the cognitive framing of one’s self-representation. As Ewing’s fieldwork demonstrated, such shifts can apparently happen quite rapidly in discourse. I have a certain amount of sympathy for Ewing’s approach, because I do think that personal and cultural systems are often inconsistent, and that consequently, we may well have a variety of inconsistent self-representations in our repertoire, even if we are not fully aware of this fact. Indeed, I have used a rather similar explanation for the variety of inconsistent representations of moral agency in Qumran literature more generally, arguing that these representations shift according to the requirements of the rhetorical situation.16 In some cases this may indeed be the right explanation, especially where the inconsistent or contradictory statements are contextually separated.17 But I have 14  Ewing, “Illusion,” 258. 15  Quinn, “The Self,” 362. 16  C. Newsom, “Models of Moral Agency: Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism,” JBL 131 (2012): 5–25 (15). 17  C. Strauss (“Research on Cultural Discontinuities,” in A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning, ed. C. Strauss and N. Quinn [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997],

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

199

reservations now about the adequacy of this approach for the Hodayot. As I will argue below, I do not think conceptual code-switching is a fully adequate explanation for what is going on here, and if one were to stop with this analysis, something vital would be missed. Also, the model of the self as nothing more than a sequence of contextual performances is increasingly being challenged within anthropological theory as inadequate, and requires reconsideration in itself. I will return to this issue at the end of the article. 3

Deriving a Theory of the Self and Moral Agency from Scripture

In the second part of this essay I want to give a fuller account of what I think is a subtle theory of the self as moral agent that renders the passage in col. 7 quite noncontradictory. This theory of the self appears to be derived from scriptural interpretation—it is, at least, presented by means of intertextual allusions to scripture. Several implicit techniques are used to develop connections between key scriptural passages. In some cases repeated catchwords and other forms of wordplay are used with several scriptural passages, suggesting interpretive connections between the passages. Similar phrases, using the same nomen regens and different nomina recta, establish relations of equivalency among the different nomina recta. In addition, parallel actions by God in different passages of scripture may similarly be interpreted in light of one another in order to develop the frameworks for understanding human agency. By means of these various techniques, assertions about moral agency are developed through rigorous engagement with scripture. In order to understand the claims the speaker is making about moral agency, it is necessary to consider the underlying assumptions about anthropology in the Hodayot. General agreement exists that the Hodayot consider human beings in general to be utterly defective as moral agents. This claim is 210–51) has investigated the phenomenon of “discrepant ideas” in the discourse of individuals, in an attempt to discover how these discrepancies are internalized by persons. Where contradictory or discrepant discourses were reported in separate conversations, it appeared that individuals were compartmentalizing their beliefs without examining them in relation to one another. Where such discourses were closely juxtaposed, informants tended to partially integrate one discourse with another more dominant one in a way that reduced discordant implications (215). Analogously, it seems more likely that discrepant conceptual frameworks in Qumran texts that appear at some distance from one another may reflect compartmentalization, whereas one should investigate the possibility of complex integration when such discrepancies are more closely juxtaposed. This is the approach that I take here.

200

Newsom

articulated most explicitly in the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien, as these were identified by H.-W. Kuhn in 1966.18 For example, from 1QHa 5:30–33: [But how i]s a spirit of flesh to understand all these things and to discern great….? What is one born of woman among all your [gre]at fearful acts? He is a construction of dust, kneaded with water. Sin[ful gui]lt is his foundation. (He is) obscene shame and a so[urce of im]purity, and a spirit of perversion rules him.19 ‫) [כיא מה ה]יא רוח בשׂר להבי ן‬30( ‫) בכול אלה ולהשׂכיל ב[  ] גדול ומה ילוד אשׁה בכול[ג]ד[ו]ל[י]ך הנוראים‬31( ‫והוא‬ ‫) מבנה עפר ומגבל מים א[שׁמה וחט]אה סודו ערות קלון ומ[קור הנ]דה ורוח‬32( ‫נעוה משׁלה‬ ‫) בו‬33(

Jörg Frey has demonstrated that this motif is not original to the Hodayot but is already attested in the wisdom texts 1Q/4QMysteries and 1Q/4QInstruction.20 And yet, 1Q/4QInstruction has a different anthropology than the Hodayot. Though John Collins’s analysis remains debated, I think he is correct. In Collins’s view, 1Q/4Q Instruction develops a theory of dual creation, based on the contrast between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, in order to argue that there are two kinds of people in the world: a spiritual people (based on Gen 1:26–27) and a people having a “spirit of flesh” who do not know how to discern between “good and evil.”21 The phrase “good and evil” clearly points to Genesis 2–3 as a key text for grounding the negative anthropology. But in Genesis 2–3 the term “flesh” is not used. Instead, “dust” identifies the material nature of humans 18  H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu, SUNT 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 27–29. 19  Also see 1QHa 7:34–35; 12:30–31; 20:27–29; 1QS 11:9–10. 20  J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002), 385–97. 21  J. J. Collins, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 609–18. For criticism of Collins’s arguments, see J.-S. Rey, 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie, STDJ 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 302–3.

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

201

(Gen 2:7). In all likelihood Genesis 2–3 is being read in concert with Gen 6:3, where the divine spirit and human flesh are categorical opposites. I wish to argue that the Hodayot share with 1Q/4Q Instruction a sense that Genesis 2–3 is key to a negative anthropology, but that they develop that insight quite differently. For the Hodayot, Gen 2:7 and 3:19 are key texts. The most explicit allusions are in 1QHa 20:27–30: As for me, from dust [you] took [me, and from clay] I was [pin]ched off, as a source of impurity and obscene shame, a heap of dust and a thing kneaded [with water, bread of magg]ots, a dwelling of darkness. And there is a return to dust for the vessel of clay at the time of [your] anger […] dust returns to that from which it was taken. ‫ואני מעפר לקח[תני ומחמר ק]ורצתי‬ ‫למקור נדה וערות קלון מקוי עפר ומגבל[ במים לחם רמ]ה ומדור‬ ‫חושׁך ותשׁובת עפר ליצר חמר בקצ אפ[כה  י]שׁוב עפר‬ ‫אל אשׁר לקח משׁם‬

)27( )28( )29( )30(

The phrase “from dust [you] took [me]” clearly alludes to Gen 2:7. The prominence of the noun ‫ עפר‬in the Hodayot as a term for humanity is undoubtedly indebted to these two passages, though the noun itself may also serve to draw in other texts. Of the three terms for mortal and material existence in the Hodayot, ‫ עפר‬occurs thirty-seven times, its close parallel ‫ חמר‬occurs fourteen times, and ‫ בשׂר‬occurs twenty-nine times. Moreover, the fact that the term ‫יצר‬, which occurs some thirty times, is used twenty-six times with the nuance of “vessel,” or “a thing shaped” and only four times with the nuance of “inclination,” suggests an allusion to the ‫ וייצר‬of Gen 2:7. Word association with this verb draws in other texts in its turn. Elsewhere in the Bible the potter/pot metaphor for human creation (e.g., Jer 18:3–6; Isa 45:9) combines verbal and participial forms of ‫ יצר‬with the noun ‫חמר‬, but never with ‫עפר‬. But the verb ‫ יצר‬links these two sets of similar conceptualizations of the human as shaped from earth, like a vessel, and thus draws the potter texts into connection with Gen 2:7. None of these biblical passages, however, gives warrant by itself for a negative anthropology. The critical intertext for establishing the moral negativity of dust and clay is Job 4:17–18, which pairs both ‫ עפר‬and ‫ חמר‬with defective moral capacity:

202

Newsom

Can a human be righteous before God? Or a man be pure before his maker? Truly, in his servants He puts no trust And attributes error to his angels. How much more those who dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust. (my trans.) ‫) האנושׁ מאלוה יצדק אם מעשׂהו יטהר גבר‬17( ‫) הן בעבדיו לא יאמין ובמלאכיו ישׂים תהלה‬18( ‫) אף שׁכני בתי חמר אשׁר בעפר יסודם‬19(

Thus, it would seem that all of these passages were interpreted in light of one another to produce the conceptualization of the negative anthropology that one finds in the Hodayot.22 What did it mean that God created humans from the dust of the earth? When Gen 2:7 is read in relation to Job 4:17–18, the conclusion is that God created persons with a defective moral agency. In light of this intertextual exegesis, the term ‫ עפר‬by itself can then be used as an index term for morally defective humankind. It is also relevant to note how the Hodayot establish the negative valence of various terms through another kind of wordplay; that is, by using construct phrases in which elements can substitute for one another as the nomen rectum and so establish synonymity.23 For example, 10× 5× 2× 2× 1× 1× 1× 1× 1×

‫יצר (ה)חמר‬ ‫יצר (ה)עפר‬ ‫יצר בשׂ ר‬ ‫יצר נתעב‬ ‫יצר העולה‬ ‫מבנה עפר‬

‫מבנה החטאה‬ ‫לב אבן‬ ‫לב עפ ר‬

These paradigmatic sets of phrases establish further the negative moral significance of ‫ עפר‬and direct attention back to the role of Gen 2:7. 22  Frey (“Flesh and Spirit,” 398) has also commented on the role of Job 4:17–21 in relation to the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien. 23  The occurrences are counted according to the word list and transcription in E. M. Schuller and C. A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa, SBLEJL 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).

203

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

It is easy to see how the negative significance of ‫ בשׂר‬comes to be integrated into this nexus as a synonym for ‫ עפר‬and ‫חמר‬, both through Gen 6:3 and through its lexical connotations of materiality. But the phrase ‫ רוח בשׂר‬remains somewhat enigmatic (cf. 1QHa 4:37: 5:15, 30). That it is utterly negative is established by its own paradigmatic set, as well as by its contextual usage: 3× 5× 1×

‫רוח בשׂר‬ ‫רוח נעוה‬ ‫רוח התועה‬

But where does the concept of ‫ רוח בשׂר‬come from? In one sense it may simply be an equivalent of the animating breath of life (‫ )נשׁמת חיים‬that God instills into dust in Gen 2:7, though with a negative connotation not present in that verse and with the semantic possibilities of ‫ רוח‬that are not part of ‫נשׁמה‬. Although the exegetical basis for the connection is not entirely clear, perhaps it is established by a connection between the animated ‫ נפשׁ חיה‬of Gen 2:7 and the ‫ בשׂר אשׁר בו רוח חיים‬of Gen 6:17, which is to be destroyed because its ‫ יצר‬is so defective (Gen 6:5). This ‫ רוח חיים‬that characterizes ‫ בשׂר‬would then be what is contrasted with “my” ‫ רוח‬in Gen 6:3. Perhaps I push too hard for exegetical grounding of each aspect of the anthropology of the Hodayot, but it does appear that the interpretation of passages in light of one another through the linking of catchwords plays a significant role in the development of ideas in the Hodayot. Whether or not such connections actually generate the concept of the ‫רוח בשׂר‬, they are certainly among the interpretive possibilities available to readers who were attuned to intertextual connections as a means of generating new knowledge. In the view of the Hodayot, the basic human, no matter how morally defective, is still an agent. It can say ‫אני‬. It has awareness. It has desires and aversions. It engages in intentional actions. And it is subject to divine judgment. But because of the way in which it is constructed, it cannot make good moral choices. Thus, it is not fully a moral agent. The speaker of the Hodayot, however, is an ‫ אני‬who, though made like all other beings, also claims moral and epistemological abilities utterly impossible for a mere “spirit of flesh” or “vessel of dust.” Indeed, these abilities are the very reason for addressing God with thanksgiving and blessing. To become this kind of moral agent the speaker of the Hodayot has experienced a second creation by God. In order to assert this claim, the Hodayot draw, not upon Genesis 1, as does 1Q/4Q Instruction, but upon Ezek 36:26–27 (cf. 37:5–10). Ezekiel’s imagery refers first to a heart of flesh replacing a heart of stone. Although one hodayah does use the phrase “heart of stone” (1QHa 21:12), the negative connotations of flesh in the Hodayot make Ezekiel’s image of the heart of flesh unusable. Instead, the Hodayot appropriate

204

Newsom

the companion claim from Ezekiel, “I will place my spirit in you,” a phrase that is alluded to five times in the collection (1QHa 4:29; 5:36; 8:29; 20:14–15; 21:34). That this expression is understood as signifying re-creation is suggested also by the central place of ‫ רוח‬in the description of the revivification of the slain in Ezek 37:9–10. The use of the verb ‫ פוח‬there, as well as in Gen 2:7, facilitates the use of these passages as parallel accounts of creation and second creation. Ezekiel has God identify this spirit that is put into the revived people as “my spirit” (36:27). Thus, the spirit of the second creation is qualitatively different from the spirit that merely animates flesh (cf. Gen 6:17). This qualitative distinction is a critical concept for the Hodayot. Some eight times the speaker of the Hodayot refers to the spirit as “your [God’s] holy spirit” (1QHa 4:38; 6:24; 8:20, 21, 25, 30; 20:15; 23:29). I suspect that some connection is being made between the “my spirit” of Ezek 36:27 and the “my spirit” of Gen 6:3, which is sharply contrasted with flesh, though it is difficult to reconstruct the exegetical logic in detail. But certainly in the Hodayot the spirit of flesh and the holy spirit are qualitatively opposite. What, then, is the effect of this divine spirit that has been placed into the speaker? In Ezekiel, the transformation that is effected by the heart of flesh and the new spirit is complete moral transformation: “Thus I will cause you to follow my laws and faithfully to observe my rules” (Ezek 36:27; trans. NJPS). Though the people will remember with loathing their previous sins (36:31–32), they will sin no more. The situation is somewhat different for the speaker of the Hodayot, however. One of the things that the gift of the spirit does is to provide knowledge: knowledge of heavenly mysteries; knowledge of the plan of God; but that knowledge also includes awareness of one’s own constitution as a spirit of flesh. In contrast to the situation of the recreated being in Ezekiel, where the heart of stone is removed, the spirit of flesh is not removed from the speaker of the Hodayot. He still claims it as his identity (1QHa 4:37; cf. 9:23–25), and the repeated Niedrigkeitsdoxologien psychologically rehearse the anxiety of being created as a person without moral agency. Not only is the speaker appalled at his past sins (4:30), but he is also aware of his continuing incapacity as a mere mortal. Through God’s gift of the holy spirit he has the power not to sin, but his transformation is not complete (8:29–32), and he still fears that without God’s continuing action he is subject to “stumbling from the precepts of your covenant” (8:33). The favored image of “vessel” for human beings in the Hodayot suggests that the community thought of persons metaphorically as containers. Most human beings are vessels that contain only the defective “spirit of flesh” (and the synonymous expressions that characterize it). The ‫ אני‬that expresses the subjectivity of the ordinary person—the content of his consciousness—is wholly

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

205

constituted by his spirit of flesh. Thus, he has no independent awareness of it. The problem of wickedness is in part, one might say, a problem of false consciousness. In Ezekiel 36, the model of subjectivity is one of replacement: the defective heart is removed and a new heart and a new divine spirit put in its place. The new subjectivity that is constituted by this transformation remains, however, simple in structure. It has the capacity to retrospectively judge the sinful actions that the person had committed and to feel self-loathing for these actions (Ezek 36:31), but it is not a divided subjectivity. Consequently, it lacks true introspection. The Hodayot, however, present a more complexly structured model. Though the transformation effected for the speaker by the gift of the divine spirit is decisive, it does not eliminate the spirit of flesh from the person (cf. 1QHa 4:37; 5:14, 30). But the gift of the divine spirit makes him aware of the spirit of flesh within him and of his desire to dissociate himself from it, though he knows this is not fully possible, at least without God’s further action. One of the implications of this model is that the speaker’s subjectivity is also not fully constituted by the divine spirit, as it is in Ezekiel. Instead the speaking subject is also aware of the divine spirit within him. The speaker does not simply say, “I know”; but rather, “I know by means of the spirit you have placed in me” (1QHa 21:34; see also 4:29; 5:36; 8:20; 20:15). Even his prayer is the product of an agency that he ascribes to God’s spirit within him (“I entreat you with the spirit that you have placed in me,” 8:29). Indeed, all of the speaker’s positive affects and actions can also be attributed to this divine source—this is what allows him to “not to sin against you” (4:34, 35; 6:28; etc.). This is not to say that the speaker experiences himself as an automaton. He has real agency—but it is a kind of co-agency in which the speaker’s knowledge and will and actions are made possible through the palpable agency of God working within him: And as for me, dust and ashes? What can I devise unless you desire it, and what can I plan for myself without your will? How can I hold fast unless you cause me to stand firm? And how can I have insight unless you have formed it for me?” (1QHa 18:7–9; cf. 20:35–21:7) ‫ואני עפר ואפר מה אזום בלוא חפצתה ומה אתחשׁב‬ ‫באין רצונכה מה אתחזק בלא העמדתני ואיכה אשׂכיל בלא יצרתה‬ ‫לי‬

)7( )8( )9(

The self-conscious recognition of both the spirit of flesh and the holy spirit as constituent of the self is only part of the knowledge bestowed by the spirit that God has placed in the speaker. This spirit also gives the speaker access to an

206

Newsom

understanding of the plan of God for the world, that is, the purpose and fate of the righteous and the wicked, including God’s determination of who they are “from the womb” (1QHa 7:28). This knowledge is part of the speaker’s agency, that is, part of his self. It allows him—quite curiously—to be virtually present at his own creation, grasping his own re-creation as part of the predetermined plan of God, who has indeed “formed every spirit” and established its “inclination” (3:26; 6:22; 7:26, 35; 9:11; 18:24). His agency is both free (he really does “choose”) and determined—from the womb. To return, then, to the question posed above about the juxtaposition of voluntarist and predeterminist language in the Hodayot, these forms of discourse are not best understood as discontinuous representations of the self and its agency, accomplished through rapid conceptual code-switching. Rather, their juxtaposition is utterly essential to the representation of the distinctive form of twinned agency manifested in the Hodayot. The ostensibly contradictory discourses about the nature and source of moral agency are resolved through the nature of what is predetermined. God predetermined that certain persons and not others would be given the gift of the divine spirit that then allows them to have a subjectivity that is not wholly constituted by their spirit of flesh. This new spirit, though it gives them new capacities for knowledge and moral action, does not eliminate the moral will. If one were to visualize the structure of the moral self in the Hodayot, it might be represented as a triangle. The speaking subject, the one who says “I,” is aware of and observes the effects of two spirits within himself: the spirit of flesh and the holy spirit of God. Both of these are part of his complex subjectivity, though he seeks to identify with one and to reject the other. In this regard, although the Hodayot is generally not considered to be a dualistic text in the way that the Two Spirits Teaching of 1QSerek ha-Yaḥad is, the Hodayot also constructs a subjectivity that is similarly shaped.24 4

The Hodayot as a New Experience of the Self and Moral Agency

Turning now to the third part of the argument, even if one agrees that in the literary composition of the Hodayot, the model of moral agency is one in which the speaker’s agency is constituted by the gift of the divine spirit, what can one say about the lived experience of those who wrote, recited, and heard the Hodayot? Since we cannot interview such persons, we cannot know about this with certainty. But what we can do is to judge if the Hodayot possess properties 24  Newsom, “Models of Moral Agency,” 20–21.

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

207

that would make them effective instruments for creating and shaping a perduring experience of the self. In my opinion they do. The basis for this judgment has to do with the more sophisticated crosscultural models of the nature and development of the self, emerging from the intersection of anthropology and neurobiology. The older semiotic model, in which the self is nothing but its sequential self-representations in the symbolic sphere, came of age in the 1980s, under the influence of the linguistic turn in the social sciences and postmodernism’s critique of the western enlightenment model of the self. While that semiotic model did a good job of drawing attention to the diversity of self-representations in cultures, it reduced the concept of the self merely to uncoordinated mental representations—a rather thin model, and one that is not borne out by the insights of recent neurobiological research.25 Using these more recent approaches, Naomi Quinn has re-examined Ewing’s case study and shown that a more persuasive interpretation of the apparently contradictory statements is that the young woman is not simply flipping back and forth between inconsistent self-performances but is negotiating two self-images that have different implications. Moreover, she is at least partially integrating them in ways that allow her to negotiate a dilemma she faces.26 When one turns to recent studies in neurobiology, though the new brain research certainly affirms the complexity and dynamism of the way the experience of the self is constructed, it also describes the processes by which disparate elements are partially integrated to create a perduring sense of self. These elements include, among other things, various cultural models of selfhood that are appropriated by the individual as his or her own experience. This approach helps one better grasp how the Hodayot may have been instrumental in the construction of a new self-experience for the Qumran sectarians. The main relevant points are these: (1) the durable sense of self is not simply an illusion; various parts of the brain and processes in the brain, most importantly synaptic plasticity (the strengthening of connections among neurons through repeated experiences) collaborate to construct it; (2) the particular forms of the cultural self are learned from experience and can be modified; (3) certain phenomena enhance this learning—these include bodily 25  The literature on this topic is vast. Three volumes of particular relevance are J. LeDoux, The Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are (New York: Viking Penguin, 2002); P. McNamara, The Neuroscience of Religious Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); and P. S. Churchland, Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2002); see also her more popular volume, Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain (New York: Norton, 2013). 26  Quinn, “The Self,” 374–76.

208

Newsom

participation and emotional arousal in learning, because both are associated with the production of certain chemicals that enhance synaptic connections; (4) thoughts within the brain can also affect other brain functions, including perception, motivation, and action—and thus the sense of self.27 Most of the work of self-formation takes place in childhood, of course, when the brain is particularly malleable, and child-rearing practices are designed to form not just the perduring sense of self in general but the culturally appropriate sense of self. In her cross-cultural study of child-rearing, Quinn discovered three consistent features of child-rearing models: First, such models universally specify practices that maximize the constancy of the child’s experience around the learning of important lessons. Second, such models universally include practices that make the child’s experience of learning these lessons emotionally arousing. Third, such models universally attach these lessons to more global evaluation of the child’s behavior, and the child herself, as good or bad…. In this, these models rely on neural processes. In this collaboration between culture and the brain, children are not only effectively reared; they are … imbued with culturally distinctive selves.28 We do not, of course, have access to Essene child-rearing practices, which would undoubtedly have implicitly shaped Essene children to have cultural selves appropriate to the worldview of the sect. But many members of the sect were not reared in Essene households; rather, they came to the sectarian movement as adults and would have had cultural selves shaped somewhat differently, not least in their understanding of the nature of their moral agency. The Hodayot would have been one of many practices by which a sectarian learned to be, in certain critical respects, a different self; that is, learned to experience himself differently. Although an adult brain does not have the same degree of synaptic plasticity as a child’s brain, it retains this basic ability to learn from repeated experience. The Hodayot are more formal and self-conscious about their instructional function than the implicit practices of ordinary child-raising, but they share with these practices the three critical features identified by Quinn. 27  As LeDoux puts it, “With thoughts empowered this way, we can begin to see how the way we think about ourselves can have powerful influences on the way we are, and who we become” (The Synaptic Self, 230). In this analysis, I am drawing significantly on the discussion by N. Quinn, “The Self,” 366–72. See also N. Quinn and H. F. Mathews, “Emotional Arousal in the Making of Cultural Selves,” Anthropological Theory 16 (2016): 359–89. 28  N. Quinn, “Cultural Selves,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1001 (2003): 145– 76. Doi: 10.1196/annals.1279.010.

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

209

First, the repetition of the same ideas about the nature of human moral agency and divine predeterminism points in the direction of constancy of experience. Presumably, these ideas would also have been reinforced through other practices. Second, the Hodayot focus intently on creating situations of emotional arousal. The reenacted distress of confronting one’s innately morally abhorrent nature in the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien contributes to emotions of disgust. The sublime transport that comes in expressions of thanks for the knowledge of divine mysteries and in the accounts of enjoying communion with heavenly beings contributes to strong emotional desire. Third, the patterns of emotion are emphatically keyed to the identification of the person as “bad” in his original created state and “good” in his elect state. Thus, he has strong motivation to appropriate for himself the model of the elect self and its moral agency as manifested in the Hodayot. In other ways, as well, the Hodayot were a powerful mechanism for selfformation. As I have argued elsewhere,29 they most likely were texts or templates for memorization and recitation practices and so involved sectarians in bodily participation.30 And, as first person singular compositions, they merge the “I” of the text with the “I” who recites them. While many features of daily life that would also have been influential on forming the sectarian sense of self will never be accessible to us, the Hodayot provide us with one of the most important of the mechanisms by which a new self was forged. And that sense of self included an experience of moral agency that was simultaneously one’s own agency and God’s agency acting through one. 5 Conclusions No Qumran sectarian was, of course, simply a walking embodiment of the voice that speaks in the Hodayot. Each sectarian’s subjectivity would have been composed of his own psychophysiological make-up, his unique autobiographical memory, and his formation in the common culture of Judaism, now joined with the variety of templates for the self embodied in the range of teachings, liturgies, and formal and informal practices of the yaḥad. But as I have argued 29  C. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, STDJ 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2004; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 198–208. 30  To a certain extent, my questions about experience are similar to those posed by Angela Harkins in her recent book, Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot through the Lens of Visionary Traditions, Ecstasis 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), although she and I come to quite different conclusions as to what is going on in the Hodayot.

210

Newsom

above, good reason exists for seeing in the Hodayot a model of moral agency that was not merely something to which a sectarian gave intellectual assent, but that became his deeply integrated experience of selfhood. Bibliography Churchland, P. S. Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2002. Churchland, P. S. Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. New York: Norton, 2013. Collins, J. J. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran.” Pages 609–18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ewing, K. “The Illusion of Wholeness: Culture, Self, and the Experience of Inconsistency.” Ethos 18 (1990): 251–78. Frey, J. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 385–97 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2002. Harkins, A. Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot Through the Lens of Visionary Traditions. Ekstasis 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Jassen, A. “Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Religion Compass 1 (2007): 1–25. Kister, M. “The Root NDB in the Scrolls and the Growth of Qumran Texts: Lexicography and Theology.” Pages 111–30 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 11–12. Edited by J. Ben-Dov and M. Kister. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015 (in Hebrew). Klawans, J. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice.” Pages 264–83 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Klawans, J. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Klawans, J. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90. Kuhn, H.-W. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Lange, A. Weisheit und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden, Brill, 1995.

Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot

211

LeDoux, J. The Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. Licht, J. “The Concept of Free Will in the Writings of the Sect of the Judean Desert.” Pages 77–84 in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Lectures Delivered at the Third Annual Conference (1957) in Memory of E. L. Sukenik. Edited by J. Liver. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957 (in Hebrew). McNamara, P. The Neuroscience of Religious Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Merrill, E. H. Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Newsom, C. A. “Models of Moral Agency: Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism.” JBL 131 (2012): 5–25. Newsom, C. A. The Self as Symbolic Space. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Quinn, N. “Cultural Selves.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1001 (2003): 145–76. Doi: 10.1196/annals.1279.010. Quinn, N. “The Self.” Anthropological Theory 6 (2006): 362–84. Quinn, N., and H. F. Mathews. “Emotional Arousal in the Making of Cultural Selves.” Anthropological Theory 16 (2016): 359–89. Rey, J.-S. 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie. STDJ 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schuller, E. M. “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 29–45 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Schuller, E. M., and C. A. Newsom. The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. SBLEJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Stegemann, H., and E. M. Schuller, translation by C. A. Newsom. Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Strauss, C. “Research on Cultural Discontinuities.” Pages 210–51 in A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Edited by C. Strauss and N. Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts Michael Segal The current article focuses on a particular aspect of historical consciousness that influenced biblical interpretation as expressed in a number of Qumran scrolls, although the same perspective may be identified more broadly in other Jewish compositions from antiquity as well. According to this worldview, the events of the past, present, and future are mutually illuminating. On the one hand, the events of the present and future may be imagined according to the terms of events that have already taken place; that is, past events may be construed as historical antecedents which determine the content of future ones. A paradigmatic incident that had already occurred could provide the contours by which authors conceived of future events. This approach stands at the foundation of the sectarian pesher interpretation, according to which prophecies carried meaning in their original context in the past, but were also gradually revealed to have additional meaning relevant to the present and immediate future situation of the sect.1 As will be discussed below, however, this conception is not limited to Qumran sectarian literature; it is found in other compositions preserved there that belonged to a broader cultural and literary milieu. This paradigmatic “past” need not be limited to actual historical incidents, but could also extend to the perception of the past and the traditions that accompanied it. On the other hand, the past itself may be recast in the light of later events. That is, an account of earlier events may be shaped using linguistic conventions borrowed from the accounts of more recent history. This bi-directional influence of historical perception, forwards and backwards, leads to a broader

* The article has benefitted greatly from the comments and insights of Menahem Kister, some of which will appear in his forthcoming monograph on the relationship between traditions of the Second Temple period and rabbinic literature. 1  This understanding of the pesharim has been described by D. Dimant, “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der früher Kaiserzeit, ed. R. Hirsch-Luipold, H. Görgemanns and M. von Albrecht, STAC 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 147–98; repr. in eadem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies, FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 301–14; eadem, “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran,” REJ 168 (2009): 373–93; repr. in eadem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation, 315–32.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_011

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

213

historical conception which understands past, present and future as iterations of parallel, patterned events.2 In the following analysis, I will discuss two examples of typological exegesis that are best understood in light of this historical conception.3 Both are based upon paradigmatic events or characters from the Bible, and therefore in each case, it is necessary to first understand the history of exegesis of the relevant biblical passages, in order to reveal how the compositions in question read and recast these traditions. The first section addresses a text from Qumran that imagines the future in terms of the past, while the second analyzes a range of works from different milieus, including Qumran, that recast an earlier character according to the outline of a later one.4 1

Historical Antecedent: From the Exodus to the Eschaton in 4Q4625

This typological view of history can be seen in those instances where conceptions of the future are based upon earlier momentous events. In these cases, an event or character serves as a paradigmatic model for subsequent events throughout history, including potentially the eschaton as well. This leads to a perspective in which history is seen as repeating itself—what has happened previously, especially in reference to a formative experience, will recur once again at a later point in time. While this conception is frequently invoked as 2  As eloquently described by M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History (New York: Pantheon, 1954), the perspective of past and future events as a series of repetitive “archetypes” is foundational to a mythic perception of the past. 3  The definition and characteristics of typological interpretation in early Christian literature (especially vis-à-vis allegorical interpretations) has been discussed extensively by scholars; see, e.g., P. W. Martens, “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,” JECS 16 (2008): 283–317. In the context of early Jewish literature, see M. Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9–11 January, 2007, ed. G. A. Anderson, R. A. Clements, and D. Satran, STDJ 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 133–83. 4  This bi-directional influence within the context of biblical interpretation has been discussed by Y. Zakovitch, Inner-Biblical and Extra-Biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2009), 132–44 (in Hebrew), who cites numerous examples. 5  The discussion here of 4Q462 is a revised and abridged form of my analysis of this passage in, “Between Exegesis and Sectarianism: ‘Light and Darkness’ in Egypt and in Jerusalem according to 4Q462,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 7, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009), 129–43 (in Hebrew).

214

Segal

an exegetical principle for the reading of the biblical text, it assumes historiosophical significance in its implications for conceiving of the past and future of the nation as a series of repetitive “archetypes.”6 1.1 Biblical Allusions and the Interpretation of History The use of an earlier event as a portent for the eschaton can be seen in 4Q462 (4QNarrative C), a previously unknown composition attested in one late Hasmonean to early Herodian era manuscript.7 Seven fragments of the scroll were preserved, but only frag. 1 contains a significant amount of text, which will be the focus of the analysis here. The following is the transcription of that fragment according to the readings and reconstruction presented by Elisha Qimron in his edition of the scrolls:8 6  See above, n. 2. 7  The scroll was officially published by M. S. Smith, “462. 4QNarrative C,” in Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, ed. M. Broshi et al., DJD 19 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 195–209. Smith notes (p. 196) that the script of the scroll is similar to that of 4QSama, which Cross dated to c. 50–25 BCE. 8  See D. Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem in Light of the Dualistic Doctrine at Qumran (4Q462),” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute 2003), 27–58 (in Hebrew); eadem, “Addenda to 4Q462,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 2, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004), 187–89 (in Hebrew), comprises an edition of the scroll with a comprehensive analysis. In Segal, “Between Exegesis and Sectarianism,” I relied primarily on this text edition. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “More Identifications of Scraps and Overlaps,” RevQ 19/2 (1999): 61–68 (63–64), has suggested that 4Q467, of which only two very small fragments remain, reflects another copy of the same composition as that preserved in 4Q462; for the publication of 4Q467, see D. M. Pike, “467. 4QText Mentioning ‘Light to Jacob,’” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1, ed. P. S. Alexander et al., DJD 36 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 398–400. Both Pike and Dimant considered Tigchelaar’s proposal, but did not accept it due to some differences between the two scrolls and the paucity of material in general, which makes any such suggestion difficult to prove. More recently, Tigchelaar’s suggested combination of the two scrolls has been adopted by E. Qimron, “Jerusalem and Egypt (4Q462 + 4Q467),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:190–191 (in Hebrew). Qimron integrates the text of 4Q467 (marked in red in his edition) into 4Q462, frag. 1, lines 2–4. Here I have generally followed Qimron’s edition, including the inclusion of 4Q467, marked in bold. While the reservations expressed by Pike and Dimant are still important to keep in mind, the additional material in 4Q467 corresponds to the interpretation of 4Q462 that I proposed in the earlier study (without sufficiently considering 4Q467), and therefore I have taken the liberty of including it here. However, the argument regarding 4Q462 stands independently of this editorial decision. The translation here is based upon a combination of those provided in the DJD editions of 4Q462 and 4Q467, in addition to refinements based upon improved readings and understanding of the Hebrew text in light of the editions of Dimant, Qimron, and my own interpretation.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

215

4Q462, frag. 1 (+ 4Q467)

[◦] ‫‏‬1 ‫יפת[ הוש ̊י ̇ב בגבולותם‬ ̇ ‫וא]ת חם ואת‬ ̇ ‫‏‬2 [‫ יזר ̇ח אור ]ליעקוב ויא[ר על צי]ו̇ ן̇ ויזכו̇ ̇ר‬ ‫‏‬3 ̊ ‫יאמר[ו אי פה‬ ̊ ‫הר‬ ‫ בכן‬ vacat ]‫ ̇ה ̇ג ̇ו] ̊י ̇י ̇ם לישרא[ל‬ ‫‏‬4 [‫לוקח‬ ̇ ‫מצ]רי̇ ם ריקמה הלכנו כי‬ ̊ ‫‏‬5 ‫באהב[ת ∙∙∙∙ את ישראל‬ ̇ ‫ נתנו] לעבדים ליעקוב‬ ‫‏‬6 [‫[ב]כו̇ ̇ל‬ ̇ ‫המושל‬ ̇ ∙∙∙∙ ‫ו]תנ̊ ̊תנה לרבים לנחלה‬ ̊ ‫‏‬7 [‫ואת ̊ה ̇א ̊ר ̊ץ‬ ̇ ‫האר]ץ כבודו אשר מאחד ימלא את המים‬ ̊ ‫‏‬8 ]‫לישרא]ל ̇את הממשלה לבדו עמו היה האור עמהם ועלינו היה[החושך‬ ̇ ‫‏ [נתן‬‎9 ‫יואמר[ו‬ ̇ ‫ [הנה עבר ק]ץ החושך וקץ האור בא ומשלו לעולם על כן‬ 10 ‫]ל[י]שראל כי בתוכנו היה עם החביב יעק[וב‬ ̇ 11 ‫ ]יהםה ויעבודו ויתקימו ויזעקו אל ∙∙ ∙∙ ו̊ [יוציאמה‬ 12 ‫ והנה נתנו במצרים שנית בקצ ממלכה ויתקי̇ [מו ויזעקו‬vacat] 13 [ ‫יו]שבי פלשת ומצרים לבזה וחורבה וועמודיה‬ ֯ ‫‏‬14 [‫]מיר ̇ל ̇רומם לרשע בעבור תקבל טמ‬ ̇ ‫‏‬15 [‫ ]ה ועז פניה יתשנה בזיוה ועדה ובגדיה‬ ‫‏‬16 ‫העד[ה‬ ̊ ‫מצ]רים ואת אשר עשתה לה כן טמאת‬ ̊ 17 [‫]שנאתה כאשר היתה לפני הבנותה‬ ̇ ‫‏‬18 [‫ ויזכור את י̊ ̊שרו̊ ̇ל ירושלים ̇ה‬vac]at ‫‏‬19

Bottom margin

1 ][ 2 an]d Ham and Japhet[he established in their borders 3  He will shine light]upon Jacob and illumi[nate upon Zi]on and he remembered [ 4 [the na]tions to Israel vacat Then [they] will say [where is the r 5 Eg]ypt, we went empty-handed, because [we?] were taken[as slaves?] 6 we were given] as slaves to Jacob, in [YHWH’s] love [of Israel 7 and] it will be given to the many as an inheritance. YHWH who rules [in] all [ 8 the lan]d his glory, which instantly9 will fill the waters and the earth[ 9 [he gave to Israe]l alone the kingdom; his nation, there was light with them, and upon us was [darkness] 10 [behold the per]iod of darkness [passed] and the period of light is coming, and they will rule forever. Therefore, [they] will say[ 11 ]to [I]srael, for among us was the beloved people, Jac[ob 9  M. Bar-Asher, “On Several Linguistic Features of Qumran Hebrew,” Lĕšonénu 64/1–2 (2002): 7–31 (15–17) (in Hebrew).

216

Segal

12 ]their [ ] and they worked and rose up10 and cried out to YHWH and [He took them out 13 ]vacat and they were situated in Egypt again in a time of dominion, and they will ri[se up and cry out 14 inha]bitants of Philistia and Egypt for spoil and ruin, and her pillars [ 15 ]to raise up wickedness in order that she may receive unclean[ness 16 ] and the hardness of her countenance will be exchanged by her splendor, and her uncleanness(?) and her garments [ 17 Eg]ypt, and that she did that to her, the impurity of the unclean[ness] 18 ] her rejection (or: you rejected her) as she was before she was built[ 19 ]vacat and he will remember Israel(?) Jerusalem [ This fragment may be divided into two primary units. Lines 5–12 (I) refer to the enslavement in Egypt as recounted in the book of Exodus,11 while lines 13–19 (II) refer to a second period of time when Jerusalem will be subjugated to Egypt. While section I refers to the past, section II describes the present with an eye towards the future. The allusions to the biblical exodus narrative in section I all point to that formative event as its primary subject: – Line 5: ‫“ ריקמה הלכנו‬we went emptyhanded.” As Dimant has noted, this expression inverts the divine promise to Moses at the burning bush regarding the exodus: “so that when you go, you will not go away emptyhanded (‫לא‬ ‫( ”)תלכו ריקם‬Exod 3:21).12 In light of this background, Bar-Asher proposed a reconstruction of ‫[“ [למצר]י̊ ם‬to Egy]pt,” indicating that Jacob descended to Egypt emptyhanded.13 Alternatively, Kister has suggested that these may be the words of the Egyptians, who suffered a fate opposite to that promised to the Israelites in Exod 3:21.14 10  For this translation, see Bar-Asher, “On Several Linguistic Features,” 19–24, and the biblical allusions discussed below. 11  The relationship of lines 1–4 to the rest of the scroll is not fully clear. Line 2 seemingly refers to the earliest eras of the biblical history, and perhaps to the division of the world amongst the different nations as in Genesis 10. This would share a thematic connection with the continuation of the fragment, which describes the relationship between Israel and the nations. Lines 3–4 perhaps represent an introduction to both sections of this fragment; see below. 12  Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 32. For a discussion of linguistic aspects of this scroll, including the form ‫ריקמה‬, see Bar-Asher, “On Several Linguistic Features,” 7–15. 13  Bar-Asher, “On Several Linguistic Features,” 8 (note that Bar-Asher did not discern the remnants of the ‫)ר‬. Dimant’s (“Egypt and Jerusalem,” 28, 32) suggested reconstruction for the end of the line, ]‫לוקח[נו לעבדים‬ ֯ “[we] were taken[as slaves]” reflects this same background. 14  As quoted in Qimron, “Jerusalem and Egypt,” 191.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

217

– Line 9: ]‫“ עמו היה האור עמהם ועלינו היה[החושך‬his nation, there was light with them, and upon us was [darkness].” This, too, reflects motifs from the exodus narrative, written from the perspective of the Egyptians. The differentiation between the Israelites and Egyptians with reference to light and darkness is found in the Bible specifically regarding the plague of darkness (Exod 10:23), as well as in exegetical traditions surrounding the events of the splitting of the sea.15 The contrast between light and darkness continues in line 10, in which there is an explicit contrast between a “[per]iod of darkness” and a “period of light.” On the basis of the context, we may say that these descriptions describe the period of subjugation as a time of darkness, and the period following the exodus as a time of light.16 – Line 11: The Egyptians continue as the speakers in this line as well: ‫כי בתוכנו‬ ]‫החביב יעק[וב‬ ̇ ‫“ היה עם‬for among us was the beloved people, Jac[ob],” referring to the period of the Israelites’ subjugation in Egypt. Kister has noted that ‫ עם חביב‬is the translation in the Targumim and the Peshitta for the Hebrew expression ‫( עם סגולה‬Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18), and the expression refers to Israel’s unique status amongst the nations.17 – Line 12: ∙∙ ∙∙ ‫“ ויעבודו ויתקימו ויזעקו אל‬and they worked and rose up and cried out to ∙∙ ∙∙[YHWH]” This sentence is based upon the description of the 15  In Segal, “Between Exegesis and Sectarianism,” 130–33, I analyzed the exegetical background of the motif of light (for the Israelites) and darkness (for the Egyptians) at the crossing of the sea, as attested in ancient sources that read and interpret Exod 14:20; see below the discussion of Mek. R. Ishmael, Tractate Beshallaḥ 5. As suggested there, this distinction originates in Exod 10:23 and was subsequently transferred to 14:20 in order to explain the difficult Hebrew expression ‫( ויהי הענן והחשך ויאר את הלילה‬MT). As Kister has noted previously (M. Kister, “4Q392 1 and the Conception of Light in Qumran ‘Dualism,’” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 3, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant [Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005], 125–42 (137 n. 54) (in Hebrew), the same differentiation appears in T. Jos. 20:2, with strong dualistic overtones: “for when my bones are being taken up, the Lord will be with you in the light, and Beliar will be with the Egyptians in darkness” (translation according to H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, eds., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, STVP 8 [Leiden: Brill, 1985], 419). Jubilees 48 presents a similar dualistic background in the retelling of the exodus story, although it does not distinguish between the Israelites and the Egyptians with respect to light and darkness (for an analysis of the latter passage, see M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, JSJSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 203–28. 16  If the integration of 4Q467 into 4Q462 is correct, then the emphasis on light for Israel (= ̇ ‫)[זר‬, and the distinction between Israel Jacob) is found already in line 3 (‫]ח אור ליעקוב‬ and the nations in line 4 (]‫) ̇ה ̇ג ̇ו ̊]י ̇י ̇ם לישרא[ל‬. 17  M. Kister, “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 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), 137–65 (138).

218

Segal

Israelites crying out to God under the duress of their enslavement: “The Israelites were groaning under the bondage and cried out; and their cry for help from the bondage rose up to God” (Exod 2:23[–25]; see also 1:13–14; 3:7, 9).18 Following the description of the period of enslavement in Egypt that led up to the exodus, the text transitions to a later time, in which Israel will once again be subjugated to Egypt: “and they were situated in Egypt again in a time of dominion, and they will ri[se up and cry out]” (line 13). This sentence describes a subsequent period in history, during which time Israel is once again “in Egypt,” while the city of Jerusalem lay despised and hated. On the one hand, the emphasis on this being a second time (‫)שנית‬, confirms the reading of lines 5–12 as a description of the period of servitude in Egypt known from the book of Exodus. On the other hand, the identification of a second period in which Israel was once again under Egyptian sovereignty is not readily apparent. Dimant attempted to identify an appropriate historical context in which “the [inh]abitants of Philistea and Egypt” (line 14) plundered Jerusalem, suggesting that this allusion perhaps refers to soldiers from both Egypt and the Greek cities in Israel, who participated in the military actions of the Ptolemaic kings or the early Roman sovereigns in the land.19 However, it is important to note that the expression ‫[יו]שבי פלשת‬ ֯ appears only once in the Bible, in the Song of the Sea, in the same context as that described in lines 5–12 of the fragment: “The peoples hear, they tremble; agony grips the inhabitants of Philistia” (Exod 15:14). In this poetic description of the “first” exodus, the nations are gripped with terror upon hearing of the God’s miraculous salvation of Israel from the hands of the Egyptians. The “inhabitants of Philistia” are the first on this list, and thus serve a paradigmatic role in the description of the exodus. Therefore, it seems more likely that the use of the expression in 4Q462 was intended to express an idea—those nations that trembled in fear (“the inhabitants of Philistia”) or were punished (Egypt) at the time of the original exodus, are now plundering and destroying Jerusalem. The final rows preserved in the fragment describe Jerusalem; the feminine pronouns in line 16 should be understood in reference to the city mentioned explicitly in line 19. As Dimant has noted, the language and expressions used in these lines are taken from prophetic descriptions of the future salvation of Jerusalem, in particular from Second/Third Isaiah:20 18  Bar-Asher, “On Several Linguistic Features,” 19–24. 19  Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 58. 20  Dimant (“Egypt and Jerusalem,” 43) lists the relevant passages from Isaiah (60; 62; 65:18– 21; 66:10–12), but suggests that the primary picture is based specifically upon Isaiah 52.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

219

– Line 16: ‫“ ועז פניה יתשנה בזיוה‬and the hardness of her countenance will be exchanged by her splendor.” The term ‫ זיו‬does not occur in Biblical Hebrew, but appears in Biblical Aramaic in concert with the verb ‫ ׁשנ"י‬in four out of the six instances of biblical ‫( זיו‬Dan 5:6, 9, 10; 7:28). In each of these verses, the meaning of ‫ זיו‬is “face, countenance,” the semantic equivalent of ‫פנים‬. In Dan 2:31, ‫ זיו‬appears to be used with the meaning “brightness,” which matches the usage in 4Q462. The latter meaning is also well attested in rabbinic literature and onwards. Thus, 4Q462 plays with both meanings of ‫ זיו‬in this stich: the hardness of Jerusalem’s “countenance” will be transformed to “splendor.” One can identify another biblical allusion in this brief stich, since the only biblical verse that combines the expression ‫ עז פנים‬with the verb ‫א‬/‫ׁשנה‬ is Qoh 8:1:21 MT Qoh 8:1:  ‫‏מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר חכמת אדם תאיר פניו ועֹז פניו יְ ֻׁש ֶ ּֽנא‬ NRSV: Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes one’s face shine, and the hardness of one’s countenance is changed. The wisdom maxim quoted here is based upon synonymous parallelism, according to which wisdom lights up (‫ )תאיר‬one’s face, and thus transforms it. The use of this terminology in 4Q462 to describe the changing of Jerusalem’s countence was intended to refer implicitly to the illumination of the city of Jerusalem; this is confirmed by use of the term ‫ זיו‬in order to complete the stich. The motif of light for Jerusalem in the eschatological age, in contrast to the darkness of the rest of the world, is explicit in Isa 60:1–3.22 However, I suggest that the allusion to Qoh 8:1 is even more complex in its own right, and presents more than one reading of the verse. In MT, the final word of the verse, ‫ישנא‬, is vocalized as a Pual third person masculine singular imperfect form of the verbal root ‫ׁשנ״א‬, an orthographic variant of the While she is undoubtedly correct that Isa 52 plays a significant role as a source for 4Q462 (Isa 52:1 describes Jerusalem’s majestic clothes, and v. 11 its impurity; see below), it is one source among a number that she herself identified. 21  Smith, “4Q462,” 205; Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 42, both noted the allusion to Qoh 8:1, but did not appreciate its full significance (in Segal, “Between Exegesis and Sectarianism,” I neglected to note this allusion). 22  S. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 518–19, has suggested that these verses in Isaiah 60 might themselves already reflect the reuse of the tradition found in Exod 10:23 (this possibility was suggested to me independently by Moshe Bernstein in an oral communication).

220

Segal

more common ‫ׁשנ״ה‬.23 In contrast, both LXX (μισηθήσεται) and the Peshitta (‫ )ܢܣܬܢܐ‬translate the verb as a future/imperfect passive third person masculine singular form of the root ‫“( ׂשנ״א‬hate”), which is equally plausible in an unpointed text in which ‫ׂש‬/‫ ׁש‬were not distinguished. These versions read the wisdom maxim as reflecting contrastive parallelism: wisdom will illuminate one’s face, while impudence/anger will be hated. The readings of MT and LXX/Peshitta were attested together in an al tiqre homily found in b. Taʿan. 7b:24 Rabbah the son of R. Huna said: It is permissible to call “wicked” any one who is insolent…. R. Nahman the son of R. Isaac said: One may even hate him, as it is said, ‘And the boldness of his face is changed (‫( ’)יְ ֻשׁנֶּ א‬Qoh 8:1). Do not read ‫[ יְ ֻשׁנֶּ א‬changed] but ‫[ יׂשנא‬be hated]. Although it is clear, as noted above, that 4Q462 reads ‫ ׁשנא‬in line 16, I suggest that the alternate reading of Qoh 8:1, ‫ׂשנא‬, is also highly relevant to the context of this section of 4Q462, which describes the status of Jerusalem as rejected/hated in the pre-eschatological period (see line 18 below, based upon Isa 60:15). The employment of Qoh 8:1 thus allows for a multivalent reading of the passage, which interacts with other biblical allusions in different ways. – Line 16: ‫“ ועדה ובגדיה‬and her uncleanness and her garments.” This pair of words appears to be an allusion to Isa 64:5: “We have all become like an unclean thing (‫)כטמא‬, and all our virtues like a filthy rag (‫)כבגד עדים‬.” In view of the parallelism in this verse, the latter expression refers to impurity.25 23  The III-aleph form appears also in 2 Kgs 25:29 (contrast Jer 52:33); Lam 4:1. 24  The evidence of al tiqre homilies are not necessarily evidence of an actual textual variant, since they might reflect paronomasia. However since they frequently correspond to attested readings in other textual witnesses, as in the case of Qoh 8:1, they can certainly be adduced as supporting evidence for the other readings. For a discussion of these homilies, see S. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts,” Textus 4 (1964): 95–132, esp. 126–32; M. Zipor, Tradition and Transmission: Studies in Ancient Biblical Translation and Interpretation (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001), 166–210 (in Hebrew). The evidence of these homilies is recorded in the second apparatus of the Hebrew University Bible Project editions. 25  Smith, “4Q462,” 205; Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 43; see also BDB, 723; HALOT, 790 §‫עדה‬. Alternatively, it is possible that the noun ‫ עד‬means “garment” (as so classified by the Ma‌ʾagarim website of the Academy of the Hebrew Language’s Historical Dictionary Project), parallel to ‫בגדיה‬, and that both refer to the garments of Jerusalem (for the motif of Jerusalem’s garments, note especially Isa 49:18; 52:1; see Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 43). Evidence for such a meaning can be perhaps be adduced from 4Q184, frag. 1, (4–)5, in which ‫ עדיה‬is used in parallel to ‫ מלבשיה‬and ‫מכסיה‬. The noun ‫ ֲע ִדי‬is used in Isa 49:18 in

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

221

– Line 17: The motif of an impure Jerusalem continues in this line as well; see Lam 1:8–9, 17. – Line 18: [‫]“ ]שנאתה כאשר היתה לפני הבנותה‬her rejection (or: you rejected her) as she was before she was built[.” The language of this line hearkens back to the description of the despised Jerusalem in Isa 60:15a: “Whereas you have been forsaken, rejected (‫)ושנואה‬, with none passing through.” If the reader identifies this allusion, then they are also aware of the imminent reversal of fortunes found in the second half of that very same verse: “I will make you a pride everlasting, a joy for age after age” (v. 15b). – Line 19: ‫ישרו̊ ̇ל ירושלים‬ ̊ ‫“ ויזכור את‬And he remembered Jerusalem.” This reversal is effected through God’s memory of Jerusalem, parallel to his remembering of Israel while they were in Egypt (line 3; see Exod 2:24).26 1.2 Light and Darkness in Ancient Jewish Literature A direct analogy with respect to the motif of light and darkness between the servitude in Egypt (Unit I) and the future salvation of Jerusalem (Unit II) is found in line 3, according to the reconstruction above (based upon the combination of 4Q462 with 4Q467): ̇‫“ זר ̇ח אור ]ליעקוב ויא[ר על צי]ו̇ ן‬Light shone ]upon Jacob and illumi[nated upon Zi]on.”27 In a striking parallel, the same analogy is explicitly drawn in Mekilta de R. Ishmael to Exod 14:20:28 And it (the cloud) came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel, and there was the cloud and darkness” (Exod 14:20)—The cloud upon Israel and the darkness upon the Egyptians. Scripture tells that the reference to Jerusalem, although the absence of a yod in the word ‫ ועדה‬in 4Q462 seems to mitigate against this suggestion (Smith, “4Q462,” 205). 26  The word before ‫ ירושלים‬has been erased by the scribe (it is crossed out, and part of the lamed has been erased), and is difficult to read. Smith suggested that the deleted word was ‫( ישראל‬in the transcription on p. 198, the lamed is missing, but it is clear from his description in the Notes on Readings [p. 200] that he read the letter). Dimant reads ‫ישרול‬, since the second-to-last letter is likely a waw (Qimron reads only the final two letters as ‫ו̇ ̇ל‬ and leaves the first three letters undeciphered). An examination of the fragment on the website of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library (Israel Antiquities Authority): http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-358874, appears to confirm Dimant’s reading. The strange orthography is probably due to scribal error, the result of metathesis of the following word ‫ירושלים‬, by a copyist who expected to read ‫ ישראל‬in the context of God’s remembrance. 27  Note that the line as reconstructed picks up (and interprets) the vocabulary of Isa 60:2–3. The identification of this allusion supports the reconstruction and also the idea that these lines were to serve as an introduction to the lines that follow. 28  Tractate Beshallaḥ 5; translation taken from J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933), 1:226.

222

Segal

Israelites were in the light, and the Egyptians were in the dark; just as it is said: “They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days; but all the children of Israel had light” (Exod 10:23). And you also find it said so of the future. What does it say? “Arise, shine, for thy light is come,” etc. (Isa 60:1). Why? “For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth” (Isa 60:2). I suggest that this rabbinic passage presents both key aspects of the exegetical tradition which are found in 4Q462: light for the Israelites and darkness for the Egyptians at the crossing of the sea, borrowed from the explicit mention of this differentiation in the plague of darkness; and the analogy between the light on the Israelites at the Exodus, and the future, eschatological light that will shine upon Jerusalem, while the rest of the world is enshrouded in darkness. A similar typological use of the Exodus for future salvation, including the distinction between light and darkness for the Israelites and Egyptians respectively, is found in another Jewish source from antiquity.29 Wisdom of Solomon 17:20–18:4 reads: (17:20) For the whole world was illumined with brilliant light, and went about its work unhindered, (21) while over those people alone heavy night was spread, an image of the darkness that was destined to receive them; but still heavier than darkness were they to themselves. (18:1) But for your holy ones there was very great light. Their enemies heard their voices but did not see their forms, and counted them happy for not having suffered, (2) and were thankful that your holy ones, though previously wronged, were doing them no injury; and they begged their pardon for having been at variance with them. (3) Therefore, you provided a flaming pillar of fire as a guide for your people’s unknown journey, and a harmless sun for their glorious wandering. (4) For their enemies deserved to be deprived of light and imprisoned in darkness, those who had kept your children imprisoned, through whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world. Here too, the differentiation between light and darkness // Israel and the Egyptians serves as a paradigm for the eschatological period, although the

29  My thanks to Menahem Kister for pointing out the relevance of these sources for my argument. Note, too (above, n. 15), the distinction between light and darkness for the Israelites and Egyptians in T. Jos. 20:2 as noted by Kister, “4Q392,” 137 n. 54.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

223

analogy is more general, without the specific reference to Jerusalem, as found in 4Q462 and the rabbinic source. This analogical reading manifests the historiosophical perspective described above; the formative events of the past foreshadow the future. The exodus, in particular, was adopted as a model for future redemption, already in the Bible itself (Isa 11:15–16; Ezek 20:36; Hos 2:16–17; Joel 3:3–5; Mic 7:15; Zechariah 9); Exodus language is especially prominent in Second Isaiah, who describes the return from Babylonia using the imagery of the exodus from Egypt (Isa 41:17– 18; 42:15; 43:2, 16–21; 44:27; 48:20–21; 49:10–11; 50:2–3; 51:10–11; 52:11–12).30 A similar exegetical trend can be found in rabbinic literature, especially the Mekilta, which applies aspects of the story of the splitting of the sea and the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15) to aspects of future redemption (as already noted above in one case).31 In light of the analysis of this exegetical background, there is no reason to connect the motifs and terms “light” and “darkness” in this composition with an exclusively sectarian milieu.32 Rather this scroll reflects broader interpretive traditions that can be traced in both earlier and later nonsectarian sources. At the same time, apocalyptic concepts such as the “period of darkness” and the “period of light” in line 10 share an affinity with notions expressed in sectarian works; and therefore, the historical-theological picture drawn here would be certainly be compatible with a sectarian religious worldview.33 The Exodus is probably the most prevalent paradigm for future salvation. It is, however, part of a much broader phenomenon, found across a range of stories and events, in which later events are described using the same motifs and language as those used for events which had taken place previously.34 30  See, e.g., Y. Hoffman, The Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1983), esp. 60–65 (in Hebrew); M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 360–68; Y. Zakovitch, “And You Shall Tell Your Son …”: The Concept of Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1991), 56–58, 103; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 45–46. 31  See M. Pickup, “Eschatological Interpretation in Shirata,” The Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 1 (1998): 83–99. 32  Contra Dimant, “Egypt and Jerusalem,” 28, 37. 33  M. Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71 (354) (in Hebrew): “It was convenient for those streams with a dualistic outlook to adopt these ideas, which were widespread in broad circles, and to give them a specific, sectarian garb” (translation my own). 34  Thus, for example, Menahem Kister has posited a similar process in which descriptions of Nicanor’s threatening behavior towards Jerusalem, blasphemy, and ultimate downfall, as described in rabbinic sources (Babylonian Talmud, Scholion to Megillat Taʿanit), are based upon earlier descriptions of Rabshakeh’s actions, as formulated in Sir 48:18. As he further notes, Judah’s prayer before the victory over Nicanor, as quoted (in different forms) in 1 Macc 7:40–43 and 2 Macc 15:22–24, draws an explicit analogy between

224 2

Segal

Historical Postcedent: From Antiochus to Nebuchadnezzar

A similar process of analogy also occurs in the opposite direction, whereby instead of an earlier event serving as a model for a later one, the process is reversed, and an earlier historical character is described according to the contours of a later one. This insight allows for the reconstruction of an exegetical tradition, which forms the basis of three independent compositions, in three different languages, from antiquity: the Old Greek version of Daniel, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C preserved in Cave 4 at Qumran, and the Aramaic Targum Jonathan. The specific process to be discussed here, the transfer of characteristics of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, was born out of a specific exegetical context, but was then adapted into other literary frameworks. In each of the three sources to be discussed here, one can note different emphases, but all of them share the idea that the later king serves as a model for the earlier monarch, a postcedent, so that Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as a Proto-Antiochus. 2.1 Old Greek Daniel 4 In MT Daniel, two monarchs play the leading roles of the foreign king: Nebuchadnezzar in the first four chapters of the book; and Antiochus IV, without explicit mention of his name, in the apocalyptic section. Antiochus first appears in chapter 7 as the “little horn” that sprouted up on the head of the fourth beast, representing the fourth kingdom, which was condemned to death in the divine court. There is general agreement among critical scholars that in the context of the Danielic visions, the fourth kingdom is the Hellenistic Empire and the “little horn” that “spoke arrogantly” (7:8) is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Similarly, the “small horn” of the he-goat in Daniel 8 represents Antiochus, and the he-goat itself the Hellenistic empire, as is explained within the interpretation following the apocalypse (8:21). The final week of the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9 opens with the killing of an “anointed one” (9:26), an expression that refers to the murder of the High Priest Onias III in 171 BCE (according to 2 Macc 4:30–38; see also Dan 11:22); the vision also includes the establishment of the ‫( שקץ משומם‬9:27; see also 8:13; 11:31; 12:11), one of the primary accusations himself and the Assyrians in the time of Hezekiah. See M. Kister, “‫אחור וקדם‬: Aggadoth and Midrashic Methods in the Literature of the Second Temple Period and in Rabbinic Literature,” in Higayon L’Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. J. Levinson et al. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006), 231–59 (234–36) (in Hebrew).

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

225

leveled against Antiochus (cf. 1 Macc 1:54). Finally, in chapter 11, the numerous allusions to historical events in the detailed description of the battles between the King(s) of the North and the King(s) of the South, make it clear the last King of the North, who receives by far the most attention in this apocalypse, is none other than Antiochus IV. If so, there is a certain balance between the two halves of the book—Nebuchadnezzar is the dominant sovereign in the first half, succeeded in this role by Antiochus in the second. From a literary perpsective, the apocalypse in Daniel 7 functions as a bridge between the two halves of the book. On the one hand, Daniel 7 continues the Aramaic language found in chapters 2–6. At the same time, in terms of its genre, it opens the apocalyptic visions found in the second half of the book. It thus can be described as a literary pivot of the composition. The current study will focus an a single literary motif from Daniel 7 (in all of its textual witnesses), which further develops the overlap between Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus. The first beast is described at the beginning of the vision: The first was like a lion but had eagles’ wings. As I looked on, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted off the ground and set on its feet like a man and given the mind/heart of a man. Interpreters have previously noted the connection between the first beast, which stands like a man and receives a human heart/mind, and the character of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, who is reduced to living like a beast in the field, until he returns to functioning like a human.35 Although the chronological framework of the book dates the vision in Daniel 7 after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, the contents of the vision point to him as the king at its beginning and Antiochus at its end, the small horn on the fourth beast, immediately prior to the eternal divine kingdom. The connection between the two kings in Daniel 7 is not characteristic of the stories or other apocalypses in the book; moreover, there is no other inherent connection between the two halves of Daniel. However, one who reads the book as a literary unity, and in particular through the literary lens of chapter 7, is influenced by the long historical view that marks the book as a whole— crafted as a single historical period that extends from Nebuchadnezzar until Antiochus IV. 35  For a discussion of the textual relationship between 7:4 and 4:13a, see my Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel, BZAW 455 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 104–7.

226

Segal

This reading of Daniel is found in a unique verse in the Old Greek version (OG). OG Daniel is significant for the reconstruction of the textual history of the book, especially in chapters 4–6, where the differences with other versions (MT; Qumran; Theodotion) are both significant and broad ranging.36 Here I would like to focus on one verse from chapter 4, which seems to be of significance for understanding the exegetical tradition under discussion here: Daniel 4:19 (22) is found within Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s dream about a tree of cosmic proportions:37 MT: ‫) אילנא די חזית די רבה ותקף ורומה ימטא לשמיא וחזותה לכל־ארעא׃‬17( ‫) ועפיה שפיר ואנבה שגיא ומזון לכלא־בה תחתוהי תדור חיות ברא ובענפוהי‬18( ‫) אנתה־ (אנת־) הוא מלכא די רבית (רבת) ותקפת ורבותך‬19( ‫ישכנן צפרי שמיא׃‬

‫רבת ומטת לשמיא ושלטנך לסוף ארעא׃‬

(17) The tree that you saw grow and become mighty, whose top reached heaven, which was visible throughout the earth, (18) whose foliage was beautiful, whose fruit was so abundant that there was food for all in it, beneath which the beasts of the field dwelt, and in whose branches the birds of the sky lodged—(19) it is you, O king, you who have grown and become mighty, whose greatness has grown to reach heaven, and whose dominion is to the end of the earth. OG: τὸ δὲ ἀνυψωθῆναι τὸ δένδρον ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἐγγίσαι τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὸ κύτος αὐτοῦ ἅψασθαι τῶν νεφελῶν· σύ, βασιλεῦ, ὑψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς, ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ καὶ ἰσχύι τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ· τὰ ἔργα σου ὤφθη, καθότι ἐξερήμωσας τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου Furthermore, the fact that that tree was exalted and neared heaven and that its span touched the clouds: You, O king, have been exalted above all humans who are upon the face of the whole earth. Your heart was exalted 36  For a more extended discussion, see Segal, Dreams, 3–6. 37  I briefly discussed this verse in Segal, Dreams, 121–22. The English translation of MT follows the NJPS translation, with minor deviations. OG and Theod. Daniel are quoted according to O. Munnich, ed., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999); rev. 2d ed. of J. Ziegler, ed., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1954). The English translations of the Greek versions are from the NETS edition.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

227

with pride and power vis-à-vis the holy one and his angels. Your works were seen, how you desolated the house of the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people. MT here is limited to a basic description of the large proportions of the tree, which symbolizes the king’s greatness and sovereignty over the entire world. In contrast, OG is much more detailed, both with respect to the tree and to the king himself.38 According to both versions, Nebuchadnezzar was exalted above all of humanity, but in contrast to MT, OG extends this to a list of his sins: the exaltation of his heart against God and His angels, and the desolation of the Temple. The formulation of these Greek expressions finds parallels elsewhere in OG Daniel, in particular to the aspects of the Danielic apocalypses that refer to Antiochus IV:39 (a) ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία “your heart was exalted”: Dan 8:25: ‫(ועל־שכלו והצליח מרמה בידו) ובלבבו יגדיל‬ … καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ὑψωθήσεται … Nebuchadnezzar’s hubris is described using the same figurative expression as that found in repeated references to Antiochus in the apocalyptic section of the book. See also 8:10 (ὑψώθη); 11:36 (ὑψωθήσεται), 37 (ὑψωθήσεται); but note 11:12 (not in reference to Antiochus IV): ‫ ירם [וְ ָרם] ְל ָבבֹו‬καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ. (b) ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ “with pride”: The Greek term is a hapax legomenon in OG Daniel, but it appears twice in Theod., both times in the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation as told in Daniel 4. The first appears at the end of chapter 4, in the context of the doxology that the king recited following his return to his previous position: Dan 4:34(37): ‫ ודי מהלכין בגוה יכל להשפלה‬and those who behave arrogantly he is able to humble (= Theodotion: καὶ πάντας τοὺς πορευομένους ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ δύναται ταπεινῶσαι). 38  The description of the tree in the dream itself is also more expansive in OG Dan 4:8(11) than in MT/Theod., and it is said to contain even the sun and the moon; see the discussion below, n. 47. 39  Although some of the language is admittedly found elsewhere in OG Daniel, the cumulative weight of the evidence points to the descriptions of Antiochus IV as the source of this addition.

228

Segal

The second instance is found in Daniel’s historical review, to Belshazaar, in reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance: Dan 5:20: ‫ וכדי רם לבבה ורוחה תקפת להזדה‬But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was emboldened to act presumptuously (= Theod. καὶ ὅτε ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκραταιώθη τοῦ ὑπερηφανεύσασθαι). However, there is no actual overlap between the two textual witnesses, and neither of these singular verses is attested in the other Greek version. In chapter 4, OG Daniel differs significantly from both MT and Theodotion, including both the long addition in v. 19, and the formulation of the blessing in v. 34 (37). Verses 17–22 in chapter 5 (as attested in MT/Theod.) are completely absent in OG Daniel, and were probably added secondarily to the story in order to connect it literarily to chapter 4.40 Although this root is not attested elsewhere in OG Daniel, it is attested in LXX, both in passages that have been translated from a Hebrew Vorlage, and in compositions for which no such Semitic Vorlage can be identified or reconstructed. It is a formal equivalent of different roots, such as ‫( גא״ה‬Ps 17:10; 31:18, 23; 36:11 et al.); ‫זדון‬/‫( זו״ד‬Deut 17:12; Obad 3; Neh 9:16 et al.); ‫( רו״ם‬Num 15:30; Isa 2:12). Of even greater relevance is the use of ὑπερηφανία in the description of Antiochus IV in the books of Maccabees, beginning with his first appearance in Jerusalem in 1 Macc 1:21:41 (21) καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγίασμα ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ καὶ ἔλαβεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν (And he entered the holy precinct with arrogance and took the golden altar …) 2 Maccabees 9 pounds home the inseparable connection between Antiochus and arrogance:

40  J. J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 242, 249; J. Lust, “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4–5,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude, BETL 106 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1993), 39–53; E. Ulrich, “The Parallel Editions of the Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 5,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. E. F. Mason et al., 2 vols., JSJSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1:201–17 (206, 215–16); Segal, Dreams, 58 n. 12; 103 n. 17. 41  See also 1 Macc 1:24; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:36; 9:28 (βλάσφημος); 3 Macc 2:5, 17.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

229

(4) … οὕτως γὰρ ὑπερηφάνως εἶπεν Πολυανδρεῖον Ιουδαίων Ιεροσόλυμα ποιήσω παραγενόμενος ἐκεῖ…. (7) ὁ δ᾽ οὐδαμῶς τῆς ἀγερωχίας ἔληγεν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς ὑπερηφανίας ἐπεπλήρωτο πῦρ πνέων τοῖς θυμοῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς Ιουδαίους…. (10)… καὶ τὸν μικρῷ πρότερον τῶν οὐρανίων ἄστρων ἅπτεσθαι δοκοῦντα. (11) ἐνταῦθα οὖν ἤρξατο τὸ πολὺ τῆς ὑπερηφανίας λήγειν τεθραυσμένος…. (4) … For in his arrogance he said, “When I get there I will make Jerusalem a cemetery of Judeans.” … (7) Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Judeans…. (10) and who a little while before had thought that he could touch the stars of heaven. (11) Then it was that, broken in spirit, he began to lose much of his arrogance…. In this passage from 2 Maccabees 9, the term ὑπερηφανία functions as a leitwort, perhaps even a play on words with Antiochus’s epithet, Epiphanes.42 According to Hellenistic Jewish sources, arrogance was one of Antiochus’s primary characteristics, corresponding to his description in Dan 7:8: “a mouth that spoke arrogantly” (see also 11:36–37). Its use in OG Daniel 4 could simply be an expansion of Nebuchadnezzar’s hubris as already described throughout the chapter, but it is likely that both the Greek translator and his readers would be sensitive to the identification of Nebuchadnezzar’s character traits with those of Antiochus. (c) τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ “vis-à-vis the holy one and his angels”: The objects of Nebuchadnezzar’s haughtiness are “the holy one and his angels.”43 The double recipients of the king’s hubris, God and his angels, parallels the description of Antiochus’s blasphemous actions in the second half of the book. Thus we find it said in relation to the horn on the fourth beast (representing Antiochus IV) in Dan 7:25:

42  D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 355. 43  Nowhere else in OG Daniel does ἅγιος in the singular refer to God. However, this seems to be the only way to understand this term in its context, since the angels are referred to as his. Cf. the parallel in OG 4:23–24(20–21): (23) … ἡ κρίσις τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου ἥξει ἐπὶ σέ, (24) καὶ ὁ ὕψιστος καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σὲ κατατρέχουσιν “(23) … the verdict of the great God will come upon you, (24) and the Most High and his angels are pursuing you.”

230

Segal

MT:

‫ומלין לצד עליא (עלאה) ימלל ולקדישי עליונין יבלא‬

He will speak words against the Most High, and will speak (against) the Most High holy one(s). OG: καὶ ῥήματα εἰς τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους τοῦ ὑψίστου κατατρίψει. And he shall speak words against the Most High and shall wear down the holy ones of the Most High. According to the translation of MT suggested here,44 the verse describes in two parallel stichs sacrilegious speech by the king in question, viz. Antiochus.45 Similar accusations against Antiochus are found in subsequent chapters of the book: Daniel 11:36:

‫ויתגדל על־כל־אל ועל אל אלים ידבר נפלאות‬

he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and he will speak awful things against the god of gods This verse clearly delineates a hierarchy between “every god” and “the god of gods,” and they are both the victims of hurtful speech by the “king of the North.” In chapter 8, the double damage, against the head god and against other heavenly beings, is found in both the vision and its interpretation: Daniel 8: ‫) ותגדל עד־צבא השמים ותפל ארצה מן־הצבא ומן־הכוכבים ותרמסם׃‬10( ‫) ועל־שכלו‬25( ‫… והשחית עצומים ועם־קדשים׃‬ )24( … ‫) ועד שר־הצבא הגדיל‬11( … ‫והצליח מרמה בידו ובלבבו יגדיל ובשלוה ישחית רבים ועל שר־שרים יעמד‬

(10) It grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars of the [heavenly] host to the ground and trampled them. (11) It vaunted itself 44  For a detailed discussion of this verse, including its meaning and translation, see Segal, Dreams, 139–43, 150–52. 45  I have argued in Segal, Dreams, 150–52, that in the original context of Daniel 7, the parallel stichs should be understood synonymously, both referring to YHWH as the object of the hurtful speech. However, in subsequent interpretations, including within the book of Daniel itself (see the following passages), the parallelism was taken to indicate two separate entities.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

231

against the very chief of the host … (24)… and he will destroy the mighty and the people of holy ones. (25) By his cunning, he will use deceit successfully. He will make great plans, will destroy many, taking them unawares, and will rise up against the chief of chiefs … The Old Greek to v. 25 has a slightly different reading, and instead of MT ‫ועל‬ ‫ שכלו‬reads καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους τὸ διανόημα αὐτοῦ “and his thought will be against the holy ones,” presumably reflecting an alternate Hebrew Vorlage, ‫ועל קד ֹשים‬ ‫שכלו‬, which emphasizes the double object of his blasphemous behavior, and balances the vision and its interpretation. I suggest that the accusation against Nebuchadnezzar in OG 4:19 should be understood in a similar way; it creates a parallel between Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus, by attributing to the former what is explicitly expressed about the latter in the apocalyptic section of the book. (d) καθότι ἐξερήμωσας τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου “how you desolated the house of the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people”: The Greek verb used here, ἐξερήμωσας, appears to be a conscious choice of the OG translator in 4:19. Nominal and verbal forms of the Greek word ἔρημος “desolation, desert, wilderness” appear throughout OG Daniel, predominantly in the second half of the book, most of those in reference to Antiochus’s desecration and desolation of the Temple. Thus, for example, in 11:31: ‫וחללו‬ ‫“ המקדש המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השקוץ משמם‬they will desecrate the Temple, the fortress; they will abolish the regular offering and set up the ‘desolating’46 abomination (OG: βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως)”; cf. also 8:13; 9:27; 12:11. Here too, the choice of this verb, common in the description of Antiochus’s actions, in order to describe those of Nebuchadnezzar, creates a parallel with Antiochus and strengthens the connection between the two kings. As already noted above, in MT Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus both occupy prominent roles as the ultimate monarchs of the foreign empires, especially in chapter 7, where they both receive extended descriptions as the first and fourth beasts, but there is no direct equation made between them. What is new in OG 4:19 is the transformation of Nebuchadnezzar into a

46   J PS translates here and elsewhere “appalling abomination,” but this does not capture the etymology of the Hebrew ‫ ְמׁש ֵֹמם‬.

232

Segal

proto-Antiochus: he is associated with Antiochus-like character traits and accused of the same negative actions that Antiochus had perpetrated.47 2.2 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C The same dynamic of transformation may be identified in another apocalyptic composition from Qumran, published by Devorah Dimant under the title 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah, and attested in multiple copies in Cave 4.48 Dimant dated this composition to the final quarter of the second century BCE, soon after the final literary stages of development of Daniel.49 The author of this composition seems to have been familiar with the book of Daniel; his work

47  This interpretive tendency may offer an explanation for an additional element in OG Daniel 4. In MT Dan 4:5–15, Nebuchadnezzar relates to Daniel the content of his dream. In MT v. 8, he describes a tree of cosmic proportions, which reaches heaven and can be seen throughout the entire world ‫רבה אילנא ותקף ורומה ימטא לשמיא וחזותה לסוף‬ ‫ארעא‬-‫“ כל‬The tree grew and became mighty; its top reached heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the earth.” (Daniel 4:19 constitutes part of the interpretation of this dream.) The Old Greek version of of this verse (v. 8[11]) presents an expanded (and in my opinion secondary) description of the tree: καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ μεγάλη. ἡ κορυφὴ αὐτοῦ ἤγγιζεν ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὸ κύτος αὐτοῦ ἕως τῶν νεφελῶν πληροῦν τὰ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν αὐτῷ ᾤκουν καὶ ἐφώτιζον πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. “And its appearance was great. Its crown came close to heaven, and its trunk to the clouds, filling the area under heaven. The sun and the moon dwelt in it and illuminated the whole earth.” On the one hand, this expansion may have been intended simply to further embellish and emphasize the king’s haughtiness, similar to other “rewritten” elements in OG Daniel 4 (note the expanded version of Nebuchadnezzar’s hymn of praise in OG v. 34[37] in comparison to MT/Theod v. 34). However, in light of the present discussion, it is possible that here too, the description of Nebuchadnezzar has been influenced by motifs from that of Antiochus. According to MT 8:10 (describing Antiochus), “It [the horn] grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars of the [heavenly] host to the ground and trampled them.” In the context of that apocalypse, this describes how Antiochus succeeded in damaging the heavenly realm, presumably through his desecration of the Temple (cf. also 8:24–25; the imagery of the verses in Daniel 8 was almost certainly influenced by Isa 14:12–15). The imagery of the tree in OG Daniel 4, which fills all the area between earth and heaven and “tames” the luminaries, bringing their light under its direct control, may owe something to this imagery in Daniel 8. If one may connect the horn in chapter 8, which symbolizes Antiochus, with the tree in chapter 4, which symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar, then if the former reached “as high as the host of heaven,” then the latter should as well. If one interprets ‫צבא השמים‬ in 8:10 as the heavenly luminaries, which is its meaning in numerous biblical passages (e.g., Deut 4:19; 17:13; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2), then one can reach the conclusion that the tree in Daniel 4 reached higher than these as well. 48  D. Dimant, “B. Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4. XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, ed. D. Dimant, DJD 30 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 91–260. 49  Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 115–16.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

233

includes various allusions to and interpretations of it.50 One passage in particular is relevant for the current discussion. Dimant has reconstructed this passage using 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Cb (4Q387), fragment 2, cols. ii–iii, as the base text, supplemented by the evidence of three additional copies:51 Frg. 2, col. ii ‫זקו לעבדני בכל לבבכם‬ ̇ ‫]ותח‬ ̇ [‫]כם‏‬ ̇ [◦] [‫]יע‏‬ [‫ ‏‬1 ‫ולא אדרש להם‬ ֯ ‫ובכ[ל נפשכם ובק]ש[ו‏] ֯פ[נ‏]י֯ בצר להם‬ ֯ ‭2 ‫[א]ש ֯ר מעל[ו‏]ב֯‏[י‏ ]עד שלמות עשרה‬ ֯ ‫ם‬ ‫מעל ‏‬ ֯ ‫ בעבור‬ ‭3 ‫וה ֯ת ֯ה[ל]כתם ֯ב ֯ש[געו‏ן ]ובעורון ותמהן‬ ֯ ‫ יבלי שנים‬ ‭4 ̇ ‫הדור[‏]ההוא א[קרע‬ ֯ ‫ומתם‬ ̇ ‫ הלבב‬ ‭5 ‫‏]את הממלכה מיד המחזיקים‬ ‫ אתה ו֯ [ה]קימותי̇ ֯עליה אחרים מעם אח ‏ר ומשל‬ ‭6 ‫בכ ̇ל ‏[  הא]רץ וממלכת ישרא ‏ל תאבד בימים‬ ֯ ‫ ‏ [הז]דון‬‭7 ̇ ‫י]ק[ום מלך‬ ‫ גדפן‏ ועשה תעבות וקרעתי‬52‫ו]הוא‬ ̊ [‫ ההמה‬ ‭8 ‫מישר‬ ‫מסתרים‬ ‫ופני‬ ‫ם‬ ‫‏‬ ]‫למכל[י‬ ‫א‬ ‫‏‬ ‫‏]הו‬ ‫ה‬ ‫והמלך‬ ‫[תו‬ ‫ממלכ‬ ֯ ]‫‏‬ ‫ת‬ ‫[א‬ 9 ‭ ‫‏‬ ‫אל‬ ‫ובנ֯ י̇ ישראל זעקים‬ ̇ ‫ב ] ֯לגוים‏ רבים‏‬ ‫ תשו ‏‬53‫ [והממלכה‬ 10 ‫משי]ע להם‬ ֯ ‫‏]ם ו֯ [אין‬ ֯ ‫ת שבי‬ ‫ ‏ [מפני על כבד בארצו ‏‬11 ]‫ע]ל[ כן‏‬ ̇ ‫ ‏ [יען ביען חקתי מאסו ותרתי געלה נפשם‬‭12 ]‫ [הסתרתי פני מהם עד אשר ישלימו עונם וזה להם‬ 13 ]‫ [האות בשלם עונם כי עזבתי את הארץ ברום לבבם‬ 14 ]‫ [ממני ולא ידעו כי מאסתים ושבו ועשו רעה רבה‬ 15 50  See below. This is not to claim that its author was aware of a specific textual form of the book, although the analysis below is perhaps suggestive in this regard. 51  The composite text is copied from Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 190–91, with minor adjustments based upon E. Qimron, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 2:94–100 (in Hebrew). Overall, the two editions are primarily in agreement, and the differences between them do not affect the overall meaning of the passage. The English translation is based upon Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 181, 187, 229–30. The base text is taken from 4Q387, and is supplemented with the evidence of 4Q385a 4; 4Q388a 7 ii; and 4Q389 8 ii. Due to the extensive textual evidence for this passage, most of the “reconstructions” in Dimant’s composite text are actually attested in the other copies of the composition (this is clearer in Qimron’s edition, since the evidence from the other scrolls is noted in different color fonts in the reconstructions). The composite text is presented here without notation of the textual parallels. ̇ 52  Qimron, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 97. Dimant reads ‫וה]וא‬ ‫[י]ה[יה מלך‬ ̇ . Qimron’s reading creates a complete parallel between the arrivals of the two blaspheming kings in lines 8 and 17–18 respectively. 53  The reading ‫ והממלכה‬follows 4Q389 8 ii 2 (Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 228); in contrast, 4Q387 2 ii 10 preserves from this word the fragmentary remains of what appear to be two consecutive lameds. Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 140, 184, suggests that perhaps these reflect variant readings, although the reading of 4Q387 is not ascertainable.

234

Segal

]‫ [מן הרעה הראשנה והפרו את הברית אשר כרתי‬ 16 ]‫ [עם אברהם ועם יצחק ועם יעקב בימים ההמה‬ 17 ]‫ [יקום מלך לגוים גדפן ועשה רעות ובימו אעביר‬ 18 Frg. 2, col. iii ]‫ת [מצרים   ‏‬ ‫ת ממלכ ‏‬ ‫ם בי̇ ֯מו̇‏ אשבר‏ א ‏‬ ‫ת ישרא]ל‏ מע ‏‬ ‫[א ‏‬

1

Frg. 2, col. ii 1 [ ] [ ] your[ ]and be resolute to serve me with all your heart 2 and with al[l your soul. And they will se]e[k] my pre[s]ence in their affliction, but I shall not respond to their inquiry, 3 because of the trespass [wh]ich [they] have trespassed against [me], until the completion of ten 4  jubilees of years; and you will be wa[l]king in ma[dness] and in blindness and bewilderment 5 of heart. And after that generation comes to end, I shall [tear away] the kingdom from the hand of those who seize 6 it, and I [sha]ll raise up over it others from another people, and the insolence will rule 7 over all[the l]and, and the kingdom of Israel will be lost. In those days 8  [a king will arise and]he (will) be a blasphemer and he will commit abominations, and I shall tear away 9 [his]king[dom, and th]at [king] (will be) to the destroy[e]rs. And my face shall be hidden from Israel 10 [and the kingdom will turn]towards many nations. And the Israelites will be crying out 11 [because of the heavy yoke in the lands of]their[captivity] and [there will be none to deliv]er them 12 [because they have spurned my statutes and abhorred my Torah. There]fo[re] 13 [I have hidden my face from them until they accomplish their iniquity. And this is to them] 14 [the sign of the completion of their iniquity for I shall leave the land because of their haughtiness] 15 [towards me, and they will not know that I have spurned them and they will turn to do evil, greater] 16 [than the former evil, and they will violate the covenant which I made]

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

235

17 [with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob. In those days] 18 [will arise a king of the Gentiles, a blasphemer, and a doer of evils. And in his days, I shall remove] Frg. 2, col. iii 1 [Israe]l from (being) a people. In his days I shall break the kingdom of[ Egypt This section presents a historical summary of a period of ten jubilees (lines 3–4), 490 years, characterized as a time during which Israel will trespass and be in a state of blindness. This period is demarcated by two kings, at its beginning and end, each referred to as a ‫“ גדפן‬blasphemer” (lines 8, 18). During the era of the first blaspheming king, God will deliver the kingdom of Israel to a foreign people (lines 5–8), but then that king too will lose his kingdom (lines 8–9). Following an extended period during which Israel will continue to sin and God will hide his face (lines 10–17), another “king of the Gentiles, a blasphemer” will arrive on the scene, who will perform evil (lines 17–18). While the characters here are designated by epithets and not explicitly identified, we can still interpret the passage with relative reliability. It seems simplest to link the ten-jubilee period with the “seventy weeks” of Dan 9:24, which continues until the days of Antiochus IV. In my opinion, this Danielic framework offers the key to interpreting the Qumran text. Dimant (correctly) suggested that the two primary options for blaspheming kings are Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus Epiphanes.54 These two kings stand at the beginning and end of the period in Dan 9:24–27, according to the widespread understanding of the boundaries of this period.55 In order to justify the identification of the second “blasphemous king” with Antiochus, Dimant refers to the verses from Daniel 7 54  Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 210–11. B. H. Reynolds III, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 B.C.E., JAJSup 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 295–97, has argued that the first blaspheming king is a Persian monarch, since according to his reading of the fragment, the king will arise only after the Babylonian exile. He therefore suggests either Cyrus or Darius I as potential candidates for this epithet, but neither is particularly appropriate. However, it seems more likely to me that the period of ten jubilees in this passage begins one generation before the destruction of the temple and its accompanying exile, and the arrival of the blaspheming king (= Nebuchadnezzar) is associated with this destruction. 55  As I argued in “The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9,” JAJ 2 (2011): 283–303; repr. in Segal, Dreams, 155–79, this framing is a secondary development that does not correspond to the contours of this period in the original context of the apocalypse, which commenced with the Persian period. However, the text’s earliest

236

Segal

quoted above (vv. 8, 20, 25). As she notes: “It is precisely the Book of Daniel which describes Antiochus IV as a blasphemer.”56 Of course, one can also add Dan 8:10 and 11:36 as corroborating evidence for this tradition. What is the source for the identification of the first “blasphemous king” as Nebuchadnezzar? Dimant notes that the root ‫ גד״ף‬was used in the Bible in reference to Rabshakeh, commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army under Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:22 || Isa 37:23), regarding to his blasphemous words against the God of Israel (see also Sir 48:18). In addition, a number of biblical verses present the kings of Assyria and Babylonia as haughty, viewing themselves as greater and more powerful than YHWH (Isa 10:12; 14:13–14; 28:17).57 However, there is no explicit reference to Nebuchadnezzar as one who blasphemes.58 Elsewhere in the volume, Dimant suggests that this “would be in line with the negative, half-demonic portrayal of this king by the Book of Daniel (chaps. 2–4),”59 although this portrayal is still not equivalent to blasphemy. However, in view of the preceding discussion, the epithet is highly appropriate for Nebuchadnezzar. The author was not dependent upon the picture of Nebuchadnezzar in MT Daniel 2–4 alone, but as outlined above, perhaps also upon an interpretive process of assimilation of the qualities of Antiochus to the character of Nebuchadnezzar in the context of the development of the Daniel tradition. In light of this insight, it is possible to understand various aspects of this passage with Daniel as its background. The 490-year period is based upon the chronological-historiosophical perspective of Daniel 9, according to which this time was preordained, extending from Jeremiah’s prophecy until the arrival of an evil king. Israel’s salvation will occur only after ten jubilees. But this is not the only influence from Daniel on this passage from Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. The framework of the two blaspheming kings derives from the interpretive dynamic we have already seen to be at work within the Daniel traditions themselves, whereby the character of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is understood in light of the portrayals of Antiochus in chapters 7, 8, and 11.60 interpreters already opined that the “seventy weeks” began from the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jeremiah 29, and thus during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 56  Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 210; she also refers to the verses from 1 Macc 1 and 2 Macc 5. 57  Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 210. 58  It is possible that the idea of a blaspheming Babylonian monarch was deduced by analogy from the Assyrian example (see above, n. 34, for the extension of Assyria as a prototypical enemy). 59  Dimant, “Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 185. 60  I do not think that Apocryphon of Jeremiah C is directly dependent upon the Aramaic Vorlage of OG Dan 4:19 (note that OG 4:19 does not explicitly refer to blasphemy, but rather

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

237

2.3 Targum Jonathan to Hannah’s Song (1 Sam 2:1–10) The motif of Nebuchadnezzar as a blasphemer is found in a third source from antiquity, from a completely different context, Targum Jonathan to Hannah’s Song (1 Sam 2:1–10). It is unclear whether this source reflects the same interpretive process as that outlined above, but I have included it here, subject to my own methodological reservations. This passage is unique in its context. In contrast with the relatively literal translation followed by this Targum throughout most of Samuel, here the translator has extensively rewritten the biblical text, transforming the psalm recited by Hannah into an historical apocalypse, which surveys the history of Israel under the foreign empires. The apocalypse culminates in the eschatological age, at which time the righteous will be rewarded and evildoers will be punished in Gehenna (vv. 8–9).61 According to the historical allusions that can be identified (esp. in v. 5), one can date this apocalypse to the period following the destruction of the Second Temple, in the Roman era. Its purpose seems to have been to encourage Jews living under Roman rule to believe that despite the domination by foreign powers throughout history, God’s salvation is assured for the righteous of Israel.62 Every enemy of Israel eventually receives its just punishment, and those who persecute the righteous will ultimately perish in the battle of Gog and Magog. Specific details found in the Hebrew biblical psalm itself appear to have been the textual triggers which led the interpretation presented here in the Targum. These include the triumph over enemies (v. 1), “the bows of the mighty” which are broken (v. 4), and the motif of judgment upon the righteous and the wicked at the end of the poem (vv. 9–10). As noted by Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, the Song of Hannah in the Hebrew book of Samuel “already functions as a prophetic, proleptic song, anticipating the throne of glory and the anointed king.”63 This paved the way for the transformation of the entire story into a prophecy. to an assault or affront to the heavenly realm), but rather that they reflect independent crystallizations of the same interpretive process, perhaps dependent on an existing exegetical tradition. 61  See the studies of D. J. Harrington, “The Apocalypse of Hannah: Targum Jonathan of 1 Samuel 2:1–10,” in Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 147–52 (147); K. Koch, “Das apokalyptische Lied der Profetin Hanna: 1 Sam 2,1–10 im Targum,” in Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Wolfgang Zwickel, OBO 123 (Freiburg: Universtitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 61–82; E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 199. 62  Harrington, “Apocalypse,” 152. 63  Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 199; based on the earlier analysis of Koch, “Das apokalyptische Lied,” 61–62.

238

Segal

The Targum connects each of the oppressing nations with specific verses in the Hebrew: Verse 1—Philistines Verse 2—King Sennacherib of Assyria Verse 3—King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia Verse 4—Greeks Verse 5a—Sons of Haman (Persia) Verse 5b—Romans In contrast to the opinion of some scholars,64 I argue that this order does not reflect the four-kingdom scheme as known from Daniel; or in fact, any straightforward historical chronology (note in particular the “reversal” of Greece and Persia in this sequence). However, one can still identify connections with the book of Daniel in the use of both specific phrases and motifs. Perhaps the clearest reuse of Danielic expressions is the phrase ‫“ כל עממיא אומיא ולישניא‬all nations, peoples, and languages” in v. 2, used in contrast to ‫“ עמך‬your nation,” with each group reciting one stich of the biblical verse.65 MT 1 Sam 2:2 ‫אין־קדוש כה׳ כי אין בלתך ואין צור כאלהינו׃‬

There is no holy one like the Lord, truly, there is none beside You; there is no rock like our God. Targum Jonathan ‫על סנחריב מלכא דאתור אתנביאת ואמרת דעתיד דיסק הוא וכל חילותיה על‬ ‫… בכין יודון כל עממיא אומיא ולישניא ויימרון לית דקדיש אלא יי ארי לית‬ ‫ירושלם‬ … ‫בר־מנך‬

Concerning Sennacherib the king of Assyria—she prophesied and said that he and all his armies would come up against Jerusalem … Therefore 64  E.g., Koch, “Das apokalyptische Lied,” 76–80; Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 199, 208–9. 65  The textual trigger for the division of the verse between two (collective) speakers is the distinction between the first stich '‫“ אין קדוש כה‬there is no one holy like the Lord” and the final one ‫“ ואין צור כאלהינו‬there no is rock like our God,” which includes the first person plural possessive pronoun.

239

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

all the nations, peoples and languages will confess and say: “There is no one who is holy except the Lord, for there is no one apart from you …”66 This triplet appears frequently in the Aramaic section of Daniel (3:4, 7, 29, 31; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14), and its use here indicates the translator’s conscious allusion to the biblical book.67 I suggest that a connection is also present with respect to the motif addressed in this section. Despite the paraphrastic nature of the Targum to this poetic passage, one can always identify its biblical basis, after peeling away the additions of the translator-rewriter. The following table compares MT and Targum Jonathan to v. 3a: Targum Jonathan

1 Sam 2:3a

‫על נבוכדנצר מלכא דבבל אתנביאת ואמרת‬ Concerning Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon she prophesied and said: ‫אתון כסדאי וכל עממיא דעתידין למשלט בישראל‬ “You Chaldeans and all the nations who are to rule in Israel ‫לא תסגון למללא רברבן רברבן‬ do not say many boastful things

‫אל־תרבו תדברו גבהה גבהה‬ do not say many boastful things

‫לא יפקון גדפין מפומכון‬ Let no blasphemies go forth from your mouth.

‫יצא עתק מפיכם‬ Let no arrogance cross your lips!

As can be seen, the Targum adds a long plus at the beginning of the verse, followed by relatively literal translation of the rest of the verse, with certain variations. Note in particular the translation of ‫“ עתק‬arrogance” as ‫“ גדפין‬blasphemy,” which upgrades the haughty speech of the enemies into blasphemy against God.68 While haughty speech is relatively easily attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, 66  The translation of Targum Jonathan is taken from D. J. Harrington and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 10 (Wilmington: Glazier, 1987), 105. 67  Harrington, “Apocalypse,” 151–52; Koch, “Das apokalyptische Lied,” 69; Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 208. 68  The Hebrew adjective ‫ ָע ָתק‬appears three additional times in the Bible, all in the book of Psalms (31:19; 75:6; 94:4). In all three instances Targum Psalms translates the word as

240

Segal

based upon all versions of Daniel 4,69 the accusation of blasphemy does not have an obvious source in MT. Of course, what is most significant to the current discussion is that the boastful talk and blasphemy are attributed specifically to Nebuchadnezzar, in line with the sources discussed above. Is this therefore another source that reflects the same exegetical process whose roots are in the book of Daniel? On the one hand, it is possible that this attribution is accidental, and that this behavior was assigned to Nebuchadnezzar (representing all of the Babylonians) since the nations are arranged chronologically, and Babylonia is placed after Assyria. However, this is not in fact the method of this apocalyptic passage, since as can be seen from the list above, Greece precedes Persia. Their order was changed in order to thematically connect Greece with the breaking of heroes’ bows in v. 4 (alluding to the Hasmonean defeat of the Greek army), and the death of Haman’s sons (representing Persia) with the “mother of many” who “is forlorn” in v. 5. Thus the translator-rewriter clearly associated specific nations and stories with the content of the appropriate verses. If so, it is possible to conclude that the blasphemy and haughtiness were purposefully attributed to Nebuchadnezzar and Babylonia; and this in turn may be the result of the interpretive tradition described above. 3 Conclusions The sources considered here belong to several different corpora, and emerged from different circles unrelated to one another. The first example conceived of the eschatological era as a recreation of a paradigmatic event from the past; the second group of unmistakably independent compositions share an exegetical tradition that reshapes an earlier historical character according to the descriptive contours of a later one. We can thus conclude that this analogical conception of history was seen by Jewish writers of late antiquity as a mode of interpretation that could be applied chronologically both forwards and backwards. In both cases, past, present, and future are fused together as related parts of an extended narrative, which both followed and developed along familiar lines.

‫גידופין‬, as in 1 Sam 2:3. This translation could be based upon the context of the latter two verses. However, it seems likely that the (later) translator of Psalms adopted the translational equivalent found in Targum Jonathan. 69  Harrington, “Apocalypse,” 150, 152; Koch, “Das apokalyptische Lied,” 70; StaalduineSulman, Targum of Samuel, 209–10.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

241

The examples discussed here focused on diverse biblical themes and stories, each of which necessitated its own independent study in order to understand its exegetical background. In considering the two Qumran compositions in particular (4Q462 and 4Q Apocryphon of Jeremiah C), we have seen that these scrolls can only be understood properly when they are recognized as reflecting typological interpretation of the Bible, drawing analogies between seemingly unrelated passages, and redrawing their contents accordingly. This study therefore confirms that the investigation of the religious worldviews expressed in the Qumran scrolls is frequently intertwined with the exploration of the biblical interpretations in those same works, and that one needs to read these texts with both issues in mind. Despite the differences between these examples, at the same time they are products of the same basic worldview, which conceives of the span of history as a recursive pattern of similar events. This idea is a fundamental characteristic of the Qumran sect’s religious beliefs, as demonstrated by the double realization of prophecy as promoted in the pesher texts. The discussion here reveals that this approach was in fact common to a much broader cross-section of Jewish groups and works in antiquity, and can be found across different genres, both in and out of Qumran, and in multiple languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Bibliography Bar-Asher, M. “On Several Linguistic Features of Qumran Hebrew.” Lĕšonénu 64/1–2 (2002): 7–31 (in Hebrew). Collins, J. J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Dimant, D. “Addenda to 4Q462.” Pages 187–89 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 2. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004 (in Hebrew). Dimant, D. “B. Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” Pages 91–260 in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Edited by D. Dimant. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Dimant, D. “Egypt and Jerusalem in Light of the Dualistic Doctrine at Qumran (4Q462).” Pages 25–58 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2003 (in Hebrew). Dimant, D. “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran.” REJ 168/3–4 (2009): 373–93. Repr. in D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 315–32.

242

Segal

Dimant, D. “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran.” Pages 147–98 in Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der früher Kaiserzeit. Edited by R. HirschLuipold, H. Görgemanns, and M. von Albrecht. STAC 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Repr. in D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 301–14. Eliade, M. The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History. New York: Pantheon, 1954. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Harrington, D. J. “The Apocalypse of Hannah: Targum Jonathan of 1 Samuel 2:1–10.” Pages 147–52 in Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin. Edited by D. M. Golomb. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Harrington, D. J. and A. J. Saldarini. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets: Intro­ duction, Translation, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 10. Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1987. Hoffman, Y. The Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1983 (in Hebrew). Hollander, H. W. and M. de Jonge, eds. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. STVP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Kister, M. “4Q392 1 and the Conception of Light in Qumran ‘Dualism.’” Pages 125–42 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 3. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies.” Pages 133–83 in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 9–11 January, 2007. Edited by G. A. Anderson, R. A. Clements, and D. Satran. STDJ 106. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kister, M. “Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 137–65 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Kister, M. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language, and Calendar.” Tarbiz 68/3 (1999): 317–71 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “‫אחור וקדם‬: Aggadoth and Midrashic Methods in the Literature of the Second Temple Period and in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 231–59 in Higayon L’Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel. Edited by J. Levinson et al. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006 (in Hebrew). Koch, K. “Das apokalyptische Lied der Profetin Hanna: 1 Sam 2,1–10 im Targum.” Pages 61–82 in Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag.

Interpreting History in Qumran Texts

243

Edited by Wolfgang Zwickel. OBO 123. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universtitätsverlag/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Lauterbach, J. Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: JPS, 1933. Lust, J. “The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4–5.” Pages 39–53 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. BETL 106. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1993. Martens, P. W. “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen.” JECS 16 (2008): 283–317. Munnich, O. ed. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999. Rev. 2d ed. of J. Ziegler, ed. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1954. Paul, S. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pickup, M. “Eschatological Interpretation in Shirata.” The Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 1 (1998): 83–99. Pike, D. M. “467. 4QText Mentioning ‘Light to Jacob’.” Pages 398–400 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by P. S. Alexander et al. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Reynolds, B. H., III. Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and NonSymbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 B.C.E. JAJSup 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Schwartz, D. R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Segal, M. “Between Exegesis and Sectarianism: ‘Light and Darkness’ in Egypt and in Jerusalem According to 4Q462.” Pages 129–43 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 7. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009 (in Hebrew). Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Segal, M. “The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9.” JAJ 2 (2011): 283–303. Repr. in M. Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. BZAW 455. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 155–79. Segal, M. Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. BZAW 455. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Smith, M. “4Q462. 4QNarrative C.” Pages 195–209 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Staalduine-Sulman, E. van. The Targum of Samuel. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

244

Segal

Talmon, S. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts.” Textus 4 (1964): 95–132. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “More Identifications of Scraps and Overlaps.” RevQ 19/2 (1999): 61–68. Ulrich, E. “The Parallel Editions of the Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 5.” Pages 201–17 in vol. 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. 2 vols. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zakovitch, Y. “And You Shall Tell Your Son …”: The Concept of Exodus in the Bible. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1991. Zakovitch, Y. Inner-biblical and Extra-biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009 (in Hebrew). Zipor, M. Tradition and Transmission: Studies in Ancient Biblical Translation and Interpretation. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001 (in Hebrew).

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah Loren T. Stuckenbruck 1 Introduction The present discussion is concerned with the relation between the past and the future in the Serekh ha-Milḥamah.1 As is well known, the narrative portions preserved among materials related to Serekh ha-Milḥamah are primarily cast with future events in mind. Indeed, in sections where this obtains, verbs in the imperfect yiqtol or weqatal forms predominate.2 Nonetheless, alongside this dominant temporal frame of reference, several passages, which deploy verbs in the perfect (qatal), refer to what has happened in the past,3 whether 1  For the critical text and translation of Serekh ha-Milḥamah, see esp. J. Duhaime (for 1QM), “War Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, PTSDSSP 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 80–203 (from which English citations have been adapted infra); J. Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 6 (London: T & T Clark, 2004); and E. Qimron, “The War Scroll,” in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010), 1:109–36 (in Hebrew). It is well known that a number of 4Q manuscripts contain overlap with or preserve text similar to that of 1QM. Since the precise relation of these manuscripts (esp. 4Q491–497, and perhaps also 4Q285 and 11Q14) to one another and to 1QM remains undetermined, the present discussion takes the text of 1QM as the point of departure, while indicating clear instances of overlap where they exist. A rationale for this approach is made by B. Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered, STDJ 76 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 4–8. In this respect the edition of E. Qimron best arranges the 4Q materials according to how they fit with 1QM; cf. Qimron, “War Scroll.” 2  Here I am thinking not only of verbs based on the imperfect preformative (‫)יקטל‬, but also of perfect forms with waw attached (‫)וקטל‬, i.e., which refer to the future as well. See the evidence gathered and analyzed by S. Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll, Studia Semitica Uppsaliensia 25 (Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2008), 86–97. Although Holst plays down the clarity with which tense is implied by the various forms, his analysis does lead him to conclude that the deployment of verbs in the perfect (‫)קטל‬, which is uncommon in the text of 1QM, at least denotes time prior to events recounted in the future (Verbs and War Scroll, 97–100). While Holst’s analysis is correct as far as the subordination of ‫קטל‬-verbs to the future is concerned, there remain a number of instances in which verbs in the ‫ קטל‬arguably point back to the past. 3  Cf. esp. 1QM 10:2–5 (citation of Deut 20:2–5), 6–8 (citation of Num 10:9); 11:1–4, 5–7 (citation of Num 24:17–19), 7–9, 11–12 (citation of Isa 31:8); 12:2, 3; 13:7–12 (within a blessing), 18; 14:8–11 (within a blessing); and 17:2–3. In a number of instances in which ‫קטל‬-verbs occur, the text is

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_012

246

Stuckenbruck

recent or more remote, from the vantage point of both authors and audience.4 What is the function of such discourse about the past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah?5 Before the most significant passages are discussed, it is in order to offer several preliminary considerations that sharpen the focus of our topic. These include: (a) a summary of the document’s content as a whole; (b) a brief overview of research; (c) the reasons for asking this question; and (d) the tradition-historical analogies to the function of past time in Second Temple apocalyptic literature. 1.1 Emphases in the War Scroll: Eschatology and Dualistic Structure At first blush, a focus on the past in a document like Serekh ha-Milḥamah might not seem like an obvious area for discussion. After all, in scholarly literature, it is the work’s concern with eschatological events—notwithstanding some inconsistency in detail due to its growth as a document in several stages6—that has understandably received the most attention.7 In this vein, not strictly speaking referring to the past (from the perspective of the writer/s) but rather to activity that is taken as assured in the future; cf. 1QM 11:1; 14:4–6 (within a blessing); 16:15; 17:1; 18:7–8, 10–11, 13; and 19:11. 4  Often bound up with the use of ‫ קטל‬forms is the adverbial expression ‫מאז‬, so characteristic of Serekh ha-Milḥamah, which may be translated “long ago” or “from of old.” Of the seventeen occurrences of this term preserved among the Dead Sea texts, no less than eleven are found in the 1QM and 4QM materials: 1QM 1:10; 10:2; 11:6, 11; 13:10, 14; 16:15 par. 4Q491 11 ii 13; 18:7, 10; 4Q491 11 i 10. 5  For a broader theoretical exploration of constructions of continuity with the biblical past in the writings from Qumran, see J. Ben-Dov, “An Investigation into the Continuity Between Biblical Literature and the Scrolls,” in this volume. 6  As highlighted in the still valuable study by P. R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History, BibOr 32 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). 7  The secondary literature that assumes the eschatological focus of Serekh ha-Milḥamah is vast. On the other hand, there have been efforts to explain the warfare imagery of the work (e.g., the battle arrangements, military tactics, weaponry) on the basis of events known to the writer(s), whether against the backdrop of the Maccabean conflict with the Seleucids in the 160’s BCE or of the Romans in the following century. This variously holds for the approaches taken by P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 62–67; R. Gmirkin, most thoroughly in two articles: “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996): 89–129; and “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 4 (1998): 172–214; G. Ibba, Il ‘Rotolo della Guerra’: Edizione critica (Turin: Zamorani, 1998), 46–50; idem, Le ideologie del Rotolo della Guerra (1QM): Studio sulla genesi e la datazione dell’opera, Testi e Studi 17 (Florence: Giuntina, 2005), 16–17 and 69–73; and P. S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields, SVTP 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17–31. The problem with finding precise historical fits for purported allusions underscores both the highly symbolic nature of the discourse and its ideological-theological

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

247

it is often repeated that the work anticipates a war that will consist of seven battles in which the “Sons of Light” and “Sons of Darkness” are pitted against one another (cf. 1QM 1:12–17 and cols. 15–19). In addition, this future is imagined in dualistic terms. On the one side are the Sons of Light (1QM 1:1, 3, 9, 11, 13), who are probably also designed “Sons of Truth” (cf. 4Q491 11 ii 15) and “Sons of Righteousness” (1QM 1:8?; 13:10?; 4Q496 3 7?). According to the text, they will have not only the “God of Israel” on their side (1QM 6:6; 10:8; 13:1, 2, 13; 14:4 bis par. 4Q491 8–10 i 2; 15:13, 16?; 16:1; 18:3, 6, 15?; 4Q491 11 ii 16; 4Q492 1 12 par. 1QM 19:13), but also a “Prince of Light” (1QM 13:10), who may be identified with the prominent angelic figure of Michael (1QM 17:6–7; cf. 9:15, 16). On the other side of the equation, there are the Sons of Darkness (1QM 1:1, 7? par. 4Q496 3 7; 1QM 1:10, 16; 3:6, 9; 13:16; 14:17 par. 4Q491 8–10 i 14; 16:11 par. 4Q491 11 ii 9). These opponents of the Sons of Light are allies of Belial (1QM 1:1, 5 par. 4Q496 3 5; 1QM 1:9, 13; 4:2; 11:8; 13:2, 4, 11; 15:3, 17; 16:11; 17:15; 18:1, 3, 16; 4Q491 11 ii 18), “the Prince of the dominion of wickedness” (1QM 17:5–6; cf. 16:9 par. 4Q491 8–10 i 6); and they are also in league with Belial’s spirits (1QM 13:2, 4, 11–12; 16:10; 15:14; 4Q491 14–15 10) as well as with troops from inimical nations neighboring Israel (1QM 1:1–2; 11:8–9; cf. 1QM 4:12; 6:6; 9:9; 12:11; 14:5, 7; 15:1, 2, 13; 16:1; 19:10). The conflict, eschatological though it may be, still reflects what early audiences of the text would have understood about the embattled world they inhabited. References in the text to the “dominion” of Belial (1QM 1:5; 13:4, 11; 14:10; 18:1, 11), who will ultimately be defeated, presuppose that this dominion corresponds to the state of things in the more recent past, and indeed, in the present; during which time God has nonetheless acted wondrously amidst his people (see esp. 1QM 14:9–10; more on this below). With respect to the final war, the implied audience8 of the text is told near the beginning of 1QM that the outcome of the first six battles will be a draw (1QM 1:13): “During the war, the Sons of Light will prevail for three lots in defeating wickedness, while for three (lots) the army of Belial shall be girded to cause the lot of [God to fall9 …].” Not until the final “lot” (or battle) is it expected that character. For a brief, yet critical overview, see Duhaime, “The War Scroll,” 83–85. Therefore, the discussion of the past that follows below does not appeal to “historical allusions” to recent or contemporary events; the focus is instead on how Serekh ha-Milḥamah handles the past as sacred time in which the God of Israel has acted. 8  None of the manuscripts related to Serekh ha-Milḥamah tell explicitly who is imagined as its readers or hearers. By “implied audience” I refer to those who, though not directly addressed in the composition, are in view as participants in the future events described and whose role in these events is guided by the document’s references to the past. It is within such a community that the work, by mustering conflict-oriented symbolic structures, functions to persuade and inspire. 9  For the restoration, cf. 1QM 13:5 and 15:1.

248

Stuckenbruck

the ultimate victory will take place; this shall happen when “the great hand of God subdues” (1QM 1:14) the forces of Belial once and for all. This victory, though it will be won by a numerically narrow margin, is not one that will be preceded by an ambivalent building up of suspense. The audience—who are presumably to be associated with the Sons of Light—has already been assured, even before the results are tallied and before the arrangements in preparation for the battle are described, that the eschatological war will result in “deliverance for the people of God” and “eternal destruction for the entire lot of Belial” (1QM 1:5). Indeed, not only the outcome but also the timing of this event has been predetermined: the fall of the Kittim is to occur on the day that the God of Israel “has appointed long ago (‫ )מאז‬for a war of destruction with respect to the Sons of Darkness” (1:10). Already here, before looking at additional passages in Serekh ha-Milḥamah, we may observe that the text regards what God has done in the distant past as determining what is to happen in the future. Whether this function of the past is an unusual feature or forms part of a pattern found in other passages of the document shall be discussed below. 1.2 Research Questions No one, as far as I am aware, questions the premise that Serekh ha-Milḥamah heralds a conclusive defeat of Belial in the eschatological future. Accordingly, most studies have engaged in the analysis of various issues while taking this predominant theme as a point of departure. Taking for granted the final war as a future conflict has gone hand-in-glove with attention devoted to any number of attendant questions. These include, for example: (1) Concerning the nature of the battle arrangements described in 1QM columns 2 through 9: To what degree are they simply idealistic, and to what degree might they, for all their dependence on ancient (to us biblical) tradition (e.g., Numbers), presuppose knowledge about the organization and formations of troops and war tactics known in relation to strategies adopted by the Greeks or Romans? (2) How does the mention of the enemies in the work reflect the sociopolitical and religious rifts known to and experienced by those circles that produced it? (3) How does the so-called language of “dualism” express itself in the document; to what extent does the language of the work suggest that the opposition between Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness mirrors a split between priestly groups who represent conflicting ideologies? (4) What parts of the extant texts were written first and what factors determined how the document would grow and evolve? This question emerges from the recognition that the Serekh was an evolving piece of literature,

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

249

whose significance and early reception cannot be reductionistically read against the backdrop of a single setting (whether mid-second century or mid-first century BCE). The vividness and a certain multivalence of the images drawn upon to depict eschatological conflict in the work ensured its adaptation through several editions that not only could succeed one another but also, as with other documents among the Scrolls, could continue to be copied as contemporary parallel versions. Early editors of the document were prepared, through the changing circumstances of their communities, to imagine and reimagine the final war against Belial and those associated with him as a sine qua non way to portray the future.10 1.3 Further Rationale for Considering the Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah The attention devoted by scholars to questions of historical context presupposes recognition that Serekh ha-Milḥamah was not imagining the future out of thin air.11 The events that are described and anticipated reflect on and 10  While allowing for development based on editorial activity, this reading favors regarding the dualistic shape of the eschatological war as a foundational part of the work (analogous to the idea that the Treatise on the Two Spirits belongs to a tradition that predates the Serekh ha-Yaḥad). It is not clear, however, that a trajectory of chronological development, e.g., between dualistic and later liturgical forms, should be posed so sharply as a means of dating different parts of Serekh ha-Milḥamah. Such a view was taken e.g., by Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 29–115, who gave chronological priority to the dualistic passages of Serekh ha-Milḥamah (cols. 1 and 15–19), arguing that they reflect the period of the early Maccabean War; while the more liturgical texts in which Belial is cursed (e.g., 13:1–6, which is linked to 15:4 and 18:5–6; and 13:7–13a), are Qumranic, and therefore much later. On the other hand, Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 113–24, relegated the cosmic dualistic thought of the work to its later development, arguing that 1QM is the product of three documents (cols. 2–9, 15–19, and 10–12 respectively), each with its own history of development, plus the addition of two independent fragments (cols. 13 and 14); for Davies the last stage, the addition of col. 1, occurred soon after the addition of the dualistic 15–19, during the second half of the first century BCE. For a similar approach see J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. A different tack is taken by Ibba, Le ideologie del Rotolo della Guerra (1QM), who posits at least four stages of redaction, beginning with material containing non-Roman strains of military tradition that originated in priestly circles (“sons of Zadok”), as they received Deut 20:1–18. Because no consensus has been achieved and different proposals for reconstruction persist, the relation, both chronologically and literarily, between the different sections of 1QM continues to be a source of discussion. The present discussion thus ultimately reads Serekh ha-Milḥamah synchronically, i.e., with reference to the form its constituents acquired in 1QM as a whole. 11  T. M. Erho, “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM),” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. P. W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. S. Baek, SBLEJL 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 359–74, argues plausibly that the thought structure of the work coheres broadly with motifs preserved in other apocalyptic

250

Stuckenbruck

extend, to some degree at least, the realities with which the compiler(s) and their initial audiences were familiar; indeed, we do not go far wrong in assuming that the images are to some extent a projection into an idealized future of experience. Thus, whatever the details might suggest, for example, in relation to biblical imagery or to military imagery known in the eastern Mediterranean world, all are mustered to assure the final defeat of the enemy. These considerations, however, do not satisfactorily explain why it is that the author(s) and editor(s) of the work could be so confident about the ultimate outcome of the war. A focus on texts concerned with the sacred past, however, offers more satisfactory, text-immanent grounds for such confidence. Another reason for undertaking the present discussion is, quite simply, the nature of eschatology itself, especially as it emerges during the Second Temple period in relation to what has been called an “apocalyptic” setting. Although Serekh ha-Milḥamah is not an “apocalypse”—that is, its depiction of the eschatological war is not formally revealed through an intermediary figure (whether human or angelic)—it does regard the final conflict as the ultimate outcome of a struggle between the power of God and that of evil that is already well underway in the present.12 The work in its received form assumes that until the eschatological war takes place the present world order lies irretrievably under the dominion of Belial (1QM 1:5; 13:4, 11; 14:10 par. 4Q491 8–10 i 6; 1QM 18:1, 11; cf. 1QS 1:18, 23; 2:19; 4Q286 7 ii 3, 5; 4Q449 1 3; 4Q510 1 6–7; 4Q511 10 3). And so, as noted above, nothing less than the intervention of “the God of Israel” at the appointed time will ensure the defeat of evil. Hence the agency of the “Prince of Light” (1QM 13:10) and of the Sons of Light is only nominal. Serekh ha-Milḥamah is thus suitable for exploring an apocalyptic worldview in relation to the twin themes of the persistence of evil in the world and the time of evil’s defeat. Since in Serekh ha-Milḥamah not only the future but also the past (as shall be set forth below) is presented as a time when God has acted on behalf of his people, it is worth asking what such poignant moments in the past have to do with the ultimate victory over Belial in the future. 1.4 The Past as Sacred Time in Second Temple Apocalyptic Writings In several brief studies, I have begun to sketch how several apocalyptic writings, for all their interest in eschatology as the end of history as we know it,

texts indebted to Ezekiel 38–39 such as Sib. Or. 3.657–731, 1 En. 56:5–8; 4 Ezra 13; and Revelation 20. 12  Cf. J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 9.

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

251

treat the past.13 When we look at such texts, especially those composed during the third and second centuries BCE, it becomes possible to categorize the relation of future eschatology and past time in several ways. First, a cardinal conviction of the literature is that in the future God’s way with Israel, indeed with the world as a whole, will be realized. This outcome reflects and develops expectations already expressed in the literature that would become the Hebrew Bible.14 Second, while they share similar hopes for the ultimate future, texts are capable of presenting the past in relation to several epochs and, hence, in several ways. If we take into account the early Enochic traditions, the Book of Jubilees, and Daniel as examples of such literature, we note that the past could be recounted or presented as divine activity (a) in primordial time, (b) in Israel’s unfolding story, and (c) in more recent time.15 With regard to (a), divine activity and events in primordial time do not feature in the Book of Daniel. However, in 1 Enoch (the Book of Watchers, chs. 6–36, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Animal Apocalypse) and in Jubilees, the writers demonstrate a particular interest in events leading up to and following on from the Great Flood as a time within the present world order when God was victorious over forces of evil. As far as (b) is concerned, the story of Israel as an arena for divine activity plays a significant role in several narratives. This obtains, for example, in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10 + 91:11–17), the Animal Apocalypse (esp. 1 En. 89:1–90:13), Jubilees, and Daniel (9:1–27); all of these texts engage in retellings or reappropriations of events within the life of Israel, with an eye towards thereby interpreting the present circumstances of those for whom the documents were composed. Israel’s story, presented in an idealized way, thus function paradigmatically for the authors’ communities, who are expected to 13  See esp. L. T. Stuckenbruck, “How Much Evil Does the Christ Event Solve? Jesus and Paul in Relation to Jewish ‘Apocalyptic’ Thought,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. C. Keith and L. T. Stuckenbruck, WUNT 2/417 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 142–68; and idem, “Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period,” in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination, ed. B. C. Blackwell, J. K. Goodrich, and J. Maston (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 137–53. 14  Cf. A. Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions, AJEC 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 29–147 and, in overview, L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‟The ‛Cleansing’ of the Gentiles: Background for the Rationale Behind the Apostles Decree,” in idem, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christian Texts, WUNT 335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 216–38 (219–21). 15  For an overview in relation to early Enochic tradition, see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Eschatologie und Zeit im 1 Henoch,” in Q in Context I: The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source / Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle, ed. Markus Tiwald, BBB 172 (Göttingen: V&R Unipress and Bonn University Press, 2015), 43–60.

252

Stuckenbruck

locate themselves within the past as it is being imagined for and presented to them in the text. Finally, (c) some texts of apocalyptic orientation display an interest in the recent past as a time when divine activity has reentered the scene, especially as it is manifested through the formation of a new community, whether that community is broadly or narrowly defined (e.g., 1 En. 10:1–3, 16; 90:6, 9–10; 93:9–10; 104:12–13; Jub. 10:1–11; Dan 12:3, 10). It is of particular interest here to see how Serekh ha-Milḥamah takes its place in relation to or perhaps even within such a framework. To what extent does this document, among its various editions, concern itself with any of the categories of time outlined above (or additional ones)? I will look at a number of passages in Serekh ha-Milḥamah to try to answer this question. In the conclusion, I shall attempt to formulate some implications of this study for broader approaches adopted in relation to Second Temple Judaism in recent and contemporary biblical scholarship. 2

Discourse about the Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

It is one thing to observe that Serekh ha-Milḥamah anticipates the defeat of Belial in the eschatological war and another to ask what formal means in the document are employed to do so. In the latter respect, without appealing directly to the notion of time, we may note three points. First, of course, the text emphasizes that “the God of Israel” is on the side of the “Sons of Light,” the ideal identity of those implicitly addressed. Second, the blessings and curses offer the priestly community liturgical means to affirm God’s incomparable might, on the one hand (1QM 12:3; 13:1–2, 7; 14:3, 4 par. 4Q491 8–10 i 2; 1QM 14:8 par. 4Q491 8–10 1 6; 1QM 18:6), and to denounce Belial and his lot, on the other (1QM 13:1–2, 4). Significantly, although their exact source-critical relation to the eschatological war itself remains unclear, these pronouncements are each depicted in the text as occurring in the future. Third, and not unrelated to the function of the past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah, words, phrases, and at times even short sentences are inscribed on the trumpets (1QM 2:16–3:11), standards (3:13–4:17), shields (4:19?–5:2), and spears (6:2) that are to be used in battle. The inscriptions incorporate proper names (such as those of prominent angelic beings) and attributes associated with God, and they express the community’s convictions about the power of God over the enemy. Within the narrative these inscriptions function to encourage those who fight. While the writing on the implements of battle is to happen in the future, it is noteworthy that in three cases, the inscriptions consist of short sentences that refer to the activity of God in the past (i.e., using verbs in the perfect): (i) “the trumpets of pursuit”

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

253

are to carry the message, “God has struck down all the Sons of Darkness and will not turn his anger away until their destruction” (1QM 3:9); (ii) “the trumpets of withdrawal,” which indicate the troops’ withdrawal from battle to their original line position, will bear the words, “God has gathered” (3:10); and (iii) the standard linked to divisions of fifty are to display the sentence, “the position of the wicked has ceased [by] the might of God” (4:4–5). It is, of course, possible to argue that the perfect verbs in these formulations do not actually refer to the past (from the perspective of the producers and compilers of the document),16 but are made to announce and underscore the certainty of the defeat to come. Nevertheless, the inscribed sentences invite reflection on what, if anything, from the past may have warranted these convictions. Besides the aforementioned strategies, the text invokes a number of past events that are considered sacred. Within Serekh ha-Milḥamah, there are four ways in which discourse about the past underscores confidence in the final defeat of Belial. With reference to distinguishable sorts and times of activity, and taking verbs in the perfect as the formal point of departure, one may categorize these as follows: (1) things proclaimed by God through the agency of prophets; (2) examples of defeating the enemy within the story of Israel; (3) primordial events; and (4) more recent events that shape and characterize the immediate present. I consider each of these categories in turn. 2.1 From Past Prophecy to Future Victory First, the text of 1QM and its parallels underscores the certitude of victory for the Sons of Light by appealing to prophecies of the past. The text states in two places that “you have taught us” the outcome of the war by means of scriptural figures and prophecies. The first passage speaks of the agency of Moses and the second, of that of a group designated as “anointed ones and seers of appointed times.” In the first case, it is claimed that God has spoken (10:6: ‫ )ד[ברת]ה‬through Moses to say that, “When a war happens in your land against your oppressive enemy, [you] shall blow the trumpets and be remembered before your God and saved from your enemies” (10:6–8; cf. Num 10:9). In this case, a statement of the past, attributed to Moses as mediator, is made to pertain to the future (i.e., the future from the text’s perspective). The second passage declares that God has told “us” (11:8: ‫ )הגדתה לנו‬through anointed ones and seers—probably a reference to key prophetic figures in the Hebrew Bible (including Moses)—about the times of the wars and of the glory through which the enemies, including the seven inimical nations, are to be brought down (11:7–9; cf. Num 24:17–19). 16  See n. 2 above.

254

Stuckenbruck

These pronouncements, to be spoken by officers of the embattled community (‫ש]וטרינו‬, 10:5),17 herald the victory that the Sons of Light may anticipate. In addition to these two instances, several passages appeal to what God has either predetermined will happen (1QM 1:10–12; 13:14, “sinc]e of old you have determined for yourself [‫ ]כי]א מאז יעדתה לכה‬the day of great battle”; 13:18; cf. 1QM 4:7, ‫)מועד אל‬, or has had foretold in relation to the ideal community’s eschatological conflict (in 10:1–2, through instruction by Moses [not explicitly named]; in 11:11, through the prophets [Isa 31:8]). These two last passages appeal to words of God spoken in the past in order to envision the future. Sacred words of God pronounced in the past provide a warrant for regarding the ideal community as the eschatological victors when the enemy is finally vanquished. The more immediate referents in Numbers 10 and 24, respectively, concern the military conflicts during and following the time of Moses in the taking of Canaan—the conflict and victory anchored in the wilderness tradition of the past—strengthens the certainty of victory that the community can anticipate for the eschatological conflict to come. Thus, the first-person plural “us” to whom Moses’s instructions and God’s pronouncements were made in the past (1QM 10:1, 2; 11:8) reflects how much the ideal community of the future (and therefore the faithful assumed behind the document) self-identify with Israel in the wilderness and inscribe themselves into that storyline through which victory in battle is assured. The appropriation of the prophecies of the past into the community’s present (told to “us”) makes it possible to describe that community’s future through those prophecies. 2.2 Remembering Past Acts of Deliverance Second, the text recalls God’s history of activity on behalf of Israel in the face of enemy threats. Not only past pronouncements but also past events function to reassure the community of eschatological victory. Allusions to the historical past are found primarily among the hymns and prayers uttered in preparation for battle, in 1QM columns 10 through 14. Column 11 opens with the declaration that victory in the war belongs to God: “For indeed the war is yours! Through the strength of your hand, their corpses have been smashed to pieces without anyone to bury (them)” (1QM 11:1). What follows is a look back at three events from the biblical history of Israel: (1) In lines 1–2 the text remembers the defeat of Goliath of Gath, “the mighty man of valor, whom you delivered into the hand of David your servant, for he trusted in your great name and not in a sword or a spear.” The event is paradigmatic not only because of what God did 17  The speech of the officers begins in 1QM 10:5 and may extend as far as near to the (now lost) end of col. 12.

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

255

through David, but also because of David’s trust in God’s name, so that neither sword nor spear was necessary for the victory. This recollection from Israel’s history is a pastiche of 1 Sam 17:4, 46, and 50. In addition, the victory through David without a weapon is correlated several lines later with the first-person plural declaration: “Neither our power nor the force of our hands have done worthily except by your power and with the vigor of your great worth” (11:5). (2) The second event remembered out of the past is given in more general terms (11:3): “you have also saved us many times (‫ )פעמים רבות‬by the hand of our kings”—this despite the failings of Israel, who otherwise would not have merited such divine favor. The summary may be an allusion to Ps 106:43 (or perhaps Neh 9:28–29) since the text not only refers to the frequent deliverance (“many times”) of Israel from her enemies but also mentions that this happened in tandem with Israel’s iniquity. Unlike the summary here, however, the psalm does not refer to “kings” as agents of deliverance (though see the claim attributed to Simon in 1 Macc 16:2 that he and his brothers had “delivered Israel many times,” here without express mention of God). Again, similar to the emphasis taken from the tradition on the defeat of Goliath, the text underscores that the defeat of the enemy did not about through any agency or “works,” but through God’s compassion (1QM 11:3–4). This summary and the previous allusion to the Goliath story thus form a single sense unit from which the same lesson is to be drawn; namely, that in the anticipated victory, it is only God whose activity counts for anything; and that only God’s activity, therefore, will be decisive in victory. Thus, the recollections are punctuated by a return to the preceding acclamation: “For indeed the war is yours!” (11:4). In recounting the episode with Goliath and the repeated deliverance through Israel’s kings, the text finds a paradigm in past victories over the enemy that ultimately involves trust in God’s power without reliance on human agency. Later on in the column (11:11–12), the same emphasis on defeat of Israel’s enemies without the use of weapons is anticipated through an allusion to Isa 31:8, which emphasizes that victory will not come about by means of a human sword: “Asshur shall fall down by a sword of no man, a sword of no human being shall devour him.” In this way, the victories attributed to the God of Israel in the past are projected onto the eschatological war. (3) The third passage in column 11 to refer back to Israel’s history focuses on the defeat of Pharaoh and his officers at the Red Sea (1QM 11:9–10; cf. Exod 14:26, 28; 15:4, 19; Deut 11:4). The text coordinates what happened here with what may be anticipated in the future: “And you shall act against them (‫ )ותעש להמה‬as (you acted) against the Pharaoh and the officers of his chariots in the Re[d] Sea.” From the destruction of Pharaoh and his forces, the text projects that those “stricken of spirit” (‫ )נכאי רוח‬will be enflamed to “devour

256

Stuckenbruck

wickedness” (‫ )אוכלת רשעה‬until the complete destruction of guilt; in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:7), it is God’s anger that is declared to have consumed the enemy “like stubble” (MT: ‫—)חרנך יאכלמו כקש‬that is, Pharaoh and the drivers of his chariots. Paradigmatic from the Red Sea tradition is the completeness of the victory executed by God against the enemy, who, through the reference to Asshur in the citation of Isa 31:8 (1QM 11:11–12), is identified with the Kittim (11:11). Significantly, the text introduces the story of Pharaoh’s defeat with a statement that draws a comparison to “the troops of Belial” (‫גדודי בליעל‬, 11:8): God will act against the forces of Belial in the eschatological war with the same completeness by which he dealt with Israel’s enemies in the Red Sea. These three recollections of remote events can all be associated with passages in the Hebrew Bible. A further passage from 1QM 13, however, does not have such an immediate connection, yet it does allude to activity of God in the distant past. In 13:10, the speaker of the blessing (beginning 13:2), probably the high priest,18 declares that “long ago you appointed to help us (‫מאז פקדתה‬ ‫ ;לעוזרנו‬cf. 4Q495 2 2) the Prince of Light … all the spirits of truth are under his dominion,” while adding in 13:10–11 that “you have made Belial to corrupt, a hostile angel” (cf. 4Q495 2 3). Even if the Prince of Light is understood to be the angelic being Michael (cf. Dan 12:1), it is not certain when, precisely, this appointment took place. If there is any allusion here to “my angel,” who according to Exod 23:20–21 is sent by God to protect Israel “on the way” and to bring them to the place God has determined for them, then it would still be the wilderness tradition that is in view.19 When, however, God has “made Belial to corrupt,” is not clear in the least, unless this refers to primordial history (see below). In any case, the emphasis of the text is that the power of God, here channeled through the Prince of Light, to help and deliver God’s people (called “poor ones” in 13:14) is without comparison, as the outcome of the battle has long ago been in the divine plan (13:14). Though the stories appealed to in 1QM column 11 stem from the “remote” past of Israel, they testify to the conviction of the author(s) regarding the power of God as active on Israel’s behalf. The future defeat of the Kittim and, indeed, of the forces of Belial is thus an extension of what God has time and again demonstrated during the period of the Exodus and the monarchy. In this vein, the question arises: if God has acted in this way for Israel in the past, on behalf of whom, precisely, can God be expected to act in the future? 18  The identification of the speaker is suggested by the reference to “his brothers the [pri] ests, the Levites, and all the elders of the rule with him,” at 1QM 13:1; cf. already J. van der Ploeg, La Rouleau de la Guerre, STDJ 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 149–50. 19  The verb used to refer to the angel’s protection of Israel is ‫( לשמרך‬MT, Exod 23:20).

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

257

This question leads us to consider two further recollections of Israel’s history in 1QM. One of these, found in 1QM 13, forms part of a description of divine activity in a hymn of praise spoken by the high priest and addressed to “God of our fathers” (13:7). God is praised because, in the words of the text, “you have [est]ablished a covenant with our fathers and confirmed it with their descendants through the appointed ti[me]s of eternity” (13:7–8; cf. the similar statement in 1QM 9:9 formulated in terms of election: “Who is like your people Israel, whom you have chosen for yourself among all the peoples of the lands?”). Though the text grounds God’s activity in his covenant relationship with Israel, what counts for those uttering the hymn is that they belong to the descendants of the fathers; it is as descendants—that is, as legitimate heirs— that they are affected by, and indeed benefit from, the ongoing deeds of God as these extend into eternity. The declaration that immediately follows makes it clear that the descendants, the heirs of the covenant God made with the fathers, are a “remnant” (‫)שארית‬, through whom the covenant is being kept alive (‫מחיה לבריתכה‬, 13:8). The text thus implies that what happened in Israel’s history, determinative as it was then, has been subject to a narrowing redefinition; the Israel for whom God acted then has now become the remnant, the sole beneficiary of God’s saving activity. Another reference to Israel’s history occurs in 1QM 17:2, in the chief priest’s exhortation to those engaged in battle (cf. also 16:13, 15): “As for you, remember the bloodshed [of Nadab and] Ab[i]hu, the Sons of Aaron, by whose judgment God showed his holiness in the eyes of [….” The likely reference to Nadab and Abihu makes clear that the incident to be remembered is the story of the disobedience of Aaron’s two oldest sons (Lev 10:1–3; Num 3:4; 26:61). It is difficult to read the force of this allusion as anything other than a warning that those involved in the final battle not be found unfaithful. Within the document as a whole, then, God is not only remembered as having wielded power against Israel’s enemies, but also as having executed judgment against Israel’s priests when they were disobedient. This reinforces the underlying claim of the work that the Sons of Light do not represent Israel as a whole, but rather a faithful remnant of those obedient to the covenant God made with the fathers. In summary, none of the texts that appeal to Israel’s remote past focus on Belial and or Belial’s spirits as the enemy with whom God contended then. Defeats of past enemies bolster confidence that the future war, which will engage no one less than Belial himself, will also be won. 2.3 The Primordial Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah Third, Serekh ha-Milḥamah also locates divine activity in the primordial past. This may be seen most clearly in the priests’ hymn that claims about God: “You

258

Stuckenbruck

have made Belial for corruption, as an angel of animosity” (13:10–11: ‫עשיתה‬ ‫ ;בליעל לשחת מלאך משטמה‬cf. 4Q495 2 3). It is unclear whether Belial’s opposite, “the Prince of Light” (‫)שר מאור‬, likewise became active at this time. Just before the mention of Belial, the text states, “Long ago (‫ )מאז‬you appointed as our helper the Prince of Light” (13:10). As suggested above, though the expression “long ago” implies a very remote time, the activity of the Prince does not appear to have begun at the time that Belial was made for corruption. Just as the time of the eschatological war has been appointed or determined by God (1:10; 13:14), so also the manifestation of the Prince on behalf of the faithful does not necessarily happen at the time during which it was decreed.20 My inclination, therefore, is not to see here a primordial appearance of the Prince of Light; instead, he is imagined to come onto the scene in order to reckon with Belial once the latter has posed a threat to God’s people. The references to the Prince and to Belial follow the priest’s declaration that God has “cast us in the lot of light,” in accordance with his truth (13:9–10). As being cast into the lot of light may signify the formation of the community behind the text, the activity of the Prince against Belial “to help us” relates most immediately to this particular community (i.e., not, as a whole, to ancient Israel in the wilderness). Thus, any possible allusion to the “angel” in Exod 23:20 is overwhelmed by the more immediate reference to what the Prince of Light, acting on God’s behalf, does to protect God’s people in the present. With the existence of Belial as a given in the created order (though the activity of Belial in the more remote past is never described in Serekh ha-Milḥamah), the formation of a community of “the Sons of Light” functions, alongside the activity of the Prince, as a development21 that heralds an intensification of conflict with Belial, whose work in the world has now been unmasked. It remains to be seen whether or not this inference can be substantiated through a closer look at divine activity in the recent past, from the vantage point of those who are claimed to stand behind the text. 2.4 Divine Activity in the Recent Past The awareness in Serekh ha-Milḥamah of those who identify themselves in the first-person plural as belonging to “the lot of your (God’s) truth” (1QM 13:12), “the lot of God” (1QM 13:5; 15:1; 17:7; cf. 1QS 2:2), or the “remnant” (1QM 13:8; 20  Perhaps it is assumed that God’s promise to send an angel or messenger before the people in the wilderness (Exod 23:20–21) will not be fulfilled until the Prince of Light engages in conflict with Belial, leading up to the eschatological war. 21  In none of the 1QM or 4QM materials are the “Sons of Light” ever projected onto past time. They function, instead, as an idealized group in the eschatological future; whose beginnings, however, are presumed to be already manifest in the community behind the document.

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

259

14:8–9), presupposes that a significant development has taken place in the relatively recent past. We have already mentioned above the claim in 13:9–10 that God has “cast us in the lot of light according to your truth” (‫בגורל אור‬ ‫) הפלתנו לאמתכה‬. In identifying themselves as “the remna[nt” (1QM 14:8), the community praises God as the one who has maintained the covenant with their fathers (14:8–9); that is, it is in their community alone that obedience to the covenant is actually possible. How does the community’s falling heir to the keeping of the covenant manifest itself? Significantly, the text specifies the following (14:9–11; cf. 4Q491 8–10 i 8):22 You have shown through wonders your mercy for the remna[nt …] during the dominion of Belial. With all the mysteries of his hatred, he has not drawn [us] away from your covenant; you have driven his spirits of [des] truction from u[s. When the me]n of his dominion [were acting wickedly] you kept the soul of those you have redeemed. You have raised up the fallen by your vigor, but the (men) of high stature you have cu[t down…. In other words, the community, the remnant, understands itself to have been the locus of divine activity during the time of Belial’s dominion (‫בממשלת‬ ‫)בליעל‬. The text assumes a community consciousness that marks a step beyond that found in the sacred tradition (e.g., one that derives directly from an appropriation of the biblical narrative, as in 1QM cols. 10–11). Awareness of living in an era characterized as “the dominion of Belial” is a recent development. As in 1QS 1:18, a similar liturgical passage, “the dominion of Belial” is regarded as a threat, which requires protection for the community that has become aware of its special status.23 In 1QM the essential powerlessness of Belial over against the activity of God is emphasized. Despite Belial’s foothold in the present world order, the “remnant” community has not become detached from the covenant; instead, we are told, in a borrowing of exorcistic language, God has driven away (‫“ )גערתה‬from [us” (‫ )ממ[נו‬Belial’s minions, called “his spirits of destruction” (14:10). Although this passage suggests that Belial’s malevolent spirits have been distanced from the community—something that has

22  No real variants to the text in 1QM are apparent in the overlapping text of 4Q491. 23  Already H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran, SUNT 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 106, in noting the parallels between 1QM 14 and 1QS 1–2, correctly noted that the protection from evil spirits ‟also keinesfalls zur Beschreibung des künftigen Heils dienen, sondern setzt voraus, daß das Böse noch nicht endgültig vernichtet ist.” Cf. further Songs of the Maskil in 4Q510 1 6b–7 par. 4Q511 10 4–5.

260

Stuckenbruck

happened in a definitive, community-forming way24—the text does not claim that as such they have been forever destroyed. In addition, it is the “soul” of the community that God has redeemed and protected (‫)שמרתה נפש פדותכה‬ from those who act wickedly, not the community itself (as a corporeal entity). Nevertheless, the force of the text’s claim is not to be missed: this is the only place where 1QM (and, as far as can be determined, the parallel text in 4Q491 8–10 i 7–8) refers outright to the successful overcoming of Belial’s spirits (and by implication, Belial himself) in the past; and most significantly, in relation to the recently formed community. If these inferences regarding the community and the recent past are correct, then the community’s experience, bound up with a conviction that God has already curbed the influence of Belial on their behalf in order to preserve the covenant, anticipates the outcome of the eschatological war. The final defeat of Belial—i.e., that which Serekh ha-Milḥamah strains to describe and prepare for—has already shown signs of taking effect. For now, Belial, through the distancing of Belial’s spirits, has been and is being dealt with in smaller steps. The ultimate destruction of Belial, the spirits of his lot, and the Sons of Darkness “without remnant” (1QM 1:6; 4:2; 14:5; cf. 18:2–3), on the other hand, denotes the eschatological outcome, heralded by the divine intervention already experienced through the community’s formation. Victory is thus not only anticipated for the future; the self-assuredness of the community suggests that the defeat of Belial is already in the process of being secured. 3 Conclusion A study of the negotiation of the past in “apocalyptic” works that anticipate the eschatological defeat of evil could be carried out in relation to a number of writings from the Second Temple period.25 A focus on Serekh ha-Milḥamah, 24  Cf. M. Kister, “Demons, Theology, and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16:4–6 and Related Texts),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings, ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller, SBLEJL 15 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 167–84 (172), who argues that the text refers to the withdrawal of evil spirits “when one joins the sect.” The withdrawal of evil spirits, however significant, remains provisional in anticipation of the eschatological destruction and defeat of Belial and his forces. 25  Duhaime’s translation of ‫ ממ[נו‬as “far from [us” (emphasis my own) overstates the effects of what has happened; the danger posed by Belial’s spirits remains, even for the community, though in effect God has already overcome it. On this pattern of “already” and “not yet,” see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Human Being and Demonic Invasion: Therapeutic Models in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts,” in The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 161–86 (176–85).

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

261

however, is of particular interest since this document is often considered not only to be concerned with the future but also to focus on the future as the time when the forces of evil will finally be subdued and destroyed. There is, of course, no reason to question this view overall. If, however, this interpretation is taken to mean that neither the remote past, nor, in particular, the recent past, anticipate such an outcome, then this perspective needs to be nuanced. What is at stake here? At stake is the one-sided construal of temporality in “apocalyptic” as exclusively about future eschatology. Biblical scholars, especially those who specialize in “New Testament theology,” have all too casually imagined that a Jewish “apocalyptic” understanding of time, though influential for early Christian thinking, was significantly modified in Christian frameworks. This modification is supposed to consist in the introduction of the defeat of evil (in Christian tradition, through the proclamation and ministry of Jesus in the Gospel tradition regarding the “kingdom of God,” or through the “Christ event” in Pauline thought) as an already present (if partial) reality.26 In the myopic focus on describing features of early Christian ideas, the accompanying assumption is that Jews at the turn of the Common Era could not also have understood time in this way. In the foregoing discussion, I hope to have shown that, despite its orientation towards the eschatological defeat of evil, Serekh ha-Milḥamah provides a further example of the notion that imagining the future defeat of evil grows out of an understanding of what has happened in the past. This determinative past consists of what God has done, not only in primordial and remote time but also in recent events that have secured the formation of community identity, intertwined with signs that the defeat of Belial is already underway. Bibliography Alexander, P. S. “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome.” Pages 17–31 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields. SVTP 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Davies, P. R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. BibOr 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Duhaime, J. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. 26  See the literature cited in nn. 11 and 12 above.

262

Stuckenbruck

Duhaime, J. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–203 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Duhaime, J. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 6. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Erho, T. M. “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 359– 74 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Contribution. Edited by P. W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. S. Baek. SBLEJL 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Gmirkin, R. “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll.” DSD 4 (1998): 172–214. Gmirkin, R. “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered.” DSD 3 (1996): 89–129. Holst, S. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Studia Semitica Uppsaliensia 25. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 2008. Ibba, G. Le ideologie del Rotolo della Guerra (1QM): Studio sulla genesi e la datazione dell’opera. Testi e Studi 17. Florence: Giuntina, 2005. Ibba, G. Il ‘Rotolo della Guerra’: Edizione critica. Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 1998. Kister, M. “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16:4–6 and Related Texts).” Pages 167–84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Sections Meetings. Edited by R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller. SBLEJL 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Kuhn, H.-W. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Ploeg, J. van der. La Rouleau de la Guerre. STDJ 2. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Qimron, E. “The War Scroll.” Pages 109–36 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014 (in Hebrew). Schultz, B. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. STDJ 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sherwood, A. Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions. AJEC 82. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The ‘Cleansing’ of the Gentiles: Background for the Rationale Behind the Apostles Decree.” Pages 216–38 in L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christian Texts. WUNT 335. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “Eschatologie und Zeit im 1 Henoch.” Pages 43–60 in Q in Context I: The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source / Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und

Eschatology and the Sacred Past in Serekh ha-Milḥamah

263

Logienquelle. Edited by M. Tiwald. BBB 172. Göttingen: V&R Unipress and Bonn University Press, 2015. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “How Much Evil Does the Christ Event Solve? Jesus and Paul in Relation to Jewish ‘Apocalyptic’ Thought.” Pages 142–68 in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by C. Keith and L. T. Stuckenbruck. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The Human Being and Demonic Invasion: Therapeutic Models in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts.” Pages 161–86 in L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christian Texts. WUNT 335. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period.” Pages 137–53 in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by B. C. Blackwell, J. K. Goodrich, and J. Maston. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016.

Two Creations for One Nation: Apocalyptic Worldviews in Jubilees and Qumran Writings Cana Werman From an early stage of Qumran study, scholars have noted the ideas shared by the scrolls with apocalyptic literature.1 The analysis of this important dimension of the scrolls has included the identification of the apocalyptic components in each text and an evaluation of the diversity of apocalyptic ideas emerging from the corpus as a whole. Indeed, minor disagreements exist regarding the issue of diversity. Early Qumran scholarship perceived the Two Spirits Treatise of 1QS to be representative of the apocalyptic worldview of the Qumran community. Later scholars, however, have regarded the Treatise as presectarian. They argue that its psychological dimension, which presupposes free choice (“The spirits of truth and injustice feud endlessly in the human heart; they walk in wisdom and folly,” 4:23), does not fit the clear dualism found in the War Scroll and other writings of the yaḥad, where the division of humanity between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness is part of God’s pre-creation plan.2 A current approach offers a compromise between these two earlier scholarly positions. While emphasizing the unity in the apocalyptic worldview of the scrolls (two opposing powers under one God, battling over the human heart), it admits the presence of divergent voices in the Qumran library, attributing them to theological uneasiness and a diverse biblical, Hellenistic, and Iranian background.3 A comparison between the Qumranic picture of two opposing heavenly or cosmic powers battling over the human heart, and the worldview of other apocalyptic literature of the second century BCE, i.e., the books of Enoch and the book of Daniel, points to a clear difference. Whereas in Qumranic ideology, the dualism between good and evil starts at creation, in Enoch and Daniel evil is not part of the created world but a consequence of the revolt initiated by the 1  For a summary, see J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997). 2  For a survey of this trend, see J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335. Translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise noted. 3  M. Kister, “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World, ed. M. Kister, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009), 2:479–528 (in Hebrew). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004384231_013

265

Two Creations for One Nation

Watchers early in human history (Enoch), or by nationalistic heavenly forces in the course of history (Daniel). The scrolls do not, however, provide a clear link between the biblical account of creation and the creation of the spiritual entities of light and darkness, especially at the cosmic and heavenly levels. In the present study, I suggest that a close reading of one passage in the Book of Jubilees, Jub. 2:2, supplies this missing link. The discussion also sheds light on the affinity between the apocalyptic views in Jubilees and the Qumran writings. 1

Angels, Spirits, and Creatures

I begin with an effort to reconstruct the ancient text of Jub. 2:2. In Jubilees, ‫רוח‬ ‫אלהים‬, “the Spirit of God,” in Gen 1:2 is interpreted as a collective designation for the angels of spirits that were created on the first day. The Geʿez version and the Qumran fragments of Jubilees4 differ in the array of angels then created. I offer here a comparison of 4Q216 with a retroversion of the Hebrew text underlying the Geʿez version, to help reconstruct the unit’s Vorlage: 4Q216 5:5–9 ]‫מלאכי] הפנים ומלאכי הקו[דש‬ ‫) ומ[לאכי רוחות האש‬1( ‫ ) ומלאכי הרוחות הנושבי]ם‬2( ]‫ [ו]מלאכי רוחות ה[עננים] לער[פל ולטל‬ )3( ‫) [ומלאכי הרוחות לשלג ולברד ולק]רח‬4( ]‫ ) ומלאכי הקולו[ת‬5( ‫ ) ולמלאכי הרוחות [לברקים‬6( ‫ ומלאכי הרוחות לקור ול]חום ולחרף‬ )7( ‫ולקיץ‬ ‫[ולכל] רוחות בריותיו [אשר עשה בשמים ואשר‬ ‫עשה באר]ץ ובכל‬

Retroversion of Geʿez5 ‫ומלאכי הפנים ומלאכי הקודש‬ ‫) ומלאכי רוחות האש‬1( ‫) ומלאכי הרוחות הנושבים‬2( ‫ ומלאכי רוחות העננים לחושך‬ )3( ‫ולשלג ולברד ולקרח‬ ‫) ומלאכי הקולות‬4( ‫והרעמים ולברקים‬ ‫ ומלאכי הרוחות לקור ולחום‬ )5( ‫ולחורף ולאביב ולאסיף ולקיץ‬ ‫ולכול רוחות בריותיו בשמים ובארץ‬ ‫ובכול‬

4  Published by J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “216. 4QJubilees a,” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, ed. H. Attridge et al., DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 1–22 (13–16). My reconstruction of lacunae differs at some points from theirs, as I will discuss below. 5  The Hebrew column represents my reconstruction of the Hebrew text of Jubilees, based on retroversion from the Geʿez, with the help of the Qumran fragments where possible. The full text is now published as: C. Werman, The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2015 [in Hebrew]). As the Geʿez basis for the retroversion, I used James C. VanderKam’s edition, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, 2 vols., CSCO 510–511, Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). I was aided by VanderKam’s translation in preparing the translation offered here.

266

Werman

4Q216 5:5–9

Retroversion of Geʿez

The angels of] the presence and the angels of holi[ness] (1) and the a[ngels of the spirits of fire (2) and the angels of the blowing wind]s (3) [and] the angels of the spirits of the clouds for fo[g and for dew] (4) [and the angels of the spirits of snow and hail and fr]ost (5) and the angels of the sound[s] (6) and the angels of the spirits [of the lightnings (7) and the angels of the spirits of cold and] heat, of winter and summer [and of all] the spirits of His creatures [which He created in heavens and which He created on ear]th and in every (place).

The angels of the presence and the angels of holiness (1) and the angels of the spirits of fire (2) and the angels of the blowing winds (3) and the angels of the spirits of the clouds, of darkness, snow, hail, and frost (4) the angels of the sounds, the thunders, and the lightnings (5) and the angels of the spirits of cold and heat, of winter, spring, autumn and summer and of all the spirits of His creatures which are in the heavens, on earth, and in every (place)

The table reveals a few differences between the Geʿez and Qumranic lists: 1. In the Qumranic version, group 5 comprises the angels of sounds; the spirits of the lightnings are under a separate group of angels (group 6). By contrast, the Geʿez groups together (in group 4) sounds, thunders and lightnings. 2. Note that group 3 in the Geʿez version differs from groups 3 and 4 of the Qumranic Hebrew fragment. In the Qumranic passage, following “the angels of the spirits of the clouds for fo[g,” [‫ מלאכי רוחות ה[עננים] לער‬there is a long lacuna that ends with the word “[fr]ost.” The Qumran evidence suggests the need for an emendation of the Geʿez, because the lacuna in the Hebrew fragment is longer than the four words (darkness [or fog] snow, hail, and frost) offered by the Geʿez. Indeed, Milik and Vanderkam embedded a few more nouns in their reconstruction of 4Q216: “and the angels of the spirits of the [clouds] for fo[g and hailstones and ice and dew and snow and hail and fr]ost.”6 6  VanderKam and Milik, DJD 13.15.

Two Creations for One Nation

267

VanderKam and Milik’s suggestion has merit, as it fits the size of the lacuna and reflects a list found in Epiphanius’s paraphrase of Jubilees. But the result is a number of elements that is too large: no other spirits and angels control so many meteorological phenomena (note the difference between group 5 in the Geʿez: cold and heat, winter, spring, autumn and summer [6 items] and group 7 in Hebrew: cold, heat, winter and summer [4 items]). Following Milik and Vanderkam to some extent, and by analogy to the case of “sounds” and “lightnings,” where a single group of angels in the Geʿez is represented by two groups of angels in Hebrew (Geʿez group 4; Hebrew groups 5–6), I suggest that the Hebrew Vorlage enumerated two groups of angels associated with weather: one with fog and dew; the other with treacherous winter weather—snow, hail, and ice. My suggestion fits the material evidence neatly and has the added benefit of bringing the total number of angelic groups in charge of nature to seven. A close reading of the reconstructed list reveals that Jub. 2:2 presents a three-tiered hierarchy of the created order: natural beings, the spirits in charge of them, and the angels responsible for the spirits.7 The idea of angels being in charge of a natural phenomenon is known to us from the Book of Watchers (1 En. 6:7). What makes the list in Jubilees unique is the differentiation between the meteorological phenomena and their spirits, a move that can be attributed to the Hellenistic dichotomy of spirit or soul over against flesh or body. The fact that Jubilees does not elaborate on the differentiation between the phenomena and their spirits leads to the assumption that the author’s main interest lies with the beginning and end of the unit, where the three-tiered hierarchy is necessary. The unit ends with a group of spirits that are connected with creatures (‫ בריות‬in 4Q216). Contrary to the seven items discussed above, where each meteorological phenomenon connects with spirits ruled by angels, here no angel is mentioned. Indeed, a group of angels is mentioned at the beginning of the unit, the angels of the presence and the angels of holiness, but their relation to the spirits of the ‫ בריות‬or to the ‫ בריות‬themselves is not clarified. The remainder of my paper is devoted to elucidating these enigmas. The question of the seeming absence of angel(s) related to the ‫ בריות‬and their 7  Note the two exceptions: group 2, “the angels of the blowing winds” instead of “the angels of the spirits of the blowing winds”; and group 4/5, “the angels of the sounds” instead of “the angels of the spirits of the sounds.” The missing component in the Hebrew Vorlage (and consequently in the Geʿez) of group 2 is easy to explain as haplography: in Hebrew, “winds” and “spirits” are represented by one term, ‫רוחות‬. No such explanation holds for group 4/5, but we may be able to invoke scribal carelessness: note the missing ‫ א‬in the word ‫ מלאכי‬at the beginning of the list and the unnecessary lamed adjunct to the word ‫ מלאכי‬in group 6.

268

Werman

spirits is discussed in the next part of my paper. The angels of the presence and the angels of holiness are discussed in the third part. Both discussions contribute to our understanding of the apocalyptic worldview of Jubilees, which is summarized in the last part. 2

Angels, Souls, Evil Spirits, and Spirits

Our inquiry begins with riddle of the spirits, መንፈስ, or souls, ንፋስ, of all living things, and their missing angel(s). Following Jubilees 2 (just discussed), we next meet the “spirits of all flesh/of the living” in Noah’s post-flood prayer in chapter 10, where they are under threat, as Noah’s descendants, from the evil spirits descended from the Watchers. Here, the angel who controls (all) the ‫ רוחות‬is named as Mastema, the “Prince of the spirits” (‫שר הרוחות משטמה‬, v. 8).8 Thus, the hierarchical triad of angel—spirits—physical phenomena can be seen to apply to human beings as well (Mastema—spirits of the living things—the created world / sons of Noah). Mastema, as we learn in chapter 10, is God’s appointed regulator of the just conduct of humankind; i.e., the agent of punishment for those who sin.9 Mastema states that people have a natural aptitude for sin and that he is charged with disciplining them. In his speech to God (10:8) he mentions “the rule of my will over humankind,” as well as “my prosecution/punishment” (ኵነኔየ / ‫)משפטי‬. As Mastema both wishes to and is authorized to punish human beings,10 he asks permission from God to enlist the services of some of the evil spirits in order to increase human sin (v. 5). A few elaborations are in order here: 1. Whereas Mastema is part of the good world created by God, the evil spirits are not. Their existence is due to a revolt against God: They are the offspring of the angels who came down to teach justice but copulated with human women, a transgression discussed at length in the Book of Watchers and hinted at in Jubilees (5:1). The evil spirits deliberately cause harm: “they neither conduct themselves properly nor fight fairly” 8  For the most recent assessment of Mastema’s role in Jubilees, see A. Y. Reed, “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees: The Evidence of Angelology and Demonology,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 353–68. 9  Mastema and not the evil spirits (pace Reed, “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions,” 357). 10  This role assigned to Mastema, as God’s punishing arm, has parallels outside of Jubilees. In some Qumran scrolls, this role is assigned to Mastema’s counterpart, Belial. See, for example, CD 8:12; and 1QS 4:11–13, where both God and Belial share the role of carrying out punishment (see Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 502–3).

Two Creations for One Nation

2.

3.

4.

269

(Jub. 10:10).11 By inducting these spirits into his service, Mastema acquires an evil dimension despite the fact that he operates with God’s full consent. The angels of the presence and of holiness can imprison the evil spirits and release them again, and they do so at God’s command (10:7, 11). Thus, Mastema is not depicted as completely independent. He obeys God, and the angels of the presence and of holiness are his equals if not his superiors.12 The evil spirits operate on the human spirit or heart and bring about sin in human beings. As Noah pleads, “May they not rule the spirits of the living …” (10:6). Similarly, Abraham says apotropaically: “Save me from the power of the evil spirits who rule the thoughts of a man’s heart …” (12:20). The evil spirits have power over human beings, but only when someone independently chooses to stumble.13 The idea that a person is vulnerable to the influence of the evil spirits only when sinning can be detected in Jubilees 10. Note that when Noah asks for mercy, he assumes that the attack of the evil spirits on his descendants is the consequence of the latter’s transgression (10:3). Note also the statement, cited above, in which Mastema asks God to leave the evil spirits under his jurisdiction, “because the [propensity for] sin of human beings is great.” The connection between sin and the evil spirits is clearly made by Noah in his speech to his sons following the flood: they had sinned (7:26); therefore, the evil spirits were attacking them (7:27).14

11   Pace T. R. Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, SBLEJL 34 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 53. Hanneken’s assessment (51) that “Jubilees blames humanity for the origin of evil and the flood …” seems far from an accurate summary. 12  Cf. Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 505–6. Kister points to the same indecisive description (“Who stands against Belial, the good angel(s) or God himself?” [505]) in Qumran writings (among them: 11Q132:2–4; 1QM 13:2–6 and 10–11). 13  Compare M. Kister: “Second Temple literature alternates between two substances with which human evil is connected: an inner substance, which depends also on man’s choice, and an outer substance, governed by evil and good spirits”; M. Kister, “Body and Purification from Evil: Prayer Formulas and Concepts in Second Temple Literature and their Relationship to Later Rabbinic Literature,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 8–9, ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 243–84, (263) (in Hebrew). 14  Cf. M. Baillet, “4Q510. Songs of the Sage,” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III: 4Q482–4Q520, DJD 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 215–19, where the evil spirits are said to be powerful ‫באשמת‬ ‫קצי נגוע[י] עונות‬, “because of the guilt of epochs defiled by iniquities.” Jubilees also indicates a route in the opposite direction: through repentance, one can be saved from

270

Werman

Why are people apt to sin? Jubilees does not provide a complete explanation. Jubilean humans are neutral, consisting of a body and a soul (or heart). Jubilees applies Hellenistic perceptions of human beings, molding these perceptions to its own end by injecting apocalyptic ideas. Unlike the ‫ בשר‬of the Hodayot, which is inferior and in need of salvation, the body in Jubilees is neither good nor bad, but rather a helpless entity leaning mostly toward the wrong side. The wrong side, however, is greatly exacerbated by Mastema’s cohort—the evil spirits. Thus, even if people were not created to be “Sons of Darkness,” Mastema and his evil spirits will try to lead them to their demise and cause them to become Sons of Darkness. This applies to most people but not to all. The people of Israel, even if they are not created differently and are inclined to sinning like the other nations, are protected by God from Mastema and the evil spirits of his dominion— when they are circumcised: But he chose Israel to be his people. He sanctified them and gathered (them) from all humankind. For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him. And spirits will rule over all of them in order to lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he made no angel or spirit rule, because he alone is their ruler. He will guard them and claim them from his angels, his spirits, and everyone. (Jub. 15:25–32) Jubilees here elaborates on God’s promise to Abraham following his acceptance of circumcision for himself and his household: “To be a Lord to you and to your seed after you” (Gen 17:7). In the background, however, stands Deuteronomy 32 in its original version, known to us from LXX and Qumran:15 “When the Most High gave to the nations their heritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of El. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage” (Deut 32:8–9). In Jubilees, however, it is not the “Sons of El” (or the angels of God) who control the nations, but one angel, Mastema, and his staff of evil spirits.

the influence of the evil spirits. See Kister, “Body and Purification from Evil,” 257 n. 64. It seems, however, that this route is available only to the people of Israel. 15  For details see S. Bar-On and Y. Paz, “ ‘The Lord’s Allotment is his People’: The Myth of the Election of Israel by Casting of Lots and the Gnostic–Christian–Pagan–Jewish Polemic,” Tarbiz 79/1 (2010): 23–61 (24–25 and n. 7) (in Hebrew).

Two Creations for One Nation

3

271

The Angels of the Presence and the Angels of Holiness

We now return to the beginning of the unit, that is, to the angels of the presence and the angels of holiness. Deborah Dimant noted some years ago that in Jubilees these angels are assigned roles that Scripture delegates to God.16 I can add that, according to Jubilees, these angels join the people of Israel in observing the three ተአምር (signs, ʾôtot): Sabbath; the Festival of Oaths, i.e., Shvuot;17 and circumcision.18 These three ʾôtot are paired with the three biblical covenants embedded in the priestly layers of the Pentateuch: the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9); the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17); and the covenant with the people of Israel (Exod 31:12–17). It is therefore necessary to examine the use of the term ʾôt in Jubilees. The definition offered by M. Fox for the term as it is used in the priestly layers will be of help here:19 “The ʾôt is a permanent sign whose purpose is to stir up cognition, with the result that a covenant, a promise or a commandment is maintained by God or man.”20 The definition is conveniently hazy: is the promise to be fulfilled by God or by human beings; and how does the sign endure forever, through God or through human effort? The author of Jubilees uses this inherent ambiguity in his efforts to elevate the status of Israel: 1. In reworking the story of the flood, Jubilees is faithful to the biblical meaning of ʾôt: the ʾôt of the rainbow is to be maintained forever by God, ensuring that God will keep his promise not to bring about another flood that disrupts the order of nature (in Jubilees nothing is said about God’s commitment not to 16   D. Dimant, “‫ תורת המלאכים בספר היובלים לאור כתבי עדת קומראן‬:‫בני שמים‬,” in Tribute to Sara: Studies in Jewish Philosophy and Kabbala, ed. M. Idel at el. (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1994), 97–118. 17  Translated wrongly throughout by VanderKam as “The Festival of Weeks”; The Book of Jubilees, passim. Compare the Genesis Apocryphon, where as part of the reworking of Noah’s adventures (col. 8), the term ‫שבעה‬, oath (mistakenly translated as “week”) is repeated three times: ‫( בשבעתכם‬l. 16); ‫( וכשבועה‬l. 18); ‫( שבועה‬l. 19); see D. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17, STDJ 79 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 49–50. For oath/week, see C. Werman, “The Story of the Flood in the Book of Jubilees,” Tarbiz 64/2 (1995): 183–202 (187–88 and n. 26) (in Hebrew). 18  Reed (“Enochic and Mosaic Traditions,” 356) pointed to the three ʾôtot but was not aware of the connections between them and the biblical covenants. 19   M. V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ʾôt Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 557–96. 20  Fox, “Sign of the Covenant,” 570.

272

Werman

harm the human race). In Jubilees, as in Genesis, no human action is required and no condition is specified: He gave Noah and his sons an ʾôt that there would not again be a flood on the earth. He put his bow in the cloud as an ʾôt of eternal covenant that there would not henceforth be flood waters on the earth for the purpose of destroying it throughout all the days of the earth. (Jub. 6:15–16) 2. Jubilees 2 uses ʾôt in describing the seventh day. The term acquired two different meanings, both slightly diverging from the meaning found in the biblical context. a. In Exod 31:12–17, the Sabbath is an ʾôt given to mark the special and holy status of Israel: And you speak to the people of Israel, saying: However, my Sabbaths you are to keep, for it is an ʾôt between me and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you. (Exod 31:12) In Jubilees, however, the Sabbath is an ʾôt for all the works of the creation: On the sixth day the Lord God completed all his works and everything that he had created, and he rested on the seventh day. He sanctified it for all ages of ages and set it as an ʾôt for all his works. (Jub. 2:1) Indeed, the last verse in the biblical paragraph (Exod 31:17) ties together Sabbath, ʾôt, and creation: ‫ביני ובין בני ישראל אות היא לעולם כי ששת ימים עשה ה׳ את השמים ואת הארץ‬ ‫וביום השביעי שבת וינפש׃‬

Between me and the people of Israel it [= Sabbath] is an eternal ʾôt, for in six days God made heaven and earth and on the seventh day he stopped working and rested. In this verse, however, the explanatory clause that refers to the creation (“for in six days …”), is meant to clarify why the ʾôt constituted by the Sabbath is eternal; it does not claim that the Sabbath is an ʾôt because God rested from his work of creation on the seventh day.21 21  “The ki in v. 17 is causal: the Sabbath is an eternal sign because God built it into the world as part of nature (like the rainbow).” Fox, “Sign of the Covenant,” 577.

Two Creations for One Nation

273

b. In other verses in the same chapter, Jubilees 2, the Sabbath is an ʾôt given to the angels of the presence and of holiness as well as to Israel: He gave us a great ʾôt, the Sabbath day…. He instructed us to perform work for six days and to cease from all work on the seventh day…. He told all the angels of the presence and all the angels of holiness, these two kinds, to cease working along with him, in heaven and on earth. (17–18) I have chosen the seed of Jacob among all of those whom I have prepared. I have recorded them as my first-born son and have sanctified them for myself throughout the ages of eternity. I will give them the seventh day as an ʾôt, so they should cease working on it and bless the creator of all, who chose them for himself as a noteworthy people out of all the nations and to cease from work together with us. (20–21)22 At first sight, these statements seem to articulate the idea of Exodus 31: The Sabbath is an ʾôt that indicates the selection of Israel. But in Jubilees, ʾôt refers explicitly to the commandment to observe the Sabbath by refraining from work and by blessing God. Jubilees’ notion of Sabbath observance as itself an ʾôt thus differs from the conception of Sabbath in Exodus, where the Sabbath must be observed because it is an ʾôt. In Exodus, Israel brings the Sabbath into being through its observance and thereby turns it into an ʾôt; and this ʾôt is to remind God of his promise to sanctify Israel. In Jubilees there is no need for such an effort—Israel has been sanctified since the time of creation, and its sanctification is guaranteed forever. Thus, Jubilees goes beyond Exodus: first by claiming the Sabbath as an ʾôt of creation; second by asserting that the angels also received the Sabbath as an ʾôt, even before Israel; and third by investing the term ʾôt with an active meaning, the obligation to observe the Sabbath. Note that contrary to Exodus 31, Jubilees does not mention covenant in the context of the Sabbath, only ʾôt. 3. The high-ranking angels are counterparts of Israel in the context of another biblical covenant and ʾôt. In Jubilees, following the flood, God establishes a covenant with Noah, accompanied by an oath (6:10). Noah and his descendants are enjoined not to eat the blood of animals. Breaking the terms of this covenant results in the death penalty (6:12), and if sinners are not executed, humanity will be blotted out (7:28–29).23 Although this covenant is not explicitly 22  For the gap between the version offered in the Qumran fragment and the Geʿez, and the reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage, see Werman, Book of Jubilees, 167–69. 23  For a full discussion of the reworking of Genesis 5–9 in Jubilees, see Werman, “Story of the Flood.”

274

Werman

called an ʾôt, it functions as one: the annual observance of the festival of Shvuot marks the yearly renewal of the covenant made with Noah (Jub. 6:17–19). By observing the festival, humanity declares its commitment to the covenant and the condition of its establishment. Thus, we read in chapter 6: (17) For this reason it has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets that they should celebrate Shvuot during this month—once a year— to renew the covenant each and every year. This ʾôt of covenant has also been celebrated since creation by the high-ranking angels: (18) This entire festival was celebrated in heaven from the time of creation until Noah’s days—for twenty-six jubilees and five weeks of years. 4. Ôt as a mandated action is mentioned yet once more in Jubilees, again in conjunction with the high-ranking angels. Jubilees 15 reworks Genesis 17, in which God promises Abraham that as a stipulation of the covenant, he, God, will be a Lord to him, to his son Isaac, and to Isaac’s seed, and orders Abraham to circumcise his entire household.24 In Genesis there is no clear statement regarding Abraham’s obligations as part of the covenant. Circumcision can be understood both as Abraham’s covenant in itself (v. 10) and as the sign of the covenant (v. 11). Apparently it is both.25 In Jubilees the picture is clearer: circumcision is the ʾôt of the covenant:26 24  On the incoherence of Genesis 17, see Fox, “Sign of the Covenant,” 588–91. 25  Fox, “Sign of the Covenant, 587–88. 26  Genesis 17:10 calls the act of circumcision a covenant (“This is my covenant that you may keep between me and you and between your seed after you—every male of you should be circumcised”); verse 11 calls the act of circumcision the ʾôt of the covenant (“Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin so it will be an ʾôt of covenant between me and you”). Jubilees reworks Gen 17:9–11. To hide the fact that circumcision is called a covenant, it deletes the first part of verse 10. To emphasize the role of the act of circumcision as an ʾôt, it inserts the possessive pronoun into verse 11: Genesis 17:9–11 Jubilees 15:11 (9) And God said to Abraham: As for you, And God said to Abraham: As for you, keep keep my covenant, you and your seed my covenant, you and your seed after you. after you throughout their ages. Circumcise all your males; (10) This is my covenant that you may keep between me and you and between your seed after you—every male of you should be circumcised.

Two Creations for One Nation

275

As for you, keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you. Circumcise all your males; circumcise your foreskins and it will be an ʾôt of my eternal covenant between me and you. (Jub. 15:11) Furthermore, in Jubilees the covenant is made with only one of Isaac’s offspring, that is, Jacob.27 Consequently, chapter 15 is a springboard for a commandment given to Jacob’s progeny, the people of Israel: Now you command the people of Israel to keep the ʾôt of this covenant throughout their ages as an eternal ordinance so that they may not be uprooted from the earth. (Jub. 15:28) According to Jubilees, however, the angels of the presence and of holiness were circumcised long before Abraham: For this is what the nature of all the angels of the presence and all the angels of holiness was like from the day of their creation. (Jub. 15:27) As we see from the foregoing discussion, Jubilees uses biblical building blocks to construct a new picture of ʾôtot and of covenants. In Jubilees, ʾôt carries two clear meanings. An ʾôt is created by God: the Sabbath, symbolizing the works of creation, and the rainbow, symbolizing God’s commitment never again to disrupt the laws of creation. ʾÔt, however, is also a call to action: the observance of Sabbath, Shvuot and circumcision. Furthermore, in Jubilees, the Sabbath is not styled as a covenant, and therefore we are left with only two such arrangements:28 (a) the covenant made with Noah, to be observed by all (11) Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin circumcise your foreskins and it will be an and it will be an ʾôt of covenant between ʾôt of my eternal covenant between me and me and you. you. 27  To emphasize the idea that the covenant is to be made with only one of Isaac’s son, Jubilees rewrites Gen 17:16. In the biblical version, Sarah is the only subject in the verse: “And I will bless her and will give you a son from her. And I will bless her and she will become nations and kings of people will come out of her.” In Jubilees, Sarah is the subject at the first part of the verse, but in the second part her son becomes the subject: ‫ואברכה‬ ‫ ואברכו והיה לגוי ומלכי גוים ממנו יהיו‬,‫“ ;ואתן לך ממנה בן‬I will bless her and will give you a son from her. And I will bless him and he will become a nation and kings for nations will come out of him” (15:16). According to Jubilees, there is only one legitimate heir to Abraham, and he will rule the entire world; see Jub. 19:15–25. 28  See W. K. Gilders, “The Concept of Covenant in Jubilees,” in Boccaccini and Ibba, Enoch and the Mosaic Torah, 178–92; Gilders and the other scholars referred to there on p. 178 n. 1 have overlooked this complexity of Jubilees.

276

Werman

humanity, the basis of which is abstinence from blood, and which is to be renewed each year on Shvuot; and (b) the covenant with Abraham, for his descendants alone, which is marked by circumcision. This covenant was also established on Shvuot (Jub. 15:1), but the festival is not the ʾôt of its renewal: this role is later assumed by the Paschal sacrifice (Jubilees 49).29 Note the similarity in Jubilees between Shvuot and circumcision. An ʾôt is an action to be taken by a human being; it is a declaration of commitment. This new understanding of ʾôt in Jubilees includes the angels of the presence and the angels of holiness, which results in another innovation. In the Pentateuch, the three covenants and their ʾôtot emerge during the course of human history—following the flood, in Abraham’s lifetime, and at Sinai. The progression implies that God, through a process of trial and error, decided to select Israel after the rest of humanity was found to be morally flawed. By contrast, in Jubilees, the three ʾôtot have existed since creation, and have been kept (at least in heaven) since creation; two of them, Shvuot and circumcision, are the signs of two planned covenants, one with humanity and the other with the people of Israel. We can summarize that in Jubilees, history follows God’s pre-creation plan. The permission to eat meat and the decrees against eating blood were planned in advance and are not the result of God’s concession to the deeds of the evil generation before the flood, who sinned in blood. More important, circumcision is not a sign of a covenant made to “plug a hole” in world history, but part and parcel of the creation: the world was created with Israel in mind. 4

From Creation to (Re-)Creation

I ended the second part of this paper by pointing to the relationship between God, Mastema, humankind, and the people of Israel. The third part of the paper explored the special status of Israel in relation to the high-ranking angels. It is my task now to combine the outcomes of both of the preceding sections, in order to assess the way in which Jubilees’ narrative depicts the movement of the forces active on earth and in heaven toward the End of Days. 29  See C. Werman, “Narrative in the Service of Halakha: Abraham, Prince Mastema, and the Paschal Offering in Jubilees,” in Law and Narrative in the Bible and Neighboring Ancient Cultures, ed. K.-P. Adam, F. Avemarie, and N. Wazana, FAT 2/54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 225–42. My paper demonstrates that according to Jubilees’ author, the paschal offering, when brought on time and according to the priestly halakhah, is an ʾôt of commitment to the God of Israel and hence provides protection from Mastema to the one who brings the offering, until the next Passover.

277

Two Creations for One Nation

Jubilees’ vision of this end-time, the time of renewal, comes in the last half of chapter 1 (Jub. 1:15–29). At that time, God will gather to himself those who themselves turn to him and seek him; he will create them as a “righteous plant” (1:16); build his Temple in their midst (1:17); and implant in them a holy spirit, “in order that they may not turn away from me from that time forever” (1:23). At that time, when God has established his Temple “on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, … all the lights will be renewed for healing and peace, and he will write all the chosen of Israel as blessed forever” (1:29). The covenant made with Noah will be our starting point. An announcement about this covenant is made in v. 18 of chapter 6: From the day of Noah’s death his sons corrupted [it] until Abraham’s lifetime and were eating blood. Jubilees repeats twice more that humanity does not live up to its covenantal obligations (Jub. 7:27; 11:2). Thus, Abram must renew the covenant in chapter 14, which reworks the biblical description of the “the covenant among the pieces” (Gen 15:7–21), placing it in the middle of the third month, at the time of the festival of Shvuot: During this day we made a covenant with Abram like the covenant which we made during this month with Noah. Abram renewed the festival and the ordinance for himself forever. (Jub. 14:20) The cleaving of the animals in the biblical chapter provides the author with an opportunity to elaborate on the prohibition against blood: Jubilees 14

Genesis 15

(9) He [God] said to him: Fetch me a three-year-old calf, a three-year-old shegoat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a dove. (10) He took all of these in the middle of the month. He was living at the oak of Mamre which is near Hebron. (11) He built an altar there and sacrificed all of these. He poured out their blood on the altar and divided them in the middle. He put them opposite one another, but the birds he did not divide.

(9) He [God] said to him: Fetch me a calf of three, a she-goat of three, a ram of three, a turtledove, and a young pigeon. (10) He fetched him all these. He divided them in the middle, laying each half over against the other. But the birds he did not divide.

278

Werman

(cont.)

Jubilees 14

Genesis 15

(13) At sunset, a terror fell on Abram …

(12) As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram…. (17) When the sun had gone down and it was dark, and behold, there was a smoking oven, a fiery torch that crossed between these pieces.

(17) When he awakened and got up, the sun had gone down. There was a flame and a smoking oven and a fiery torch crossed between the pieces…. (19) It crossed and Abram offered the pieces, the birds, their (cereal) offering, and their libation. The fire devoured them.

Of all the sons of Arpachshad, Abraham deserves to inherit the land (the Land of Israel, as in the biblical account, as well as the entire earth, Jub. 14:18): he is the only one of Noah’s descendants who handles blood carefully and accepts the terms of the covenant (14:19–20). Jubilees 6, however, clearly states that the covenant made with Noah was renewed at Sinai with the sons of Jacob alone. This Jubilean narrative of renewal is based on the biblical narrative in Exod 24:5–8, where Moses, while bringing burnt offerings and peace offerings, pours half of the blood on the altar and half on the people of Israel: “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words” (24:8). This act receives the following interpretation in Jubilees: For this reason, he told you, too, to make a covenant—accompanied by an oath—with the Israelites during this month on the mountain, and to sprinkle blood on them for all the words of the covenant which the Lord was making with them for all times. (Jub. 6:11) According to Jubilees, already at this stage of history the part of humanity not descended from Jacob is doomed and is to be destroyed at the End of Days.30 This part of humanity will be lost because under Mastema’s influence it cannot live up to the terms accepted by Noah. The reason why the ʾôt of observing the 30  See the discussion above (p. 271), where I point to the fact that in Jubilees there is no divine commitment not to erase humanity a second time. And see further in Werman, “The Story of the Flood.”

Two Creations for One Nation

279

Sabbath, which is the ʾôt for the first creation (and presages the joy at the time of the re-creation; see Jub. 23:31) was given to Israel alone now becomes clear: the rest of humanity has no place in this world. The covenant marked by circumcision is realized with the birth of Isaac in Jubilees 16. Ishmael is removed from this covenant in Jubilees 20, and Esau and his sons are expelled in Jubilees 22; 37–38. It is this covenant that is reenacted when Moses ascends to Mount Sinai; the law given there reflects its terms (Exodus 24; Jubilees 1). Note that accepting the Torah also means accepting the terms of the first, Noahide, covenant. Israel will be protected on the condition that they obey the Torah and bring the Paschal sacrifice on time each and every year; these show their commitment to the terms of both covenants, the Noahide and the Sinaitic. Yet, as long as this world continues to exist, Mastema must play his role. In his quest to impose complete, firm justice on the world, Mastema keeps sending evil spirits to tempt and harm Israel (Jub. 1:20; 19:28). Thus, two camps exist both in heaven and on earth. Israel has a heavenly counterpart in the angels of the presence and holiness, and a heavenly enemy in Mastema, whose terrestrial counterparts are the rest of humanity. The struggle in Jubilees 49 between the two heavenly powers should be understood in this light: Mastema aids the Egyptians, whereas the angels of the presence and of holiness assist Israel. This analysis could lead to the conclusion that the division of the earthly and heavenly realms into two camps in Jubilees is carried out according to nationalistic considerations. But a closer look reveals a more complex picture. The Sinai covenant has two facets because two Torot were given at Sinai: (a) the five books of Moses, written on the stone tablets; and (b) the Book of Jubilees, dictated to Moses during his forty-day sojourn on the mount.31 Jubilees, the second Torah, contains the proper, priestly-sectarian, interpretation of the first Torah; therefore, only by accepting the second Torah does one adhere fully to the Sinai covenant. The ceremony described in 1QS 1–2 may be understood against this background. The Qumranites designed an annual ceremony on Shvuot (falling, as in Jubilees, in the middle of the third month), to declare their commitment to the sectarian law. By accepting the second Torah they accept the double terms of the Sinai covenant as well as the terms of the first, Noahide, covenant. It is clear now why Jubilees states that only the “righteous plant” (Jub. 1:16), that is, the chosen group (1:29) who realized the sins of their forefathers (1:15) and took upon themselves to hold fast to the terms of the (two-part) Sinai covenant, can rely on God’s saving hand. By choosing these factional designations, 31   C. Werman, “The Torah and the Teudah Engraved on the Tablets,” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103 (93–95).

280

Werman

“righteous plant,” “chosen of Israel,” Jubilees’ author warns his audience that the protection from Mastema guaranteed to the circumcised has a further condition. Note that a similar statement from CD matches Jubilees’ portrayal of the power that Mastema holds over those who do not follow sectarian hala­ khah. Mastema loses his control over a person who accepts the sectarian law: ‫וביום אשר יקים האיש על נפשו לשוב אל תורת משה יסור מלאך המשטמה מאחוריו אם‬ ‫“( יקים את דבריו‬On the day a man takes upon himself to return to the Torah

[given by] Moses—the Angel of Mastema will depart from him, if he fulfills his commitment”) (CD 16:4–5). Since they are faithful to both Torot, this “righteous plant” will also be worthy to greet the End of Days. At this time, their hearts will go through transformation and their souls will become holy spirits:

After this they will return to me in a fully upright manner and with all (their) minds and all (their) hearts and all (their) souls. I will cut away the foreskins of their hearts and the foreskins of their descendants’ hearts. 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) The promises made here rely on Ezekiel: ‫ונתתי לכם לב חדש ורוח חדשה אתן‬ ‫בקרבכם‬, “And I will provide you with a new heart and a new spirit I will place within you” (Ezek 36:26).32 Jubilees adjusts the biblical wording to its own apocalyptic view: the evil spirits and Mastema will have no dominion over the holy spirits now imbedded in the ‫בריות‬. Admittedly, Mastema is not named in Jubilees 1. However, the entreaty, ‫ואל ימשול בהם רוח בליעל להשטימם לפניך‬, “May the spirit of Belial not rule over them so as to bring charges against them before you” (Jub. 1:20), definitely refers to him; the promise made in chapter 23, that the evil spirits will disappear and that in later days there will be no ‫משטם ופגע‬ ‫רע‬, may allude to Mastema as well. 32  It is possible that the author of Jubilees is here using a midrash in which the ‫( נפש חיה‬living soul) and ‫( נשמת חיים‬breath of life) of Gen 2:7 are read in light of the promise made in Ezek 36:26. We can speculate that a distinction was made in this midrash between the “First Adam,” who was created with a soul, and the eschatological, second Adam, who merits a ‫ רוח‬that is equated with Ezekiel’s “new spirit.” Cf. 1 Cor 15:45–46, where the ‫ נשמה‬of Gen 2:7 is replaced by spirit: “And so it is written, “The first Adam was made a living soul (εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν); the last Adam a life-giving spirit (εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν). But it is not the spiritual (πνευματικόν) that is first, but that of the soul (ψυχικόν); and then the spiritual.” For other early Jewish sources that can be regarded as preceding 1 Corinthians, see M. Kister, “‘First Adam’ and ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. R. Bieringer et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 351–65.

Two Creations for One Nation

281

As was mentioned above, other verses in Jubilees promise the members of the “righteous plant” a share in the Temple to be built by God as well as the renewal of the lights for healing and peace and blessing (Jub. 1:29). Long life on earth and in heaven is also part of this time of bliss: And days will start to increase … until the number of their days will reach almost a thousand years;… and there will be neither an aged person nor one whose days were fulfilled because all [humans] will be infants and toddlers. And they are to complete their days in peace and happiness …; all their days will be of blessing and healing. And their bones will rest in earth and their spirits will be rich in joy. (Jub. 23:27–31) 5

In Lieu of a Conclusion: Jubilees and the Qumran Writings

The following statement from the Hodayot may also serve as a good summary of the view of Jubilees: ‫ ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון להשמר בבריתך ולתהלך בכול‬,‫רק אתה [ברא]תה צדיק‬ ‫[…] ורשעים בראתה ל[ק]צי חרונכה ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬

You alone have [creat]ed the righteous and from the womb you destined him for an epoch of approval, to keep your covenant and to walk on all […]. But the wicked you have created for [the time] of your wrath; from the womb you have predestined them for the day of slaughter. (1QHa 7:27–30) This citation omits one phrase found in 1QHa column 7: ‫ותרם מבשר כבודו‬, “and you exalted him [from the status of] flesh, giving him dignity.” As noted above, Jubilees differs from the Hodayot in its perception of human beings. Nevertheless, both Jubilees and the Hodayot assume that the righteous come only from Israel, and that among the wicked are also people who were born into Israel, in addition to the rest of humanity. A comparison of Jubilees and the “Two Spirits Treatise” can also help in evaluating aspects of the apocalyptic worldview of Jubilees: 1. As noted by others, the nationalistic aspect is not made explicit in the Treatise: the Sons of Light and Truth are not specifically identified as originating from the people of Israel; in Jubilees, on the contrary, belonging to Israel is one of the main conditions for achieving righteousness and being counted among the chosen. In other words, Jubilees does not share the overtly universalistic approach of the Treatise. But by identifying God

282

2.

3.

4.

Werman

as ‫אל ישראל‬, the God of Israel, the author or redactor of the Treatise hints at agreement with the stance expressed by Jubilees and the Hodayot: only people from Israel, who keep the covenant, can be counted as the Sons of Light. Evil exists as a real entity in the Treatise at three levels: cosmic, heavenly, and earthly. By contrast, in Jubilees, the creation is good and it is monistic. God created neither evil angels, nor Sons of Darkness, nor sin. The God of Jubilees created good angels who play different roles, along with morally neutral people. The latter consist of bodies and spirits. In Jubilees, sinning is a result of human weakness. Evil spirits encase the sinning person, and it is they alone who are evil—but they were neither created nor ordained by creation. These differences affect the description of the end of time. In Jubilees, those who are planted in the orchard of justice will undergo a material transformation and sin no more. In the Treatise, which sees evil as part of creation, God must extract the evil from the bodies of the Sons of Light (1QS 4:20–21), as well as from the substance of which the cosmos is made. In the Treatise, a constant struggle between good and evil is imbedded in creation and will end only with the second and final creation. In Jubilees, the original plan did not include a struggle between these forces; but because of the role assigned to Mastema, a struggle is unavoidable. Mastema fights for justice; the people of Israel deserve mercy and forgiveness, which Mastema is not willing to allow; and because the higherranking angels are Israel’s counterpart in heaven, they tend to confront Mastema.

The claim that there is a close affinity between the good angels in Jubilees and the Prince of Light in the Treatise is therefore not farfetched. Furthermore, despite the differences between them, Jubilees and the Treatise point to the same end: when history reaches its final stage and a new creation takes place, the world will be given to those for whom it was intended since the first creation, the Sons of Light and Truth, the people of Israel who properly follow the law (that is, on sectarian terms). The Sons of Darkness, both those from Israel and those from outside it, will not be admitted. We might conclude by returning to our starting point. I mentioned at the outset that the current approach in scholarship emphasizes the unity in the apocalyptic worldviews of the scrolls (two opposing powers under one God, battling over the human heart), but admits the presence of divergent voices in the Qumran library. The Hodayot and the Treatise are suggested as good examples of such “divergent voices.” On the basis of the present discussion, it seems to me that we can now add Jubilees as another example. By doing so we

Two Creations for One Nation

283

provide a solution to the riddle mentioned also at the outset, the missing link between the biblical account of creation and the presence of the cosmic entities of light and darkness. Bibliography Baillet, M. “4Q510. Songs of the Sage.” Pages 215–19 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III: 4Q482–4Q520. Edited by M. Baillet. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Bar-On, S., and Y. Paz. “ ‘The Lord’s Allotment is his People’: The Myth of the Election of Israel by Casting of Lots and the Gnostic–Christian–Pagan–Jewish Polemic.” Tarbiz 79/1 (2010): 23–61 (in Hebrew). Collins, J. J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. Dimant, D. “‫ תורת המלאכים בספר היובלים לאור כתבי עדת קומראן‬:‫בני שמים‬.” Pages 97–118 in Tribute to Sara: Studies in Jewish Philosophy and Kabbala. Edited by M. Idel at el. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1994. Fox, M. V. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ʾôt Etiologies.” RB 81 (1974): 557–96. Frey, J. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernstein et al. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gilders, W. K. “The Concept of Covenant in Jubilees.” Pages 178–92 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Hanneken, T. R. Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. SBLEJL 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Kister, M. “Body and Purification from Evil: Prayer Formulas and Concepts in Second Temple Literature and their Relationship to Later Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 243– 84 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 8–9. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010 (in Hebrew). Kister, M. “ ‘First Adam’ and ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage.” Pages 351–65 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by R. Bieringer et al. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Kister, M. “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community.” Pages 479–528 in vol. 2 of The Qumran Scrolls and Their World. Edited by M. Kister. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (in Hebrew). Machiela, D. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. STDJ 79. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

284

Werman

Reed, A. Y. “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees: The Evidence of Angelology and Demonology.” Pages 353–68 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. VanderKam, J. C. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. 2 vols. CSCO 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VanderKam, J. C., and J. T. Milik. “216. 4QJubilees a.” Pages 1–22 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by H. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Werman, C. The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2015 (in Hebrew). Werman, C. “Narrative in the Service of Halakha: Abraham, Prince Mastema, and the Paschal Offering in Jubilees.” Pages 225–42 in Law and Narrative in the Bible and Neighboring Ancient Cultures. Edited by K.-P. Adam, F. Avemarie, and N. Wazana. FAT 2/54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Werman, C. “The Story of the Flood in the Book of Jubilees.” Tarbiz 64/2 (1995): 183–202 (in Hebrew). Werman, C. “The Torah and the Teudah Engraved on the Tablets.” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103.

Index of Modern Authors Albani, M. 65–66, 69–70 Albertz, R. 84 Albrecht, F. 103, 122, 134 Alexander, P. S. 29–31, 37, 39–43, 162–63, 186–87, 246 Aly, Z. 149 Amara, D. 176 Anderson, G. A. 58–59, 181–82, 183 Arenhoevel, D. 154–55 Ariel, C. 115, 170 Aune, D. E. 151 Bachmann, V. 70, 74 Baillet, M. 269–270 Bakker, A. 112 Baltzer, K. 37–38 Bar-Asher, M. 215, 216, 217–218 Bar-On, S. 270 Barrett, C. K. 124 Baumgarten, A. 7 Baumgarten, J. M. 15–17, 145 Beckwith, R. T. 8, 15–17 Ben-Dov, J. 13–19, 65–67, 246 Betz, H. D. 122, 150 Bieringer, R. 103, 106 Black, M. 70–71 Boccaccini, G. 4 Bockmuehl, M. N. A. 48 Boustan, R. S. 77, 175–76 Brack-Bernsen, L. 18 Brashear, W. M. 150–51 Brin, G. 123–24 Brooke, G. J. 2–3, 109, 119, 121, 130, 133, 184 Brownlee, W. H. 145 Bultmann, R. 104 Burnett, J. S. 141 Calaway, J. C. 186–87 Carlson, D. C. 116 Carr, D. 2–3 Cassirer, E. 63 Charles, R. H. 123–24, 185–86 Christiansen, E. J. 28 Churchland, P. S. 207 Coblentz-Bautch, K. 73

Collins, J. J. 25–26, 31, 32–33, 35, 40, 163–64, 183–84, 200–201, 228, 250, 264 Crüsemann, F. 78 Cryer, F. H. 17–18 Dahl, N. A. 104, 105, 107, 114, 121, 130 Dahmen, U. 186–87 Dan, J. 182 Danker, F. W. 83 Darshan, G. 17 Davidson, M. J. 167–68 Davies, P. R. 15, 246, 248–49 Davila, J. R. 186–87 Deissmann, A. 150 De Troyer, K. 140, 149–50 Derrett, J. D. M. 113–14 Dietzfelbinger, C. 97 Dillmann, A. 67 Dimant, D. 30, 31, 51, 52, 112, 119, 161–62, 184–85, 186, 212, 214, 216, 218–19, 220–21, 223, 232–36, 271 Doering, L. 123–24, 125 Donner, H. 84 Drawnel, H. 65, 67 Dreytza, M. 84 Duhaime, J. 30, 40–41, 246–47, 249, 260 Efrati, S. 116–17, 123 Ego, B. 64–65, 70, 74, 78 Elgvin, T. 48, 110–11 Eliade, M. 212–13 Elior, R. 8 Englund, R. 18 Erho, T. M. 249–50 Ewing, K. 197–99, 207, 210 Fabry, H.-J. 84–85, 186–87 Fee, G. D. 95–96 Feldman, A. 125–26 Feldman, L. H. 129 Finsterbusch, K. 4 Fishbane, M. 6, 223 Fitzmyer, J. A. 42, 104–6, 120, 129 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 174 Ford, J. N. 179–80

286 Fox, M. V. 271–76 Frey, J. 30–31, 33–34, 37, 39, 83, 86, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96–97, 98, 200–202, 264 Furnish, V. P. 103, 108 García Martínez, F. 3, 161 Gardner, B. K. 15 Gärtner, B. 105, 109, 130, 134 Geertz, C. 63–64 Gese, H. 64 Gesenius, W. 84 Gilders, W. K. 275–76 Gmirkin, R. 246–47 Gnilka, J. 104–5, 106, 114, 130 Goff, M. 33 Goldman, L. 34 Goldstein, J. A. 155 Goodblatt, D. 8 Grabbe, L. L. 150 Green, D. 141 Griffiths, J. G. 35 Grimm, C. L. W. 154–55 Grund, A. 77 Grundmann, W. 122–23 Guillaume, P. 14–18 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 84 Gzella, H. 166–67 Haber, E. 115 Hamidović, D. 140 Hanneken, T. R. 268–69 Harkavy, A. 113–14 Harkins, A. 209 Harlé, P. 133 Harrington, D. J. 111, 237, 238–40 Heger, P. 36, 48–49, 59 Hempel, C. 2–3, 30, 37 Hendel, R. 18–19 Hobsbawm, E. 1, 6–7, 10–11, 19–20 Hoffman, Y. 223 Hogeterp, L. A. 95 Holst, S. 245–46 Horbury, W. 115–17 Hultgård, A. 34 Hultgren, S. 25–26 Ibba, G. 246–47, 249

Index of Modern Authors Jacobsen, T. 183 Janowski, B. 64 Jassen, A. 193–94 Jaubert, A. 14–19 Jeremias, J. 156 Jong, A. de 34, 35–36 Jonge, M. de 116–17 Joosten, J. 117 Keel, O. 64 Kellens, J. 35 Kister, M. 1–2, 12, 18–19, 56, 58, 108, 110–13, 114, 119, 121–22, 123–25, 129, 163, 196, 213, 216–17, 222–24, 259–60, 264, 268–70, 280 Klawans, J. 40, 193–94 Klein, A. 84 Knohl, I. 4 Kobelski, P. J. 34 Koch, K. 65, 67–68, 69, 237–40 Koch, R. 84 Koenen, L. 149 Kratz, R. G. 3 Kreuzer, S. 176 Kugel, J. L. 114, 116, 128 Kuhn, H.-W. 199–200, 259 Kuhn, K. G. 35, 104, 105 Kvalvaag, R. W. 85 Kvanvig, H. 65 Lagarde, P. de 150 Lambert, D. 28 Lambrecht, J. 103, 106 Lange, A. 4, 33, 37, 40, 86, 88–89, 93, 142–43, 193–94 Langer, S. K. 63 LeDoux, J. 207–8 Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 29–30, 35 Levenson, J. D. 26 Levinson, B. M. 3, 6 Levison, J. R. 84–85, 94, 95–96 Libreich, Y. L. 16 Licht, J. 193–94 Lichtenberger, H. 8, 88–89, 140, 156 Löhr, H. 75 Ludlow, J. W. 166–67 Lust, J. 228

287

Index of Modern Authors Mach, M. 166–67, 184 Machiela, D. 271 Maier, J. 119 Markl, D. 145 Martens, P. W. 213 Martin, R. P. 107, 118 McKay, J. W. 18 McLean, M. D. 148–49 McNamara, P. 207 Merrill, E. H. 193–94 Meshorer, Y. 148 Metso, S. 37, 86 Metzger, B. M. 118 Meyer, R. 84 Michel, S. 151–52 Mildenberg, L. 148–49 Milgrom, J. 11 Milik, J. T. 65, 70, 71, 266–67 Mizrahi, N. 163, 170, 174, 178–80 Morray-Jones, C. R. A. 184–85 Muraoka, T. 83 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 104, 130 Naeh, S. 4 Najm, S. 18 Najman, H. 2 Newman, J. H. 151 Newsom, C. 63, 74, 75–76, 79–80, 89–92, 161, 162–63, 166, 171–72, 174–75, 178, 186, 198, 202, 206, 209 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 71, 72, 73, 185–86 Nikiprowetzky, V. 17 Nitzan, B. 75 Noam, V. 9–12 Novick, T. 3–4 Osten-Sacken, P. von der 30, 246, 248–49 Pastorelli, D. 97 Paul, S. 219, 223 Paz, Y. 270 Philonenko, M. 34 Pickup, M. 223 Pike, D. M. 214 Pirart, E. 35 Pitts, A. W. 84 Ploeg, J. van der 256 Pollinger, S. 84

Popović, M. 4, 29, 30–31, 34, 39, 87 Pralon, D. 133 Preisendanz, K. 150–51 Priest, J. 116 Puech, É. 33–34 Qimron, E. 110–11, 126, 169, 178, 196–97, 214–16, 221 Quinn, N. 197–98, 207–8 Rajak, T. 7–8 Rappaport, U. 8 Ravid, L. 16 Reed, A. Y. 269, 271 Regev, E. 119 Reinitz, Y. K. 113–14 Reynolds, B. H., III 235–36 Rietz, H. W. M. 161–62 Rösel, M. 17–18, 140, 145–46 Rosen-Zvi, I. 40 Ruiten, J. van 123–24, 127 Ruppert, L. 78 Rustow, M. 7 Sanders, E. P. 25–28 Sass, G. 107, 121, 122, 123–25, 130 Schäfer, P. 174–75 Schiffman, L. H. 48–49, 56, 57 Schnelle, U. 96, 97 Schreiner, J. 84 Schremer, A. 10–11 Schuller, E. M. 39, 89, 167–68, 193, 194, 196–97, 202 Schultz, B. 245 Schunck, K.-D. 84, 154–55 Schwartz, D. R. 119, 229 Schwartz, S. 8, 41, 43 Scott, J. M. 121, 122 Segal, M. 3, 4, 171, 213, 217, 225–26, 230, 235–36 Sekki, A. E. 85, 86–87 Shaw, F. 150–52 Shemesh, A. 9–10, 48–49, 56, 58–59, 125 Sherwood, A. 251 Skehan, P. W. 140, 141 Skjaervø, P. O. 34 Smith, M. S. 179–80, 214, 219, 220–21 Sommer, B. 15

288 Staalduine-Sulman, E. van 237, 238–40 Steck, O. H. 4 Stegemann, H. 37, 88–89, 196–97 Stern, S. 16 Strauss, C. 198–99 Strawson, P. F. 41 Strugnell, J. 110–11, 161, 173 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 185–86, 250–52, 260 Stuckrad, K. von 68, 69, 76 Talmon, S. 5–6, 10, 220 Thomas, S. I. 48–49 Thrall, M. E. 103, 109–10, 118, 130–31 Tibbs, C. 94 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 4–5, 30, 83, 89, 161, 214–16 Tilly, M. 154–55 Tomson, P. J. 105, 108, 123–24, 133 Tov, E. 140, 144 Tromp, J. 116–17 Trotter, J. R. 73 Trudinger, P. L. 16 Tuschling, M. M. 186–87 Tzoref, S. 48–49, 55, 59 Uhlig, S. 65, 66, 70, 71 Ulrich, E. 141, 228 Urbach, E. E. 26

Index of Modern Authors VanderKam, J. C. 14, 265–67, 271 Vollenweider, S. 156–57 Wacholder, B. Z. 15 Wacholder, S. 15 Wacker, M.-T. 73 Walker, W. O. 103 Webb, W. J. 105–6, 107, 109–10, 121–24, 131, 132–33, 134 Werman, C. 48, 58–59, 85, 265–266, 271, 273–276, 278, 279 Wernberg-Møller, P. 86 Westermann, C. 84 Widengren, G. 34 Wilk, F. 103, 105, 122–23, 133 Wise, M. 119 Wolfson, E. R. 169, 183–84 Wolter, M. 95–96 Wolters, A. 142 Woude, A. S. van der 115–7, 161, 186 Wutz, F. 150 Yuditsky, A. 115 Yuval, I. J. 26, 42 Zakovitch, Y. 213, 223 Zanella, F. 169 Zipor, M. 18–19, 220

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Masoretic Text

18, 90

Genesis 1 16, 29, 84, 200, 203 1–3 31, 33 1:2 265 1:14 16 1:26 33 1:26–27 200 1:28 31 2–3 33, 200–202 2:7 200–203, 280 3:19 201 5–9 273 5–11 15 6–9 17–19 6:3 201, 203–4 6:5 203 6:17 203–4 7:11 18, 19 8:4 18 8:5 18 8:13 18 8:14 18, 19 9 271 10 216 14:18 116 15:7–21 277–78 15:9–12 277–78 15:17 277–78 17 271, 274–75 17:7 270 17:9–11 274–75 17:10 274 17:11 274 17:16 275 21:33 168 22 3 Exodus 216, 218 1:13–14 218 2:23–25 218 2:24 155, 221

3:7 218 3:9 218 3:14 156–57 3:21 216 10:23 217, 219, 222 14:20 217, 221–22 14:26 255 14:28 255 15 223 15:4 255 15:7 256 15:14 218 15:19 255 15:26 154 16:29 15 19:5 217 20:7 150 23:20–21 256, 258 24 279 24:5–8 278 24:10 179 25–40 75, 181 31:12–17 271, 272–73 Leviticus 10:1–3 257 11–14 12 12:4 12 19:19 110–11 23:9–23 16–17 24:16 153 25 17 26:11–12 132–133 26:42 155 Numbers 248 3:4 257 5:2 11–12 6:24–26 147 10:9 245, 253–54 15:30 228 19:13 12 19:20 12 24:17–19 245, 253–54 26:61 257

290

Index of Ancient Sources

Deuteronomy 4, 25–26, 28, 41, 175–76 4:12 177 4:15–16 177 4:19 232 4:33 177 5 175–76 5:11 150 5:26 176–77 6:5 196 7:6 217 10:12 196 11:4 255 11:26–28 114 14:2 217 17 8 17:12 228 17:13 232 20:1–18 249 20:2–5 245 22:9–11 111 22:10 113 26:18 217 29:28 58–59 30:2 196 30:19 114 32:6 156 32:8–9 270 32:35 116 33:11 145 33:15 146 1 Samuel 2:1 237 2:1–10 237–40 2:2 238 2:3 170–71, 239–40 2:4 237 2:4–5 240 2:9–10 237 17:4 255 17:26 175–76 17:36 175–76 17:46 255 17:50 255 2 Samuel 7:14

123–125, 156

1–2 Kings

8

1 Kings 6 75 2 Kings 19:22 236 23:5 232 25:29 220 Isaiah 142, 177, 219 2:12 228 3:15–18 146 6:1 157 8:11 134 10:12 236 11:15–16 223 12:1 147 14:12–15 232 14:13–14 236 28:17 236 31:8 245, 254, 255, 256 37:23 236 40:2 145 40:3 145, 147, 152 40:7 144, 152 41:17–18 223 42:6 144 42:15 223 43:2 223 43:5–6 122, 133 43:16–21 223 44:27 223 45:7 34, 37 45:9 201 48:20–21 223 49:10–11 223 49:14 145 49:18 220–21 50:2–3 223 51:10–11 223 52 218–19 52:1 219, 220 52:7 115 52:9 115 52:11 134, 219 52:11–12 123, 132, 223 54:4 145

291

Index of Ancient Sources 54:6 145 54:8 145 60 218 60:1–2 222 60:1–3 219 60:2–3 221 60:15 220–221 61:1–2 94 62 218 63:10–11 84 63:16 156, 157 64:5 220 64:7 156 65:18–21 218 66:10–12 218 Jeremiah 2:3 110 3:3 156 3:14 128 3:19 156 8:2 232 10:10 175–76 18:3–6 201 29 235–36 31:1 132 31:8–9 132 31:9 128, 133–34, 156 31:31–33 128–29 31:33 41 41:5 155 52:33 220 Ezekiel 1 180, 187 1:1 72 1:25 75 1:26–28 173–75 11:17–20 132 20:36 223 20:38 134 36 205 36:26 280 36:26–27 96, 203–5 36:31–32 204–5 37 95 37:5–10 203 37:9–10 204

37:23–28 120 37:26–27 125, 132–33 38–39 249–50 40–48 75 44:10 109 Hosea 2:1 [1:10] 124 2:16–17 223 Joel 3:1–5 96 3:3–5 223 Obadiah 3 228 Micah 6:8 49 7:15 223 Zechariah 8:8 124 9 223 Malachi 1:6 156 2:10 156 Psalms 4, 77, 94, 142, 143 1:1 109 2:4 157 17:10 228 19 77, 79 19:2 77 31:18 228 31:19 239–40 31:23 228 36:11 228 51:13 84 51:18–19 79 68:6 156 75:6 239–40 89:27 156 94:4 239–40 104 79 106:1 154

292 Psalms (cont.) 106:43 255 119:108 79 121:5 147 135:19 119 141:2 79 146:8 147 148 77 Proverbs 11:2 49 16:6–7 129–30 30:8 112 Job

4:17–18 201–2 4:17–21 202

Lamentations 1:8–9 221 1:17 221 4:1 220 Qohelet 8:1 219–20 Daniel 224–32, 238, 251, 264–65 2–4 236 2–6 225 2:31 219 3:4 238–39 3:7 238–39 3:29 238–39 3:31 238–39 4 225, 236, 239–40 4:5–15 232 4:8 232 4:8(11) 227 4:13 225 4:17–19 226–27 4:19 (22) 226–32, 236 4:34 232 4:34(37) 227–28 5:6 219 5:9 219 5:10 219 5:12 84 5:17–22 228

Index of Ancient Sources 5:19 238–39 5:20 227–28 6:4 84 6:25 238–39 7 225–26, 231 7:4 225 7:8 224, 229, 235–36 7:14 238–39 7:20 235–36 7:25 229–30, 235–36 7:28 219 8 224 8:2 72 8:10 232, 236 8:10–11 230–31 8:13 224, 231 8:21 224 8:24–25 230–31, 232 8:25 227 9:1–27 251–52 9:24 235 9:24–27 235–36 9:26 224 9:27 224, 231 10:4 72 11 224–25 11:12 227 11:22 224 11:31 224, 231 11:36 230, 236 11:36–37 229 12:1 256 12:3 252 12:10 252 12:11 224, 231 Ezra 13 250 Nehemiah 9:16 228 9:28–29 255 1–2 Chronicles

75

1 Chronicles 17:13 123, 156 22:10 156 28:6 156

293

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible: Other Versions and Translations Septuagint 18, 90 Genesis 7:11 19 8:14 19 Leviticus 19:19 109–10 24:16 150, 153–54 26:11–12 132–33 Deuteronomy 4:33 177–78 32:8–9 270, 271 Isaiah 3:15–18 146 43:5–6 133 52:11–12 122–123, 132–34 Jeremiah 3:14 128 38:9 [31:9] 134 38:32 [31:32] 128 Psalms 16, 167 104:8 155 105:45 155 121:5 147 Ecclesiastes 8:1 220 Daniel 4 224–32 4–6 226 4:8 (11) 227, 232 4:19 (22) 226–32, 236 4:34(37) 228, 232 5:12 84 6:3 84 7:25 229–30 8:10 227 8:13 231 8:25 227, 231 9:27 231 11:12 227 11:31 231 11:36–37 227 12:11 231 Theodotion 84 Daniel 226, 228 4:8(11) 227

4:34 (37) 232, 227–28 5:17–22 228 5:20 227–28 Susanna 34 84 Samaritan Pentateuch

18

Peshitta Exodus 19:5 217 Deuteronomy 7:6 217 14:2 217 26:18 217 Jeremiah 31:32 128 Qohelet 8:1 220 Targum Jonathan 1 Samuel 2:1–5 238 2:1–10 237–40 2:2 238–39 2:3 239–40 2:5 237 2:8–9 237 Jeremiah 31:32 128 Targum on Psalms 31:19 239–40 75:6 239–40 94:4 239–40 New Testament Matthew 155–56, 156, 157 3:2 155 4:17 155 5–7 156, 157 5:3 155 5:5 42 5:8–9 156 5:16 156 5:19 155 5:20 155

294 Matthew (cont.) 5:34 156 5:45 156 5:48 156 6:4 156 6:6 156 6:8 156 6:9 156, 157 6:14 156 6:15 156 6:18 156 6:24 156 6:26 156 6:30 156 6:32 156 6:33 155 7:11 156 7:21 155, 156 11:11 155 11:11–12 155 12:28 155 13:11 155 13:24 155 13:31 155 13:33 155 13:44–45 155 13:47 155 13:52 155 15:1–9 10 16:19 155 18:1 155 18:3–4 155 18:23 155 19:12 155 19:14 155 19:23–24 155 21:31 155 21:43 155 22:2 155 23:13 155 25:1 155 Luke-Acts 99 Luke 155 1:72–73 155 4:43 155

Index of Ancient Sources 6:20 155 7:28 155 8:1 155 8:10 155 9:2 155 9:27 155 9:60 155 9:62 155 10:9 155 10:11 155 11:20 155 13:18 155 13:20 155 13:28–29 155 14:15 155 15:7 157 15:18 155, 157 15:21 155, 157 16:16 155 17:20–21 155 18:16–17 155 18:24–25 155 18:29 155 19:11 155 21:31 155 22:16 155 22:18 155 John 86, 98–99 1:33 86 14–16 98 14:17 86 14:26 86 15:26 86 16:13 86 20:22 86 Acts 5:32 95 15:8 95 Romans 1:4 95 5:5 95 8:2 97 8:6 97 8:9 95

295

Index of Ancient Sources 8:15 95 8:16 107 8:26 97 8:27 97 8:34 97 9:8 107 11:25–26 42 1 Corinthians 280 2:10 96 2:12 95 2:13–16 96 3:9 95 3:16 97, 105 3:16–17 118–19 6:19 119 9:1 95 12:6 97 12:11 97 13:1 96 14:5 96 14:12 96 14:14–19 96 14:18 95 14:24–25 96 15:45–46 280 2 Corinthians 106, 107, 119, 130, 131, 133 1:22 95 4:4 106 5:5 95 6:11–13 103 6:13 107 6:14 109–13 6:14–7:1 103–139 passim 6:14–16 108–9, 117–20 6:15 104–5, 114–17 6:16 105–6, 118–20, 123, 131 6:16–18 109, 121–29, 131–34 6:17 105, 128 6:18 107, 123–25, 128–29, 130 7:1 103, 105, 109, 129–30 7:2–3 103 8:14 112

11:4 95 12:1 95 12:4 95 Galatians 3:2 95 3:2–5 96 3:14 95, 96 4:4 97 4:6 97 5:1 97 Ephesians 2:21 119 Philippians 2:15 107 Colossians 1:12 105 1 Thessalonians 4:8 95, 96 5:19 95 1 John 98 2:27 95 3:1–2 107 3:10 107 Jude 19–20 98 Revelation 156–57 1:4 156–57 1:8 156 4:2 157 5:1 157 5:7 157 5:13 157 6:16 157 7:10 157 7:15 157 11:16 157 19:4 157 20 250 21:5 157

296

Index of Ancient Sources

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocryphon of Zephaniah Clement, Stromateis 5.77.2

85

Assumption of Moses 85 10:1–2 116–17 Ben Sira 20, 32, 40 15:14 40 17:1–7 31–32 33:10–13 32 48:18 223, 236 1 Enoch 16–17, 43, 64, 65, 85, 251, 264–65 1–36 (Book of Watchers) 64, 65, 70–74, 79–80, 251, 264–65, 267, 268 1:2 74 2–3 74 6–11 70–71, 73 6:1–7:6 71 6:7 71, 267 7:1 71 7:4–5 71 8:1 71 8:2 71 8:3 71 9:1–3 71 10:1–3 252 10:4–8 71 10:9–10 71 10:11–15 71 10:16 252 10:16–11:2 71 12:3–6 71 13:4–5 71–72 13:6–14:7 72, 73 14:8–16:4 72–74 14:8–25 185–86 14:9 72 14:10–11 72 14:15–17 72 14:16 73

14:18 72 14:20 72 14:23 166, 186 17–19 73 20–27 73 56:5–8 250 72–82 (Astronomical Book) 16, 17, 64–70, 80 72:1 67 72:3 66 72:5 66, 68 72:19 17 72:27 17 73:1–8 66 73:2 68 74:2 68 75:1 67 75:1–3 17 75:2 69 75:3 66 75:4–5 66 76:1–13 66 76:3–10 65 76:4 66 76:13–77:4 65 78:2–17 66 78:6–8 65 78:9–12 65 78:17–79:2 65 79:1–80:1 66 79:3–5 65 79:4–5 66 80:2–8 68–69 82:4 69 82:4–8 17 82:4–20 68–70 82:5–6 69 82:9–13 65, 66–67 82:11 67 82:14–20 67 82:20 65 83–90 (Book of Dreams) 65 85–90 (Animal Apocalypse) 251–52 89:1–90:13 251–52 90:6 252 90:9–10 252 93:1–10 + 91:11–17 (Apocalypse of Weeks) 251

297

Index of Ancient Sources 93:9–10 252 104:12–13 252 106:15 17 3 Enoch 164 17–30 182 4 Ezra 13 250 Jubilees 6, 14, 17, 18, 103, 104, 106, 121, 130–31, 251, 264–83 passim, 265 1 121–28, 279, 280 1:15 279 1:15–18 121–23, 127–28 1:15–26 121 1:15–29 277 1:16 277, 279 1:17 123–25, 277 1:20 279, 280 1:21–23 84 1:23 277, 280 1:23–25 121–23, 127–28 1:24–25 123–25 1:29 277, 279, 280–81 2 85, 272–73 2:1 272 2:2 265–68 2:17–18 273 2:18 51 2:19–22 121 2:20–21 273 2:21 51 5:1 268 6 273–74 6:10 273 6:11 278 6:12 273 6:15–16 271–72 6:17–19 273–74 6:18 51, 277 6:30–36 13–16 7:26–27 269 7:27 277 7:28–29 273 10 268–69

10:1–11 252 10:3 269 10:5 268 10:6 269 10:7 269 10:8 268 10:10 269 10:11 269 11:2 277 12:20 269 14:9–13 277–78 14:17–20 278 14:20 277 15 274–76 15:1 276 15:11 274–75 15:16 275 15:25–32 270 15:26–28 51 15:27–28 275 15:32 126 16 279 19:15–25 275 19:28 126, 279 20 279 22 279 22:14–24 121 22:15–16 125 23 280 23:27–31 281 23:31 278 25:9 125 25:21 120, 125 30:11 121 33:11–20 121 37–38 279 48 217 49 276, 279 Liber Antiquitatem Biblicarum (Ps.-Philo) 18:11 84 28:6 84 32:14 84 60:1 84 62:2 84 1–2 Maccabees

228–29

298 1 Maccabees 7–8, 20, 140, 153, 154–55, 157 1:21 228, 236 1:24 228, 236 1:54 224 1:64 154 2:21 154 2:22 155 2:28 155 2:50 155 2:52–64 154 2:55 154 2:61 154 3:8 154 3:18 154 3:19 154 3:22 154 3:23 154 3:46 155 3:50 154 3:53 154 3:60 154 4:10 154, 155 4:11 155 4:24 154 4:30 155 4:40 154 4:55 154, 155 5:31 154 5:68 154 7:37 154 7:40–43 223–24 7:42 154 7:50 8 9:19–22 8 9:46 154 12:15 154 13:25 8 16:2 255 16:3 154 16:23–24 8 2 Maccabees 4:30–38 224 5:21 228, 236 7:36 228 9 229 9:28 228

Index of Ancient Sources 15:22–24 223–24 3 Maccabees 2:5 228 2:17 228 Prayer of Jacob PGM 22b:10–16

150–51

Psalms of Solomon 17:37 84 Sibylline Oracles 3.657–731 250 Susanna 34 (θ’)

84

Testament of Abraham 20:15 85 Testament of Job 51:2 85 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 104, 114, 116, 130 Testament of Asher 7:7 123 Testament of Dan 5:10–13 114–17 Testament of Issachar 6:1 114 Testament of Joseph 20:2 217, 222 Testament of Judah 23:5–24:3 121–22, 124–25 Testament of Levi 3:6 84 16:5 123 19 104 19:1 114 Testament of Naphtali 3 104 Tobit 6 3 Wisdom of Solomon 1:5 84 7–9 96–97

Index of Ancient Sources 7:22 84 9:17 84 17:20–18:4 222–23 Judean Desert Documents 1Q3 (paleoLev-Num) 143 1Q5 (Deutb) 20 4 146 1QIsaa 3:20–25 146 11:7 147 33:4 152 33:7 144 35:15 144, 152 1Q11 (Psb) 143 1Q14 (Pesher Micah) 1–5 1–2 141 8–10 8 56 12 3 141 1QpHab (Pesher Habakkuk) 140, 143–44, 147 2:3 26 5:1–2 144 5:3–4 144 5:9 119 6:14 143 7:1 143 7:4–5 52 7:8 54 7:10 50 7:13–14 52 7:14 51–52 10:7 143 10:13 143 10:14 143 11:11 143 11:15 143 12:4 56 12:17 144 13:3 144 1QapGen ar (Genesis Apocryphon) 8 271 8:16 271 8:18–19 271 10:10 120

299 1Q26 (Instruction) 200–201, 203 1 i 5 58 1Q27 (Mysteries) 33, 86, 200 1 i 3–4 51, 52 1QS (Rule of the Community) 3, 25, 27–28, 37, 40–43, 88, 91, 119–20, 130, 140, 147, 153, 196, 249 1–2 259, 279 1:1–18 196 1:7 88 1:8–9 59 1:12 51 1:16 88 1:16–3:13 37–39 1:18 88, 250, 259 1:22–26 38 1:23 250 2:2 258 2:2–4 147, 152 2:5–18 117–18 2:6 147, 152 2:8 147, 152 2:11–17 38, 118 2:18–19 50 2:19 250 2:24 50 3:2 56 3:6–9 92–93, 129–30 3:7 85 3:13–4:26 (Treatise on the Two Spirits) 25, 28–39, 41–43, 85, 86–88, 90, 99, 117, 171, 187, 206, 249, 264, 281–82 3:13–15 29 3:15 171 3:15–18 29 3:15–23 29 3:18–4:1 29 3:18–19 86 3:18–25 30 3:20 114 3:20–21 86 3:23 53, 87 4:2–14 29–30 4:4 51

300 1QS (Rule of the Community) (cont.) 4:4–6 39 4:5–6 49–55 4:11–13 268 4:15–16 39 4:15–26 30 4:18 51, 52, 117 4:20–21 282 4:20–23 87–88 4:21 85, 86 4:21–23 91 4:22 51 4:23 31, 264 4:24 39 4:26 31 5 37, 58–59 5:7 56 5:7–11 196 5:8–9 27–28 5:9 58, 59 5:11–12 58–59 5:12 58 5:22 28 6:6–8 56–57 6:17 60 6:19 60 6:22 60 6:27 153–54 7:2 56 8:1–2 58 8:5–10 120 8:11–12 57 8:13 145 8:14 145, 147, 152 8:15 58, 59 8:16 85 9 55–56 9:3 85 9:8 51 9:9 56 9:13 59 9:16–18 56 9:17 50 9:18–19 50 9:19 58 9:21–22 56 11:6–9 54–55, 59 11:8 51

Index of Ancient Sources 11:9–10 200 1Q28a (1QSa; Rule of the Congregation) 1:1–2 27 1Q28b (Rule of Blessings) 2:1 147 2:24 85 3:1 147 1QM (War Scroll) 27, 28, 30, 31, 39, 41, 245–61 passim, 264 1 249 1:1 247 1:1–2 247 1:3 247 1:5 247, 248, 250 1:6 260 1:7 247 1:8 247 1:9 247 1:10 246, 247, 248, 258 1:10–12 254 1:11 247 1:12–17 247 1:13 247 1:14 248 1:16 247 2–9 248, 249 2:16–3:11 252 3:6 247 3:9 53, 247, 252–53 3:10 252–53 3:13–4:17 252 4:2 247, 260 4:4–5 252–53 4:7 254 4:12 247 4:19–5:2 252 6:2 252 6:6 247 7:5 105, 129 9:9 247, 257 9:15–16 247 10–11 259 10–12 249 10–14 254 10:1–2 254 10:2 246 10:2–5 245

Index of Ancient Sources 10:5 254 10:6–8 245, 253 10:8 247 11 254–56 11:1 246 11:1–2 254–55 11:1–4 245 11:3–4 255 11:5–7 245, 255 11:6 246 11:7–9 245, 253 11:8 49, 247, 254, 256 11:8–9 247 11:9–10 255–56 11:11 246, 254 11:11–12 245, 255, 256 12 254 12:2 245 12:3 245, 252 12:11 247 13 249 13:1 247, 256 13:1–2 252 13:1–6 249 13:2 247, 256 13:2–6 269 13:4 247, 250, 252 13:5 247, 258–59 13:7 252 13:7–8 257 13:7–12 245 13:7–13 249 13:8 258–59 13:9 105 13:9–10 258, 259 13:10 246, 247, 250 13:10–11 256, 258, 269 13:11 247, 250 13:11–12 247 13:12 258–59 13:13 247 13:14 246, 254, 256, 258 13:16 247 13:18 245, 254 14 249, 259 14:3–4 252 14:4 247 14:4–6 246

301 14:5 247, 260 14:7 247 14:8 252 14:8–9 258–59 14:8–11 245 14:9–10 247 14:9–11 259–60 14:10 250, 259 14:17 247 15–19 247, 249 15:1 247, 258–59 15:2 247 15:3 247 15:4 249 15:13 247 15:14 247 15:16 247 15:17 247 16:1 247 16:9 247 16:10 247 16:11 247 16:13 257 16:15 246, 257 17:1 246 17:2 257 17:2–3 245 17:5–6 247 17:6–7 247 17:7 258–59 17:15 247 18:1 247, 250 18:2–3 260 18:3 247 18:5–6 249 18:6 247, 252 18:7–8 246 18:10–11 246 18:11 247, 250 18:13 246 18:15 247 18:16 247 19:10 247 19:11 246 19:13 247 1QHa (Hodayota) 27, 54, 85, 89–92, 141, 146–47, 193–210 passim, 270

302 1QHa (Hodayota) (cont.) 1–9, 18-end (Community Hymns) 194 3:26 206 4:27 89 4:29 90, 204, 205 4:30 204 4:34 205 4:35 205 4:37 204, 205 4:38 85, 90 5:14 89, 205 5:15 89 5:25 89 5:30 51, 53, 89, 205 5:30–33 200–201 5:36 90–91, 204, 205 6:13 50 6:14 89 6:22 206 6:24 85, 92 6:28 205 6:28–29 196 6:36 91 6:37 196 6:41 89 7:21–22 195 7:23–27 195–199 7:26 206 7:27–30 281–82 7:28 206 7:34–35 200 7:35 206 7:38 50, 141 8:16 89 8:18–20 90 8:20 85, 91, 205 8:21 85 8:24 89 8:25 85 8:28 89, 128 8:29 90–91, 204, 205 8:29–30 91 8:29–32 204 8:30 85, 128 8:33 204 9:11 206 9:13 89

Index of Ancient Sources 9:23 58 9:23–25 204 9:25–27 52–53 9:28 141 9:28–29 171 9:30–31 89 10–17 (Teacher Hymns) 194 10:15 54 10:17 49 10:36 141 11:22–23 51 11:23 50, 51 12:11 49 12:30–31 200 13:13 54 13:27–28 56 14:7 58 14:26 89 15:9 90 15:10 85 15:26 89 15:32 89 15:34–35 168 16:6–7 57 16:13 85, 89 17:23 51–52 17:32 85, 91 18:7–9 205 18:24 89, 206 18:34 89 19:3 147 19:15 147 19:16 89 19:20 54, 58 20:13 172 20:13–17 91 20:14–15 204 20:15 85, 90, 205 20:16 51, 54 20:27–29 200 20:27–30 201–2 20:35–21:7 205 21:12 203 21:26 89 21:32 172 21:34 90–91, 204, 205 22:34 171

Index of Ancient Sources 23:29 85 23:33 85 25:6 89 25:8 89 25:23 89 26:12 58 26:15 58 1Q35 (Hodayotb) 1 5 141 1Q39 1 6 85 2Q3 (Exodb) 143 4Q11 (paleoGen-Exodl) 143 4Q12 (paleoGenm) 143 4Q20 (Exodj) 143 4Q22 (paleo-Exodm) 143 17:22 143 4Q26b (Levg) 2 143 8 143 4Q27 (Numb) 13 ii 15–17 i 21 145 4Q45 (paleoDeutr) 143 4Q51 (4QSama) 214 4Q53 (4Q Samc) 1 3 144 9–10 iii 7 144 4Q55 (Isaa) 8–10 13 144 8–10 18 144 4Q57 (Isac) 141, 143 4Q83 (Psa) 4Q120 (papLXXLevb) 149–50, 153 20–21 4 144 4Q123 (paleoParaJosh) 143 4Q160 Frgs. 2,6,9 125–29 4Q164 1 2 56 4Q169 (Pesher on Nahum) 3–4 iv 1 119 4Q171 (Pesher on Psalmsa) 1–2 ii 4 144 1–2 ii 12 144 1–2 ii 14 144 1–2 ii 24 144

303 1,3–4 iii 5 144 1,3–4 iii 14–15 144 1,3–4 iii 16 144 3–10 iv 7 144 3–10 iv 9 144 3–10 iv 10 144 4Q174 (Florilegium) 1–2 i 6 119 1+2+21 iii 14–17 109 4Q175 (Testimonia) 19 145 4Q176 (Tanḥumim) 1–2 i 6 145 1–2 ii 3 145 8–11 6 145 8–11 8 145 4Q180 11 141 4Q181 1 ii 3–4 51 4Q183 1 ii 3 141 2 1 141 3 1 141 4Q184 1 4–5 220 4Q185 148 4Q186 30–31, 39, 85, 87 4Q196 (papTobita) 18 15 145 4Q201 (Ena ar) 3:6 71 3:21 71 4Q208–211 (Enastra–d ar) 65 4Q209 (Enastrb ar) 26 3–5 66 4Q210 (Enastrc ar) 1 ii 2–14 66 4Q211 (Enastrd ar) 67 4Q213a (Levib) 1 13 85 4Q216 (4QJubileesa) 5:5–9 265–68 4Q248 5 145 4Q252 (Commentary on Genesis) 16, 18 4Q257 (Sc) 37, 86

304 4Q258 (Sd) 37, 86 4Q259 (Se) 37, 86 4Q262 1 1–19 214–21 4Q266 (Da) 39, 40 2 i 5 59 11 9 145 4Q267 (Db) 2 5 141 2 7 141 2 13 141 9 i 2 141 9 iv 4 141 9 iv 7 267 9 v 4 141 4Q268 (Dc) 1 7–8 59 4Q270 (De) 2 ii 11 85 4Q273 (papDh) 5 3 56 4Q285 245 4Q286 (Berakhota) 7 ii 3 250 7 ii 5 250 8 1 169 4Q287 (Berakhotb) 10 13 85 4Q299 (Mysteriesa) 35 1 172 73 3 172 4Q306 3 5 145 4Q379 (Apocryphon of Joshuab) 22 i 6 171 4Q381 (Non-Canonical Psalms B) 76–77 7 167–68 4Q382 (pap paraKings) 9 5 145 104 ii 1–4 125–29 4Q385a, 387, 388a,-389 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca–d) 224, 232–36, 241 4Q385a (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca) 4 233 4Q385 (Pseudo-Ezekiela) 2 95 4Q387 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb) 2 ii 8 233 2 ii 10 233

Index of Ancient Sources 2 ii 17–18 233 2 iii 3–4 126 2 ii–iii 233–36 4Q388a (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc) 7 ii 233 4Q389 (Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cd) 8 ii 233 8 ii 2 233 4Q391 (4QpapPseudo-Ezekiele) 26 3 145 36 1 145 36 4 145 52 5 145 65 5 145 4Q394–399 (MMTa–f) 2, 26, 43 C 9–11 93 C 28 58 4Q397 (MMTd) 6–13 4–9 110 4Q400–407 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificea–h) 39, 64, 74–80, 85, 161–188 passim 4Q400 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificea) 1 i 1–2 165–67 1 i 1–3 164–65 1 i 6–19 51 2 1 169 2 7 75, 78 2 8 170 3 ii–5 8–9 165–67 4Q401 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificeb) 1–2 2 165–67 11 3 186 14 i 7 169 22 3 186 4Q402 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificec) 4 12–13 170–71 4 12–15 39 4Q403 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificed) 1 i 1 164 1 i 16–26 161 1 i 30 169 1 i 30–31 165–67 1 i 41–42 75 1 i 44 177 1 ii 10–16 75, 76 1 ii 18–19 165–67 1 ii 26 75, 78 1 ii 27 50–51

305

Index of Ancient Sources 4Q405 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificef) 6 5 177 8–9 2 165–67 14–15 i 5–6 178 15–16 ii 3–5 75 17 4–5 185 19ABCD 2–3 167–68 19ABCD 3 76 19ABCD 3–7 77 19ABCD 4–6 178–79 19ABCD 5–6 75 19ABCD 7 185 20 ii–22 2 75 20 ii–22 6 164 20 ii–22 6–7 165–67 20 ii–22 7–14 161 20 ii–22 8 76 20 ii–22 8–9 75 20 ii–22 8–13 173–75 20 ii–22 9 185 20 ii–22 10–12 179–80 20 ii–22 12 76 23 i 8 170, 185 23 ii 12 75, 78, 170 4Q406 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificeg) 1 1–2 39 1 2 141 1 5 165–67 3 2 141 4Q408 (Apocryphon of Mosesc?) 3 +3a 6a-6 147 4Q415–418, 423 (Instructiona–g; Musar le-Mevin) 30, 32, 48, 86, 110–13, 200–201, 203 4Q416 (Instructionb) 1 14 50 2 i 17 112 2 ii 4–7 113 2 ii 6 85 2 ii 17–18 113 2 ii 18 113 2 iii 5–6 111–12 4Q417 (Instructionc) 1 i 8 172 1 i 14–18 32–33 1 i 17–22 113 2 ii 21–23 113 2 ii 23 113

4Q418 (Instructiond) 7 1–2 112 8 6 85 43–45 i 6 172 55 5 172 76 1–3 85 103 ii 6–9 110–11 4Q422 (ParaGen-Exod) 1:7 85 4Q427–432 (Hodayota–f) 89 4Q427 (Hodayota) 7 i 18–19 53, 59 4Q434 (Barkhi Nafshia) 1 i 11 85 4Q435 (Barkhi Nafshib) 2 92 4Q436 (Barkhi Nafshic) 1 i 10–ii 4 92 4Q444 (Incantation) 1–4 i + 5 1 85 1–4 i + 5 2–3 92 4Q449 (Prayer A) 1 3 250 4Q462 (Narrative C) 213–23 1 1–4 216 1 2–4 214 1 3 221 1 3–4 217 1 5 216 1 5–12 216, 218 1 7 145 1 9–10 217 1 10 223 1 11 217 1 12 145, 217–18 1 13 218 1 13–19 216 1 14 218 1 16 219–20 1 16–19 218 1 17 221 1 18 220, 221 1 19 221 4Q467 215, 217, 221 4Q491–497 (War Scroll) 245–61 passim 4Q491 (Ma) 8–10 i 2 247, 252 8–10 i 6 247, 250, 252

306 4Q491 (Ma) (cont.) 8–10 i 7–8 260 8–10 i 8 259 8–10 i 14 247 11 i 10 51–52, 246 11 ii 9 247 11 ii 13 246 11 ii 15 247 11 ii 16 247 11 ii 18 247 14–15 10 247 4Q492 1 12 247 4Q494 (Md) 4Q495 (Me) 2 2–3 256 2 3 258 4Q496 (papMf) 3 5 247 3 7 247 4Q502 39 4Q504 (Words of the Luminariesa) 1 + 2 v recto 11–18 85 4 4 172 4 5 85 4Q506 (Words of the Luminariesc) 131–132 11 85 4Q510 (Songs of the Sagea) 1 6–7 250, 259 4Q511 (Songs of the Sageb) 10 3 250 10 4–5 259 35 119–20 4Q521 2 ii 8 147 4Q524 145 4Q543–548, 549? (Visions of Amrama–g? ar) 30, 33–34 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb ar) 2 13 34 4Q548 (Visions of Amramf ar) 34 CD (Damascus Document) 25, 28, 39–43, 51, 56, 59, 106, 130, 153 1:1–11 5

Index of Ancient Sources 1:8–9 28 2:2 51, 58 2:2–13 40 2:4 51 2:12–13 85, 93 2:14 58 3:12–15 27, 28 3:13–16 59 5:2–6 13–14 5:11 85 5:17–19 39–40, 114 6:2–11 59 6:19 26 7:3–4 93 7:4 85 8:9 106 8:12 268 8:21 26 13:12 105 15:1–3 153–54 15:5 27 15:8–9 27 15:9 10 15:13 59 16:4–5 279–80 20:7–10 117–18 20:10 119 20:12 26 20:22 119 20:22–24 134 6Q15 3 141 5 141 5 5 141 6Q18 6 5 141 8 1 141 10 3 141 11Q1 (paleoLeva) 143 11Q2 (Levb) 143 11Q5 (Psa; Psalms Scroll) 141, 142, 143, 147–48 3:4 142, 143, 147–48 26:9 166–67 11Q11 2 6–8 80

307

Index of Ancient Sources 11Q13 (Melchizedek) 34 2 114–17 2:2–4 269 2:5 54 3:9–10 115 7 3 115 11Q14 245 11Q17 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 85, 161 3 7 186 8–7 2–3 74–75 12–15 3–4 167–68 12–15 5–7 178–79 12–15 7 185 16–18 9 164, 165–67 16–18 11–14 173–75 16–18 12–13 179–80 24 6 185 11Q19 (Temple Scrolla) 3 19–22 17 45:17 11–12 48:14–17 11–12 Mas1k (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 161 1:1–7 39 1:2–3 170–71 2:6 164 2:9 165–67 8Ḥev 1 (8ḤevXII gr)

144, 149–50

XḤev/Se 6 2 7

145

Josephus and Philo Josephus 85 Jewish Antiquities 13.10.6 10 13.172 193 18.13 40 18.117 129–30 Jewish War 2.163 40

Philo 2, 85, 104, 150 On the Contemplative Life 65 17 Rabbinic Literature Mishnah m. Sanhedrin 7:5 154 10:1 26, 42, 154 m. Sukkot 4:5 146 m. ʾAbot 3:16 40 Babylonian Talmud 223 b. Taʿanit 7b 220 Exodus Rabbah 3:6 156–57 Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Beshallaḥ 5 217, 221–22, 223 Sefer Yeṣirah 29 Sifre Deuteronomy 325 116 Scholion to Megillat Taʿanit 223 Other Ancient Writers and Sources Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 5.77.2 85 Ephrem Commentary on Genesis 6.12 18 Jerome Epistula 25 ad Marcellam 149 Prologos Galeatus 149 Plutarch Isis and Osiris 47 35

308 Greek Magical Papyri 13:74–80 151 13:145–46 151 13:200–209 151 Heidelberg Papyrus Onomasticum sacrum 150

Index of Ancient Sources Papyrus Fouad 266 (Hanhart 848) 149 Yasna 30 35