The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11Qt (STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH) 9004098496, 9789004098497

Citation preview

THE TEMPLE SCROLL AND THE BffiLE

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITEDBY

F. GARCIA MARTINEZ A. S. VAN DER WOUDE

VOLUMEXIV

THE TEMPLE SCROLL AND THE BIBLE The Methodology o/llQT BY

DWIGHT D. SWANSON

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN· NEW YORK . KÖLN 1995

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for pennanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple seroll and the Bible : the methodology of 11 QT I by Dwight D. Swanson. p. cm. - (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah. ISSN 0169-9962 ; v. 14) Includes bibliographica1 references and index. ISBN 9004098469 (cloth) 1. Temple seroll-Criticism, interpretation. etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Pentateuch-Extra-canonical parallels. I. Title. 11. Series. BM488.T44S9 1995 296.1 '55-dc20 94-41341 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Swanson, Dwight D.: The temple seroll and the Bible : the methodology of 11QT I by Dwight D. Swanson. - Leiden; New York ; Köln: Brill, 1995 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah ; vol. 14) ISBN 90-04-09849-6

NE:GT

ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 09849 6 © Copyright 1995 by E.J. BrilI, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanica~ photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission /rom the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drivet, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS ABBREVIA TIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IX PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Xl

...... 1 Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. General Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Outline and Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Divine Fiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Survey of Methodological Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Compositional Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Midrash and Halakha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 C. The Method of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. First-fruits of Barley - Column 18:1-10 ........ 18 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 B. First-fruits ofNew Wheat - Column 18:10-19:9 .. 31 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 C. First-fruits ofNew Wine - Column 19:11-21:10 .. 48 1. The Counting Formula: 19:11-15 .......... 49 2. The Sacrifices: 19:15-20:9 .............. 52 3. The Grain Offering: 20:9-14 ............. 61 4. The Sacrificial Portions: 20: 14-21:3 . . . . . . . . 67 5. Drinking the New Wine: 21:4-10 ......... 78 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 D. First-fruits ·ofNew Oil- Column 21:12-23:01 .... 92 1. The Counting Formula: 21:12-22:01 ....... 92 2. The Sacrifices: 22:01-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3. The Sacrificial Portions: 22:8-14a ........ 103 4. Celebration of First-fruits of Oil: 22: 14c-23:01 106 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114

CHAPTER Two: THE FESTIVAL LAW

VI

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER THREE: THE KING's LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The General Muster: 57:2-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Selection ofthe King's Guard: 57:5b-11 ...... C. The King's Council: 57:11b-15a . . . . . . . . . . . D. The Queen: 57:15b-19a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. The Just King: 57:19b-58:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Meeting an Invading Enemy: 58:3-11a ........ G. The Booty: 58:11b-15a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Going to War: 58:15b-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Curses: 59:2-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1. The Wanton King: 59:13b-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Blessings: 59:16-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. Conc1usions ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

117 117 122 130 136 139 141 146 148 151 156 158 160 168

CHAPTER FOUR: THE PuRITY LA W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Purity ofthe Land: 48:1-49:4 . . . . . . . . . . 1. Animals Permitted or Forbidden as Food: 48:1-7 2. Mourning Prohibitions: 48:7-10.......... 3. Burial Practices: 48:10-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Places for the Unc1ean: 48:14-17 . . . . . . . . . 5. Laws Regarding Lepers: 48:17-49:4 ....... Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B. Laws in the Event ofDeath: 49:5-51:6 ....... 1. The Impurity of the House: 49:5-10 ....... 2. Cleansing the House: 49:11-16 . . . . . . . . . . 3. Cleansing the Impure Person: 49:16-? ..... Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4. Contact with a Corpse ofCarcass: 50:2-51:5 . Conc1usions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 176 176 177 179 180 181 182 184 185 190 197 207 209 212

CHAPTER FIVE: THE TEMPLE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Commands for the Sanctuary: 4:1-7:15 .... 1. External Structure of the Sanctuary: 4 :1-6 . .. 2. Dimensions ofthe Temple: 4:7-10 ........ 3. Measurements, Moving Inward: 4:11-16 .... 4. Interior Measurements: 5:1-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Interior ofthe Holy ofHolies: 7:1-7 ...... 6. Fittings in the Holy of Holies: 7:8-15...... Conc1usions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B. 1 Chronic1es 28 as the Starting Point for the Temple Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215 216 216 217 219 219 221 222 224 225

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

Vll

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS.................... 227

A. Surnmmy of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 B. Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 INDEX OF CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

ABBREVIA TIONS Reference Works BHS Kautzsch Jastrow Lisowsky RSV Schürer LXX Sam Syr

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, eds K. Eiliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung: 1976/77) Hebrew Grammar. For Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch, English edition by A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). Dictionary. For Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yeroshalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1985). Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981). Revised Standard Version of the Bible History. For The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols. Edited by G.Vermes, Fergus MilIar and Matthew Black. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987). Septuaginta, ed A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979). Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed A. F. von GaU (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918). Pentateuchus Syriace, ed S. Lee and G. E. Barnes (London: Apud Societatem Bibliophilorum Britannicum et Externam, 1914).

Periodicals and Series Aegyptus BA BASOR BAR BDBF

Biblical Archeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblical Archaeology Review Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

Beth Mikra CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan Eretz-Israel EstBib Estudios biblicos ETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses Euntes Docete ExpT Expository Times

x

ABBREVIATIONS

Folia Orientalia Gesher Hebrew Studies HebSt Henoch Harvard Semitic Monographs HSM Harvard Theological Review HTR Hebrew Union College Annual HUCA Israel Exploration Journal IE! Journal of Biblical Literature JBL Jew ish Law Annual JLA Jew ish Quarterly Review JQR Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSP JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha - Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies JSS Journal of Jewish Studies JJS JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period Journal of Theological Studies JI'S Lesonenu PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue biblique RB Revue de Qumran RevQ Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLDS Shnaton Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJLA Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJOT Studia postbiblica SPB ST Studia theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judaea STDJ Tarbiz Textus Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift TPQ Theological Studies TS Vetus Testamentum VT Vetus Testamentum Supplements VTSup Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschqft ZAW

PREFACE This study of the Temple Seroll started with a sense of discovery: the excitement of exploring ground where few had walked was coupled with awe at the great territory which lay ahead. The further the exploration proceeded, the greater the sense of the riches of this land. Unsurprisingly, those who had explored before me differed greatly in their interpretation of these riches. This was not a problem to me, but what was disturbing was how often the differences were based on generalization regarding the hard data of the sources used by the Scroll rather than specifics. Out of this realization came the belief that until the basic data was in place discussion could not adequately proceed towards aresolution of foundational questions such as authorship and provenance. To be sure, a number of scholars have done the work of determining the biblical sources used by the Scroll. This presentation differs from them chiefly in showing this process in action as the prelude to drawing conclusions. The methodology, therefore, has been inductive, seeking to establish the biblical sources and then asking how they are put together. Along the way light is shed on a wide variety of implications for both Qumran and biblical studies. However, time and space have not allowed pursuit of all these implications, in order to focus on establishing the data. To be sure, the data have specific implications for understanding both the relation of the Scroll to Qumran, and Qumran to the rest of Second Temple Judaism. These are discussed in the conclusions, but are not the central conclusions. These are the seed for further study. This study, begun in 1986, is arevision of my 1990 thesis under the supervision of George J Brooke at the University of Manchester. I am grateful to the publishers for their patience in the delays and limitations caused by heavy administrative responsibilities, which have also prevented the extent of revision one would have desired. Without the technical assistance of Alistair Burrows and Imre Gusztin this would not even yet see the light of day. My particular appreciation is to my wife, Katherine, for providing the appropriate encouragement at every stage of the research and preparation for this manuscript. Büsingen-am-Hochrhein

Dwight D Swanson

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY With the publication ofthe critical edition ofthe Temple Sero 11 (Hebrew edition, 1977; English edition, 1983)1 thirty years after the original discoveries of the "Dead Sea Scrolls", and ten years after its recovery from a shoe box in Bethlehem/ a new era of research began. This new manuscript added a substantial body of information for comparison to the Qumran corpus, promising new light on the Qumran community and practice, chronology, biblical exegesis, and much more. The subsequent study of the Scroll has proved this promise to be richly fulfilled. Indeed, for those who have studied the Scroll in depth its importance not only for Qumran studies but for biblical studies is far-reaching. 3 Seventeen years have now passed since publication of Yadin' s editio prineeps (eleven years for the English edition). But in spite of an increasing volume of journal articles and three published books4 the far-reaching importance of the Scroll has failed to make a significant impact on scholarship at large. There are two likely reasons for this. One is that, while there is unanimous agreement that the Temple Sero 11 is based on legal portions of the Pentateuch, re-writing the biblical material in biblical language, there is total lack of a consensus regarding origin, date, authorship, and relation to the Qumran community. This in turn arises out of the diffusive effect of the presentation of research via the medium of journal articles. These are unable to set ScrOll studies in I Yigael Yadin, ed, lV1POil n'no, 3 vols (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1977); and The Temple Sc7Oll, 3 vols (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1983). References throughout are from the English edition by volume number in large Roman numerals, followed by the page number. The Temple Sc70ll is referred to as "the Scroll" throughout. 2 For the account of the recovery of the manuscript which is a fascinating story in its own right, see Yadin, I, pp 1-5, and the more extensive account in The Temple Sc7Oll: The Hidden Law 0/ the Dead Sea Sect (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), Ch l. 3 See, as an example, the summary of the Temple Scroll Symposium in Manchester, 1988, by G. Brooke in Temple Sc70ll Studies, ed George 1. Brooke (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp 18-19. 4 Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn 0/ Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher 0/ Righteousness (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1983); Temple Sc70ll Studies; and Michael Owen Wise, A Critical Study 0/ the TempleSc70ll /7Om Qumran Cave 11 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990).

2

CHAPTER ONE

any broader context, and thus tend either to focus on technical matters of interest only to specialists or to attempt to come to broad-sweeping conclusions from a limited amount of data. A second reason is the authoritative status of Yadin's work. There is virtually no area of study of the Scroll which he did not cover, and cover weIl, so that anyone studying the Scroll does so in dialogue with Yadin (and this study is no exception). But due to his thoroughness and versatility his conclusions are usually taken to be settled. Yadin's basic premise that the Temple Scroll originated within the Qumran community, in particular, is commonly accepted, and perpetuated in influential works such as Vermes' third edition of The Dead Sea Scrolls in English,~ and, notably, the "New Schürer".6 This has had the unfortunate and unintended effect of limiting the influence of the Scroll outside of Qumran studies. The fault for this effect must not be attributed to Yadin's work, but rather to the presuppositions of biblical scholarship. There has been a marginalization of the significance of the Qumran literature because of a common perception of the Qumran community as an isolated and remote extremist sect which would have had little influence on the 'normative' Judaism of the Second Temple period: a document considered to be written by the separatist sect beside the Dead Sea may be of interest for paralleis to the New Testament or rabbinie exegesis but is limited in value because it would have had limited contact with the mainstream of contemporary Judaism. 7 Advancement in realizing the potential of the Temple Scroll must now come from detailed examination, advancing beyond Yadin to create a body of data which will set firmly the context from which conclusions regarding provenance, date, authorship, and much more, can be drawn. This task has been carried forward by scholars such as L. Schiffman, in his programmatic essays examining the halakha of the SerolI, E. Qimron, in textual and grammatical studies, and M. Wise, with his redactioncritical study of the sources. 8 Wise, in fact, moves a major step forward

S G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 19873). The inferenee drawn from placing the origin ofthe Seroll at Qumran is that it is a seetarian work, meaning from the same souree as lQS, lQSa, lQpHab, lQM, and probably CD, among other writings. "Qumran seetarian" in this study refers to these texts. For more detailed examination ofthe issue, see P. Callaway's summary in The History 01 the Qumran Community, JSPSup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp 22-24. 6 Sehürer, History, Vol lIl.1, p 412. 7 This remains the ease even with the reeent revival of publie interest in Dead Sea Seroll studies arising from the eontroversial publieation of the facsimile editions. But there is, at least, a growing awareness of the pluralism of Seeond Temple Judaism. 8 See bibliography for eomplete list of articles by the first two authors. For Wise, ibid.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

3

by including a compositional analysis ofthe entire Scroll. 9 Each ofthese approaches, nevertheless, takes as given the biblical sources cited. The present study differs from these at this point. Because its purpose is to lay a groundwork for understanding the exegetical methodology of the Scroll, it is deemed necessary first to argue the case for which biblical sources are used. The necessity of such an undertaking can be seen from abrief, select survey of previous approaches to the methodology of the Scroll. Before proceeding to this discussion, however, it is useful to place this study in the context of the Scroll itself. A. GENERAL CONTEXT

l. Outline and Contents

10

Outlines of the contents of the Scroll are easily accessible. ll This outline serves to place the studies which follow in their larger context, and is intended primarily to demonstrate the basis of each section in its biblical sources. 1.1 Introduction: on Sinai. Column 2, the first extant column of the Scroll, concludes the introduction based on Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 7. In it the Temple Sero II appears as the content of the revelation of the Law given to Moses upon his second ascent of the mountain. Yahweh speaks in first person address, presumably to Moses. l.2. The Temple Law. 12 The first major subject is the construction of the Temple beginning with the sanctuary itself, and moving outward in decreasing degrees of holiness 13 to the courts, their buildings and fittings, and to the Temple City (and eventuallyon to the Holy Land itself). Columns 3-13 give the Wise, ibid, pp 205-234. For teehnieal data eoneeming dimensions of the serolI, palaeography, and additional manuseripts refer to Yadin, I, pp 9-39. 11 Interestingly, Yadin does not attempt an organized order of eontents, but simply lists them by theme in order of appearanee (I, pp 46-70). 12 Each of the seetions is deseribed as 'Law' in keeping with the eharacter of the SerolI, as Wacholder has rightly argued (ibid, pp 17-21); and for eonvenient identifieation throughout. 13 J. Maier, The Temple SerolI: An Introduetion, Translation and Commentary, JSOTSup 34, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p 5. Cf B. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), pp 1-2. 9

10

4

CHAPTER ONE

commands for the building of the sanctuary, with its furnishings, and the altar. The description is based on the Exodus 25~40 commands for the construction of the tabernacle. Immediately following the description of the altar a section is inserted on the cycle of feasts and their sacrifices (Cols 13~30), which will be discussed below. Cols 30-45 return to the Temple construction. Commands are given for the building of astairease tower, the house of the laver, the house of the vessels, slaughtering mechanisms, and a 'peristyle'. The three courts are described, their walls and gates, and, finally, measures are prescribed for the ritual protection ofthe sanctuary and the city ofthe Temple (Cols 45-47). As in Cols 3-13, the tabernacle material of Exodus is the basic source, but serves within an original composition. The section also draws on Solomonie temple material of 1 Kings 6 and 2 Chronicles 3, Second Temple material ofNehemiah, and from Ezekiel's temple plan. 1.3 The Festival Law. Interrupting the Temple Law, and apparently inserted purposely following the commands regarding the altar, is a description of the cycle of feasts and their accompanying sacrifices (Cols 13-30). Daily offerings, sabbath offerings, and the major feasts are prescribed following the order of Numbers28-29. First-fruits festivals ofNew Wine and ofNew Oil, and a festival for the Wood Offering are added in Cols 19-24, in material wholly new to the Scroll. The section ends with a passage on the covenant with Jacob at Bethel and an enigmatic reference to the "day of blessing" on which Yahweh will "create my temple and establish it for myself for all times" (Col 29:9-10). 1.4 The Purity Law. In Cols 48-51 the next circle of holiness is delineated, that of the Land, by its cities. Thecentral concern of the section is purity. Sources of impurity are described, and the means of cleansing provided. The section begins with Deuteronomy 14 combined with Leviticus (19, 13-14), but Cols 49-51:5 are based on Numbers 19 and Leviticus 11. 1.5 Expanded Deuteronomy.14

14 This title owes something to H. Stegemann, "The Literary Composition of the Temple Seroll and Its Status at Qumran", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 126, 139-140. He uses the term in relation to the unpublished 4Q fragments whieh J. Strugnell deseribed as a 'wild' Torah whieh may be a source of llQT (in a letter to Wacholder, ibid, p 206; Strugnell used the term "rogue Torah" in a eonversation with me). This term differentiates from the 'paraphrase', and does not presuppose whether the expansions are original to the author of the Seroll or are taken over from his souree.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

5

Column 51 eontains judieial law, from Deut 16:18-20; and Cols 51-56 eontain eultie law. These draw from Deuteronomy 15-17 (not in order), and portions of eh 25 before finally retuming to Deuteronomy 12 in Col 53. From Col 54:8 to the end of the Seroll the text of Deuteronomy 13: 1-23: 1 is followed elosely, with a few temporary departures, several important differenees and omissions from the MT, and the inclusion of an expansion of the Statutes of the King of Deut 17: 14-20 (see below). The end of the SerolI, if not the eonclusion, lists sexual taboos drawn from Levitieus 20. 1.6 The King's Law. The laws eoneeming the king are dealt with in the pertinent portion of the Expanded Deuteronomy, 17: 14-20. Immediately following this there is an insertion of original material, eomprising Cols 56-59, relating to the king, his army, eouneil, eonduet of warfare, and wife. Deut 17: 17 -20 eontinues to be the base. The overall strueture of the Seroll eneompasses Exodus 34 to Deuteronomy 23: 1,15 but re-orders and ignores material aceording to the requirements of its own plan. Use of Deuteronomy is extensive, including most of chs 12-26 as weil as significant useof ch 28. The biblical order is not maintained, and it is often placed in a context of priestly material (Leviticus, Numbers). This gives the impression that the Scroll's structure recasts Deuteronomy from a priestly perspective;16 There is consensus conceming the broad terms of description of the 'miero-compositionaI'17 structure of the SerolI. The re-writing of the biblical text uses the same biblical language and style, weaving together the sources in a new composition which remains faithful to the biblical language used. In alm ost every case a command, a measurement, or a subject which does not appear in our biblical texts can be seen nevertheless to find its basis in a new combination of biblical texts, or the

15 In keeping with the observation of G. Brooke, "The Temple SerolI: A Law Unto Itself?" Law and Religion (Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1988), pp 34-43. 16 H. Stegemann, "«Das Land» in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten aus den Qumranfunden", Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeek und Ruprecht, 1983), pp 157-158, understands the Seroll as the extension of Deuteronomy 12-26. 17 The term is from P. Callaway, "Extending Divine Revelation: Miero-Compositional Strategies in the Temple Sero 11", Temple Scroll Studies,· pp 149-162. We might describe the Seroll in relation to the Pentateuch in terms like these: the Seroll is to Deuteronomy what Deuteronomy is to JE, but with great affinity for P.

6

CHAPTER ONE

use of a biblical phrase, in such a way that its authority appears to flow out of that text.

2. The Divine Fietion A striking feature of the Scroll is that, with certain exceptions, Yahweh addresses Moses in the first person throughout. 18 The Scroll purports, then, to be divine revelation. Indeed, the device of first person address, and the total absence of the name of Moses (although we cannot be certain his name would not have appeared in the missing first column), serves to emphasize the apparent attitude of the Scroll that Yahweh is the author of this Torah, and not Moses. This question of 'authorship' has bearing on the issue of the status of the Scroll, either at Qumran, or for whatever audience the document was originally written. That the Scroll presents itself as the direct word of the Lord presumes a weighty authority. Unlike most pseudepigraphs, it does not purport to be from the hand of any other famous individual of the past. It is from Yahweh hirnself. This fact places in context the observations made above regarding the use of the biblical sources in the re-written composition. The author of the Scroll appears to see his work within the continuing tradition of reinterpreting biblical tradition for a new era, with every expectation of its being accepted with the same authority as that which preceded it. 19 If this is so (and it appears clearly to be so), then this has implications for our understanding of the state of the biblical text at the time of the composition of the Scroll, or of its constituent parts. Stegemann recognizes this, and it influences his dating of the Scroll in the fifth century BCE. He says, "It is difficult to imagine that a supplementary sixth book of the Torah could have been compiled and acknowledged by at least some Jewish priests much later than the fifth - or the fourth century BC.,,20 The same opinion was exhibited by M. Goshen-Gottstein, arguing against the canonical status of the Psalms Sero 11 from Cave 11, 18 Andrew M. Wilson and Lawrenee WiIls, "Literary Sourees of the Temple SeroIl", HTR 75 (1982), pp 275-288, establish this as one of the features whieh identify the sources of the Seroll. The exeeptions are noted there. We will diseuss them in their proper place. 19 Viewing the Seroll in this way raises the question of the whether one ean hope to identify the author of the Seroll any more than one ean name the author of Deuteronomy. We will be able to make an informed suggestion as to the community or portion of contemporary Judaism to which the author belonged, but there is no evidenee to prove individual authorship. 20 H. Stegemann, "Is the Temple Seroll a Sixth Book ofthe ToralI - Lost for 2,500 Years?" BAR 13/6 (1987), P 33.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

7

saying that if we accept books that were composed with the intention of being 'canonical', then "a far-reaching restatement of our theory with regard to the state of the Bible text at that time would become necessary.,,21 Upon the appearance of the Temple SerolI, Goshen-Gottstein's response was to define the Scroll as a "halakhic pseudepigraph", for, "It is inconceivable that he [the author of the SerolI] was of the opinion that this is a text of the Torah or that others would accept it from him.'>22 What both of these scholars are saying is that the Scroll could not be conceived as authoritative Torah because it is inconceivable! Yet, taken on its own terms, there is no reason not to see it as just such a composition. Nevertheless, we should not see the author as setting about at the beginning to write a new book of scripture. Rather, he should be seen as a legal exegete who viewed the performance of his task of interpretation as inspired by God: no different from the process found within the Pentateuch itself. 23 The important implication of the existence of the Scroll, if it is accepted that it intends to be received as an extension of the Torah, is that it was written in a time when it was still possible to produce literature which is eonstrued to be a "true Law of the Lord,,?4 The significance of this inereases the later one dates the SerolI, but this cannot be given as a reason for rejecting a later date. That the Seroll never achieved 'canonical' status for the whole of Judaism is not as important as the fact that the possibility of its being accepted was expeeted. A second implication, which is borne out in comparison to the versions of the Bible, is that the biblieal text was not fixed. Rather, it was in a state of fluidity which apparently gave the author room to choose that form of the text whieh was most suitable to his own view. These implications make the study ofthe use ofthe Bible by the Scroll of great importance. It beeomes more important to identify exactly what biblical texts are used in order to cast light on how those texts are manipulated to achieve the interpretation of the author. This will in turn reflect back on our understanding of how the received biblieal text itself makes use of its sourees. 21 M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, ''The Psalms SeroIl (llQPs 8 ) - A Problem of Canon and Text", Textus, V (1966), pp 22ff; diseussed by Yadin, I, pp 390-392, n 8. 22 Goshen-Gottstein, ''The Seroll of the Torab of the Lord", Ho-A retz daily newspaper, 25 Oetober, 1967. Cited by Yadin, I, p 391. 23 M. Fishbane has argued persuasively in "Inner Biblieal Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Aneient Israel", Midrash and Litera/ure, eds Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budiek (Yale: University Press, 1986), pp 19-37, esp p 35, on the subordination of the human exegetieal voiee to divine revelation. 24 Yadin's phrase, ibid, p 392.

8

CHAPTER ONE

B. SURVEY OF METHODOLOGICAL STUDIES

25

There is, then, at least an implicit acceptance by writers on the Temple Serail of the substance of our summary of the role of the Bible. For any given subject discussion will begin with reference to the various biblical texts drawn together, on the assumption that the sources discovered are purposely intended by the author. 26 That is to say, it is assumed there is a discernible exegetical methodology. The source of this attitude is undoubtedly Yadin himself. Yadin's introduction and notes set the tone and boundaries for discussion by the thoroughness of his comparison of the Scroll to biblical, apocryphal, and rabbinic sources. Yadin summarizes five techniques of the Scroll in assembling texts together. The first is the "divine fiction", or formulation of commands in the first person. The second is "merging commands on the same subject". In this, commands on the same subject are merged into one "either by quoting virtually verbatim or by combining the passages into a single flowing text".27 Third is "unifying duplicate commands (harmonization)". This takes two forms: one is the simple merging of two complementary texts, where there is duplication, by "dovetailing and deleting", the other is taking variant commands and harmonizing them into a single, unified whole. 28 'Harmonizing' has become a commonly accepted standard term for the Scroll's activity. The fourth technique is "modifications and additions designed to clarify the halakhic meaning of the commands". This enters the area of exegesis, and includes "a) explanations of obscure texts; b) additions meant to c1ear up the halakhic meaning of a command; c) adding laws and incorporating them in the text; d) changing the order of words.,,29 Lastly, and apparently considered to be apart from the above, is "appending whole new sections". This includes large portions ofthe Scrol!, the Temple Law, the King's Law, the Festival Law, and the Purity Laws. 30 This analysis is now presupposed by scholars and has entered into the common vocabulary. Subsequent analysis has developed in a variety ways, but we may summarize these under two basic headings.

25 For an excellent and thorough survey of Temple Seroll studies, which goes beyond the interests of this survey, see M. Wise's opening chapter, ibid, pp 1-34. 26 This is so universally the case that one may just refer to the bibliography. As representative of this point see Schiffman, Milgrom and Brin. 2? Yadin, I, p 73. 28 ibid, pp 74-77. 29 ibid, pp 77-81. 30 ibid, pp 81-88.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

9

1. Compositional Techniques 1.1 Stephen Kaufman is interested in the lessons the Scroll provides for understanding the composition of the Pentateuch. He is in essential agreement with Yadin, and focuses on "compositional patterns" in order to argue that the same patterns may be assumed to have been followed in the formation of the biblical text itself. 31 He isolates six such patterns: I) original composition, in which the author's late Hebrew style is evident; 2) paraphrastic conflation, dependent on the phrasing of the Pentateuch al passages; 3) fine conflation, which is highly biblical in style and composed of tiny fragments of sources; 4) gross conflation, the straightforward combination of all biblical texts on one subject; 5) modified Torah quotation, the quotation of a single text, but modified by the author; and 6) extended Torah quotation, similar to the last, but without modification. 32 These patterns amount to a refinement of Y adin' s categories of merging and harmonizing (apart from the classification of "original composition", which does not seem to allow room for use of non-biblical sources unknown to us). This indicates that Kaufman's interest centres on aspects ofmanipulation ofwords, and not on exegetical concerns. We can perhaps reduce his terms to two: conflation and quotation. A comparison of Michael Wise's "categories of analysis" reveals that they follow essentially along these same lines. He isolates eleven gradations between "extensive verbatim quotation" and "free composition". Notable, however, is his inclusion of exegetical activity in terms of paraphrase, halakha, and midrash. 33 1.2 One of the earliest writers to examine the use of the Bible closely is Gershon Brin. Brin has coined for the Scroll the term "literary mosaic" to describe the way in which, although drawing on a variety of sources, the Scroll 's final "product is a clear and new piece of literature".34 He describes various ways in which the author handles his basic text: additions, omissions, substitutions, and thematic connections of phrases and individual words. 35

S. Kaufman, "The Temple Seroll and Higher Critieism", HUCA 53 (1982), P 42. ibid, pp 34-41. 33 Wise, ibid, pp 207-208. 34 G. Brin, "Coneeming Some of the Uses of the Bible in the Temple SerolI", RevQ 11 (1987), P 519; and "The Bible as Refleeted in the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Shnaton 4 (1980), pp 182-225. Kaufman eritieizes the term as implying a "seissors-and-paste" job (ibid, p 30). 35 Brin, "Uses of the Bible", pp 523-525. 31

32

10

CHAPTER ONE

This is the first attempt to explain the ways in which the Scroll manipulates the text of the Bible by the use even of individual words. This is an important observation, and can be seen most clearly in the Expanded Deuteronomy section. The problem with Brin's perception of the work of the author (as for Kaufman's) is his belief that the Scroll begins with an established MT, and that every deviation can be explained as the original work of the author. For Brin, too, the author's purpose is not exegetical, but compositional: he combined various texts into a mosaic in order to avoid any difference in the style of his composition from that of the Bible. In fact, one cannot avoid using terms such as addition, omission, substitution, or word-form and word-order differences. These are the best terms at hand to describe the "micro-compositional,,36 techniques involved in 'merging', 'harmonizing', or conflation. But they must be used with the reservation that they do not apply merely to the MT. They must be made with reference to each of the texts we know: e.g., Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and other biblical texts from Qumran. When this comparison is made, we can begin to discern what is the fluidity ofthe biblical text (in which the MT is another variant), and what is the editorial activity of the Scroll.

2. Midrash and Halakha Attention to compositional techniques, as discussed above, does not imply a denial of the exegetical use of those techniques. But the use of terms just given draws attention primarily to the creative role of the author. The majority of scholars are intent to develop Yadin's terms specifically in the direction of the exegetical intention on the part of the author. Unfortunately this is an area in which a great deal of generalization still goes on. Stegemann, for instance, provides summary of his idea of the redaction, based on the study of Wilson and Wills,37 but at no point provides specific grounding for his conclusions. Callaway sets out to examine micro-compositional patterns in studied contrast to Wilson and Wills' 'macro-compositional' structures. He describes the work of the author as combining biblical traditions with practical reflection on matters of life, and concludes that the result is the exegetical creation of 36 The use of the term is not identieal to that whieh Callaway intends ("Extending Divine Revelation", p 151). He defmes it as eomparison of individual laws to thematieally related laws in the Bible. We use the term here in an even finer sense of word and phrase manipulation within an individuallaw. 37 H. Stegemann's ''The Literary Composition of the SerolI", pp 132-143, is representative of his method.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

11

analogous non-biblical laws. 38 But his study also fails to go far enough. He is only broadly descriptive of the micro-structure without laying bare the detail. Jacob Milgrom, on the other hand, attempts to refine the terminology. Accepting Yadin' s analysis completely he wishes simply to add one more exegetical term. He suggests a principle beyond harmonization which he calls 'equalization', or 'homogenization'. By this he means that "a law which applies to specific objects, animals, or persons is extended to other members of the same species". A simple example is Col 45: 12-14, in which the ordinance that blemishes which disqualify priests from officiating in the temple (Lev 21: 17-23) is applied to disqualify all Israelites from entering the Temple city. 39 The term 'homogenization' does not seem to fit, nor is it clearly an exegetical technique. Milgrom's observation of the inadequacy of the concept of 'harmonization' to describe the relationship of texts with the same theme is valuable, but the practice of demanding a more rigorous observance of the law is not so much a technique which can be given a tide as it is abasie oudook of the Scroll. Nevertheless, Milgrom's work serves to illustrate the second line of study taken from Yadin's summary of exegetical techniques: the emphasis on halakha. He is the first person who attempts to extend Yadin' s terminology. 2.1

2.2 A second example of interest in halakha is in Lawrence Schiffman.

He has made one foray into the attempt to provide descriptive terminology. "The basic literary characteristic of the microstructure is the weaving together of the Pentateuchal verses on a given theme with some additional verses which, in the interpretation ofthe author, have a bearing on the subject, even if they seem literally to be irrelevant. This is an early form of midrashic exegesis".40 It is, perhaps, an inevitable reference to midrash. Schiffman later qualifies this as a "forerunner of Rabbinie midrash" and probably a 38 Callaway, ibid, p 161. Also in this eategory is Hans-Aage Mink, in "The Use of Scripture in the Temple Seroll and the Status ofthe Seroll as Law", SJOT 1 (1987), pp 20-50. 39 J. Milgrom, "The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetieal Prineiples", Temple Seroll Studies, p 171; and ''The Seriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws ofPurity in the Temple SerolI", A rchaeology and History in the Dead Sea Serolls, ed L.H. Schiffman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, in press), p 93 (in the draft eopy). 40 L. Schiffman, ''The Temple Seroll in Literary and Philologieal Perspeetive", Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 11, Brown Judaie Studies 9, ed W.S. Green (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), p 150.

12

CHAPTER ONE

premature kind of speeulation. His interest lies not so mueh in labelling the SerolI, as juxtaposing it against the halakhie midrashim of the rabbis, and plaeing it in the eontext of rabbinie exegesis rather than Qum ran seetarian exegesis. This marks the beginning of Sehiffman's programmatie study of the ha/akha of the Temple Scroll. 41 Sehiffman's work is of great value in revealing the extent to whieh the eoneerns of the author of the Seroll are the same as those of the rabbis. Indeed, the Seroll is often interpretive ofthe biblieal tradition at preeisely the points where later exegesis foeuses, and is not infrequently at odds with that later exegesis. Turning to his understanding of the organization of the Seroll's use of the Bible, the value of Sehiffman's work is less eertain. His basic eonelusion is that the author works through the Pentateuch in order, arranging material around the first oeeurrenee of a topie. 42 This conclusion will be plaeed in doubt by our study.

2.3 Midrash is an emotive term when applied to pre-rabbinie literature, and it is diffieult to find adefinition whieh meets universal approval. Perhaps this is why Ze'ev Falk attempts to find another term. He does deseribe the Seroll as eommenting on the Pentateuch in midrash pattern, but sees the possibility of drawing a eorrelation with both Mishnah and midrash. For this he proposes a third eategory of literature whieh may have existed before the Mishnah, into whieh the Seroll may be plaeed: a code restating Torah. Such a code, he says, finally emerged into the general mishnah. 43 Whiehever way it is deseribed, for Falk the Seroll is written in antithesis to established views. Others rejeet any assoeiation of the Seroll with midrash. In a preliminary note so on after publieation of the SerolI, Barueh Levine deseribed the Seroll as a 'pre-Pesher' stage of literary writing. By this he meant that it has an outlook toward seripture whieh is basieally different from midrash as a genre. 44 Later, in his more measured response, Levine denies that the Seroll is eommentary. OfYadin's belief that the Seroll eontains polemie and response to eontemporary interpretation of biblieal law he says, "In themselves these statements

For the fulliist to date see the bibliography. Sehiffman, ibid, p 153; and, "The Temple Seroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Seeond Temple Period", Temple Seroll Studies, p 240. 43 Ze'ev W. Falk, "The Temple Seroll and the Codifieation of Jewish Law", JLA 2 (1979), pp 33-34. 44 B. Levine, "Preliminary Refleetions on the Temple SerolI", in J. Neusner, A History 0/ the Mishnaie Law 0/ Holy Things, VI, SJLA 30 (Leiden: EJ. BrilI, 1980), p xviii. 41

42

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

13

give no overt indication that earlier laws or views are being interpreted".4S The Scroll is distinctive because it is presented as a new Torah, not as a commentary on Torah. Moshe Bernstein similarly denies that the Scroll is commentary, in rejection of the term "midrash halakha". The term applies, he asserts, only if the exegesis is derived from the biblical text, and not if it is imposed upon it. 46 If, with Yadin, one claims that the writing is authoritative Torah like the biblical text itself, one cannot claim the term midrash halakha. Bernstein will not allow it to be both, and rejects either alternative. Instead he sees the Scroll as a free composition "using a biblical text of a broad, nonspecific nature as a framework for sectarian law".47 That is to say, the Scroll imposes its interpretation on the Bible, so cannot be midrash, but neither can it be considered authoritative Torah. The difficulty both these scholars have is in allowing the Scroll to be both interpretive and to present itself as Torah. The debate is really over the same territory described al ready in regard to the pseudepigraphic authorship of the Scroll: there are those who see no contradiction in a document being both interpretive of tradition and authoritative at the same time, and there are those who reject the possibility that authoritative Torah can include interpretation on the basis that it is inconceivable. This survey shows the dangers of entering into a discussion of midrash. Wise acknowledges this in his introduction to his chapter "The Midrash to Deuteronomy Source".48 It is plain that one cannot insert anachronistic terms like midrash into a text which does not contain the necessary ingredients of later midrash. But it must equally be admitted that the proeess of exegesis, or interpretation in the Seroll is remarkably similar in the issues it addresses. Further discussion of this point must await the final conclusions of our study, for all of this discussion lacks the primary ingredient of the solid data which can only be gained through the detailed study of the use of the Bible in the Scroll. With the exception of Wise, conclusions have been reached by general comparison with the later rabbinic method without an understanding of the specific ways in which the Scroll 45 B. Levine, "The Temple SeroIl: Aspeets of Its Historieal Provenanee and Literary Character", BASOR 232 (1978), p 20. 46 Moshe J. Bernstein, "Midrash Halakhah at Qumran? llQTemple 64:6-13 and Deut 21 :22-23", Gesher 7 (1979), p 159 and p 161 n 5, responds to L. Sehiffman's use of this term in relation to other Qumran literature in HaJakhah aI Qumran (Leiden: EJ. BriIl, 1975), pp 22-77, esp pp 54-60. The eritique is irrelevant ifthe Seroll is not a seetarian doeument. 47 Bernstein, ibid, p 161. 48 Wise, ibid, pp 101,209.

14

CHAPTER ONE

structures its use of the biblical sources. There can be no persuasive argument until this is done. This survey also reveals that scholarship on the Scroll still largely reacts to Yadin's analysis ofthe methodological techniques ofthe author. By and large the technical work of elose examination of the text for the hard data of the line-by-line use of the Bible has not been done, and certainly has not been shown in elose argument.

c.

THE METHOD OF STUDY

The original goal of this study was to establish a more accurate terminology of methodology. The first task in understanding how the Bible is used is to identify what biblical texts are actually used. To gain as complete a picture as possible it was decided to examine original material in each of the main sections identified as sources in the study by Wilson and Wills. This approach contrasts to Wise's particular attention to the redaction seams. 49 This, in turn, arises out of the differing goals of each study. Wise's purpose is to determine authorship and provenance of the Scroll. While those concerns are of interest to this study, they are tangential to the key interest in the attitude of the authorls and/or editorls to the biblical text. In the event, we have succeeded here in identifying the biblical texts in portions of the Festival, King's, and Purity Laws, and have used the principles discovered there to examine a portion of the fragmentary columns of the Temple Law. The first step has been taken, which is to establish a pattern for the relationship of the various texts to one another. A vocabulary is developed to describe these relationships. The size of this effort has, unfortunately, prevented us going on to a refinement of terminology. What has been discovered is that, first of all, the Scroll combines biblical texts by establishing a primary text to which other texts are introduced. We will identify the primary text by the term base text. The base text governs a whole section of subject matter, and may change from section to section. To this base the Scroll adds, by merging, harmonizing, or weaving, one or two texts which exert important influence over the understanding of the base text. These texts are usually parallel commands to the base text, and we identify these by the term secondary texts. In addition to these, the ScrOll introduces allusions to other texts which are thematically linked, but which may not be otherwise related contextually. The thematic links are strong enough, however, to 49

Wise, ibid, pp 32-33.

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY

15

be seen as contributing nuance to the interpretation of the base text. Indeed, it is in these that the exegetical position of the author is most clearly revealed. We call these supplementary texts. The identification of sources in allusions needs, perhaps, to be defended, lest we be considered open to the accusation that detailed argument over minute evidence is reading more into the text than is possible. By an allusion we mean the use of a word or phrase which can be traced to a context or contexts which are compatible to and contribute to the understanding of the subject of the base text. We exclude as allusions those texts which may meet this criterion but against which it is possible to place other texts with conflicting or irrelevant contexts. Usually an allusion will be confirmed by further use of the text, or a parallel text, in the context of the section. A single word may be accepted as an allusion, but more often a key phrase is expected. The identification of allusions in the Temple Sero II may be contrasted with that of the Hymn Seroll (lQH) from Qumran. Holm-Nielson described the use of biblical language there as the "anthological reuse of older 'scriptures"'. Of possible allusions to OT Psalms, etc, he says, "Often what looks like a quotation may be due to coincidence .. .It must be a matter of opinion whether in a context it may be supposed that there is a use of the OT or an accidental agreement in diction."so To this we must answer that the Temple Scroll allusions are different in kind. The Hodayot do breath the atmosphere of the biblical psalms, but there is no sense of an attempt to allude to specific psalms in the use ofbiblicallanguage. The allusions ofthe SerolI, when traced, do provide information which assists in understanding the Scroll, and which makes contextual sense. Instances which do not are notable by their rarity. We are in fact presented in the Scroll with an example of the consummate skill of the ancient scribes in drawing from their deep and intimate knowledge of the scriptures to weave together the various strands of each topic in a new unity which both respects the tradition drawn on and draws out new interpretations of it. Fishbane believes such intimate acquaintance with the textual minutiae cannot be in doubt with regard to the transcription of the Bible;sl it is manifestly the case in the Temple 50 S. Holm-Nielson, "The Importanee of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Understanding of the Old Testament Psalmodie Tradition", ST 14 (1960), P 17. 51 M. Fishbane, BiblicaJ Interpretation in A ncient Israel (Oxford: OUP, 1985), P 83, says, "There need be little doubt that the intimate aequaintanee of the aneient Israelite seribes with the textual minutiae bearing on orthographie details and verbal and syntactie sense inereased over time - owing to their own eompetenee and assoeiations with priests and legists - and eontributed to the development of those exegetieal methods whieh required exact knowledge of the fuH seope of the traditum for intratextual eorrelations, eombinations, and harmonizations".

16

CHAPTER ONE

Seroll where we have in hand the sources from which the author drew in order to evaluate his work.

Dur study proceeds with the examination of the text of the Scroll. The order of treatment is not that of appearance. We begin with the Festival Law, in which the pattern is set for establishing the biblical texts and for their relationship to the base text. The King's Law is placed second due to the connections found with the Festival Law. Thirdly, the Purity Laws are treated representatively in order to establish their relationship to their context. Finally, the principles of investigation which are established are tested by application to the fragmentary material in Columns 4-7 of the Temple Law. This provides opportunity to determine the viability of our study for identifying the biblical sources in a difficuIt portion of the SerolI. Regrettably, due to limitations of time and space, the Expanded Deuteronomy section of the Scroll has not been included in this study. This section is essentially the text of Deuteronomy 13-23, with paraphrastic activity. As such, it does not reveal the same sort of original composition as the other sections. It is extremely valuable for answering redaction and textual-critical questions. That, however, is a task beyond the limits of this study, and therefore does not appear here.

CHAPTER TWO

THE FESTIVAL LAW Inserted in the midst of the instructions for the construction of the Temple and its courts is a large section which orders the details of the feasts and their sacrifices. This "Festival Law" is placed logically immediately after the general commands for the festivals in Columns 11-12, and the description of the altar for burnt offerings of Columns 12-13. This repetition, i.e., a general summary in Cols 11-12 and a detailed description in Cols 13-29, and the sudden shift in subject from Temple to Festivals and back to Temple again in Column 30, suggests that these columns are the insertion of aseparate 'document'. Wilson and Wills affirm this in their study, "Literary Sources ofthe Temple Serolf'.! The evidence is three-fold: the Festival section uses the third person for the Divine referent, while the Temple section uses the first person/ the Festival section uses the second person plural address, where the Temple section prefers the singular;3 and, finally, the Festival section has a high frequency of use of the verb forms wey'iqt6l (55% in comparison to 7% in the Temple section), where the Temple section makes greater use of y'ihyeh q6tel (19% against 2%). The Festival Law (abbreviated as 'the Scroll' in this chapter), or calendar, is based on the laws concerning sacrifices for the festivals in Numbers 28-29. They are basically dealt with in this biblical order: Tamid, Sabbath offering, first of the month, first of the year, Passover,4 Unleavened Bread, the ümer, First-fruits, first of the seventh month, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Booths. The consecration offering is inserted before Passover, from Exodus 29. In outIine these all adhere closely to the biblical framework. However, the Feast of First-fruits is expanded extensively. The

HTR 75 (1982), pp 275-288. Wilson and Wills, pp 277-279. There are three exeeptions to this first person referenee: Col 34:14, 35:7, and 39:8 (as weil as 2:12 whieh is not properly the Temple Seetion, but the Introduetion to the SerolI). 3 Again, there are three exeeptions in the Temple Law, and two in the Festivals. 4 Yadin, I, pp 99-100, infers the incIusion of Seeond Passover at the top of Column 18, on the pattern of seetarian writings. We have no evidenee to support this, but inereasing evidenee to separate the author of the Seroll from the Qumran eommunity. I

2

18

CHAPTER TWO

Waving of the Sheaf is made the First-fruits of Barley, and a feast of weeks. To this are added, at fifty day intervals, a First-fruits Festival of Wheat, of New Wine, and of New Oil (as weil as a Wood Offering). These are added at the point where Numbers 28 discusses First-fruits and Weeks (28:26-31), but are each based on Lev 23:10-22. This multiple use of the same biblical text to create three separate festivals is the most original work of the section, and therefore raises the greatest interest for examination of the methodology of llQT. For that reason the study which follows looks exclusively at the first-fruits festivals. This section of the Scroll i.s treated in detail, for these festivals provide important material for comparison and contrast between portions which follow the biblical text closely and those which expand extensively on the biblical base. This chapter becomes the base for comparison to the other sections of the Temple SerolI. A. FIRST-FRUITS OF BARLEY - COLUMN 18:1-10 This section of the scroll begins at some point in the missing lines at the top of the column, and ends with a closed paragraph space in line 10. The subject is the waving of the sheaf, as is made plain in line 10. From this it follows that Leviticus 23:10-14, the sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest,S is the base text of these lines. The other influences on this section are more difficult to assess due to the fragmentary nature of the text, but some degree of clarity can be reached. 1. 18:2:

In line 2 only ,~~, remains. Nowhere in the Bible does this phrase occur, and Leviticus 23 mentions no ram for the wave-offering. However, provision for offering a ram is made in several places in Numbers. Specifically, ,n~ '~~', with the preposition, similar to the phrase ,n~ '~~il in line 9, occurs several times in offerings ofNumbers 28. The call for "one ram" occurs as follows: in Num 28: 12, the offerings for the beginning ofthe month (cfCoI14:28); in 28:19, the offerings for Passover (cf Col 17:6-9); in 29: 14, and repeatedly in the offerings for the s So, J. Maier, The Temple Scroll. JSOT Sup 34. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p 79; and A. Caquot, "Le Rouleau du Temple de Qoumran", ETR 4 (1978), p 460. F. Garcia Martinez, "EI Rollo dei Templo", EstBib 36 (1977), p 255, includes 23:9 in the reference, which is inappropriate ("Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying ... ").

THE FESTIVAL LA W

19

holy convocation in the seventh month (cf Col 27:10, for the Feast of Booths).6 These all have in common the inclusion of a ram for the burnt offerings, and the grain offering "for the ram". Each of these offerings is al ready discussed elsewhere in the Scroll (see the summary above). Given that the Passover has just appeared in Column 17 we can expect the use in Col 18:2ff ofNumbers 28:26-31, where the burnt-offerings apply specifically to the first-fruits in the Feast of Weeks. In vv 27-28 "one ram" indeed is included. The Scroll thus appears to be combining the first-fruits wave-offering of Leviticus, which calls only for a male lamb one year old, with the first-fruits burnt-offerings for the Feast of Weeks by reference to the ram of Numbers 28. Further authority for this addition to Leviticus 23 comes from Numbers 15, which specifies the laws for the grain-offering and libation which are to be presented with each animal offering or sacrifice "in your appointed times" (v 3): verse 11 lists each animal, including 1n~iT "~, (cf line 9). The author appears to 'harmonize' the wave-offering to this pattern. These are drawn together to make the first-fruits of barley an "appointed feast". The reference in Col 18:2 to "this ram" and the repetition of "the one ram" in Col 18:9, emphasizes the addition of a ram to the Leviticus provision for the offering. 2. 18:3: In line 3 there is but a single phrase, iTliT Cl'iT. 7 It is a phrase common in historical narrative, but in the context of offerings and festivals there are three notable occurrences: Exod 12:17, at the institution of the Feast of Unleavened Bread;8 Lev 23:14, restricting the eating ofbread or grain until the waving of the sheaf; and Lev 23:21, of the proclamation of a holy

6 Maier, Caquot, and Gareia Martinez (parsim) eaeh detail these same paralieis between the Seroll diseussion and Numbers 28-29. However, none of them relate this signifieant parallel of Col 18:1-10 with Num 28:26-31. Maier alone (p 9) refers to Num 28:26-31 with regard to the Feast ofUnleavened Bread in Col 17:10-16. All others, ine1uding Yadin, refer to Num 28:19-25 in this regard. 7 Yadin, 11, P 77, suggests the space in il't il is due to a flaw in the skin, or to an erasure. There is a dark shadow on the photo whieh may support the former explanation. There is no way of determining the latter from the photograph. 8 Cf Josh 5:11, where Israel eats the first Passover in Canaan, for the same sort of emphasis on 'this day' in a narrative strueture. See B. Levine, ''The Temple Seroll: Aspeets of its Historieal Provenanee and Literary Character", BASOR 232 (1978), P 9, who believes Josh 5:11 "elearly eehoes that ofLev 23:9-21".

20

CHAPTER TWO

convocation at the first-fruits of grain fifty days after waving the sheaC Yadin suggests a partial restoration of the line based on Lev 23 :21 : [ilTJil? il'il' lV11p ~npTJ.10 This is at least a plausible suggestion, but should be expanded to [Cl17 ilTJil? il'il' ... , because Ol17 isa common factor in each of the above texts. It is simpler to see here the continued influence of the base text, from Lev 23:14, since Lev 23:15-21 will be seen tobe the base text for Col 18:10-19:9. Yadin's assumption that the Scroll makes the waving of the sheaf the First-fruits of Badey cannot be based on this fragmentary line, but must depend on the evidence of Numbers 28. 11 3. 18:4: Again, in line 4, only a single phrase remains: ]? n~On? 0'''17[. There is no doubt this line speaks of 0'''17 1'17lV. 3.1 The question here is which portion of Numbers 28 is used. Yadin's reference to Num 28:30 fits our context: 1~J? ,n~ 0'''17 1'17lV (MT)/2 but does not explain the addition of n~On? There are two pieces of textual evidence which provide clues. First is the occurrence in MT ofn~On? at Num 28:15, n~On? ,n~ 0'''17 1'17lV1 i11il'? Sam and LXX both include n~On? in Num 28:30 (perhaps refleeting the influenee of v 15).13 If the Seroll shares in this harmonizing tendency, then the reconstruction of]? should be i11il']? But, secondly, in comparing Col 17: 14-15 for the provision of the cereal and drink offerings (a subject which arises in line 5), Yadin refers to Num 28:22,14 pointing out that the Scroll's n~On? agrees with Sam and LXX (and, it may be added, Syr) against the MT's n~on, which, as we have just seen relates toNum 28:30. The fact is that Sam and LXX consistently disagree with MT at this point: n~on appears as n~On? in Num 29:5,11,16,19, and 25, bringing each of these verses into an agreement which the Scroll reflects. It appears to share with the Sam, LXX, and Syr a tendency to standardize the Numbers 28-29 terminology. In light of the use of Num 28:26-31 already seen, it seems reasonable to

9 Lev 23:28,29,30 might also be included here, since related to the Day of Atonement. However, these instances relate to the prohibition of work rather than to the offerings. 10 Yadin, 11, p 77. 11 Yadin, I, pp 102-103. 12 Yadin, 11, p 77. 13 Cf BHS, P 266. 14 Yadin, 11, p 75.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

21

see its continued use here. We shall see, however, that the purpose of this standardization is to emphasize and extend the sin offering, accompanied by grain offering and libation, to the wave-offering. IS 3.2 The recurrent inclusion of the offering for atonement in these sources suggests that the reconstruction of the end of the line should be 1!):J]?,16 or, ifNum 28:15 is followed, i11i1~]?, in which case 1!):J? must appear at the beginning of line 5. 17 3.3 The problem which remains with this conclusion is the apparent omission of 1n~, which occurs in each of the above sourees. It may be absent due to the influence of Lev 9:3: n~Cn? 1:l~"17 1~171V 1np. Only here does the phrase occur without 1n~. Leviticus 9, which describes the sacrifices on the eighth day of the ordination of Aaron, govems Column 16. The consecration of the priests, by virtue of its length and detail (from Cols 15-17:2), holds a central role in the Festival Law, which now appears to extend its influence even in the festivals which follow. 4. 18:5: The portion of li ne 5 left to us consists of the remains of two phrases reflecting two sets of sources based on Lev 23: 13: 1:l~J11V17 ~J1V 1nm01 i1:JDJl .. n?D (Sam: 1:JDJ1). 4.1 001VlJ:J 1:JD[J11nmO refers to the drink-offering to be presented with the sin-offering of line 4. This does not appear in Leviticus 23. The use of the phrase here paralIeIs that of Col 17: 14-15, where the sin-offering of the male goat is moved from its separate location (Num 28:22) in order to be included in the sacrifices requiring a grain offering and libation. 18 At 17: 14-15 the suffix is plural ("their cereal offering ... "), in keeping with the placing of the sin-offering together with the bumt-offering. 15 This explanation relieves us of the necessity of looking to Lev 14:10, and the sin-offering of the leper, to explain the addition as does J. Milgrom, "The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles", in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. GJ. Brooke (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 173. Milgrom calls this 'homogenization', in which the case of the leper covers all cases of the sin-offering. The Scroll rather harmonizes Numbers 28-29 with itself. 16 The presence of the lamed after n~unt;, is unquestionable. Cf Qimron, "New Readings in the Temple Scroll", JE! 28 (1978), p 163. 17 As Yadin, 11, p 77. 18 Yadin, I, pp 143-150, discusses the importance ofthis. Our purpose here is not to discuss the implications, but to establish the texts used. See also his notes on Col 17:14-15,11, p 75.

22

CHAPTER TWO

There is no mention of grain-offering or libation in relation to the sin-offering of Num 28:30, either. But neither is there mention of the burnt-offering of bulls, ram, and male lambs. These must have appeared in the missing lines of the column. The sin-offering remains separate in this treatment, and thus the suffix in line 5 is singular. The significance, then, of this line is the addition of a grain- and drink-offering for this sin-offering which is placed in an emphatic relationship apart from the burnt-offering. What, then, is the source? 4.1.1 Yadin and Milgrom find the source in Lev 14: 1Off. 19 B ut nowhere in this passage is there any reference to the grain-offering and libation accompanying the sin-offering. In fact, there is no libation at all. This fact shows us that there are two separate issues involved regarding the sin-offering in the SerolI. First, in Col 17: 13-15 and 25: 12-15 the issue is the combination of sin-offering with burnt-offering, both requiring a grain-offering and libation. Leviticus 14 does not address this issue. The source, rather, is Ezra 8:35, "The returned exiles offered burnt-offerings ... and a sin-offering ... all this was aburnt offering." As Yadin shows, this is exactly the area in which there was argument in the post-exilic community and among the rabbis. 20 The Scroll agrees with Ezra. The second issue is that Col 18:5 cannot be linked with these other texts because the sin-offering is specifically kept separate from the burnt-offering. The source for this instance must lie elsewhere. 4.1.2 The phrase as in this line occurs twice with significance for the SerolI: in Num 28:31 the libation refers to both sin-offering and burnt-offering. This explains the plural suffix, whereas the grain-offering (singular) belongs solely to the burnt-offering: 1nmrJ1 "rJnil n~17 ':J~rJ Clil:JOJ1 CI:J~ 1'il' ... 21 This appears to be a sufficient clue for the Scroll to apply it fully to the sin-offering in every case. Secondly, the exact form as in the Scroll is found in Num 15:24 (which is significant in view of the influence of Numbers 15 in line 2):

Yadin, I, p 145; Milgrom, "The Qumran Cult", p 173. See note 15. Yadin, I, pp 145-146. Maimonides is quoted as ruling that the offerings in Ezra were not to be followed at all tim es beeause they were Consecration offerings (Code: Laws Conceming the Manner of Offering Sacrifices ii: 15). It is of value to note that the Seroll makes Conseeration offerings valid at all times, i.e., annually (Cols 15-17), and that the Conseeration offerings exercise influenee on these laws (cf line 3). 21 MT has 'libations' (PI) in both 28:31 and 29:6, ete. Sam harmonises to the singular of the grain offering in each place. In light of 11 QT agreement with Sam of Lev 23:13 the differenee here must be seen to be a ease of Sam harmonising and the Seroll making an exegetieal point. 19

20

THE FESTIVAL LAW

23

(Sam: n~on;) non; 1n~ 0'1l7 1'l7ID' O:lID7J:> ,:>OJ, ,nm7Jl 22 The subject here is the offering by the congregation for unintentionally failing to keep the commandments. The law calls for one bull with the grain-offering and libation, and the male goat for a sin-offering. In comparison, in the offering for the individual (15:27) there is onejemale goat for a sin-offering, and no bumt-offering. The Scroll appears to merge the two. These regulations provide sources for the SerolI' s interpretation, coupled with Ezra 8:35. The provision made here emphasizes the Scroll's view by its separation from the bumt-offering.

4.2 The second phrase, n;,o l'1IDl7, disagreeing with the 'two-tenths' of Lev 23: 13, occurs in this form only three times. Ex 29:40, n;o 17JID::1 ;,;::1 11IDl7' (Sam: l'1IDl7'), describes the drink-offering which accompanies the lamb of the Tamid; Lev 14:21, ;';::11n~ n;o l'1IDl7' 17JID::1, gives instruction for the poor leper's cleansing; Num 28: 13, l'1IDl7 17JID::1 il;';::1-jlnJ7J n;o is part ofthe offerings for the first of each month. 4.2.1 Ex 29:40, conceming the Tamid, contains the continuation found in line 6 (1" rilil n'l7::11 10J1; the Scroll places 1" at the beginning of the phrase). There does not appear to be room for the intervening phrase of Ex 29:40 (rilil l7::11 n'n:» in the SerolI. Exodus 29 is a secondary source for the Scroll's treatment ofthe Ordination in Columns 15-17. It continues to influence the Scroll's formulations in subsequent festivals. 4.2.2 The use of Leviticus 14 would appear to confirm Yadin's proposal (as above) regarding the Scroll's prescriptions for the sin-offering in relation to the bumt-offering. However, this would be the application ofthe grain-offering for the guilt-ajjering (not bumt-offering) to the sin-offering. Only by application of the offerings for the paar man does the figure of 'one-tenth' come up, and not the usual 'three-tenths'. Given that, as we have already noted, there is no libation included at all, the influence of this text seems limited. 4.2.3 Num 28: 13 is of interest because it is the base for Col 14:16-18 23 where the Scroll again emphasizes the inclusion ofthe goat of the sin-offering by repetition of 'the he-goat' in lines 16 and 18. It is placed, together with the lamb, with the libation consisting of 'one-quarter' of a hin. This combination is important. The Scroll consistently lists these measures for the sin-offering which apply in 22 The agreement with MT is even more signifieant in light of disagreement in the previous lines. In Num 15:21 Sam provides a plural suffix. In eontrast, the Sam provides a singular at Num 29:6 for the libation. The Seroll's shift, against its previous tendeney to standardise the ofIerings, must be seen as purposeful here. 23 Cf E. Qimron, "Column 14 of the Temple SerolI", JE! 38 (1988), pp 45-46.

24

CHAPTER TWO

Exodus 29 to the lamb of the bumt-offering. The justification for the general application of the measures comes from Num 15:4 (l'1tvl1 n~o ilnJlJ), but not the application of the lamb sacrifice to the sin-offering. This remains unexplained. 5. 18:6:

rilil n'11':1110)~

1"[

Line 6 continues the prescription for the drink-offering. The base text, Leviticus 23, is the explicit source, from v 13: rilil nl1':J1 1" il~)' (Sam: rilil n'l1:J1 1" '~)'),24 forming the bridge between Exod 29:40 (in line 5) and Num 15:5 (as below). The exact form of this phrase appears only in Num 15:5: 10)~ 1'" rilil n'11':J1 (Sam: n'l1:J1), illustrating a technique of the Scroll in which the base text is followed, but the actual form of the phrase intro duces a supplementary text. In Numbers 15 the drink-offering for the burnt-offering or sacrifice is specified for each /amb. With the help of 15:24 in line 5 (merged with v 27), the law is applied to the male go at of the sin-offering. The value of this text is enhanced when viewed with v 4, which may be seen to provide the necessary restoration at the beginning of this line: )lJtv rilil n'l1:J1:J ~'~:J )'1tvl1 n~o ilnJrJ. There is room for all of this if we allow for one more word at the end of line 5. Yadin makes n~,o the final word there,25 but there is sufficient room for one more word such as ilnJlJ (cf Num 28:13 for this word order) where the manuscript is tom. We can compare this with lines 11-15 in the photopiate, which all over-run the marginal marking, especially lines 12 and 13. On the other hand, it is unusual for a line to fall so far short of the marginal marking. 6. 18:7: The reading of this line is improved by E. Qimron:

~':JrJ ~ili'il 011

~':J ~11 [1!J:J~] ilrJ]rntv~.26 6.1 The sin-offering is still the subject. On the base of Num 28:30 (0:J'~11 1!J:J~)27 the Scroll expands the significance of the 'atonement' by use of Lev 16:33 (1:>:J' ~ili'il 011 ~:J ~11' O')il:Jil ~11'). The presence

24 In light of the argument of line 5, Lev 23: 13 could be considered as additional influence on the singular suffix. 25 Yadin, II, p 77. 26 E. Qimron, "Further New Readings in the Temple S..roll", lEJ 37 (1987), p 3l. 27 With Yadin, II, p 77.

25

THE FESTIVAL LA W

of1!)J can be inferred from reference to Lev 16:33, and then we see that this is a development of Num 28:30: '~J' provides the link which allows a Day of Atonement text to be introduced. The result is to bring the whole congregation into the benefits of the sin-offering. This follows the pattern of the Scroll in each of the festivals. In Col 14: 10-11 the sin-offering of the first day of the month is based on Num 28: 15 (cf also line 4, above) with influence from 28:30 as an 'atoning' offering. In Col 16:14-15 the bull for the people at the Ordination offering is described as 'atoning' for the people on the basis of Lev 16:33. A similar use ofLev 16:33 is followed in the other first-fruits festivals: in 21:8, for the new wine; 22:15-16, for new oil; and presumably for new wheat in the missing Iines of Column 19. These appear to refer to the 'atonement' of the wine and oil, and not of the people. But, as we point out in the discussion of those texts, the Scroll invests more in the term through use of Leviticus 16 language which applies to 'the assembly'. Leviticus 16 is the basic source for Cols 25-27 on the Day of Atonement. Lev 16:33 is incorporated twice: 26:7, upon offering the bull of the burnt-offering; and in 26:9, at the sin-offering for the assembly. It is likely that it was used again in the c10sing summary lines at the top of Column 27. The purpose of the repeated 'atonements' based on Lev 16:33 is the incorporation ofthe whole ofIsrael in the sin-offering. 28 This is how the lilJil '~Jl Scroll understands Num 15 :25 of the sin-offering: 'J

'11

6.2 ilOlV~ "JO is not found in the Bible in this form or connection. Lev 16:34 refers to the atonement r::Jn~on 'JO. The Scroll' by substituting 'guilt', may have Lev 14:21 in mind (cf li ne 5, the poor leper's offering). There the offering is '~'11 '~J' il~,m, OlV~. This is a surprising shift in view of the emphasis on the sin-offering throughout the passage. But we saw it foreshadowed in line 5 where the influence of Lev 14:21 requires equation of the sin-offering and guiIt-offering. It may be a substitution for stylistic reasons (avoidance of arepetition which would draw attention from 'sin-offering'). Or, the use of the feminine ilOlV~ against the masculine of Leviticus 14 may reflect a later Hebrew emphasis (cf the six uses in Ezra 9-10, and seven uses in the Chronicles~.

28 This is further emphasized from the use of Lev 9:3 in line 4. The Ordination offering is for "the sons of Israel". In Lev 16:33-34 the atonement is for the 'assembly' and the "sons of Israel". The terms are parallel. 29 Ezra9:6,7,13,15; 10:10,19; 1 Chron 21:3; 2 Chron 24:18; 28:10,13,13,13; 33:23. These are unique Chronicler material.

26

CHAPTER TWO

7. 18:8: ilTJil~ il'l' il'il' C~111 mp[1n The establishment of an eternal statute in line 8 returns to the base text, Lev 23:14. 30 This phrase eontinues to link Lev 16 (v 29, "This shaIl be an eternal statute to you") and Numbers 15 (v 15, " .. an eternal statute throughout your generations") to this seetion. The latter appears in the general preseriptions for the offerings for each animal, and applies it speeifieaIly to 'the assembly', a link with the previous line. The formula as it appears here is closest in form to Lev 17:7: n~'I' il'iln C~'l1 npn cn,,~ Cil~ (providing the phrase il'iln n~'I', whieh appears in the SeroIl as il'l' il'il'), whieh eommands the saerifiees to be brought to the Tent of Meeting. This addition is signifieant for the SeroIl's attitude towards the unique holiness of the Sanetuary. Yadin's reeonstruetion ofthis line and the beginning ofthe next plaees ilTJm,,,~ before the phrase C~111 mp[1n, eontrary to every biblieal oeeurrenee of the phrase, where it always foIlows. Beeause Yadin's provision for ilTJ[il'm::JlV1TJ ~1:J::J fits the beginning ofline 9 appropriately to the spaee available (whereas ilTJn""~ would leave too mueh spaee), there is no alternative but to see this reeonstruetion as eorreet. The SeroIl has altered the word order awkwardly.31

Wehave al ready diseussed lines 9/10 at the beginning of this seetion, with regard to ,n~ ~'~il. As a whole, however, line 9 is original in its formulation. No speeifie souree ean be found for plaeing ,n~1 within these eommands. It appears as an explanatory term in the SeroIl's exegesis of these passages. The ehoiee of il;l1 (1~11') for the aet of offering the lamb seems to eonfirm the influenee of Lev 17:7 in the previous line. Lev 17:8, in the same injunetion to saerifiee before the Tent of Meeting, speaks of the one n::J'I' ,~ il~l1 il~l1' 'lV~. The possibility is enlivened by the differenee in the Sam and LXX, whieh

As per Yadin, 11, p 78. The Scroll shifts to third person from the second person referent of each of the biblical sources related. The same sort of shift occurs in the Day of Atonement section, Col 27:5, where the Scroll and LXX agree on the use of the third person against the MT, Sam, and 4QpaleoExodm ofExod 30:10, "to [their] generation". Cf G.J. Brooke, ''The Textual Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Recently Published Manuscripts of the Pentateuch", in The Dead Sea Serolls: Forty Years 01 Research, eds D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992), P 267. 30 31

THE FESTIVAL LA W

27

have i1lV17'/lTOl riaTJ here - as does MT in verse 9 (n1lV17?). The concurrence of the influence of Lev 17:7 in line 8 with this unexpected MT reading points towards the use of Lev 17:8 here (and suggests this variant to be an ancient reading). 9. 18: 10:

1rJ117i1 n:J'Jil 01'::J [

The section closes with the beginning of line 10, where a vacat, or closed paragraph space occurs. The final phrase follows Lev 23: 12 directly, with the substitution of the infinitive for the second person plural of ~'l As has al ready been mentioned, this phrase governs the whole of this section of the Scroll. It is highly likely that the section on the wave-offering began with Lev 23: 12, although we cannot be certain due to the unfortunate damage to the top of the column. This closing of the section by the use of Lev 23: 12, as at the opening, exhibits the use of inclusion by the author. 32

Summary The Scroll's use ofthe biblical sources can be described in the following table in which a= the base text, Lev 23: 10-15, the primary source; b= the secondary text, Num 28:26-30, which describes the feast of first-fruits; c= the supplementary texts which provide key terms and wording; Original or unattributable material is designated E = Expansion (or Editor). Two basic techniques are used to introduce supplementary texts: the most important for this section is word-form insertion, in which the base text is followed but the exact wording, or word-form, is provided by the supplementary text; the second is the use of a key-word which clearly intro duces the influence of one or more supplementary texts.

32 G.J. Brooke, "The Temple Seroll: A Law Unto Itself?" in Law and Religion, ed Bamabas Lindars (Cambridge: 1. Clarke, 1988), p 41, has eommented on just the same teehnique in the Day of Atonement seetion of Cols 25-27, opening with Lev 23:27,29, and c10sing with 23:28,30-32.

28

CHAPTER TWO

Line:

Source Text:

2

a= [Lev 23:12]

3 4 5

6 7

8

9 10

Technique:

E = Expansion [illil] b= Num 28:27 c=Num 15:11 Key-word link a= Lev 23:14 b= Num 28:30 c= Lev 9:3 Key-word link a= Lev 23:13 b= Num 28:31 c= (Ezra 8:35) Num 15:24 Word-form c= Num 15:4 Key-word links Exod 29:40 (Lev 14:21) c= Num 15:5 Word-form b= Num 28:30 c= Lev 16:33 Word-form Num 15:25 Key-word links Lev 14:21 a= Lev 23:14 c= Lev 16:34 Word-form Num 15:15 Key-word link c= Lev 17:7 Key-word link E= Scroll c= Lev 17:8 Key-word link a= Lev 23:12

The table helps us to see how closely Lev 23:12-14 is followed in these lines. The use of Numbers 28 as a secondary text is exclusively from Num 28:26-31. The importance of a supplementary text is its contribution from its own context. That is, the Scroll in effect harmonizes the base text to the language of the supplementary text used, and thus its intention. This is not to say that the Scroll is attempting to bring contradictory or divergent texts into uniformity. Rather, the Scroll uses these other texts to support its own interpretation of the base text. The base text is of primary importance, and the supplementary texts are of value insofar as they provide the exegetical proof needed. The context of the supplementary text has importance analogically, but no more than that. Sometimes the supplementary texts are clustered together around a

THE FESTIVAL LA W

29

single key-word link, e.g., line 5, where Num 15:4 and Exod 29:40 both bear influence on the basis of the sarne key-word. Exodus 29, the ordination text, continues its influence from previous sections; Numbers 15:4 is confirmed by the use of 15:6 in line 6. (Lev 14:21 mayaiso be in mind in light of line 7.) There is skilful interweaving of supplementary texts in lines 7 and 8. The word-form ofLev 16:33-34 is introduced to the base ofNum 28:30, while Num 15:25 is also interwoven, continuing from the use of 15:24 in line 5. The word-form insertion technique can be seen as the most important method of introducing the supplementary texts. Four times it is used (lines 5,5,7,8) to establish the point of discussion for clusters of texts. They are particularly important for emphasizing the Scroll's perspective on the sin-offering. Numbers 15 is shown by this table to be of key significance for understanding this section. It is notable that only one supplementary text from outside the Pentateuch is included, Ezra 8:35. It is shown in brackets here because it is not an explicit textual source, but provides the specific rationale throughout the Festival Law for the inclusion of the various accompaniments to the sin-offering. With these observations we are able to move on to understand the chief concem of the author of this section: the sin-offering which is to accompany the offering of first-fruits of barley. The sin-offering is absent from Leviticus 23. In Num 28:30 the male goat is sacrificed "for an atonement", hut is not specified as a sin-offering. It is Numhers 15 which provides the justification for making this male goat a sin-offering, and for specifiying the accompanying grain- and drink-offerings. The influence can be summarized in these points: 1. Numbers 15 is used as a source because the subject of the accompaniments for offerings or sacrifices for, arnong other things, "your appointed times" (v 3). The Scroll uses Numbers 15 because first-fruits is an appointed time.

2. The offering for 'this rarn' (line 2) focuses on this one animal without apparent reference to the bulls or male larnbs (Num 28:27). It is possible the bulls were mentioned in the missing lines at the head of Column 18, but the emphasis on the rarn again in line 9 suggests not. The rarn can be considered separatelyon the basis ofNum 15: 11, which simply speaks of 'the rarn' or 'the bull'.

30

CHAPTER TWO

3. The purpose ofNumbers 15 is to specify the accompanying grain- and wine-offerings for the various sacrifices mentioned. It needs to be seen in contrast with Ezek 46:1-14, which has left the matter of the accompaniments rather vague. Numbers 15 seems to be providing the detail lacking in Ezekiel. 33 The Scroll is concerned to speIl out that these accompaniments belong to the sin-offering, and uses Numbers 15 to provide the specifics (having al ready deduced from Ezra 8:35 that the sin-offering takes the same accompanying offerings as the burntofferings). Thus, in lines 5-6 the measurements of wine, oil, and flour are derived from Num 15:4-5 and applied to the sin-offering of the first-fruits of barley. The correctness of this interpretation (in the ScroIl' s view) is further confirmed in line 5 by reference to v 24 concerning the sin-offering for the whole community (il117, which the Scroll does not use). The goat of Numbers 15 replaces the bull for the congregation of Lev 4:14 (there is no provision in Leviticus 4 for grain- and drinkofferings). 4. The use of?ilP ('assembly') is derived from Lev 16:33 in line 7, but draws attention to Num 15:15 in line 8. The 'one statute' for the assembly paralleis the 'eternal statute' of Lev 16:34. The use here is notable for two reasons. Firstly, it is thought by some to be a gloss in Num 15:15,34 thus illustrating the Scroll's familiarity with the late form of the Pentateuch. For another reason, this preference for 'assembly' over the 'congregation' of Num 15:25 is striking in contrast to the Qumran sectarian preference for the latter term. 5. One aspect of the ScroIl's use of Numbers 15 is unexplained. The Scroll consistently applies the laws of Numbers 15 regarding the lamb offering to the male goat of Numbers 28. There is no support for this in any biblical context. This is a key instance of the ScroIl's particular viewpoint being pressed. Nor is there clear reason for the emphasis on the ram. Although Num 15: 11 supplies at least some rationale for separating the ram from the other burnt-offerings, there is no reason from biblical sources for its apparent use exclusive of the bulls and lambs. This, too, is the ScroIl's contribution. The question is how to interpret this apparent arbitrary differentiation. The key to understanding lies in our view of the purpose 33 Cf Philip 1. Budd, Numbers (Word Books: Waco, 1984), pp 166-167, and bibliography, for discussion of the relationship of Num bers 15 to Ezekiel 46 and the minimal role of Leviticus 2. 34 Budd, ibid, p 166. It is lacking in Syr and Vulgate.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

31

ofthe use ofNumbers 15. The Seroll seeks to bring the provision for the sin-offering into line with Numbers 15, but in the proeess adjusts the Numbers text. If we understand Numbers 15 to be a development of Ezekiel 46, perhaps we ean see the Seroll to be defending an alternate development of the Ezekiel provision for the sin-offering. Thus, the Seroll uses Numbers 15 to establish its own viewpoint. Yet, at the same time, the Seroll uses Numbers 15 against itself, eh anging it in order to establish a eonflieting opinion on the plaee of the sin-offering. B. FIRST-FRUITS OF NEW WHEAT - Column 18:10 - 19:9 Following a closed paragraph spaee in line 10 the Scroll begins a new seetion whieh follows Lev 23: 15-24 (the inclusion of vv 22-24 is to be noted). This section eontinues until Col 19:9, where the close of the section is marked by the blank line 10. Col 18:13 specifies the subject of this section as a new grain offering: 19:9 designates it a feast of weeks and of first-fruits. The same base text, Lev 23:15-24, is the underlying text in Co119:12ff and 21: 13ff, the offerings of new wine and new oil. The eombined seetions provide us a unique opportunity to examine three different treatments of the same base text by the Seroll. 1. 18: 1Ob-ll: ilT.D~~::Jil m~rJ mrJ~rJn mn::JlV 17::JlV [ilrJ:J']/ ilni~01 irJ117il n~ Lev 23:15: [J:J~~::Jil [J1~rJ n::JlVil nirT7J7J [J:J, [Jni~01 ilJ"iln nrJ~rJn mn::JlV 17::JlV il~1mil irJ17 n~ The seetion begins with the start of the first-fruits provision in Lev 23: 15. Unlike the use of Lev 23:10-14 in the preeeding section the Seroll follows the biblieal text closely, but there are three signifieant differenees in comparison to all versions: The phrase n::JlVil nirTrJrJ from 23: 15 is omitted entirely; the phrase nrJ~rJn mn::JlV 17::JlV (Sam: mrJ~rJn, with 11 QT) is moved forward by the Scroll to replaee the omitted phrase; in the process i1J~~iln is omitted from the sentenee. 3S This line has attracted as much attention from the interpreters as any one portion of the Scrol1. 36 The interest focuses on the omission of the

This is not in LXX either. See diseussion below. Extensive diseussion is found in Yadin, I, pp 103-105, and "Is the Temple Seroll a Seetarian Doeument?" in Humanizing America's Jconic Book, eds G. M. Tueker and D. A. Knight (Chieo: Seholar's Press, 1980), pp 162-167; J. Milgrom, " 'Sabbath' and 'Temple City' in the Temple SeroIl", BASOR 232 (1978), pp 22-26. These artieles 3S

36

32

CHAPTER TWO

phrase "the day (morrow, n1n7J1.J) after the sabbath". The debate on the meaning of this phrase has revived precisely the controversy over Lev 23: 15 which the Scroll addresses, and which continued "weil into the Middle Ages".37 Does the verse mean 'Sunday', or can it be any other day of the week 50 days after Passover? The centre of discussion thus far has been on the calendar used by the Scroll, i.e., whether it follows the solar calendar of 364 days, or a luni-solar calendar as with the rest of Judaism ofthe time. If the former, then the verse means 'Sunday'; ifthe latter, it refers to the day after Passover, whichever day of the week that may be. For our discussion neither issue needs to be settled. There is a simple explanation for the editorial work here: the Scroll removes an unnecessary redundancy from the sources. Without the phrase "the morrow of the sabbath" the counting ends on the same day as is specified in Lev 23:16 and in line 12: "the morrow after the seventh sabbath".38 There are two observations which have been made which provide explanations for the form of this verse as we have it here. First, as suggested by H.L. Ginsberg, "the morrow of the sabbath" may be a gloss in both 23: 11 and 23: 15a, stimulated by verse 16. 39 J. Milgrom supports this theory grammatically40 by observing that tJ:JJl1' in 23: 11 is in the protasis, whereas it appears in the apodosis elsewhere in the holiness code (Lev 19:5, 22:29). When the gloss is removed the phrase moves to the apodosis in 23: 11. On this basis we may suggest that the Scroll is familiar with, or uses, a text which precedes the introduction of the phrase n::JU7i1 n1n7J7J. Therefore, on the one hand, the text of the Scroll can be explained as a more original form of the text. On the other hand, the remaining differences can be explained by reference to a secondary text. This is also based on a grammatical

are a response to Barueh A. Levine, "The Temple SerolI: Aspeets of its Historieal Provenanee and Literary Character", BASOR 232 (1978), pp 7-1l. Marvin A. Sweeney, "Sefirah at Qumran: Aspeets of the Counting Formulas for the First-Fruits Festivals in the Temple SerolI", BASOR 251 (1983), pp 61-66, addresses the eombined arguments of the others. J.T. Milik diseussed the subjeet of ''the morrow of the sabbath" in regard to the Essene festival ealendar in Ten Years 0/ Discovery in the Wildemess 0/ Judaea (London: SCM, 1959), p 109, and n l. 37 So Levine, "The Temple SerolI: Aspeets", p 8. 38 Levine, ibid, p 9, speaks of "the syntactic awkwardness of the biblical original merely smoothed out", Yadin, Humanizing, p 167, of "the plain meaning of Scripture", Milgrom, ibid, p 26, ofthe removal ofthe ambiguity; Sweeney, ibid, p 63, adds that a syntactical problem is rectified. 39 Cf Levine, p 9, citing L. Ginsberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: KTAV, ET 1970). J. Milgrom, "Hattenupha", Studies in Cultic Theology and Tenninology (Leiden: EJ. BrilI, 1983), p 151 n 37, refers to an SBL paper given by Ginsberg on Lev 23:11 as the addition of a pre-Sadducean editor. 40 Milgrom, ibid, p 27, n 2.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

33

argument. Aeeounting for the form of the first word of the seetion, (2nd sg, MT; Sam: [Jn1~O', 2nd pI), Yadin ealls this a seribal error, and restores il7n, (2nd pI) at the beginning of line 11. 41 Marvin A. Sweeney, however, believes it better to restore il::>' (2nd sg), whieh would agree in number with the verb as it appears in the SerolI, and to see the phrase as eorresponding to the first words of Lev 25:8: n1~' nn::l1Z.7 lJ::l1Z.7 1,.42 This 'interweaving' of the two texts eorreets a syntaetieal problem in Lev 23: 15: The phrase mo'r.m mn::l1Z.7 lJ::l1Z.7 is the logieal direet objeet of [Jn1~01. But, if it is, then il)"irn is redundant, having no predieate. The Seroll solves the problem by eliminating the redundaney after moving mo'on mn::l1Z.7 lJ::l1Z.7 to follow its verb immediately, [il::>'] iln~01.43 LXX also eliminates il)"iln. Sweeney denies that this represents a Hebrew Vorlage to the Seroi!, appealing to its inelusion in Col 21:13 (and perhaps in 19:13) as evidenee that the Vorlage of the Seroll included it. However, we still wonder if there is not an awareness by the author of the Seroll of a LXX-type text at this very plaee. The Seroll's 17J'lJil n~ disagrees with the MT and Sam 1011 n~ but agrees with LXX TO ÖPOyIlO. In this way we ean suggest that the two 'omissions' of the Seroll refleet a variant Vorlage, perhaps less eorrupt than our extant versions. Finally, the third differenee relieves the text of a syntaetieal diffieulty by referenee to a seeondary text, Lev 25:8. The use of a Jubilee year text does not eall for inelusion of Jubilee year arguments here. 44 Rather, it reveals a eommon interest ofthe Seroll with Jubilees . There is no evidenee of textual borrowing of either from the other here. But as Jubilees 6: 17 -18 links the jubilee with keeping the feast of weeks, so here the Seroll appears to link the two by use of Lev 25:8 in the first-fruits eontext. On the other hand, there is no suggestion in this seetion of the Seroll that the Feast of Weeks is related to renewal of the eovenant, as in Jubilees. 4S iln1~'

Yadin, II, p 78. Sweeney, ibid, p 62. 43 Sweeney, ibid. The argument is persuasive but ean be explained at least partially as above, as a purer form of the text. 44 CfB. Z. Wacholder, The Down ofQumran (Cineinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), pp 53-55, though there is no elear eonneetion of our text with Jubilees 6:32; and J. VanderKam, "The Seroll and the Book of Jubilees", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 214-218. 45 This silenee is also at varianee with the importanee of the eovenant festival at Qumran, lQS 1:16-2:25 (efCD 14:3-6), ifit indeed related to the Feast ofWeeks as T. Elgvin argues in "The Qumran Covenant Festival and the Temple SerolI", JJS 36 (1985), pp 103-106. Cf also llQMeleh, which begins with Lev 25:13 and the last extant line is from Lev 25:9, but 25:8 is not used. Interestingly, this text eombines the Jubilee theme with upholding the eovenant, but in relation to the Day of Atonement 41

42

34

CHAPTER TWO

2. 18: 12: n'l1'::lWiI n::lWiI n,n,oo 111 "':J[on iI:J,mil] Lev 23:16: nl1'::lWiI n::lWiI n,noo 111 Line 12 as it is preserved agrees with all the sources of Lev 23: 16 exeept for minor orthographie differenees. There are two points of diseussion whieh arise from the fragments of the beginning of the line. In the first plaee, Yadin's reeonstruetion ofil:J,mil at the beginning of the line is clearly eorreet, and eompletes the use of Lev 23:15. Seeondly, the first partial word of the line, "':J[, is also elearly meant to be "':Jon. 46 This oeeurs in none of the sourees, but is an addition of the Seroll. It agrees in form with its oeeurrenee later in the same verse, and serves as a seam for the editorial aetivity of the preeeding line. By repetition it emphasizes the essential eommand of the passage. 3. 18:13: Line 13 eontinues to follow the sources elosely for Lev 23: 16-17 a, with the exeeption of the substitution of ilon,~'::m, for On::l'pill The use of this word provides a double service: it brings forward the verb from Lev 23: 17 whieh is omitted in the re-writing of the next line, thus smoothing the text;4? and it links with the verb used above in line 11, maintaining the same voeabulary. There is a similar example of the use of this verb in relation to first-fruits in 4QHaiakha8 5:4, 'W~ yonil mIm ~'iI o',,:>::l ml1'::lW]iI O'[']::l '~'::l'.48 4. 18:14/15: ]/ o'nw O'Oil on, iI1i1" O',,:>::l W1n yon [n],po on,] [ Lev 23: 17: i1J"iln n,o O'J'Wl1 'JW 49 o'nw iI:J,m on, '~'::ln iI'iI" O',,:>::l i1J':J~n yon Lines 14/15 show extensive editing of the Hebrew text.

rather than the Feast ofWeeks. llQMeleh does have an affmity for Psalms of Asaph (82:1,2) in eommon with llQT (ps 83:6 in Col 58:20; Ps 89:5 in Col 59:15). 46 Yadin, 11, p 78; E.Tov, "The 'Temple SerolI' and OT Textual Critieism", (Hebrew) Eretz-Israel 16 (1982), P 105. 47 Yadin, 11, p 79. 48 DJD I1I, p 300. 49 LXX, Sam, Syr, and Targums agree against MT in ineluding n1;n here whieh supplies what is a required objeet.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

35

4.1 There are two additions. The first of these, VJ1n, places emphasis upon the iTlZnn nnJo of v 16. The second, O'tln on':>, also provides emphasis. This distinguishes clearly, by reference to Exod 34:22 (1'lP O'tln), that this first-fruits festival is separate from the first-fruits of barley described in the previous section. 4.2 There are several omissions from Leviticus 23. 4.2a There is insufficient space at the beginning ofthe line for ,~':m. It is implied here on the basis of its use in line 13. If we accept Y adin' s reading of the remains of a lamed at the beginning of the line, we may also accept his reconstruction with n]':>po on':>].so 4.2b The second omission is description of the bread as for the wave offering, il!::mn. This opens the question of whether the bread is assumed to be a wave-offering, or is rather a sacrificial accompaniment on the sarne pattern ofthe new wine in Col 19:16-21:02 (and may be assumed in the new oil in 22:02). Milgrom argues that the bread is not a sacrificial accompanimentS1 because the bread is not said to accompany the twelve whole-offering rarns as do the new wine and new oilloaves;s2 and, because the bread is leavened, it is ineligible for sacrifice. Against this argument lies the weight of the parallel commands for each of the festivals: those of new wine and new oil depend for their construction on that of the new wheat. If the wheat is not offered, then what is? Further, the description of the sacrifice of the twelve rarns appears at the beginning of Column 19, which is in such a fragmentary state one cannot rule out the presence of this offering. Beyond this, the balance of the argument will rest on the issue of the number of loaves being commanded here, two or twelve (dealt with below). 4.2c The number, o'mv, is moved to the end of this line, and the measure of flour given is omitted here to appear in line 15. n':>,o remains and appears again with the rest ofthe phrase below, to clarify the meaning of the line. 4.2d ilJ"iln becomes redundant, and is omitted. 4.2e ilJ'!J~n, 'baked', is omitted in favour of the addition of unn. Milgrom makes a valid point in arguing for its presence in the space at the beginning of line 15. It is, he says, "indispensible for knowing how

50 Yadin, II, p 79. There appears to be the traee of a lamedh in the erease in the ms just above the gap. 51 J. Milgrom, "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 71 (1980), pp 6-8. 52 As Milgrom, ibid, p 7, illustrates, the offering of the new oil ean be assumed at 22:02 on the basis of 22:03 (whieh eontains the proper amount from Num 15:9) and 43:9-10, whieh designates the offering as a sacrifieial aceompaniment 'on the altar'.

36

CHAPTER TWO

the flour is converted into bread".S3 We will consider this further below. For the moment we must note the result of all these changes. With sharp editorial pruning the author leaves the essential sentence remaining in a conflated text. This is what remains of Lev 23: 17: ... fon n~D ... cn~ ... il'il'~ C'1':J:J. 4.3 When we come to the end of line 14 and the gap at the beginning of line 15 we face an important question: how many loaves of bread are specified? In order to make a judgment about what we don't know we need first to examine what we do know about the influence upon line 15. 4.3a The first phrase in the extant text is n~'D C'J'1U711 ['JU7. As stated above, this phrase is moved from its place in Lev 23: 17. In N um 28:9 this is the measure ofthe grain-offering which accompanies the two lambs of the sabbath sacrifice, and at 28: 12 that which accompanies the ram offering at the beginning of the month. For Yadin the amount of flour is determined from Num 15:6, also related to the ram offering. 54 These are interesting alone from the fact of the influence of each of these in the preceding section. But their importance now is that each is the allotted measure for accompaniment to sacrifice. 4.3b The end of the line refers to "each cake" (il~nil). Yadin supplies m~n in his reconstruction of the beginning of the line, "twe[lve(?) cakes, two]-tenths offine flour",55 which is in keeping with LXX, Sam, Syr, and Targum ofLev 23:17, ... 'JU7 m~n C'nU7. m~n is thus a link-word which introduces a striking text that also shares the Scroll' sinterest 10 'two-tenths' . 4.3c The remainder of line 15 must be compared with Lev 24:5: llQT 18:15: Lev 24:5:

nn~il il~nil [il']iln n~'D C'J'1U711[ 'JU7 m~n il1U711 C'nU7 iln~ n'~~, n~D nnp~, nn~il il~nil il'il' C'J1U7l1 'JU7

This text pertains to the bread of the Presence, and is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the bread of the Presence is "an offering by fire to the Lord", and not a wave-offering. Secondly, this text is used in order to include the figure 'twelve' in the provision for sacrificial accompaniment. If we view the Scroll as merging Lev 24: 5 with 23: 17, then the

n Milgrom, ibid, p 8. ~4 ~~

Yadin, I, p 106. Yadin, 11, p 79.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

37

highlighted phrase above, that which Yadin supplies in his reconstruction,56 can be seen to fit precisely the gap in the Scroll between [J'Jl1ID17 and [J'nID. The n;o [J'J1ID17 'JID (other witnesses: 'JID nl;n [J'nID 0' J1ID17) of 23: 17 is conflated/merged with 24: 5. The author has skilfully edited these texts together, creating a biblical precedent for this offering, and specifying the number of cakes offered (nullifying Milgrom's implication to the contrary57). The difficulty which remains is that il:>~ is wholly omitted, though present in both biblical texts. We can only conclude that, in light of the severe shortening of the text here, the Scroll takes the baking as assumed. 5. 18:16: The Scroll now inserts an original extension to the commands of Leviticus 23. The phrase ;~1ID' ''O:lID; n[1]'07J[ appears nowhere in the Bible, and there is no parallel use of both terms together in other extant literature. ;i'nID' ''O:lID is a phrase common in the Deuteronomistic history and the Chronicler. Its usual use is to denote the whole of Israel (Josh 12:7), or that which is contrasted by separation from all Israel (1 Sam 2:28). ''O:lID; is used only of apportioning to, not from, Israel (Josh 12:7; Ezek 47:21, 48:29). The phrase is also found in Qumran sectarian literature in the same way (1 QM 2:7, 5: 1; 4QpIsad, 7). il'07J never appears with 'O:lID (and not at all in Qumran sectarian literature). Yadin supplies 'ID1~1 in his reconstruction. 58 With il'07J the biblical expression is always nl'07Jil nlJ~ 'ID~1 (cf Josh 14:1; Num 32:28); the phrase occurs with 'O:lID only of Saul as over all Israel (1 Sam 15: 17; cf 4QpIsad, line 7, where the "heads of the tribes of Israel" are likened to the gates of Jerusalem in Isa 54:12). Certainly Cols 19:15 and 21:2,15 do not require 'heads' ofthe tribes, but 19:16, "heads ofthe clans", may allow it here. From another standpoint we might look at second temple usage. ID~1 ~ n:l was the title for the head of the subdivisions of the priestly courses in the second temple. 59 In the War Scroll (IQM 2:2-3) twelve 'heads' of the Levites serve 'O:lID; ,n~, while "heads of the tribes" are after them. This sense of the assignment of priests or Levites "for the 56 This is undoubtedly the source of Y adin' s reconstruction, but is not spelled out by him. There is no mention of Lev 24:5 in the comments on 18:14-15, and a mere reference in his detailed discussion in I, p 106. Presumably the argument appears more self-explanatory in the Hebrew edition. 57 Milgrom, ibid, p 8. 58 Yadin, II, p 79. 59 Cf Schürer, History, Vol II, p 278.

38

CHAPTER TWO

tribes" ('D:lW') may be behind the Scroll's formulation, although the assignment is alm ost certainly of lay leaders, "heads of the houses" or 'clans'. The thrust ofthe line is the representation ofthe twelve tribes, which confirms the purpose of the use of twelve loaves in line 15. 6. 19:01-06: There are six lines mlssmg completely from the top of Column 19. Yadin proposes that the details of the burnt-offerings were given there, as in Col 20:2. 60 At Column 20 the missing lines are supplied with help from Rock. 43.975, and also include the grain- and drink-offerings appropriate to each sacrifice. In this column there remains room for more detail than this. By line 4 the use of Leviticus 23 is continued at v 18 or 20. This suggests that the lacuna from Column 18 is an extensive expansion from Lev 23: 17. The details of the sacrifice would follow Lev 23: 18 with Numbers 29 as a supplementary text (on the basis of its use in Column 20, the first-fruits of new wine). But the pattern of original expansion in Col 18: 16 allows for the possibility that the top of the column here includes reference to the tribes bringing loaves as an accompaniment to the sacrifices; just such a prescription Milgrom believes to be necessary but absent. 61 At any rate there is ample room in the missing lines for an extensive expansion before the Scroll returns to Leviticus 23. Presumably this includes mention of 'atonement' from Lev 16:33 as in Col 18:7,21:8, and 22:15-16. In the midst ofthis empty space a change occurs in the Scroll's use of Leviticus 23. Firstly, the text of Leviticus 23 is no longer followed so closely; and, secondly, Numbers 28, as secondary text, is reintroduced. 7. 19:1: Line one consists only of]1j:'[. Yadin sees this as 'j:'[:l, either from Lev 23:18 or Num 28:27, or both. 62 This is acceptable in view of what folIows, confirming what is said above about room for expansion in the missing lines. 8. 19:2: Line two reads ]"11 n~[. This cannot be traced to a specific source. 60

Yadin, I, p 106; 11, p 80.

61

Milgrom, ibid, p 8, and discussion above.

62

Yadin, 11, p 81.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

39

n/i1~111 n~ appears frequently in Leviticus63 and in other scatiered

instances. Yadin places this within a summing-up sentence which will repeat much ofLev 23:18. 64 Ifso, this must be a variation on the phrase illil'~ il~l1 1'il' found there. 9. 19:3: Line three contains only 1]lVl1 C'JlV[, 'twelve'. Twelve animals are stipulated in only three instances: Num 7:87, of bulls, rarns and male larnbs with twelve male goats for the sin-offering at the dedication of the altar; Num 29: 17, of bulls on the second day of the Feast of Booths in the seventh month; and Ezra 8:35, bulls with twelve male goats for the sin-offering (cf Col 18: 5) offered by returning exiles "for all Israel". This last phrase provides the clue to the choice of 'twelve' animals: both Numbers 7 and Ezra 8 are events which specifically include all of Israel, where the number is significant for representing the twelve tribes. Numbers 29 can be disregarded because on each day ofthe feast one less number ofbulls is sacrificed, so there is no particular importance attached to the second day, the numbers of other animals than bulls differ from each other, and none correspond to either Leviticus 23 or Num 28:27. We can conclude that the number is chosen to meet the need of the Scroll for representation of "all Israel". More light is shed when comparison is made to the later festivals of Cols 19: 16 and 22: 11. 65 In the provision made for the first-fruits of new wine twelve rams are offered, one for each tribe of Israel. Again, in 22: 11-13, one rarn is offered for each tribe at the feast of new oil. In each case the concern is for the representation of each tribe. The principle is taken from Numbers 7 and Ezra 8 (as shown above). The establishment of each of these feasts on the sarne pattern argues for the provision of twelve rarns here, rather than bulls. In Col 20:03 the enumeration of the other sacrifices follows Num 28:27 rather than Lev 23: 17 for the male larnbs and male goat, but other sacrifices are not known, due to the lacunae. On this pattern we may deduce that lines 2-3 follow Leviticus 23 in respect to these animals, but can only conjecture whether Leviticus 23 or Numbers 28 is followed for the number of bulls. There is no biblical precedent for singling out the rarns in the way these festivals do. 10. 19:4:

63 7:8; 9:7; 10:19; 16:24; and also, in form jl1nm mt Yadin, ll, p 8I. 65 As per Yadin, ibid. 64

40

CHAPTER TWO

In considering the following lines we have to weigh the evidence of the manuscript fragment Rock. 44.008 along with llQT, because Yadin incorporates it into his reconstruction of lines 4_9a. 66 Our method here will be to examine 11 QT by itself, first, and then add whatever information Rock. 44.008 may have to offer. Line 4 in llQT contains only ']~~Ji11 tl~lZ7rn[ .67 This is the end of one sentence and the start of another. ']~~JiT' appears to signal the return to Lev 23:20, il~'Jn O~"'::>:Jil on7 717 on~ lil::>il ~~Jill Line 5 confirms the likelihood of this by use of two keywords, O~JiT'::> and O~"'::>:J (although clearly in different order to Lev 23:20). 10.1 Rock 44.008:1 p, m.Jn[nJlJ. The first confirmation that Rock. 44.008 is useful here comes from Num 29:17-37, at the Feast ofBooths. On each day enumeration of the offerings is concluded with OnilJlJ' tl~lZ7lJ::> O"~DlJ:J O~lZ7:J::>7' 07~~7 O~"~7 OiJ~::>DJ' (v 18). This standard Numbers formulation is conflated with Lev 23: 18. Oil~::>DJ' OnilJlJ' is the expected conclusion to the summary of sacrifices, and the Scroll prefers the Numbers form. Rock. 44.008 supplies the clue to this phrase. 68 10.2 Reading the use of sources as areturn to Lev 23:18 followed immediately by reference to Lev 23 :20, we see that Lev 23: 19, calling for a sin-offering and peace-offering, is wholly omitted. Omission of the sin-offering at this point may be accounted for on the basis of what we have al ready suggested for the missing lines at the top of the column, i.e., that mention of 'atonement' on the pattern of Col 18: 7 would already have detailed the sin-offering. The peace-offering is unexpected in Lev 23: 19, as evidenced by the LXX addition of IlETO TWV OpTWV TaO lTPWTOYEVrlIlOTD:J[

70

1l.l Lev 23:20 is followed (as suggested above), referring to On? 0'11:>:J[il. Yadin' s reconstruction is acceptable, making 'the priests' the subject of "shall wave" of line 4, and "bread of the first-fruits" the object. 71 11.2 The Scroll 's use of 0')il1:> represents arepetition of the subject which introduces a new insertion. Rock. 44.008 very neatly coincides with this line: 01?:>~1 D~lil' 0')il1:> (the highlighted text indicates the RockefeIler fragment). The concurrence of 1'il' in both fragmentary lines, and the line measurements given above, argue for placing these phrases together. The role of the priests is emphatic here, and it is they who "shall eat them in the [inner] cour[t]".72 Y adin' s only support for supplying "the inner court" is an appeal to rabbinic halakha. 73 However, the case can be strengthened by reference to Lev 6:9, i11?:>~' 11110 ?il~ 1ln:J, and 6: 19, 11110 ?il~ 1ln:J ?:>~n. The first verse relates to the law of the grain-offering, and the second to the law of the sin-offering. The former is specified for Aaron and his sons, the latter for "the priest who offers it". The former provides an illuminating context, the latter the word-order. The Scroll makes the appropriate transfer of terminology from the tent of meeting to the temple (i.e., from 11110 ?il~ 1ln, cf 1]ln). Manfred R. Lehmann disputes Yadin's choice of 'inner court', arguing that we cannot be certain the Scroll would not allow the eating to take place in the "outer court" of the Temple as welI. 74 He offers as alternative

69 Cf N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London: Nelson, 1967), p 155; M. Noth, Leviticus (London: SCM, 1965), p 172, notes that no more is said of these sheep, and that they eannot be viewed as the same as the two sheep of v 20. 70 The koph in C'Jil1:::> should be given as uneertain (with a dot over it) sinee it is visible only by the keraia of its upper stroke. 71 Yadin, II, p 82. n Yadin's reeonstruetion, ibid. 73 m. Zebahim 5:5, and Maimonides' Code: Laws conceming the Manner of Offering the Sacrifices 9:4; 10:3; Yadin, ibid. 74 Manfred R. Lehmann, "The Temple Seroll as a Souree of Seetarian Halakha", RevQ 9 (1977-78), p 583. Comparing this rule to rabbinie haJakha, Lehmann points out that the· rabbis permitted the first-fruits to be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem by the exegetical rule of deduction QaJ wahomer (reasoning from the laws of the tithe). Lehmann then concludes that Col 19:5, by not following this rule, shows that "the

42

CHAPTER TWO

readings either iml~nil 1]ln::J or lV1i'il 1]ln::J. The latter suggestion has the merit that Lev 6:9 and 19 call for the offerings to be eaten in "a holy place". Its demerit is that the term appears nowhere else in the ScroIl, nor is any court described so generaIly. The argument against the outer court being included is that 'the priests' are specified, and the outer court is for "daughters and the proselytes" (Col 40:6-7). "The court of the Tent ofMeeting" must concur with the 'inner court' (n~7J~J~il 1ln) ofthe Temple, the "Priests' court" of 2 Chron 4:9. Col 37:10 further establishes the point. There the inner court is "for the priests, for their sacrifices, and for the first fruits and for the tithes." 11.3 The ScroIl substitutes the plural [n7:::1~' for il17:::1~~ of the sourees, because it refers to all the first-fruits offerings, which includes the grain-offering and the sin-offering as weIl as the loaves of new wheat. 12. 19:6: ]1n~, O~1':::I::Jil On7 illV[ 12.1 The only occurrence of O~1':::I::Jil On7 is Lev 23 :20, and we have seen it used in line 5. The repetition here is a continuation of the addition of the command to eat the bread in the inner court. 12.2 illV[ is reconstructed illV[1n ilnJ7J by Yadin. 7S This ties directly back to Col 18:13, and the beginning of the section on the 'new grain' offering from Lev 23:16. It also ties together with Num 28:26 (O:::l~n17::JlV:J il1il~7 illV1n ilnJ7J O:::l::J~1i'il::J). 12.3 Line 7 proceeds with a development of Lev 23 :22, which suggests that the ScroIl omits the ambiguous reference to the 'two lambs' for the priest (see discussion in line 4).

Line 7 presents us with another significant addition. Rock. 44.008 overlaps at this line. Indeed, it is upon the concurrence of m::J~:m that the case for placing this fragment here lies: ]m::J~:m 1%71n On7 0[. 13.1

m::J~:m

is not found in this form either in biblical or rabbinie

sectarians did not accept the principle of Qal wahomer for arriving at Halakhoth". This conclusion seems hasty, being based on a single instance alone. 75 Yadin, II, p 82.

43

THE FESTIVAL LAW

sources?6 The only source ofrelevance is Lev 2:14: C~i':J:lnmTJ ::::l~ipn n'il'? As in the reference to Lev 6:9, so here the pertinent texts for the grain-offering are brought to bear on the offering of new wheat. ~,?p ::::l~:m

13.2 m?~?TJ appears only in Deut 23:26 (1'~::::l n?~?TJ n~Op'). It would seem the form of m::::l~:m is influenced by this word and use. 1t is difficult to see what relationship this text can have to this festival. Yadin sees in this use an interpretation similar to Rashi's commentary on Lev 2:14, "the ripe ears (m?~?7J) are called ?7JiY,77 an interpretation dependent on the play on words in the Aramaic of the commentary! The tie between Deut 23 :26 and our context seems to be the theme of 'harvest' in Lev 23 :22, the command against reaping the harvest to the corners of the field. Deut 23 :26 is the other side of this command: neighbours are not to glean more from a field than "the ripe ears (n?~?7J) with your hand." Lev 23:22 is an awkward insertion in the festival provision?8 The Scroll does not use it directly, but draws instead from its parallel in Deuteronomy 23 for the synonym of ::::l~::::l~. 14. 19:8-9a: Lev 23:21 (MT):

n"::::l17 n:J~?7J ?,:J Cmi"? C?P17 ?:J::::l C?,17 npn '1V17n ~? n'::::l17 n:J~?7J ?:J

~,?

C:J~ni'? C:J~n::::l1V'7J The underlining indicates Rock. 44.008. Lev 23 :21 is the source for line 8. As with the direct use of Leviticus 23 throughout this section, editing is severe.

The Scroll reverses the order of the phrases, and omits ?:J::::l This omission moves the location of the festival from the towns to the temple. 79 Cmi"? C?P17 agrees with LXX alwvLOv 14.1

C:J'n::::l1V'TJ.

Ei"1. W e may discern what the antecedent of these words should be by comparison to the parallel Iines in the other feasts. In Col 18:7-8 the completion of the command "to atone for the whole people of the assembly" is foUowed by the phrase from Lev 23:14. concluding the commands for waving the sheaf~ this is appropriate to the specific feast, and does not apply here. In 19:4. more directly parallel. the repeated use of D~1VO as in the Feast of Booths ordinances from Numbers 29 was seen to be recourse to a standard formulation (and again above in 20:01) conflated with Lev 23:18. the summary ofthe grain- and drink-offerings accompanying the burnt-offering (il1;?l1; cf 19:2). In Col 22:04 the command D~1V[TD is followed immediately by il1V~ il~1il il"111 i11il'1;? mn'l n'1 (cf Num 28:27). This follows the command to "make atonement for all the congregation" in 22:02. separated by the provision for the grain-offering and drink-offering. The pattern of these paralleis suggests a combination of Lev 23: 18 with the base Num 28:27. using this Numbers 29 formulation for the ordinance. The phrase mn'l n'1 il1V~ does not fit here. and may appear below. There must. however. be reference to the il"111. We suggest that the missing portion begins with a form of i11il'" il"l1 1'i11 (cf Lev 23: 18). Whichever it may be. the large space in the RockefeIler fragment is not explained. and may not be present at all in 11 QT. It remains a puzzle. We are hampered in deciding with any certainty due to the unfortunate fact that the relevant lines appear in either the emaciated upper lines of the Scroll. or the fragmentary pieces of the RockefeIler Ms. If our

95 96 97

Yadin, 11, p 87. E. Qimron, "Further New Readings", p 31. Yadin, ibid.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

57

reconstruction is correct, 20:04 is another instanee of the Seroll editing the sarne text in a multiplicity of fashions. In 19:4 Lev 23: 18 is spread out over three lines or more. In 20:05 the sarne emphasis is paeked into one line. 2.8 20:06: [1:1'1" 01'il 11:11':1 il1il'?1 This is an expansion by the Scroll. 2.8a i11il'? may suggest that line 05 ended with the phrase common to Num 28:27 and Lev 23:18, il'lil'? mn'J n', i1tV~, as in 22:04. 2.8b O'l'il 11:11':1 does not appear in the Bible. 98 Only in 2 Kgs 6:25 does 11:i, appear, but there is no apparent linkbetween the "fourth of a kab of dove's dung" and the quarter of the day of the festival. The Scroll supplies an item of information absent from the Bible, i.e., the exact time of the sacrifiee of the burnt-offerings. 2.8c 'l:1"i"1 can eome from any sacrificial source, but is specifically the governing verb for both Lev 23:18 and Num 28:27 (il?111 On:1'i'i11). In both sources the verb begins the command, whereas it is placed here at the completion of the command. 2.9 20: 1: ]O'1J[ ]['l:1"i"'l 10Jil n~1 O'?'l[~il] nl[~] This restoration is through the combination of Rock. 43.975 and the first fragmentary portion of Column 20. 2.9a "The rarns and the drink-offering" is the conclusion of the description of what is offered at the quarter of the day, presumably the bulls and rarns of 20:05. 2.9b The repetition of :1,i' looks forward to the animaIs listed in line 2. These fourteen lambs are not burnt-offerings, because these have just been enumerated in line 03 (and there are only seven). These must be larnbs for the peace-offering. There are three reasons this is likely. Firstly, this is the value of the evidence of the Scroll (O'1J[?U7i1 n:1,.);99 secondly, because of the emphasis of line 3 that these are offered after the burnt-offering (cf discussion at line 3); and, thirdly, beeause of the fact that the sacrifices are then shared with all the people in the outer court (Col 21 :06-8). Thus the peace-offering appears at preeisely the point it should in relation to Lev 23: 19, after the sin-offering. In view of the omission of Lev 23: 19 in Col 19, and the total absence in the festival of new wheat of any shared sacrifice, this is an unexpected development.

98 99

Yadin, ibid. With Yadin, ibid.

58

CHAPTER TWO

N evertheless, viewing Lev 23: 19 as the base for diseussion of the peaee-offering, the word-form signals the use of Lev 3:9-11 as the base text of the following lines, C~7J"1Z7il n:l'r7J :J~'i'il1 (v 9a); but the supplement is Num 7 (vv 17,23, ete), the dedieation offering, whieh demands peaee-offerings ofyear-old lambs from tribal representatives (cf 21:06,2). 2.10 20:2: ]11Z711 ill1[:J'~ il)1Z7) [~):J] 1c~1Z7::O)[ Num 7: 17 (ete) ealls for only five lambs. 'Fourteen' lambs are ealled for on eaeh day of the Feast of Booths in Num 29 (v 13, ete), but the variable number of bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs, m1Z7 ~):J C~1Z7::O C7J~7Jn '1Z7~ ill1:J'~, are for the burnt-offering. The signifieanee of fourteen for the Seroll is elarified in Col 22: 11-13 (paralleled in 21:1-2, whieh pertains to the peaee-offering deseribed here): one lamb is for the priests, one for the Levites, and one for eaeh tribe. This figure, then, is in keeping with the Seroll's interest in representation for the whole of Israel in the previous festivals, and Numbers 7 provides a rationale for this. This does not explain why the number 'fourteen' suddenly appears, when 'twelve' has been the number for all of Israel thus far. 2.11 20:3: Line 3 stands by itself in transition between the general eommand for the peaee-offering and the details of the division of the animals on the new base of Levitieus 3. Yadin's reading is ]Cl1Z717' il"1ll7il J[,100 eonfirming the eoneurrenee of Column 20 with Rock. 43.975, line 13. Qimron, however, reads ]Cl1Z7l1~ il"'l1il ,n~[, from the infra-red photo (Plate 11 *).101

2.11 a ,n~ is a very diffieult reading, but the outline of the aleph is diseernible. Without the sense of "after the burnt-offering" we would be left with eonfusion over the purpose of this burnt offering. With this word the Seroll is seen to eontinue to provide speeifie direetions for the times of the saerifiees. 2.11b The use of il1Z7l1 for 'offering' is unexpeeted. The term is not used for the peaee-offering in Numbers, where :J,i' is preferred. Even in Levitieus this term is rare. il1Z7l1 is used of the sin-offering and burnt-offering presented for cleansing from impurities (15:15,30), and in

Yadin, 11, P 88. Qim.ron, ''The Text of the Temple SerolI" (Hebrew), Lesonenu 42 (1978), p 140. Yadin seems to acknowledge this tacitly in his otherwise unexplained reeonstruetion using ,n~ in his eomments on line 1, in spite of finding the readings 'dubious' (p 88). Yadin aetually ealls readings of lines 5-8 dubious, but Qimron only provides readings for lines 3-4. 100 101

59

THE FESTIVAL LA W

Lev 23 for the male lamb offered on the day of waving the sheaf, Cn'lV17' (v 12; and goat ofthe sin-offering in v 19). This male lamb seems to be the link whereby the Seroll maintains eontaet with the first-fruits festivals of Levitieus 23. Lev 23:12 is Iinked by its use of illV17 (C'lV17' is unique), and the offering ofthe year-old male lamb. The quantity is not important right now, but the eonneetion with the wave offering is important for Col 20:16. C~'lil C"~

2.12 20:4: ][n~llT.Jil ?17 '1'OP'[ Qimron: ]T.Jil ?17 '1'CP' C~I:mC02 Levitieus 3 now comes to the fore as the base text. Sinee 20:06 the Seroll has expanded on the subjeets, first, of the bumt-offering based on Num 28:27, then the peaee-offering based on Lev 23:19. The shift now is to a e10se use of Lev 3 :9-11, the law of the peaee-offering of the lamb. In line 4 the word-form is provided from Lev 9: 13(&17), ?17 10P" n~lT.Jil, substituting for Lev 3:9, C'T.J?lZm n~lT.J ~'1Pil' (which appeared at the start of the seetion, line 1). This is the deseription of Aaron plaeing the bumt-offerings on the altar in pieces. It is this action, not the bumt-offering, whieh is the interest of the SerolI. 2.13 The next three lines follow Lev 3 :9-1 0, with extensive editing of the base text. llQT 20:5-7a:

1lV~ p]?nil ?,::> n~,[ fC'~1Pil ?17

m'?::>il[ ][n~,l [1lV~] ~?nil n~, ill1'D' /[ ]17

Lev 3:9-10 (MT): C'T.J?lVil n~lT.J ~'1pm mil'? illV~ ilT:J'T:Jn iJ'?~iJ '::J?n ill1'D' il~17il nT.Jl1? r,;l1j?il n~ ilD;;)r:~ ~nil n~, 1lV~ :l iln S::> n~, :l1j2il ?17 n'?::>il 'nlV n~, 1lV~ ~?iln n~, lil'?17 n1n'il n~, C'?OOil ?17 1~~ ':Pil 17 iln'D' n'?::>il ?17

102

Qimron, ibid. Yadin's reconstruction is in agreement with Qimron.

60

CHAPTER TWO

The underlined portions of Lev 3 :9-10 are those which correspond to the remnants of the Scroll; those with double underlining indicate the portions of Leviticus 3 which can be reconstructed in the Scroll with a high degree of probability by comparison with Col 23: 14-17. The comparison also reveals that the Scroll's treatment of Lev 3:9-10 bears the influence of vv 14-15, the peace-offering of the goat. 103 2.l3a The opening words ofLeviticus 3 which are not highlighted can be accounted for elsewhere: c'o':1um n::JlO ::J"Pill has been discussed in lines 1 and 4. 1::J':1n i11il'':1 illViot may belong to line 3/4, [niotl illil'':1 ilWiot c::J':1n. "An offering by fire to Yahweh" occurs at both the beginning and end of the section Lev 3: 9-11, and occurs in a variant form in line 8. It is logical to look for it in line 3-4. With these notes in mind we are now able to suggest a partial reconstruction of lines 2-4: "And they shall sacrifice [as a peace-offer]ing[ ]/fourteen [male] lambs, one year [old,./..]after the burnt-offering, they shall offer them[ 1 as an offering by fire to the Lord, and] their fat they shall offer up in smoke on the altari... " 2.13b "The fat tail next to the backbone" does not start the ordinance as in Lev 3:9. Rather, the first phrase (based on Col 23:14) is the same as in Lev 3: 14, "the fat that covers the entrails." Vv 14-17 omit reference to the fat tail, and it appears the Scroll is initially influenced by this, only adding the fat tail at the end (line 7). In the process two redundant words are omitted: ilo'on is unnecessary because the offering of all the fat is already called for in line 4; the omission of iln'O' makes for a smoother sentence, without repetition. 2.l3c The next difference concerns the 'kidneys' of line 6. These are mentioned only on ce, not twice as in Lev 3: 10. It is dear that the reference to "and the two kidneys" has been omitted entirely, and the whole phrase, "and the the appendage of the liver and the kidneys he shall remove" is inserted in its place before "and the fat that is on them and that which is on the loins." V 15 has no bearing on this editing activity. The Scroll's purpose is to conflate and smooth the sentence. 2.13d The remaining item to note is the plural C'::J'P where the biblical text is singular. This is consistent with the change from one lamb to fourteen.

103

As Yadin, ibid; cf also Col 15:6-8.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

61

2.14 20:7b-8: [n],[nr) n'1 iHZ7~ ilT.DO)' mmnlO OlJ[ ... ]/[11'tl]P" Lev 3: 11 (MT): inil" iHZ7~ on, iln:l'TOil lil::>il '1'tlpil1 2.14a Comparison with Col 23: 16-17 supplies the gap, ":lil I1tlp" n:l'TOil 'lJ. 'The priest' is omitted in order to be consistent with the present context's third person plural commands. ,,::> is both summary of all that precedes, and emphatic. 2.14b The grain- and drink-offerings appear to replace the on, of Lev 3:11. This is the now standard Numbers 29 formulation (vv 18,21,24, etc).104 The insertion of this phrase here signals ahead to the discussion of the grain-offering in 20: 9-14. 2.14c [il'il"]lOSImn') n'1 agrees with LXX and Syr against MT: ÖOJl~ Euw5tac; KclpTTwlla (Syr qorban) KUpt4l. These may display a harmonizing tendency with reference to Lev 3: 16, where MT alone omits "to the Lord" (Col 23:8 agrees with LXX and Syr again). It might also be noted that this is the preferred phrase of Leviticus 23:18. 3 20:9-14: The Grain Offering

With the introduction of the subject of the grain-offering the base text shifts to Leviticus 2 (the law of the grain-offering). The treatment of the base text in this section is severe, indicating the importance for the Scroll of its own interpretation of the subject. 3.1 20:9: tl:JWOP 1D) ilOlJ :np 1W~ ilnlO ,,::> ':l'1pil' [ The subject, "any grain-offering", is introduced in an expansion of Lev 2: 1, 'J:l1P il'il' n'D mil" ilnlO p1p :l'1pn '::> W:JJl The following lines are commentary on this phrase. The key-word link is :l1p.106 3.1a The phrase ilnlO ,,::> is similar to the interest of Num 18:9 to summarize the law for priestly portions, which the Scroll (OnnlO turns to in line 15. The phrase is repeated in line 10 (according to Rock. 43.975), where Lev 7:10 is used. In this line the phrase makes a general

,::»

Cf 19:4, 20:04-05, 22:3, 23:5, 25:6. Against Yadin's reconstruction, ibid, of the beginning of line 9 as il1il' 'J!)". This disagrees with all the sources and with the Scroll usage. We should, rather, assume a small vacal between il1il'" and '~'l'il' in line 9. 106 Qimron, ''New Readings", p 163, reads only ~1' at the beginning of the line. Yadin, ibid, alludes to Qimron when he asserts in his commentary, "'~'1'il1 is seen clearly enough on PI. 11 *: 1." I cannot make out either ayodh or a final waw, but the latter would be obliterated by the tear in the skin. I cannot account for the form without yodh. 104 lOS

62

CHAPTER TWO

statement, and simultaneously signals ahead to the speeifie eommand regarding frankineense in line 10. 3.1b The signifieant addition to Levitieus 2 is the eoupling of the drink-offering to the grain-offering in every situation. This is in keeping with the instruetion ofNumbers 15, whieh does not separate the two, but ealls for both with every offering: ilnlTJ il1il'7 1J:np :l"PTJil :l"Pil1 10J7 r'1 ... n70 (vv 4-5). These verses must be the 'ordinanee' (O~IDTJ) referred to in Num 15:24, the only example given in Numbers 15 ofthe grain- and drink-offering together: O~IDTJ::J 1::JOJ1 1nilnlTJ. This eoineides with the end of the line, O~IDTJP 10J,107 and is another example of the standard formulation taken from Numbers. 3.1e The addition of ilTJl1 :l'P 'ID~, for whieh there is no biblieal parallel, emphasizes the eonneetion of the grain-offering with the drink-offering. 108 3.2 20:1O-11a: Lines 10-11 are a eonflation of Lev 2: 1b-2, with the influenee of two supplementary texts. llQT 20:10-11a:

Lev 2:1b-2:

il'711 :l'P 'ID[~] [ilnlTJ 7J[~ ilJ1:l7 il:nn

1~

il JTJTJ 1l1TJP' 1"OP'1

il'711 1m1 lTJID il'711 pl'1 IilJ:l7

iln['::Jl~] m~

n:llTJil 711

O'Jil::Jil l'il~ 'J:l 7~ il~':lil1 iln70TJ 1lTJP ~7TJ OIDTJ YCi'1 mTJIDTJ1 ilm:l7 7::J 711 iln'::Jl~ n~ lil::Jil "Oi'il1 iln:llOil il1il'7 nn'J n', ilID~

107 Remnants of the mem can be discemed in Plate 35, confImIing 001Z71J:J as the final word of this line. 108 iTC17 is an ambiguous and awkward word. It cannot be N~l!, because 10) is masculine. If it is iT~l?, it appears here in a different form from the biblical l'I1Jl1; which is used in line 7 (from Lev 3:9). Only Eccl 5:15 (MT; LXX differs) uses the word without lamedh yet still in the construct as this instance should be. It may be that the author, having just used l'I1Jl1; directly from Lev 3:9, uses it here almost unconsciously in a late form similar to Eccl 5:15. If this is the case, then it is meant to be truly emphatic, "every cereal offering which is offered alongside a drink offering". A third possibility is Aramaic influence, as in Dan 2:22.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

63

The highlighted type in Lev 2: 1-2 indicates those portions which are used by the SerolI; the highlighted type in the Scroll indicates the additions. 3.2a The first casualty of conflation is the phrase "and he shall pour oil on it". At first glance this seems significant: is not the omission of oil in keeping with the Essene avoidance of oil? The explanation is found by reference to the supplement by Lev 7: 10: 17JlV::J il?'?::J ilrl)7J ?:n il'iln 11il~ ~J::J ?::>? il::J1m (highlighted text indicates the SerolI). This is the source of the second 'every grain-offering', providing instruction for either dry or oily offerings. On ce again "mixed with oil" is omitted, its place taken by the 'frankincense' of both Leviticus 2 and the SerolI. The final product omits mention of oil, but implies it in the phrase 'or dry'. We are left, then, with a concise conflation of the two texts into a short phrase which 1. Milgrom rightly paraphrases as, "every mlnl),äh which has frankincense (either dry or oily) or which is dry (even without frankincense)."I09 The effect is not wholly to omit the use of oil, but to extend this law to every grain-offering, notjust that ofthe peace-offering, or indeed of the new wine festival (cf Col 22: 16, in the feast of new oil). In this process two minor textual changes occur. 1m is substituted by ::J1P in keeping with the goveming verb of the passage. In the use of Lev 7: 10 the substitution of1~ for waw appears to make no difference. 3.2b The Scroll omits all reference to the priests in these lines, and at no point mentions "the sons of Aaron". The omission is unmistakeable because both Lev 2:2 and 7:10 refer to "the sons of Aaron", and in line 11 there is no mention of 'the priest' who bums the memorial offering. Clarification depends upon who 'they' of line 9 may be. The Scroll has consistently used the third person plural as the subject of the commands. Although early in the festivals it appears the lay leaders are the subject of 'they' (cfCols 18:16, 19:14-15), the antecedent appears to shift by Col 20:06 in the command to sacrifice at the quarter of the day. This pertains to priests, and they may have been specified at that point. At any rate, only the priest can take the handful of frankincense to the altar (so it is in each of the sourees, Lev 2:2; 6:8; 7:10; cf Lev 5:11). The chief clue is provided from the context of these lines itself: after the offering 'they' eat the rest in the inner court (line 11 b), which is the priests' court (see comment in line 12); line 12 makes perfectly clear it is 'the priests' who eat in the inner court. The Scroll refers, then, to priests, but not to "sons of Aaron". Possible reasons for this are discussed at line 12.

109

1. Milgrom, "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 71 (1980), p 8.

64

CHAPTER TWO

3.2c CWO V0i'1 of Lev 2:2 becomes il)7J7J 1~10i" in the SerolI. This signals the influence of Lev 6:9-10 in lines 11-12 by use of Lev 6:8, 1~0i':1 1J7J7J C'1ill 110 3.2d The omission of "its fine flour and of its oil with all of its frankincense" (Lev 2:2 and 6:8) is consistent with the Lev 7:10 addition which encompasses all frankincense either with or without oil. 3.2e At the beginning of line 11 1'0i' and 1::>l~ are inverted from the biblical order, probably to smooth the style of the edited lines. 111 The word-form n:1l0il "11 1'0i"1 is from Lev 9: 17, which is a grain-offering 'of the people' (cf Lev 9:15). 3.2f Reference to the "offering by fire, a pleasing odour" is also omitted, having been spelled out in line 8. Overall, this treatment of Lev 2: 1-2 exhibits admirably the editing skills of the author. 3.3 20:11b-12: llQT 20:

ilOilO 1mJil n~1 n'O['J!)il]/1~n:1 "::>1' C'Jil1::>il C1"[::>1]~' [m~O]

Lev 6:9-10:

il)7J7J n1mJil1 1'J:11 11il~ 1":>~' 1~n:1 W1i' C1i'0:1 "::>~n m~o 11110 "il~ von il!)~n ~" m"::l~'

3.3a The opening phrase forms a neat transition to the eating of the priests' portion in line 12. The key-word link 1mJil is the point of over-Iap between the end of use of Lev 2, 11il~" ilnJOil 10 n1mJil1 'J:1"1 (v 3a), and the beginning of the use of Lev 6:9-10. 3.3b The phrases regarding the place of eating and who is eating are reversed by the SerolI. Each phrase requires comment. Firstly, the place of eating, 'the inner court', 112 corresponds to "the court ofthe tent ofmeeting" ofLev 6:9 (cfCoI19:5 and the correspondence of the tabernacle court with the "court of the priests" in 2 Chron 4:9). Specific mention of the "holy place", which does not correspond directly to the inner court of the Scroll's Temple, is omitted. 110 Milgrom, ibid, differs with Yadin on this point, saying Lev 6:8 would not need special mention by the SeroIl, sinee the grain-offering is expressly awarded to the priest. Nevertheless, Levitieus 6 is distinetly in the author's mind, as line 11 will show, in such a way as makes its inelusion here essential. Unlike the eontention either of Yadin or Milgrom, it is elear here that Levitieus 2 is the base, with Levitieus 7 supplying the necessary supplementary detail. 111 The obseure letters, iTn[, at the beginning ofthe line are whoIly invisible to me. The presenee of iT"lK is aceepted on the basis of Lev 2:2. 112 We have aceepted Qimron's reading of the text, ''The Text of the Temple SeroIl", p 140.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

65

Secondly, the Scroll finally mentions the priests, but once again at the expense of the sons of Aaron. The Sons of Aaron are mentioned only four times in the whole Scroll (cf 21:1; 22:5; 34:13; 44:5). The single certain instance in the Festival Law, "the priests, the sons of Aaron, [shall sprin]kle their blood", (22:5, feast of new oil) is remarkable only for its rarity; in Col 21: 1 an uncertain reading refers to "Aaron and his sons". These demonstrate that the author does not deny the Aaronic priesthood its place. Strictly speaking, mention of Aaron is not essential to the Scroll's presentation of this as Torah delivered on Sinai (Cols I? and 2). But this reticence to name hirn when his name would most enhance the pseudepigraphy points to the Levitical stance of the author of the SerolI. The SerolI, seeking to establish Levitical prerogatives, would not wish to emphasize the priestly family of Aaron. But, neither is his role denied. 3.3c The phrase fon "::>~n ~1" differs from both Lev 6: 10 and Lev 2:11 (fon iHVl1n ~"). Yadin is satisfied to explain this as simply a combination of these two sources. ll3 However, this does not explain the substitution of ,,::>~ for both il~~ and illVl1. This requires reference to Deut 16:3, fon 1'''11 "::>~n ~". This is a surprising reference to a Passover text which has no relation to the grain-offering. In this instance the reference to Passover is not important, but the instruction "not to eat" is precisely what was needed for this context. By means of this third term the Scroll is able to combine the base text and its supplement. 3.4 20: 12b-13a: lVOlVil [1'''][11 ~)[1:m ~1"1]/["::>]~n ~1ilil 01'::J The Scroll next inserts an addition which sets the time for eating the cereal offering. There is no biblical prescription for the peace-offering, so the Scroll bases this on that ofthe thanksgiving offering in Lev 22:30, 1P::J 111 1m 11'mn ~" ,,::>~, ~1ilil 01':1. However, the Scroll commands a more specific and restricted time limit by conflation with Deut 24:15, lVOlVil1'''l1 ~1:m ~"111::>lV lnn 101'::J. 114 The basis for rejection of the Leviticus 22 time can be put down to the difference in reckoning the end of "that day". For Lev 22:30 it is the morning; for the Scroll it is sunset. llS

Yadin, 11, p 89. This is in keeping with Yadin's comment on the stringency of this line, but explains it by prior reference to Lev 22:30, which Yadin does not note. The Sages (M. Zeb. 6: 1; Maimonides Code 10:7) appear to follow Leviticus. IIS Cf R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973), p 182. 113

114

66

CHAPTER TWO

3.5 20: 13b-14a: lIQT:

n~TJ

,mn ilr.DJ:J1'i' ~':::l ~11' /Tl[']:Jwn ~,~, rc~1l1~ n~TJ n'1:J)

Lev 2:13:

n~TJn n~TJ:J

lnmTJ p1i' ~:::l' n':Jwn ~~, Til~~ n'1:J n~TJ

lJ:J1P ~:::l ~11 lnmTJ ~l1TJ n~TJ :J'1pn The seetion on the grain offering eloses with areturn to the Levitieus 2 base. 1l6 3.5a The Seroll reduees the eommand to its simplest eomponents by omitting the repetitions of Levitieus (underlined text), the double use of 'salt' at the beginning, and by eonflation ofthe two eommands for 'every offering' (first phrase and last). The latter is done by substitution with the word ,mn. As Yadin states, this eombines both n~TJn n~TJ:J and :J'1pn. Again, a third term is used to bind two others together. ll7 3.5b FinaIly, the whole of the Levitieus 2 provision eoneerning the grain-offering is bound together with the provision for the priests' portion by the use of Num 18:19, ~'il C~'l1 n~TJ n'1:J. 1l8 Yadin's English translation, "sah of the eovenant", 119 eoneeals the point that the substitution replaees Lev 2:13's "sah of the eovenant of your God" with an eternal "covenant of sah". It may be argued that there is little difference between the two in the end, but the insertion of the Numbers phrase suggests that the difference is purposeful. There is something of the sense of 2 ehron 13:5 and the covenant between the Lord and the house

116 There is no explanation for the word-form change made by the Seroll from singular to plural here (i11Dl:l11p). Kaufman, "The Temple Seroll and Higher Critieism", HUCA 53 (1982), eites this as an example of the failure of inelination of the authors/redactors of either the Seroll or of the Bible to be consistent in achieving uniformity of eomposition. Here, he says, uniformity "almost seems intentionally avoided" (p 37). 117 Yadin, ibid, sees the use here of Lev 2:13 as related to 2:14, "if you ofIer the eereal-ofIering of first fruits ... " This important text for the subjeet has, indeed, been used in 19:7 (see there), but is not of direet influenee here. Lev 2: 13 is related to 2: 14 as is the whole seetion, but this does not govem this instanee. Rather, Lev 2: 13 is the eompletion of the inelusion of 20:9-14 based on Lev 2: 1-13. 118 Yadin, 11, p 90, deseribes this as an example of the editorial style of the Seroll "whereby all the biblieal references on a given subjeet are eombined in a unified whole". This ean be said of the whole of this segment (lines 9-14) dealing with the grain-ofIering. But, ifhe means this to refer to Iines 13-14 it is not accurate. The use ofNum 15:19 together with Lev 2:13 ties together two parallellines of development: the grain-ofIering and the priest's portion. 119 Yadin, ibid ..

THE FESTIVAL LA W

67

of David (in this case, the priests).120 N um 18: 19 also signals the use of Numbers 18 in the coming section. This ends the provision for the grain-offering, as it began, with Leviticus 2.

4 20:14 - 21:3: The Sacrificial Portions The next section is set off from the last by a vacat, and contains the provision for the wave offering (il:l1mil),121 designating the priests' portions (20:14-21:04), followed by the Levites' portion in 21:04-05, and the peoples' in 21:06-3. The first six lines of Column 21 are missing but partially restored on the basis of the RockefeIler fragment 43.975 (Plate 37*:1) from l1QTb . 4.1 20: 14b-15a: [J'ID::Oil 101 [J"h~il) [10]/ il01,n il1il'" 10"'1 Num 18:8-19 lists the priests' portions of sacrifices. These include the the first-fruits (n'ID~') of oil (1ill'), wine (ID1,'n), and grain (1l1) (v 12), and the il01,n, including all the wave offerings (v 11) whose portions are given in v 18. 4.1 a This section picks up the signal from v 19 in the final phrase of the preceding section and begins the subject based on that summarizing verse: ,,, 'nm il1il'" "~'ID' 'J::l 10'" 'ID~ [J'ID1pil n01,n ,,::>. The word-form in the Scroll is an insertion from N um 15: 19, il01,n 10',n il1il''', the general command to the sons of Israel to raise an 'offering' (sometimes translated 'heave offering') whenever they eat the "bread of the land". This idea is extended here to mean 'first-fruits'. The Scroll seems to use the terms il01,n and il:l1m interchangeably in Iines 14-16: the ilOnn from the rarns and larnbs is raised for a il:l,m. There is nevertheless a subtIe distinction, for it is the il01,n which is raised, becoming il:l1m. The offering is, in J. Milgrom's phrase, "one ritual of two motions", in which the offering is the necessary step preceding the wave offering. 122 This is seen most c1early in Exod 29:22-24, 26-28. In v 27 "the breast of the il:l1m and the thigh of the il01,n" appear to be used interchangeably; but in v 28 the whole is described as a il01,n. This is the governing term, just as in Num 18:9,19 See Noth, Numbers, p 137; Snaith, Leviticus und Numbers, p 268. We will maintain this terminology for convenience, while recognizing the inaccuracy ofthe translation. Cf J.Milgrom, "The Al!eged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East", Studies in Cultic Theology und Terminology (Leiden: E.J Bril!, 1983), pp 133-134, who believes "liT is better understood as 'to elevate'. 122 J. Milgrom, "The Söq Hattemma: A Chapter in Cultic History", Studies in Cultic Theology, pp 168-170. Cf also the article "Hattem2ptl', pp 139-158. 120 121

68

CHAPTER TWO

and in the SeroIl. One further observation from Exodus 29 is of value: in v 28 the ilO'1n is speeifieaIly from the peaee-offerings. l23 The Seroll appears to plaee the law of the wave offering here on the basis of this preeedent. We observed in Col 18:5 that eommands for the Ordination are used to govern later festivals. 4.1b The speeifieation "[from] the rarns and from the male larnbs" is original to the SerolI, there being no text whieh relates the portions of these animals alone. The referent is the animals of the peaee-offering (20:1-2). 4.2 20:15b-16: lil1[::JPil

mn O"n~il]m~, illnil n~, rO'il i"lV n~

O~lVil 0117 117 17'1l~il124 n~, 4.2a Num 18:17-18 apportions the flesh of first-born ox, sheep, or goat to the priests: rO'il i"lV~' il~mnil illn~ 1~ il'il' 01lV:J1. The Seroll reverses the order of the animal portions, against all versions, and the order in either Exod 29:27 or Lev 7:34. 4.2b The list eontinues in line 16. Mention of 17'1l~ loeates Deut 18:3 as the source, and makes the restoration possible:1 2S 171lil 1il~~ 1m, il::1pil1 O"n~il1. Deuteronomy 18:3-4, like Numbers 18, details the priestly portions from ox or sheep (the sheep is the pattern for the Seroll's applieation to sheep and roms, with special referenee to first-fruits offerings (of grain, new wine, or oil as in Num 18). The Seroll does not in this ease harmonize the two lists, but simply eombines them. 4.2c O~lVil 0117 117 is a significant addition by the SeroIl, having no biblical precedent. That it is of major importance is c1arified in Col 21:04 (and 60:7) where the rest of the shoulder is given to the Levite. The purpose of the addition is to extend the rights of the Levites. 126

4.3 20: 16c: il~:mn127 ilOm~ '~'J" The final phrase of the line is from Lev 7:30, r"J'Jil~ illnil n~ 'J~':J' 123 Mi1grom, "Hattemlpa', p 142, accounts the peace offering as an offering which particu1ar1y requires mmn. 124 The form found in the ScroIl, l1"l}lt, is also found in Jer 32:21 and Job 31:22, but not in the Pentateuch. 125 With Yadin, 11, p 90. 126 Yadin's thorough discussion of the imp1ications, supp1emented by Mi1grom's appendix on the shou1der, is weIl argued and shows adequate1y the controversy in which this section is set. The ScroIl' s addition is clear1y to be seen in a context of debate, and in conflict with what 1ater became accepted interpretation, rather than as hypothetica1 apriori argument. Cf Milgrom's discussion in "Hattenupa', p 143 n 18 (referred to by Yadin, ibid). 127 Qimron, "New Readings", p 163, observes that i1~mn is "written in smal11etters in the margin". From this we might deduce that the word was added 1ater as a correction.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

69

il~mn ,rm, the Leviticus parallel to Num 18:8ff which addresses the peace offering exclusively.128 The phrase is echoed in Lev 8:27, il'il' 'J~? ilmm cn~ rp'l The change to the plural 'them' is consistent with the context of the Scroll. On the pattern of these texts we can confidently complete the sentence with il'il' 'J~?, which would appear in the missing line 21:0l. 129

il'il' 'm?

4.4 21:02: [illn1 ilm1nn p,tv il'il 1[ No fragment of 21:01 remains. Col 21:01-06 are provided from Rock. 43.975. 4.4a Leviticus 7, seen in the final phrase of 20: 16, either remains or is once again the influence: ilO'1nn p,tv n~, il~,mil illn n~ 'J 1ilJil 11il~? cn~ 1n~, .. (7:34). The animal portions are inverted by the SerolI, as in 20:15. The use of Lev 7:34 suggests the reason is the determination to place the ilOnn before the il~,m, the proper Iiturgical order. 130 4.4b Lev 7:33, ilJO? rO'il p,tv il'iln '?, binds lines 02 and 03 together. Here it provides the antecedent, "to hirn" (meaning Aaron) which becomes "to the priests". J3J The 'portion' appears in line 03. 4.5 21:03: ImJO? m~::JPil' C"n?i11 n1[ Deut 18:3: il::lt?i11C"n?il' lJ1lil 1ilJ? 1m, The line may be reconstructed in keeping with Deut 18: 3. 132 4.5a The first question is why there is arepetition of the detail of the priestly portion when this has just been mentioned. It may be that 20: 14-16 dealt with male sheep and rams, and this applies to the ox, previously excluded. Or, it may be that the first mention, based on Numbers 18, drew on the first-fruits connection, and the second, based on Leviticus 7, emphasizes the peace-offering and summarizes the whole in preparation for the extra portion given the Levites. Which ever is the case, the formulation repeats the use of sources, and completes the description of 20:16. 4.5b Two minor issues appear. First is the switch to the plural for 'the forelegs'. This is accounted for best if the line is a summary. 128 Cf Yadin, I, p 152, who refers to Lev 7:30 and Deut 18:2 as in combination, without reference to Numbers 18, the base of lines 14-16. 129 Milgrom, "The Alleged Wave-OfIering", p 134, concludes that when the object of tenufa is deity 'l:i? is always mandatory, as opposed to temma which is always il'i1'7. This Jlresupposes a cultic ritual in the sanctuary. Cf Col 20:8, and n 105 regarding il'il'7. 130 This confrrms Yadin's reconstruction aithough he cites no source (11, p 92). 131 As Yadin, ibid. 132 Again, with Yadin, ibid.

70

CHAPTER TWO

The second issue is the spelling m~:::lj/. As Yadin notes, 133 the same plural form occurs in Neh 12:44. This 'aramaizing' feminine l34 indicates the lateness of the Hebrew of the text. The occurrence of this sort of spelling is intriguing in light of the common interest of both Neh 12:44 and the Scroll in the division of priestly and Levitical portions. 4.5c ml7J7 draws together the three sources al ready signalled in 20:15-16: Num 18:18, Exod 29:26, and the word-form from Lev 7:33 (cf line 02). In Lev 7:33, as in Num 18:18, it is the thigh which is the priests' portion; in Exod 29:26 the breast is the priests' portion. The Scroll clearly expands this, by the repeated inclusion ofDeut 18:3, to the foreleg, cheeks, and maw. iJl7J is an important key-word link, signalling influence from the Chronicler. In 2 Chronicles 31 the portion for the priest and the Levites is confirmed by Hezekiah: [J~17il1 [J~lil::lil nl7J nn7 (v 4, and 19). The people duly bring in "the first-fruits of grain, new wine, oil..and .. the tithe of all". (This is the focus of Hezekiah's reform for the Chronicler, in comparison to 2 Kgs 18:3-7 which is interested only in removal of the high places.) In Neh 12:44, I ikewi se, the portions of the il7J1,n, first-fruits, and tithes are restored to priests and Levites: il'1nil m~l7J [J~1771 [J~lil::l7 (cf also Neh 13:10-12; in these chapters the conduct ofthe Levites is extensively praised, while the priests rate only amention). These texts, with their attention to 'the portions' and the Levitical perquisites, provide a basis for the Scroll to speil out both priests' and Levites' portions, giving the Levites a share in what were otherwise priestly rights, i.e., the shoulder. m J. Milgrom takes issue with this interpretation. 136 He says that the term iJl7J in 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah refers only to tithes, and never to sacrificial flesh which is the issue in the Pentateuchal passages and the Scroll. His preference, rather, is to find the derivation of the Scroll's interpretation in Deut 18: 1, "the whole tribe of Levi ... shall live only ofLthe Lord's fire offering." Secondly, he argues that the Scroll's "literalist interpretation of Scripture" would not allow hirn to reduce the priestly portion; what the Scroll does instead, he asserts, is redefine the extent of 'the foreleg' to extend "as far as the shoulder". Finally, he argues that the mention of first-fruits in Deut 18:4 is unconnected to the foreleg of v 3/37 thus, the Scroll' s statute is not limited to the

Yadin, ibid. Kautzseh, Hebrew Grammar, §95 n. m This agrees with Yadin' s opinion of the basis for the Levitieal portion in the Seroll (I, p 155). 136 J. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SerolI", JBL 97 (1978), pp 504-506. 137 Milgrom, ibid. n'U7~' will be diseussed more fully when we eome to Col21 :8. 133

134

THE FESTIVAL LA W

71

peace-offering of first-fruits, but applies to the peace-offering in all its forms. We may look at these points in order. 1. Milgrom is correct that the Chronicler does not refer to flesh, for there is no mention of the peace-offering. But, on the other hand, the Chronicler is not concemed only with the tithe. Wehave shown how both the Chronicles and Nehemiah specifically relate the affirmation of priestly and Levitical portions to first-fruits offerings, and to the iilJl,n, as weil as the tithe. Thus there is a three-fold link between these texts and the Pentateuchal base texts in the SerolI: 'portions', first-fruits, and the contribution offering. 2. There is very little distance between Milgrom's explanation of the Scroll's means of dividing the foreleg/shoulder and that of Yadin which we follow here. The end result is to reduce the priests' portion. 3. Finally, Milgrom says there is no connection between Deut 18:4 and the foreleg of 18:3. We would contend that this is precisely the connection the Scroll makes, and that there is no connection in the Scroll's system between 18:3 and 18:1 which Milgrom says is the basis of the discussion. The "offering by fire" is not at issue, having been included in Col 20:8. The use of ii)lJ as the key-word link points specifically to the Chronicler passages, and away from Deut 18: 1 and p?n or ii?m. We have already drawn attention, in summary of the previous sections of the Festival Law, to the way in which the Scroll brings together supplementary texts with interest only in that aspect which provides the exegetical proof for the Scroll's argument. This can be seen now: Numbers 18 and Leviticus 7 have provided the base; Deuteronomy 18 expands the portions discussed. These are all drawn together based on the multiple links of the iilJl,n, first-fruits, and priests' and Levites's portions. The term 'portion' from Lev 7:33 attracts the Chronicler texts based on the same links. This explanation leaves the Chronicler references to the tithe aside. This is crucial since, by common interpretation, the Levites' portion is to be from the tithes alone. However, the passages are suitably ambiguous in their differentiation between contributions, first-fruits and tithes that the Scroll is able to use the ambiguity to include the Levites in portions of the offerings from the first-fruits. This law appears to apply only to the first-fruits festivals.

72

CHAPTER TWO

4.6 21:04: ][ lJ'1l~il 10 1~lVlil O:JlVil n~, ?~l[ The first of the line can be restored confidently from the base text Lev 7:34, ?~1lV~ ~):::J n~o O?,lJ pn? (cf Exod 29:26).138 The extant line is an expansion by the Scroll, explaining 20: 16 further: the remaining portion of the shoulder is applied to the Levites (see line 05). 4.7 21:05: [ilOlJ1l?' ilOil? O?,lJ p,n 1[ The standard phrase for concluding a section of law, as in Leviticus 7:36 139 is On1'? O,?lJ npn. The phrase as it appears here occurs in Exod 28:43 where it concludes commands concerning Aaron's priestly garments. No mention of the Levites survives in the fragments of lines 04-05, but in view of the summary in line 1 there can be no doubt that the remaining portion of the shoulder is for the Levites. The repetition of the formula concluding the priests' portion (the restoration of line 04) with the word-form of the formula conclusion applying to the seed 0/ A aron in this line is significant. The Levites' perquisites are placed on the same level as the priests'. 4.8 21 :06: [10' O~?~~ill [ ] I[)~~?~il ~1lVl[ Lines 06-3 shift from the description of the sacrificial portions to the "additional peace offerings"l40 presented by the twelve tribes. This subject may more appropriately belong together with lines 4-10. However, we will retain it here for two reasons: first, the provision made for eating in the outer court (line 3) paralleis 20: 11, and appears to complete the commands for the Levitical portions; secondly, line 3 seems to end with a closed paragraph space141 bracketing together 20: 14-21 :3. There is a shift, nevertheless, in style. From now on there is no clear base text. Numbers 28 and Leviticus 23 are occasionally referred to but are not prominent. Line 21:06 introduces, for the first time, O~~?~il ~1lV. In light of reference to the twelve tribes (O:::JlV and ilOO) in line 2, this title appears to be equivalent to the ?~1lV~ ~~?~ ~lV~1 of 19: 16. The repeated use of this terminology (cfCols 19:16 and 22:11-13) is striking when compared with the primarily military use of the terms in Cols 57-58 and with the With Yadin, 11, p 93. See also Lev 3:17; 10:9; 16:31; 17:7; 23:14,21,31,41; 24:3. 4QpaleoExm at The significant Qumran text which agrees 28:43 agrees with the form. npn over in orthography is 4Q508, 2:3 (Prieres pour les Fetes), C"l.1 n'Jl.1n ,1.1'l1J. 140 Yadin, I, P 110. 141 Yadin, II, p 93, queries the existence ofthis space. The reason for suspecting its existence is the apparent completion of one sentence before the end of line 3 and the beginning of the next sentence in line four, with Httle room for an entire sentence in between. 138 139

P'".

P'"

THE FESTIVAL LA W

73

Qumran literature most c10sely linked with this vocabulary: lQM 4:1-2, and lQSa 1:14,29. 142 4.8a To begin with, let us examine the biblical uses ofthe term. ,?~ is used in two manners: First, as in Num 1 and 26, a 'clan' (cf 1:16, 'W~1 tJm:J~ mUTJ '~'WJ ?~1W' '~?~)143 is a technical term for am ilitary unit. l44 The tJ'~?~ '1W are military commanders (Num 31 :48,52,54). Samuel predicts the appointment of such military leaders by the future king (1 Sam 8: 12); and Saul fuHills the prediction (22:7). 1 Chron 27: 1 describes the organization ofDavid's army divisions; in 2 Chron 25:5 Amaziah musters Judah under commanders of thousands. Second, ,?~ stands for a social unit, as in 1 Sam 10: 19 (tJ:J'U:JW? tJ:J'~?~?'; cf 23:23).145 Along this line, the Chronicler presents what appears to be a civil organizational structure: in 1 Chron 13: 1 David consults commanders of thousands and hundreds, and 'every leader' about bringing the Ark to Jerusalem; in 15:25 he go es out with the commanders of thousands and 'elders' to bring the Ark in; in 28: 1 David assembles all the officials of Israel (?~1W' '1W) to consult over building the Temple; in 2 Chron 1:2 he speaks to the whole assembly (?i1P), including commmanders of thousands and judges. Only in 2 Chron 25: 5, of Amaziah's muster, does Chronicles appear to use ?~1W' ,~?~ in a strictly military sense. While it is conceivable that all these instances could be interpreted from a military viewpoint, that sense is over-shadowed by the civil function of the officers. Even the one example of "commanders of thousands" outside the Chronicler material (1 Chron 27: 1) is not a straighforward military situation. H.G.M. Williamson describes the purpose of the redactor as wishing "to describe the Davidic era as one in which the whole life ofthe

142 These references serve the term C'!)?lotil '"W. See Col 19: 16 for other paraIleis in both lQM and lQSa. 143 J. Milgrom, "Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic Israel", in Studies in Cultic Theology, pp 15-16, renders the term ZOJ?l't as 'clan'. Milgrom contends that this is an ancient term which "goes back to the time when the clan structure was fully operative". Yadin translates Co119:16 this way, but not 20:06. CfN. Gottwald, The Tribes 0/ Yahweh (London: SCM, 1980), p 8, who makes it a subdivision of a clan. 144 Cf Gottwald, The Tribes 0 / Yahweh, pp 270-276. 145 Gottwald, ibid, pp 276-277, regards ZOJ'lot and iln!)1V1J as virtually interchangeable terms. R. de Vaux, A ncient Israel, p 8, considers ZOJ?lot to be a subdivision of iln!J1Z7rJ. Milgrom, "Priestly Terminology", p 15, believes iln!)1VrJ is the later term which replaces ZOJ?lot. In light of such divergent opinion we might be allowed to forge our own conclusions here.

74

CHAPTER TWO

nation was arranged in perfect order around the temple and its service."I46 The military order, then, is spiritualized. A similar move to a civil rather than military structure is seen in Exod 18:25. The "commanders of thousands" denote a division in an administrative unit, the thousand being the largest C1lV C17iT "17 C'lV~1 C'!J"~).147 In Exodus 18 Moses creates this judicial structure at Jethro's counsel. R. Knierim finds the setting of this organization in the period of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 19:8-10). For hirn the story is an aetiology seeking to legitimate a monarchical institution of civil judges, and the key is in "the military formulae which constitute the new juridical structure.,,148 The Scroll's use of the "commanders of thousands" does not readily fit either of these categories. There is no hint of a military role for these lay leaders. If they are equivalent to the Chronicler's officials, then they may be lay leaders who represent the people in the festivals. 4.8b We may next compare the use of the phrase in Cols 57-59. In 57:4 and 58:4 the "commanders of thousands" are military leaders, operating in "all their cities". Their function is clearly military, particularly in the defense of the land (Col 58). The source for the terminology is Deut 1:15, which is followed directly in Col 57:4. Deut 1:15 is the Deuteronomic parallel to Exod 18:25. Cols 57-58 interpret this organization militarily by reference, further, to Num 31:4,14. 149 All this is in contrast to the Festival Law, in which there is no suggestion of a military role for the "commanders of the thousands". The fact that the Temple Sero 11 contains within its columns two very different uses of the same term, and within two distinct segments of the Scroll, is evidence of the distinct sources which comprise the Scroll. These two sections of the Scroll, upon closer inspection, reveal divergent uses of the same terminology.

146 H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (London: Marshali, Morgan, and Scott, 1982), pp 174-5. 147 Cf Deut 1:15. Sam inserts Deut 1:9-18 after Exod 18:25. 148 R. Knierim, "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosäischen Gerichtsbarkeit", ZA W 73 (1961), pp 146ff. This setting is in keeping with the influence of 2 Chron 19:8-10 on llQT 57:11-15, on the selection of the king's council (cf 57:8, of the guard). 149 Taken on its own, the interpretation of the King's Law gives weight to the argument of G. Mendenhall, ''The Census Lists ofNumbers 1 and 26", JBL 78 (1958), pp 52-66, that "'}ot is the military unit of the clan, even though Milgrom, "Priestly Terminology", p 15, denies this. Although the oldest meaning of"'}ot may have been 'clan' (and this cannot be certain, cf n 145), it clearly developed a military dimension within the tribes' organization from an early point.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

75

4.8c Turning to the Qumran literature, we can see the same dichotomy of presentation. The term tJ'::l'~ '1lV occurs in 1QM and 1QSa. In lQM 3:16 and 4:1-2 the banners ofthe commanders are inscribed with their names. The banners described in these lines are among those of the 3: 12); other banners are used when going whole congregation (il1Vil into battle. The congregation is divided according to tribes (O:JlV), families (iln::llVO), myriads (~':J1), thousands (1"j'~)' and on to hundreds, fifties and tens. In this list 1"j'~ takes on the sense of a further subdivision ofthe family.lSO lQM thus retains an element ofthe 'clan' use, and, following the desert organization ofNumbers 1,26 and 31, develops the military terminology. The War Sero 11, in its military language, has little in common with llQT. It is only when lQM 2:3-4 is taken into account (cf Col 19:16), and one becomes aware of the application of warfare vocabulary to Temple service by the War SerolI, that common ground is found. The War Seroll spiritualizes the warfare. It inhabits amiddie ground between llQT 57-59 and the Festival Law. 1QSa, on the other hand, contains no overt military sense in its use of the term. 1QSa 1:29f lists those who are called to the council of the community. The same divisions appear as in lQM: commanders of thousands, fifties, and tens, along with commanders of the tribes (tJ'O[:JlVil '1lV]), judges and officers, and Levites. In Column 2 this council functions in the order of the common table. These officers have no military function, but neither can their role within the Community be described as civil. lQSa is similar to lQM in vocabulary, with the names of officers which do not appear in IIQT (tribes, families, judges, hundreds, fifties, and tens). But the role of the commanders of thousands is closer to the Scroll than to the biblical roles: in both the term seems to describe the lay leaders in Temple (or Community) worship. It may be that this is a technical term equivalent to the 10VO of the Second Temple and I QM. 4.8d The commanders ofthousands in Col21:06fare acting on behalf of the whole of Israel, as representatives of each tribe. Their function in lines 06-3 is to present the fourteen rams and male lambs. These are additional peace-offerings 1S1 which incorporate the whole nation.

,,:J;

150 Cf n 145. In 1QM the author seems to have little sense of biblical meaning of the tenns, and places ~'N on a sm aller scale; cf de Vaux, A ncient Israel, p 8. m According to Yadin, I, p 110, referring to S. Liebennan, Tose/ta ki-Feshutah V: Order Mo'ed (New York, 1962), p 1277.

76

CHAPTER TWO

["::>,,

4.9 21:1: ,n~ W::D ,n~ ,l[ Qimron: '['~ ']" ')::J" ,)::JC 52 The prescription for the numbers of rams and lambs in 21:06-1 returns to the first-fruits language of Numbers 28: ,n~ ,,~ (28:27, cf Col 18:2,9); ,n~ W::D (28:29; also Exod 29:39). The formulion is original to the ScroIl, building on the pattern of tri bai representation, which is a key issue in the Festival Law, plus separate allowance for the priests and Levites (cf 22:11-13; 20:2 counts 'fourteen' animals). Yadin's restoration of line 1 follows Col 22:11_12: 153

Qimron's reading is superior, taken from a photograph of the Scroll before being unrolled. It suggests reconstruction along slightly different lines (highlighted text is Qimron 's reading):

This presents two new phrases. 4.9a The reading "his son" is awkward. In this context this could only refer to "Aaron and his sons". This is a surprising introduction of Aaron in view of the omission of his name in Col 20:10-12 (though present in 22:5). The reading presents two difficulties: firstly, there is the singular, 'son', when the plural is required; secondly, in each other Scroll mention of Aaron it is "the priests, the sons of Aaron" . Clarification of the latter problem may come from the base texts. In Lev 7:31 the breast is given "to Aaron and his sons"; in Numbers 18, which is direct speech to Aaron, the portions are to "you and to your sons" (vv 8,9,11,19). These must have influenced the formulation in the Scroll. This leaves us with the only instance of direct reference to Aaron, rather than to his 'sons', the priests. As to the use of the singular, we can only suggest an uncorrected scribal error. Close examination of the photograph in Qimron 's reading discloses no room for additionalletters which may be illegible, or supralinear corrections. We are left with an awkward sentence in which the order of phrases is the reverse of those in 22: 11-13.

152 E. Qimron, "Further New Readings", p 31. Qimron uses the mirror-image from the photograph ofthe unrolled seroll whieh appears in Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law 01 the Dead Sea Sect (London: Weidenfeld & Nieolson, 1985), p 105. Plate 11 '" :2, in eomparison, reveals little of this same portion of the SerolI. 153 Yadin, 11, p 93.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

77

4.9b The reading "and to the sons of Lev[i" is further confirmed by the letters" in the top corner ofthe infra-red photo on Plate 11 *:2. This form of phrasing is under the influence of Num 18:21, ", 'J:J". The comparison to Col 22: 11-13 illustrates the variety of expression the Scroll uses in the multiple treatments of the same base texts. 4.10 21:2-3a: '1:J' 1m~ 1li:J:J 1n~[ ][ilDTJil I ['~11li' 'D:J1li 154 fl1li1[1' O'JIli n1]DTJil Line 2 combines the two terms for 'tribe' similarly to Col 18:16. The phrase "every tribe"m brings back into mind the muster of Israel in Num 31:4 (cf 19:14 for the same phrase). This threefold division of the offerings between priests, Levites, and Israelites once again suggests the Scroll is using terminology which refers to the respective courses on duty in the Temple (cf the Col 18:16 discussion, and comparison with lQM 2: 1_3).156 In CD 14:3-4 (cf lQS 2:19-20), with its division of the Community along this pattern (priests, Levites, sons of Israel), we can see the way in which the community sought to pattern its life outside the Temple according to the organizational structure of the Temple. 4.11 21:3: i11il' 'J:l, ilJll'nil 1ln:J l[Jl':J~,157 Deut 12:7 provides the pattern for this line as a whole: 'J:l, Olli On':J~1 OnnTJIli' O:J'il'~ i11il'. There the command is given regarding all the sacrifices, including the ilTJ'1n which are to be brought to "the place which God chooses" (12:5).lS8 This place becomes "the outer court" by means of Ezek 46:21 (ilJl'nil 1lnil; cf 42: 14). m?:Jlot' also finds an echo in Ezra 6:21, where the priests, Levites, and sons of Israel eat the Feast (il'1lilTJ O':Jlliil '~11li' 'J:J 1':J~"), after the proper purification of the priests and Levites who fill up the depleted numbers of the priests.

IS4 Following Qimron, ibid. The division between the two lines differs, and we follow Yadin for convenience in the numbering. ISS This idiosyncratic use of ilUTJ and U:::l1V in combination confirms Gottwald's description of U:::l1V as distributive of a larger entity. ilUTJ is the larger entity, the 'twelve' tribes (Gottwald, Tribes, pp 245-246; contra Milgrom, "Priestly Terminology", pp 12-13, who views ilUTJ as older and more specific). Finding both terms in his sourees, the author uses both. IS6 Cf Yadin, I, p 111, and our discussion at Col 18:16 and 21:06. lS7 Qimron, ibid. IS8 For rejoicing at feasts cf 1 Chron 29:22.

78

CHAPTER TWO

5. 21:4-10: Drinking the New Wine The final lines on the feast of new wine turn to the celebration by all the people in drinking the wine. The whole section is an original construct drawing on a vocabulary which provides numerous links to the Qumran literature, yet is still based on biblical sourees. 5.1 21:4: O')lV ]O",lnn 0')'lV'~11S9 [il7JlV ,nlV' O'I[)i11::Jil Line 4 begins by listing the order in which the new wine is to be drunk: priests first, and Levites second. The pattern of eating (21 :3), drinking (21:4), and rejoicing (21:8-9) "on that day" (which phrase, if it does not appear in line 3 certainly does in line 9), resembles the order of 1 Chron 29:22, il7"l iln7JlV::1 ~'ilil 0"::1 il'il' ')!J7 ,nlV" '7::J~'" as the whole assembly of Israel celebrates, with rejoicing, the presentation of offerings for the construction of the Temple. The likeness to CD 14:3-4 remarked on in line 2 is marked here: OnlV7lV 7~1lV' ')::1, O')lV 0"7i11 IilnlV~17 O[')ilPil (also 1QS 2: 19-20 and lQM2:1_6).160 We may once more observe that llQT describes the order of Temple ritual, whereas the sectarian literature applies Temple order to the daily spiritual life of the community. CD also adds a fourth group not included in the Scroll provision: the 'proselyte' (1lil). 5.2 21:5: ][il)'lV'11::1 0'7l'il '~'lV) 7~[1lV'161 Line 5 introduces a new term for lay representatives: O'?l'il '~'lVJ. The degel appears to be another unit in the hierarchy of command among the people along the lines of the 'thousands' mentioned above. These people are among the "sons ofIsrael", but precede the people as a whole. Yadin views them as equivalent terms, restoring the line with 'lV~'1 ?[~1lV' '!J?~ .162 Qimron, however, is probably closer in his suggestion of a phrase introducing the people as a whole, ')::1 7'::J il7Jil'1n~, 7~[1lV'.163 However, it is not characteristic ofthe Scroll to repeat words in the same sentence, so the use of il7Jil'1n~ seems unlikely. Comparison to CD 14:4 is apt, suggesting 7~[1lV' ')::1 7'::J n1lV7lVl 5.2a To understand the origin and role of the 0'7l1 in the Scroll is a complicated matter:

Rock. 43.975 speIls this C'J1Wlt". Cf Yadin, ibid, who assumed the Scroll is a Qumran sectarian document, and so addresses the same organization. 161 Qimron, ibid. 162 Yadin, 11, p 94. 163 Qimron, ibid. IS9

160

THE FESTIVAL LAW

79

The biblical sources are in Numbers 2 and 10. 164 Both chapters direct Israel in the formation of the army into its camps. The camps are divided into their 'households' ([Jm~ n'::l) under the leadership of a ~'lVJ (cf 2:3, Nahshon is the näSi' of Judah). Each household is directed, in Num 2:2, to camp "by his own degel, by the banners (rin~::l) of their father's households. " English translations ren der degel by 'standard' (cf RSV, NEB, and Yadin's translation in brackets), making 'banners' qualify degel. Against this common assumption must be placed one important consideration. Over "the degel of the camp of Judah" (Num 2:3) is the nasi' of Judah. This leader appears to be one of the [Jm~ m07J '~'lVJ of Num 1:16 who are further described as "heads of the thousands" .165 This similarity argues for the equivalence of the degel with terms such as 'household' and 'thousand', and for translating ~l1 in Numbers by a term such as 'battalion ' or 'host'. This suggestion is strengthened by comparison to Num 2:2 in the LXX (KOTO TcXylla; 'regiment' or 'brigade'), the Syr (twlqh, 'band' or 'troop'), and the rabbinie understanding of a 'division' in Num. Rah. s.2. 166 5.2b Turning to Qumran material we find use of the term only in the War SerolI, where there is no doubt that 'battalion' is the sense of the term. In lQM 3:6, the trumpets ofthe battle arrays are inscribed "Arrays of God's degalim for His wrathful vengeance"; in 4:10 the fifth banner (m~) of the congregation is ~~ '~l1. Other banners are for 'community', 'camp', 'family', and 'assembly'. All are terms for the whole army or its constituent parts. Finally, in 5:3 the degalim are formed of units of a 'thousand'. In short, the degel is used as the term for the largest tactical-organizational unit/ 67 followed by the 'myriad' and the 'thousand'. It is, therefore, not equivalent to the 'thousand', as it is in

Numbers, or its apparent use here in the SerolI. The term in lQM exhibits the characteristics we are now familiar with: a term used for a military function derived from liturgical imagery.

164 Num 2:2,3,10,17,18,25,32,34; 10:14,18,22,25. It also appears in Cant 2:4, but it is disputed whether this is the correct reading (cf LXX T ilOil',n~1 CID[170 5.3a The phraseology is that of 2 Chron 34:30, Cl1il ;::>1 C'1'7il1 C'Jil::>il1 lOP 1111 ;11l0. This text specifically provides a role for the people in the festival celebration. But it is particularly significant from its own context. In 2 Chronicles 34 'the king' (Josiah is unnamed after verse one) gathers everyone to the renewal of the covenant found in the rediscovered book of the law. The people gather as priests, Levites, and people (the same order as here in the Scroll). This pattern appears in the order of the Covenant Renewal ceremony in 1QS 2: 19-22: priests enter 'first', then Levites "after them" (Cil',n~), followed by "all the people", one after another, each "in his position" ('10110 n':J7J). The Rule does not use the vocabulary of 2 Chronicles 34 for this ordering, but does provide a hierarchy "from great to smalI". It is interesting that this concurrence of covenant renewal texts occurs in the feast of new wine, and not in the feast of new wheat which is also a Feast ofWeeks, for covenant renewal is thought to have been set in the latter (cfJubilees 6:17-18).171 5.3b 'The people' in the Scroll are the third category of "[the sons of Israe]l" of line 5, following the chiefs of 'battalions' (Iine 5) who are 'first', and what must be CID[il 'IDJ~ here in line 6. 172 The phrase "men of renown" appears only in Num 16:2, of the il111 '~'IDJ who joined Korah in rebellion. A variation occurs in 1 Chron 5:24 and 12:31, n10ID 'IDJ~. The closest parallel, however, is in the War Scroll once

Yadin, 11, p 255. Yadin, 11, p 94. 170 Yadin (ibid) and Qimron (ibid) identify inaccurately the letters ofRock. 43.975. Correction is made here. 171 See n 45 regarding discussion of Col 18:10-11. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London: SCM, 19822), pp 177-178. 172 With Yadin, ibid. 168 169

THE FESTIVAL LA W

81

again. lQM 3:3-4 and 2:6 both describe the ClVil 'lVJ~ (as in the SerolI) as il117il m~ 'lV~'. This combination of terms (cf line 5) points back to Numbers as the common source of vocabulary in these texts (cf also Col 42:l3-14, providing booths for the Feast of Booths: il117il /"Jpl? m~il 'n::J 'lV~'? C'~'lVJ?).173 In the War Scro/l the men of renown are summoned to 'the assembly' (11710il, 2:7)174 to choose warriors for the thirty-three year battle. In lQSa 2:11ff, by contrast, the men of renown are summoned to 'the assembly', in order to eat a meal of new wine and the first-fruits of bread. 17S These men (who include chiefs of tribes, chiefs of thousands, and Levites, cf 1:29-2:2) are the representatives of the whole congregation at the table. Once again, as we saw with the dega/im, the War Scro/l 's uses imagery familiar to temple worship in a military context. The Rule, on the other hand, seems to develop Community practice, with terminology much like the SerolI' s, from biblical temple ritual. 5.4 21 :7: ?1:J[~]?1LX1?1 [lV1n 1" mnlV? 1?n'l ]C'J~lil 10176 101::J1 C'::JJ17 The sources of this line are difficult to determine, but the implications are far-reaching. 5.4a Yadin provides biblical instances of each word/ 77 but their applicability to the understanding of this festival is not always apparent: 1?n" in lQM 16:9, has in its favour only the paralleis in the preceding lines; the falling corpses ofthe skirmishers do not apply here. 178 Of more value are 1" mnlV? in Isa 5 :22, evocative ofthe imagery ofIsrael as the vineyard; and, :lJ17 in Deut 32:14, descriptive of God's blessing upon Israel. While these are illustrative of the terms, there is no evidence of influence.

The next line includes C'!)'N '11V as weIl. See also Yadin, War SerolI, p 268, comment. 175 The similarity of the IQSa 2:11 phrasing to IQM 2:6 and IIQT in their dependence upon Numbers 1:16, etc, suggests a new possibility for reconstructing the lacuna in lQSa 2:14-15: /[']1Z7N' 'N11V' '!)')N is the common rendering (e.g., Lohse, Vermes). In light of the evidence seen here we should read il117il n1:::l)N /[')1VN'. 176 Following Qimron, ibid, although unable to be certain regarding the presence oC;':J[N)'l This uncertainty is reflected by showing Yadin's reading ofN" as weil (11, p 94). 177 Yadin, ibid. 178 The word probably represents late Hebrew. A more interesting parallel is in y. Demai 7:4, "and he may at once commence drinking". Cf Maimonides' commentary (Jastrow, Dictionary, p 469). 173

174

82

CHAPTER TWO

5.4b Two references are of special interest because of their bearing on the presence or absence of ~1; in the command to eat (the uncertainty is indicated above by underlining). If the Nazirite law ofNumbers 6:3-4 is followed, then this may contain a prohibition against eating unripe grapes: ;::>~, ~; .. O'"; o':m" ilnUr ~; 0':1l17 n11277.J ;:n. If the promise of a renewed covenant is followed, as in Jer 31 :30, 1ti:lil ;::>~il 01~il ;::> 1'J127 ilJ'ilpn, the text might be interpreted by the Scroll as a prohibition rather than a deelaration. 179 In this case a negative will be expected. Whatever the interpretation, the texts complement each other: Numbers 6 providing O':JJ17 and Jeremiah 31 "lO:J. Qimron provides a more accurate reading, by reference to the photo in Yadin's The Temple SerolI: the Hidden Law 0/ the Dead Sea Sect,180 which reduces the amount of room left for reconstruction and thus casts doubt on the presence of the negative. The result is that the entire command is reversed: the people begin to drink new wine and to eat unripe grapes from the vines. This makes a significant difference to the command! A elose examination of the spacing in comparison to both Yadin and Qimron shows that there is probably less space than Yadin allows, and less certainty over the remaining letters than Qimron suggests (there is no sign of the first lamedh in either case). But the balance of the textual evidence is slightly in Qimron's favour. The answer must come from a eloser look at the texts involved. First of all, we must ask why the Scroll would follow the Nazirite prohibition against eating grapes but ignore the first prohibition, against drinking. Secondly, we must ask whether the plain reading of Jer 31:29-30 would convey the sense of a prohibition rather than a deelaration. Further, the Scroll combines imagery which relates to Israel's role as God's chosen vine, and texts which speak ofIsrael's disobedience, within the annual celebration of the wine harvest. In this context, a positive command to eat and drink would make this festival a deelaration of faithfulness, of covenant relation: the people, by eating and drinking, nuIlify the slur of Jer 31 :29, and fulfill their vows (Num 6:3-4); God has proved his faithfulness by providing the harvest, as in Deuteronomy 32. 5.4c FinaIly, the phrase 1271" 1" refers us back to Col 19:14 and Lev 23: 13, the base text underlying the whole section (see comments there).181

Yadin's interpretation, ibid. Qimron, ibid. Cf n 152. 181 One additional textual note: Yadin finishes line 7 with ';:) from Rock. 43.975. This does not appear anywhere in either manuscript, and should be included in brackets, as Qimron shows. 179

180

THE FESTIVAL LAW

83

5.5 21 :8a: W,,'n1il ~11 ,-v.l:J' illil C1P':J ':J] 5.5a Mention of 'atonement' brings attention back to Lev 16:30, C:J'~l1 '~:J' illil C":J ':J (cf Lev 23:28), already influential in Col 18:7 and basic to Col 26:7,9 (esp Lev 16:33). But the significant aspect of this use is the basic difference in the object of the atonement. In the Scroll it is 'the wine' for which atonement is made, whereas in Leviticus 16 and 23 atonement is for the sake of the people (as in Cols 18:7 & 26:7). The importance of this shift is highlighted by contrast with the witness of Jubilees 7: 1_6,182 where the account is given of N oah' s feast upon first drinking the wine produced from the first grape crop. On that day Noah made a burnt-offering "in order that he might thereby seek atonement for himself and for his sons.,,183 Jubilees views the offering, including the sprinkling ofthe wine in the fire, as an atonement for (upon) Noah, based on Lev 16:30. At this point, while the Scroll and Jubilees otherwise share important aspects of ritual for new wine, they diverge distinctly. This divergence opens up two possible interpretations of the purpose of kipper in this context. Yadin believes that in the atonement the wine is "to be purified and consecrated for the drink-offering".184 That is, the wine is to be drunk only once a year, at the feast. For David Rokeah, on the other hand, "to atone" means "to perform the religious rituals that release the new wine and grapes for consumption".18S Likewise, J. Milgrom translates kipper by 'ransom (sacrificially)' and 'purgation', saying that "the first fruits release the rest of the crop for profane use" .186 In this view this ceremony is the beginning of continuing consumption. Yadin's interpretation is an attempt to reconcile Josephus' report of Essene abstinence with the presence of wine in lQS, lQSa and lIQT, (on the assumption that the Scroll is a sectarian document).187 If we look at this text without the presupposition that it is an Essene document, and read the line in view of Qimron's superior reading of line 7 (i.e., without the prohibition), then the alternative interpretation follows naturally. As Rokeah puts it, "the drinking of the new wine and the eating of the new

182 Cf footnote in Yadin, I, p 110, and referenee in J. Milgrom, "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 71 (1980), pp 10-11. Neither eomments or draws implieations from this note. 183 Jubilees 7:3, from translation of O.S. Wintermute, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2, p 69. 184 Yadin, I, p 110. 185 David Rokeah, "The Temple SerolI, Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud", JTS 34 (1983), p 524. 186 Milgrom, ibid, also finds ;;n to be equivalant, as in Deut 20:6. Cf Rokeah, ibid, p 525. 187 Yadin, I, pp 11 0-111.

84

CHAPTER TWO

grapes, ripened and unripened, is permitted only after the perforrning of the sacrifices; before that, not even unripened grapes may be consumed.,,188 To summarize, the object of 'atonement' in this part of the festival is the wine itself. The clear insertion of Day of Atonement wording (Lev 16:30), however, draws attention to the purifying intent ofthe atonement. In some way the atonement is seen to pertain to the land, confirrning the faithfulness of God and the people to the covenant relation. 5.5b The wine is now termed 1Z7,,'n instead of 1Z71n 1" for the first time. This confirms the applicability ofNum 18:12-13 to the discussion of priestly portions in Col 21 :03, with the offering of the 'fat' of the oil, 1Z7,,'n, and grain as 'first-fruits' (n'1Z7~'). 2 Chron 31: 5 supplements Numbers 18 again here, with identical vocabulary. The term is central to the common meal of the community in both 1QS 6:4-6 and 1QSa 2: 18-20. It is these texts which Yadin attempts to harmonize with Josephus' account of the Essene meals and its omission of mention of wine. His proposal is that these ritual meals were the substitutes for ceremonies prescribed by the Scroll on the feasts of first-fruits. The basis for this is the use ofn'1Z7~'::Jm'1Z7~', suggestive of the first-fruits meals of Numbers 18, etc. 189 Rokeah takes issue again at this point. He is unhappy with this interpretation ofn'1Z7~' which he says "deprives the word 'beginning' of its literal meaning" He translates 1QSa 2: 19-20 "the priest stretch es out his hand first to say the blessing, at the beginning of [the eating ofJ the bread or the drinking ofthe wine" (1Z7],,'ni11 tOn?n n'1Z7' n~ l'::J[rJ ~,n] On?::J '1' [n?1Z7l 190 Rokeah is half-right, as is Yadin. Rokeah's translation suits lQS 6:5 better: 1Z7"'niT'~ On?n n'1Z7~'::J l'::Jn? m,1Z7'? n' n?1Z7' lil,::>n. n'1Z7~'::J may properly be given the sense "at the beginning" (cf Gen 1: 1) in this instance. But the text differs in 1QSa, and here is where Rokeah is wrong and Yadin correct. In lQSa 2:17-20 both senses appear. The first can be seen in parallel to 1QS 6, "no one is to stretch out his hand before the Priest, at the beginning of[eating] the bread and [the wine] «(1Z7"'niT]' On?n n1Z7'::J)." The second is required when the Priest "blesses the first-f11lits of the bread and the wine ([Jn?n n'1Z7' n~ (1Z7],,'ni11)." The use ofn~ for the direct object requires such a translation. 191

Rokeah, pp 525-526. Yadin, I, pp 140-142. CfJosephus' Warii: 130-13I. 190 Rokeah, p 523. Cf 1. Baumgarten, Review 01 the Temple Sero 11, JBL 97 (1978), P 588. 191 This is more than simply 'the best' of first-fruits, as in Schürer, History, II, p 259. 188 189

THE FESTIVAL LA W

85

The distinction is significant. 1QS describes the daily common meal whenever ten men gather. This meal carries ritual importance. But with this translation 1QSa becomes more than this. It is the "messianic meal" in the presence of the whole congregation. It is a first-fruits meal. As such, 1QSa 2:21 b-22 appears as an adaptation of lines 17-20 to 1QS 6. 192 Discussion of n'1Z7~1 is apropos the term 1Z7'1'n in Numbers 18, shedding light on the combination of first-fruits vocabulary in the Scroll. As 1Z7n'n is synonymous with 1Z71n 1", so is n'1Z7~1 equivalent to 0'1':JJ. Olm] [p,n]Jil'iP ['J]::1? ?~11Z7' 'JJ ,nTJ1Z7" ilTJil'n1J1Z7'TJ ?,:JJ ilTJ {il , }n11'1?193 The second half of line 8 is the beginning of the final senten ce of the SerolI' s treatment of the wine festival. In these lines are linked together two texts which began this section in line 4. The first is Deut 12: 18, il'il' 'J::1? nnTJ1Z71, in the specific context of eating the tithes of the first-fruits offerings "at the place where God chooses" to put his name. 1 Chronicles 29 set the pattern of rejoicing in line 3. In v 9 all the 'people' rejoice. These form an inclusio on the final section. Line 9194 follows Lev 3: 17, O:J'nJ1Z7'TJ ?:JJ 0:J'n11? 0?'17 npn, the end ofthe peace-offering commands which were the base for Col 20:4-8 (Lev 3:9-11; cf also Lev 23:21, which returns to the base text). 5.6 21 :8b-9:

5.7 21:9b-1O: 1:J1Z710J 10J?[ / O'rJ ,nTJ1Z7' [il 1J1Z7J ilJ1Z7 il'il' nJlTJ ?17 1Z71n 1" 5.7a The end ofthe line repeats the command inline 8 to rejoice, with the same sourees. This phrase is influenced by 1 Chron 29:22, O"J ilnTJ1Z7J ~'ilil (cf Jubilees 7:1-6). 5.7b Line 10 returns, in the end, to Numbers 28 (i11il'? 1:J1Z710J 10il, v 7).195 This is the strong drink-offering belonging to the tamid, but is an appropriate addition to the wine offering. 5.7c i11il' nJlTJ ?17 reflects Deut 12:27, keeping Deuteronomy 12 in view, though it is the blood of the sacrifices which is poured out (l::11Z7, not 10J). 5.7d The phrase ilJ1Z7J i1J1Z7 (repeated twice in Col 22:14-16) is a

192 Cf M. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: University Press, 1987), p 155, who considers that this legislation "although intended for the last days, bore some relation to actual practice within the community that lays behind it". 193 Accepting Qimron's reading, "New Readings", p 163. 194 Not commented on by Yadin, II, pp 94-95. 19S Yadin, 11, p 95.

86

CHAPTER TWO

common Deuteronomic phrase/ 96 but the most striking use is in Neh 10:35-36 in the annual supplying ofwood to the Temple service (cfCols 23-24). Wood is to be brought "year by year" in order that "the first-fruits 7] il[rJn]1::l01 illil 01'rJ

11QT 19:11-13:

il7J:>7 ilrJn[1::l0'] 01'rJ il1V1n ilnJrJ On7 [n~/i1]1il'7

n~ ilrJ:>~':Jil

11 QT 18: 10-12:

[il:>7]li1n1::l0' mrJ'rJn mn:J1V 17:J1V n~ ilrJ:>~':Jil 01'rJ il::llmil]l1rJ'17il

THE FESTIVAL LAW

mlJ:JIV i1lJ:JIV /illJIVn C' OlJ:l lJ:JIV C1' C'lJ:J'~' mn:JIV lJ:JIV ill"i1n mo'on n'n100 1lJ n'lJ':JIVi1 m:JIVi1 C,' c'IVon "':lon

93

C',,:J:Ji1 mlJ':JIV i1lJ:JIV

mn:JIV lJ:JIV i1J"i1n]/ mo 'on n'n17J7J 1 [lJ n'lJ':JIVi1 n:JIVi1 C,' c'IVon "':lon

n'n17J7J 1lJ "':l[on n'lJ':JIVi1 n:JIVi1 C,' [C'IVOn]I1,,~on

1.1 a On ce again the phrase n:JIVi1 n,noo is absent, strengthening the argument for viewing the phrase as a gloss.198 1.1 b In place of naming the previous festival as in both previous passages (i.e., "from the day you brought the new wine offering to the Lord") the Scroll simply says "from that day". 1.1c This formula expands Col 19:11-13, retaining the phrase i1lJ:JlV mlJ:JIV I99 from Deut 16:9, and thus satisfies the syntax problem of Lev 23: 15. 200 1.1 d The further expansion is a compounding of counting formulae which emphatically establishes the "morrow of the sabbath" of Lev 23: 16 as 'Sunday'. The expansion is an adaptation of the Jubilee-year calculation of Lev 25:8, rin:JIV lJ:JIV '0 l' ,'i1, C'OlJ~ lJ:JIV C'JIV lJ:JIV illIV C'lJ:J'~' lJIVn C'JIVi1 (highlighting indicates the borrowing). The reference to forty-nine 'years' becomes 'days' in the Scroll. 201 The result of the catalogue of expansions 202 is the emphatic drawing of the reader's attention to the placing of the first day of each new festival on Sunday. The calendar described is surely the solar calendar, being urged in

preference to a lunar or luni-solar calendar. 203 The interpretation of the Scroll can be seen against the backdrop of debate over the correct calendar. 1.2 21:14b-15a: '~'[IV' 'J]:J mO[O] m':JIVoo IV1n 10IV i10n:J'pi1' Lev 23: 16c-17a: c:J'n:JIV'oo /il'i1', i1IV1n i1nJO cn:J'pm The offering of "new oil" is now explicitly mentioned.

See diseussion at Col 18:10fI. Waw defeetive spelling. 200 Cf Sweeney, "Sefrrah at Qumran", p 64. 201 Sweeney, ibid. For diseussion ofthe Jubilee see CoI18:11-13. 202 CfLevine, "The Temple SerolI: Aspeets", p 9, who points out this "eumulative efIeet", but reaches the opposite eonelusion. 203 See Yadin' s diseussion, I, pp 116-119. 198 199

94

CHAPTER TWO

1.2a ilOn:npii1, confirms the reconstruction in Col 19: 14, and contrasts with the substitution of ilOm~~:Jii1 in 18: 13. 1.2b The continuation of the use of Lev 23: 16 simply substitutes 'oil' for 'grain', just as was done in the wine festival. 1.2c ii1il~" is omitted (cf Cols 18:14 and 19:16). On one hand this may be accounted for by considering the purpose of the oil: as an ingredient in the grain-offering it would not need to be offered independently, as do the grain and wine offerings. However, it is more likely the omission here is due to the substitution ofii1il~ ~J!J' in line 16 (using Lev 23:17). 1.2d The Scroll' s reading of Lev 23: 16-17 makes c::J~m:JIV'oo a part of v16 rather than of v17 (as in English translation and verse divisions)?04 This is expanded to "the dwellings of the [tr]ibes of the s[ons of Is]rael." For "the tribes of the sons of Israel" compare '~'IV~ moo in CoI19:14, which is itselfparalleled in line 15.

IV,n

1.3 21: 15b: n~n::J 10IV ilOOil 10 ,n~ rilil n~lno l.3a The measurement of oil from each tribe, half a hin, is found nowhere in this form. "Half a hin" of oil in Num 15:9 is the amount to be mixed with the fine flour of the grain-offering which accompanies the burnt-offering of the bul1. 203 This contrasts with Col 19:14 where the figure of wine for each tribe is consistent with the third of a hin for the ram in Num 15:7. There is no evident explanation for this shift. What is particularly interesting here is the use of Numbers 15 at the same point of each festival. The use of Numbers 15 in Col 19 involved the shift of drink-offering material into the role of new wine offering. The use here lifts the measurement of oil out of its grain-offering context and elevates it to the place of new oil offering. It also suggests that the chief animal offering with the new oil is the bull, and not the ram. 1.3b The phrase ilOTJil lTJ ,n~ is not biblical, but is a variation of moo ',::JO of 19:14, a use ofNumbers' terminology (cf 31:4)?06 This is now standard Scrollianguage for the representation ofthe whole ofIsrael in the Festival worship. 1.3c n~n::J 10IV is specified for two purposes in the Bible. One purpose is the perpetuallight (Exod 27:20; Lev 24:2; cfCol 22:1). The other is the grain-offering accompanying the tamid (Num 28:5; Exod

204 Note the waw defeetive spelling by the SerolI. The two examples in these few lines of failure to give plene spelling against the MT are unusual. 205 Cf Yadin, 11, p 95. 206 Yadin, ibid, p 96, suggests Num 1:44, ilDlJ? 1nN ilUO? 1nN 1Z7'N 1Z7'N (Sam, LXX), is closest. The immediate eontext is not applieable, exeept for appropriation of wildemess imagery.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

95

29:40), which is ordered in Col 13:12. Num 28:5 provides information regarding the oil which is not specified in the rest of chs 28-29, and thus serves as a pattern for each occurrence of oil. Exodus 29:40 was seen in the grain-offering of Col 18: 5, and the ordination material of that chapter influences Col 20: 15. 1.4 21:16: jJ'jJ' ')!l' 0"':>::1 jJ'1l7jJ n::1l0 'l1'jJ~'[ 1.4a Line 16 is an expansion by the Scroll providing directions for the presentation of this new offering. l.4b The final phrase, jJ'jJ' ')!l' 0"':>::1, is the continuation of Lev 23: 17, jJ'jJ" 0"':>::1. The new oil offering is equivalent to the new wheat offering of Col 18:14/19:6, and the new wine of 19:14-16, each being derived from this verse. The use of ')!l' appears to be under the influence of Lev 23 :20, jJ'jJ' ')!l' jJ!l,m O',,:>::1jJ. The substitution seems arbitrary, since mjJ" is used in both previous festivals. 207 This shift is probably due to the emphasis in this festival on the jJ"l1 of the bull which, according to Lev 1:3, is offered "before the Lord". There is consistency of omission of any mention of the jJ!l,)n at this point in any of the festivals, because it is provided for under the sacrifices which follow (cf 20:16).

2. 22:01-8: The Sacrifices The missing top lines of Col 22 are partially restored by Yadin from Rock. 43.976. The only point of direct contact with llQT is the occurrence of the phrase rc'!l)'~jJ "lV 0[208 at 22:2 and Rock. 43.976, line 6. One other pos~ible contact is the mem which appears in the first line of Plate 12*, which may match the lOlV of line 5 of the RockefeIler fragment. The placing of the fragment here is accepted by subsequent scholars (at least tacitly).z09 On the basis ofthis evidence we will accept the correct placing of this fragment, and examine it accordingly.

207 J. Milgrom, "The Alleged Wave Offering", in Studies in Cultic Theology, p 134, differentiates between 'l!)' and il'il" (cf n 129). The Seroll appears to be ineonsistent here. 208 Yadin, II, pp 96-97. We eontinue to use the half-brackets to enelose the text of the RockefeIler fragment. 209 E.g., Maier, The Temple Scroll, p 28; Caquot, "Le Rouleau du Temple", pp 461-462; Gareia-Martinez, "EI Rollo dei Templo", p 258; Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p 135.

96

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 22:01:

Yadin: C'[111:Jill ]C['::11i'il 210 Qimron: Cl;:J~[1 ]C[ ]211 Line 22:01 consists only of fragments of letters. The lower portions of a final mem comprise the first letter of the fragment. At the end of the line C' /Cl is clearly discernible, preceded by what may be 111. The fragmentary letters do not resemble Qimron's reading at all. Thus, we agree with Yadin this far. However, the letter before the resh does not look like a kaph. On balance Yadin's reading is more likely, which is in keeping with the commands regarding sacrifices which begins here. The possible influence of Lev 1:9, l'111:Jl l::11i'1 (and 1: 13), adds to the weight of the 21: 15 emphasis on the bull of the burnt offering. 2.2 22:02: hJ::I; il111il ;1:J ;111::1 1 1[ 2.2a All that is visible of the resh is the keraia, but no other letter is a suitable alternative. Any other letter (such as waw or he) would have left evidence of the down ward stroke, for the fragment has room for such a stroke below the keraia. This allows for Yadin's conjecture of1[::I:J. 212 Yadin assurnes this is the bull for the sin offering, as in Col 16:14-15. 213 Such a use contrasts with the paralleis in Cols 18:7 and 20:04, which also use the phraseology of Lev 16:33, ;ili'il Cl1 ;:J ;111 1::1:J" for the first-fruits sin-offering of Num 28:30 (1n~ C'tl1 1'l1ID C:J';l1 1::1:J;), with the ram. This would be an unexpected shift both from the rarn to the bull, and of the burnt-offering of 21: 15 and 22:01 to a sin-offering. It makes more sense to see a shift to discussion of the bull, but specifically to the bull of the burnt-offering. 2.2b The form of the phrase is elose to Col 16: 14, ;1:J ;11] 1::1 1::1:J'1 ;ilj/il/[Cl1. There is no biblical example of this use of 1::1. The unanswered question is whether the antecedent is the animal of the sin-offering, or the new oil (cf 21:8; 22:15-16). 2.2c Although the line follows Lev 16:33, the word-form this time is from Num 15:25, ;~1ID' 'J::1 ml1 ;:J ;111il:Jil 1::1:J1. These texts were seen together in Col 18:7, with their emphasis on the incorporation ofthe whole of Israel in the sin-offering. Here, however, it is the bull of the burnt-offering which provides 'atonement'.

210 Yadin, II, p 98, on the pattern of Lev 1:9,13, which discusses the burnt offering. 211 E. Qimron, ''New Readings", p 163. Yadin notes this in II, p 97 (his presentation of the fragment laid out in accordance with Col 22), but makes no comment in his notes on the line proper. 212 Yadin, II, p 98. 213 Yadin, ibid.

THE FESTIVAL LAW

97

The precise phrase il111il ~:J ~11 occurs but twice in the Bible. One is Lev 10:6, where Moses acts to prevent the sin ofNadab and Abihu from kindling the Lord's wrath "against all the congregation". This is an interesting text because ofthe role ofEleazar, a favourite character ofthe Levites, and important for their ancestry. In Lev 10:7 Eleazar and Ithamar are kept separate because the "anointing oil" is on them. The second occurrence is Num 16:22, where Moses and Aaron intercede at Korah's rebellion that the Lord not be angry "against the whole congregati on" (cf Col 21:7 for Num 16:2). This specific phraseology, then, provides another example of the Scroll's diverse treatment of a single text. These allusions add to this bumt-offering of the festivals the sense that the sacrifices and offerings assure God's favour; disobedience is atoned for. il111 is the term preferred to ~ilP in Qumran literature, e.g., lQM 2:5, where the chiefs of the courses stand watch on their festivals and at the bumt-offerings and sacrifices 1ml1 ~1:J 111::J '~:J~. 2.2d No suggestions have been made for the continuation of the line with 'J~~. This appears to be arepetition ofthe command in Co121:16 to offer the first-fruits il1il' 'J~~. 2.3 22:03: Irilil n'lnrJ illil lrJlV::J ~[ The "half a hin" is the same as in 21: 15. At this point the grain-offering accompanying the bumt-offering of line 04 must be in view, as in Num 15:9, rilil 'ln lrJlV::J ~1~::J C'J1lVl1 illV~lV n~o ilnJrJ. 214 The Scroll adds illil, reversing the order of emphasis from the Numbers "flour mixed with oil" to the appropriate "this oil, mixed with flour". The grain-offering, significantly, is made with the new oi!. The emphasis is on the new oil offering, presented as a grain-offering accompanied by the bul!. 2.4 22:04-05: lil1il'~ mn'l m', illV~ il~1n21S il~111 D~lVl[rJ:J Following on the use ofNum 15:9 this line continues with Num 15:10, il1il" nOn'J n', i1lV~ rilil 'ln lOl~. The drink offering is omitted here because this offering pertains specifically to the new oil, and the grain offering is mixed with new oil. The phrase refers back to Lev 23: 18/Num 28:27.

214 Yadin's reconstruction, ibid, is evidently based on Num 15:9, though he does not refer to this text. 21S The text of Yadin contains an error here. In each transcription of this line (11, p 97 of Fragment I; 11, p 98, in the text; and again in the notes for lines 04-05) the il~'il of Rock. 43.976 is given as ~'il.

98

CHAPTER TWO

2.4a D~lZ1[7JJ is another instance of the standard Numbers formulation applied to the festivallaw (cf Cols 19:4; 20:05; etc). 2.4b Yadin relates this line to the bull of the sin-offering by comparison to Col 16: 10, where the sources of the ordination text are Exod 29: 18 and Lev 8:21. 216 But, as he says, "in both passages the word order differs slightly .,,217 The fact remains that the context of the Scroll does differ from Col 16: 10, and that the sources being used in these lines are bumt-offering texts, i.e., Num 15:9-10, and the precise word-form from Lev 1:13, il'17 il1il" n"n'l n'1 illZ1~ ~1i1 (cf 1:3,9, above). The interjection of il'117 ~1il is the point at issue because this phrase affirms that this is a bumt-offering. J. Milgrom suggests the answer to the problem is to define il'117 according to Ezra 8:35, in which the sin-offerings are included with those sacrifices which are completely bumed on the altar. He submits that there are two kinds of sin-offerings: the ordinary one, as in Lev 6:23, in which the priest eats the meat, and this rarer kind as evidenced in Ezra 8:35 in which the meat is not eaten but is bumed. The context of the Scroll thus far, he says, is the sin-offering bull, so this must be rendered "it should be wholly bumed".218 The argument for influence from Ezra is persuasive. Ezra 8:35 is already the basis of the figure twelve for the sin-offering of Col 19:3. But the context ofColumn 22 is not the sin-offering ofLev 23:19, rather it is the bumt-offering bull ofLev 23: 18INum 28:27 now elevated to the chief sacrifice to accompany the first-fruits of oil. The bumt-offering bull is substituted for the rarns of the wine festival. 2.5 22:05-1: ]i1:1 m1[ ]1';1 m1l:1 11'17:1' /illiT 17JlZ1iT219 2.5a iTlil 17JlZ1 is arepetition ofthe phrase in line 03. The antecedent for both is the n'nJ 17JlZ1 of 21: 15, showing now that both uses of this phrase (for grain-offering and for the perpetual light) were intended and are subsequently given in detail. 2.5b The phrase m1l:111'17:1' occurs nowhere in this form. However, the two words appear together in 2 Chron 4:20 (Cil'Ii1l1 m'il7Jil D~lZ17J:> 0117:1') and 13: 11 (:1117:1 :1117:1 117:1' il'Ii1n) of the perpetual

Yadin, ibid, p 98. Yadin, ibid, p 70. 218 J. Milgrom, "Further Studies", pp 15-16. Milgrom cites Col 15:12, as weIl as 16:12, as parallel usage. There is no suggestion of a sin-offering in Lev 6:23. 219 The line divisions are those proposed by Yadin, ibid, p 99. 216

217

THE FESTIVAL LA W

99

light. 220 This similarity to Chronicler language indicates at least familiar Second Temple terminology. 2.5c We cannot confirm Yadin's reconstruction of the connection between Rock. 43.976 and IIQT, because even the "tiny remnant" of lamed is invisible to inspection?21 But the fragment of 22: I, m1[, refers either to the mi:JrJ, or overlaps the Rockefeller fragment. The two references to "this oil" emphasise the purpose of the new oil which is offered as first-fruits. The oil which is presented is to be used for the grain-offerings (especially the offering of new oil), and to keep the lamps burning in the holy place. 2.6 22:2: '~'][lV:J Cl] C'I:J7~iT '1lV C[ The connection between the Scroll and Rock. 43.976 at this point was shown in the introduction to the column. 2.6a The "commanders of thousands" appear here in similar function as the C':J7~iT 'lV~1 of Col 19: 16, who also appear with the peace-offering in Col 21 :06 as C':J7~iT '1lV (see the full discussion there). This line begins the peace-offering provision of lines 2-8a, parallel to Col 21:06-8. 2.6b The '~']lV:J appear in 21:5 as C'7l1iT '~'lV:J.222 This is no doubt the proper restoration of the next phrase. That these leaders appear 'with' the commanders of thousands here establishes that the two must not be viewed as synonymous in 21:5. 2.6c If this reconstruction is accepted, then the final mem at the beginning of the line cannot refer to C'7:11 as Yadin prefers. 223 Perhaps we might read C[':J7~iT 'lV~1, as in Col 19: 16. The resulting sentence would make both "commanders of thouands" and "leaders of battalions" titles under "heads of thousands". This may even be preferable to reading C[lViT 'lV:J~ (for which cf 21:7) which would be out of hierarchicalorder: men of renown should follow leaders of degalim. Whatever the final choice, this line combines the diverse vocabulary of lay representation from the preceding festivals into one. This is another example of the Scroll's tendency to expansion within multiple treatments of the same text or subject (cf the counting formula, and 'atonement' in each festival).

220 221 222 223

Yadin, II, p 99; Judg 15:5. Yadin, ibid. As Yadin, II, p 98. Yadin, II, p 99.

100

CHAPTER TWO

2.7 22:3: ][ilO::>OJ1 {il }OnnJ01 ,'1v11 ill1:J'~[ ]:J 0[224 2.7a The fourteen male larnbs offered here parallel the peace-offering in Col 20:2, using the Num 29: 13 figure on the Numbers 7: 17 setting (see the commentary there). This festival thus omits mention of the twelve rarns which accompany the new wine offering (19:16-20:02), and the burnt-offerings of seven year-old larnbs (20:03), the sin-offering rarn (20:03-05), and the bulls (20:05), but begins with details of the peace-offering (cf 20: 1-8). 2.7b For the grain- and drink-offerings compare Col 20:8. The Numbers 29(: 18, etc) formulation is an addition, because peace-offering legislation nowhere stipulates accompanying grain-or drink-offerings. 2.8 22:4: ]~ '1' 'J:J 10mZ71 0'e2S 2.8a The fragments at the start ofthe line may weIl be O"'~il, as in 20: 1/26 in which case it concludes a summary statement regarding the offerings preceding the peace-offering. 2.8b In Col 21:1 the phrase '1' 'J:J'1 carne from Num 18:21, the text on priestly portions which had served as base text in the preceding lines. The present occurrence reflects this prior use, but there are additional connections to note. Firstly, Neh 10:40 directs the "sons of Levi" (with the sons of Israel) to bring the il01,n of "the grain, the new wine, and the oil" (cf 2 Chron 31:4, and Col 21:03) into the storehouse. Secondly, Ezek 40:46 speaks of the priests who keep charge of the altar, the sons of Zadok "from the sons of Levi". Secondly, Yadin refers to Ezek 44: 11 (& 15-16), which gives the Levites authority to slaughter the burnt-offering (il'l1il n~ 10mZr), and 2 Chron 29:34, where the Levites assist the priests who are too few in number to handle the burnt-offerings (cf 29:22, the sacrificing of peace-offerings) at the reinstatement of the sacrifices in Hezekiah's reform. 227 To these may be added 2 Chron 30:15-16, where priests and Levites consecrate themselves to bring burnt-offerings at the feast of unleavened bread, and the Levites relay the blood of the sacrifices to the priests (see 224 Three points regarding the text: 1) I can see no sign of either beth or mem, so the reading of Numbers 29:13 depends on the presence of ill1::J'~; 2) Only the keraia is left at the beginning of the RockefeIler fragment. Yadin reads this as a resh, which links perfectiy with Col 22:3 ]1Z711, a most convenient join; 3) Yadin's text, ibid, does not note the supra-linear he above cnnl7.l in the RockefeIler fragment. 225 I can confmn only these two letters at the beginning of the line. There is no space between these letters and 1Un1Z71, as Yadin provides (ibid). 226 Yadin, ibid. 227 Yadin, ibid.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

101

line 5). In each of these instances responsibilities normally reserved to the priests are extended to Levites for special and unusual reasons (e.g., insufficient consecrated priests). The same applies to this passage of the Scrol\: the Levites are given an assured role in the slaughter of sacrifices?28 Thirdly, these texts provide the context to evaluate the theory of B. Thiering, that '1' '):::1 signifies one of two kinds of levitical classes, i.e., Levitical priests as opposed to Levites. She points out that in CoI44:14, "from the sons of Levites" is amended by erasure to "from the Levites". Further, she says, here in 22:4 the reference is to Ezek 44: 10-11 which reads just 'Levites', but the Scroll adds "sons of Levi". On this basis Thiering sees a purposeful differentiation between the two terms in which "sons of Levi" are priests. Finally, she points to the use of the term in Deuteronomy, "on which the Scroll is heavily dependent (Deut 17:9; 18:1; 16:11,14)."229 The evidence of the sources does not support such a contention. The Deuteronomic phraseology Thiering refers to is '1' '):::1 O')il::Jil (21 :5), and not '1' '):::1). The Scroll at no time refers to the sons of Levi as priests. Rather, the next line specifically names the sons of Aaron as the priests. The chief source for the phrase here is not Ezekiel 44, but Numbers 18. 2.8c The significance of the role given the Levites is c1arified by reference to the verb 10nlV. Lev 3:2, the source for line 5, calls for the one who is offering the sacrifice to slaughter it (cf 1: 11), nn:l 10nllJ1 11710 ,mt By ordering the Levites to slaughter the peace offering animal the Scroll places them between the man who offers and the priests. 2.9 22:5: 1001 n~ 11'il~ h):::1 {0')il1::Jil}230 1pl['''11 The priests are now for the first indisputable time called "the sons of Aaron". In the fragment of Col 21: 1 the priests appear to be styled "Aaron and 1his son(s)", derived from Lev 7:31 and Numbers 18 (cf 1 Chron 6:49). The phrase comes from the peace-offering context of Lev 3 :2, :::1':10 n:::1,.Oil '17 01il n~ O')il::Jil i'il~ '):::1 1p,,.1 (cf Lev 1: 11, n~ 101). There are two observations to make: Firstly, the RockefeIler fragment adds 'the priests' in a supralinear correction, and in doing so reverses the order of the phrase as found in MT, LXX and Sam ("the sons of Aaron, the priests"), but in agreement Cf Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SerolI", p 502. B. Thiering, "Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple SerolI", JBL 100/101 (1981), p 63. 230 This is a supralinear eorreetion in Roek. 43.976. 228 229

102

CHAPTER TWO

with the Syr, "the priests, the sons of Aaron" (in both Lev 3:2 and 1:11 ).231 Secondly, the justification for the placing of the "sons of Levi" and the priests in this relationship between the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood is found in 2 Chron 30: 16, C'1~iT 1'0 C1iT niot C'p1l C'liT:::>iT. The Levites slaughter the animals (cf v 17), and the priests sprinkle the blood on the altar. 232 2.10 22:6: ]iT n:JlO ~11 11'CP' iTo:J~n[233 This line is virtually the same as Col 20:4 where the word-form of Lev 9:13 (& 17), n:JlOiT ~11 1CP'1 appears in the Lev 3:9 base. The subject of the next section, sacrificial portions, is signalied by the influence of Num 18:17 in lines 5-8: iTWiot 1'Cpn c:J~n niotl n:JlOiT ~11 p1ln C01 niot iT1iT'~ n"n'l n'1~. 2.11 22:7: c)':J~niT ~11 11'CP' iTO:::>Ol1[ This line is an expansion by the Scroll which, by repetition, emphasises the action. Thus, the sources are the same as line 6. The chief addition is mention of the drink-offering (and, presumably, the grain-offering) as in Co120:8 (cfLev 3:11). 2.12 22:8a: iT1iT'[~ ]mn'l The conclusion to the commands for the peace offering is the same as Col 20:8, [iT1iT', n]1[n)'l n'1 iTWiot, from Lev 3: 11 (agreeing with LXX and Syragainst MT and Sam iT1iT'~ iTWiot Cn~), and Num 18:17, making a neat transition to the next topic. The commands for the sacrifices in the feast of new oil are much shorter than in the new wine, where the bumt-offering of 20:3 is spelled out over four more lines. The detail of the grain- and drink-offerings, and the command to include salt are left out in this festival. Rather than assuming that these are not meant to be included at all in this festival we should view the new oil festival as written in short form. That which is different is emphasized within the basic framework of similar commands.

231 It is also interesting that lQSa 2:13 retains the word order ofthe majority of witnesses: CiI'Jil:lil l'hlit ['D]. 232 The use of 2 Chron 30: 16 in this setting may provide a clue for understanding 4Q512 in a similar setting to the SeroIl. Fragment 27, line 3, ineludes a different portion of the same verse: D!J1Z71D ]10'1' ;1' 1[DVl 233 With Qimron, "New Readings", p 163, I see no evidenee of a taw.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

103

3. 22:8-14a: The Sacrificial Portions In this festival the provision for the priests' and Levites' portions of the sacrifices are dealt with in a little more than two lines, paralleling 20: 14-16. There is no parallel to Col 21:02-06, which was based on Lev 7:33ff. 3.1 22:8: ] 10'1'1234 Numbers 18 is now the base text, used in the same way as in Col 20:14-16. There Num 18:19 provided the transition from the previous section to the sacrificial portions. Here 18: 17 leads to 18: 19, n011n '7:::> 1'7 'nm iT1il''7 '7~1ID' 'l:110'1' 1ID~ O'ID1piT. Yadin's reading, on the pattern of 20: 15, is plausible, but the line might read very much like Col 20: 14, iT011n iT1iT''7 10'1'1. 3.2 22:9: n[ ]n'ID~1'71 iT~mniT 'ln n~1 rO'iT p1ID n~23S 3.2a This line is similar to Col 20:15, where Num 18:18, iT'iT' 01ID:11 rO'iT p1ID:::>1 iT~mniT iTln:::> 1'7, is also the base. The Scroll reverses the order of the animal portions in both places. As in Col 20, so here Deut 18:3-4 is secondary (iT:lpiT1 o"n'7iT1111liT, see line 10). 3.2b iT~mniT does not appear until the next line in Col 20 (line 16). Here it occurs in its proper relation to the breast. 3.2c Here is the first actual use of n'ID~1. Wehave discussed it at Col 21: 8 in relation to ID11'n, which usually appears in the context of n'ID~1 (see that discussion for detail). This is a key-word link for texts on priestly portions, together with 'priests' and "Levite's portions", bringing together Numbers 18:11-13, Deuteronomy 18:3-4, 2 Chron 31:4-5, and Neh 12:44. 236 On the Numbers 18 base the Scroll draws all these contexts back together by the injection of the word n'ID~1. This is another example of the tendency of the Scroll in second, and third, treatments of the same texts towards expansion (cf the counting formula of Lev 23: 15-16). The base text is treated differently, but the interpretation is the same, each treatment complementing the other.

234 Yadin, ibid, reads 1]0, but it is impossible to be certain of the fragment of a letter wh ich remains. m Yadin, ibid, reads ni'([1 at the end of the line. Only traces of a taw are discemible in the photos. This agrees with Qimron, ibid. Rock. 42.178 begins to provide evidence at this point, line 1 coinciding with ]" mmniT. 236 Yadin, I, pp 153-156.

104

CHAPTER TWO

3.3 22:1O-11a: iTJTJ' iT'iT' C'JiT1~' iT~iT n~, C"n'iT

C~1Z1iT n~

Je"""

iTTJO~1Z1TJ~

The Scroll continues to follow the pattern of Col 20: 15-16 and 21 :03, with the supplementary text Deut 18:3 (as shown above). 3.3a 11'11~ (1111 in Deut 18:3) must be accounted for in the gap of line 9, n[~, l1'11~iT n~].237 The Scroll order ofportions agrees with the biblical order here, and in Col 21 :03 (assuming reconstruction in the gap there, too), but differs from Col 20:16. 3.3b For "shall be for the priests" compare 21:02, preceding the list of portions, whereas it follows here. The phrase in 21 :02 was traced to Lev 7:33, iTJTJ' rTJ'iT P'1Z1 iT'iTn ", where 'Aaron' becomes 'the priests'. 3.3c The Scroll adds iTTJO~1Z1~. The sources refer, not to an 'ordinance', but to "an eternal statute" (cfLev 7:36 and CoI21:05, and below, line 14). This appears to be another instance of the Scroll adopting and adapting Numbers 29 (passim) terminology for a standard formulation. 3.3d "To the Levites, the shoulder" is a conflation ofthe Col 21:04-05 definitionof the portion of the shoulder for the Levites ("the shoulder which remains of the foreleg["). The reading of appears only in Plate 12 *,238 whereas in Rock. 42.178 there is a large vacat following "their ordinance". This appears to be a closed sentence space, indicating the start of a new subject within the section. This copy of the Scroll either pi aces the Levites' portion with the subject matter that follows (bringing the ofIerings out to the people), or omits it entirely.

C"",

3.4 22:11b: C'[J]iT1~' '~11Z1' 'J:J ,mJ' '~11Z1' 'J:J ,~ C'~'l" 1n~ Maier sees this as the beginning of the celebration which concludes the section on new oil;239 Caquot starts the paragraph in line 8. 240 Comparison to Col 21 places the following lines parallel to lines 1-3, and thus the conclusion of the section of portions. This line is an expansion, revealing the particular concern ofthe Scroll. Priests, Levites, and lay people are all involved in the ceremony, as in Col 21 :06-1. There the C'~'~ '11Z1 act on behalf of the children of Israel as leaders, or representatives, of each tribe. And, as there, one rarn and

Yadin, ibid. E. Qimron, ''The Text of the Temple SerolI" (Hebrew), Lesonenu 42 (1978), p 141. Cf Yadin's transcription, 11, p 100. (There is an error in Yadin's enumeration of the lines of Rock. 42.178 in the text of 11 QT. He starts line two (2) with D"1"1, while only ilOlE1l17D remains of the second line of that fragment, followed by a space). 239 J. Maier, The Temple SerolI, p 9. 240 A. Caquot, "Le Rouleau du Temple", p 464. 237 238

THE FESTIVAL LAW

105

one male lamb are given each to the priests and to the Levites, as weil as for each tribe (cf Col 21: 1). The difference is the terminology used for the lay representation. The Israelites as a whole are spoken of, rather than their leaders?41

o","'n

,n~ 1Z7:::O ,n~ ",~ 3.5 22: 12-13a: ,n~ 1Z7:::O ,n~ ",~ ,n~ 1Z7:::O ,n~ ",~ ilOO' lilOO ",:J'" Col 21: 1-3 has been reconstructed on the basis of these lines, so comment here is inseparable from Col 21. The pattern of "one ram" and "one male lamb" returns to the first-fruits language of Num 28:27,29 (cf also Col 18:2,9; Exod 29:39). The commands for 14 rams and male lambs to priests, Levites, and tribes, respectively, are an expansion of the Scroll consistent with each of the festivals. 242 Here, again, we have an example of differing presentations of repeated uses of the same material. In the fragmentary evidence in Col 19:3, the first-fruits of wheat, the offering of the tribes is simply stated as 'twelve' of each animal. The feast of new wine, Col 21:1-3, is the most expansive, for not only is the offering itemized as for each tribe, but the emphasis is placed on "Aaron and his sons" and the "sons of Levi", as weil as the lay leaders who represent Israel. In contrast, Column 22 denotes each of the three groups in general collective terms: priests, Levites, children of Israel. 3.6 22:13b-14: il1il' 'J~" /i1J1l'nil 'ln::J illil O,'::J 0''':J~1 ilJ1Z7::J ilJ1Z7 ilOil'm"," 0"'11 mp1n 3.6a "And they shall eat them on that day in the outer court." This continues to follow Col 21: 1-3. It is necessary for the celebration, which involves the whole of Israel, to take place in the outer court where women and children are allowed to enter. Here we learn that the priests and Levites go out to join them. The source for 21:3, which applies here, is Deut 12:7, 01Z7 On":J~1 enn01Z71 O:J'il"~ il1il' 'J~"; the "outer court" corresponds to Ezekiel's in 46:21 (cf 42:14 and Ezra 6:21).

241 1. Milgrom, "Further Studies", pp 9-10, understands the repetition ofr,W11lr 'l::J to emphasize that the peace offerings are the property of the Israelites, and belong to them rather than being il1il'r,. Cf Lev 7:32 and 22:2,5,16. 242 J. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SeroIl", p 519, makes the valid point that the Levites reeeive a double portion, sinee they are also ineluded as one of the twelve tribes in Co139: 12. This is eonsistent with the exalted status of the Levites whieh has already been shown by the provision of sacrificial portions above.

106

CHAPTER TWO

3.6b The phrase illil O":J is an expansion on 21 :3, which may be accounted for in a number of ways. For one, J. Milgrom believes this offering is pattemed on the il1,n, thanksgiving offering, of Lev 7: 15 which must be eaten on the day it is sacrificed. 243 The relationship is certainly not verbal, but the connection has compelling force to it. Secondly, the phrase may be related to the ~'ilil OV:J of 1 Chron 29:22, in which the people eat and drink with rejoicing (cf Col 21:4). A third possibility is that it is simply influenced by line 15, illil O":J ':J '1!):J' (from Lev 16:30). Finally, in the context of first-fruits, it appears likely that the Scroll is bringing the subject back to the base text in Leviticus 23, illil O"il 0~11 111 ":J~n ~, (v 14, cf below). 3.6c In line 10 "their ordinance" was substituted for "an etemal statute to them and to their seed" of Col 21:05. The phrase "statutes forever throughout their generations" appears in Lev 7:36 on the subject of priestly portions (important to 21:05 and 22:10). In this case the use of the phrase also seems to function for what folIows, as in Col 21:9 (following Lev 3: 17, the conclusion to the peace-offerings), and continues to reflect back on Lev 23: 14, 0:J'rii1' 0"11 npn. The author of the Scroll conflates the lengthy detail of the new wine celebration into much shorter space for the new oil. As in the details of the sacrificial portions, what is presented here appears as a shorthand for the previous treatment. 3.6d The phrase "year by year" confirms the suggestions that this line both concludes this section and looks forward to the closing section by comparison with Col 21:10. However, the direct parallel to 21:10 is in line 16, ilJlZ1:J nn~ 011!J. We will discuss the significance of that phrase below. At 21: 10 we noted that "year by year" is a common Deuteronomic phrase, and also drew attention to Neh 10:35-36 where the supply of wood to the Temple, "year by year", is from the 'first-fruits' of every tree. In this case, Deut 15 :20 is of interest for the consecration of firstlings to the Lord: ilJlZ1:J il)lZ1 ')':J~n Til'~ il,jT' ')!J'. This phrase has the advantage of binding together the 'eating' of the offering "before the Lord", and "year by year". The phrasing of the line thus approximates most closely Deut 15:20. The phrase iT1il' ')!J' links together Deut 12:7 and its supplementary texts with Neh 10:35 in a neat seam.

4. 22:14c - 22:01: Celebration of First-fntUs of New DU The final section of the festival is the provision for the celebration. This 243

Milgrom, "Further Studies", p 10.

THE FESTIVAL LA W

107

paralieis the similar prescription for rejoicing at the Feast of New Wine (CoI21:4-IO). 4.1 22: 14c-15: C~mil 1TJ1 tznnil 1TJlVil 1TJ '~10~1 ,';1~~1~ /1n~ This is the central expansion of the section on new oil, and it paralleis the expansion on the new wine in Col 21. 4.1 a The repetition of ,n~, here and in line 11, emphasizes the temporal order of the celebration. 4.1 b Yadin refers to several biblical texts for comparison: Deut 28:40, Mic 6:15, Exod 30:32, Ruth 3:3, Ezek 16:9, and especially 2 Chron 28:15?44 The last is most notable because it provides both of the verbs of this sentence: C1~O~' C1PlV~' C1';1~~~1. The context is the return of the Judahite captives by the Israelites at the behest of the prophet Oded. However, this context provides nothing to the Scroll's interpretation, and we are perhaps better to consider C1';1~~,~ to be arepetition of the verb in line 13. Exod 30:32, Ruth 3:3, and Ezek 16:9 merely provide instances of 'anointing' with oil. The remaining references, however, add an interesting and important nuance to this passage. Deut 28:40, ~';11TJ1V1 ln~l ';11V~ ~~ l,on, and Mic 6: 15, 1TJlV 110n ~';1, n~l l'1n, both contain warnings of the consequences of disobedience on the part of the people, i.e., there will be no oil for anointing. In light of these texts the annual celebration of the gathering of the olives and the anointing with oil would be seen as yearly proof that the people are obedient, and that these curses have not fallen. Thus, this feast becomes an affirmation of faithfulness on the part of all the people. Compared to the parallel in Col 21:7, and the similar role of Jer 31 :30 and Deut 32: 14 in relation to the wine celebration, these allusions are validated. 4.2 22:15b-16:

'il[l'] ';1[1~] ';1llJI /1'::l~~ illil C1~:::l ~~ 1nTJlV~' ilJlV:::l nn~ ClJ::l il1il~ ~)::l';1 r'~il

4.2a This paralleis Co121:8 (see the detailed discussion there on '::l~). The source behind this, as there, is Lev 16:30, c~~';1lJ '::l~~ illil C'~:::l ~~ il1il~ ~)::l';1 .... The Scroll adds r'~il, without evident biblical precedent. 2 Kings 18:32, 'ill~ n~l r'~ (Rabshakeh's address to the besieged Judeans), provides a biblical model for the phrase, but it offers little more. Lev 26:20, r'~il rlJ1, also means little here. 24S The closest parallel is that of lQS 8:10, r'~i1 1lJ:::l '::l~';1 (and lQSa 1:3). There is a significant

244 245

Yadin, I1, p 101. Yadin, ibid.

108

CHAPTER TWO

difference, however, for in each of the Rules it is the obedience of the members ofthe community itselfwhich "atones for the land". lQS 8:10 speils this out explicitly: "And they will be a pleasing offering (l,:n,) to atone for the land." In lQSa 1 atonement is through "keeping the covenant". These texts show a similar concern to the Scroll's allusion above to Deut 28 and Micah 6: the proof of faithfulness to the covenant with Yahweh. But the Rules have spiritualized the issue, moving the focus from a successful harvest to the men of the community. 4.2b The use of oil in the festival celebration provides an additional piece of evidence for understanding the relationship of the Scroll to the Qumran community. Yadin, as has been frequently noted, believed the Scroll to be a product of the Community.246 Seeking to reconcile this passage with the comments of Josephus (War ii:123) concerning the Essene avoidance of oil, Yadin interprets "year by year" to mean "once a year".247 By this Josephus can be seen to describe daily practice, whereas the Scroll describes a practice restricted to this one day of the year. But, as David Rokeah argues, the phrase "year by year" applies, not to the eating and anointing, but to the 'atoning'?48 Further, as was discussed in regard to the wine, "to atone" means to release the fruit for common consumption. 249 The consumption is not limited to the festival, but the festival merely marks the beginning of the use and consumption of the olives and oil for the coming year. The consequence of this interpretation is the separation of the Scroll from either the Essene practice described by Josephus or the Qumran practice as illustrated in the Rules above. In contrast to the Essenes, not only does the Scroll not restrict the use of the oil, but believes the offering of the oil to be the evidence of the fulfilment of the covenant relationship with Yahweh. The Rules, on the other hand, replace the grain, wine, and oil as the evidence ofthat faithfulness with the community members themselves. The views are distinct from each other. If 11 QT is a Qumran document, one would expect oil to be considered of importance to the Qumran community, and one would expect its use to be implemented in the ritual of the community rather than restricted. 4.2c The phrase "year by year", translated in this way by Yadin,2S0 confuses the difference of this phrase (il JlV:J nn~ Cl1::l) with Col 21: 10

In regard to oil alone, see I, p 113. Yadin, I, p 142. 248 D. Rokeah, "The Temple SerolI, Josephus, and the Talmud", pp 523-524. Cf also diseussion of Col 21 :8, and note 196. 249 See that diseussion with referenee to Rokeah, ibid, and Milgrom, "Further Studies", pp 10-11. 250 Yadin, 11, p 101. 246 247

THE FESTIVAL LA W

109

and 22:14. Here it elearly means "one time a year".2~1 As noted above, this refers to the aet of 'atoning' (or, release). The elosest biblieal phrase is il::Jtv::J O'OlJ~ tv'itv. There are numerous examples of this phrase, always with 'three'. The most notable, Exod 23:17, eommands every male to appear before the Lord three times a year for the separate feasts. The eomparison is inviting, but not eertain. The phrase here, by its differenee from the other uses (and using OlJ~, cf 21: 12) emphasizes the annual oeeurrenee of the 'atonement'. 4.2d The final word of the line and the eolumn, 1nOtv'1 stands alone due to the loss of the top of the next eolumn. Nevertheless, it is clear that the pattern of Col 21:8 is followed. The people all rejoiee as is eommanded in Deut 12:18, and as is the ease in 1 Chron 29:9. 4.3 23:01: ]['i1:J::J 'i~'tv' 'J::J 'i1:J) The RockefeIler fragment 42.178 belongs to this portion of the Serolt, and helps identify more closely the direetion of the 'rejoieing'. With this li ne the seetion on the Festival of New Oil eloses. Yadin reeonstruets, 0'i1lJ p1n il1il' 'J~'i ilOil'n1::Jtv10 'i1:J::J2~2 (along the lines of Col 21:9; cf Lev 3: 17, and esp 23 :21). This is the most likely restoration, whieh eoncludes the whole of the first-fruits legislation with the final eommand of the Levitieus 23 base. Yet there is one other possibility. Sinee line 14 already eontains the phrase "an eternal statute ... ", it is quite possible that the Seroll avoided repetition just a few lines later. Deut 12: 18 provides a clue to the possible eonclusion. While it does not speak of "ehildren of Israel", it does speil out who is to rejoiee on this day (sons and daughters, servants, and the Levites). Deut 12: 18 may be seen to elose a section from line 13 and Deut 12: 7 (overlapping the saerifieial portions and the eelebration), in whieh ease the missing line may read: il:J1' n'itvO] 'i1:J::J 'i~'tv' 'J::J 'i1:J nnOtv1.

Summary The outline of this seetion refleets its relation to the feast of new wine, i.e., the same sources are used where the subjeet matter is parallel to that feast. At times it is not possible to see the same base texts in use due to the fragmentary nature of the reeonstruetions. In these eases we have indieated the probable base text in square braekets. The most important

m Cf Maier's English translation, The Temple SerolI, p 29, 'once a year'; Garcia Martinez, "EI Rollo dei Templo", p 258, 'una vez al afio'; Caquot, "Le Rouleau du Temple", p 464, 'une fois par an'. 252 Yadin, ibid.

110

CHAPTER TWO

characteristic of this section is its expansion of aspects of the festivals with only a vague reference to the same base texts. In this regard the section is made up almost entirely of a mosaic of supplementary texts. Line:

Source Text:

Technique:

Counting F01Tnula

21:12-14

15

16

a

Lev 23:15-16 Multipletreatment c = Lev 25:8 Word-form Deut 16:9 Word-form a = Lev 23:16-17a c = Num 31:5 E = Expansion c = Num 15:9 (Num 31:4) b = Num 28:5 (Exod 29:40) a = Lev 23:17,20 (c = Lev 1:3) E = Expansion =

Sacrifices

22:01 [a

=

02

03 04-05

05-1 2 3

[a

=

c = Lev 1:9 Lev 23:18] b = Num 28:30 c = Lev 16:33 Num 15:25 c = Lev 10:6 Num 16:22 c = Num 15:9 [b = Num 28:27] c = Num 15:10 Lev 1:13 Ezra 8:35 E = Expansion c = 2 Chron 4:20; 13:11 c = Num 1,10, etc/1 Chron Lev 23:19] [b = Num 7:17] c = Num 29:13 Num 29:18

Multipletreatment Word-form Word-form

Word-form

Multiple treatment

Word-form Word-form

111

THE FESTIVAL LAW

Line:

Technique:

Source Text:

Num 18:21 c = Neh 10:401Ezek 44:11 /2 Chron 29:34; 30: 15 Word-form Lev 3:2 c = 2 Chron 30:16 Lev 3:9 b = Num 18:17 Word-form c = Lev 9:13 E = Expansion Lev 3:11 Lev 3:11 b = Num 18:17 b

4

5

a

=

6

a

=

a

=

7

8a

=

Sacrificial Portions 22:8b a = Num 18:19 9 a = Num 18:18 Multipletreatment b = Deut 18:3-4 c = 2 Chron 31 :4-5/Neh 12:44 10-11 b = Deut 18:3 c = Lev 7:33 E = Expansion llb Multipletreatment b = Num 28:27,29 12-13a E = Expansion a = Lev 23:14 13b-14 c = Deut 12:7 Word-form Ezek 46:211Ezra 6:21 c = Deut 15:20 Neh 10:35 Celebration 22:14-15

E = Expansion Deut 28:40 Mic 6:15 c = Lev 16:30 E = Expansion c = Deut 12:18 1 Chron 29:9 Lev 23:21 c = Lev 3:17 [Deut 12:18?] c

15-16

23:01

a

=

=

Multipletreatment

112

CHAPTER TWO

Only those sources in which the word-form is used have been specified in the table regarding technique. This is essentially due to the high degree of repetition of sources from the previous festivals, by reference to which the same key-word links can be seen. Because this is the third festival based on the first-fruits provision of Leviticus 23 we have been able to compare the multiple treatments of the same texts. The examples ofthis are indicated in the 'technique' column. It is in this area that this festival contributes most to our understanding of the methodology of the Scroll. The tendency is toward greater expansion with each successive treatment of the same text. The expansion seems to be primarily for the sake of variation rather than exegetical differentiation. The key contributions of this festival to the whole of the Festival Law have to be seen in relation to the feast of new wine, as was indicated in the introduction to this festival: 1. The oil festival conflates material which is paralleled in the wine festival. This conflation does not mean that the detail of the new wine festival is not followed. Rather, it appears that the wine festival provision is to be seen as the full version, and the conflated form of the oil festival is meant to be read as a shorthand version. For example, Col 22:6-8 follows the base Lev 3:9-11, parallel to Col 20:4-8. Col 22 refers to the 'fat' which is to be bumed, but there is no apparent mention of the animal portions from which the fat is taken, i.e., backbone, entrails, kidneys and liver. Thus, the Scroll signals the introduction of the section on the portions by means of Num 18: 17, which serves as a shorthand reference to the fuller version of Col 20. 2. Following on from this we may suggest that because certain portions of the wine festival are omitted entirely does not mean they are not to be included in the oil festival (not unlike the biblical precedent in Leviticus 1-7). There are two major examples: Firstly, in Col 22:3 the shift to the peace-offering lambs from the bull of the new oil offering omits mention of the accompanying bumt-offering of seven year-old lambs and the sin-offering ram and bulls which appear in the new wine festival (19: 16ff). This is because the focus for the oil festival is exclusively on the il~1l1 of the bull at this point. This bull is the detail in which this festival differs from those which precede (discussion ofthis will follow). Other sacrifices are ignored, not because they are not required, but in order not to draw attention away from what IS umque. Secondly, the most significant omission of the festival is the absence of the entire section on the grain-offering (cf Col 20:9-14, based on Leviticus 2). This section is omitted due to the emphasis of the festival

THE FESTIVAL LA W

113

as a whole on the presentation of the oil which will be used for the continual light and for the grain-offering (see 21: 15b and 22:05-1). The oil itself is the chief offering of the festival (22:03-4), just as the central offering of the wine festival is the wine. The proportions of oil presented concur with the arnount required for the grain-offering which accompanies the burnt-offering bull (21:15b), the chief sacrifice ofthe festival. The very combination of oil and burnt-offering bull infers that the form in which the oil is presented is in a grain-offering. In this case the grain-offering is not an accompaniment, but is the central offering. To go into detail of the grain-offering as an accompaniment would detract from the focus on the central place of this offering. Grain-offerings are called for in relation to the peace-offering of Col 22:3, and probably in 22:7. In neither case is there any mention of the proportions of oil, or wine for the drink-offering. This is all provided for in Col 20 which states specifically that it is the ordinance for "any grain-offering" (20:9). Each of these instances depend on the fuller account given in the wine festival, and argue for seeing the wine festival as providing the detail for each festival. 3. The greatest and most surprising difference in the oil festival is the placing of the il"1l7 in accompaniment to the oil (21: 16) where the wine festival offers twelve rarns as accompaniment to the wine (19:14-15). We have argued that the proportions of oil in Col 21: 15 are from the Num 15:9 figures for the bull, and that the use of il"'l1 in Col 21: 16-22:05 is from the burnt-offering ofLev 1:3,9,and 13. These facts suggest that this il"l1 refers to the buH. The question is, what is meant by il"1l7? Yadin was seen to relate it to the sin-offering bull of Col 16: 10, in spite of word order differences. Milgrom was seen to translate il"'l1, according to the Ezra 8:35 sin-offering bull, as "it should be wholly burned." These are compelling arguments, but not persuasive for the following reasons: they do not define this il"'l1 in relation to the texts which are of primary importance, nor do they take proper account of the direct context in which it appears. First of all, the application of burnt-offering bull language from both Numbers 15 and Leviticus 1 indicate the intention to put emphasis on the burnt-offering and not a sin-offering. The language of these sources is applied to Lev 23:18/Num 28:27, and not to Lev 23: 19/Num 28:30. Secondly, this bull is placed in the stead of the twelve rarns of the wine offering, and not the goat of the sin-offering (which is not mentioned at all in the extant lines).

114

CHAPTER TWO

Establishing this point does not provide an answer as to why the shift is made to the buIl offering. A tentative answer might be that the SeroIl now makes speeifie provision for the burnt-offerings whieh had been mentioned but not given in detail before. The funetion of the rarns now is to join the male larnbs as peaee-offerings for aIl the people. 4. Whether this suggestion is eorreet or not the eoIleetion of supplementary sources provides a clue to the theology of the festival. The word-form ofNum 15:25 and Lev 10:6/Num 16:22 in Col 22:02 point to eontexts where the Lord is angry at "the whole eongregation", and atonement is made. Disobedienee is atoned for. This sense is eonfirmed by the presenee of Deut 28:40 and Mie 6:15 in Col 22:14-15, whieh beeome an affirmation of the faithfulness of the people by their bringing in the oil. The oil festival is acelebration of eovenant faithfulness on the part of both people and the Lord. 5. Finally, the development ofthe lay hierarehy in relation to priests and Levites, along the lines of Numbers 1-10 and 1 Chronicles, ean be seen to be one of the chief eoneerns of the Festival Law (see Col 22:2,11).

Conc1usions We may now turn to draw some general overall eonelusions eoneerning the methodology of the SeroIl in its use of Seripture in the Festival Law. The principles of the relationships laid down in the introductory ehapter have been arnply illustrated. It is possible to see a clear base text in the use of Levitieus 23. Numbers 28 is the parallel and secondary souree throughout the Festival Law. The funetion of the supplementary texts for the detail of interpretation is summarized below. 1. In the First-fruits of Barley the Seroll wove together the base text, Lev 23:12-14, with the seeondary text, Num 28:27-3l. There were only minor expansions by the Seroll from unattributable sourees, and the influenee ofNumbers 15 was the text whieh bound everything together. The chief emphasis of the seetion is on the proper presentation of the sin-offering. 2. In the First-fruits ofNew Wheat Lev 23:14-24 is the base text, with Num 28:26-30 the seeondary text again. The base text is followed elosely exeept in the development of Lev 23: 17 in Col 18: 16 in whieh the Seroll provides for national representation of Israel by its twelve tribes. These two first-fruits festivals adhere elosely to their base texts. The value of supplementary texts is to provide rationale for the ehanges to the base text in keeping with the Seroll's own interpretation. Supplementary texts are of value primarily for the speeifie point at whieh they eonverge

THE FESTIVAL LA W

115

with the base text. The extent to which the Scroll 'harmonizes' the texts depends on the extent of convergence of their contexts: it is always the base text which is 'changed' in light of the supplementary text, but the base text always remains primary. The supplementary text is ofinfluence only at the point of convergence with the context of the Festivals. The Scroll ignores what is not of value for the argument of the moment. There is no evidence that the supplementary texts are considered to be affected by the base text. That is to say, they are not harmonized in light of the base text. 3. The First-fruits of New Wine, by virtue of its length and extent of expansion on the base text, is the most important of the festivals to understand. Of most significance is that the same techniques can be seen even in the expansions. Leviticus 23 begins as the base text, and becomes the foil upon which the Scroll can develop laws for each aspect of the festival: sacrifices, grain-offering, peace-offering, division of sacrificial portions. The final expansion, the drinking ritual, becomes a mosaic of supplementary texts loosely connected to its base text. It is in this expansion that the first use of prophetic sources is seen. The allusion to Jer 31 :29, with Num 6:3-4 and 2 Chron 34, places the festival in the context of celebration of covenant faithfulness, of acknowledgement of obedience. The same can be seen in the oil festival. Together with this we may place the concurrence of terminology for first-fruits of new wine with Qumran covenant renewal material. These allow us at least to speculate that the Scroll sees the first-fruits festivals as confirmation of covenant relationship, if not covenant renewal. 4. The dependence of the First-fruits of New Oil on the New Wine festival strengthens the case for viewing the new wine festival as the focus for understanding the Scroll' s interpretation of first-fruits as a whole. The emphases in the new oil festival are upon aspects which are not covered in the new wine. We concluded that this does not point to divergent observance in each festival, but that each festival is used as a means by which the Scroll can engage in exegesis of specific parts of the festival practice. Neither is exhaustive or complete, so the purpose is not to provide all that is missing in the biblical text. Rather, the festivals are the vehicle for developing a specific form of interpretation of specific aspects of proper worship practice. 5. Outside of the Pentateuchal laws the one supplementary source of note is the Chronicler. This is never used as a base text, nor as secondary. It is only in use of language and imagery that 1 & 2 Chronicles is drawn upon. The most that can be said is that the Scroll shows familiarity with and a predilection to vocabulary in common with the Chronicler. This

116

CHAPTER TWO

may indicate an author contemporaneous to the Chronicler, or it may suggest someone thoroughly familiar with the thought-world of the Chronicler's school. We discovered that the use of Chronicler vocabulary in the festivals overlaps in some measure the use of the same in the King's Law, and that where there is overlap the usage diverges: the King's Law uses language of leadership in a specifically military context, where the Festival Law has no hint ofmilitary application but places the lay leaders in a cultic relation. Weshall examine the implications of this more closely in the final chapter. In summary, this close examination of the festivals has established the biblical sources used by the Seroi!, and discovered the relationship of those sources to one another to be consistent in itself, and organized. The vocabulary is chosen carefully, and there is virtually no case of allusion or vocabulary use which cannot be viewed as implying arelevant context. The Scroll purposely uses biblical language in keeping with its context and avoids terminology out of keeping with that context.

CHAPTER THREE

THE KING'S LAW The King's Law, or Statutes of the King, is three columns of expansion upon Deut 17:14-21 inserted into the Expanded Deuteronomy section of the Scroll. The Expanded Deuteronomy begins with Deut 13: 1 in Col 54:8 and continues to Deut 23:1 in Col 66:12 with minor diversions and omission. This Deuteronomy material exhibits many ofthe same editorial Iredactional traits we find in other portions of the Scroll: in comparison to MT there are additions, omissions, and substitutions which sometimes can be seen to agree with other versions of Deuteronomy, and at other times appear to be exegetically motivated. Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether there is a difference between these. It appears that the whole section is an expanded version of Deuteronomy which has been worked by the editorlauthor of the Temple Seroll, who has inserted the King's Law into its midst. Col 56:12-57:(?)07 includes the whole of the Deuteronomy provision for the setting up of a king. Col 57: 1 begins a new sentence and paragraph, revealing the fact that Deut 17: 14-21 has been expanded by nearly two lines in the missing portion of Column 57. Properly speaking, Cols 57-59 are a development upon Deut 17: 19, the verse to which the columns refer frequently either in phraseology or subject matter (as will be seen below). The development of "this law" is a closely organized composition in a very different style than the Expanded Deuteronomy. The examination which follows therefore begins not with Deut 17:14 in Col 56:12, but with the beginning ofthe expansion in Col 57:1. "King's Law" is signified by "the Law" throughout this section. A. THE GENERAL MUSTER: 57.2-5 1. 57:1:

"And this law" is arepetition of the phrase from Deut 17: 19, making clear that this section is an expansion of the phrase, and that the whole of the next three columns is an explication of the necessary content of 'this Law'.

118

CHAPTER THREE

2.1 1W~ 'lJ is compared linguistically to Mal 3:21, "on the day when I act", by Yadin.! Such a formula from Malachi, if an influence, would suggest Levitical prophetie activity in the authorship of the King's Law. Yadin cites the same influence in Col 49: 11, "on the day which they take out", when the corpse is removed from the house where a man died. There, however, we suggest Jer 11:4 and 34:13 are just as helpful stylistically, and are more fitting to the subject. If both sections of the Scroll are from the same hand, then perhaps Jeremiah would be of influence here, as it will be seen to be in Column 59. Either suggestion is tentative due to the state of the text and the frequent use of "in the day" in Numbers. 2 2.2 1n]1~ 1::>,t;,TJ' is common phraseology in the books ofthe Kings (and in Chronicles), appearing some 12 times (cf 1 Kgs 12:20). As the text is fragmentary, no certain dependence can be determined. There IS, however, no precedent for mustering the army upon accession. 3 3. 57:3: ilTJiPt;,:nt;, illW C'WW

P 11]1 illW C'1W1]

This first full line provides us with the first hard evidence upon which to decide the subject of the section. The phraseology betrays a complicated mixture of influences. Two texts are primary: Num 26:2-4,4 which calls for a census of all who are aged over twenty and thus eligible for war; and Lev 27:3, which treats the valuation of the male for a vow. Z. Falk sees the combination of Numbers 1-4 (census at Sinai), Exod 18:24 (Jethro's advice to Moses), and Deut 1:9f(Moses' implementation ofthe advice) in these lines.~ M. Delcor mentions only Num 31:5, Moses'

Yadin, 11, p 255. Cf Milgrom, "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 70 (1980), p 100. 3 Cf G. Brin, ''The Bible in the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Shnaton 4 (1980), p 196. 4 Marvin A. Sweeney, "Midrashie Perspeetives in the Torat Ham-melek of the Temple SerolI", Hebrew Studies 28 (1987), P 55. S Ze'ev W. Falk, ''The Temple Seroll and the Codification of Jewish Law", JLA 2 (1979), p 36. From these he derives a parallel with Midrmh use of parallel passages to elarify meaning of the text. G. Brooke (''The Textual Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Reeently Published Manuseripts of the Pentateuch", The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years 0/ Research, eds D Dimant and U Rappaport (Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992), P 266, sees the eombination of Deut 1:15 and Exod 18:25 to share the harmonizing activity of 4QpaleoExodm, whieh ineludes Deut 1:9-18 after Exod 18:25. I

2

THE KING'S LAW

119

muster of Israel to meet the challenge of Midian. 6 The fact is that all these contexts can be seen to apply to the Law's muster of the army by the new king. What remains to be done here is to try to establish the relationship of these various contexts to each other. 3.1 First of all, it is significant that the phraseology of the line is exactIy that ofLev 27:3, and not ofNumbers 26 or Numbers l. This is the only specification of "between twenty and sixty years". The common formulation is "above twenty years" (Num 26:4, Num 1:3, Exod 30:14, etc.), and in this way the Law encompasses each of the census/muster contexts within its use of Leviticus 27. The Law places an upward limit which is the same as the age of cuItic retirement: 7 the age of military service is viewed, from a Levitical stance, as based on cuItic maturity. The figure "sixty years" occurs three times in Qumran sectarian literature. In 1QM 7: 1 the "camp prefects,,8 are aged 50-60; in CD 10:6-7 the judges are between 25 and 60 years; in CD 14:6-7 the priest who enrols the congregation is between 30 and 60 years. Thus, the Qumran literature shares with the Law the application of the cuItic upper limit to other contexts than the vow. However, there is no agreement on the lower age limit. 9 The Law differs from CD 14, because at the end of the line it is the king who 'enrols' the men, and not the Priest. It differs from 1QM in that the "camp prefects" are above fighting age,1O and the lower limit for the fighting men is 30 (IQM 6:12-16, aIthough the auxiliary workers begin at 25, lQM 7:3). The Law agrees with Leviticus 27 against each of these. 11 3.2 i17Ji,-'7l1'7 draws further on the Numbers terminology of the muster ofIsraeI. Num 2:17 (and 1:52, 10:14, etc.) is translated as 'standard' in the RSV. We have discussed this term at Col 21 :5, where it stands for a unit of a tribe just as it does in lQM 3:6, 4: 10, and 5:3, i.e., 'battalion' . The use here is distinct from Column 21, belonging specifically to the

6 M. Deleor, "Le Statut du roi d'Apres le Rouleau du Temple", Henoch (1981), p 51, speaks only ofNum 31:5, Moses' muster ofIsrael to meet the ehallenge ofMidian, as the inspiration for these lines. This does beeome an ingredient of the whole, but does not eonstitute the primary basis. 7 Sweeney, "Midrashie Perspeetives", p 55. 8 Yadin, WarSeroll, pp 289-90. 9 This must be said in spite of Yadin's desire to see it. Cf Yadin, I, p 347, '"fhe speeifieation of the ages eonforms with what is laid down in other writings of the seeL" Cf, too, Brin, '"fhe Bible", p 196. 10 Yadin, WarSeroll, p 289n. 11 See L. Sehiffman, '"fhe Laws of War in the Temple SeroIl", RevQ 13 (1988), p 301, for a thorough treatment of the difIerenees.

120

CHAPTER THREE

military formation rather than to a unit of the laypeople. In this way the present context appears to have more in common with 1QM than does Column 2l. The issue now is the use ofthe Numbers 1-10 context ofthe division ofthe men ofIsrael into units by their 'battalions'.12 The census in the desert is the starting point for this new provision of King's Law. Two contexts are juxtaposed in this line: we see the census of Israel in the desert (Numbers 1) applied specifically to the muster of the army by the new king. But the Leviticus 27 word-form places the muster in the cultic sphere. This is not to say the Law is concerned with the valuation for the vow, but rather with the setting of the king's muster under cultic, and therefore priestly, guidelines.

4.

57:3c-5a: ~'tZn m~~T.J ~'tzn C~::>I;1~ ~'tz7 ilT.JiPtz7~'::1 / P}'p::>1 ilT.Jil~'17 1;11:::>::1 m'tz7p}17 ~'tz71 / C~tz7T.Jn

4.1 {1Pp::>1 draws attention to itself due to the erasure of a second waw. Its significance is to shift away from the 'they' who make the king13 to the king hirnself. This contradicts Deut 20:9, "they [the SOp-iym) shall appoint commanders of armies",14 and is, rather, generally in keeping with the "King's law" of 1 Sam 8:12 (except for the use there ofSym).lS This is given in the context of prediction of what the kings would do. 2 Sam 18:1, however, provides the specific terminology of this line. 16 The pattern for the king's muster and setting up of officers is David, and not the desert. For the King's Law David is the source for halakhah concerning the king, and now non-Pentateuchal sources begin to have an important roie. 4.2 Deut 1: 13 and 15 are the secondary source for the remainder of the sentence, thus extending the 2 Samuel material and grounding it back in the desert context. Verse 13 provides "as your heads", and v 15 the rest,

12 We have argued at Col 21:5 from LXX, Syr, and Num R of Num 2:2, that a word such as 'battalion' should be used in Numbers rather than 'standard'. Cf M. Delcor, "Le Statut", p 53. 13 Yadin's reconstruction, II, p 255. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple Scrol!",.!BL 97 (1978), p 582, opts for retaining the singular in the reconstruction. 14 Contra Milgrom, "Studies", p 522, which Maier, The Temple Scrol/, p 125, appears to accept. Cf Schiffman's discussion of the different treatment of this same subject at Col 62:4-5, in "Laws of Wai', page 302. 15 Referred to by Yadin, I, 347. The variants found in LXX and Syr reveal a combined tradition of "thousands, hundreds, and fIfties", suggesting attempts to harmonize this passage with other catalogues such as Deut 1:15. 16 'Numbering' and 'appointing' are two separate acts in 2 Sam 18:1, but the two go together in the Law.

THE KING'S LAW

121

n1W17 '1Wl c'won '1Wl m~o '1Wl c'~'~ '1W. The base of the line is Num 1:16, etc, "heads ofthe thousands".

As in line 3, the precise wording is drawn from a secondary source, thus introducing another context. Deut 1: 15 is the parallel and fulfilment of Exod 18:21, where Jethro recommends Moses appoint certain men to assist hirn in the task of judging the people. Exodus 18 is an important source in the next section, and it appears here as a signal for its use ahead. M. Delcor, attempting to find the source for this organization in the history of Israel, points to the time of the kings, most notably David (1 Chron 27:1, to which may be added 1 Chron 29:6).17 The Chronicler develops the desert organization, and the pioneer of the development is David. As L. Schiffman points out, the Qumran sectarian literature also develops the desert ordering. He believes that this reflects a common tendency to idealize these texts rather than a direct connection with the Scroll. 18 But this introduces a new question: does the Qumran material, including lIQT, 'idealize' the Numbers material in similar fashion to the Chronicles, or is it, itself, a development from 1 Chronicles 27? The difference is important, for it helps us to determine which sources before us are of greater influence at this stage, Numbers or 1 Chronicles. With regard to the WarSeroll, which is the cIosest parallel in sectarian literature to the King's Law, P. Davies argues for drawing directly on the Davidic precedent, "It seems, then, that the system of 1QM IIff., although based on Num i-x:l0, also draws on a genuine precedent, the militia army set-up by David [1 Chronicles 27] and presumably continued in some form by his successors.,,19 This can equally be said for the King's Law. The wilderness is invoked for an idealization of its organization, but the more recent precedent for this is the Chronicles itself. The effect of the use of this motif is to place a high value on the role of the military leaders of every level. 20 The use of the older tradition is set firmly within a military setting, as in the Chronicles. 1QM appears to follow in the same line of tradition, applying the desert organization to the military organization of the community. However, there is a

Deleor, "Le Statut", p 52. Sehiffman, "Laws ofWar", p 302. Cf1QS 2:21-23, lQSa 1:15-16, and 1:29-2:1, lQM 4:1-5, CD 13:1-2. 19 P. Davies, 1QM, the WarScrollfrom Qumran: Its StfUcture andHistory (Rome: Biblieal Institute Press, 1977), p 58. 20 See Co121:06 for a thorough diseussion ofthe relation ofthe seetarian literature to the SeroIl, and the relation of eaeh seetion to the other. 17

18

122

CHAPTER THREE

distinct difference: where the Law in this column is concerned with the straightforward organization of the king' s army, the War Scroll spiritualizes the military language. 21 4.3 "In all their cities" is a phrase which appears in Num 31: 10, "they burned all their cities". This use of Numbers 31 signals its use in the next section, but the context of v 10 is not helpful. These opening lines ofthe King's Law introduce the basic sources for the muster/census in Numbers. But the justification for the role of the king comes from the precedent of David as seen in the Chronicles. It does not, however, provide for the specific formula ofbeginning the reign with the muster, which is the Law's contribution to the practical application of the scherne. B. SELECTION OF

THE

KING'S

GUARD:

57:5b - 11

The subject turns from the muster to the description of the men chosen to guard the king. The idea of a chosen guard for the king has no direct precedent in the biblical "law ofthe king". However, the repeated phrase in the Law, "they shall be with hirn" (lines 6 and 9; cf line 12, of the king's council; 57:18, of the Queen; 58:5, of the people) stands out as comment on Deut 17: 19, "it shall be with hirn". These groups are placed in the role of the mishneh of the Torah. 22 That is, instead of the Torah being with the king, the guard or the council or the queen or the people are with the king, each to perform specific functions which guard the king. Yadin cites Cant 3:7-8 as the "essential reference" of the seetion in distinction from the "general sourees" which are identifiable. 23 This is perhaps equivalent to our term "underlying source", in which there is little or no explicit textual relationship, but the source appears to exert influence on the text. The Canticles reference reads: "Behold, it is the litter of Solomon! About it are sixty mighty men of Israel, all girt with swords and expert in war, each with his sword at his thigh, against alarms by night". This is an inviting parallel, with its description of the king's body-guard watehing over hirn day and night. It contains some of the 21 Ben-Zion Wacholder, The Dawn ofQumran, pp 78 and 86, explicitly affmns the dependenee of lQM on the SerolI, eiting this passage as evidenee along with CoI31:4, 58:11, and 57:2-3. 22 The Mishnah emphasizes the place of the Torah, M.San 2:4. See Z. Falk, "Codifieation of Jewish Law", p 26. 23 Yadin, I, p 348.

THE KING'S LAW

123

vocabulary of the Law (11::Jl, ilOn1nJ, il'~'), and the common concern for the guard may indicate similar dating for the two works. As was the case above, where the organization of the army was seen to be drawn from genuine historical precedent, so both of these accounts may be seen to draw on actual precedent. However, the two accounts differ on the number of guards. CantieIes has the feet that it refers to an actual event, while the Law's numbers and description are a clear idealization of the Numbers organization, and so seem more removed from reality. The differences discourage viewing this passage as the "essential reference". Closer examination of the text will reveal more of the relationship of sourees. 1. 57:5b-6a: 1017 m~il' ilOOil 10 fZ')'~ '1'~ ilOilO l' 11::J1 This line is based on Num 31 :5, ilOO' '1'~ '~1W~ ~:l'~0 1100~1 '1'~ 1W17 C~JW, in which Israel prepared to go to war against Midian. The focus of interest in this passage appears to be the correct number from each tribe for the guard. In Numhers 31 the whole army consists of 12,000 under the leadership of the priest. The Law does not incorporate priestly leadership of the army into the king's guard at this point, hut in Col 58: 18 the king takes the army to battle in an offensive war only at the guidance of the High Priest. At that point the texts used explicitly do not include Numhers 31, hut its influence may be seen to stern from this line. The priest is Phinehas, son of Eleazer, a key figure in Second Temple period literature because ofhis zeal, which became the pattern for patriotic priests of every major group.24 More interesting, perhaps, is his importance as forebear of Zadok, according to 1 Chron 5:34. This line reveals other textual influence: 1.1 11::J is used in place of 100 of Num 31:5. 11::J is a late Hehrew word, with changing meaning in the various literature. 2s Only in 1 24 Pseudo-Philo 47-48; 4 Maccabees 18:12; Sirach 45:23 (third in glory to Moses and Aaron ahead of David); 1 Maccabees 2:26,54 (Mattathias follows the pattern). lQM 2 (military organization from Josh 22:14); lQM 3 and 4 (trumpets and banners for the slain from Numbers 31). Cf Col 19:14; and comment at 20:11-12. 25 Ezek 20:38; Eccl 3:18, 9:1; Neh 5:18; 1 Chron 7:40, 9:22, 16:41. Yadin cIassif'ies it under the heading "words from later books of the Bible and of words found in the Bible rarely, but in Rabbinic Hebrew frequently" (I, p 35). See also R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, Toward an Historical Typology 01 Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976), p 124. Polzin classifies this 'mhe" (mishnaic Hebrew) and Jewish Aramaic. In lQM it has the meaning "strong, hard". Cf M. Wallenstein's review of Yadin, WarSeroll, in JJS

124

CHAPTER THREE

Chronicles does it have the meaning of 'appointed' as in the SerolI, and only at 1 Chron 7:40 does the context agree: the choice of 'heads' of princes and mighty men. Yadin refers to the Targums to illuminate the use of the term here. 26 Tg. Onqelos translates 100 of Numbers 31 as 1n:J, as does Palestinian Tg. Yadin go es on to cite two examples of the use of 11:J: Deut 1:23 in Pal. Tg. (translating np,), and Tos. Sanhedrin. The only biblical reference he gives is N eh 5: 18, conceming "six choice sheep". This discussion c1ariftes the meaning of100 ('provide' ofthe RSV) as a synonym for 'to choose'. 1t does not, however, adequately explain the choice of 11:J for replacing 100. This is more than the use of a word common to late biblical and rabbinie literature. This is a distinctive feature of the methodology of the King's Law: the use of a word at an earlier place in a passage signals the more explicit use of a text later (in this case, line 8-9), where the signal is picked up, perhaps by repetition of the key word. The substitution of 11:J for 100 signals 1 Chron 7:40 (where the sons of Asher are described as "choice and mighty men of valour, heads of the princes"). Only the Chronicler uses 11:J in the sense of 'choice' in the OT literature (always in participial form): the example ofNehemiah given above; 1 Chron 9:22, ofthe gatekeepers at the tent of meeting; and 16:41, ofthose chosen to give thanks continually before the tabemacle of the Lord at Gibeon. The use of this term in replacement of another, and the exclusive use of it in biblicalliterature by the Chronicler, argues in favour of accepting such a connection here with 1 Chron 7:40. 1.2 noon 10 Z')'~ ~,~. Num 31:4 gives the command which is carried out in v 5: noo, Z')'~ noo, Z')'~. The repetition of the phrase is echoed in this line, which conflates the verses into a single sentence. But there is also an echo of Num 1:4, noo, vr~ 1V'~, keeping in mind that this section builds on the census commands ofNumbers 1. The Law creates a standing army of 12,000 where the census selects one man at the head of each tribe. This line exhibits a skilful and artful combination of these texts. The use of min as a substitute for r is in keeping with ,~,~O in Num 31 :5. 27

2 (1957), p 291. L. Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumrtul (Leiden: EJ. BrilI, 1975), p 72, notes that in P. Qiddushin 4:5 (66a) it is translated 'pure', in the sense of proper lineage (cf CD 10:4-1). The Law's usage conforms to the Biblical sense. 26 Yadin, II, p 256. 27 The use of 10 may also be from the influence of Aramaic on late Hebrew. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, p 66.

THE KING'S LAW

125

1.3 11:111 m'il~. This phrase has al ready been discussed in the introduction to the section as areturn to the base of Deut 17: 19, substituting the infinitive of this guard for the singular (iln'il1) of the Torah. The exact phrase occurs, as Yadin notes, in Gen 39: 10 (Joseph refuses to lie or "to be with" Potiphar's wife) and Josh 7:12 (God will not be with the Israelites). Neither context is as appropriate as 1 Sam 14:21, which speaks of the Hebrews who were with the Philistine camp who turn "to be with the Israelites" surrounding Saul and Jonathan. Even so, these are more illustrative than substantive examples of the use of "to be with" which is a key-link to Deut 17: 19. 2. 57:6b-7: ~1~ 1lV~ /i11:1n~1:IlV'~ ~~~ 1lVl1 !:l'JlV !:l'~1lil 1'::J lV~n'1 11::J~ 1il1::J1111' 2.l "Twelve thousand mighty men" continues the use ofNum 31:5. !:l'JlV ~~ 'l1~n ~~~ 1lVl1. 28 The Law substitutes il1:ln~1:IlV'~ for 'l1~n ~~. This phrase stands out in two ways. Firstly, the common biblical phrase is il1:ln~1:Iil 'lVJ~ (Num 31:28,49; Deut 2: 14; 1 Chron 12:39), and the plural would be expected here. Secondly, this phrase is used only three tim es in the Bible: in Exod 15:3 of Yahweh/9 in Josh 17: 1 it is the son of Manasseh; and in 2 Sam 17:8, David. We have already seen the role of David as the example for kingship in these columns, so would be inclined to see the same here, i.e., each of the warriors is in the pattern of David the warrior. This is confirmed by God's description of David as m1:ln~1:I lV'~ in 1 Chron 28:3, explaining why he cannot build the Temple. This rem inder of David's subordination in priestiy matters confirms the interpretation that the descriptions of the muster in the King's Law are specifically military, and carry no spiritual sense as is the case in the War Sero 11. 2.2 11::J~ 1il1::J1111' ~1~. There is no biblical source for the phrase as it is found. 1 Kgs 19:10, as Yadin says, uses both 'Ieave' and 'alone,.3o

28 M. Weinfield, " 'Temple SeroW or 'King's Law'" (Hebrew) Shnaton 3 (1978), p 227, suggests 2 Sam 17:1 (not 17:11 as in note 59) and 1 Kgs 10:26 as additional paralieis. The former, Ahitophel's eounsel to Absalom uses 1n::J rather than 11::J. The latter has to do with Solomon's horsemen. Neither adds to the present eontext. Weinfield seeks to relate this passage to Aristobulus. 29 In the Song of Moses Yahweh is a mighty warrior. If this is in mind it is a bold eomparison. Its possible presenee here is suggestive of a link with the Col 29:8 allusion to Exod 15:18, "forever and ever", whieh has mueh in eommon with 4QFlor 1:3. Perhaps we see the hand of the editor here. 30 Yadin, ibid.

126

CHAPTER THREE

But it is Israel which forsakes the covenant, and Elijah who feels left alone, thus providing an inconclusive source. More persuasive is G. Brooke's suggestion that ,,::l? is inserted from Exod 18:25, on the pattern of 4QpaleoExodm and the Sam interpolation of Deut 1:9-18 at Exod 25:18. 31 2.3 O~~'liJ '~::l tv~n~l tv~n, as Yadin says, is used of the capture of kings. The two specific references to 'the king' are 2 Kgs 25:6 and its parallel in Jer 52:9. This provides another instance of Jeremianic, or, perhaps, Deuteronomistic, language incorporated into the Law. The phrase O~'l '~::l occurs only in Ps 106:41, where God gives Israel over to the nations. 32 It is of significance that parts of Psalm 106 are used in 1 Chron 16:7f (along with Psalm 105), which is the first hymn of thanks offered by Asaph the Levite appointed by David as chief musician. Thus there is another link with specifically Levitical interests, and a shared interest with the Chronicles. The heroes of Psalm 106 are Moses and Phinehas (vv 28-31). Psalm 106 is considered by some to be behind the Qumran covenant ceremony (lQS 1:16-2:18, esp 2:2_4).33 IQpHab 5:3, n~ ?~ iJ?:J~ ~,? O~'liJ '~::l '011 seems almost to address this very point of Psalm 106. The important place of the covenant ceremony at Qumran places interesting light on this use of the Psalm. This is the first case of the use of a Psalm as a source, one of few in the Scroll as a whole. 3. 57:7b-9a: ~~,~ n~ ~tvl~ '~iP "::l~ 'tv~ O~"'::li1 17,:>, iJOn?O? ?~n ~"::ll' l1l::l ~~l'tv J[J~iJ1?~ The signal of ,,::l from line 5 is picked up in 57:8-9 in this description of the qualities of the guard in which is used twice?4 There are several strands of thought brought together in these lines which seem to be held together by 1 Chron 7:40:

,,:::1

G. Brooke, "Textual Traditions", See note 5. Yadin, ibid. 33 D. F. Baumgärtel, "Zur Liturgie in der 'Sektenrolle' vom Toten Meer", ZA W 65 (1953), p 263; A Weiser, The PsaJms (philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), pp 679-80; A.A. Anderson, The Book 0/ PsaJms, 11, (London: Marshali, Morgan and Seatt, 1972), p 735; G. Brooke, Exegesis aI Qumran (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p 301, and particularly Brooke's article "PsaIms 105 and 106 at Qumran", RevQ 54. 34 Yadin ( 11, 357) refers in this line to DJD, III, 3Q5:2, ] il; 0"'"0 "il'[, as a fragment of Jubilees 23:2. However,1. VanderKam, ''Textual and Historical Studies", pp 60-65, denies the identification. Cf O. Wintermute, "Jubilees", Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (London: Dartman, Longman and Todd, 1985), p 101. 31

32

THE KING'S LAW

127

3.1 Primary among these strands is Exod 18:21, "Choose (1 Chronicles'

,,::l substituted for illn, 'to see') able men ... who fear God, men oftruth

who hate unjust gain". These men are to be placed over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens as judges, as Moses was counselled by Jethro. This order of the phrases differs from Exodus 18 with the chief effect that ?'n '1Z1J~, first in all other versions, becomes last. This allows for emphasis on the addition which is discussed below. But the question is also raised, if Exodus 18 is viewed as an aetiology seeking to legitimate a monarchical institution/~ then what should we make of the Scroll's development of Exodus 18 through the Chronicler? What is notable is that the Law does not apply the function of judgment to the guard, but saves that for the council of lines 11-15. The focus of interest here is only on the matter of ehoiee. 3.2 The added ingredient of the Law is the attribution of these requirements to the body guard, the "mighty men for war" (ilOn?O? ?'n "'::ll). This phrase draws attention to itself first as a titIe of David in 1 Sam 16:18 (the description given by Saul's servant when asked to find a musician to soothe hirn): "I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skilful in playing, a man of valour ö'n "::ll), a man of war (ilOn?O 1Z1'~'), prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with hirn". These are the titIes the Chronicler picks up and uses for the warriors Abijah and Jehoshaphat, in the pattern of the warrior par exeellenee. This same terminology is important to the War Sero 11. In lQM 6:12 the horse riders are "men of valour for battIe" ö'n '1Z1J~ ilOn?O?); in 10:6 the priest encourages the troops before battle to fear not, and the "mighty men of valour" ö'n "'::ll) to hold together the faint-hearted. Yadin comments here that in the OT this term means mainly "military leaders", i.e., of the thousands. He further notes that 1 Chron 5:23-26, the numerous chapter 7 uses (eight), and chapter 12, can be explained by way of this definition. "The titIe 'mighty men of valour' is given to the chiefs of the households, the highest rank in the tri bai division, who often served ex officio as commanders of the thousands".36 The references to the warriors in 2 Chronicles, given above (13:3 and 17:13) are seen by

35 Cf comment on Col 21:06 (and note 148). The study by R. Knierim, "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosäischen Gerichtsbarkeit", ZA W 73 (1961), pp 146ff, is cited for its suggestion that the organization under Jehoshaphat is behind Exodus 18. At that point we point to the use of 2 Chron 19:8-10 at Col 57: 13 in confrrmation. Here the text appears in relation to the king's guard, but still under the influence of Chronicles' development of the theme. 36 Yadin, War Scroll, p 305, and p 53, n 1.

128

CHAPTER THREE

Yadin to demonstrate that in Chronicles tribaI and military organization interlocked. 37 The sum of this discussion, so far, is to show that a term originally used of individual charismatic leaders (as in Judges), including David, came to be standard phraseology for military leaders. It is particularly in the Chronicles, however, that the term is used for leaders of thousands. Ze'ev Falk calls the description in the Law "a spiritualized version of a military expedient", and draws paralleIs with rabbinic thought: King David' s war leaders are identified with the presidents of the Sanhedrin. 38 In the Law this leadership is not spiritualized. It would be if this were describing the King's Council. But here the development is upon the Chronicler's depiction ofDavid as a man ofvalour, for every member of the royal bodyguard is made a leader in the mould of David. 4. 57:9b-lla: 1m~ c'101lV 1'il' 1lV~ il~'~1 001' /1'On 1011 1'il1 il01':1 lV~n' ~1~ 1lV~ 1::lJ '1l 101 /On 1:11 ~1::l0

These Iines detail the responsibilities ofthe king's guard: to be with hirn constantly, and to keep hirn from sin (wh ich includes foreign people). The introductory phrase, 1011 1'il1, reasserts the influence of Deut 17: 19 (see line 6). It is in the spelling out ofthe details ofthe role ofthe guard that we see the conscious placing of the king's guard in the stead of the Torah of Deut 17: 19. The Torah is to be with the king "all the days of your Iife" , whereas the guard is with the king "continually day and night". The king learns in the Torah how to keep (10lV~) the words of the Lord, whereas in the Law the guard keeps ([J'101lV) the king from sin. This presents us with the situation of Deuteronomy providing the spiritual function which the Law develops along what appears to be a wholly military line. The author does not, of course, supplant the Torah with the select guard. This very law is contained in that Torah, according to Col 57: 1 (as near as we can teIl 39). In effect, the king's guard acts as the guard of the Torah, ensuring its fulfilment by functioning as conscience and interpreter. This 'spiritual' function will be further spelled out below.

',,::n

37 Y. Thorion, "Zur Bedeutung von i1Cn,C' ,'n in llQT LVII, 9" ,RevQ 10 (1979-81), pp 597-598, traces the Second Temple usage of this phrase to Chronicles. If we see this to be the chief influence then perhaps there is no need to look for a historical marker here in the use of mercenaries by John Hyrcanus (as Yadin, I, pp 348-349; M. Delcor, "Le Statut", p 54). This is a development of the military organization of the ChronicIes. 38 Z. FaIk, "Codification of Jewish Law", p 36. 39 On the pattern of Deut 5:12, Exod 23:15, etc. As in Brin, ''The Bible", p 199.

THE KING'S LAW

129

The phraseology of these lines reveals additional influences in which 1lJlV is the key-link word binding them together. 4.1 il"'''' C01' 1'On has no direct biblical source. Solomon's guard, in Cant 3: 8, is depicted as on guard at night, evocative of this terminology. Do both texts reflect awareness of an extended Statutes of the King? Canticles is not the 'essential' text,40 but one possible source. The key idea of the Law is 'guarding' the king. It is interesting to note that Canticles contains no word for 'guarding' although it must be implied. The two other texts Yadin cites provide contexts of value. 41 Neh 4:3, il"'''1 C01' Cil'''11 1lJlVO 1'011J1, provides the context of guarding Jerusalem (not the king) against foreign aggression (Arabs, Ammonites, and Ashdodites). Isa 21:8, on the other hand, brings 'continually' and "day and night" together: "111 C01' 1'On 1011 ':>J~ 'J1~ il!)lO "11 m'2'''il ":> ... 'n10lVO. The fall of Babyion is the object of the watchman's diligence. The recollection of the fall of the kings into the hands ofthe great Babyion evokes this call to watchfulness, lest the king fall again into the hands of a "foreign people". With these texts two times of difficulty at the hands of foreign people are recalled to memory. Yet there remains another aspect of these lines which might bear influence. We mentioned above the role the guard is given as 'Torah' for the king. Here the use of 1 'on suggests the priestly watchfulness in the Temple, offering daily sacrifices for the people and for the king (Num 28:3, etc). Like the sons of Aaron during their ordination (Lev 8:35) and the Levitical singers in the Temple (1 Chron 9:33), the guard watches day and night. What do they watch for? To keep the king from every "sinful thing". The substitution of 'sin' for 'evil' (Deut 23: 10; see below) must be seen as purposeful, reflecting a priestly concem. This is not to suggest that these specific texts are in mind. Rather, the typical Temple terminology is used, emphasizing the 'sacred' role ofthis guard. All this places the guard in the elevated position of the practical vehicle which ensures the king follows the 'Torah' carefully. 4.2 on 1:11 '1:>0 ,m~ C'101lV 1'iT'. 10lZ.7 continues to link sources together. In Psalm 121:7 the Lord keeps his own from all evil, iT1iT' 111 ":>0 117JlZ.7'. In Deut 23: 10 we have the basic source for the whoIe: as the army goes out against its enemies it is to keep itself from all eviI, 111 1:11 ":>0 n17JlZ.7J1. This verse stands alone in Deuteronomy 23 on the

40

41

As per Yadin, I, p 348. Yadin, 11, p 257.

130

CHAPTER THREE

subject of the arrny, so is fitted into this work on the standing arrny of the king, but with adjustments. The substitution of 'sin' for 'eviJ> is significant, appearing in none of the versions. The concem shifts from matters of moral transgression to cleanness. 4.3 1::>J ~'l is not a biblical phrase; there 1JJ ~J:l is found. 42 CD 14:14,15, 1::» ~'l' i1:llZ]~",'p~ln\ includes those taken captive by a foreign nation among those the congregation provides for. These share the sense of a foreign power, as opposed to the biblical 'foreigners'.43 The Damascus Document provides for those taken captive by a foreign power, but notably says nothing about the potential for the king being among them! In this section we have seen Deut 17: 19 exerting continued controI. Deuteronomy is the starting point upon which Cols 57-59 are built, so serves as the underlying text. The base text is Num 31 :4-5, to which are added a diverse group of supplementary texts. The most important factor to emerge is the influence of Chronicles language and thought, particularly in its priestly interest. C. THE KING'S COUNCIL: 57:11b - 15a The King's Law has established the role of the guard partially along the lines of Exodus 18, but omitted from its duties any role in judging the people, which is the primary function of the chosen men of Exodus 18. Now the Law provides for a second body of people who perform precisely the role of judgment, but the sources for this new group come primarily from the Chronicles, with no textual dependence upon Exodus 18. In this way the Law provides a council which guards the king's judgment and counseI. Like the guard, the council is to be "with hirn" (line 13). Where the guard keeps the king from outward, foreign, entanglement, the council prevents the king from rising above his station (line 14, he is "first among equals").

42 Yadin, ibid, p 289, on CoI64:7. The phrase "foreign nation" oeeurs injust these two places in the Serail, the latter occurrenee being the treason whieh brings the death penalty. Can the elose eoneurrenee of these terms in both these eolumns reveal a warning to the king against "selling out" his people to foreigners? 43 Certainly the equation ofLJJ 'J:J with C'J'nJ places the biblieal term in a wholly separate eategory. See G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, p 180.

THE KING'S LAW

1. 57: 11 b-13a:

C~li1'~i1

131

10' '011 '011 ~~lDl /1lDl1 C~llD' 10' 1lDl1 C~llD

1lDl1 C~llD /C~~,lm

1.1 '011 ~~lDl. Num 1:44 (7~1lD~ ~~~lDl) introduces the section, just as in 57:6. This time the interest is focused on the twelve men who represent their tribes. 44 Here is an example of the Scroll taking one text, or even set of texts, and developing it in two different ways. The Law inverts the order of the phrase from Numbers 1. 1.2 Ezra 8:24 provides the next phrase conceming the priests: ~1lDO C~llD C~li1~i1. This context provides a source for bringing together priests, Levites, and "heads of the fathers" (as witnesses to the weighing of the offering of the king and people for the house of God) into an official joint function (v 29).4S No numbers are given in Ezra for Levites and heads of Israel, only "ten of their brothers". The priests are in charge, assisted by the others. There is no reason to see this simply as an ad hoc committee formed only to oversee the offerings, but we might see here evidence of a more permanent council appointed by Ezra. The Law chooses to emphasize the 'twelve', and extend it to all three groups as equals. The use in Ezra of the terms for Num 1:44 provides the Law the material for this development. 46 Ezra 10:14 describes an organization ofjudges in each city which says nothing of priests and Levites. The ChronicleslEzraINehemiah material refers to the three groups, (Iay, priest and Levite, cf Ezra 10:5), but does not consistently speak of any judicialladministrative order. The Law develops this from Torah material, as an ideal council to the king, revealing at the same time its Levitical concerns. The base text, however, is Deuteronomy 17, which provides the material for a tri partite counciI. Deut 17:9, in most versions, speaks of two groups, "Levitical priests andjudges". The Syriac, however, presents 1lDl1

44 In light of the interest in Phinehas in line 5 (ef n 23), we might see a play on words from Josh 22:14 here. Phinehas takes ten i~ D'lt1Z1J (each a head of his father's household) to deal with Reuben and Gad. A ehange to first person, as in Ezek 45:8, is not only palaeographieally unlikely, but would be a clumsily intrusive use of first person in this passage (ef Yadin, 11, p 257). 4S This is a more helpful referenee than Deut 33:5, referred to by Yadin (ibid). 46 This explains the biblieal sourees of the line. For diseussion of the signifleanee of 'twelve' in Qumran, and the New Testament and Mishnah, see J. Baumgarten, ''The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, the Apoealypse, and the Sanhedrin", Studies in Qumran Law, pp 145-171. For the total of36, and eomparison to the Sanhedrin, see Z. Falk, "Codifleation of Jewish Law", pp 36-37. Cf L. Sehiffman, ''The King, His Guard, and the Royal Couneil in the Temple SerolI", PAAJR 54 (1987), p 15 (page numbers from draft eopy); and Yadin, I, p 351.

132

CHAPTER THREE

three groups, "to the priests, or to tbe Levites, or to the judges" (lwt khn' 'w lwt lwj' 'w lwt dyn).47 This can be compared to Col 61: 8-9 (in the Expanded Deuteronomy) which adds "and the Levites" between 'the priests' and 'the judges', suggesting an understanding of Deut 17:9 like that of the Syr. The same appears to be the case in the King's Law. (The use of Deut 17:9 in Col 56 appeared in the missing upper lines, so we cannot know how the Scroll presents the verse there.) The influence of this interpretation can be traced in the Chronicler, where a tri partite division of priests, Levites, and lay leaders seems in 2 Whereas, Chronicles 19, the judicial reform of Jehoshaphat. 48 Jehoshaphat appointed 'judges' in the fortified cities, (vv 6-7) in Jerusalem he established the judges "from the Levites, and the priests, and from the heads of the fathers (m:::miT 'lVWVJ, v 8) of Israel to judge (D:>lV7J~)" . There is mixed opinion of the historicity of the 2 Chronicles 19 account, and therefore its importance for understanding the judicial functions of the kings in ancient Israel,49 but there is more common acceptance of the idea that the Chronicler is concerned to legitimise post-exilic institutions by reference to the Davidic dynasty and that 2 Chronicles 19 is older than Deuteronomy 17. so In this the Law shares· the Chronicler's concern by appealing to the same tradition to establish the king's council of judgment.

47 Yadin, I, p 350, makes Deut 17:9f the basis for this section, citing from MT as the source for three groups, although he does not point out this textual difficulty. 48 So also J. Baumgarten, "Duodecimal Courts", p 145, who calls it a "central tribunal"; cf Delcor, "Le Statut", p 56. 49 Representative of this view is W.F. Albright, "The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 19:5-11)", Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, ed S. Lieberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America Press, 1950), pp 61-82. He is followed by lM. Myers, II Chronic/es, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1965), pp 108-109; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronic/es, New Century Bible (London: Marshali, Morgan and Scott, 1982), p 289, who considers this a reasonable thesis if not proven; Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial A uthority in A ncient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979), p 185. On the other hand, Wellhausen's position in Prolegomena to the History 0/ A ncient Israel (ET: Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1957), p 191, that the reform is an idealization based on Jehoshaphat's name, "Yahweh is judge", is supported by Mark A. Throntveit, When King 's Speak (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p 49. CfPeter Ackroyd, I and II Chronic/es, Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction and Commentary, Torch Bible Commentary (London: SCM, 1973), p 146; A. Phillips, A ncient Israel's Criminal Law (Oxford: University Press, 1970); A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible (London: Marshali, Morgan and Scott, 1979), p 263. 50 Whitelam, The Just King, p 186; Myers, I Chronicles (New York: Doubleday, 1973), p xl.

THE KING'S LAW

133

This common appeal to tradition raises the question of wh ether the Scroll uses the Chronicles as a source or whether the two works are contemporaneous examples of use of sources common to both. It is H. Stegemann's contention that the Temple SerolI, or, rather, its earliest components, represents an early expansion of the Torah which pre-dates the c10sure of the Pentateuch. The similarities between the Scroll and Chronicles are to be explained by their contemporaneity.Sl Stegemann seems to base this judgment on evidence in these columns, the King's Law, and particulary from this section (since this is the only example he uses in his argument). Rather than inter-dependence, 11 QT 57: 11-15 and 2 Chron 19:4-11 share dependence on an unknown work familiar to both. S2 However, the differences reveal very different ends in the minds of the two authors. The Chronicles is establishing a judicial framework for all of Israel, divided between the provincial cities and Jerusalem. Only Jerusalem consists of a tri partite judiciary, which is not noted as a king's council but as adelegated authority. The SerolI, as stated above, takes interest only in the Jerusalem organization, and makes use specifically of its distribution of priests, Levites, and lay leaders. The function of judgment is developed into a council which interprets the law with the king on an equal basis, and pertains to the whole of the king's function rather than just to Jerusalem. The Scroll completes its arrangement of the council by reference to 2 Chronicles 23 (as will be seen below) for the equal division of the three parts. The Chronicler legitimates adelegated judiciary which relieves the king of undue pressure and places hirn in control of a previously autonomous provincial judiciary.S3 The Law, in contrast, creates a democratic council which exercises arestraining influence over the king. This is a development over the Chronicles, in the same spirit as the Deuteronomistic removal of the judicial role from the king in the earlier part of Deuteronomy. This suggests the Law is selective of its use of Chronicles at this point. This point is strengthened by the textual evidence. 2 Chron 19: 11 Iists the three groups in the order "Levites, priests, and heads of fathers",

SI Hartmut Stegemann, "Is the Temple Seroll a Sixth Book ofthe Torah - Lost for 2,500 Years?" BAR NovlDee 1987, p 32, n 35. This artiele is a summary of "The Origins of the Temple SerolI", VTSup 40, (1986), pp 235-256, a paper presented to the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament in Jerusalem; and, "'Das Land' in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten aus den Qumranfunden", in Dru Land Israel in biblischen Zeit (ed George Strecker; Gottengen, 1983), p 156. S2 Stegemann, "Das Land", p 167, notes 19 and 20. S3 A. Whitelam, The Just King, p 188.

134

CHAPTER THREE

against the usual Chronicler order of "priest, Levite ... ,,54. The LXX harmonises in translation and has "priests, Levites ... " in this verse. The Law, in agreement with LXX, also prefers the normal Chronicler order, and maintains it here. Both suggest later use of the Chronicles text. The evidence just considered undermines Stegemann's theory of contemporaneous texts on the basis of 2 Chronicles 19. Since this is his chief piece of evidence, it forces us to return to the evidence of the Scroll as a whole. Given the frequent similarity in interest and language to the Chronicles (the greatest occurrence of sources for 11 QT outside the Pentateuch), and this evidence of secondary relationship of the King's Law to the Chronicles, it is a more viable hypothesis that the Scroll (at least, at this point, the King's Law) is written from a position influenced by the Chronicler. To summarize, Num 1:44 and Ezra 8:24 are explicit textual sources for this li ne which is a development of the councils of 2 Chronicles 19 and Deuteronomy 17 (agreeing with a variant textual tradition). The Law makes selective use of these sources to develop its own specific, ideal council of 36. 1.3 There is one more piece of evidence to examine in considering sources for this council. The War Scroll shares with the Law the use of a tri partite division of twelve each of priests, Levites, and "heads of tribes and fathers of the congregation" in description of the Temple service (lQM 2:1-4). What is notable in this passage, besides its different context, is the virtual subordination of the Levites to the laymen. The tasks of the priests and the lay leaders are spelled out, but not that of the Levites. The lay leaders appear to be given tasks which belong to the Levites in 1 Chron 23:28ff. 55 This is distinct from the Scroll's consistent championing ofthe Levites' prerogatives, and their equal status with both priests and lay leaders in the council. 2. 57:13b-15a: 2.1 il1,n'n lO~lV07 ,n~ '017 C~::JlV'~ '~il~ 1lV~ 'Sitting' with the king is descriptive of a council in session, as in Jer 36:12,56 though this passage speaks only of 'chiefs' C1lV). In lQS6:8-9 the congregation is seated in order, first priests, then elders, then people.

S4 See commentaries on this point; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, p 48. ss Cf P. Davies, lQM, p 27. S6 lohn Bright, Jeremiah (New York: Doubleday, 1965), p 180.

THE KING'S LAW

135

There is no mention ofLevites here (similarly in lQSa 2:12-17, though 2: 1 seems to imply it). The terms 'judgment' and 'law' do not appear together in the Bible, where O~1VrJ1 o~pn is common. This is a conflation of 2 Chron 19:8-10, where the Jerusalem council is to judge O~pn? il1lrJ? il'1n 1'::J O~O~1VrJ?1. This function is transferred to the whole community in 1QS 5:3,6.

2.2 ilrJilrJ f1n ill17 ?1~? Ji::J1 ?1~ il1V17~ ~1?1 ilrJilrJ 1::J::J? 01'~ ~1?1 il'1n of line 14 is a signal from Deut 17: 19 for the return now to 17 :20, the underlying text, 1~n~rJ 1::J::J? 01' ~n?::J? This 'deliberate' change57 shifts the emphasis to the newly created council which acts as his guardian in judgment. The king is limited in his authority by the council. This concern to limit the king's authority may reflect the historical setting of the Hasmonaean era,S8 or the memory of a 'haughty' king. 59 Or, this statute may be seen to recollect accurately the longstanding democratic characteristics of Israel' s monarchy, in which the Statutes of the King of Deuteronomy 17 are meant to preserve a balance between a king's right to act and the people's right of consent. Talmon speaks of a "participatory monarchy" which is based on the cooperation of the people,60 underlying the concept of monarchy in the Bible. The Law is not merely reacting to a repressive king in this instance, but is maintaining a live link with this basic conception. The particular area in which this is developed is in the virtual subordination of the king to cultic authority; two-thirds of the council, the priests and Levites, are from the Temple. 61 The final phrase of this section, in line 15, is not from a biblical source, although it approximates to Eccl 2:25, ~)7J7J f1n. As Yadin observes, this has more in common with Mishnaic language. 62 In this section we see the Law's affinity to the Chronicler material. The idea of a council to the king is not unique to the King's law, nor is a council consisting of priests, Levites, and lay leaders. However, the latter is distinctly influenced by the Chronicles and Ezra. Such a council may indeed be evidence of early Second Temple organization which is applied Yadin, I, p 352; 11, p 258. Sehiffman, "The King", p 16. 59 Cf D. Mendels, " 'On Kingship' in the 'Temple Seroll' and the ideologieal Vorlage of the seven banquets in the 'Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates"', A egyptus 59 (1979), p 133; and A risteas 190. 60 Shemaryahu Talmon, "Kingship and the Ideology of the State", King, Cult, and Calendar (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1986), p 25. 61 Sehiffman, "The King", p 16; Yadin, I, p 352. 62 Yadin, 11, p 258; Brin, "The Bible", p 199. 57

58

136

CHAPTER THREE

to the king's council, and provides with detail from biblical sourees. This is a combination ofthe desert organization ofNumbers 1 and Jehoshaphat's judicial reform of 2 Chronicles 19 and Deuteronomy 17. The Qumran literature exhibits similar interest in the desert organization of Israel, and the organization of priests, Levites, and lay people (cf lQM2). This differs, however, by its cultic focus. Other Qumran sectarian material is inconsistent in its application of the role of judgment to priests and to the people of the congregation, but not to 'Levites' (lQS 6, lQSa 2). D. THE QUEEN: 57:15b - 19a These lines interject the subject of the king's wife into the midst of two sections on judgment. They take their cue from Deut 17: 17, "He shaH not multiply wives to himself', as the base upon which several points are made. 63 The implications of the section have been weH discussed, and only reference will be made to these. The treatment here is to establish the texts used. l. 57:15b-17a:

1.1 [J"1li1 n1)::l hl:;'lJ ~lV' ~" i1lV~' The standard term in the Bible for 'taking' a wife is np? ~1Z1J is used only in the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 64 2 Chron 13:21 and 24:3 refer specifically to kings taking wives; Ezra 10:44 relates to priests who took foreign wives; Ezra 9:12 prohibits all intermarriage; and Neh 13:25 is Nehemiah's denunciation of intermarriage. Intermarriage is described by Nehemiah as the 'sin' of Solomon (v 25). This must be in mind above, in line 10, as one of the sins the guard keeps the king from. "Daughters of the nations" appears only in Ezek 32:16 (and 18). The phrase has a negative connotation, but there is no similarity in context.

1.2 'i1'~ nn:JlV7J1J JillV~ " np' 'i1'~ n'::JlJ [J~ ':;' 1.2a [J~ ':;' appears only three times in the Scroll (cf 53: 11 and 58: 10). There is no way to ascertain the source of influence of this usage, but it is notable that it occurs only in those columns of editing the text of Deuteronomy. The author is tom between his customary use of [J~ and Cf Yadin, I, p 353. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, p 124, identifies NlDJ as a feature of LBH, and conjectures it may be Northem Kingdom dialect. 63

64

THE KING'S LAW

137

the Deuteronomic ~::J. Here is evidence either that the author of the King's Law and ofthe redactor's connection ofthe Deuteronomy section to the Purity Laws are the same person,6S or that the redactor who composed Col 51: 11-54:4 to connect the Deuteronomy material to the rest of the Scroll asserted his style throughout. 1.2b The precedent for this concern for marriage within the family is Abraham's arrangement of Isaac's marriage in Gen 24:40, il1V~ nnp" ~::m n~Jr.n ~nn~1V1J1J ~JJ'.66 The concern to prohibit marriage outside of Israel, the "strange woman" of Neh 13 :26, is widespread in Second Temple literature, from Tobit 1:9 and Judith 8:267 to Joseph and Aseneth 7:4-6 which traces the "commandment of his father" to Jacob. 68 1.2c Neither Genesis 24 nor Numbers 36 (v 6, Cil~::m ile1J nn~1V1J' il r~iln, of the daughters of Zelophehad) explains why the king is limited only to his father's house. The concern is to prevent the sin of Solomon. The means is to interpret the commands against intermarriage in their strictest form. 2. 57:17b-18: il1J' il~~il f'::J n,n~ il1V~ il~'l7 np~ ~'" ilmn ~1J~ ,,::J ,1Jl7 il~iln 2.1 Attention has focused on Lev 18: 18, npn ~, ilnn~ ,~ il1V~', and the similar interpretation ofthis law in CD 4:19-5:2,69 which also refers

6S Cf Brin (''The Bible", pp 215-217) who considers the double expression proof ofthe difficulty the author had in maintaining a Biblical style for a construction which had virtually disappeared in his own day. He does not see the "double version" to mean 'except' as it occurs in the Bible. Y. Thorion virtually agrees, calling the double use redundant, "Die Sprache der Tempelrolle und die Chronikbücher", RevQ 11 (1982-1984), P 426. 66 Yadin, I, pp 354-355; Falk, "Codification of Jewish Law", pp 37-38; Delcor, "Le Statut", pp 57-59, on endogamy. 67 Yadin, I, P 355. 68 See comment by C. Burchard in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2, p 211, who traces the warning against intermarriage from Genesis 24 to Nehemiah 13. M. Sweeney, "Midrashic Perspective", p 56, asserts Exod 34:11-17 and Deut 7:1-7 to be partial basis. These, however, qualify as further examples of the development of Genesis 24. There is not textual dependence here. 69 Yadin, I, pp 355-357, and "L'attitude essenienne envers la polygamie et le divorce", RB 79 (1972), pp 98-99; J. Murphy O'Connor, "Remarques sur I'exposedu Professeur Y. Yadin", RB 79 (1972), pp 99-100; and G. Vermes, "Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah in the Damascus Rule", JJS 25 (1974), pp. 197-202. Cf other discussions in relation to the biblical text or the New Testament: A. Ammassari, "Lo statuto matrimoniale dei re di Israeie (Deut 17,17) secondo I'esegesi dei 'Rotolo dei Templo' (57, 15-19) e le risonanza neotestamentarie (Ef 5, 23-33; Apoc 21, 9-10)", Euntes Doeete 34 (1981), pp 123-127; P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and ldeology in the Dead Sea Seroils (AtIanta: Scholars, 1987), pp 73-85; J.A. Fitzmyer,

138

CHAPTER THREE

specifically to Deut 17:17. CD goes on to absolve David of his error, putting it down to ignorance of what was sealed in the Ark. The Law, on the other hand, implicitly rebukes David and his heirs by the wording of this prohibition so that it echoes 1 Chron 14:3, C'lVl "11 ,'" np'l, and 2 Chron 11 :20 (of Rehoboam), il:Jl11J n~ np" il'1n~1. 2.2 As the king's guard is created to be "with hirn" for purposes of keeping hirn from sin, and the king's council is "with hirn" to maintain control of judgment on the pattern of Deut 17: 19, so also the king' s wife is to remain "with hirn". 2.2a As the words ofthis law are to remain with the king "all the days of his life" (,"n '1J' ":J, Deut 17: 19), here his wife is to remain with hirn "all the days of her life". So the Scroll builds another level of 'watch' over the king (there is no explicit use of 11JlV, but the wife is explicitly given the same role as Deuteronomy's Torah) and continues to fill out the chief areas of application of the law of the king. Here, in respect to the king's wife, the Queen is viewed in terms of the ideal wife of Prov 31: 12: il"n '1J' ":J 111 ~", :110 'iln"1Jl. That this line forbids polygamy is the plain sense. The source of the prohibition is more difficult, since there is no such biblical prohibition. Exod 21: 10, ,,, np' n1n~ C~, relates to the taking of a second slave woman and the safeguarding of the rights of the first woman (but, if the man does not wish to provide these rights he can let her go). This combination of sources provides an understanding of the Law's concerns. The wife of the king is viewed as serving the function of watchfulness over the king. His fidelity to her keeps hirn from sin, or, as in Proverbs 31, evil (111, for which ~on is substituted in line 10). In protection of the wife the Law draws on the texts which deal with the injustices done the first wife by the taking of a second (Exod 21: 10, Lev 18:18), taking 'sister' in the broad sense of any woman. 70 In any case, the problems of David's house are given as the case in point for the king's law.

"Divorce among First-Century Palestinian Jews", Eretz-lsrael14 (1978), pp 103-110; lR. Mueller, "The Temple Seroll and the Gospel Divoree Texts (1)" RevQ 10 (1979-81), pp 247-256; Claus Sehedl, "Zur Ehebruchklausel der Bergpredigt im Licht der neu gefundenen Tempelrolle", TPQ 30 (1982), pp 362-365; A. Tosato, "The Law ofLev 18:18: A Reexamination", CBQ 46 (1984), pp 199-214; A. Vargas-Machuea, "Divoreio e indisolubilidad dei matrimonio en la Sagrada Escritura", EstBib 39 (1981), pp 19-61 (esp pp 26-27). 10 See partieularly Tosato's philologieal and literary study, "The Law of Lev 18:18", pp 201-208.

THE KING'S LAW

139

3. 57:18b-19: Finally, the provision for remarriage after the death of the wife reiterates Genesis 24. In summary of this section, the King's Law continues to tie the material into the Deuteronomy 17 base. A variety of sources are drawn on, with significant influence from Genesis 24 and Proverbs 31. Most important is the use of Chronicler material, and the pattern of David and Solomon, to base the critique of polygamy and intermarriage. The Law, though partial to David, is yet free to expose his weaknesses as the basis for a strict interpretation of the law. 7J E. THE JUST KING: 57:19b - 58.2 Due to the damage to the manuscript we are unable to see wh ether this section is linked to Deut 17:19. What we do have is a link to 57:13-14 on the subject of 'judgment'. 1. 57: 19b-20a:

p'~ o::nVT.J mOil' ,nlTZ7 np' ~1'1 JD~TZ7T.J ilO' ~1'1

Deut 16: 18-19 is the base text, ilOn ~, !p'~ O~TZ7T.J Olm n~ 10~TZ71 ~'1 ... O~TZ7T.J, which is the second treatment of this same text in the Scroll. In Col 51: 11-18, the redaction section which connects the Deuteronomy material to the Purities Law, Deuteronomy 16 is developed according to its subject, just judges in all the cities (the purely Deuteronomic O'J~ 1'Jn ~, is omitted). Here it is the king alone who is to meet the same criteria. In this case of dual treatment of the same text it would appear that the use of Deuteronomy 16 al ready stood in the King's Law, and is left basically untouched by the redactor. 72 Deut 16:19, O~TZ7T.J ilOn ~', and Exod 23:6-8, on the subject of bribes, are combined. The phrase "you shall not be partial" is omitted, since emphasis is on the means by which the king can amass wealth by misuse of his position rather than the content of any judgment. In this 1.1

71 Delcor, "Le Statut", p 58, and Falk, "Codification of Jewish Law", p 37, consider the commands here to be stricter than for priests, on the basis of comparison to rabbinic requirements for the High Priest. This is interesting, and may place the King's Law in the context of the Hasmonean priestJkings. But, there is no textual reference to otherwise priestly requirements in these lines. 72 Schiffman, "The King", p 17.

140

CHAPTER THREE

way the Law develops Deut 17: 17, "nor shall he greatly increase silver or gold for himself'. l.2 Eli's sons (1 Sam 8:3) are examples of the perversion of justice which led to the cry of the people for a king. 73 David is the example of thejust king, doing np1~1 O~lVO in 1 Chron 18:14//2 Sam 8:15, and the pattern for his successors in Jer 22:2-3,15 who oppress the people to build comfortable houses. 2. 57:20b-21: n~:::l1 l1n

'n:" 01J1 n1lV /110n~ ~1'1 '~1lV~:::l 110n '1J1

2.1 The prohibition of covetousness is from Exod 20: 17 with Deut 5 :21, 10nn ~'1. Both include 'house', the latter 'field'. The whole line is patterned on 1 Sam 8: 14, where Samuel responds to the cry for a king by warning that the king will take OJ~01J n~1 OJ~m1lV. To this is combined Mic 2:2, 1~lV)1 o~n:11 1'1l1 m1lV 110m.74 These texts provide the textual bases for the line, but one can think of the example of Ahab's des ire for Naboth's vineyard (1 Kgs 21:2ft) lying behind this,7S with its concern for the tribai inheritance of the land. Nevertheless, the Law is content to combine the warning of 1 Samuel 8 with the prophetie condemnation of Micah 2 in order to make its case. 2.2 The word not provided from biblical sources is l1n, a term of importance in Qumran sectarian literature. 2.2a In 1QpHab 8: 11 the Wicked Priest is accused of robbing and amassing riches, Y1:::lp~1 '1lr1 l1n. Those who join the Community bring l1n '1J in order to purify them (IQS 1:13,5:20) because l1n '1J does not equal truth (lQH 15:23). In CD 4:17 'riches' is listed as the second of the three nets of Belial (but not "all riches").76 If the Wicked

Ibid, pp 17-18. Yadin, 11, 259, refers to Isa 44:9 and 2 Chron 20:25 for 10n, but neither eontribute more than the word. Job 20:19-20 eontains similar voeabulary, but not eontext. However, the note on the LXX text ofNum 16:15, where lm9ulliO = 10n rather than MT "on is pertinent. The Seroll use may be a ease of an exegetieal variant, espeeially for the seeond use of 10n in the line whieh has no biblieal base. n SehifIman, "The King", p 18. 76 P. Davies, The Damascus Covenant, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), pp 110-111, eoneludes the same eoneeming the three "nets of Belial". It is notable that l'iT is diseussed together with polygamy in CD 14:17-19. R. Eisenman, in his exegesis of the Col 46: 10 use of l1':::l in "The Historical Provenanee of the 'Three Nets of Belial' Allusion in the Zadokite Doeument and BALLA"/BELA" in the Temple SerolI", Folia Orientalia 25 (1988), pp 51-66, and in James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher (Leiden: 73 74

THE KING'S LAW

141

Priest is seen as a Hasmonean ruler, then we may see here a connection between this line and abuses current in the Second Century B.C.E., although the Biblical sources themselves show the problem to be a common one to every time. 2.2b More pertinent is the possible connection with 1Q27 (Livres des Mysteres) 1, line 12, [l]'il ' l l ~n',77 which may contain the same concems (cf the last word of line 21, 'n,). Over all, the most that can be said is that this is a late Hebrew word, which provides another clue to the period of the composition of these Statutes, i.e., perhaps Second Century.B.C.E. In summary, this section applies the Pentateuch commands to the danger of kings taking their wealth from their people's inheritance. The natural source for this is 1 Samuel 8. The prophet Micah is included for his condemnation of this very sin, using the same terms as Deut 5:21. This time David is again viewed as a positive example. that the reference to David is paralleled in 1 Chron 18:14 and 2 Sam 8:15 raises the question of priority of influence. The presence at Qumran of copies of Samuel with affinities to the Chronicles suggests, at least, that the author might be operating from a similar text, or that the he is influenced in the same way by the Chronicler stance. 78 F. MEETING AN INVADING ENEMY: 58:3 - 11a These lines conceming the plans for defensive warfare illustrate the term 'mosaic' which is used to describe the Temple Scroll?9 There is no basic E.J. BrilI, 1986), pp 87-93, fails to notiee this eonneetion between 1'iT and fornieation in Column 57. His linking together of CD, llQT, lQpHab, James, and 2 Peter/Jude as anti-Herodian rhetorie reveals a failure to examine the relationships and differenees earefully. 77 DJD I, p 103. 78 Little more ean be said of the relationship between 4QSam and Chronieles until all the material is published. This instanee is the only point of eoneurrenee between Samuel and Chronicles in llQT. For the affmity of 4QSam to Chronicles see E.L. Ulrieh, The Qumran Text 0/ Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp 151ff. For additional studies see 1. de Waard's review ofUlrich, RevQ 11 (1982), pp 285-290, who says, "La conc1usion que s'impose est que 4QSam a est plus proehe que le TM de la base textuelle utilisee par le Chroniste" (p 287); E. Tov, "The Textual Affiliations of 4QSam"', JSOT 14 (1979), pp 37-53, and The Hebrew and Greek Texts 0/ Samuel (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980); Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, "Another Look at 4QSam·", RevQ 14 (1989), pp 7-30. Cf also F.M .Cross, "A Theory of Local Texts", Qumran and the History 0/ the Biblical Text, eds Cross and S. Talmon (Harvard: University Press, 1975), pp 306-320 (esp p 311). 79 Especially Brin, ''The Bible", p. 182f; and "Coneeming Some ofthe Uses ofthe Bible in the Temple SerolI", RevQ 12 (1987), p 519.

142

CHAPTER THREE

text upon which everything is built, but a veritable mosaic of allusions brought together around the theme of warfare. The treatment which follows will only sketch the outline of this skilful weaving of material together in order to pOint to the significant conclusions which may be gathered from the section.

"n,

1. 58:3-4a: 011' ~'l ,,:> '11 {l'OiT} 110tz1~ ~:> iT'{ }iT'

'~'tz1~'

tur ,tz1~ ":>0

tz1P::J7J {?~'iT1}

1.1 The opening phrase is common of king' s preparing for battle, as in Josh 5:1, 9:1, and 11:1, ~:>'O ,:> 110tz1:>. 1.2 2 Chron 32: 15 provides the striking combination "l ,:> in Sennacharib's speech to Hezekiah. 80 1.3 2 Sam 20: 19 contains the form tz1P::J7J in the speech of the wise woman of beseiged Abel to Joab, perhaps illustrating common terminology for the intent of an attacking army. connects this section with the previous one (57:21), and as a key-word link introduces Jer 21: 12. 81

,n

1.4 Jer 21: 12-14 is an oracle to the royal house of David (v 11) which expects the king to deliver the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor who has 'plundered' hirn (v 12). He, in turn, is wamed against complacency in the face of attacking armies (v 13, "who will come down against us?"). The Law turns this oracle around, extending the command for protection against the invading army, not an internal oppressor. 1.5 The final phrase is also found in Gen 39:8 of Joseph's stewardship of Potiphar's wealth. Bach of the above sources, except the last, appears in a context of battle or invasion. The last reference is difficult to reconcile to the context, but is the longest allusion. Perhaps we can speak of this only as illustrating a use of biblical language. The others, by contrast, arguably do not constitute allusions since they consist of only one or two words. But it is significant that each context contributes to the subject. Gen 39:8 represents an exception which stands out only because of the rarity of such exceptions.

Cf lQM 6:6, 14:7. Yadin, 11, P 260, refers to all of the texts given here. He does not, however, note the context of Jeremiah 21. 80 81

THE KING'S LAW

2. 58:4-5a:

m~ {' }rJil ~1lV

143

'?ln C~!)"~il

~1lV "11 n"lV1 "~1lV~ 1"111J C~J1mil

2.1 The sending out of commanders C1lV "11 n"lV1) is another standard battle phrase. In 2 Kgs 1:9 Ahaziah sends his Fifties out to arrest Elijah (C~lV~rJn 1lV 1~"~ n"lV~1); more aptly, in 2 Chron 16:4//lKgs 15:20 Ben Hadad sends out his warriors to battle against Israel. 82 2.2 We have met the commanders of Thousands and Fifties in Col 57:4. 2.3 11m is a late word, used of appointments made in Neh 13:4 and 1 Chron 6:33. Neither is specifically a source. 3. 58:5b-6: ilrJn"rJ" 1rJl1 n~l" Cl1il 1lVl1rJ 1rJ111n"lV1 1rJ111~1~1 Cil~J~1~ hl1 3.1 "They shall send" is arepetition from line 4, where the king sends his commanders. There is no precedent for dividing the people like this, other than that of N eh 11: 1 where one-tenth of the people choose to live in Jerusalem. 83 The Law appears to be working either from an original formula, or from an unknown source. 3.2 I Kgs 8:44//2 Chron 6:34 is the base for lines 5-6: lrJl1 ~l~ ~~ 1J~~ "11 ilrJn"rJ". This is a part of Solomon 's prayer of dedication of the Temple, a prayer for God to defend the cause of the people. There is, of course, a difference between the use of Cl1 in Solomon's prayer and in the Law. The first is "your people", while the latter is "with hirn". What is more, this is emphasized at the end ofthe sentence. In Josh 8:1 and 11:7 the "people of war" go 'with' Joshua into battle, using Cl1 in both ways.84 But in every case the phrase is the same, "people of war", or "to war". (In fact, the terminology seems to be standard that an army goes to battle 'with' the king, cf 2 Chron 18:3, where "we will be with you" is one of the Chronicler's additions to 1 Kgs 22:3). The change of meaning in the Law and the three-fold use of "with hirn" is purposeful. On ce again the King's Law provides the king with a guard to watch with hirn. This section is tied back into Deut 82 Yadin's references, ibid, do not contribute to the meaning ofthe term. 2 Chron 28:16 is asending for help, and 17:7 is sending out officials as teachers. 83 Yadin, ibid. 84 Judg 11:3 provides an example of "go out with him ", as Yadin points out (II, p 261), but has nothing to do with warfare. 2 Chron 25:13 is the reverse ofthis line: the warriors are sent back.

144

CHAPTER THREE

17: 19. The subject of warfare develops on the addition of "for war" in CoI56:16. 4. 58:6b-7a: /1n~1Z" ~~'1Zr r'~~ ~::J ::J, Cl1 C~1 ilOn~Oil 'lVJ~ n'lV'On 1011 4.1 "Many people" introduces Deut 20: 1, the base for Iines 6-7 (merged with 1 Kgs 8:44//2 Chron 6:34), ::J, Cl1 ... T::J'~ ~11 ilOn~1.l~ ~:m ':>.85 Deut 20: 1 is used very selectively here, unlike its full presentation at Col 61 :12f. This provides another piece of evidence that the King' s Law is a different source than the Expanded Deuteronomy material. 86 4.2 The phrase "land of Israel" is rare in the Bible. 2 Kgs 6:23 is the source here, ~~'lV' r'~::J ~1::J~, in the context of marauding bands of Syrians invading Israel. 4.3 'One-fifth' continues the working of the Law's scheme. 87 Exod 13: 18 and Josh 1: 14 depict the people of Israel going out in C'lVOn. This is usually taken to mean "martial array" (MT, Sam, cf RSV). However, in Exodus 13 the LXX interprets it as lTEIl1TTll, 'the fifth' generation. The Law follows a similar interpretation. 88 5. 58:7b-9: 'lVJ~ n'lV'~lV 1011 1n~lV1 /::J, C111 0101 ::J:>'1 1~7J C~1 n~1 ilOil"l1 n~ !O'11.l1lV 1'il' m"il 'nlV1 ilOn~Oil ilOl'~ l1n ~~ '1'l ~1::J' ~1~ 'lV~ ilO~1::Jl 5.1 Deut 20:1 provides the opening phrase, ::J, Cl1 ::J:>'1 010 (agreeing with LXX and Sam in the addition of waw to 'people'; the Law puts chariots before the horses, against all versions!). 'King' is an addition. Josh 11:4, 1 Kgs 20:1, and 2 Kgs 6:14 are further examples ofexpectati on of imminent attack.

8S The phrase ::1, Cl1 ON occurs in Josh 17: 15, referring to the people ofIsrael, and not her enemies. 86 With Schiffman, "The Laws of War", p 304. 81 See Yadin, I, p 359, for his conjecture on the origins of the figure. Citing Gen 47:24 in 11, p 261, he speaks of "linguistic influence". This seems basically to mean that the same word appears in both places. Other than this, Gen 47:24 offers nothing to the Law. 88 Yadin discusses this in I, p 359, citing Mekilta, BeshaJlah [77], but does not note the LXX precedent for the rabbinie midrash.

THE KlNG'S LAW

145

5.2 With repetition of the set phrase "they shall send with hirn", the proportion of 'one-third' is given. This is the strategy used by David in 2 Sam 18:2 in battle against Absalom, but David hirnself did not go with them, at the people's behest. Abimelech divided his company into three in the attack on Shechem in Judg 9:43, but all the army was used. Of more direct importance is 2 Kgs 11 :5-7 (//2 Chron 23 :3-5). Jehoiada divides his forces into thirds. One-third watches the king's house, where Athaliah lives; two-thirds guard (11T.JUn ••• m"il 'nUn) the Temple, where the king, Joash, is kept safe. Thus, one-third meets the enemy while two-thirds remain to guard the house. The influence of this context is strengthened by the emphasis on the protection of the king, so the guard is "with hirn" (2 Kgs 11:7//2 Chron 23 :7) at all times. 5.3 The protection of "cities and boundaries" is not found in any biblical source. On the contrary, Ps 127: 1 reminds Israel that the Lord must protect the city (1'11 11JlV' ~, il1il' O~)! 5.4 The wandering bands of Syrians, a source in line 6, are behind the concern of line 9: 2 Kgs 5:2, O""l 1~l' 01~1. David is again the source, from 1 Sam 30:23, 1n'::1 1J"11 ~::1il '''lil n~ ln'1, giving thanks for being spared. 6. 58: 10-l1a: Ol1il n'ln1J l' 1n'lV1 1"11 il1Jn'1Jil ptnn O~ ':>1 il1Jil'1111J 1n1:>' ~1' Ol1il n'ln1J1 ~:Jlil rlVJ~ n~

6.1 The king of Moab found the Israelites overpowering in 2 Kgs 3 :26 (il1Jn'r.m 1J1J1J ptn ':», and sent further forces into action. 89 Joab arranges his forces with a contingency plan when David is faced by one enemy in the field and another at the city gate (2 Sam 10:6-11). The former text provides the wording, while 2 Samuel 10 seems to lie behind the whole of the line. 6.2 Division of forces into two is a common tactic in the Bible,90 but the division is because of schism in both 1 Kgs 16:21 and 2 Sam 19:41. The latter, in which half the people go with David when he flees from Absalom, approximates the wording here, Oll 'ln Oll The tactic of dividing the people in two is used in Neh 4: 10, where half work on the walls and half stand guard.

89

90

2 Chron 25:3//2 Kgs 14:5 is a 'linguistic' parallel. See n 83. Yadin, 11, p 262.

146

CHAPTER THREE

6.3 "The men of war" is Chronicles terminology, as in 1 Chron 12:9, i17Jn'7J' ~:Jl ~WJ~. 6.4 The author has the ultimate disaster of the Exile in mind here, and the fall of the city, by his use of Zech 14:2. First of all, "half the city" is exiled, but the other half are spared: ~, C17i1 ,n~, ••• '~17i1 ~~n ~~~, n,:::>~. It is the expectation of the Law that when the king acts according to this Law, then the Lord is on his side and the land will be saved. This section is a mosaic of biblical contexts which have to do with battle. The gradations of proportions who go out to battle do not have a biblical basis, but biblical language is used. The important place of Chronicles material continues to be seen, as in the closing sentence of the section and the term from 2 Chronicles 32 used at the beginning. In line 5 it is uncertain whether 1 Kings 8 or 2 Chronicles 6 should be seen as the source; in line 4, l' Kings 15 or 2 Chronicles 16; in line 8, 2 Kings 11 or 2 Chronicles 23. There is no single criterion by which to judge this except to note the prominence of unique Chronicler vocabulary in many places, and the use of 2 Chronicles 23 in Col 57:12,13, and again in Col 58:18, in keeping with the Law's Levitical interests. These, perhaps, tip the balance in favour of seeing the priority of the Chronicles' influence. The selection of sources favours the use of David material as a pattern. Finally, the clear use ofZech 14:2 and Mic 2:2 is important use ofthe prophets as authority for interpretation. In Zechariah the invasion and destruction of Jerusalem is seen to be a vivid memory which this Law is meant to prevent recurring. G. THE BOOTY: 58:11b - 15a The King's Law discusses the division of plunder only in relation to the defensive war. This is based on Num 31 :27 -30, the result of the battle against Midian which has al ready been a source for these columns (the King's Guard, 57:5-11). The Numbers proportions seem to be brought into line with the equal division of spoils by David in 1 Sam 30:24-25,91 but there is no explicit use of this text in these lines. This is the first section in which it is difficult to find any direct connection to Deuteronomy 17. M. Sweeney finds the origin in the prohibition of the king amassing silver and gold in 17: 17, but understood

9\ For fuH discussion ofthe proportions see Yadin, I, pp 360-361; Schiffinan, ''The Laws of War", pp 304-305 ; and Milgrom, "Studies", pp520-521.

147

THE KlNG'S LAW

in a military context following 17:16. 92 We have already suggested this as the origin of Col 57:19-21, whereas Sweeney's explanation appears rather strained. Rather than restraining the king's wealth, the Law seems to provide the king with a legitimate source for increasing his income: in wars not of his choosing. 1. 58: 11 b-12: C'1:JlZ7' ilTJil~:J~'~ n~ rm::CJ C~ il~il1 ilTJ""lZ7 n~ ~lZ7l' :J1n { } ~~., C,::Jil1 1.1 n::Cl, meaning 'victory', does not appear in the Bible. 93 Compare, however, the interpretation ofIsa 25:8 as 'victory' in 1 Cor 15:54. This is a late Hebrew usage. 1.2 The Lord 'breaks' his enemies in Isa 14:25 and Jer 48:38. 2 Sam 5:20, ~:J~~ n~ il'il~ r1~, suggests a elose parallel in form, and from the example of David breaking through the Philistines. 94 1.3 Taking the enemy "by the mouth of the sword" is common language, especially in Joshua (8:24, 10:28,30,32,35,37). 1.4 The reference to plunder begins the influence of Num 31 :27f. Its use of the term n1p'm, however, indicates the presence of a secondary text such as 2 Chron 14: 12, il:J1il ""lZ7 '~lZ7~" in the context of a defensive war against Ethiopia. 2. 58:12c-14a: ,n~ [J~ljn:>", "WlJTJ '''0''

'l7.J1J mm,

"'::Jil lTJ /il~TJil lTJ ,n~ C~~'''''' 'l"~TJ

2.1 This is a re-write of the law of proportions of the booty as given in Num 31:28-30, making the addition ofthe king's portion to those ofthe priest, Levite, and warriors. The addition of the king's tenth is derived from 1 Sam 8: 15,17, though there is no reference to spoils there. 9S 2.2 The formula for the priests (not just 'the priest') and Levites differs from Numbers, but comes to the same amount in the end. 96

Sweeney, "Midrashic Perspective", p 58. Cf Yadin, II, p 262. 94 Yadin, ibid, refers to rabbinie paralieis which are pertinent. Cf Jastrow, Dictionary, pp 1517, and 1645. 9S Yadin, I, P 360, also suggests Melchizedek in Gen 14:20 as a source. 96 See note 91. 92

93

148

CHAPTER THREE

3. 58:14-15a: ~1Z.7!:nn r::l '~1Z.7il

1lm ilonlmil ilOil~'l1::l 1n~lil '1Z.7~ mOil~n~~ n~lnO

Num 31:27: ~1Z.7~n r::l mi'~Oil n~ n~lm ~::ll~ C~~l~il ilon~Oil il111il ~:J r::l1

3.1 Num 31:27 is followed closely. The important difference is the substitution of "to their brothers" for "all the congregation". In the Law the spoils are to be shared only among the warriors. 3.2 In 1 Sam 30:26 David sends some of his spoil from Ziklag to the cities of Judah, "to his friends". This is the closest allusion to 1 Samuel 30 we can find. 97 In this short section the Law freely adapts Numbers 31 with the use of David material. Even so, we also see one clear use of the Chronicles. Also, in the substitution of il111il with ilOil~n~ the author fails to use terminology significant to sectarian literature. H.

GoING TO

WAR: 58:15b - 21

The rules for offensive war are given in the rest ofthe column. The base returns to Deut 20: 1 to set the scene (as in lines 6-7). The chief concern of this section is to place limits on the ability of the king to choose a war of expansion. Of significance is the central role given the high priest in this limitation of authority. Here, also, the provision of those who go "with hirn" is extended. N ow it is all the people ofIsrael (line 19), the final link to Deut 17: 19. 1. 58:15b-17a: 1011 ~l~1 1~::l~1~ 1711 ilOn~O~ ~l~ C~{11}1 ~~nil r'1::ll ~1:J ilOn~Oil ~1Z.7l~ Cl1il n~1Z.7~on 1.1 Deut 20: 1, introducing the exemptions from warfare, is the source of the beginning of the section: T::l~~ ~11 ilOn~O~ ~ln ~:J.98 At the same time, Deut 23: 10, T::l~~ ~11 illnO ~ln ~:J, is signaled, preparing for its use for the command for purity in line 17.

97 Yadin, 11, p 263, sees confmnation here of the BH suggestion that 1 Sam 30:26 reads "to their cities", citing BR. BRS, interestingly, however, removed the reading. Yadin also refers to 2 Chron 1:14 for this line. This must be another "Iinguistic parallel". 98 On the interchange of ON for ':> see Brin, "The Bible", pp 214-217; Thorion, "Die Sprache der Tempelrolle", p 423. On the faHure to expand on these exemptions, see Schiffman, "The Laws of War", p 307.

THE KING'S LAW

149

1.2 Line 16 finds its source in Josh 1: 14, on the crossing of the Jordan, "nil '11:Jl o'won 11:117n (and 10:7 for ilon,oil 011). As in line 7 there is an apparent play on o'won. 99

':> ...

58: 17: ilOW~1 11111 '1:J01 m1111 '1:J01 iI~OO 1::11 '1:J0 110WJ1

2.

2.1 Deut 23: 10 is now introduced on its own, 111 1::11 ,:JO n10WJl, to provide for the purity of the warriors. The substitution of 111 with ~OO is consistent with the use ofDeut 23:10 in Col 57:10 (~On). This is a peculiar trait of the King's Law, finding no echo in other Qumran literature, which maintains the phrase 111 1::11 (IQM 7:7,10:1). 2.2 The remainder of the line is without biblical parallel. lQM 7:7 develops Deut 23:10 in the same way, 111 1::11 m111 '1:J1. 100 lQS 5:15 combines 11111 and ilOW~. In each of these sectarian documents the wilderness organization of the camp is being applied. 3. 58: 18-19a: 'l1lil 1i11:JiI 'J~' ~1::1' 111 ~~' ~1'1

0'01nil1 !t:l'11~iI O~WO::1 l' '~W1

3.1 To "go out" is common terminology ofkings going to war (cf 2 Sam 11: 1). The opening phrase of this senten ce reflects 1 Sam 18: 13, where David 011i1 'J~' ~::1'1 ~~, in battle, in the same way Joshua does in Num 27:21 (below). 3.2 In Num 27:18-22 Joshua must come before the priest, Eleazar, to receive instruction for battle from the Urim. lOl The Law develops this subordination of warrior leader to the priest. Further support for this development comes from 2 Chronicles 23 (which has already been an influence) where the theme of subordination of the king to the priest is developed. Jehoiada, 'the priest', commands the warriors and acts for the king (continuing in this relation until his death). The Chronicles account develops the parallel account in 2 Kgs 11 :4-20 by highlighting the role of the priest and the Levites. In these lines the Law goes further by picking up the embryo concept of subordination of the king to the priest and makes that relationship law.

See the diseussion and sourees there. On the form of m"l1, ef Yadin, 11, p 264, and E. Qimron, ''New Readings in the Temple SerolI", JEJ 28 (1978), p 169. 101 Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65 inelude both Urim and Thummim, as does Deut 33:8, whieh is quoted in 4QTest, an esehatologieal text from Qumran. 99

100

ISO

CHAPTER THREE

The germ of the idea of the role of the priest in battle can be found in Deut 20:2, when the priest addresses the army before battle. However, he deals only in matters of exemption, and there is no evidence of verbal dependence on this verse. 3.3 The term "high priest" is a common term in later literature102 as weil as Numbers 35:25,28 (and Josh 20:6). The Law agrees with this late biblical material against Qumran sectarian literature (cf I QM 2: 1_4).103 4. 58:19b-20a:

Num 27:21 (MT):

~':J' 'i1'~ In" ~l' 'i1'~ ~17 ,n~ /11Z7~ ~~'1Z7' 'l:J ~,:>, ~'i1

'~:J' ,,~ ~17' '~l' ,,~ ~17

,n~ ~~'1Z7' 'l:J ~:>, ~'i1

Numbers 27 is followed virtually verbatim/ 04 omitting the reference to the inquiry ofthe Urim being "before the Lord", but adding 'Thummim' (see above); and omitting "and the whole congregation".10S The "sons of Israel" must refer specifically to the warriors rather than 'the people' of Israel. 5. 58:20-2Ia: '1Z7~ 117 ':J~ nl17TJ ~l' ~,~ C'TJ,ni11 tO"'~i1 O~1Z7TJ:J ~~1Z7' 5.1 This line is arestatement of the previous two lines, and so is repetItIve. The significance of this is the warning lest the king go out "by the counsel of his heart". The subordination to the priest is emphatic. This phrase appears to be idiomatic (cf Jer 7:24, of Israel's failure to obey the prophets; Ps 83 :6, of the conspiracies of the nations; and Prov 20:5, likening a man's counsel to deep water).106

102 Hag 1:12,14, 2:4; Zech 3:1,8, 6:11; Neh 3:1,20. But, cf Ezra 7:5, and Chronicles. 103 Perhaps little can be made of this with regard to biblical use, since Chronicles prefers "chief priest" (2 Chron 19:11; 24:11, where 2 Kgs 12:11 has "high priest"; 26:20; 31:10; 24:6). In terms of Qumran, however, the use of "high priest" as used by the Hasmoneans seems reason for sectarian literature to choose to use "chief priest". Cf Yadin, War SeroIl, pp 207-208. 104 The text agrees with the Sam not only as Yadin shows (11, p 264), but in 1il'!). 105 il'l' is a key term in Qumran literature, purposely left out here. Would it have been if the Scroll is sectarian in origin? 106 It is perhaps ironic to note the presence of this characteristic Qumran word immediately after noting the absence of another one. Cf Schiffman, ''The Laws of War", p 307.

THE KING'S LAW

151

5.2 In 4QpIsad, line 5, the twelve chief priests(?) give light O~lVTJ:) [J"'~i1. This manuscript bears similarities to the King's Law in provision of a council of twelve priests and twelve laity (but no Levites). This similarity, apart from its distinct differences, might suggest that the "high priest" of line 18 may be any one of the twelve priests who sit on his council. 107

[J'r.nni11

In this promise of prosperous ways the Law makes several connections. Firstly, Abraham sends his servant forth with promise of success in Gen 24:40 (cfvv 21, 42, 56), tying the text in with Col 57:16. Second, Deut 28:29, 1'J" n~ n'''~m, signals ahead to the use of the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 in Col 59. Third, in 2 Chron 26:5 Amaziah is commended for doing right in the sight of God by seeking the Lord. As long as he did so (through Zechariah who "had understanding through the vision of God" - Urim and Thummim?), "God prospered him".108 This section stays close to the sources al ready used. Beginning with Deut 20: 1 it ties the subject matter into the discussion of war which began at line 3. David continues to be the source which illustrates each point, primarily from Samuel. The differences in the use of Numbers from that of other Qumran material, such as the War Sc1'OII, is highlighted in this section. It is at this point that the Law shows more affinity with the Chronicles, as seen in line 21. I. CURSES: 59:2 - 13

G. Brin is apt in his appraisal of this column, noting the increase in the fragmentation of the biblical sources under the hand of the author, and increased originality in creation of a new text out of the sources. 109 The sections on curses and blessings are distinctly tied into Deut 17: 19, "observe all the words ofthis law", by the use ofDeut 28:58 in line 10, "according to all the words of this law".llo No portion of this Law, including 58:3-11, uses its sources in such fragmentary fashion and in

Cf]. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, pp 150-15l. lf this is an oblique reference to Urim and Thummim, it is the only mention after the time of David, when the prophets were sought out for answers to inquiries of God. See H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (London: SPCK, 1966), p 206. 109 Brin, ''The Bible", p 192. 110 Cf Sweeney, "Midrashic Perspective", p 58. 107

108

152

CHAPTER THREE

such divergenee from the order found in the Bible. Yet, the sources can easily be diseemed, III and are skilfully woven together with eare whieh closer study reveals to be ordered tidily. 1. 59:2-3a: 71VTJ7[

]IV[ ]1'il1 m:n ml1~:J C11l:J'[1] 71::> 110n:J1 /1:J::> 71l7:J1 il'JJ1V71

The base for this line is a combination of Deut 28:64, il1il' ll'~il1 C'TJl1il 7::>:J, 28:37, iJ)'JIV71 7IVTJ7 ilTJIV7 n"il1, and 28:48, 7::> lOn:J1 7n:J 717 1ml The differences from Deuteronomy provide additional insight into the sourees: 1.1 The substitution of 1l:J112 for Y~il of Deuteronomy and Ezek 11: 16 might be an example of mishnaie language,113 or may be seen as an allusion to Ps 68:31. The pieture there of God seattering people of war adds a waming to the king in his pursuit of offensive war.

(n1l1~:J C'ml'~il)

1.2 "Many lands" oceurs only in Jer 28:8, in an oracle of warning. 1.3 For the "iron yoke" of Deuteronomy 28 the Law inserts the "heavy yoke" of 1 Kgs 12: 11//2 Chron 10: 11. The Davidic dynasty itself provides a harsh rem inder of servitude. 2. 59:3b-4a: :Jill1 JZ'lO::> 1~1

Yl1 C1~

'1' 'lVl1TJ C'il17~ ilTJIV 11:Jl11

This line is based on Deut 28:36, 1~1 Yl1 C'1n~ C'il7i't CIV m:Jl11, merged with Deut 4:28, 1~1 Yl1 C1i't '1' illVl1TJ C'il7i't CIV Cm:Jl11, together with Ps 135:15 (and 115:4), '1' illVl1TJ :Jilll rp::> C'1lil ':Jl11 C1~. The Law shares with the vorlage of LXX the form 'lVl1TJ. The author has in mind each of these condemnations of idolatry. 3. 59:4-5b: ili'11V71 ilTJ11V7 ilTJil'111 1'il' ill 71::>:J1 ilTJ:J C'7J7J11V ilTJil':J"1~ !1'il1 il:J11n71 3.1 Deut 28:37, used in line 2, is expanded by referenee to parallel curses in Lev 26:31-34: 'mTJlVil1 il:J1n C::>'111 ~ 'nnn (v 31). Jer 25:9

111 Yadin, 11, pp 266-270, and Brin, 'The Bible", p 192, detail these thoroughly. We will be seen to concur in most cases. 112 Yadin' s reconstruction seems certain. 113 Cf Yadin's reference to Jastrow, Dictionary, p 154 (11, p 266).

nIE KING'S LAW

153

provides the rest ofthe terms (il::J1n, ilp1W, il7JW); and, with Jer 19:8, the curse on Jerusalem, the Law has drawn together those texts which promise desolation to the city/cities of Israel: 3.2 Yadin illustrates the opening phrase, "And in all this", from Neh 13:6. This would be an example of late Hebrew. 3.3 Lev 26:32 is the source for the end of the sentence, il~~l7 '7J7JW, This creates a problem in translation due to the idiomatic beth which follows O~7J7J'W. Yadin translates as "will devastate", but the examples given are all of the more typical "be amazed".114 J. Milgrom believes it "would be best" to take the term in the latter sense. llS The use of Leviticus 26 would be sufficient reason for following Milgrom except for the form used which appears in Lam 1:16, O~7J7J'W 'J::J '~il, with the unquestionable meaning "my children are desolate". Perhaps Yadin is correct.

O:J~::J~~.

59:5b-7a:

4.

~J~7J O~P~l7l7J' /O~nJ~no il7Jil~::J~'~ m:n~::J

il7Ji11

/ilJl7~ ~,~, 'pl7l1 l77JW~ ~,~, '~1P' 1::J:J ~1l7 il7Jil~~~l77J l7'1 'J~7J il7Jm~ 4.1 The use of Lamentations provides a link to the following sentence (1:11, O~nJ~J il7Jl7 ~:J). The opening phrase is from Lev 26:36, mn~::J Oil~::J~~ (cf vv 34, 39), and the final phrase in line 7 returns to Deuteronomy 28 at verse 20, T~~l77J l71 ~J~7J, merged with Jer 44:22 (etc).116 4.2 In between is a most skilful interweaving of texts built on the base

of Exod 2:23, which picks up the link from Lam 1:11,117 'groan' (nJ~), and in turn provides the verb "cry out" (pl7l) as the key-link word. Lines 5-7 contain these key words (highlighted text): "And in the land of their enemies they will groan and m out because of a heavy yoke, and they will call, and I will not hear; and they will m out and I will not answer them." Use of Exod 2:23 evokes the image of Israel in Egypt, "The children of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help ... " Three additional texts are woven together: God wams Jeremiah in 11: 11,

Yadin, 11, p 267. Milgrom, "Further Studies", p 102. Cf Isa 52:14; Ezek 27:35, 28:19. 116 Yadin, 11, p 267, cites Jer 21:12 and 26:3. This text is directIy pertinent, as per language. 117 Ezek 9:4, C'nJltJil C'1Z7Jltil, may ofTer another allusion. This is cited in CD 19:12. See Yadin, ibid. 114 115

154

CHAPTER THREE

"Though they ID out to me, I will not listen to them"; Zech 7:13 says, "As I called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen"; and Micah 3:4, "Then they will crv to the Lord, but he will not answer them." The language of Jeremiah is invoked repeatedly in this column of curses, and here similar language from Zechariah and Micah are added to it. No one text contains all the ingredients of lines 5-7, but combined they do. Jeremiah says "they cry out" and "I will not listen"; Zechariah does not have 'cry' but adds "they call" to "I will not listen"; Micah does have 'cry' and adds "I will not answer them". 5. 59:7b-9:

i101lV7J?1 l::J?1 1i1?:m~? 1'i11 i17Ji17J 'J:l 1'nO~1 rn'1::J 11:li1 1lV~ i17Jn111 'J:l7J l1'lV17J rl'n i17JlV~ ?1:> 17JlV~' 111 i17JlV:lJ i1?l1l 'n11n

n~1

Deut 28(:29) continues as the base text, together with Lev 26:15,43 and Jer 44:3 as the secondary texts: 5.1 The opening phrase, i17Ji17J 'J:l 1'no~1, is a "common biblical phrase", as Yadin states,1l8 Ezek 39:23 providing this form as God explains why Israel was sent into exile (cf Deut 31: 17,18). 5.2 Deut 28:29, "you will be oppressed and robbed continually, and there will be none to save", is merged with a combination of texts linked by 'prey' of Ezek 34:8, i1?::>~? 'J~~ ilJ"i1nl l::J? 'J~~ nl'i1, and 2 Kgs 21: 14, i101Z7li2J l::J? 1'i11 (the promise to abandon Judah because of the sin of Manasseh). 5.3 The reason the Lord gives for hiding his face is traditional Deuteronomistic language: because of sin/wickedness and breaking of the covenant. For example, in Jer 44:3 Jerusalem is in ruins "because of their wickedness" (Onl1' 'J:l7J, cf Jer 11: 12); in Jer 31 :32 cn'1::J n~ 11:li1) and Lev 26: 15 cn'1::J n~ C::>1:li1?, cf Deut 31:16) because of covenant breaking. The combination of Leviticus 26 and Jeremiah 31 is significant for the understanding of the redaction of the SerolI. Lev 26:43 is the source of the closing phrase of the sentence. In Lev 26:42 we find God's promise to "remember my covenant with Jacob ... and Abraham". Jer 31 :32 specifically states God will make a new covenant, "not like the covenant I made with their fathers". In Col 29:10, the key redactional seetion of 118

Yadin, ibid, p 267.

THE KING'S LAW

155

the SerolI, the same contradiction of Jeremiah 31 occurs, apparently influenced by Lev 26:42. This e10se concurrence of these two texts in each context suggests, if not the same hand, at least complete agreement of the redactor with this doctrine which denies the new covenant theology.

mn

5.4 Lev 26:43, the secondary text, is now used, ClU!)J il'l1l 'npn It is merged with Jer 44:10, 'npn:n 'n11n::J 1:>'il ~'1, to provide the present reading. 5.5 The final phrase of the sentence brings in Hosea 5:15, 1lU~ Jll 'J!) 1lUP::J1~. This use of Hosea, in a prophetie warning similar to the Jeremianic warnings al ready seen, acts as a hinge between sentences, as will be seen below. 6. 59:9b-l0: '1:>::J1 ilC::J::J,119 '1:>::J ,,~ 1'I::J1lU' 1n~ n~1lil il11nn '1::J1 '1:>:> ilOlU!)J 6.1 The line begins with a common phrase from Deuteronomy (30:2 is the only text providing the verb ::J1lU in place of lUP::J as in Deut 4:29). Hosea incorporates both verbs, il1il' n~ 1lUP::J1 '~1lU' 'J::J 1::JlU' 1n~ (3:5). 6.2 The rest ofthe line brings the whole law back to Deut 17:19, 1OlU' n~lil il11nn '1::J1 ,:> n~, but based on Deut 28:58. 7.

59:11-13:

7.1 ilOil'~J1lU rpO C'n'1!)1 ilOil'::J'1~ 1'0 C'nl1lU1ill The base remains in Deuteronomy. Deut 30:7 returns the curses upon the 'enemies' of Israel and "those who hate" them when they 'return' (v 2) to them. The Lord hears the 'groaning' ofhis people's 'affliction' and 'oppression' in Judg 2: 18, which provides the first phrase, Cil'::J'~ 1'0 Cl1'lU1ill The second phrase on this base is drawn from Jer 15:21, C'l111 rpO Tn1!)l The two phrases are also held together by Ps 106: 10, 1'0 Cl1'lU1'1 120 ::J'1~ 1'0 C,~r1 ~J1lU.

The use of the final mem is scribal error. G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, pp 298-301, believes this Psalm may be behind the covenant renewal ceremony at Qumran, as found in lQS 2:2-4. Cf discussion of Psalm 106 at Col 57:6b-7. This is related, also, to Jer 31:31-34. 119 120

156

CHAPTER TIlREE

7.2 ilOil'?V 'n1Z71Z7' C'n'::l1m c'n',~, ilOil'm::l~ r1~? /C'm~'::lill Deut 30:5 is the first text, '1Z71' 11Z7~ r1~il ?~ Til?~ il'il' l~'::lil' Tn::l~.121 Zech 10:8, '::l1 ,0:> '::l1' c'n',~ ':l, links this Deuteronomy text back to the Deuteronomy 28 base of the curses, in v 63, C:l'?V mil' 1Z71Z7 11Z7~:l ... m::l1il?' (cf Deut 30:9). 7.3 CV? '? "il' ilOil' C'il'?~? ilOil? 'n"ill The final phrase of the section merges the secondary texts, Lev 26: 12, cn~, C'il?~? C:l? 'n"il' CV? '? "iln, and Jer 31 :33, CV? '? "il' ilOil' C'il?~? Cil? 'n"ill, together again (the wording is from Jeremiah). This section uses a connection of phrases from Deuteronomy 28, to which Leviticus 26 is merged, as the base to which are added significant supplementary texts which bring with them the nuances oftheir contexts. We see here extensive use of the classical prophets and their warnings of the judgments which will come upon the disobedient people. Of these the use of Jeremiah approaches that of a secondary text. The combination of Jeremiah to Deuteronomistic material serves to highlight the similarities in style of the twO. 122 What is interesting is the author's choice of Jeremiah material which most reflects the Deuteronomistic line while remaining critical of the new covenant of Jeremiah. This is controlled by the use of Leviticus 26. Once again the Chronicles are used in supplementary cases, though to a lesser extent than in other sections. J. THE WANTON KING: 59:13b - 15

This short section develops Deut 17:20, "that he not turn from the commandment to the right or to the left, in order that his days may be long in his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel" .123 The Law builds on the key-word 'commandment', but chooses terminology from a number of other sourees. The section, in effect, continues the curses from Deuteronomy 28.

This contradicts Yadin, H, p 268, who says K':m; is not found in combination Y1K. 122 Cf R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (London: SCM, 1986), pp 35, 39f, for a survey of scholarship on the subject. 123 Cf Sweeney, "Midrashic Perspective", p 59. 121

with

m~

THE KING'S LAW

1. 59:13b-14a:

157

'n{1}'lOlJ ,J'l1, ,:b im /1lV~ l?Oil'

Num 15:39 provides the vocabulary here, ~?' ... D.llT.l ?:> n~ Cn1:>l' Cil'1n~ cn~ 1lV~ ~ '1n~, C:>:::l:::l? '1n~ '1nn. The concern is the same, that is, to remember the commandments. Numbers 15 is the command to make tasseis for the garments as a means to remember. In the King's Law the guard, the council, the wife, and the people all serve the function of reminding the king of his role.

crn

2.1 With this phrase we have a Deuteronomistic formulation, common to 1 Kings and Jeremiah,124 whose particular importance is its application specifically to David. The form here, in the negative, agrees with Jer 36:30,m " , ~O:> ?11 :::llV" ,? il'il' ~?, although Jer 33:17, n1:>' ~? "'?, must also be in mind due to its presence in the following line. n1:> links these texts to that line. 2.1 There is no biblical source which explains the use of ~lO, "be found", here (cf Deut 21: 17 for ,? ~lO'. It becomes a common usage in Qumran literature (cf lQH 4:20, 4QpPs37 ii, 7).126 2.3 "All the days" occurs at Jer 33: 18, discussed below.

Deuteronomy 28 continues as the base to which are added multiple texts. In Deut 28:46 the curses are c2nl.'111111l:::l' mno?, m~? 1:::l. Supplementing the base are these texts: 3.1 Jer 33: 18, C'O'il ?:> ... 'J!)?O lV'~ n1:>' ~? This applies to the Levites, but the Law conflates the senten ces on David and Levi into one about David's heirs (cf Ps 89:5, also the covenant with David).127

1 Kgs 2:4, 8:25, 9:5; Jer 22:30, 33:17, 36:30. Cf Yadin, II, p 269. 126 4Q504, Col IV, line 7-8, provides this striking parallel to this line: NO;' C'7:J'il ,,;, 11'l!)' 'N"l1V'. The text combines Jer 33:17-18 with 2 Kgs 2:4; cf llQT 29:10. 121 Cf lQS 2:4. Ps 89:2 and Jer 33:11 can be seen together in the language of covenant renewal. Cf Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran pp 298, 337 n 97. Ps 89:6 is a secondary text to 2 Samuel 7 in 4QFlor (Brooke, p 240). 124 125

'11

158

CHAPTER THREE

3.2 The final phrase is from Jer 22:30, of Judah (il"iP:l "l7 'lVO'), influeneed perhaps by 2 Chron 7:18 Ö~1lV':l 'lV'O lV'~ " n1::>' ~'). The eommon language with seetarian literature in these lines sterns from shared use of eovenant material of Deuteronomy 28, ete. 128 This short seetion shares the basic interests of the preeeding seetion, and extends the nuanees of eovenant language without explieitly invoking them. The influenee of Jeremiah, partieularly eh 33, is pronouneed. K. BLESSINGS: 59:16 - 21

The final seetion of the King's Law begins following a vacat. This is a marked new beginning, and perhaps emphasizes the shift from warning to blessing. 1. 59:16-17a: 'nmco

n~,

", 'mp,n:l C~,

'':l:J' :l'Oi11 1lV'il 1lVl7" 1'OlV'

1.1 Deuteronomy 28 is the base text for this seetion, both opening and elosing it. V 1, ,'m~o ,::> n~ mlVl7' 17JlV', is the base, but Lev 26:3 is the word-form followed, 110lZm 'm~o n~, ,::>,n 'npn:l C~. This is eonsistent with the seeondary role of Levitieus 26 throughout this eolumn (cf 1 Kgs 6:12).129 1.2 The key-words 'statutes' and 'eommands' bring in Deut 6:17-18, and the phrase i11il' 'J'l7:l :l'Ci11 1lV'il n'lVl7l The Seroll eonsistently substitutes 'J!J' for 'J'l7:l. 130 2. 59:17b-19a: 2.1 Line 17 is the positive formulation of that stated in line 15: Jer 33:18,22:30 (cf 2 Chron 7:18).131 This time, unlike in line 15, the form ties direetly into the text of Deut 17: 18: ,ro'7J7J ~O::> 'l7.

Cf lQpHab 8:9. It is also consistent with the SerolI' s preference for at over .~ (cf Deut 28: 1), in keeping with Levitieus over Deuteronomy. Cf Brin, ''Tbe Bible", p 214f. 130 Cf Brin, ibid., pp 218-220. 131 Cf 4Q405, IV, lines 6-7. See n 122. 128 129

159

THE KING'S LAW

2.2 Line 18 repeats line 11 (Deut 30 :7, Judg 2:18, Jer 15:21, and Ps 106:10). This time 1'0 is repeated (instead of using :pO in the second instance), which strengthens the role of Ps 106: 10. 2.3 The final phrase, line 19a, iln~W' lW~J 'WP::JTJ, uses Jeremiah language from texts we have al ready seen: 22:25, 1W~J 'WP::JTJ 1':J Tnml (cf 44:30).132 The 'strange,133 use of il~W when ilnnp' is expected (in 1 Kgs 19:10, 1 Sam 24:12) can be accounted for by reference to Ps 63:10, 'W~J lWP:J' mnw" a Psalm which is attributed to David as pursued in the wildemess. 59: 19b-20a: /ilOil:J 'WOl 1'J~' 1':J'1~ '1J n~ 'nml 1:J 1'1WO' ~1' ilOill lnl1J

3.

3.1 The use of Jer 22:25 influences the beginning of the line, Tnml (as above). 3.2 Deut 23:15, TJ~' T:J'~ nn'1 and Exod 23:27, T:J'~ 'J n~ 'nml, are combined, drawing on their similar contexts of promise. 134 3.3 Deut 15:6, 1'WO' ~, 1:Jl C':J1 C'1l:J n'W01, and Dan 11:3, 'WOl 1J1l1J ilW111 :J1 'WTJO, provide the language here. At the same time, Ps 106:41, Cil'~JW Cil:J 1'WO'1, is significant in view of its influence twice already in this column. 4. 59:20b-21a: :JJl' ~1'1 J1Z71~1' i1t~0' ~1'1 il'110' il'nml Deut 28:13: il'110' p1 n"ill :JJl, ~'1 Wtn, i11il' 4DQll t:l0' il'iln

rn

The section is brought to a close by retuming to Deuteronomy 28 (cf also vv 43-44).m The highlighted text shows the effect of the conflation of the Deuteronomy text. The phrases are inverted here.

Also, Jer 21:7, 34:21, 46:26. Yadin, 11, p 270. 134 Cf Yadin, ibid; and, lQM 10:1-2. m With Yadin, ibid. 132

133

160

CHAPTER THREE

5. 59:21b: 1'1n~ 1'lJ1 ~1jJ 1m:J'm "11 0'J1 0'0' 11~'1 Deut 17:20: "~1lV' :nj2:J 1'lJ1 ~1jJ 1n:J"7J7J "11 0'0' T1~' The whole of the King's Law is brought to a conclusion by retuming, finally, to the closing phrase of Deut 17:20. The Law adds 0'J1, for which there is no biblical source, and substitutes 1'1n~ for "~1lV' J1i'J. Again, there is no biblical source for this wording. Summary

The King's Law begins with Deut 17:19 and ends with Deut 17:20, making it a self-contained unit capable of standing alone apart from the Expanded Deuteronomy of 17:14-20. The frequent grounding of the subject matter back to Deut 17: 19 is a trait unique to this section of the Scroll. To identify this use of the text a new siglum is introduced to the table. Deut 17: 18-20 is the underlying base text for the whole, but each section can be seen to be based on a variety of texts. Deut 17 is therefore designated by 'U', for "Underlying Base" as opposed to the particular base text for each paragraph. A summary note, describing the relation of the texts to each other, is placed after each section. Line:

Text:

The Muster 57:1 U = Deut 17:19 2 E = Expansion 3 c = Lev 27:3 a = Num 26:2-4 c = Num 2:17 c = 1 Sam 8:12 4 2 Sam 18:1 b = Deut 1:13,15IExod 18:21

5

a = Num 1:16 c = 1 Chron 27:1/29:6 c=Num 31:10

Technique:

Word-form Key-word Link Terminology Word-form, Wording

Signal

The section begins with reference to Deut 17: 19, but is based on the desert census of Num 26/1, with the Deut 1 parallel secondary. The introduction of N um 31: 10 signals its use as base in the next section.

161

THE KING'S LAW

Line:

Text:

The Guard 57:5b

a

6

7

8

9

10

lla

=

Num 31:5 c

Technique:

=

1 Chron 7:40

Third-term Substitution

Num 31:4 Num 1:4(44) U = Deut 17:19 a = Num 31:5 c = 2 Sam 17:811 Chron 28:3 Word-form E = Expansion Key-word Link b = Exod 18:25 c = Jer 52:9/2 Kgs 25:6 Key-word Link Ps 106:41 (1 Chron 16:1,47) c = 1 Chron 7:40 Key-word Link Sentence form b = Exod 18:21 1 Sam 16:18 Word-form U = Deut 17: 19 Key-word Link c = Cant 3:8 Neh 4:3 Isa 21:8 c = Deut 23:10 Phrase form Ps 121:7 Merger E = Expansion a

=

The underlying text of Deut 17: 19 is used to emphasize the role of the Guard as 'with' the king. The whole section develops from the Num 31:5 choice of a select army to fight the Midianites, under direction of Phinehas. Secondary to this continued grounding in the desert organization of Israel is Moses' choice of leaders in Exod 18, surprising in this context (more so because it is not direct1y present in the choice of the council, below). The supplementary influences reveal a 'mosaic' of concems. Deuteronomistic interest in the covenant appears in line 7; reminders of past failures in line 10 undergird the statutes goveming the guard.

162 Line:

CHAPTER THREE

Text:

King's Council 57:12 a = Num 1:44 b = Deut 17:9 2 Chron 19 (2 Chron 23:7) e = Ezra 8:24 e = Jer 36:12 13 b = 2 Chron 19:8-10 = Deut 17:20 U 14 E = Expansion 15

Teehnique:

MuItiple-use

Word-form Word-form Key-word Links

The desert organization provides the base for organlzlOg the king's eouneil. 'MuItiple-use' refers to arepetition of the use of Num 1:44 in line 5 in a different setting. The eouneil is derived from Deut 17 as influeneed by the Chronieler (Ezra/2 Chron). This is the first instanee in the Seroll where the Chronicler material is more than supplementary. The Queen 57:15b 16 17

18 19

U

= Deut 17:17

e = 2 Chron 13:21,24:3IEzra 1O:44/Neh 13:25 E = Expansion a = Gen 24:40 Phrase form e = Lev 18:18 1 Chron 14:3 /2 Chron 11 :20 Key-word Link (Exod 21: 10) U = Deut 17:19 Phrase e = Prov 31: 12 Word-form a = Gen 24:40 Multipletreatment

The eoneem of Deut 17: 17 eoneeming the king' s wife, underlies this short seetion. Interestingly, Deut 17: 19 provides wording in these lines. The base text, Gen 24:40, provides the positive model of marriage within the clan, used a seeond time to apply to remarriage as weIl. The supplementary texts emphasize the prohibition against intermarriage, using the Davidie dynasty as a negative example.

163

THE KING'S LAW

Line:

Technique:

Text:

The Just King 57:19/20 U = Deut 17:17 a = Deut 16: 18-19/1Exod 23:6-8 b = 1 Sam 8:3 c = 1 Chron 18:14 //2 Sam 8:15 Jer 22:2-3 b = 1 Sam 8:14 20/21 c = Mic 2:2 c = Exod 20:17/Deut 5:21 E = Expansion 21

Multipletreatment Word-form Key-word Link Key-word Links Key-word Links Word-form

The loss of lines at the top of Col 58 leaves us with only a partial record here. Deut 17: 17 is the underlying base, on the misuse of power to accumulate wealth. The base text, Deut 16:18-19, is used out of its original context here (appearing in proper relation in Col 51). Its use focuses attention on bribery, for which 1 Sam 8 is a specific example taken from the context of King's Law. The supplementary texts use David as the example of "righteous judgment", but his successors as negative examples. The Invading A rmy 58:3

c

=

Josh 5:1; 9:1; 11:1

c = 2 Chron 32:15 c = 2 Sam 20:19 c

4

5

U

=

Jer 21:12-14 [Gen 39:8? c = 2 Chron 16:4 1/1 Kgs 15:20 c = Deut 1:13,15 E = Expansion E = Expansion Deut 17:19 =

c = 1 Kgs 8:44 112 Chron 6:34

Standard formulation Word-form Standard formulation Key-word Link Phrase] Standard form. Multipletreatment

Standard formulation Sentence form

164

CHAPTER THREE

Line:

Text:

6

a

=

7

8

a

=

9

10

Technique:

Deut 20: 1 c

Multipletreatment 1 Kgs 8:44112 ehron 6:34 2 Kgs 6:23 Phrase form E = Expansion [c = Exod 13:18 Key-word Link] IJosh 1:14 Phrase form Deut 20:1 E = Expansion c = 2 Kgs 11:5-7 Key-word Link 112 Chron 23:3-5 2 Sam 18:2 c = 2 Kgs 5:2 Key-word Link 11 Sam 30:23 E = Expansion E = Expansion c = 2 Kgs 3:26 Phrase form 2 Sam 10:6-11 Background c = 1 Chron 12:9 Standard term b = Zech 14:2 Key-word Links =

This section exhibits the 'mosaic' tendencies most clearly. Deut 17: 19 is once again kept in view with emphasis on the army being 'with' the king. Deut 20: 1 is classified as the base text because it addresses the issue of the king facing a great host of the enemy. It could, perhaps, be said of the supplementary texts from Kings/Chronicles that the language is the sort which would be expected in the context of war, and these allusions are therefore of limited value. This possibility is acknowledged by the use of the term "standard formulation". The fact remains, nevertheless, that the King's Law is specifically selective of biblical terminology. Of particular note, finally, is the influence of Zech 14:2, which may be seen to be of secondary importance to Deut 20.

The Booty 58: 11 b 12

a

=

E = Expansion Sam 5:20 Isa 14:25/Jer 48:38 Josh 8:24, etc

c

=2

Key-word Link

c

=

Standard terminology

Num 31 :28-30 b = 2 Chron 14:12

Key-word Link

165

THE KING'S LAW

Line:

Technique:

Text: c

13 14 15

a

=

=

Num 31:27 [c

=

1 Sam 8:15,17 E = Expansion

Key-word Link

1 Sam 30:26]

In this section and the following there is no apparent connection made to Deut 17. Here there is no connection to Deuteronomy at all. The base is the law of booty of Num 31 :27 -30, with 2 Chron 14 and 1 Sam 8 providing important relationship to the king. David is the model, as the supplementary references show.

Offensive War 58:15b a = Deut 20:1 c c 16 c 17 18 b

19 20 21

b

=

=

Deut 23:10 = Josh 1:14 = Deut 23: 10 E = Expansion c = 1 Sam 18:13 /Num 27:21 Num 27:18-22 /(Deut 33:81Ezra 2:63) c = 2 Chron 23 c = Num 35:25 Num 27:21 E = Expansion E = Expansion c = Gen 24:40 Deut 28:29 2 Chron 26:5 =

Multiple Treatment Signal Phrasing Phrase form Standard Formulation Key-word Links Key-word Link 'Citation' Repetition MuItipletreatment Signal, Word-form

The base is once again Deut 20:1, which is now applied to offensive warfare. Num 27 is of greatest importance, for it is followed cIosely for all of verse 21. Deut 23: 10 is used appropriately. Of the supplementary texts those of line 21 are of most interest. Gen 24:40 appears again, in a different role than that concerning the queen; Deut 28 is introduced to signal the extensive influence of this chapter in the following section.

166 Line: The Curses 59:2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10 11

CHAPTER THREE

Text: a = Deut 28:64,37,48 c = Ps 68:31 c = Jer 28:8 c = 1 Kgs 12:11 //2 Chron 10:11 a = Deut 28:36 c = Deut 4:28 Ps 135:15/115:4 a = Deut 28:37 b = Lev 26:31-34 c = Jer 25:9 Jer 19:8 b = Lev 26:32 c = Lam 1:16 b = Lev 26:36 c = Lam 1:11 c = Exod 2:23 Zech 7:13 Mic 3:4 a = Deut 28:20 b = Lev 26:15,43 c = Jer 44:3 c = Ezek 39:23 a = Deut 28:29 c = Ezek 34:8 2 Kgs 21:14 c = Jer 44:3/31 :32 b = Lev 26: 15,43 c = Jer 44:10 c = Hos 5:15 Hos 3:5lDeut 30:2 U = Deut 17:19 a = Deut 28:58 c = Deut 30:7 Judg 2:18 Jer 15:21 Ps 106:10

Technique:

Key-word Link Key-word Link Key-word Link Merger Key-word Links Key-word Links Key-word Link Phrase Word-forrn Word-forrn Key-word Link Key-word Links

Word-forrn Key-word Link Key-word Links Word-form Key-word Link Phrase form Key-word Link

Key-word Links Wording Wording Bridge

167

THE KING'S LAW

Line:

e

12 a 13

Teehnique:

Text:

=

Deut 30:5 Zeeh 10:8 Deut 28:63 (30:9) b = Lev 26:12 e = Jer 31:33 =

Key-word Link

Wording

The mosaie pattern of this seetion, whieh eould almost be ealled an Expansion in its own right, is made more clear by seeing the sourees in these relationships. The eurses of Deut 28 and Lev 26 are merged. The supplementary texts are almost exclusively from the prophetie wamings, of whieh Jeremiah stands out. Supplementary texts are woven together by intrieate use of key words (lines 6, 11, and 12 are examples). The over-all effeet is a Deuteronomistie interest in maintenanee of the eovenant relation.

The Wanton King 59: 13b U = Deut 17 :20 e = Num 15:39 14 Key-word Links e = Jer 36:30 Phrase form Jer 33: 17 Key-word, Signal 15 e = Jer 33:18 Signal a = Deut 28:46 e = Jer 33: 18 Signal eomplete e = Jer 22:30/2 Chron 7:18 Phrase form The same influenees as in the previous seetion hold here. The eoneerns for the eovenant are exhibited from Jeremiah.

Blessing 59:16 17

18

a = Deut 28:1 b = Lev 26:3 Phrase form e = Deut 6: 17-18 Key-wordlPhrase U = Deut 17:18 e = J er 33: 18 Multiple Treatment Jer 22:30/2 Chron 7:18 b = Deut 30:7 Multiple Treatment c = Judg 2:18 Jer 15:21 Ps 106:10

168 Line: 19

20

CHAPTER THREE

Text:

Technique: c

=

c c c

= = =

a = Deut 28:13 U = Deut 17:20

Jer 22:25, etc Key-word, Signal Ps 63:10 Jer 22:25 Key-word Link Deut 23: 15IExod 23:27 Merger Deut 15:61Dan 11:3 Phrasing Ps 106:41 'Citation'

The same techniques of bringing together Deuteronomistic language from Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, with covenant renewal Psalms, is seen again. There is repetition from the Curses. The whole of the King's Law is concluded with the final phrase of Deut 17:20, completing the inclusion from Col 57:1. Conc/usions

There can be no question but that Deut 17: 14-20 is the starting point for the King's Law. More precisely, only verses 17-20 are expanded upon. The fact that this seetion covers for a second time the same material as in Column 56, but in a different style, is strong argument in favour of seeing these three columns as aseparate document inserted into the text of Deuteronomy. But, whereas Deuteronomy 17 is basic to the whole document, it is not the base text for each section. For this reason we designated Deuteronomy 17 as the 'underlying' text. Each section of the King's Law is based, rather, on a text which provides the ground for the author's interpretation. The most significant aspect of the use of scripture in the King's Law is the way in which supplementary texts are brought together. The method has been described as 'mosaic'. One can observe in the tables the preponderance of supplementary texts, which gives the initial impression of a piecing together of fragments. Closer examination reveals, however, that the King's Law brings together groups of texts in tightly written constructions. Supplementary texts are often indicated by use of word-form, or by phraseology, and not only by word-association (or, key-word link). The allusions are uniformly pertinent to the subject of the section in which they appear. The section on the Invading Army is one possible exception to this observation. Except for contact with Deut 17:19 and 20:1 the whole

THE KING'S LAW

169

section is written in language of war which is specific to no one context. For this reason we have described the use of terminology as "standard formulation". 1fthis is an accurate description, then we must use caution in identifying the sources too specifically. The most that can be said is that biblical language is used, but even this conclusion is acknowledgement of the care that is taken in using vocabulary appropriate to its subject. If Col 58:3-10 is an exception it proves the rule that supplementary texts elsewhere in the King's Law reveal the exegetical standpoint of the author, being carefully chosen for that purpose. An example of how skilfully this is done is Col 59:6, where Exod 2:23, Zech 7:13, and Mic 3:4 are interwoven by the use of key-words, each of which is common to two of three texts, but only one is common to all. The King's Law shares with the Festival Law and the Purity Law the basic methodology of building upon a base text, often with a secondary text, and with supplementary texts which provide exegetical justification for the viewpoint of the writer. But, for the King's law the supplementary texts are of even greater importance. We have found the term 'mosaic' to be a helpful description of the manner in which these are brought together. At times whole lines can comprise such a connection of allusions with minimal reference to a base text. When the use of supplementary texts in the King's Law is compared to that of the Festival and Purity Laws we see that the term 'mosaic' describes only the King's Law, as a whole, accurately. The difference in style this reveals is a strong argument for viewing the King's Law as from a different hand than the others. We have discussed numerous points of contact between the King's Law and Qumran sectarian literature. A summary of the convergence of vocabulary is of value here: The use of the organizational units of "thousands, hundreds, and fifties", (Col 57:4) is common. In IQS 2:21-22 and IQSa 1:15-16 it is a unit of the people, each Israelite knowing his place. The Damascus Document (13:1-2; exemplars of which are found at Qumran) uses the same formula for Israel, but is interested chiefly in the gathering of ten men to study the Book of Meditation. In the War Scroll (IQM 4) the army is organized on these lines. All of these, as weil as llQT 18-23, develop on the organization of Israel in the desert. The War Scroll and King's Law are closest in portrayal, applying the terms specifically to the army.

170

CHAPTER THREE

The Community Rule (6:8-9) describes the council ofthe community, where every matter concerning the Law is considered. This council consists of the entire congregation, priests, elders, and people. According to lQS 8:1 there is, "in the council", an inner council oftwelve men and three priests. The number 'twelve' is in keeping with the Council of the King in Col 57:12-14, but applies only to 'men', not to priests. Unlike the King's Law, there is no mention of Levites in this group. The War Serail provides the most points of contact. At times the use of terms is compatible. In Col 57:3 the term c~~:n, as in Col 21 :5, refers to a unit of men such as a battalion. This is in keeping with lQM 3:6, etc, against the common interpretation of Num 2: 17. In Col 57:8 and lQM 6:13, & 10:6, ~~n ~lVJ~ is a standardized term for military leaders. Each document appears to apply the tide to leaders of thousands on the pattern of 1 Chron 5:23-26. Col 58:17 and lQM 7:7 both develop the law of the purity of the camp, during war, from Deut 23:10. The convergence in terms is at the point of common interest in the army and battle. There are significant differences in use of terminology. Col 57:3 and lQM 7:1 agree on the figure of "sixty years" for retirement, but apply them to different offices and disagree on the lower age limit; the King's Law agrees with Lev 27:3. The War Serail (2:1-4) provides a tripartite division of the congregation into priests, Levites, and lay people, with twelve representatives of each group; but this is for Temple service, not a royal council as in Col 57: 12, and the Levites are actually demoted in importance. The King's Law speaks of the 'high' priest (58: 18), where the War Serail prefers 'chief' priests (2: 1-4). These differences are of greater weight than the similarities between the two because they relate to fundamental organizational matters rather than to standard terminology. There are also several points of contact with the Damaseus Doeument. The upper age limit of "sixty years", in Col 57:3, appears twice: CD 10:6-7, regulating the age of judges; and 14:6-7, concerning the priest. The lower age limit of each differs with the King's Law, just as lQM 7:1. There are two striking points of contact, however. One is the phrase l~J ~1l in Col 57:11 and CD 14:14,15. The Damaseus Doeument provides for the needs of the poor, including the captives of a "foreign people"; the King's Law plans for the possibility that the king is taken captive. The subject matter of each document is quite different, but both use the phase "foreign people" in the context of captives. The second important connection is in the use of the term 11i1 in Col 57:21. 'Wealth' is a key term in Qumran literature: lQS 1:13; 5:20; lQH 15:23; lQpHab 8:11. The King's Law warns the king against

THE KING'S LAW

171

coveting the weaIth of Israel in the same section which limits hirn to one wife (Co I 57: 17). Here are two of the three nets of Belial directed against the king in CD 4:17-5:2. Two observations follow from this survey. Firstly, all the examples related occur in Column 57 of the King's Law, or in the section of Col 58:17-19. The significance of this fact is that the concurrence of terminology invariably occurs in those sections which develop the organization of Israel in the wilderness. What the King's Law has in common with Qumran literature is the desire to go back to the ideal of Israel in the wilderness for the pattern of the present. But the King's Law differs in the application of terminology to the extent that it even fails to use key sectarian words when they are available (il117 is omitted from Num 27:21 in Col 58:19). Secondly, the King's Law has more affinity to the Damascus Document than to specifically Qumran sectarian documents. But, no conclusions can be made regarding relationship or interdependence on the evidence before us here. One final note should be made in regard to the passing comment at Col 57:5-6 on the significance of Phinehas as forebear of Zadok. It is the Chronicles which supplies this information, and so is the source of the suggestion that the Scroll's interest in Phinehas and Eleazar might be a link with the Qumran community. If so, it is a very minor link. In light of this summary, and of the absence of the name of Zadok (or even of Phinehas!) anywhere in the SerolI, no further argument should be based on this evidence. At Col 57: 12 we argued for the dependence of the Scroll on the Chronicles against the conception of the Scroll as either prior to the Chronicles or absolutely contemporaneous. This can be expanded with another observation: on the evidence ofthe terminology and phraseology in the King's Law which is common to the Chronicles one could not reverse the dependence and demonstrate the use ofthe King's Law by the Chronicler. Use of the Chronicles by the King's Law has been demonstrated, however. The Chronicles is used as the supplementary text more than any other biblical source (nineteen times in the King's Law). In six uses, mostly in Col 58:3-10, the Chronicles text is paralleled in the Kings, and thus their usage is not c1early established. But even allowing for these only Jeremiah compares in number of allusions. The Chronicles may be seen to be the pattern followed by the King's Law in developing the theme of the wilderness organization of the army.

172

CHAPTER THREE

The leaders of the thousands (Col 57:4 = 1 Chron 27: 1); men of renown (Col 57:5,8 = 1 Chron 7:40); the prineiple of priestly oversight of the army (Col 58:18 = 2 Chronicles 23); eaeh of these ean be seen as developing the wilderness themes. The Chronicler thus provides the pattern whieh is followed here and in Qumran seetarian literature. It is the reform of the judieiary in 2 Chronicles 19 (influeneing Deuteronomy 17?) whieh influenees the formulation of the King's Couneil in Col 57:12-15. In Col 58:12-15 the defensive war against the Ethiopians in 2 Chron 14: 12 provides the seeondary eontext for taking booty. These are the only instanees in the whole of the Seroll whieh we have examined in whieh the Chronicles material is used as more than a supplement. The chief importanee of the Chronieles for the King's Law is to present David as the example for Israel, even as the negative example (Col 57:17 = 1 Chron 14:3, on polygamy). David is the warrior par exeellenee (Col 57:8 = 1 Chron 7:40); he organizes his army (Col 57:4 = 1 Chron 27:1); he is the righteousjudge (Col 57:19 = 1 Chron 18:14); and the elosing promise of blessing for the faithful king is based on the promise ofthe rule ofDavid's seed (Col 59:15,17 = 2 Chron 7:18). The weight of the evidenee regarding use of the Chronieles argues in favour of understanding the King's Law to be dependent on the Chronicles, and to be developing Chronicles emphases. The King's Law provides c1ues to its relationship to the rest of the Temple Sero 11. The use of C~ 'J in the Seroll may be a sign of the hand of the redaetor. The formulation oeeurs twiee in the King's Law (57:16 and 58:10), and in only one other plaee in the Seroll (Col 53:11). This latter instanee is in the redaction whieh eonneets the Expanded Deuteronomy to the Purity Laws, where C~ is inserted in Deut 23 :22. The use of C~ is eharaeteristie of the redaction in Cols 51-56, being sometimes substituted for 'J. Its presenee here signals the hand ofthe redaetor, who is responsible for plaeing the King's Law within his redaction of Deuteronomy. Col 57:19-20 is based on Deut 16:18-19, a text whieh is also treated in the redaction seetion, Col 51: 11-18. In the earlier ease Deuteronomy 16 is used in its proper eontext of instruetion to judges, whereas in the King's Law it is applied to the king alone. We have aeeepted the suggestion that the dual treatment of the same text means the use of Deuteronomy 16 already stood in the King's Law, and so was left untouehed by the redaetor.

THE KING'S LAW

173

Another case of dual treatment of the same text is found in the use of Deut 20:1 in Col 58:6-8 and 61: 12ff (the Expanded Deuteronomy). In Column 61 the text is treated in fuH in the order it occurs in Deuteronomy, whereas in the King's Law the opening line is used to provide the backdrop for defensive warfare. This duplication emphasizes the contrast between the King's Law and the Deuteronomy material, pointing again to its existence independent of the expansion. Col 59:7-9 shares interests with the redaction in Column 29: 10. Both sections contradict the Jeremiah 31 promise of a new covenant by use of Jeremianic covenant language and the Lev 26 covenant with Jacob. Placing together the evidence of congruence of language and concepts between the King's Law and the textual crux in Column 29, and the evidence given above for relation of the King's Law to its preceding redaction, we may put forward a theory of relationships. The final redactor of the ScroH is responsible for placing the King's Law in its position within the Expanded Deuteronomy. The King's Law use of covenant language from JeremiahlLeviticus 26 is taken into Column 29 with a rejection of the language of a 'new' covenant and affirmation of the renewal of the covenant with the fathers, i.e., Jacob. The final observation on the King' s Law continues to address the subject of covenant renewal. We have just discussed the place of covenant language in Col 59:7-9 with regard to the redaction of the Scrol\. The placing of the covenant curses and blessings at the end of the King's Law emphasizes the importance of the covenant for this section of the Scroll. The King's Law combines the pertinent sections of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 with Jeremianic language which draws attention to the fulfilment of the curses in the history of Israel. The same warnings are given for a new generation. Use of Psalm 106 in Col 57:7, the first clear allusion to a Psalm, also points to interest in covenant renewal, although indirectly through comparison with the apparent importance of this Psalm for the Qumran covenant ceremony. Covenant renewal language is prominent in the Festival of New Wine (cf especially Col 21:7 and Jer 31:29). The concept is never overt, and no covenant ceremony is spelled out, but the celebrations at the feasts are couched in the language of rejoicing in the continuation of the covenant relation with God. Both the use of language and development of the theme are different in the King's Law, and so there is no evidence of one hand behind each section. The redactor of the Scroll chooses his sources for their compatibility with his own concem for the covenant with Jacob.

CHAPTER FOUR THE PURITY LA W Following the instructions for the construction of the Temple courts and their integral structures in Columns 30-45 are laws designed to protect the purity of the Temple and Temple City (Columns 45-47). In Col 48:1-51:10 the concern for purity conti nu es, but the subject shifts from the Temple to the Land, that is, to people and objects in the towns. Despite the similarity of subject matter in Columns 45-46 and 48-50, the latter have been considered aseparate subject area within the Scroll, and are known by the general tide "Purity Laws"l (abbreviated to "the Law" in this chapter). It is now our task to examine a portion of this Law for comparison to the other sections of the Scroll. Before this can begin it is first necessary to attempt to establish the limits ofthe Purity Laws, i.e., at what point the Temple Law ends and the Purity Laws begin. Opinion about this is not unanimous. The study of Wilson and Wills sets Col 48: 1-51: 10 as the boundaries ofthe Purity Laws, based on linguistic and stylistic differences from Cols 45-47? There are three criteria of differentiation. First, where the Temple Law (Col 2:1-13:8 and 30:3-47:18) follows the pseudepigraphic fiction of God referred to in the first person,3 the Purity Laws use the third person. Second, the form of address in the Temple Law is second person singular (as though God addresses Moses individually), hut the Purity Laws use the plural. An important exception to this is Column 47 which agrees with the Temple Law in the divine referent, but with the Purity Laws in second person plural address. The third criterion is the distribution of verbal forms. The Temple Law tends to use yihyeh qotel, where the Purity Laws use the weyiqtol with more frequency. This is seen by Wilson and Wills as evidence that the Purity Laws were written by different hands than the Temple Law. 4

1 As examples, Maier, The Temple SerolI, p 17; Caquot, "Le Rouleau du Temple", p 480 (for Column 47); P. Callaway, "Souree Criticism of the Temple SerolI: The Purity Laws", RevQ 12 (1986), p 213; and Wilson and Wills, "Literary Sourees", p 275, who first isolate these columns according to content and changes in address and divine referenee. 2 Wilson and Wills, ibid, pp 276, 280. 3 With four exceptions, ibid, p 277. 4 Wilson and Wills, ibid, pp 285-286.

176

CHAPTER FOUR

Philip Callaway rejects the idea of an independent Purity Source comprising Col 48:1-51:5.~ He agrees with Wilson and Wills that the convention of the divine fiction differs between Cols 45-47 and 48-51, and accepts that Cols 45-51:5 are not "formed out of whole-cloth".6 However, he believes that the use of second person plural address in Column 47, against Columns 45-46, nullifies the criterion ofnumber, and he denies the usefulness of frequency of verb forms to distinguish sources. Above all , he contends, the thematic unity of Cols 45-51:5 forms a coherent purity section which cannot be separated from the Temple section. This disagreement is a fundamental barrier to a solution to the question of the final redaction of the Temple SerolI. It is necessary now to attempt to establish the relationship of the Purity Laws to the Temple Law, and to the Scroll as a whole. This will be done by means of an examination of Columns 48-51:5. Firstly, Column 48 will be studied specifically for clues ofits relation to Columns 45-47. Secondly, Column 49 will be studied in detail for its use of the Bible. Finally, we will attempt to draw out the implications of this examination. A. THE PURITY OF THE LAND: 48:1 - 49:4

Column 47 ends with regulations for the purity of animal skins brought into the Temple or Temple City. By the first extant li ne of Column 48 the Scroll has moved on to the general subject of animals which are clean or unclean for consumption. There is no further reference to the Temple or Temple City, but application is made to the cities, or towns, in which the people live. 1. 48:1-7: Animals Permitted or Forbidden as Food

There is no relation in subject matter between this section and the preceding columns. The base text is Deut 14:2-21 (48: 1 is from Deut 14:18, but the beginning of the subject is clearly early in the missing portion of the column), merged with the secondary text of Lev 11 :21-22. The notable feature of the use of Deuteronomy in this section is a specific preference to 'correct' Deuteronomy in line with Leviticus. This

S CaIlaway, ibid, pp 213-222; and "Extending Divine Revelation: Miero-CompositionaI Strategies in the Temple SerolI", Temple Scroll Studies, ed G Brooke (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp 149-162, whieh treats Cols 45-51:5 together as "Purity Laws". 6 CaIlaway, "Souree Critieism", p 220.

177

THE PURITY LA W

is illustrated by the construction ,,:>~nn i(" ... il'::l) ,,:> in lines 5/6, which follows the sty le of the priestly material of Leviticus 11.7 Thus, while Deuteronomy 14 is the base, Leviticus 11 reveals the priestly perspective of the author. This base is distinct from Column 47, which follows no clear base text, and does not make use of Deuteronomy 14 at all. But there is an important textual link in 47: 17/18, '1Z7'PTJ ni( !1i(TJOn i('" to Lev 11 :44, C:>'n1Z7!J) ni( 'i(TJOn i('l Thus, in the conclusion of the section on skins Lev 11 :44 is a signal for the fuller use of Leviticus 11 in this section. This is evidence that Col 47:18 is composed to tie in with the next subject. 2. 48:7-10: Mouming Prohibitions Deut 14: 1-2 is the base, verse two forming the link with the previous section. Lev 19:28 is secondary, and also signals the use of Lev 19:9 in the following section. Lev 21: 5 supplements the brief command. It is in the use ofDeut 14:2, both in the close ofthe previous section and now in line 10, and 14: 1 in line 8, that the only divine references occur in the Law. They are in the third person, as they appear in Deuteronomy 14. That Deuteronomy is the base could be said to be sufficient explanation for the use of the third person. There is inconsistency within the Scroll as a whole in adjusting Deuteronomy texts to the divine fiction,8 and this can be seen to be one instance of that inconsistency. But the significance of the use of the third person is more pronounced when Lev 19:28 is taken into account. The use of sources is better understood when placed beside lines 9b-l0a : Deut 14:2:

1Z7"P Cl] ':> il'il" ilni( Til'i(

llQT 48:9-10:

ilTJ:>::l \'::l,n:>n i(" 1Z7"P Cl] ':> il'il" ilni( ilTJ il:>'il"i(

Lev 19:28:

}It,

C:>::l ,mn il'il' ')i(

7 This observation is made by G. Brin, "Coneeming Some ofthe Uses ofthe Bible in the Temple SerolI", RevQ 12 (1987), p 524. He notes the "Kol (every x) you shall not..." is a preferred form in Levitieus, whereas Deuteronomy uses the order "You shall not...every (Kol) x." Thus he deseribes this as rewriting a Deuteronomie sentenee in aceordanee with the style ofLevitieus 11. We might note, in addition, that the form is also found in Ezekiel, and that the word-form in this line eomes from Ezek 44:3l. 8 Wilson and Wills, ibid, pp 281-283, on laws ofpurity.

178

CHAPTER FOUR

2.l. Firstly, the substitution of1:J,n:m for Lev 19:28 'lnn, is in keeping with the use of::Jn:) earlier in the line. 2.2. The surprising feature is the omission of ;nil~ ~J~ in favour of the Deuteronomic phrase. The Law has within its biblical sources the use of the first person divine referent, yet rejects it in favour of the third-person construction, thus contradicting the pseudepigraphic convention of the whole Scroll. Gershon Brin suggests two reasons why this may be. Firstly, Deuteronomy was the basic text, so the author "preferred to follow it in most cases".9 In his view Deuteronomy is basic to the preceding columns, by use of Deut 12:5, "the place which the Lord your God will choose". Further, the order of the laws in this and the succeeding columns is based on Deuteronomy.10 On examination this contains an element of validity. Cols 45-47 are concerned with the place of God's 'dwelling' (not 'choosing'; Col 45:12,14; 46:4,12; esp 47:4) for which Deut 12:11 is the pattern; and, Deuteronomy 23 is basic to much of Cols 45-46 on the subject of purity in the Temple City. But other than the allusion in line 4 there is no use of Deuteronomy in Column 47; there is no further use of Deuteronomy in the Law after line 14; and the Law reverses the Deuteronomy order of chapter 14: unclean animals (14:3-20) are treated before mourning practices (14:1-2). So, whereas Deuteronomy does appear to provide a general framework for the order of the SerolI, 11 this Law is not based, as a whole, on Deuteronomy. To the contrary, this Deuteronomic section is placed within an order which follows Leviticus: first unclean animals, then provision for people with 'afflictions' (cf Lev 11, 12-15). Secondly, Brin suggests that the Law chooses to follow Deut 12:2 over Lev 19:28 because it wishes to avoid using an independent concluding clause. Observing that the phrase ;nil~ ~J~ appears in Col 45: 14, 51:7,and 53:8, he argues that only in the last case does it appear as a concluding clause, and then in an artificial form in which the third person of Deut 12:25 is changed into the first person. Brin concludes that even this latter text cannot be seen as a concluding clause, and so there is no example of the phrase as it occurs in the Holiness Code. 12

Brin, ibid, P 524. Brin, ibid, p 523. 11 CfH. Stegemann, "«Das Land» in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten aus den Qumranfunden", Dm Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, ed Georg Strecker (Göttingen: Vandenhoech und Resprecht, 1983), pp 157-158. 12 Brin, ibid, p 526. 9

10

179

THE PURITY LAW

The evidence can be read another way. Both Col 45:14 and 53:8 are uses of Deuteronomy 12 (vv 11 and 25, respectively) into which the non-Deuteronomistic formula "1 am the Lord" is fitted. The 'artificiaI' manipulation of Deut 12:25 in Col 53:8 draws particular attention to this. Col 51:7, in turn, is of particular relevance to understanding the redaction of the Law because it occurs in the redactionaI seam which concludes the Law (51:5a-l0). In this case the phrase "I am Yahweh" is from Num 35:34, the concluding formula for the laws ofimpurity ofthe land. The word-form of the phrase is placed within use of Lev 11 :44, which is also the secondary text of Col 48:1-7. Its use in this redaction text is appropriate to its subject, and unrelated to Deuteronomy. Given these circumstances we could expect to see the use of the phrase "I am Yahweh" in Col 48:10. The Deuteronomy base needs to be adjusted to the divine fiction as it has been in the earlier purity laws~ an appropriate Leviticus text is secondary, within the subject of impurity of the land~ and Col 48: 1-7, though also based on Deuteronomy 14, adjusts the base according to the Leviticus secondary text. Instead we have a use of Deuteronomy which differs from the use in the columns which precede, and from the redactional conclusion to the Law. The reason for this is probably simply that the Law is not concerned with the "divine fiction", but is more concerned with concluding the section in parallel to the use of Deut 14:2 in line 7a, the conclusion of the preceding section. 3. 48:10-14: Bunal Practices Standing between the prohibition of heathen practices in mourning and the provision for cemeteries, and separated from both by closed sentence spaces, is the prohibition, iTTJ:)~'~ n~ '~1Jtm ~,~, (linelO/11), from Num 35:34. This verse is placed as a heading for the laws which foIIow, on the subject of uncleanness caused by contact with the dead. 13 3.1

The Law stands against all versions in reading

iT1J:J~'~

instead of

r'~. Yadin and Brin believe this refers to Deut 21:23, n~ ~1JOn ~~, lM'~ .14 However, it is notable that [J:J~'~ is common only in Leviticus

(19:9,33; 23:22; 25:9,45; 26:5,6), and on ce in Numbers (10:9). Rather than drawing vaguely on Deuteronomy 21 the Law falls back on the terminology of Leviticus (cf Leviticus 19 in lines 8-9).

13 14

Yadin, I, p 322. Yadin, ibid; Brin, ibid.

180

CHAPTER FOUR

3.2 Num 35:34 is appropriate to introduce the section because of its setting at the elose of the prohibition of polluting the land with blood. In view ofthe use ofNum 35:34 in the redactional conelusion (51:8), and the manner in which its use here is bracketed apart from its context, the question might be asked whether this should be considered a part of that redaction. There are two reservations to this suggestion. Firstly, the use ofNum 35:34 here omits the "I am Yahweh" elause which appears in Col 51:8, more in keeping with its omission just above. Secondly, Col 48: 14-49:4, whose subject is unelean people, interrupts the subject of uneleanness caused by the dead, which would otherwise appear to be a unified piece. Line 10111 seems out of place at this point. If a redactor is at work here, then it is in the insertion following line 13. 4. 48: 14-17: Places for the Unclean This section is essentially non-biblical in its construction. The subject of various afflictions uses key-link words from Leviticus 13-15. Significant for our examination are two points of contact with Columns 45-46. 4.1 The Law commands the making of places "in every city" (InJ:J 1'3.71 1'3.7)15 for those afflicted with leprosy or plague or scab, or with a discharge, and for women who are menstruating or have given birth. Similarly, for the Temple City, in Col 46:16-17, three places are to be made "east ofthe city". These are for lepers, those with a discharge, and men with nocturnal emission (if any others, they are lost in the missing lines of Column 47). It has been assumed that Col 48: 14-17 is an extension of the provision of Col 46:16-17. 16 The evidence of the text does not allow adefinite conelusion to be made, but these observations allow for the possibility that Column 46 develops Column 48: 4.1a Col 48:14 orders nlTJ1i'TJ 11Z73.7n; 46:16117, iT1Z7"1Z7 iTn'1Z73.7l The specification of 'three' places could be considered an expansion on the indefinite regulation for the cities. 4.1 b Column 48 ineludes the broad sweep of categories ofuneleanness from Leviticus 13-15, ineluding women. Column 46 omits any mention

15 Kautzseh, Hebrew Grammar, p 396, deseribes this plural form, with use of the waw copulative, as espeeially eommon in Chronicles and Esther. This is evidenee of the lateness of its language, but also of the affinity for Chronicles language in the SerolI. 16 Yadin, I, p 305f; H, p 209; Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SerolI", p 512f.

THE PURITY LAW

181

of women. The purpose there is to maintain the highest standard of purity for the Temple City,l7 which is an extension of purity laws for everyday life to a stricter level. 4.1c Both sections share with lQSa 2:3-6 and lQM 7:3 the application of the rules of the wilderness camp to their respective situations: to the community, to the war camp, or to the Temple City.lB Column 48 applies the laws of the camp to the towns along the same lines of everyday, common concerns. Column 46, on the other hand, narrows the definition of 'the camp' to the City, demanding a stricter purity than the biblical text. As in point 3.2 above this is a development upon laws for everyday life rather than a base from which more lenient laws are formed. None of these arguments on its own demands viewing Column 48 to be prior to Column 46; but together they, at the least, raise doubts about assuming the priority of Column 46. 4.2 There is no specific biblical source for the prohibition against entering the cities, as in Col 48:15b, i1TJ:>'111~ '~':J~ ~,~. Its closest parallel is in Col 45: 18, (lV1PTJi1 1~11) i1~ '~':J~ ~,~. This speIls out the implication of exclusion from 'the camp', which we have al ready noted is behind this section, and reflects the concern expressed in Lev 15:31-33 (which summarizes the laws on cleansing from discharges and menstruation) to protect Israel from 'uncleanness'. The answer, according to Lev 15:31, is separation (1lJ) of Israel from the uncleanness. The Scroll provides the practical outworking of this: separation of the unclean from the clean Israelites. The two commands are related, but the direction of dependence is not clear. The comments in 4.1.c above apply equally here. 5. 48:17-49:4: Laws Regarding Lepers This section begins with instruction concerning the uncleanness of the leper (from Leviticus 13), and ends with the means ofhis cleansing (from Leviticus 14): Col 49:4, '~TJC' n111li1 l1lJ:J i1TJ:>~111 n~.

17 Yadin, ibid; Milgrom, ibid; Garcia-Martinez, "EI Rollo dei Templo y la halakä sectaria", Simposio Biblico Espanol (Salamanca, 1982) cd N. Fernandez Marios, J. Trebolle Barbera, J. Fernandez Vallina (Madrid: Universidad Computense, 1984), p 621. Garcia alone observes that the biblical source for this concern for the purity of the City is Solomon's decision to keep the daughter of Pharaoh out of the City of David because of the presence of the ark (2 Chron 8: 11). 18 Yadin, "Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?" p 159.

182

CHAPTER FOUR

This phrase echoes the waming of Col 48:15, above, which is the primary relationship of this line, rather than Col 45: 18. The wording here il1,nil is derived directiy from the immediate context, Lev 14:54: n171lil 17ll.

':J'

Summary Before drawing conclusions regarding the relationship of this column to that which precedes we place in table form the use of biblical sources in Column 48. Line:

Source Text:

Unclean A nimaJs 48: 1 a = Deut 14: 18 3 b = Lev 11:21-22 4 b = Lev 11:21 5 b = Lev 11:21 6 a = Deut 14:21 c = Ezek 44:31 a = Deut 14:3 7 a = Deut 14:21,2 Mouming 48:7-9a 9

10

a = Deut 14:1 c = Lev 21:5 b = Lev 19:28 E = Expansion a = Deut 14:2

Uncleanness 48:10/11a a = Num 35:34 c = Lev 19:9 Bunal 48:11b b = Lev 18:24/3 E = Expansion 12 E = Expansion 12/13 a = Deut 19:2 (Num 35) E = Expansion 13/14 a = Deut 19:2 (Num 35) c = Josh 20:4 E = Expansion

Technique:

Conflation

Word-form,Merger Merger, Signal

Key-word Link Word-form

Key-word Link Word-form

Word-form

183

THE PURITY LA W

Line:

Technique:

Source Text:

Places 48:14b

E = Expansion a

=

Lev 13:2

15 b 16-17a Lepers 48:17

a

49:2

(a

3

a

=

=

=

4

a

=

=

c = Lev 14:54 E = Expansion Lev 15:31,2 E = Expansion

Lev 13:11,30

Key-word Link Key-word Links

Merger

Lev 14:38?)

E = Expansion Lev 14:52/54 c = Num 19:6 E = Expansion Lev 14:54

Signal

Some provisional observations may be made regarding the cohesiveness of the Purity Law. Column 48 itself reveals a diverse structure. Deuteronomy is the base text in the first three sections (lines 1-14), then disappears from the Law. Each of the three sections contains distinctive traits. In lines 1-7 the Deuteronomic text is written in the style of Leviticus. Lines 7-10, in contrast, reject Leviticus phraseology which would maintain the pseudepigraphy in favour of Dueteronomic wording. This unexpected feature is contrary to Columns 45-47, and the redactional conclusion in Col 51:5-10. For lines 10-14 the use of Num 35:34 gives the third section a sense of a new beginning. It is impossible to suggest precise relationships of the sections to each other in a study of this sort, but the evidence provided allows a conclusion that more than one hand is at work within this column. The fact of the inter-relationship of Columns 45-46 and Col 48 has not been disputed. The frequent overlaps in subject make clear that one portion was composed with the other in mind, either within a single work, or by an author with a previously existing work before hirn. Our examination suggests that the weight of the evidence is in favour of the priority of Column 48. It is, again, beyond the scope of this study to comment on the integrity of Cols 45-46 with Cols 30-45. But we do have scope to suggest that the

184

CHAPTER FOUR

author of Cols 45-46 sought to apply laws of purity concerning the land to the specialized situation of the Temple City. Column 47 stands out on its own in style, both from that which precedes and that which folIows. While the divine fiction is retained from Cols 45-46, it adopts the second person plural address of Cols 48-51. In subject matter it forms a transition from laws pertaining to the Temple or Temple City by introducing issues arising from objects from the cities coming into the Temple City. Additionally, at no time is there a single discernible base text, but rather a mosaic of biblical sources. Leviticus 11 is incorporated (lines 5,7,10,17-18); in distinct contrast to Cols 48-51 there is evidence of Chronicles language (lines 5,6,9,17). These features, and the use of Lev 11:44 as a signal for Leviticus 11 as the secondary text in Col 48:3 point to a view of Column 47 as a transitional redaction connecting Cols 45-46 to Cols 48-51. This study suggests a complicated literary history for these columns without providing a comprehensive theory of the relationships within each column. Such a theory requires further refinement of the evidence. The examination of Column 48 provides sufficient evidence, however, to satisfactorily conclude that Columns 48-51 may be viewed as originally independent of Columns 45-47, and therefore may be designated a separate Purity Law. B. LAWS IN THE EVENT OF DEATII: 49:5 - 51:6 The law concerning the cleansing of the lepers' houses provides a link to the subject of laws concerning the dead, which begin with the cleansing of the house in which a man dies. To be accurate, the laws are not about the dead, but about the cleansing required as a result of impurity caused by contact with the dead. The detailed examination of this section will be restricted to the self-contained section on the cleansing of the house in which a man dies, in Column 49. The boundaries of this section are marked by the open spaces in the text. Line 5 begins at the margin, making an open paragraph division from the preceding; this is a more pronounced division than the open senten ce spaces which have occurred previously. The same applies to line 11. Given that lines 19b-21ff provide the conclusion to the law on cleansing the house, following a large open sentence, these space divisions are to be seen as of only relative importance. The clear point is that this section is divided into three sub-sections.

THE PURITY LAW

185

The remainder of the section "Laws in the Event of Death", Column 50-51 :6, which continues the development of the Numbers 19 base, will not be examined in detail. Rather it will be summarized in table form. 1. 49:5-10: The Impurity

0/ the House

The base text for the whole ofthe section is Num 19:14-19. 1.1

49:5-6a:

Num 19:14: 'nUot:J n10' '::> O,~ ilJ'Dil ~l il7J::>'J17:J n10' '::> o,~, JlV~ 7::>' 7il~il 7~ ~:Jil 7::> Mil '::J n10' JlV~ D':J 7'::> 7il~:J 0'0' D17:JlV ~OO' 1.1 a The Law does not include the formula "this is the law" from Num 19:14, but immediately gives the law. Compare Col 50:7, where the phrase is added. 1.1 b "In your cities" is substituted for "in your tent". Later in the line "every house" is substituted for 'tent' (both are highlighted in the Scroll text). Comment has tended to focus on the latter substitution. 19 The first substitution, however, serves to extend the law much further than the Numbers command suggests. The context ofthe 'camp' in the wilderness is extended to the cities of Israel (cf Num 19:3,7,9, which refer to the camp20). So, rather than being concerned with the 'tent' , the Law expands the scope to all the cities. In this way this section is tied together with those which precede. The second substitution shifts the attention of the law from the uncleanness of the people who are in the tent to the house itself. The phrase "in which a dead man died" (highlighted text) establishes this shift. lIQT:

19 Yadin, I, p 325; 11, p 212; E. Tov, "The 'Temple SeroIl' and 01d Testament Critieism" (Hebrew) Eretz-Israe/16 (1982), p 105; L. Sehiffinan, ''The Impurity ofthe Dead in the Temple Scrolf', A rchaeology and History in the Dead Sea Serolls ed L.H. Sehiffman (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1990), pp 135-156. 20 The eontext of the eamp in Numbers 19 includes the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer, and the sprinkling of "eedarwood, hyssop, and searlet wool", as Col 39:3, regarding the cleansing of the leper. The Law now pieks up the signal given there. In the purifieation rules which follow the ashes of the red heifer are implied. It is notable that laws relating to cleansing the leper's house are called in to supplement Numbers 19. Could it be that, conversely, the cleansing of the leper included the ashes of the red heifer?

186

CHAPTER FOUR

It is this shift which is of significance, as much as the use of the term 'house' instead of 'tent' . The latter is almost expected, in keeping with the use of tabernacle features for the Temple in the Temple Law. The LXX, which substitutes O[K(O in both places, is an example of the natural way in which the shift would take place in thinking. Or, to put it another way, the Law exhibits evidence of awareness of a LXX-type interpretation. 21 The change in focus to the house itself denotes the purpose to emphasize a strict view of the purity of every part of the house and its goods. The Damascus Document shares this interest in the purity of the cities of Israel (12: 19-20), and the impurity of n~::J::J nTJil 017 1~il~ 'ID~ (CD 12:18). Like our Law, CD 12:18 links Leviticus 11 with Numbers 19, CD 12:18, ilIDl7TJ ~'::>, referring to Lev 11:32, ilIDl7~ 'ID~ ~,::> '::>. The Law introduces Lev 11 :33-34 in lines 7-10 in regard to the vessels which contain foodstuffs.

1.2 49:6-7a: O~TJ~ nl7::JID MTJt:l~ n~::Jil ,~ ~::Jil '1::>1 n~::J::J 'ID~ ,,::> 1.2a Following the addition in line 5 the Law then follows Num 19: 14 to the end. 'House' is substituted for 'tent', as in LXX. 1.2b The Law inverts the order of the phrases, against all biblical versions. This, too, emphasises the concern for the house and its contents over the people in the house, and agrees with the order in which they are discussed in the following lines. 1.3 49:7-8a: lIQT:

Lev 11:34: 'ID~ ,::>~~ 'ID~ '::>~il ':JTJ O[~]TJ 1~'l7 P~l' O~TJ 1~'l7 ~'::J~ IilPID1TJil '1::> ~TJt:l~ ilPIDTJ '::>1 ~TJt:l~ ~TJt:l~ ~TJt:l~ ~':J '::>:1 ilnID~ 'ID~ This line is essentially Lev 11 :34, introduced as the secondary text. The highlighted text indicates the editorial activity: 1.3a Omission of ,::>~~ 'ID~ simply shortens the text by removing an extraneous phrase. 1.3b P~'~ is substituted for ~1::J~. Yadin sees this to be use of a third term to take in the sense of two others, ~1::J~, above, and ,n~ of

'ID~ ':::)1~ '1::>1

21 Yadin, I, p 325; 11, p 213. Cf also Tov, ibid. Yadin's discussion, as also Schiffmans's, ibid, centres on the rabbinie argument over the purity of the tent, and does not discuss this shift from the peop/e in the tent to the house itself.

THE PURITY LA W

187

Lev 11:38.22 However, this does not take into account the E1TlXElV, "to pour", of LXX in Lev 11 :38. The Law agrees with this textual variant. 23 1.3c The omission of '''J "J:J ilnlV' 'W~ expands the meaning of ilPWrJ. The Leviticus command is directed here to drinking vessels. By deleting the reference to drinking the Law makes the command apply to any food. 24 1.4 49:8-9a: ~rJO' n1ilO W'~ "1J" ilrJil:J 'W~ "1J1 1~rJO' W," '''J1 1.4a The text immediately shifts to Lev 11 :33 for the introduction of the next command, 1J1n:J 'W~ "J 1:nn ,,~ CilrJ ,,~, 'W~ W," '''J ":n ~rJO'.

1.4b Following on the omission in line 7 which extends the meaning of ilPW1rJ to any moistened food, the Law's omissions from Lev 11 :33 (highlighted text) shift the meaning of the sentence from that which falls into the vessel to the vessels themselves, and their contents. The interest here is not in the swarming things of Leviticus 11, but in the extension of the same degree of uncleanness to vessels in the house of the dead. The reference in Lev 11:31-32 to dead things is the link. 1.4c "And all which is in them" is an example of conflation by the editorial pen: the CilrJ omitted in the preceding phrase is inserted in place of the two-fold 1J1n. This serves to extend the Leviticus 11 reference to swarming things to everything which is in any clay vessel. l.4d With this the Law inserts, or shifts abruptly to, a phrase which occurs only in Num 19:9,18, '1ilO W'~. This phrase must be viewed from two perspectives. The first is its context in Numbers 19. In Col 49:3 the shift from Leviticus to Numbers as base text was signalled by the use of "cedar wood and hyssop" (Num 19:6). Here, just a few lines later, the signal is picked up by use of "clean man". In Num 19:9 a "clean man" is responsible for the ashes of the red heifer. The purpose of the ashes with hyssop water is to remove impurity. In 19:8 the "clean man" sprinkles the water of purification on the tent in which someone has died. Its purpose is to remove impurity, and is extended to purifying the unclean person (v 19). The Law's use of"clean man" clearly derives from Num 19:18, according to the context in which we find the phrase. The function of "clean man" in Num 19: 18 Yadin, ibid. This agrees with Schiffman, ibid, p 140, rather than with Yadin's reference, n, p 214, to Lev 21:10. This latter text concurs in the phrase pl'l' 11Dlot, but the context contributes nothing. Rather, Lev 11:38 will be seen to supply what is lacking. 24 This supports Yadin's contention, ibid, that moist foodstuff is being discussed. Cf Schiffman, p 141. 22

23

188

CHAPTER FOUR

is dependent on 19:9: a man is designated 'clean' in relation to his role of purifying the unclean man. The second perspective is to view the phrase in distinction from the "man of Israel" in line 9. There is no biblical instance of the phrase, but it is clear that the Law does not use this as the equivalent of the "unclean man" of Numbers 19. It appears instead to use both "clean man" and "man of Israel" in an exclusively narrow sense. The distinction paralleIs that of the rabbinic /tavurah: the "clean man" is the one who observes the levitical purity laws in daily life; the "man of Israel" is as the Am-Haarets who does not maintain the distinctions in daily life.2~ The new construction of the Law is the shift from the descriptive distinction between the man made impure by contact with the dead to the pure man who administers the rite of purification. Instead the "clean man" and the "man of Israel" are two groups of people placed at different levels of life. The clean man is not the one who purifies the unclean, but is the one who lives at a higher level of purity than the average man, and who comes in contact with the vessels from the house of a dead man. A clean man cannot touch any food from such vessels, while the average man is restricted only regarding open vessels. This is a sudden and new interjection into the laws, suggesting categories of distinction between classes of people. The similarity to rabbinic distinctions is striking, but so is the absence of the precise terminology used either in tannaitic sources or in Qumran sectarian literature. What we seem to have here is an early expression of a hierarchy based on levitical standards of purity

which later developed in various directions. 1.4e The sentence concludes with the verb completion of the sentence from Lev 11 :33.

,,:>,

~7JO'

(49:9a), which is the

1.5 49:9-1 0: '~1lV'7J 01~ '~7JO' o'mroin il7.Jil:::l 1lV~ Jilj/lV'7.Jil 1.5a Num 19: 15, ~'il mJll ,'n~ 1'7Jl r~ 'lV~ mn~ (underlining indicates use of base text by the Law), governs the beginning of the line, though severely conflated. The omission, "which has no covering cord upon it", on ce again shifts the emphasis away from the vessels alone to include all that is in them. l.5b "Man of Israel", as has al ready been stated, has no parallel in the Bible, nor in Qumran literature. Is this, then, a technical term taken from another source available to the author? Perhaps not. The term appears to be coined from the biblical sources. 01~ is an adaptation of the term

"'11

,,:>

,,:> ,:>,

25 Yadin, I, p 327; 11, P 214; Schiffman, p 141; 1. Baumgarten, "The Pharisaic -Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Text", JJS 31 (1980), P 160.

THE PURITY LA W

189

as used in Numbers 19. Of its nine occurrences in the Temple Scroll,26 seven are in the Purity Laws, all of which are in direct use of Numbers 19. Three times C,~ is in the base text used (49:5 = Num 19:14; 50:5 = 19:16; 50:6 = 19:13); four times it is an addition within the use of Numbers 19 (49:9 = Num 19:15; 49:16 = 19:14; 49:21 = 19:22; 50:8 = 19: 13/22). Of the remaining two uses (32: 15 and 59:3), Col 32: 15 is based on our secondary text, Lev 11 :36, and is similarly concerned that water not be touched by anyone (C'~ ?'::I). From this survey we can see that I:l'~ refers to the 'man', or 'person', who is the subject of impurity in Numbers 19ILeviticus 11. Further insight into the term may be gained by a similar survey of the use of 'Israel' in 11 QT. The usual occurrence is in the phrase "children of Israel" (20 times). This often refers to the nation Israel (e.g., 45:14, 51:8,58:19,64:6). But, there are different connotations in the various sections ofthe Scroll. On the one hand, in the Temple Law (Cols 30-47) the "children of Israel" are the lay people who have access to the middle court (39:6,7; 40:3; 46:7), and are distinguished from the priests (37:5,12). In the Festival Law the reference is to the heads ofthe tribes and clans who represent the laity at each festival (18:16; 19:16; 21:15); as in the Temple Law, they are distinguished from the priests and Levites (22:11, twice; 21:04,3,8). On the other hand, in the King's Law the emphasis is on the nation, by its cities (58:5), land (58:6), or as a kingdom (59:15,18). Yet again, the closing Expanded Deuteronomy is in keeping with Deuteronomy, speaking of a people. But two references are of interest: in 60: 12, following Deut 18 :6, the Levite comes "from all Israel"; and in 63:8 'Israel' is substituted for "in your midst" of Deut 21:9, when the priests, "the sons of Levi", purge innocent blood "from Israel". These two instances introduce a subtle distinction which approaches that between priest and Levite of the Temple and Festival Laws. In contrast to this is the actual juxtaposition of 'priest' against 'man' in 56:8-10, in order to purge evil "from Israel". But the term for 'man' is lZ7'~ (as in Deut 17: 12). In comparison to these uses Col 49:9 seems to follow the distinction of the Temple and Festival Laws by differentiating between priest and layman. The King's Law is not concerned with such distinctions in its focus on the relation of people to king, and the Expanded Deuteronomy presents the general Deuteronomistic term 'Israel' as the people of the

26 According to Yadin's concordance, 11, p 431. Note that C'~:J' is incorrectly placed in Col 49:11, rather than 49:21.

190

CHAPTER FOUR

land. The use in these cases is not in sharp distinction from Levites or priests, but of the whole nation. Putting 'man' and 'Israel' together we have the picture of a new term coined by the Law from Numbers 19, used to refer to the lay person in distinction from the priest or Levite who is a "clean person". If this is so, then the similarity of these lines to the havurim or other hierarchy is less visible than has been thought. 27

,,:>

I.Sc ilPU"TJ repeats Lev 11 :34, as in line 7, completing the shift of concern to the contents of the vessels, and not the vessels alone. The addition, ilTJil::J 'ID~ (line 10), makes this emphatic. In lines 7-10 Numbers 19 is the base text, on the subject ofthe impurity of the house in which a man dies. The secondary text, Lev 11 :33-34, shares concern for the purity/impurity ofthe vessels in the house, and the contents of those vessels. The context of Leviticus 11 has nothing to do with the house or the dead (except for the carcasses of insects, etc), however. Numbers 19 is the focus of the section, and Leviticus 11 is useful in complementing the base on the matter of vessels, but in nothing else. It is also clear that the application of Leviticus 11 to Numbers 19 does not mean that the law for vessels in the house of the dead is intended to be applied to Leviticus 11. That is to say, the Law does not intend to unify or harmonize all texts on the impurity of vessels into one comprehensive law. 28 2. 49:11-16: Cleansing the House

Following an "open paragraph" space line 11 begins the provision for cleansing the impure house. The notable attribute of this section is its originality.29 The base text continues to be Numbers 19, beginning from v 18 as above, and returning to the base on occasion?O But the important feature of the whole consists in the use of supplementary texts which See note 25. Contra J. Milgrom, ''The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetieal Prineiples", Temple Seroll Studies, p 171; and Yadin, I, pp 74-77. 29 Yadin notes this factor in H, P 214. Sehiffman, ibid, p 142, ealls it "original composition by the author", based on Num 19:18. M. Lehmann, "Temple SeraIl as a Source of Seetarian Halakhah", RevQ 9 (1977-78), p 584, reads Yadin as saying, "this law has no source in Seriptures", where Yadin actually says, "There is no analogaus sentenee in the Bible" to line 11. This is not to say there is no biblieal souree. 30 Agreeing with Yadin, ibid, and Sehiffman, ibid. Lehmann, ibid, malces no attempt to fmd seriptural support, foeusing rather on mediaeval Jewish practiee. 27 28

THE PURITY LA W

191

provide exegetical support for the author's composition. It is, in effect, commentary on Numbers 19. 2.1 49: 11: n':Jil n~ '1::D' nOil n~ ,J7J7J ,~'~" 1W~ 1:l,':J, 2.l a There is no biblical parallel to this line. Yadin refers to Mal 3 :21 "for style" (1W~ 1:l":J).31 On this pattern reference should also be made to Jer 11:4, I:lm~ '~'::nill:l":J (and 34: 13), which provides a more direct stylistic parallel. If Jeremiah is a stylistic influence we may have a connection with the Deuteronomistic tendencies of the Scroll. 32 2.1 b The use of 1::D is non-biblical. This is described as mishnaic language by Yadin. 33 2.2 49:11c-12a: l:l'O nn7' 1'" 10W n7'~ln h':JO 2.2a 7~l appears in Col 47:13 in the injunction not to defile the Temple City with skins from animals sacrificed in the land. Yadin compares the two texts because the column also deals with the uncleanness ofwine and oil in those same skins (47:6_7).34 The relation of the skins to wine and oil is not, however, of direct value with regard to understanding 7~l, for three reasons. Firstly, the term is not used in 47:6-7. Secondly, in 47:13-14 the only concern is over the skins, and not what is in them. And, thirdly, the concern in 47: 13 is not ilPW'O, as can be seen in the comparison with 47:6-7: in the earlier lines the base text is Lev 11:34, using the term ilpW'O; in the 47: 13 repetition of "wine, oil and foodstuff', ilpW'O is notably omitted. Yadin refers to Mal 1:7 as a source for 7~l in Col 47:13. 35 In this context Zeph 3: 1, "Woe to the ... defiled city (il7~lJ')", is more appropriate as a supplementary text. 2.2b 1QM 9:8 wams the priests to maintain distance from the slain in battle lest the impure blood defile them (7~lnil7), and desecrate the oil of their anointing. This is an example of another term of liquid defilement,36 although the uncleanness applies to the basic contact with a corpse, and not a house or its contents. The reference to oil, too, shows concern for the sacredness of the anointing oil, and not oil in vessels. 2.2c Of most significance for comparision is CD 12: 16, n~o'O:J '7~'l' 'OW '7'~l7 1:l1~il. The subject of CD 12: 11 b-20 paralleis the Purity

Yadin, ibid. Cfthe role of Jeremiah in the King's Law, especially Column 59, and Co129:10 (for Jer 31 :29). 33 Yadin, 11, P 215. 34 Yadin, I, p 329. 35 Yadin, 11, p 204. 36 Yadin, I, P 329. 31

32

192

CHAPTER FOUR

Laws: unclean animals and creatures are listed (cf 48: 1-6) and lines 16-18 are concerned with the house in which a dead man lies, based on Lev 11 :32. The similarity argues strongly for emending CD 12: 16 to lTJID ';~1l;.37 The difference lies in the Law's incorporation ofLeviticus 11 into Num 19:18-19, and in the use of ;~l as an adjective, against the CD verb form. The evidence is not for dependence so much as the common use of ;~l as a synonym for ~TJO. 2.2d nn; appears to be an example of mishnaic language, which Yadin illustrates by rabbinie examples, as weil as from the Qumran 'mishnah,.38 This latter reference appears in DJD III in illumination of the language of 3Q15, the Copper SerolI. Several fragments from Cave Four are described there as 'mishnaic', and are given the sigla 4Qmisna-c. 4Qmisna reads: nn~ iln; eil;:) ilTJilTJ ;~TJi11 mpllTJil nn; ,;:).39 This is of value as an example of Qumran literature with affinities to mishnaic language, and helps to place the language of the Law within a context of linguistic development. As for the presence of the term in the Law, the strict attitude to mushqeh is continued towards 'moisture' or "secretions of water". The Law holds a rigorist view of the impurity caused by any sort of moisture. 40 2.3 49:12b: "11l' 1'mn;'1 1'm1'pl 111p1p 2.3a 1 Kgs 6: 16 is the only biblical instance of l1p1p and m1'p appearing together, but the context of the building of the sanctuary is of no use here. 2.3b In Lev 14:37,39 the 'walls' ofthe house ofthe leper are unclean. The Law does not introduce the subject of leprosy into this section, but simply draws on its commands concerning the presence of moisture in the house itself. 41 The list of "floor, walls, and doors" points to the parallel in Pal. Targum to Num 19: 14, and to CD 12: 16. 42 Both seek to establish the impurity of all that is attached to the ground. It is significant that there is no direct contact textually between the Law and the Damascus Document beyond ;~l (as seen above), which argues against dependence 31 Agreeing with Yadin I, p 329, 11, p 215; and Schiffman, p 143. Cf Lohse's conjectural reading, 'I1J1Z7" ;tot'l?, Die Texte aus Qumran (München: Käsel-Verlag, 1964), p 92. 38 Yadin, 11, p 215. 39 DJD III, P 225. 40 Baumgarten, "Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies", p 164, likens 4Qmisna to the Sadducean position. The implication which remains is that the Law also approximates the Sadducean position. 41 Schiffman, ibid, p 142, describes this as a "partial analogue". 42 Yadin, I, p 328; Schiffman, p 143.

THE PURITY LAW

193

and in favour of a case of similar interpretation of Scripture. The Targum is of more pertinent interest because it is related specifically to the base text in Numbers 19. Perhaps the Targum incorporated an interpretation derived from the Law! 2.3c Yadin refers to the occurrence of '1l in Job 2:8, but with a different meaning. 43 It is certainly the case that there is a difference in object: Job scrapes ('1l) the boils on his skin with a piece of pottery. But the action is the same for the verb in each instance. So, rabbinic usage illustrates the word in the context of purity regulations, but does not differ from this single biblical instance. The Law substitutes this 'mishnaic' term for l1lp in Lev 14:41, :J'::m n':JTJ l1lp' n':JiT mn (both terms are hapax legomena in the OT). That scraping is limited by the Law to the floor, walls, and doors suggests that it includes removing the pIaster as in Lev 14:28,41, which would explain why the rest is only washed. 44 2.4 49: 13a: C'7J:J 10:D' 1'!np1Z77J1 1'D02ot1 1'mnt7J1 1'?111J7J1 2.4a This line is essentially an expansion. Each of the terms can be found in biblical sources, but none can be called a source for this line. 4S ?111J7J appears in Neh 3:3 of one of the gates to the Jerusalem walls; mntrJ appears with rpp1Z77J in the Passover provisions of Exod 12:7,22; rp20t occurs in Neh 12:25, where the Levites are 17J1Z77J C'11111Z7 C'17J1Z7 C'1111Z7iT 'D02ot:J, with the meaning usually taken to be "keeping watch at the storehouses of the gates" (as in 1 Chron 26: 15,17). However, in 2 Chron 34:9 the description of the Levites is "guardians of the threshold" (rpiT '17J1Z7). In light of the use here in this Law, the evidence of 2otD02ot in Qumran literature,46 and the mishnaic use of ~!J'O~,47 perhaps each of the biblical instances should be translated 'threshold', understanding ~02ot with a prosthetic aleph. Exodus 12:22, alone, suggests a relationship to the present context, nntrJil 'n1Z7 ?2ot1 ~1P1Z77Jil ?2ot Cnl1li11 rp:J ... :J1l2ot ml20t Cnnp?l If the sprinkling with hyssop is reflected in the Law, then Exodus 12 is merged with Numbers 19 in a formula of cleansing by sprinkling which includes the doorposts and lintels. 2.4b C'7J:J 10:D' returns us to the base text, reflecting Num 19:19, C'7J:J yn11 1"l:J O:Dl The subject of washing in Numbers 19 is the Yadin, H, p 215. Cf Yadin's question, ibid. Schiffman, ibid, p 144, points out this analogy without noting the implication that scraping has for the piaster of the house. 45 With Yadin, ibid. 46 DJD Ill, P 187; Yadin, ibid. 41 B. Qam. 104b. See Jastrow, Dictionary, p 93. 43

44

194

CHAPTER FOUR

unclean person, which the Law replaces with the house itself. This is the technique in this whole section, to apply laws of purification to the house itself. By using this phrase the Law maintains contact with the base text even while transforming it into another area of emphasis. Its effect is to make the biblical command more severe.

,m

nOil i(~' !1i(lV O,'::J 2.5 49:13b-14: "a,::l a,,::l ni(' n'::Jil ni( '1ilD' 2.5a 1i(lV O,'::J repeats the phrase beginning line 11, where we suggested that Jer 11:4 was more appropriate an allusion than Mal 3 :21 (use ofDeuteronomistic language). The verb, i(~\ is now qal rather than hiphil. 2.5b n'::Jil ni( '1ilD' appears to be a close echo of Lev 14:48, nilD' n'::Jil ni( lil::lil. In Leviticus the priest pronounces the leper's house clean when he is satisfied the mark on the wall has not reappeared. The use of this text continues the use of Leviticus 14 as a supplementary text, introduced to focus attention on the house by means of analogy 48 with the infected house. This text also suggests the antecedent for the repeated 'they' ofthese lines: 'they' are the priests, unmentioned since CoI48:17. The Law provides for more than one priest or "clean man" (in the term drawn from Numbers 19), in keeping with the administration of the places outside the city. These laws would surely require a large number of priests. On the other hand, the failure to mention priests explicitly may mean 'they' refers to the ones in need of cleansing (cf comment on 49: 18) who administer the cleansing themselves. The use of1ilD in Leviticus 14 has the effect of"declare pure", in the same way the piel of i(OD is understood in Leviticus 13 (and Col 48: 17) as "declare unclean". This is a specific feature of Leviticus 13 and 14 alone. 49 With this in view perhaps the use here in Col 49:14 should be translated, "they shall declare the house pure ... and all vessels which may be purified". 2.5c The phrase "and all its vessels" serves a dual function. Firstly, it maintains the influence of the base text at Num 19: 18 (O,a,::lil a,::l a,11,), and begins to expand upon the phrase. so Secondly, it re-introduces Lev 11 :32 Ca,::l a,::l), which has not been in use since lines 8-9. The method

Schiffman's term, ibid. See BDB, p 379 (Keil); p 372 (hI1l). J. Milgrom, ''The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws ofPurity in the Temple Serolf', in A rchaelogy and History in the Dead Sea SeroIls ed L.H. Schiffman, p 90, translates these as reflexive verbs, "he/she purifies himlherself' (from Lev 15:13 in Col 49:18-19). This suggestion would strengthen our suggestion in the last paragraph. But Leviticus 13 and 14 are the base here, not 15. so Both Yadin, I, p 330, and Schiffman, ibid, p 144 assert this basis. 48

49

195

TIIE PURITY LAW

is the use of the form of the phrase as it appears in Leviticus 11 and the purpose is to signal the use of the text in the coming Iines while simultaneously using the parallel base text. 2.6 49: 14c-15: ~l1~ f17 '~:J ~1:J1 Ji1:J1101 tJ'n1 iT1iTO iTOiT~ lV' 1lV~ tJ'~:J ~1:J1 nlV1m1 This material speils out the meaning of "and all its vessels" based on Num 19: 18. Lev 11 :32 is the secondary text, supplemented by Num 31:22-23. 2.6a iT:J1'01 tJ'n1. These two terms appear together only in Num 11 :8, where the children of Israel make cakes out of manna. There is no reason to see a connection here. The terms are another instance of mishnaic, or later Hebrew language in an addition to the text. 51 Their inclusion here, including stone implements in the purification, is another instance of the stricter code of purification in this Law. 52 2.7b f17 '~:J ~1:J1 occurs in both Lev 11 :32 and Num 31 :20. Leviticus 11 is the dominant context, but the exact form is as in Num 31 :20 (?:J1 rather than ~:JO), which is used as a signal for the use of Num 31 :22-23 wh ich folIows. 53 This signalling of future use of a text may be compared to the introduction of Leviticus 11 in the previous line. In this way the author combines law conceming vessels contaminated by dead insects with statutes conceming wood vessels made unclean by a person who has had contact with the slain, making both apply to the vessels in the house ofthe dead. There is no specific provision for the method of cleansing, whether by water or fire. The summary commands for cleansing at 49: 18-20 suggest that water is involved in sprinkling and washing. 2.6c "Iron and bronze" are chosen by the Law from those vessels in Num 31 :22 which require c1eansing by fire. They are given in reverse order to that of Numbers 31 (all versions). The Law has nothing to say about vessels of gold, silver, tin, or lead, which seem to be subsumed under "all vessels that may be purified". There is no evident explanation for this, other than to suggest that by this catalogue vessels of stone, wood, and metal are grouped together and vessels of c1ay are excluded (cf Col 50:16-18 54).

Yadin, H, p 216. Manfred R. Lehmann, "The Beautiful War Beide", Temple Serail Studies, p 267. 13 MT, Sam, LXX, and llQpaleoLev all agree at Lev ll:32, Yl' This is in llQT as a merger of Leviticus II with Numbers 3l. the basis for viewing However, it must be noted that the Syriac reads the same as llQT in both Num 31:20 and Lev ll:32, wkl mn'. S4 Cf Yadin, I, p 330; 11, p 216. SI

S2

,,:1,

-':I ':JlJ.

196

CHAPTER FOUR

2.6d " ... and all vessels that may be purified". This phrase, as suggested above, subsumes all other metal vessels into it. It is an addition in the Law which reflects, but does not follow, Num 31 :23: 1i101 tt7~::1 11'::117n tt7~::1 ~::1' 1tt7~ 1::11 ~::>. ss 2.7 49:16a: 10::1::>n' m11l71 0'i'tt71 0'1l::11 2.7a The phrase comes essentially from Lev 11 :32, i'tt7 1~ 11lJ 1~ 1l::1. Num 31 :20 speaks only of 11lJ ,~::> ~:>1 1l::1 ~::>, but adds vessels of goat's hair and wood. The Law is now interested in articles of clothing, and not 'vessels', so Leviticus 11 is to the point. There is no explanation for the Law's use of the plural in each instance, nor for the inversion of 'skins' and 'sacks', contrary to all versIOns. 2.7b 0::1::> draws on the usual procedure for cleansing. Lev 11 :28 specifies washing the unclean clothes (1'1l::1 0::1::>'), and is the standard command regarding the leper (Lev 14:47). The base text, Num 19:19, calls for washing of clothes only on the seventh day. The contribution of the Law is two-fold here: first, by the combination of Lev 11 :32 with Num 31:20 into the Numbers 19 base the command shifts from application to the clothes worn by the impure person to all clothes and articles in the house; second, and significantly, the Law begins the cleansing immediately rather than on the third day (Num 31: 19), or the seventh day (Num 19:18-19).s6 The section Col 49:11-16 follows the base of Num 19:18-19, on the subject of contact with the house in which a man has died. Lev 11 :23-24 is used as the secondary text throughout, applying those portions of the laws concerning dead insects which address similar concerns: that is, concerning the vessels in the house. Three texts supplement these. Firstly, the law for the house of the leper in Lev 14:37-48 is applied to the house of the dead; secondly, the Passover ritual of sprinkling is applied to the doors and lintels (and walls); thirdly, on the subject of cleansing vessels contaminated by the dead, Num 31 :20-23 is used. Milgrom cites these lines as an example of his exegetical term 'homogenization', or equalization, applied to objects. He explains this

55 Yadin, 11, p 216, cites lQS 3:4-9 for comparison ofterminology. The verb 1ilU does appear, but provides no further insight to the context. 56 Yadin discusses this aspect fully in I, p 331-332, in comparison to the discussion which appears later in Column 50 (the house of a woman with a dead child in her womb). His discussion misses the first point above, regarding the subject of washing all clothes, etc. The Law inserts this command precisely where we expect to see personal c1eansing begin.

THE PURITY LA W

197

principle as that in which "a law which applies to specific objects, animals, or persons is extended to other members ofthe same species".S7 If Milgrom means by this that the purpose of the Law at this point is to draw together an of these texts into one an encompassing law applicable at an times to an these objects, then we cannot accept this term. The Law is certainly applying objects from different contexts to Numbers 19, but the end result applies only to the subject of Numbers 19, i.e., the cleansing of objects in the house of the dead, and not to the house of the leper, or any other situation. The presence of Zeph 3: 1 or Jer 11:4 may be seen to be of little influence in the light of these clear texts, and their intentional use might be questioned. 3. 49:16-?: Cleansing the Impure Person The subject shifts from cleansing the house and vessels to the cleansing of the person who has entered the house. Lines 16-19 contain the provision for the first and the third days. There is a vacat (closed paragraph or large closed sentence space) between this and the provision for the seventh day's cleansing ritual in lines 19-21, but it is obvious there is no change in subject. Perhaps this space is used to emphasize the final act of cleansing in which the person is "clean of the dead". The instructions are concluded in the missing portion of Col 50, so remain incomplete. 3.1 49: 16b-17: ~::l 'ID~ '71:J1 m~::l::l iPiT 'ID~ '71:J 1:l1~iT1 l1ID~~'iT 01~::l 1~' l::l O::l:J~1 O~O::l yn,~ n~::liT '7~ 3.1 a The opening of this command ("Every person who was in the house/and everyone who came into the house") is arepetition of the use ofNum 19:14 as in line 6, with slight differences. First, consistent with line 5, 'the tent' becomes 'the house' in keeping with LXX. Second, the Law's use ofiT'iT 'ID~ reflects influence from Num 19:18, in which the cleansing by water includes OID 1'iT 'ID~ mID:»iT '7:V1 (highlighted text indicates influence). This further emphasizes the requirement for every person in contact with the house to be cleansed. Third, O'~iT" which introduces the shift of subject from articles to individuals, is a terse conflation of the opening phrase of N um 19: 14, '7iT~::l mo' ':J O'~ iT'1nn n~,.. This provides an example ofthe multiple use of a text in which no two occurrences are identical. The repetition

57

Milgrom, "The Qumran Cult", p 171; "Scriptural Foundations", p 93.

198

CHAPTER FOUR

ofNum 19:14 after its use in line 6 draws attention back to the subject, but avoids monotonous repetition. Where the first use focused on the consequences of the death for the house itself, this use of the text shifts the emphasis to the people involved. The stringency of its application to everyone Ö,:J C1~i1) is emphasized by the repetition of 19: 14. The shift to the means of cleansing is signalIed by the merging of 19: 18 into 19: 14. 3.1 b The phrase "bathe in water and wash his garments" reverses the order of Num 19: 19. The Law stands alone in this, as no other version does so. The only example of agreement with this order is in 4Q514, three times. 58 The same phrase occurs in Lev 15:5, pertaining to anyone who touches the bed of the man with a discharge (:lt, cf Col 48: 15; 46: 18), and in Lev 11 :25 (Sam only) of cleansing from eontaet with a carcass. The form of the verbs is puzzling, appearing in the imperfeet in the Law (o::O"lfn,'). The reversal of the order of the verbs ereates a grammatical problem: the imperfeet with waw conseeutive requires the perfect in subsequent verbs, as in Lev 15:5 (Yl"ID::O'). The author (or the scribe) must have garbled the text here. 59 The influenee of Lev 15:5 here is related to its influenee upon Col 45:8, yn" "1l::1 0::01 The subject there is cleansing from nocturnal emission before readmission to the Temple, the provision for whieh is found in Lev 15:16-17. There the Law's phrase does not appear, but its order does: first, bathing the whole body, C'r.J::1 yn" (v 16); then, washing any garment on whieh there is stain, O::O' ... 1l::1 ;:J, (v 17). That Column 45 bears relation to the order of phrase in Column 49 is eonfirmed by the eommand for "the first day" which is eommon to both, and unique to the Seroll. The difference between the two is in the form ofthe verbs, Co145:8 agreeing with the perfeet forms ofNum 19:19, and not with Lev 15:5. Column 45:8 appears to be arecasting of 49: 17, whieh can be seen in two ways. Firstly, the author does not merely copy the law, but works on the base of Levitieus 15, leaving Num 19 out of his formulation because it is irrelevant to his eontext. Seeondly, and more importantly, he eorrects the grammatical error by following Lev 15: 5 direetly. 3.1 c The most signifieant aspect of the line is the addition of l'ID'~'i1. Num 19: 19, the base text, ealls for bathing and washing only on the seventh day. No biblical text calls for these on the first day, whieh gives rise to two questions: DJD VII, p 296. An alternative explanation is to read the Law as Y"'l, a perfect with waw apodosis. In this case the waw picks up from that in C,loti1l, with the casus pendens. See Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, §143c-d. S8

S9

THE PURITY LA W

199

Firstly, what is the purpose of adding the purification on the first day? Yadin points to the basic factor that the Law, by its use of texts such as Lev 15:5, extends their demand for purification on the day of contracting impurity (i.e., by the evening) to the subject of the house of the dead man. This is the primary function of the secondary text in this line (which text this is will be discussed below). But what is the reason? Yadin surmises, "Possibly, then, the purification of the first day is not merely the cleansing of uncleanness contracted from the dead, but of other impurities as well".60 However, he does not suggest what these other impurities might be. Jacob Milgrom provides a plausible answer. The first day purification is not to cleanse from other impurities, but to prevent additional impurity. "The purpose of the first day ablution is to allow the impurity bearer to remain in the City".61 Such is the import brought by Lev 15: 5 and 16 to the base text. Each of these is a cleansing which allows immediate contact with the community, though not all its social functions. Further light on the purpose of this first day cleansing may come from 4Q512 (Purification Ritual) and 4Q514 (Orde). In these documents the prohibition of eating and drinking until after bathing and washing (4Q5 14 1:3,7), and the permission to eat and drink (4Q512 11:3) provide a basic practical reason for first day cleansing, i.e., in order to eat. 62 The purification allows the person to eat pure foods and not to contaminate them. This seems to address the same question as our Law, and indeed seems to clarify the first day ablutions even further. 4Q514 is of particular interest because of the occurrence of i1J'ID~" (three times: lines 5,7,8). It appears in the phrase "in his first uncleanness". Baillet translates this "primary impurity" (primaire), interpreting it to mean that the primary impurity continues with the start of the purification. 63 However, in light of the Law this phrase may refer to the impurity which pertains to the first day, but which is provided for by washing and bathing. On the other hand, if 4Q514 does restrict eating until after the seventh day of cleansing, the Law is revealed in this instance to provide a more lenient interpretation of the cleansing law than the (apparently) sectarian ordinance. Yadin, I, p 332. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SerolI", JBL 97 (1978), p 515, and "Seriptural Foundations", pp 91-94; Sehiffinan, ibid, p 147 eoneurs with this proposaI. The problem of the souree remains, however, as no biblieal preeedent is provided. 62 DJD VII, ibid; ef also J. Baumgarten, "Pharisaie-Saddueean Controversies", p 160, for the same argument. Baumgarten eomments again on this point in "The Purifieation Rituals in DJD VIf', The Dead Sea Serails: Forty Years 0/ Research, ed D. Dimant, and U. Rappaport, (Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992), p 205. 63 DJD VII, ibid. 60

61

200

CHAPTER FOUR

Accepting the former explanation explains why the first day purification is added, but leaves a second question as to the origin of the Law's addition of "the first day". We have al ready seen that there is no biblical occurrence of the term in any setting. The use here paralleis Col 45:8, but still does not reveal its source. Yadin believes Ezek 44:26 may be used for support, "After he is purified he shall count for him seven days". This is certainly a sympathetic passage, which reflects the same concern, but there is no textual relationship to this Law. 64 Schiffman believes the first day cleansing is inferred from Num 19: 18, which otherwise seems redundant alongside verse 19. 65 This undoubtedly explains the biblical base from which this inference is made; at the same time, the existence of 4Q514 allows us to suggest that the inference in the Purity Law derives from a similar interpretation of the biblical text, as 4Q514 itself. The answer to this speculation is beyond the bounds of this study. But, considering the biblical base to be Num 19: 18, we are now free to consider the reason for the Law's insertion of 'bathing' before the 'sprinkling' commanded there. Schiffman looks to examples of purification in Leviticus 11 and 15 as the sources where "our author learned that washing, and not sprinkling, was to be the form of the ablutions".66 These are the right sources, but the wrong way ofviewing the process. The Law puts these sources together with Numbers 19 precisely in order to establish the priority of bathing before sprinkling. The addition of a first day cleansing emphasizes the gravity of the impurity caused by contact with the dead, for which Leviticus 15 is the source, and also establishes the order of ablution as, first, bathing and washing of clothes, and qfter that sprinkling (sprinkling is not omitted as Schiffman infers). This concern for the priority of bathing can be illustrated by comparison to 4Q512. In Col 12:5-7 the order of cleansing is simply stated: there can be no sprinkling without prior bathing: '01 1"11 illil' nn~1 1'1l::J [n~ 0:01 ]C'nl1 n'ilO' yn,.67 The Law has provided the 'biblical' authority for this command. In summary, Num 19:18 remains the base text from which the Law infers the first day ablutions. The addition of "on the first day" is

Yadin, I, P 333. Schiffman, ibid, p 147. 66 Schiffman, ibid. Tivra Frymer-Kensly, "Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Biblical Israel", The Word 0/ the Lord ShaIl Go Forth, eds C.L. Myers and M. O'Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun's, 1983), p 412, has pointed out that it is only in Lev 14 and 15, regarding male discharge, menstruating women, and lepers, that bathing, washing of garments and waiting until evening are a11 three required. 67 DJD VII, p 263f; and Baumgarten, "Purification Rituals", p 206. 64

65

THE PURITY LAW

201

provided by the author on the strength of the purification rites for other impurities (e.g., contact with discharge, Lev 15:5). But the essential pattern for first day ablution is Lev 15:16. 3.2 49: 18-19a: 'l"'~' il1J ~TJ ilTJil~lnl 'l~ ~lV~~lVil [J'~:l1 n~:J:J 'lV~ [J~~:Jil n~, /ilTJmTJ~O 'O:J:J~' With mention of"the third day" the Law picks up on the actual provision as it appears in the biblical order in Num 19:19. The verse is reworked, in keeping with the Law's use of third person plural for the ones performing the cleansing ritual, as weIl as those being cleansed. The 'clean' and 'unclean' ofNumbers 19 are understood but not mentioned. The absence of the "clean man" is in keeping with the difference in meaning attached to this term in line 8 above. 3.2a "Water of impurity" (Y adin' s translation of il1 J ~TJ)68 is anticipated from Num 19:20-21. This refers to the hyssop water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, and is better translated "water for impurity", referring to Num 19: 19. Insertion of this phrase clarifies and reiterates the method of purification, tying the provisions for the third day back into the text which preceded the addition of ablutions for the first day. This is to be compared to CoI45:10. There, in the prohibition against entering any part of the Temple during the impurity caused by nocturnal emission, the text reads, "they shall not come into my Temple in the impurity of their uncleanness (this time Yadin does not translate: 'in their niddah-like uncleanness')69 and defile it". The reference to n1J alludes to Num 19:20, and is applied to nocturnal emissions as is appropriate to a matter related to eotrance to the Temple. But there is 00 apparent interest in Numbers 19, as we have al ready seen to be the case in relation to 45:8. In contrast, Column 49 uses Numbers 19 as its base, and having nothing to do with the Temple omits any reference to the sanctuary. "Water for impurity" is still required for the sprinkling which is overtly mentioned in Num 19: 19 and in this line. The accounts have in common the provision for washing and bathing on both the first and third days, but Column 45 has no seventh day cleansing. What, then, is the relationship between the two? Column 45, by its vague reference to "niddah-like uncleanness" and its failure to speil out the need for "water for impurity", shows little interest in Numbers 19. On the other hand, "water for impurity" is absolutely essential to the

68 69

Yadin, 11, p 217. Yadin, ibid, p 192.

202

CHAPTER FOUR

whole of Column 49. Column 45, in turn, is not interested in developing the whole Numbers 19 context, so maintains a limited relation to it. Column 49 develops its subject within the context of Numbers 19, with no need of reference to Column 45. The point of contact in Column 45, washing on the first and third days, must be derived from Column 49. The Community Rule provides three examples of"water for impurity" (IQS 3:4,9; 4:21-22).70 In lQS 3:3-6 the stubborn man finds that no amount of purification ritual will make hirn clean. He is not "reckoned among the perfect, cleansed by atonements, nor purified in water for impurity, nor sanctified in seas and rivers, nor purified in any water for washing (1'"1)". The list speils out a variety of forms of purification in which the niddah and ra/latz are in parallel, which appears to reflect Num 19:19-20. The second occurrence, in 3:6-11, appears in the context of the repentance of the above individual. Here the allusion to Num 19: 19-20 extends to 'sprinkling' with "water for impurity". What is significant in the Community Rule is that this sprinkling is parallel and connected to being purified "in the humbling of his soul to all the statutes of God". The ritual cleansing is firmly related by the Rule to the attitude of the heart, and the purification is for the cleansing and perfection of the individual. This aspect is an important insight into the internal meaning of purification, but is a contrast to the purification in 11 QT which is tied to the biblical requirements for cleansing from specific defilement. The difference is highlighted further by reference to the third example, in lQS 4:21-22. Here God purifies man "with the spirit ofholiness like water for impurity". In this case me niddah is only a metaphor of the inward work ofGod. These examples have more in common with 4Q512 12:7-8,10, where confession and cleansing from guiIt are part of the procedure of cleansing. 71 3.2b 0::0 becomes a key-word link at the end of line 18 for the introduction ofCn'nJtz1 10::0'1 from Exod 19: 14,72 a substitution for il101 1'1l:1 0::0' il1Jil '0 ofNum 19:2l. The use ofthe third person, "they

70 Cf Baumgarten, "Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies", p 161, who notes these references in n 16 but makes no comment. His only question at this point is whether the Qumran sect sacrificed its own red heifer. Although he cannot confrrm this he speculates, by implication, that reference to "water for impurity" may point to the practice. Baumgarten's assumption that llQT and lQS are both sectarian documents prevents him examining the paralieis closely to determine the relationship. Citing paralleis is deemed sufficient comment. 71 DJD VII, p 296. 72 The 1Z7/O interchange and spelling difference is discussed by Yadin, II, p 217, with reference to E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background 0/ the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsaa) (Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1974), see p 185.

THE PURITY LAW

203

shall sprinkle", in line 18 allows for the interpretation that the ones who sprinkle and the ones who "wash their garments" are the same, as in Numbers 19. If this is so, it leaves us with the startling possibility that the unclean people are responsible for cleansing themselves (there has been no mention of priests here, and the "clean man" has been transferred, in line 8, from duties as the one who purifies). Whatever the case, the introduction of the cleansing procedure from Exodus 19 brings the Law back to its grounding as law which originates on Sinai. 73 3.2c The Law adds 11n1'1, in keeping with its addition in Col 45:9. It is interesting that the addition in Column 45 is a scribal addition, added above the line, indicating the careful collation of these two texts in the Scroll. The two differ, however, in the actual form of the words. Column 45 retains the biblical order of O::D and yn1 (as would be expected of a scribe correcting the manuscript), and sets the final period as 1n~ ID7JIDi1 i1~:J rather than :J117? (but cf Col 50: 15). In this case the Law is repeating the formula for the first day (line 17), which requires both bathing and washing. The pattern of the seventh day is fully implemented on both the first and third days.74 3.2d Wehave al ready seen the important place of purification in the Qumran sectarian literature. 1QS 3: 5 mentioned "waters for bathing" . The Damascus Document specifies the quality and amount of water for bathing (10:10-11), and the requirement for entering the house ofworship (11:21-22). Each of these shows their community's concern for waters for purification and their application to community life. The latter instances appear to be the extension of 11 QT law to daily community practice, placing the "house of worship" in the place of the Temple of Column 45. In this respect the affinity of CD with 11QT 45 seems to say the opposite of Yadin's argument,7S in which he uses Column 49 to contradict the opinions of Ginsberg and Rabin 76 that CD 11:21-22 concerns a man with a nocturnal emission. Rather, the proper parallel is indeed Col 45:7, concerning the subject of nocturnal emission and the Temple. A closer parallel is that of lQM 14:2-3, with which Yadin concludes his discussion of this passage. 77 The warriors wash and bathe to cleanse Cf Yadin, ibid. This is the straightforward explanation for the souree of detail on the third day, rather than 'homogenization' as used by Milgrom, "The Qumran CuIt", p 172, and "The ScripturaI Foundations", p 93. 15 Yadin, I, P 333. 16 Ginsberg, Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte I (New York: KTAV, 1922, ET 1970), P 102; and Rabin, Qumran Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), p 59. 11 Yadin, I, p 333. Cf Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple SerolI", p 514, who diseusses lQM 14:2-3 in regard to Col 45:12-14. 13

14

204

CHAPTER FOUR

themselves of the corpses of those they have killed. The War Scroll draws for its authority on N um 31: 19ff, as does the Law in line 15 above. lQM calls for bathing, but Numbers 31 does not. This parallel is of value at this point because the Law appears to return to the use of Numbers 31 in the final phrase of this sentence, to which we now turn. 3.2e "And the vessels that are in the house" is primarily arepetition ofthe Num 19:18 provision for sprinkling the vessels in the house, as is directed in lines 14-15. There the elaboration of kinds of vessels came from Num 31:22-23. This text is signalled as the secondary text at this point by the inclusion of bathing (rn,), as discussed above, and by the "water for impurity" which is the means of purifying the vessels in Num 31:23. 3.3 49:19b-21a: lIQT: n' JUl 11' f'l7':1Uli1 01':11 i17.Ji1'1l:1 10::D'1 1ln"1 n7.Ji17.J /::l,l7? 1'i10'1 i17.Ji1'?:n

Num 19:19: 'l7':1Uli1 01':1 1~0n1 0'7.J:1 rn'1 1'1l:1 0::D1 :1,l7:1 'i101

The prescription for the seventh day becomes the third use of Num 19: 19 as the base, but now on its proper day. Instead of simply following the Numbers text the Law makes some changes (highlighted text). 3.3a The insertion of n'JIV serves on the one hand to reiterate the fact of the eleansings both on the third and seventh days (so there will be no impression that there was sprinkling on the first day), and on the other hand to follow the pattern of Lev 13:58, 'i101 n'JUl 0::D1,78 consistent with the supplementary use of Leviticus 13 throughout the seetion. 3.3b The inclusion of"their vessels" extends the presence ofNumbers 31 as supplementary. No one has suggested an explanation for the Law ineluding these on both the third and seventh days. Perhaps the absence of a specific time in Num 31 :24 for purifying the vessels, and the use of "water of impurity", implies sprinkling. So, the Law ineludes the vessels whenever sprinkling is required, i.e., the third and seventh days. 3.3c The third person plural endings, "their garments and their vessels, and they will be pure", are in keeping with the third person use in line 18. But, more than this, the phrasing of this line bears elose resemblance to Num 8:7, 1'i10i11 0i1'1l:1 10::D1. The subject is the eleansing of the Levites for service in the sanctuary. Use of this word-form insertion is consistent with the Levitical interest of the Scroll as a whole, the use of

78

As per Yadin, 11, p 217.

THE PURITY LA W

205

the Levitical term 'threshold' above, and the consistent tendency to require of all people the level of purity expected of priests and Levites. 3.3d The Law reads :n17' to the Num 19:19 ::1117::1. None of the versions agree with 11 QT In fact, the only uses of lamedh with ::1117 appear in Ezra 3:3, 1 Chron 16:40,23:30, and 2 Chron 2:3 (and Psa 89, 90; Eccl 11 :6), each referring to the offerings to be burnt morning and evening. This is the first evidence of affinity with Chronicler language in the Purity Law, but may be put down to a feature common to later Hebrew?9 3.3e nOil7J, the final addition of the sentence, brings the discussion back to the subject of the section, and of Numbers 19, the impurity caused by the dead. 3.4 49:21a: ilOn1ilO '1:>::1 n17l' 3.4a The text used here is Num 19:22, ~OO~ ~OOil 1::1 17l~ 1W~ ':>l The Law pi aces this in positive form: the clean person may now touch clean things. The use of il1ilO seems to be equivalent to Leviticus' W1p (Lev 12:4, 17ln~, W1p ':>::180), whereas Leviticus uses il1ilO in the sense of 'purification'. The term has apparently developed from biblical use. The closest biblical use in the sense it appears here is in 2 Chron 30: 19, W1pil n1ilO:> ~'l In light of the Scroll this can, perhaps, be read "pure stuff' rather than "purification rules". Indeed, the 2 Chronicles text seems to underlie the use of the term in Col 47: 17, W1POil n1ilO '1:>l The source in the present example is less clear. 3.4b What neither Col 47: 17 nor 49:21 tell us is the meaning of "pure stuff'. The word appears again in Col 63: 14 in parallel with the prohibition of eating the peace-offering sacrifices. Yadin and Milgrom 81 debate whether the parallel terms are meant to be identical or separate prohibitions, and how long the prohibitions from eating last. The plain sense of the line argues for viewing the two as separate. This still leaves open the meaning of "pure stuff'. The Column 63 passage is an expansion which contains an echo of the language of the Community Rule, in which "pure stuff' is a term of importance. The Qumran community placed severe restrietions on access

::1'V,

BDB, P 787, deseribe as "only late". As in Yadin, ibid. The ehange by the Law from the negative eommand ofNum 19:22 into a positive eommand may also refleet Isa 52:11, 'Vln '~~7JU. The link with earrying "vessels of the Lord" and cleansing the vessels in the Purity Law is intriguing. It is of espeeial interest if 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, whieh eites Isa 52:11, is eonsidered to be of Essene influenee. 81 Yadin, I, p 367; Milgrom, "Further Studies in the Temple Seroll", JQR 70 (1980), P 105. 79

80

206

CHAPTER FOUR

to the common meal (5: 13). Initiates do not have access to the "pure stuff' until after a year is complete (6: 16); exclusion from the "pure stuff' is the punishment for Iying about property (6:25-26), angry speech (7:2-3), slander (7:15-16), and backsliding (7:18-19). The "pure stuff' of this Rufe is c1early the food of the common meal of the community, which plays a central role in the life of the community in its quest for perfection. As such iT1iTt:I has a restricted technical meaning. Because Yadin and Milgrom view the Scroll as a Qumran document like the Community Rufe they have assumed the Scroll's use of "pure stuff' to be identical. But it is plain to see that the Purity Law, while using the term in a way which has developed the term beyond its biblical use, does not mean it in this restricted, sectarian, sense. "Pure stuff' has come to mean the food, drink, or other article which is permissible to a "clean man". It is in keeping with the heightened expectations of purity from the Levitical stance of the author. The Rufe has developed the term into a narrower, specific term for the food of the common meal of the community on an even more rigorous level. There remains no explanation for the origin of "pure stuff' other than as a development in which iT1iTt:I comes to replace unp (as in Lev 12:4).82 3.5 49:21b: 711 ~Ot:liT ~'7 1lV~ c,~:n 3.5a The end of the line is the beginning of a new sentence which is lost in the missing portion at the top of the next column. The use of C'~:J reflects that of line 5, from Num 19:14. 3 .5b ~Ot:liT ~7 appears to introduce Lev 21: 1, ~Ot:l~ ~7 lV!JJ7. Leviticus 21 prohibits any person who was not a near relative ofthe dead man from becoming defiled by contact with hirn. Its application in the Law would appear to be to prohibit non-relatives from entering the house of the dead man. This would then lead naturally into the subject of accidental defilement by a corpse in an open field, which is the next subject in the Purity Laws, in Col 50. 83 In summary, this section is the second use of Num 19: 14-22 as the base text. The author has discussed first the matters related to the house, and then the matters related to the individuals in the house, by means of the same base. The differences are the secondary and supplementary texts 82 Rabbinie use contains frequent examples ofthe combination ofthese two terms to mean "sacred food". See Jastrow, Dictionary, pp 520-52l. 83 Yadin's plausible proposal for the top of Column 50, II, p 219, that it is Num 19:11f, does not, however, take into account any contribution from Lev 21:l. The example of Lev 21: 1 is surely of more than lexical interest in view of its context.

207

THE PURITY LAW

used. In this section, in fact, there is no elear secondary text. Rather, the texts drawn on are all used in supplementary fashion. What is significant in the argument of the section is the use by the author of biblical terms in unique ways. These additions reveal the viewpoint of the author, and therefore have significance for understanding the exegetical stance of the author. Summary

The entire column is built on Numbers 19: 14-22, which contrasts greatly with Column 48's diversity in base texts and style. Line:

Source Text:

The House 49:5-6a

a

=

Technique:

Num 19:14 E

6b-7a 7

a

=

a

=

a

=

8

9a 9b 10

= Expansion

Num 19:14 b = Lev 11 :34/38

Multiple Treatment

b = Lev 11:33 Num 19:18 b = Lev 11:33

Merger

Num 19:15 b = Lev 11 :34 E

=

Word-form; Repetition Expansion

Cleansing the House 11 (a = Num 19:18)

12

b

=

b

=

Understood, not used E = Expansion Lev 11:34 c = Zeph 3:1 Key-word Link Lev 11:32 E = Expansion c

=

Lev 14:37,39,41 Key-word Links

208

CHAPTER FOUR

Technique:

Line:

Source Text:

13

E = Expansion c = Exod 12:22 Key-word Link a = Num 19:19

14

a

=

a

=

15

16

E = Expansion c = Lev 14:48 Phrase Num 19:18 b = Lev 11:32 b = Lev 11 :32 c = Num 31:20,22 Word-form, Signal E = Expansion b = Lev 11:32 Num 19:19

Cleansing the Person 16/17 a = Num 19:14,18,19 Multiple treatment c = Lev 15:5, 16-17 Merger E = Expansion

18

a

=

19

a

=

19b-20

a

=

a

=

21

21b

Num 19:19,20-21 c = Exod 19:14 Word-form Num 19:18 c = Num 31 :22-23 Phrase

Num 19:19 Multiple treatment c = Lev 13:58 Key-word Link c = Num 31:24 Word-form c = Num 8:7 Phrase, W ord-form a = Num 19:19 E = Expansion a = Num 19:22 c = Lev 12:4 Word-form, substitution Num 19:14 c = Lev 21:1

Word-form

First of aIl, let us consider what this section teIls us about the redaction of the SerolI. Numbers 19:14-22 is the base for the whole column, and Lev 11 :32-34 is secondary. This cohesive production contrasts greatly

209

THE PURITY LA W

with Column 48, but there are two notable textual connections with what precedes. First is Leviticus 11, which is secondary in Col 48:1-7; and second is the use of Num 19:6 as a signal in Col 49:3 for Numbers 19 in the following section. In addition to this, there is also a connection in subject matter, i.e., impurity through contact with the dead (Col 48:7-14). These connections reveal that the purity laws "for the cities" are bound together editorially, but do not seem to be cut out of "whoie cloth". As we have al ready noted, the sections on places for those with various afflictions and leprosy (48: 14-49:4) are interposed, disrupting the continuity of the subject; and Num 35:34 (Col 48:10/11) is placed in awkward juxtaposition to its context. The significance of this evidence will be discussed below. Secondly, this column sheds light on exegetical methodology. The author does not attempt to draw together texts on the same subject and harmonize them into one law. Rather, the secondary and supplementary texts are chosen for the single aspect of a subject which contributes to the base text. So, in the use of Lev 11 :32-34 the Law is not interested in the unclean creatures, but in the open vessels. The effect of this is highlighted by comparison to the use of Leviticus 11 in Column 48, where its use is appropriate to its context. The same applies to the use of Leviticus 14, where Column 49 is interested in matters concerning the cleansing of the house, and not with the leper. This contrasts with the Col 48:2-49:4 use of Leviticus 14 in its proper context. The resuIting law in each case is valid concerning the subject of the house in which a man dies. The Law in no way attempts to make the law apply to either vessels in which creatures have fallen, or to the house of the leper. 4. 50:2-51:5: Contact with a Corpse or Carcass in the Open In order to draw together conclusions regarding the Purity Laws as a whole some information from Column 50 is required. The following table will provide sufficient data. Line:

Source Text:

Notes:

Cleansing (Subject Uncertain): Col 50:?-4 2 c = Lev 12:4,6 Word-form 3 E = Expansion c = Lev 13:48 Cf 49:20 4 a = Num 19:19 c = Deut 16:6 Phrase inserted

210 Line:

CHAPTER FOUR

Source Text:

Technique:

Corpse in Open Field: Col 50:4c-9 5 a = Num 19:16 Followed closely Continued 6 a = Num 19:16 Num 19:13 Phrase inserted E = Expansion 7 a = Num 19:12 Basic sentence Num 19:14 Phrase insertion a = Num 19:13 Sentence continuation Num 19:13 Num 19:22 Interweaving Num 19:19

The Dead Foetus: CoI50:10-16 10 E = Expansion b = Lev 15:19,25 Woman with discharge On birth of a child c = Lev 12:2 b = Lev 15:26 11 a = Num 19:14 Multiple treatment 12 E = Expansion a = Num 19:14,15 Merger b = Lev 15:27 a = Num 19:14 13 Variation on the theme 13/14 Cf 49:19-21 Num 19:19 b = Lev 15:27 Correct biblical order a = Num 19:19 Re-ordering phrases a = Num 19:19 15-16a Repetition E = Expansion Vessels and Other Objects: Col50:16b-19 16 b = Num 31:20 Cf 49:14-15 17 Num 31:20,21 E = Expansion 18 c = Lev 11 :33 As supplement a = Num 19:12 c = Ezek 24:13 Word-form E = Expansion 19

211

THE PURITY LA W

Line:

Technique:

Source Text:

Dead Creatures: Col 50:20-51? 20 b = Lev 11:41 Lev 11:29 Lev 11:30 b = Lev 11:30 21 Lev 11:31 E

Word-form In context Phrase insertion

=

Expansion

Cleansingfrom Contact with Carcass: CoI51:1-5a Merger 2 b = Lev 11 :43 Lev 11:31 Extensive use Lev 11:31 3 Multiple use a = Num 19:19 Phrase form c = Lev 22:7 b = Lev 11 :25 Expanded form 4 E = Expansion 5

b = Lev 11:25 a = Num 19:19 c = Lev 22:7

Merger Fourth version Phrase form

The Law continues the careful development of Numbers 19 until the conclusion. Leviticus 11 is the secondary text throughout. Both texts are followed closely, though extensively manipulated by the author. It is notable how few supplementary texts there are, and of these only two are from outside Numbers or Leviticus. Column 50 adheres even more closely to the base text than does Column 49. The Law uses Num 19: 14 as the pattern for each new development; the Num 19:19 formula for cleansing at evening is used four times, and each occurrence is in a different form. At times the use of phrases from other parts of the base text are used in supplementary fashion, by the insertion of a phrase into the midst of the base. The cohesiveness of Cols 49-51:4 and the internal unity of its treatment of Numbers 19 is in vivid contrast to what we have observed in the preceding columns, including Column 48. Ifwe had only these columns before us we would be likely to consider them a literary unity, and describe the section in terms such as a "Midrash on Numbers 19". In this unit we have the basic core of the Purity Laws. It remains for the examination of links with Columns 45-47 to confirm or deny this.

212

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS

The Relation

0/ Column

49 to Columns 45-47

In Col 49:12 the use of 't-U was compared to Col 47:13, and a connection was rejected. Column 47 is concerned with skins, but Column 49 addresses what is in the vessels. In the comparison of Col 49: 17 with Col 45:8 we saw that the latter text uses, not Numbers 19, but Leviticus 15 as its base, and by following it avoids the grammatical confusion of the former text. This appears to be a refinement of Column 49. Still in Cols 49: 17 and 45:8, ablutions are ordered by both texts for "the first day", which has no biblical source. We concluded that this is derived from Lev 15:16, the secondary text in Column 49, but basic to Column 45. The priority in this matter is dependent on the evidence given above. The use ofil1l in Co145:10 alludes to Num 19:20, which is the base text of 49:18. We concluded that the Co149:18 development ofNumbers 19 makes sense within its context, and gains nothing from reference to Column 45. Col 45:10, on the other hand, does not use Numbers 19 except for this allusion to niddah-uncleanness, which is made sensible by reference to Column 49. Both Co145:9 and 49:18 command washing and bathing ablutions. In Column 45 is added in a scribal correction to conform to CoI49:18, but the biblical order of the terms 'wash' and 'bathe' is retained against all occurrences in Column 49. This is another case of correction being made to Column 49. Both Cols 47: 17 and 49:21 speak of n'iTo. The former instance is explained in part by its use in 2 Chron 30:19, referring specifically to that set apart for Temple consumption. Column 49 derives more from Lev 12:4, and is applied to that food, etc, which is permissible to a "clean man". The weight of this evidence, added to that of Column 48, favours viewing Columns 48-51:5 separately from Columns 45-47. The latter use the former to apply laws of purity to the stricter level of sanctity accorded the Temple and Temple City. Column 47 is a redactional bridge from the Temple to the Land.

y"'

Relation to the Rest 0/ the Scroll The use of Numbers and Leviticus, and the concern for levels of purity points to priestly authorship of the Purity Laws. The distinction between

THE PURITY LA W

213

the "clean man" and the "man of Israel" is written from the stance of the "clean man". 'The priest' is never spoken of, however. The repeated emphasis on washing clothes and bathing for cleansing is derived from Num 8:7 in Col 49:21, as commanded of the Levites. Putting these together we find continuity with the Levitical interest which pervades the whole of the Temple Seroll. The use of 'Israel' ("man oflsrael") in Col 49:9-10 was shown to be closely related to the distinction between priests and lay people in the Festival Law and the Temple Law. In contrast, the King's Law uses Israel of the people as a nation, which is closer to the Deuteronomic use found in the Expanded Deuteronomy. This is the first section of the Scroll we have examined in which there is virtually no use of the Chronicles. This is a significant difference from both the Festival Law and the King's Law, in both of which the Chronicles is the most important supplementary text. The only examples of possible influence were in style, and could also be explained as typical of late Hebrew (cf 48:14b; 49:20). Alongside this observation which applies to Col 48:1-51:5 we may place the fact that Chronicles is a significant supplement in Column 47, and again in Col 51: 12-21, the redactional seam which ties the Purity Law to the Expanded Deuteronomy section. The hand of the editor of the Scroll is always seen to use Chronicler language, but the Purity Law stands out as one source in which this influence is negligible.

Relation to Qumran literature The situation regarding the relationship to Qumran sectarian works is similar to that we have seen in other sections of the SerolI. There are similarities of vocabulary between the Law and the War Seroll and the Community Rule, but there is not identity. For example, in the use ofthe term il1iltl the Community Rule refers to the food of the common meal of the community, to which access is severely restricted to initiates. The Law does not restrict the sense so severely, applying the term to that which is permissible to the "clean man". The Damaseus Document is closest in affinity to the Purity Law. CD 12:11-20 paralleis the Col 49:12 concern for the house in which a dead man lies, and the Col 48: 1-6 catalogue of clean and unclean animals. 4Q512 and 514, with their ritual formulae for washing and bathing, are so close to our Law as to make it difficult to discern which is the prior influence. The logical relationship to presume may be that the liturgies were created to accompany the purification ablutions required in the Law.

214

CHAPTER FOUR

Finally, note must be made of the frequency of the use of language which has been described as 'mishnaic', particularly within the section Col 49:11-16. Whereas there are numerous examples throughout the SerolI, there is a concentration of such words in this short section. This linguistic development must be placed in the perspective of the redaction of the Scroll. If the Purity Law is, as we contend, a source for Cols 45-46, then it is a prior source to the final form of the Temple Law (Cols 2-13, 30-46). Ifthe language ofthe Purity Law has affinities with the late Hebrew of the Chronicles, and also shows post-biblical development, then the composition ofthe Temple Law must be even later than this. These two sections of the Scroll cannot be contemporary with the Chronicles. At the core of the Purity Law lies the commentary on Numbers 19, Col 49:5-51:5, apparently composed to provide guidance for the purification ritual required upon contact with a corpse. This is drawn together into a larger document, Col 48: 1(?)-51: 10, concemed with 'impurity' in the land, pattemed on the laws for the desert camp. This composition is then used as a source for Columns 45-47, the conclusion of the Temple Law. Its entire literary history is within Levitical circles.

CHAPTER FIVE THE TEMPLE LAW

Wehave now studied portions of three of the five divisions of the Scroll, the Festival Law, King's Law, and Purity Law, with a careful examination of original material in each. Wehave found that in spite of stylistic differences these have in common the use of specific biblical sources to create a new document. There is a common methodological approach of building upon a base text by conflation or merger with a c10sely related secondary text, and supplementing this with texts which change the base text in some way. The exegetical stance of the author is revealed in the use of supplementary texts and by expansions for which no biblical source can be found. The one remaining section of this study is the Temple Law, the largest of the divisions of the Scroll, consisting of Columns 3-13 and 30-45 (or 47). The former columns are details for the construction ofthe sanctuary and its fittings; the latter are the extensive commands for the courts and their structures. A thorough examination of Columns 30-45 would be desirable, but space and time do not allow. The methodology of this chapter will be to choose instead a portion of the Temple Law and apply to it by way of a test the principles of examination we have discovered. In this way we hope to be able to discem how this section is related to the others. Columns 3-13 are in a fragmentary state, and so have drawn the least attention in Temple Scroll study. The base text throughout is Exodus 25-27, 30, 35, from the commands given Moses for the tabemacle. To this is added detail from the Solomonie temple (1 Kings 6; 2 Chronicles 3), and Ezekiel's vision.! This study examines the commands for the sanctuary proper in the fragmentary remains of Columns 4-7. We will look specifically at the allusions to Kings/Chronicles to try to establish their relationship to Exodus, i.e., which text may be considered secondary, and which text is supplementary. The advantage of this approach is enhanced by the fact

I Yadin, I, p 179,11, pp 4-29 assume the priority of 1 Kings; Maier, The Temple Scroll, pp 58-70, emphasizes the role ofEzekieI40-48; Garcia-Martinez, "EI Rollo dei Templo", pp 248-252, refers to Exodus and 1 Kings 6; Caquot, "Ie Rouleau du Temple", pp 452-455 notes Exodus, I Kings, and 2 Chronicles.

216

CHAPTER FIVE

that the results will provide us with information on the role of the Chronicles to compare to the rest of the SerolI. The commentary which follows tends towards a dialogue with Yadin for the simple reason that there is no one else who has attempted to decipher the sources of these columns. A. THE COMMANDS FOR THE SANCTUARY: COL 4:1 - 7:15

4:1-6: Extemal Stroclure ofthe Sanctuary 1.1 4:1: Only a fragment remains: ]7JlV[. Yadin suggests 1 Kgs 7:15, ilJ1JlV, as a possible source. This would be out of place since it refers to the internal pillars. The paralleis with the rest ofthe Temple Law, by use ofil7JlV, are more fitting (Col 37:14; 42:16; 46:13).2

l.2 4:2: ] ' C~~l1~[ There is no apparent biblical source for this word, translated 'protruding'. A possible explanation for the subject of this word seems to be 1:J1', 'terrace', found in lines four and five. These terraces are a part of the temple building itself. A second occurrence of C~~l1~ is found in Col 41:12: "And the gates (shall) protrude (C~~l1~1) from the wall of the court outwards seven cubits". Yadin rules out this meaning, choosing to reconstruct lines 2-5 on the basis of what must be a scribal error, reading instead C~111l\ 'storeys' (~/l1 interchange). This change is based on the description of the 1:J1i in the Mishnah (Mid. iv:3-4), and the presence of 'storeys' (C~111l~) which correspond to those of 1 Kings 6:5,10, :J~::JO 111l~ n~:Jil '~i' '11 p~l3

We will evaluate this theory in our conclusions to this section. l.3 4:3

]~ C~:::JJ1' n~:J[

There is no specific clue to a source other than the word n~:J, a 'house' of uncertain width. The word does occur in 1 Kgs 6:5, but is common to both Kings and Chronicles as a designation of the temple. 4 But the word has a key connotation for the conception of a "Temple SerolI", as will be seen below in relation to 1 Chronicles 28 (v 11).

2 Yadin, 11, p 12. The latter reference has implications for viewing Cols 30-46 as a Iiterary unit. Cf the chapter on the Purity Laws. 3 Yadin discusses this at length in his introduction to Column 4, ibid, p 1l. 4 IKgs 6:1,9,9,10,14,17,22,37,38; 2 Chron 2:2,3,4,5,5,8,11; 3:1,3,6,7,8; etc.

THE TEMPLE LA W

217

1.4 4:4 ]il r::1 Cil}s 1::1'" C~ [ Line 4 introduces the 1::1", 'terrace', identified as a rabbinic term by Yadin. He also suggests restoring C~l1,r at the beginning of the line. 6 The restoration could equally weil be C~~~,~.

n

1.5 4:5 ] 1::1" ~lVlVil The section now mentions 'the sixth' something in conjunction with another terrace. Yadin conjectures that the subject is 'storey' again, and that the terrace between the fifth and sixth storey is being discussed. 7 Since all that remains of line 6 before a closed paragraph space is a single letter this is the extent of the textual evidence. If we follow Yadin, then the secondary source in this section is 1 Kings. However, the influence of 1 Kgs 7: 15 in line 1 is seen to be unlikely, and the identification of 1 Kings 6 as the source for the rest is dependent on the emendation to l1'~~. If, on the other hand, we accept the text as it stands, we are left with an uncertain reference to 'protrusions', perhaps the terraces themselves, for which there is no biblical source to indicate its possible function. The main argument in favour of retaining the word as it appears is the use of the same word in Column 41. Although its occurrence there refers to the gates extending out from the walls of the court, and not to the sanctuary, it shows the term to be a technical description which is equally applicable in Column 4. In spite of being left with this uncertainty we really must accept the evidence of the text. Looking at Yadin's choice of source coldly, it appears to be based on a circular argument: the word must be l1'~\ therefore it is based on 1 Kings 6; 1 Kings 6 is the source because of its use of l1'~~ . Besides the evidence related to Kings/Chronicles we have found two possible connections in style with Columns 30-45: in the term C~~~'\ and the possible use of il7JlV. 2. 4:7-10: Dimensions

0/ the

Temple

2.1 4:7: ]Pil n7J'p' ~'il il[ Reconstructing the final word from Exod 26:33, etc, as lV1'lPil, 'the sanctuary', the subject turns to the dimensions of the temple proper. 1 Kgs 6:2 and 2 Chron 3:3 provide the dimensions for the sanctuary, but

S

6 7

This denotes an erasure. Yadin, ibid, pp 11,12. ibid, p 12.

218

CHAPTER FlVE

only Kings includes both width and height, C~1lVl1' ... i1J::J 1lV~ n~::JiI1 ,rn,i' i11J~ C~lV~;lV' ,:m1. 8 Unfortunately, the measurements are missing, depriving us of vital information for making adetermination of the source followed. 9 2.2 4:8: ]C;'~i1 n~ i1n~::J' i11J[ The command here is " ...you shall enter the porch", but 'build' is surely intended. 10 This is an echo of the words of David to Solomon in 1 Chron 22:11, TiI;~ iI1i1~ n~::J n~J::Jl, and, more directly, 1 Chron 28:11, ,n~, ,~n::J n~, C;'~i1 n~J::JiI n~ ••• ,~". This serves as the most direct allusion to the role of 1 Chron 28:1lf in the Temple Law, and its plan to build the house of the Lord. 2.3 4:9: ]m1~i" i11J~::J 1lVl1 ::J[ As Yadin notes, 1 Kgs 6:3 supplies the figure of "ten cubits" for the width of the porch. There is no corresponding measurement in 2 Chronicles. 2.4 4: 10: i1]1J~::J C~lVlV i1::J'l' No measurement is given in 1 Kings for the height of the porch. "Sixty cubits" is the length of the sanctuary in 2 Chron 3:3; in 3:4 the height of the porch is "120 cubits" (LXX and Syr read "twenty cubits"). The Temple Law follows the dimensions given in Ezra 6:3 ('twenty' cubits in Syr).ll

The evidence of this section is mixed. Line 7 is in both Kings and Chronicles, but only Kings discusses the 'height'; line 9 appears to be

With Yadin, ibid, p 13. The evidenee of the versions is mixed at any rate. I Kgs 6:2, MT, reads the height as "thirty eubits", but LXX says 'twenty-five'. 2 Chron 3:3, MT, gives no height, but Syr adds "thirty eubits". The Seroll shows frequent affmity to the Syr, and so this must be taken into eonsideration in any eonjeeture regarding priority of Kings/ Chronicles. Further evidenee on the relation of the Seroll to the versions is yet to be studied: 4QKg" = I Kgs 8:16-18, shows affinity to 2 Chron 6:5-6 in a similar manner to the Chronicles affinity in 4QSam a • Cf Julio TreboIle, "Light from 4QJudg" and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings", in The Dead Sea Serails: Forty Years 0/ Research, eds D Dimant & U Rappaport (Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992), pp 315-317. 10 On the eonfusion ofimN:::l with ilnJ:::l see Yadin, ibid, who eonsiders this an error influeneed by Ezek 40:48; and Maier, ibid, pp 66-67, who eonjeetures a verb whieh has eoaleseed with ilJ:::l. He eites J. Aistleitner, W (jrterbuch der ugaritischer Sprache (Berlin, 1965), p 62; and Ch.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de L 'ouest (Leiden, 1965), p 45, for Nn:::l in Palmyrene. 11 Yadin, ibid, pp 14-15, reviews the biblieal, extra-biblieal, and mishnaie sourees, and comes to this same eonelusion. 8

9

THE TEMPLE LAW

219

dependent on Kings alone. On the other hand, line 8 is strongly dependent on Chronicles. The evidence of line 10 is ambiguous, but appears to be a harmonizing of the Chronicles setting to the Ezra figure. 12 3. 4:11-16: Measurements, Moving Inward

The remaining lines of the column provide little information. In lines 11 and 12 the measurements of 'twelve' and 'twenty-one' cubits, respectively, have no biblical parallel. Line 16 is indecipherable. This leaves two lines in which we might discern biblical sourees. Given that the figures of lines 11-12 cannot pertain to the holy of holies, they must refer to structures between the porch and the holy of holies, which appears in line 13. 3.1 4: 13: ]11::J1lJ iT7J~::J C'1lVl1[ These dimensions agree with those of the holy of holies, 1 Kgs 6:20, 2 Chron 3:8, Ezek 41:4.\3 3.2 4:14: ::J[ ],[ Admittedly, there is little to go on here, for even these letters cannot be seen in the photO. 14 Yadin relates these to the holy of holies, and suggests ::JiTt 1')l, "overlay with gold", as a reading. He cites 1 Kgs 6:20/ 5 but 2 Chron 3:8 could equally apply. The evidence of these lines is ambiguous. There IS no way of determining whether Kings or Chronicles has priority.

4.5:1-11: IntenorMeasurements 4.1 5: 1: ]C'j?::J1 [ The word 'joints' occurs only in 1 Kgs 22:34//2 Chron 18:33, where it refers to the joints of the breastplate of the king of Israel. In the Temple Law it is closer to mishnaic Hebrew, used as the join of any two partS. 16

12 JM. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp xlix-lxi, describes Ezra 6 as a source of the Chronicler. 13 Yadin, ibid, p 15, does not mention Ezekiel. 14 Yadin, 1II, Plate 19. 15 Yadin, 11, p 16. 16 Yadin, ibid, p 18.

220

CHAPTER FlVE

4.2 5:3: ]lV'~lV ':1,11[ Line 2 speaks only ofa 'cubit', with no other point ofreference. In 5:3, ':1'11, 'thickness', refers to the joints mentioned above, and is found in 1 Kgs 7:26112 Chron 4:5 17 of the width of the molten sea. This is inappropriate at this point. Therefore, these two examples provide only word coinage. 4.3 5:4 ]n1TJ:> il:1[ Ezekiel uses the comparative n1TJ:> (six times in ch 40) as shorthand for giving the measurements of each of the gates of the outer court. 18 2 Chronicles 3:3, in turn, uses il1TJ to specify which type of cubit is to be used for measurement. 4.4 5:5/6:3: il]TJ~:1 !:l['] 1lVl1' m'TJlV:1 D[ ]lV!:l[ Column 6 overlaps Column 5 beginning in this line. We will collate the material in keeping with this fact. Column 5 will appear in underlined text. 'Twenty-eight' cubits is the height of the tabernacle curtain in Exod 26:2. This is out of place here. 4.5 5:6/6:4: ]m il~1i2TJ' il[TJ]~:1 [!:l'11:1]1~ ilil:1[ Yadin translates this 'ceiling', on the pattern of Judg 3:20. But the root in Judg 3:20 is 11p, and refers to the 'coolness' ofthe chamber. 19 Eccl 10: 18, il1PTJil 10' l:l'n~~l1:1 (beamwork),zo may be more apropos not only to this but also Cols 33 :9, 34: 15, and 36:9. In Col 34: 15, particularly, it makes more sense to visualize beams across the pillars than a ceiling. Here it must refer to the il1'P of 2 Chron 3:7111 Kgs 6:15. 4.6 5:8/6:6: ]11:11~~ il'~l1~ !:l'111lV ill1:11~' il:>'[ Line 7-8a cannot be traced to any biblical source. The "upper chambers" (il'~l1) are seen in 2 Chron 3:9, overlaid with gold (:lill m:m m'~l1il'). More significant is the influence of 1 Chron 28: 11, which specifies such rooms (,'n'~l1). Yadin suggests that the prominent place of the descriptions of these chambers (Cols 31:6,7; 33:10) is due to the influence of 1 Chronicles. 21

17 18

19 20 21

Yadin, ibid, gives only 1 Kings as a reference. Yadin, ibid. BDB, P 903. ibid, p 900, under il'1p. Yadin, II, p 20.

THE TEMPLE LAW

221

4.7 5:10/6:8a: ,'mn'n ... [1]1'::>il ,,::>, ilTJ~:l[ Line 9 cannot be traced to any biblical source. In 5: 10 1]"::>il could mean either 'Iaver' (from Exod 30:28) as it does later in description of the Rouse of the Laver, or 'platform' as in 2 Chron 6: 13, of the bronze platform in the temple. The latter suits the context better, since the description is still within the Temple building and inner court. Yadin agrees with this, but gives no biblical sources?2 There is no biblical source for these doors. 4.8 5:1116:8b: ]il~'lTJ "::>il' l,nnnil[ This seems to mean that all the above are to be overlaid with gold (cf Col 31:8-9, and the stairhouse). This is in keeping with 2 Chronic1es 3:9. There is no 1 Kings parallel. The evidence of this section is c1earer than thus far. There are three instances of terminology common to Kings and Chronicles (Iines 1,3,6), but in each case neither context applies to the subject. But in lines 4,8,10, lmd 11 the dependence is on the Chronic1es, with no parallel in Kings. There is no biblical source for the 1'1~ of line 13. This section of the Temple Law continues to provide terminology which is taken up in Columns 3Off, further establishing the continuity between the two sections in spite of their disruption by the Festival Law. 5. 7: 1-7: Interior 0/ the H oly

0/ Holies

The subject returns to the Exodus 26,27 base text in lines 3-4 (lines 1-2 are too fragmentary to provide information).23 5.1 7:4: ]1lVl1' il7.J~24 il [ The reading ofthis line is extremely difficult. Yadin opts to follow Exod 26:16, continuing discussion of the holy of holies from line 3, harmonized with 1 Kgs 6: 15ff?s

mn,'.

Yadin, ibid. See Yadin, ibid, p 25, for discussion of the 24 The Hebrew transcription of Yadin, 11, p 25, reads ilON; the transcription in the notes below give ilN7.1; the transcription in I1I, Plate 22, puts ilON in the text, and notes ilN7.1 as an alternate reading. 2S Yadin, 11, p 29. 1 Kings comes by way oflbn Ezra's commentlllY. 22 23

222

CHAPTER FIVE

5.2 7:5: ]'7 c~mJW[ In keeping with his argument, Yadin conjectures 'eighty-two' planks here, signifiying the number required to panel the holy of holies as in 1 Kgs 6:15. 5.3 7:6: ]7'::J 717/'J il717[ Ezek 41:7, il717/'J7 il717/'J7, provides an example of this sort of construction, describing the sanctuary structure?6 5.4 7:7: ]il~/'J[ There is no evidence of the antecedent of the figure '100'. Since the subject is the holy of holies, the measurement in 2 Chron 3: 16 of the number of pomegranates placed on the chains in the inner sanctuary would seem the most reasonable source?7 With the extremely fragmentary evidence of these lines little can be said for certain about sources. It is necessary to assume the subject is the holy of holies, based on Exodus 26, in order to assert its presence. If this is the subject, then the influence of 1 Kgs 6: 15ff in lines 4-5, and of 2 Chron 3: 16 in line 7 is possible. 6. 7:8-15: Fittings in the Holy 0/ Holies 6.1 7 :8: m]/'J~ w/'Jn 171::J[ It so on becomes apparent that subject matter has turned to the items found in the holy of holies (mercy seat, cherubim, veil), so it can be assumed that this line applies in some way. Yadin summarizes the possible sources for 'five cubits', and is unable to find an acceptable solution, having ruled out description of the Ark. 28 Perhaps it is premature to rule this out. 6.2 7:9: il717]/'J7/'J 1W~ n"lJ::Jil' ,rn,i'[ We are now firmly based back in Exod 25:21, 717 n1!)::Jil n~ nm, il717/'J7/'J 11~il. Yadin sees this as justification for omission of the Ark above. 29 One can take the opposite view and assert that the Ark must be mentioned in this line, and therefore is described in the preceding lines.

26 27

28 29

Yadin, ibid, p 26. Yadin, ibid. Yadin, ibid. Yadin, ibid, pp 26-27.

THE TEMPLE LAW

223

6.3 7:10: ]1:l~:l1'::> l:l~lIDl il:lm,[ The text of Exod 25: 17 -18 is followed directly here, overlapping the end of one verse and the start of another: ~~ml ilrJ~il ••• n,~::> n~ID111 I:l~:l':> l:l~lID n~ID111 :il:ln,. The omission of n~ID111 of v 18 may be due to its appearance earlier in the line. Based on his restoration of the line Yadin finds no room for the gold overlay on the cherubim (Exod 25: 18; 2 Chron 3: 10), and conjectures that this is intentional, in order to harmonize with the 1 Kgs 6:23 cherubim of olive wood. 30 However, if ilIDl1 is omitted, as once al ready in this line, there would be room for ilIDPrJ :lill. 6.4 7: 11: ]I:l~~l:> I:l~ID'1~ ~lIDil i1::~Pil il[ The word-form follows 1 Kgs 8:7//2 Chron 5:8, I:l~~l:> I:l~ID'~, rather than Exod 25:20, I:l~~):> ~ID'~. The Exodus base is conflated with the secondary text.

6.5 7:12: r~ l:lil~l~1 11'~il lrJ il?l1rJ1m il[ The first part of the line continues the conflation of Exod 25 :20 with the word-form, il?l1rJ?rJ, from Kings/Chronicles. The remainder of the line returns to Exodus, 1~n~ ?~ ID~~ l:lil~l~1 (against 2 Chron 3:13, n~:l? l:lil~l~1; 2 Kings 6:27, 8:7 have no parallel phrase).3! The presence of the Ark here is unremarked by Yadin, and seems to imply previous mention. 6.6 7:13: pm n::>1'~ iln[~]ID111 The word-form is from Exod 26:31, ... n?::>n n::>,~ n~ID111, but the order of treatment is from 2 Chron 3: 14, immediately following description of the cherubim. 32 This is the case neither in Exodus nor in 1 Kings. There is no mention in biblical sources of a gold veil. 6.7 7:14: npl~il il~il[ :l]IDln ~IDl1[rJ The last identifiable biblical source in the column is Exod 36:35, the command to make the veil :lIDn ilIDl1rJ, the work of a skilful workman. Exodus 25, 26, and the parallel 36 is the clear hase text in this section, and there is no source outside of Kings/Chronicles. In two instances, lines 11 and 12, the secondary text can he equally Kings or Chronicles. In line 12 the Exodus word-form is chosen over Chronicles, hut this

30 31 32

Yadin, ibid, p 27. Yadin, ibid. Yadin, ibid, pp 27-28.

224

CHAPTER FIVE

merely highlights the parallel which is lacking in Kings. In li ne 3 Yadin conjectures the omission of gold overlay, but we have suggested a reasonable alternative reading which would include it, agreeing with Exodus and Chronicles against Kings rather than the other way around. Most notable, however, is the choice by the Temple Law to follow the Chronicles order of presentation, moving from the cherubim directly to the veil. 2 Chronicles 3 appears to be the secondary text. CONCLUSIONS

We may summarize the evidence of the use of Kings/Chronicles in the following mann er: 1. In four places Kings/Chronicles are found in parallel, and there is no evidence of priority of one over the other: 4: 13,14; 7: 11,12. 2. In six places the evidence of the use of either is ambiguous: 4: 10 (height of the porch); 5:1,3,6 (parallel, word coinage); 7:4,5,7 (the first two are Kings, the third Chronicles if the subject is the holy of holies). 3. In two places the use of Kings is clearly dominant: 4:7,9. 4. In nine places Chronicles is clearly dominant: 4:3,8; 5:4; 5:8/6:6; 5: 1O/6:8a; 5: 1116:8b; 7: 10,12,13. If the Col 7:4-7 examples are added, then there are four cases of priority of Kings and ten of Chronicles. On the basis of this information we may argue with reason that Chronicles is the prior source in those instances of parallel use. These ten examples from Chronicles, even leaving out the four parallel examples, must be seen in the context of frequency of biblical allusions in Cols 3-13: the Chronicles represents the largest body of allusions outside Exodus. Since Exodus 25ff provides the base text for the Columns 3-13 of the Temple Law, this fact lends weight to the view that the Temple Law approaches its subject with a bias to the Chronicler. Remarkable by its relative absence is Ezekiel. Even in those pi aces which are closest to Ezekiel 40ff in subject matter there is little textual evidence of dependence. The Temple Law draws on the plan for Solomon's temple to provide detail to the Exodus base. The integrity of the Temple Law is illustrated in three separate places. First, in Col 4:1 the use ofi11JlZ7 is similar to its use in Col 37:14, 42:16, and 46: 13 (this is an admittedly tenuous example). Second, the tJ~~l'~ of Col 4:2-5 also appear in 41: 12. The third example is in the "upper chambers" of Col 5:8 and 31:6,7, and 31:10.

THE TEMPLE LA W

225

B. 1 CHRONICLES 28 AS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE TEMPLE LAW

There is a fundamental way in whieh the Chronicles may be seen to be the essential souree for the Temple Law: in the eommand to David in 1 Chronicles 28 to build the Temple. Yadin gave the Seroll its designation, "Temple SeroIl", out of his belief that the material in the Temple Law represented in the author's mind the "Temple SeroIl" deseribed in 1 Chron 28:11-19. 33 We now affirm this thesis. In 1 Chronieles 28 David gives to Solomon the plan ofthe Temple, its houses, courts, and furnishings, and the plan is summed up in v 19, "All this he made elear by the writing from the hand of the Lord eoneerning it, all the work to be done aeeording to the plan". Rather than being "Solomon's temple", Chronicles attributes the preparations wholly to David, and presents the plans as "written Divine law".34 Ben Zion Wacholder disputes this starting point, claiming instead that the proper tide ofthe Seroll should be llQ 'Torab'. For hirn the author of the Seroll claimed superiority to the Mosaie Pentateuch. Rather than supplementing existing tradition, he seeks to replaee it. The Seroll represents itself as the seeond Torab entrusted to Moses, giving Israel another chance. "Whereas the first Torab was, on aeeount of Israel's violations, ephemeral, the seeond would last eternaIly".3s The key to the SeroIl, then, is not Temple but Torab. In reality there is room for agreement with both eoneeptions. What Wacholder says does not deny the sense that the author would have had that he ineluded in his new Torab (which this is elearly intended to be) the Temple Seroll of 1 Chronicles 28. The point at issue between them is one of intent: did the author intend to replaee or supplement existing tradition? The evidenee suggests that the Seroll stands in the line of the Chronicler's reworking of tradition, albeit he may have been addressing a minority audienee. Yadin's point is eonfirmed by eomparison of the Seroll with the passage of 1 Chronicles. The instruetions for eonstruetion of the Temple follow the Chronicles order remarkably (vv 11-12): the plan ofthe poreh (Col 4); its houses (1'n'::l; Cols 31-34); its upper rooms (il'?l1; Col 5:8;

33 Yadin, I, p 177. Cf, too Hans-Aage Mink, "The Use of Seripture in the Temple SerolI", SJOT 1 (1987), p 43, who also draws out the paralieis. 34 The phrase is Yadin's, I, p 83. For rabbinie tradition on the existenee of this ''Temple SerolI" see I, pp 403-404. 3S Ben Zion Wacholder, The Down 01 Qumran (Cineinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), pp 30-32. He is followed by others, sueh as J.C. Reeves, ''The Meaning of Mo reh Sedeq in the Light of llQTorah", RevQ 13 (1988), pp 287-298.

226

CHAPTER FIVE

31 :6,10); the room for the mercy seat (Cols 4,7); the plan for the courts (Cols 36-37, 40-41); all the surrounding chambers (Cols 40,41). The fragmentary nature of Columns 3-13 makes an accurate catalogue impossible, but the evidence suggests that the provision for the sanctuary furnishings follows vv 13-18: the vessels for service (Cols 7-11); the weight of gold for them (Col 9); the lampstands (Cols 3,9); the table of shewbread (Co I 8); the bowls and basins (Col 3, [9?]); the altar (Cols 3,12); the cherubim (Col 7). Only the curtain (Col 7) is not called for by 1 Chronicles 28, but is essential to Exodus. The Chronicles passage virtually serves as an index for the Temple Law. The author provides the detail that is lacking in the traditional accounts, and presents it as the record "written from the hand of the Lord". The Temple Law follows Chronicles in what Martin Noth called its "correction of the ... tradition about the construction of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon".36 The Temple Law of Cols 3-13 and 30-46 might rightly be called "the Temple SerolI", containing the actual contents of the divine revelation referred to in 1 Chronicles 28. But the Scroll goes one step further, and gives this Law from the mouth of God to the hand of Moses, rather than David. The importance of this was explained by Noth in reference to the Levitical additions in the Chronicles: If someone wanted to validate and give historical justification to new Levitical claims to special roles in the temple cult at the expense of the priests' privileges ... he could not possibly have based these claims to new rights on arrangements which David made without exposing hirnself to the obvious objection that these more recent arrangements ofDavid's could not make any headway against the older pronouncements of Moses. In aperiod when privileged position ... could claim firm and sacred legitimation in the accepted authority of the Pentateuch, such a hypothetical reformer would have to expand the tradition about Moses to conform it to his purpose, for in the cultic sphere the age of an ordinance is always a valid legitimation: the older carries greater weight than the more recent. 37 In this regard, the Temple Law carries on the same process as the Chronicler, being so bold as to ascribe the "Temple SerolI" to Moses rather than to David.

36 Martin Noth, The ChronicJer's History, trans H.G.M. Williamson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p 32. 37 ibid, P 100.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS The starting point of this study was the observation that the Temple Scro// is essentially re-written bible. Our examination of the text reveals the great care which the author of each section has taken in the use of biblicallanguage: there is very little which cannot be traced to a biblical source. The re-writing of scripture is a not uncommon feature of Second Temple period literature (e.g., Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, Pseudo-Philo, and in some measure the Hymn ScrolT). But to recognize this fact is not necessarily to be able to say that every use of biblical phraseology or vocabulary in these works is intended to be a reference to a specific biblical text (this is especially the case in the Hymn ScroIT). The purpose of this study has been to establish in which cases the presence of biblical language reveals the biblical sourees, and to understand the ways in which the Temple Scro// uses the biblical sourees. The result of our study allows us now to say that the Scroll's use of biblical terminology is intentional, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases the allusions are in fact to the biblical sourees. The composition is not just a free and wide-ranging use of biblical language to give the sound of scripture, but is a careful construction drawing on specific and identifiable sources to create a new whole. Identifying the biblical sources was the first task of this study. The second task was to define the ways in which the sources are put together. This includes the refinement of terms to describe the methodology of the Scroll. We may now summarize the conclusions of this study. A. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY

We will discuss below evidence favourable to the hypothesis that the Temple Scro// is a composite document incorporating previously independent documents. Apart from this evidence it is possible to discern a pattern of composition common to every section.

228

CHAPTER SIX

1.

There is consistent use of a base text which importance.

IS

of pnmary

G. Brin uses similar terminology in relation to Column 48. He identifies parts of Deuteronomy (ch 14) as the "basic text, on which the author based his composition", rather than Leviticus 11! He takes the observation no further than this, noting only that the preference for Deuteronomy here does not imply that it is preferred in every instance. We may go further in our description of the base text. In the treatment of any given subject the Scroll may gather together two or more pertinent biblical texts, but one ofthem will always be the base to which the other texts are added. This is the case in Column 48, but is evident from the very beginning. In Column 2, in which Exod 34:11-15 and Deut 7:25-26 are used, Exodus 34 is the base text, and Deuteronomy 7 is added to it. Major exarnples are the use of Leviticus 23 in the First-fruits Festivals and Numbers 19 in the Purity Laws. 2.

The author's interpretation of the base text is revealed in the re-working of the biblical text (by omission, addition, changed word-order) and by the influence of secondary and supplementary texts.

The function of the base text is to provide the pattern which is generally representative ofthe author's position. Texts which are parallel either in the whole of their context (e.g., Numbers 28 in Cols 18-22), or in some part (in Col 49 Leviticus 11 is parallel only on the subject of open vessels), are woven together with the base text, and have been designated secondary texts. These are introduced by the use of the word-form or phraseology of the secondary text, and function to bring the base text into agreement with them. This is not to say the base text becomes wholly identical to the whole of the secondary text, but that the base text conforms to the particular aspect of the secondary text which is used. The supplementary texts function at another level of influence. These are texts introduced, most often by a key-word link or by word-form, in order to provide a specific nuance to the interpretation of the base text. The supplementary text is parallel to the base text at the point of contact, but not necessarily beyond that. So, for instance, Lev 25:8 is introduced into the Leviticus 23 base by word-form use. Leviticus 25 provides a concern for the jubilee calendar, but no more.

I

G. Brin, "Coneeming Some of the Uses of the Bible in the Temple SerolI",

p 523.

CONCLUSIONS

229

The only use of the prophets, including the former prophets, occurs in supplementary fashion. The prophetic context serves as illustration ofthe subject of the base text. This is clearest in the mosaic sections. In Col 59:2 the curse of a "heavy yoke" from 1 Kgs 12/2 Chron 10 reminds the reader of the harsh regime under Solomon; in 59:4-5 the terms for the curses draw on Jeremiah 19 and 25, bringing together texts which promise the desolation of Jerusalem; 59:6 weaves texts on the key-link words 'groan', "cry out", 'calI', and "not listen", all the supplementary sources evoking the anguish of foreign oppression which is promised in the curses based on Deuteronomy 28. The same point can be illustrated in the Festival Law at the climax of both the feasts of New Wine and New Oil. In Col 22:14-15, the gathering of the olives is celebrated in light of both Deut 28:40 and Mic 6: 15, which give warning that the consequence of disobedience is the absence of oil for anointing. The release of the olives thus becomes an affirmation ofthe obedience and faithfulness ofthe people. This paralleis Col 21:7, in the Feast of New Wine. There the command to eat and drink the new wine (reading the text with Qimron) becomes a declaration of obedience to the covenant, thus nullifying the si ur against Israel of Jer 31 :29-30. The supplementary texts are thus of key importance in understanding the way in which the author interprets the base text, and in revealing the special concerns of the author. Most significant for the implications it has for the assumptions of much of current scholarship is our refinement of the function of 'harmonization'. We found that the secondary and supplementary texts affect the base text at one point at a time, and each contributes a single point to the interpretation of the base text. Further, these texts influence the base text, but there is no implication that the secondary or supplementary texts are affected by the base. Thus, in Column 49 Leviticus 11 influences Numbers 19 in regard to open vessels, but nothing concerning creeping insects is included; Leviticus 14 influences the cleansing of the house in Numbers 19, but nothing is said about lepers; in neither case is there any hint that the new law which results is therefore to be applied to lepers or insects. In other words, the texts are not all harmonized to each other for the purpose of removing contradictions or ambiguities. Only the base text is affected. There is no 'homogenization' in the sense that the texts are brought together in order to apply the new law to every occurrence.

230 3.

CHAPTER SIX

While we have not made a full analysis of the techniques utilized by the Scroll in handling the biblical sourees, there are Jour major methods oJ textual manipulation which will require more careful study.

3.1 Perhaps the most important technique is the word-Jorm insertion, in which the base text is followed but the exact wording, or word-form, is provided by the secondary or supplementary text. In CoI18:5, where the text of Num 28:31 is being followed, the word-form used comes twice from Num 15 (vv 24, 5); in Col 57:3, the age of eligibility for conscription is based on Numbers 26, but the word-form is Lev 27:3; in Col 49: 15 the command conceming vessels requiring cleansing follows Lev 11 :32, but the word-form is from Num 31 :22. In every instance the shift figured by the use of the word-form introduces an important influence which aids understanding of the interpretation of the base text. 3.2 The second and most common technique is the key-word link. This has al ready been illustrated repeatedly. It is the chief means of introducing supplementary texts, but is not the only means of recognizing the influence of the text alluded to. Frequently there will be more than one allusion to the same text (cf Col 18:14, 19:8, in which Exod 34:22 is alluded to twice in key-word links); or, the context of the supplement is clearly the required referent by virtue of the strong connection of the key-word to the text (see the multiple links with "cry out", etc, mentioned above from Col 59:6; the use of leprosy terminology from Leviticus 13 and 14 in Column 49). 3.3 Related to the key-word link, and used frequently to tie sections together is the signalling of the use of a text before its fuller use. This is most noticeable in the Feast ofNew Wine, and in the King's Law. In Col 20:1 Lev 3:9 is introduced in word-form to Lev 23:19. Three lines later Lev 3:9-11 is virtually cited in full (cf also Num 15:7 in Col 19:14; Num 15:19 in 20:14; Lev 7:30 in 20:16; Deut 12:7 in 21:3). In Co157:5 Num 31:10 brings to a close the section on the muster, and Num 31 :4-5 becomes the base of the following section, on the Royal Guard (cf Deut 23:10 in Col 58:15; Deut 28:29 in 58:21; Jer 33:17 in 59:14, and Jer 33:18 in 59:15, and the use ofthe text in 59:15b; and Jer 22:25 in 59:19). These examples strengthen the case for the key-word link, and illustrate the careful compositional links of the author/s.

CONCLUSIONS

231

3.4 The fourth significant technique is developing the same base text multiple times. We have described this in the tables as multiple use. The outstanding examples of this are the use of Lev 23: 15-16 for each of the first-fruits festivals, and the use ofNum 19:14 in fourways to expand the application ofthe base (CoI49:5-6; 6-7; 16-17; 50:11). There are numerous examples in the King's Law as weil, but there is also the case of sources found in the King's Law being duplicated elsewhere (Deut 16:18 is used in Col 57:19-20 and Column 51; Deut 20:1 is the subject of Col 58:6, 58:15, and Col 61:12). In this case the multiple use points to the hand of the redactor, but in each other case the technique serves to identify the unity of the composition of each section. 4.

Attention to the methods of joining biblical sources does not obscure the existence or importance of the 'expansions', that material in the Scroll which cannot be traced to a biblical source, nor is readily attributable to other known literary sourees. It is in the unattributable material that the par/ieu/ar viewpoint 0/ the author is most likely to be reeovered.

Our study has not focused on the non-biblical material, so we can only make general observations. First of all, it will be recognized that much of the non-biblical material is a necessary part of the editorial process of creating a smooth-reading text. Secondly, the authorls make the effort of casting their own material in biblical language. This is not always successful, and in these places the presence of the author is most visible. Attention has been drawn to two aspects of the authorls sty le. Firstly, there are the grammatical characteristics which have much in common with mishnaic Hebrew, or late biblical Hebrew? Secondly, there is the frequent use of terms with a sense closer to mishnaic Hebrew. 3 The former is in evidence throughout the SerolI; the latter, though also weil distributed, is particularly noticeable in the Purity Laws, Col 49: 11-16, and in the Temple Law, Cols 3-13. We undoubtedly want to keep in mind Fitzmyer's critique of Yadin's tendency to see rabbinie Hebrew in the SerolI, and be careful to note the differences which exist between the rabbinie legislation and the tradition

2 See Brin, "Linguistic Comments on the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Lesonenu 43 (1978), pp 20-28; Wilson and WiIIs, "Literary Sourees", pp 284-286; cfE.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Background olthe Isaiah SerolI, pp 41-42, 351-358. 3 Yadin, I, pp 35-38.

232

CHAPTER SIX

preserved here. 4 But we are free to see in the glimpses of the author's hand the development of the language from biblical Hebrew which tends towards what will be known as mishnaic Hebrew. The value of this observation will be seen more clearly alongside evaluation ofthe Scroll's relationship to the late biblical Hebrew of the Chronicles. 5.

Finally, recognition that the use of secondary and supplementary texts is the focal point of the exegesis of the authorls requires us to state the obvious, that the Temple Sero 11 is eommentary on

seripture. This may, perhaps, have gone without saymg. But we include the statement in order to attempt to place this form of commentary in perspective. On one hand the form of commentary, using biblical language rather than the voice of the exegete, is a unique phenomenon, yet it has much in common with the implicit inner-biblical exegesis ofthe Pentateuch itself. Wehave noted these instances throughout our study with reference to the LXX, Sam, Syr, and Targums. s On the other hand the issues addressed, often touching on ambiguities of the biblical text, are the same as the concerns addressed in the rabbinic commentaries. While this has been recognized by every commentator on the Scroll who refers to rabbinic halaeha for paralieis, there has been insufficient technical data available before now to extend this observation to basic methodologiCal comparisons. While we make no attempt here to establish a formal link between the methodology of the Scroll and that of later Jewish exegesis, the Scroll's use of a base text to which are added secondary and supplementary texts bears a striking resemblance to patterns of exegesis which develop over subsequent centuries. This can be illustrated from three recent studies.

4 J. Fitzmyer, Review ofYadin, The Temple Scroll, CBQ 48 (1986), P 549. lfwe were to view the Seroll as written in biblieal Hebrew style by an author who spoke mishnaie Hebrew, aceording to the pattern put forward by C. Rahin, "The Historieal Background of Qumran Hebrew", A spects 0/ the Dead Sea Scrolls, Seripta Hierosolymitana IV, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958), pp 144-161, then the Seroll fits best into the period preceding the formation of the Qumran sect, where there are MH elements existing alongside BH elements. S M. Fishbane deseribes this activity in "Inner Biblieal Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Aneient Israel", Midrash ald Literature, pp 19-37; see esp p 20. He uses the term "implieit exegesis" in BiblicaJ Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p 8, in reference to Ben Sira's blend of biblieal sources. E.E. ElJis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old", New Testament Interpretation, ed I. Howard Marshali (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1985), p 202, deseribes the NT use of the Old as "implieit midrash".

CONCLUSIONS

233

5.1 In the effort to define 'midrash' more accurately, J. Neusner applies form-critical models to Genesis Rabbah, and develops this taxonomy: 1. Citation of the key verse + materials amplifying or expanding that key verse (word-for-word exegesis). 2. Citation of the key verse + materials amplifying or expanding the theme or topic of the key verse (not word-for-word). 3. Discourse leading up to the citation of the key verse, e.g., an invented speech, or a parable (key verse at end). 4. Rabbi opened/commenced + citation of averse + exegesis of the cited verse through citation of intersecting verses (key verse subject to allusion through topic or theme, and secondary expansion). 5. Key verse not cited at all. 6 The Scroll is involved in similar activity. If the base text is the key verse, then the expansions, amplifications, or intersecting verses are found in the expansions by the author of the Scroll, and in the secondary and supplementary texts. The patterns of numbers 1-3 can be seen in the tables at the end of each chapter. Often the base text begins and concludes a section; occasionally a section begins with an expansion (cf Cols 21:4-10; 58:11b-15; discourse?) The difference in Gen. Rab. is that the expansions are the words of the rabbis. 5.2 E. E. Ellis compares the midrash proem to New Testament use of the Old Testament (e.g., Heb 10:5-39, Rom 9:6-29) on the pattern of Pesikta Rabbati 33:7: Text (Isa 51:12) + Second Text (Hos 6:1) + Exposition (with parable and application, linked verbally to the second text) + Additional Text (Lam 1:13) + Concluding Text (Isa 51:12f The Festivals ofBarley and New Wheat, and the use ofNumbers 19 in the Purity Law bear remarkable resemblance to this pattern. The secondary text corresponds to the Second Text, and the supplementary texts to the Additional Text. Again, the Scroll uses the other texts in the role of expansion and exposition where the midrash expands with the author' s commentary. 6 J. Neusner, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp 88-91. 7 E.E. Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old", New Testament Interpretation, ed I. Howard Marshali (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1985), p 215, n 35.

234

CHAPTER SIX

This is the limit of the comparison, however, for the key-word links in the midrashim often show nothing more than the verbal link, regardless of the context, where the Scroll is much more careful to maintain a contextual connection. 8 5.3 Thirdly, we may compare the Scroll's use of scripture to another pre-rabbinic example of exegesis, the quotation ofthe OT in the NT. K. Stendahl describes Matthew's use ofthe OT in Mt 3:3 and 11:10 in these terms: 1. 2.

The changing of the possessive pronoun or suffix. The weaving together of quotations, bringing about a change in wording and meaning. 3. The combination of quotations without such interweaving. 4. The assignment to a wrong author. 5. The varying of the compass of otherwise parallel quotes. 6. The agreement of the NT quotation with LXXA against LXXB . 7. An interpretation of a given text (LXX) which differs syntactically from MT. 8. the NT's use of a quote presupposes its LXX form to fulfil its function. 9. Dependence on the Hebrew text. 10. An interpretation different from LXX on the reading of the Hebrew consonantal text which agrees with MT. 11. Influence of the Hebrew text combined with the fact that LXX form is a necessary qualification for its function in context and theology.9 Numbers 1,2,3, and 5 describe similar manipulation of the biblical text to that which is seen in the detail of the SerolI' s editorial method, as weil as in the use of secondary texts. In comparison to numbers 7-11 there is evidence of similar choices between versions in the Scroll. In this case the Scroll's awareness of versions and variations may provide a pattern for investigation by NT studies. Only number 4 is irrelevant to the Scroll. These examples once again warn us that we must not bring the term 'midrash' into discussion of the Scroll until there is a settled definition of the term. M. Wise is suitably cautious in adopting R. Bloch's definition of midrash as "an edifying and explanatory genre closely tied 8 Martin S. Jaffee, ''The 'Midrashic' Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis", Approaches to Ancient Juda/sm, IV, Brown Judaic Studies 27, ed W.S. Green (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p 96, shows that there may be aseries of entirely unrelated verses as weil. 9 K. Stendahl, St. Malthews School (Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, 1958), p 53.

235

CONCLUSIONS

to Scripture, in which the role of arnplification is real but secondary and always remains subordinate to the primary religious end, which is to show the full import of the work of God, the Word of God."lO The use of exarnples as above from the 4th Century C.E., or later, is not to be taken as definitive. The value of the comparison is to show that later exegesis follows patterns already being laid down in the era of the composition of the SerolI. The most important observation which comes from these eomparisons, however, is the use by the Seroll of seripture to comment on scripture, so that even the commentary comes from the words of seripture, and not the exegete hirnself. The Seroll stands apart from later exegesis in this regard. The methodology of the Seroll lies somewhere between that found within the biblical text itself and that which developed into midrash. B. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SruDY It is impossible to keep the exarnination of the biblical sources separate from other questions being addressed in Temple Scroll studies, but it has been beyond the scope of this study to pursue each issue raised to its conclusion. Nevertheless, the data which has been uncovered in the course of the exarnination of the text needs to be set in a eontext for discussion. What folIows, therefore, is a summary of the implications of this study for the source theories regarding the SerolI, for the role of the Chronicles, the relation of the Seroll to the Qumran community, and therefore the origin of the SerolI. These implications are spelled out in cautious terms, stating no more than this study will allow regarding conclusions.

1. The Sources 0/ the Scroll No overall schema ofthe redaction ofthe Scroll can be made without the exarnination of the seams connecting the major sections together, and reference to a far broader scope of investigative tools than exarnination of the biblical sourees, as has been done by M Wise. ll This summary of the relationships between the sections we have studied should be seen as complementary to that study.

10

11

Michael 0 Wise, A Critical Study

ibid.

0/ the Temple SerolI, pp

101,209.

236

CHAPTER SIX

1.1 In the summary of methodology we remarked that all our observations apply to the whole of the Scroll. This is the strongest argument for unity. 1.2 The Festival Law, King's Law, and Temple Law share an affinity for Chronicles language (see following section). We have not included study of the redactional seams, but have affirmed the same to be the case for Columns 47 and 51. We do not have sufficient data from the Temple Law to make any c10ser comparisons, but there is enough evidence to see that the Festival and King's Laws develop the Chronicles material in different fashions: the Festivals apply the organizational terminology to the cuItic sphere which the King's Law applies to military organization. Notably, the Purity Law shows virtually no influence from the Chronicles. These factors indicate separate sources. 1.3 Our study ofthe Purity Law revealed Col 49:5-50:4 to be an integral unit based on Numbers 19. Column 48 appears to be a varied composition, but it maintains thematic and textual links with Columns 49-50. In the relationships between Columns 45-46 and Columns 48-50, the former material appears to develop from the latter. Column 47, a literary mosaic without a base text, appears to be redactional, joining the purity laws pertaining to the Temple with those of the Land.

1.4 The use of Deut 16:18-19 in Col 51:11-18, and Deut 20:1 in Col 61: 12, and of both in the King' s Law, was seen to point to the independent composition of the latter. We concluded that the final redactor placed the King's Law within the Expanded Deuteronomy, and did not change it to align with other uses of the same texts. The use of Jeremiah 31ILeviticus 26 in both Column 59 and in the redaction Column 29 indicates influence of the King's Law on the redactor. 1.5 The use of 'mishnaic' terminology in the space of a few lines of Column 49 is an indicator of the post-biblical development of the language of the author. If Column 49 is a source for the Temple Law (including Columns 45-47), then we have a relative indication of time of the composition of these two sections: later than the late Hebrew of the Chronicles. 1.6 There are slight differences in the styles with which the three major sources we have studied use scripture. The King's Law is most accurately described by the term 'mosaic', using the linking ofkey-words

CONCLUSIONS

237

more extensively; the Purity Law has at its eore a tightly written eommentary on Numbers 19 with little supplement; the Festival Law eontains both shorter, elosely organized eommentary and freer expansion. These observations, added to the work ofWilson and WiIls, strengthen the ease for viewing eaeh of the seetions as separate sourees. It is beyond the seope of these data to propose the preeise relationships of eaeh to the others, or to insist on four/five separate authors. The methodologieal similarities whieh overlap the sources perhaps reveal a elose relationship in origin. Perhaps the Seroll is an anthology of the work of a single author, or of a group of legists working together. But even to suggest this is more than this study ean say.

2. Relation to the Chronicles 2.1 The similarities in language and interests between the Seroll and the Chronieles has been remarked on by many, but the signifieanee of the similarities is not agreed. Wacholder believes the eommands for the temple are minimaIly, if at aIl, related to the Solomonie temple deseribed in Kings and Chronieles. He goes so far as to say, "There is not a single line that ean be said to have been taken from a book other than the Torah ... "12 However, he pi aces the language of the Seroll near to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, whieh allows for a date at the end of the Persian period or beginning of the Greek (350-200 B.C.E.).13 In line with this thinking is Ehud Ben Zvi's rejeetion of Yadin's suggestion that the Seroll uses 1 Chronieles 28 as a 'blueprint'. Looking rather at the differenees between the two works he denies any dependenee between them, suggesting instead eommon tradition. 14 G. Brooke, in his summary of the Manchester symposium whieh resulted in Temple Seroll Studies, remarks that all four of the main speakers (Maier, Stegemann, Milgrom, Schiffman) agreed that the question of the dating of the Seroll is dependent on its relation to the Chronieles,15 and that more study needs to be done in this area. That was the extent of agreement. Milgrom has played an important role in relating the SeroIl's interest in Levitieal prerogatives to the Levitieal eoneems of the Chronieler, and

Wacholder, Dawn 0/ Qumran, p 78. ibid, P 207. 14 Ehud Ben Zvi, "The Authority of 1-2 Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period", JSP 3 (1988), pp 69-70. n G. Brooke, Temple Serail Studies, p 15. 12

13

238

CHAPTER SIX

has suggested the Chronicles contains not only paralleis but models for the Scrol1. 16 In the end, however, he sees the Scroll to be a result of sectarian exegesis, removed from the historical 'prop' of a post-exilic campaign on behalf of the Levites, which dependence on Chronicles would suggest for the Scroll. 17 J. Maier discusses the material in the Chronicles which has bearing on the temple construction, along with that of Ezekiel' s temple. He favours an early date for the Scroll (Persian period, fifth-fourth century B.C.E.), which implies that the Scroll and the Chronicles share dependence on a common tradition. 18 For Stegemann, however, the relationship is more dynamic. For hirn the significance of the correspondence in language also means corresponding traditions. The Scroll does not know the biblical books ofthe Chronicles, nor does he use them as sources. Rather, they are contemporary works. 19 This allows the Scroll to be dated as early as the Chronicles, and Stegemann even entertains the possibility that the Chronicles could have used the Scroll as a source. 2.2 Our study provides material to test these hypotheses. Wehave found that outside of the Pentateuch the highest number of allusions in the Scroll are to the Chronicles. The use of Chronicles is normally as a supplementary text, usually in key-word link, except in the Temple Law, where our examination concludes that Chronicles is the necessary secondary text to Exodus 24ff, and in Co) 57:12-15 where 2 Chronicles 19 is the pattern for the King's Council. The practical evidence also favours viewing 1 Chronicles 28 as the index, or "Table ofContents", for the Temple Law. The use of Chronicles appears in those portions of the Scroll which are most expansive or original. Again, although we have not dealt with the redactional seams here, we have indicated that these also show extensive use of Chronicles language. There are instances where the Chronicles vocabulary or stance reflects its development of Deuteronomy, i.e., the rejoicing at the festivals (Deuteronomy 12 in the Festivals), and assertion ofLevitical prerogative. But in each case the contact with Chronicles is confirmed in vocabulary

I. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple Serail", pp 501-506. I. Milgram, ''The Qumran Cult", Temple Scroll Studies, pp 176-177. 18 1. Maier, ''The Arehitectural History of the Temple in lerusalem in Light of the Temple Serail", Temple Scroll Studies, pp 29-33. 19 H. Stegemann, ''The Origins of the Temple Serail", VTSup 40 (1986), p 251; ''The Literary Composition ofthe Temple Serail", Temple Scroll Studies, p 129, p 146, n 24. 16 17

CONCLUSIONS

239

and in further links with the contexts. Besides this, in the vast majority of allusions there is no parallel in Deuteronomy. On the basis of this evidence we have to conclude that those scholars who assert the absence of Chronicler influence have done so on the basis of a general survey of the material, but without the detailed examination of the text which we have undertaken. Our study undermines the view that the Chronicles is contemporary to the Scroll, and could possibly use the Scroll as a source. The supplementary use of the Chronicles means there is no way one could trace any part of the Scroll in Chronicles in the same manner we have found the Chronicles in the Scroll. The Scroll consistently takes the interests of the Chronicles, such as the Davidic dynasty or the Levitical prerogatives, and extends them beyond the Chronicles. Finally, in this regard, the evidence of linguistic development beyond biblical Hebrew, viewed also alongside the affinities with late biblical Hebrew, necessitate seeing the composition of the Scroll after the biblical books, though not necessarily far removed. In our view the evidence of our study suggests that the Chronicles is an important source for the Scroll. It does not have the authority of the Pentateuch, and is primarily used for illustration rather than legislation except at the important point of Levitical prerogatives and the King's Council. Yet, while we might recognize the greater authority of the Pentateuch, the appeal to the prophets and Chronicles shows these to be considered authoritative for the author. These conclusions at least leave the door open for viewing the Scroll as just what Milgrom denies, a post-exilic Levitical campaign for their place in the Temple system. The authorls are inheritors of the Chronicler's frame of reference.

3. Relation

10

Qumran

In the introduction mention was made of the authoritative position of Yadin's work. Together with the work ofscholars such as Geza Vermes, through his English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yadin's assumption that the Scroll is a work of the Qumran sectarian community has influenced the majority of subsequent scholarship. In contrast to this must be placed the nearly, but not quite, unanimous conclusion of the Temple Scroll Symposium in Manchester - resulting from the interchange between a large number of scholars who have studied the Scroll at length - that the Scroll cannot be associated directly with the Qumran

240

CHAPTER SIX

community, but probably predates it. Representative ofthis viewpoint are Stegemann, Maier, Schiffman, Brooke, and P. Davies. 20 Wehave examined paralleIs with Qumran literature as the evidence has arisen, including the interpretation of biblical texts, and the use of 'sectarian' vocabulary. 21 The evidence does not of itself prove a case, but is suggestive. In summary: 3.1 In the Festival Law there is use of similar distinct vocabulary at tim es, but there is not identity of meaning. The greatest area of contact is in the terminology for the lay representation in the feasts, where the terms are closest to the War Sero 11. Both texts may be considered eultic, but 1QM cloaks the liturgy in military terms, while the Festival Law limits application to the cultic function of the representatives of the people of Israel. The Seroll exhibits an interest in covenant renewal language and sourees, but this is most pronounced in the wine festival, and not the wheat festival/feast of weeks where it would be expeeted. 22 Most signifieantly, however, for the eonnection of the Scroll to the Essenes is our interpretation of the oil festival, whieh sanctions the use of oil, contrary to the Essene avoidance of the same. 3.2 The King's Law also shows affinity to the War Scroll. In this case, however, the affinity is at the point of the military use of the same language that is used in the Festivals. When 1QM is compared to both sections of the Scroll it seems to fall somewhere in between in its use of the eommon terminology. What these doeuments have in common is not so much an interdependence as a common appeal to the same biblical sourees: the desert organization of Israel found in Numbers. The strain of interest which ean be seen right aeross the Scroll is the concern to base its original eonstructions in the organization of Israel at Sinai. Both the Scroll and the Qumran doeuments attempt to go back to the purity of Israel's origins. They are part of a "back to basies" movement. See Temple Serail Studies, p 18, andpassim. For arecent discussion of what is 'sectarian', or "specifically Qumranic" literature, see P. Callaway, The History ofthe Qumran Community (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp 22-24. A consensus might be seen to include CD (in parts), lQS, lQSa, lQSb, lQH, 4QFlor, llQMelch, and the pesharim. 22 For examination of covenant renewal terminology in the crux redaction passage, Col 29:7-10, see D. Swanson, " 'A Covenant Just Like Jacob's' The Covenant of llQT 29 and Jermiah's New Covenant", in George J Brooke, ed, New Qumran Texts & Studies (Leiden: E J BrilI), pp 273-286, which argues that the redactor's stance to a "new covenant" is opposite to that of the Teacher of Righeousness. 20 21

CONCLUSIONS

241

3.3 In the Purity Law we examined the use of n1ilt:l, an important term in the Cdmmunity Rule, and found that it lacks the sense given the terms in the sectarian literature. Closest affinity is with the Damascus Document, where the same biblical sources are drawn on for the laws concerning contact with the house in which someone died. Most provocative are the contacts with 4Q512 and 514 which hint at the possibility of a direct interrelationship. Overall the evidence does not allow a firm statement of relationship. At every point of contact the SerolI' s use of scripture or vocabulary common with Qumran is different and argues a different case. The logical conclusion is to see any development as flowing from the Scroll to the sectarian works. The Scroll lacks the polemic against the Temple or established priesthood found in sectarian documents, and even fails at times to use key sectarian terminology when it is at hand. There is evidence to suggest that the Scroll was used by the sectaries of Qumran: the presence of the manuscript of the Scroll at a cave near the Qumran community; the orthographie similarities to sectarian documents and biblical scrolls found at Qumran; the points of contact within the SerolI. However, the absence of typical polemic, the evidence of source development, and the differences in the use of common terminology favour looking for its origins outside of the Qumran community. There are many implications of this view, of which I will name but three. One is that the "Teacher of Righteousness" cannot be viewed as the author/editor of the Scroll (see footnote 22). A second is that the 'Iibrary' of Qumran comes to be seen as representing more than the sectarian viewpoint of a fringe community. It contains literature which would have been accepted much more widely in the Judaism of the day. Rather than being written off as coming from an extremist sect living on the edges of normative Judaism, having little to contribute to the outside world, the literature found at Qumran can be seen to be a part of the whole of the Judaism of its day with validity far beyond what has been supposed for the last forty years. Secondly, if the Scroll is not viewed as authoritative only for a few Qumran sectaries, then the implication is that it was authoritative for others, somewhere, too. The evidence of the Scroll concerning its attitude to the biblical text thus extends beyond the seclusion of the Dead Sea community and shines light on more of 'plural ist' Judaism as weil.

242

CHAPTER SIX

4. Date and Provenance Having ruled out authorship by a Qumran 'sectarian', we continue to be conservative in suggesting a date and origin for the Scroll. 4.1 If we accept the implications for relationship to Qumran and to the Chronicles above, then they provide the limits for the dating ofthe Scroll. At least the Purity Law and the Temple Law are seen to contain a development of late biblical Hebrew. So the final form of the Scroll and at least one of its sources is later than the Chronicles. At the other end of the scale, if the Scroll predates or is contemporary with Qumran literature it will be no later than the end of the second century B.C.E. The extent of time this leaves us is dependent upon the dating of the Chronicles. If it is from the Persian period, then it is possible to date parts of the Scroll, with Stegemann and Maier, to the fourth century. John Gray, however, dates the Former Prophets to the beginning of the second century. 23 If he is correct, the Chronicles is not 'canonical' until much later in the second century, and the final form of the Scroll cannot be earlier than the first century B.C.E. This in turn will push the date of much of the sectarian literature much closer to the date of their extant copies, in the late Hasmonean or early Herodian eras. 4.2 In an important aspect of comparison to Qumran, the Scroll does not exhibit the polemic concerns typical ofthe sectarian literature. The issues addressed in the Scroll are more practical than argumentative. The continual emphasis on Levitical rights is the closest to polemic we can find. This material must be written at a time when Levitical prerogatives were being curbed. This provides little grounds for narrowing the dating. However, other observations may be added. The discussion of the details of Temple service points to a group still actively engaged in that service. The Scroll is, as it were, a Levitical redaction of the priestly redaction of the Torah. It appears to offer a reasonable alternative interpretation or application of certain aspects of the Law. There is no air of crisis, or anger, or schism. It seems, rather, to be a Levitical exegesis put forward for a proper understanding of Temple practice. 4.3 This lack of sense of crisis or schi sm points to aperiod of stability in the practice of the cultus, and the absence of definite historical

23

John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, New Century Bible Commentary, (Basingstoke:

Marshali, Morgan, and Seott, 1986), p 6.

CONCLUSIONS

243

reference24 suggests political stability. Added together, all this information points to a date prior to the Maccabean revolt for parts if not the whole of the Scroll. Precise dating remains uncertain, but the evidence of the Scroll provides a valuable insight into the state of the biblical text during this general period. The use of this form of biblical interpretation, which assumes that the re-working of the authoritative tradition may still speak with similar authority, indicates aperiod when the biblical text was not yet fixed, and when it was still possible to entertain the expectation that the work would be accepted by some community as authoritative scripture. The fact that it ultimately was not reveals to us that the times were changing. The Temple Scroll is a product of the imperceptible shift in understanding of the relationship between authority and exegesis.

24 This is maintained even in light of M. Hengel, J.H. Charlesworth, and D. Mendels, ''The Polemieal Character of 'On Kingship' in the Temple SerolI: an Attempt at Dating llQ Temple", JJS 37 (1986), pp 28-38.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aekroyd, Peter. land II Chronic/es, Ezra, Nehemiah. Toreh Bible Commentary. London: SCM, 1973. Albright, W. F. "The Judieial Reform of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 19:5-11)", Alexander Man: Jubilee Volume. Edited by S. Lieberman. New York: Jewish Theologieal Seminary of Ameriea Press, 1950, pp 61-82. Allegro, John M. Qumran Cave 4, I, DJD, V. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Anderson, A. A. The Book 0/ Psalms, 2 vols. The New Century Bible. London: Marshali, Morgan, and Seott, 1972. Avigad, N. "The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Serolls and Related Doeuments", Aspeets 0/ the Dead Sea Serolls, Seripta Hierosolymitana, IV, pp 56-87. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958. Baillet, M.; Milik, 1. T.; and de Vaux, R. Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrdn, DJD, III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. _ _ _ . Qumrdn Grotte 4, III, DJD, VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Barthelemy, D., and Milik, 1. T. Qumran Cave I, DJD, I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Baumgärtel, D. F. "Zur Liturgie in der 'Sektenrolle' vom Toten Meer", ZA W 65 (1953), pp 263-265. Baumgarten, J. M. "4Q Halakah" 5, the Law of Hadash, and the Penteeontad Calendar", JJS 27 (1976), pp 36-46. "Does TLH in the Temple Seroll Refer to Crucifixion?" Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: E. 1. BrilI, 1977. pp 172-182. _ _ _ . "The Duodeeimal Courts of Qumran, the Apoealypse,and the Sandhedrin", Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: E. 1. BrilI, 1977. pp 145-171. _ _ _ . Review of Megillat ha-Migda, The Temple SerolI, JBL 97 (1978), pp 584-589. _ _ _ . "The Pharisaie-Saddueean Contoversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts", JJS 31 (1980), pp 157-170. _ _ _ . "On the Non-Literal Use of mcfaser/dekate", JBL 103 (1984), pp 245-251. _ _ _ . "The First and Seeond Tithes in the Temple SerolI", Biblieal and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, pp 5-15. Edited by. Ann Kort and Seott Morsehauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun's, 1985. _ _ _ . ''The Laws of 'Orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan", JJS 38 (1987), pp 195-202. _ _ _ . ''The Calendars of the Book of Jubilees and the Temple SerolI", VT 37 (1987), pp 71-77.

246

BmLIOGRAPHY

"The Purifieation Rituals in DJD 7", The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forly Years 01 Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992. Beekwith, R.T. "The Courses of the Levites and the Eccentrie Psalms Serolls from Qumran", RevQ 11 (1984), pp 499-524. _ _ _ . "The Feast ofNew Wine and the Question ofFasting", ExpT 95 (1984), pp 334-335. Ben-Hayyim, Z. "Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Referenee to the Dead Sea Serolls", Aspects 01 the Dead Sea Scrolls, Seripta Hierosolymitana IV, pp 200-214. Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958. Benoit, P.; Milik, J. T.; and de Vaux, R. Les Grottes de Murabbdat, DJD,Il. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Ben Zvi, Ehud. "The Authority of 1-2 Chronieles in the Late Seeond TemplePeriod", JSP 3 (1985), pp 59-88. Bernstein, Moshe 1. ''Midrash Halakhah at Qumran? 11Q Temple 64:6-13 and Deuteronomy 21:22-23", Gesher 7 (1979), pp 145-166. Bogaard, L. van den. "Le Rouleau du Temple: Quelques remarques eoneernant les 'petits fragments'," Von Canaan bis Kerala, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 211, pp 285-294. Edited by W. C. Deisman, et. al. Kevalaer-Neukirehen-Vluyn: Butzon and Bereker, 1982. Braun, Roddy. 1 Chronicles. Word Biblieal Commentary. Waco: Word, 1986. Brin, Gershon. "Linguistie Comments on the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) LeSonenu 43 (1978), pp 20-28. _ _ _ . "The Bible as Refleeted in the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Shnaton 4 (1980), pp 182-225. "Coneerning Some of the Uses of the Bible in the Temple SerolI", RevQ 47 (1987), pp 519-528. Brooke, George 1. "The Feast of New Wine and the Question of Fasting", ExpT 95 (1984), pp 175-176. _ _ _ . Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFloriiegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. _ _ _ . "The Fourth Gospel and the Temple SerolI", a paper delivered to the British New Testament Conferenee, Durham, 20 Sept, 1987. _ _ _ . ''The Temple SerolI: A Law Unto Itse1f?" Law and Religion, pp 34-43. Edited by B. Lindars. Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1988. _ _ _ . "Another 'Pentateuch' From the Seeond Temple Period", unpublished paper delivered to SOTS, January, 1988. _ _ _ . ''The Temple Seroll and the Arehaeology of Qumran, "Ain Feshkha and Masada", RevQ 13 (1988), pp 225-239. _ _ , ed. Temple Scroll Studies, JSP Sup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

BffiLIOGRAPHY

247

. "The TextuaI Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Reeently Published Manuseripts of the Pentateuch", The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U, Rappaport. Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992 .. Broshi, Magen. "The Gigantie Dimensions of the Visionary Temple in the Tem pie SerolI", BAR NovlDee 1987, pp 36-37. Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A., eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, SBL Monograph Series24. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word BiblieaI Commentary. Waco: Word, 1984. CaIlaway, Phillip. "The Translation of 11 QT LI, 5b-lO", RevQ 11 (1984), pp 585-586. _ _ . "'RBYH in the Temple Seroll XXIV, 8", RevQ 12 (1986), pp 269-270. ___ . "Exegetische Erwägungen zur Tempelrolle XXIX, 7-10", RevQ 12 (1985), pp 95-104. ___ . "Source Critieism of the Temple Seroll: the Purity Laws", RevQ 12 (1986), pp 213-22l. ___ . "The Temple Seroll and the Canonization of Jewish Law",RevQ 13 (1988), pp 239-250. The History ofthe Qumran Community, JSPSup 3.Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. "Extending Divine Revelation: Miero-CompositionaI Strategies in the Temple SerolI", Temple Scroll Studies, pp 149-162. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Caquot, Andre. "Le Rouleau du Temple de Qoumran", ETR 4 (1978), pp 443-500. CarroIl, R. P. Jeremiah. London: SCM, 1986. Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testanent, 2 VoIs. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913. Charlesworth, J. H. "The Origin and Subsequent History of the Authors of the Dead Sea Serolls: Four TransitionaI Phases among the Qumran Essenes", RevQ 10 (1980), pp 213-234. ___ , ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Voll: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments; Vol 2: Expansions ofthe 'OZd Testament' and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Litera/ure, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983 & 1985. Cross, Frank Moore. The A ncient Library of Qumran and Modem Biblical Studies. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co, 1958. _ _ . "The OIdest Manuseripts from Qumran", JBL 74 (1955), pp 147-172. ___ . "The Development of the Jewish Seripts", The Bible and the Ancient Near Eart, pp 133-202. Edited by G. Emest Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co, 1961.

248

BffiLIOGRAPHY

"Theory of Loeal Texts", Qumran and the History 0/ the Biblieal Text, pp 306-320. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1975. Daube, David. "Rabbinie Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistie Rhetorie",HUCA 22 (1949), pp 239-264. Davies, Philip R. lQM. the War Seroll /rom Qumran. Bibliea et Orientalia No. 32. Rome: Biblieal Institute Press, 1977. _ _ _ . Cities 0/ the Biblieal W orld: Qumran. Surrey: Lutterworth Press, 1982. _ _ _ . The Damascus Covenant. JSOTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Deleor, M., ed. Qumran. sa piete. theologie et son milieu. Paris-Gembloux: Editions Dueulot, Leuven: University Press, 1978. ___ . "Le statut du roi d'apres le Rouleau du Temple", Henoeh 3 (1981), pp 47-68. _ _ _ . "Reflexions sur la Fete de la Xylopherie dans le Rouleau du Temple et les Textes Paralleles", RevQ 12 (1987), pp 561-569. Denis, A.-M. "Les Genres literaires dans les pseudepigraphes d'aneien testament", JSJ 13 (1982), pp 1-5. Dimant, Devorah. "Qumran Seetarian Literature", Jewish Writings 0/ the Seeond Temple Period, Compendia Rerum Iudaiearum Novum Testamentum, II, pp 483-550. Edited by M. Stone. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984. _ _ _ , and Rappaport, U., eds. The Dead Sea Serolls: Forty Years 0/ Research. Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992. Driver, G. R. The Judaean Serolls: The Problem and a Solution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Eisenman, Robert. James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher.Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1986. _ _ _ . Maceabees. Zadokites. Christians and Qumran. Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1983. . "The Historieal Provenanee of the 'Three Nets of Belial' Allusion in the Zakokite Doeument and BALLA"IBELA" in the Temple SerolI", Folio Orientalia 25 (1988), pp 51-66. Elgvin, Torleif. "The Qumran Covenant Festival and the Temple SerolI", JJS 36 (1985), pp 103-106. Eiliger, K. and Rudolph, W., eds. Biblia Hebraiea Stuttgarfensia Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1976/77. Ellis, E. Earle. "How the New Testament Uses the Old", New Testament Interpreta tion, pp 199-219. Edited by I. Howard MarshalI. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. Emerton, J. A. "A Consideration of Two Reeent Theories about Bethso in Josephus's Deseription of Jerusalem and a Passage in the Temple SerolI", Text and Context. Edited by W. Claassen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Evans, Craig A. "IQIsaa and the Absence of Prophetie Critique at Qumran", RevQ 11 (1984), pp 537-542.

BffiLIOGRAPHY

249

Falk, Ze'ev W. "The Temple Scroll and the Codification of Jewish Law", JL A 2 (1979), pp 33-34. Oxford Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Aneient Israel. Oxford: University Press, 1985. "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Intepretation in Ancient Israel", Midrash and Literature, pp 19-37. Edited by G. H. Hartman and S. Budick. Yale: University Press, 1986. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence", TS 37 (1976), pp 187-226. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament", CBQ 40 (1978), pp 493-513. Review of Y. Yadin, The Temple Serail, CBQ 48 (1986), pp 547-549. Ford, J. Massyngberde. "'Crucify him, crucify him' and the Temple SerolI", ExpT 87 (1976), pp 275-278. Fowler, Mervyn D. "The Meaning of lipne YHWH in the OT", ZA W 99 (1987), pp 384-390. Freedman, David Noel. "The Chronicler's Purpose", CBQ 23 (1961), pp 436-442. ___ , and Mathews, K. A. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Serail (1 1QpaleoLev). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Frymer-Kensly, Tikra. "Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Biblical Israel", The Word 0/ the Lord Shall Go Forth, p 412. Edited by C. L. Myers and M. O'Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun's, 1983. Fujita, Neil S. A Crack in the Jar: What the Aneient Jewish Documents Tell Us About the New Testament. New York: Paulist Press, 1986. Garbini, Giovanni. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London: SCM, 1988. Garcia Martinez, F. "EI Rollo dei Templo", EstBib 36 (1977), pp 247-292. _ _ _ . "4QpNah y la Crucifixi6n", EstBib 38 (1980), pp 221-235. ___ . "EI Rollo dei Templo y la halakä sectaria", Simposio Biblteo Espailol (Salamanca, 1982), pp 611-622. Edited by N. Femandez Marios, J. Trebolle Barbera, J. Femandez Vallina. Madrid: Universidad Completencia, 1984. ___ . "EI Rollo dei Templo (11 Q Temple): Bibliografia Systematica", RevQ 12 (1986), pp 425-440. Gärtner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge: University Press, 1965. Ginsberg, L. An Unknown Jewish Seet. New York: KTAV, ET 1970. Goshen-Gottstein, M. "Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents", Aspeets 0/ the Dead Sea Serails, Scripta Hierosolymitana N, pp 101-137. Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958 .. ___ . Text and Language in the Bible and Qumran. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Orient Publishing House, 1960.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"The Psalms Scroll (I1QPS') - A Problem of Canon and Text", Textus, V (1966), pp 22ff. _ _ _ . "The Scroll of the Torah of the Lord", Ha-A retz, 25 October, 1967. Gottwald, N. The Tribes of Y Mweh. London: SCM, 1980. Gray, John. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. New Century Bible Commentary. Basingstoke: Marshali, Morgan, and Scott, 1986. Halperin, David 1. "Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinie Penalty of Strangulation", JJS 32 (1981), pp 32-46. Hengel, M., J.H. Charlesworth, D. Mendels. ''The Polemical Character of 'On Kingship' in the Temple SerolI: An Attempt at Dating 11 QTemple", JJS 37 (1986), pp 28-38. Holm-Nielson, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. UniversitetsforlagetI Aarhus, 1960. _ _ _ . ''The Importance of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Understanding of the Old Testament Psalmodie Tradition", ST 14 (1960), pp I-53. Jaffee, Martin S. ''The 'Midrashic' Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinie Exegesis", Approaches to Ancient Judaism, IV. Brown Judaic Studies 27, pp 95-112. Edited by W. S. Green. Chico, CA: Scholar's Press, 1983. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim. New York: Judaica Press, 1985. Johnstone, W. "Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuch al Studies", Z4W 99 (1987), pp 16-37. Jongeling, B. "A Propos de la Colonne XXIII du Rouleau du Temple", RevQ 10 (1979-81), pp 593-595. Kaufman, Stephen A. "The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism", HUCA 53 (1982), pp 29-43. Kautzch, E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Kiuchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Litera/ure. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christi an World 200 BC to AD 200, 2. Cambridge: University Press, 1987. Knierim, Rolf. "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit", ZA W 73 (1961), pp 157-171. Kugel, James L. ''Two Introductions to Midrash", Midrmh m Litera/ure, pp 77-103. Edited by G. H. Hartman and S. Budick. Yale: University Press, 1986. Kuhn, Karl Georg. Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. ''The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran", The Scrolls and the New Testament, pp 65-93. Edited by Krister Stendahl. London: SCM,1957.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistie Background o/the lsaiah Seroll (lQIsd'). Leiden: E. J. BrilI, 1974. Lee, Samuel, ed.; and Bames, G.E. Pentateuehus Syriace. London: Apud Soeietatem Bibliophilorum Britannieam et Externam, 1914. Lehman, M. R. "The Temple Seroll as a Source of Seetarian Halakhah", RevQ 9 (1977-79), pp 579-587. _ _ _ . ''The Beautiful War Bride", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 265-271. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Levine, Barueh A. '''!'he Temple SerolI: Aspeets of its Historieal Provenanee and Literary Character", BASOR 232 (1978), pp 5-23. "Preliminary Reflections on the Temple Serolf', in J. Neusner, A History 0/ the Mishnaie Law 0/ Holy Things, VI, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 30, pp xvii-xx. Leiden: E. J. BrilI, 1980. Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum Hebr(ljsehen Alten Testament. Stuttgart Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981. Lohse, Eduard, ed. Die Texte aus Qumran, Hebr(Jjseh und Deutsch. Munieh: Kösel-Veriag, 1971. Luria, Ben Zion. "Comments on the Serail of the Sanetuary", (Hebrew) Beth Mikro 2 (1968), pp 370-386. MeCready, Wayne O. "The Seetarian Status of Qumran: The Temple Serail", RevQ 11 (1983), pp 183-19l. Maier, Johann. "Aspekte der Kultfrmmigkeit im Lichte der Tempelralle von Qumran", Jildisehe Liturgie: Geschichte, Struktur, Wesen, pp 33-46. Edited by J. Maier, et. al. Freiburg: Herder, 1979. "Die Hofanlagen im Tempel-Entwurf des Ezeehiel im Licht der »Tempelrolle« von Qumran", Prophecy, pp 55-67. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ___ . The Temple Sero 11. JSOTSup 34, JSOT Press, Sheffield, 1985. _ _ _ . ''The Arehiteetural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Serail", Temple Seroll Studies JSPSup 7, pp 23-62. Edited by George J. Braoke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Maimonides, M. The Commandments, Se/er Ha-Mitzvoth 0/ Maimonides. 2 vols. Translated by Rabbi Dr Charles B. Chavel. London: Soneino, 1967. Mansoor, Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ, III. Edited by J. Van der Ploeg. Leiden: E. J. BrilI, 1961. Mathews, K.A. ''The Levitieus Seroll (l1Qpaleo Lev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible", CBQ 48 (1986), pp 171-207. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. The New Century Bible. London: Marshall,Morgan and Seott, 1979.

252

BffiLIOGRAPHY

Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship 0/ A uthorship and A uthority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (paul Siebeck), 1986. Mendels, Doron. "'On Kingship' in the 'Temple Seroll' and the ideologie al Vorlage of the seven banquets in the 'Letter of Aristeas to Philoerates"', Aegyptus 59 (1979), pp 127-136. Mendenhall, G. "The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26", JBL 78 (1958), pp 52-66. Milgrom, Jacob. "Studies in the Temple SerolI", JBL 97 (1978). pp 501-23. _ _ . "The Temple SerolI", BA 41 (1978), pp 105-120. _ _ _ . "'Sabbath' and 'Temple City' in the Temple SerolI", BASOR 232 (1978), pp 25-27. "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 71 (1980), pp 1-17. "Further Studies in the Temple SerolI", JQR 71 (1980), pp 89-106. ''The Paradox ofthe Red Cow (Num XIX)", VT 31 (1981), pp 62-72. Studies in Cultie Theology and Terminology. Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1983. "Chalienge to Sun-worship Interpretation of Temple Seroll's Gilded Stairease", BAR 11 (1985), pp 70-73. _ _ _ . ''The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetieal Prineiples", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 165-180. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. ''The Seriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Serolf', A rchaeology and History in the Dead Sea Serolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Milik, J. T. "Le travail d'edition des manuserits du Desert de Juda", VTSlqJ 4 (1956), pp 17-26. _ _ _ . Ten Years 0/ Diseovery in the Wildemess 0/ Judaea. London: SCM,1959. Mink, H.A. "Die KoI. III der Tempelrolle. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion", RevQ 11 (1982-84), pp 163-181. _ _ _ . ''The Use of Scripture in the Temple Seroll and the Status of the Seroll as Law", SJOT 1 (1987), pp 19-65. Mishor, M. "On the Version of the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Tarbiz 48 (1978), p 173. MueIler, James R. ''The Temple Seroll and the Gospel Divoree Texts", R evQ 10 (1979-1981), pp 247-256. Murphy-O'Connor, Jeröme. "La Genese Litteraire de la Regle de la Communaute", RB 76 (1969), pp 528-549. Myers, Jacob M. I Chronicles. The Anehor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co, 1965. _ _ _ . II Chronicles. The Anehor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co, 1965. _ _ _ . Ezra, Nehemiah. The Anehor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Nebe, G. Wilhelm. "11L"~ «Mass, Abmessung» in 11 Q Tempelrolle XLI, 16", RevQ 11 (1982-1984), pp 391-399. ___ . "Additamentum zu 11J.'1~ in 11 Q Tempelrolle", RevQ 11 (1984), pp 587-589. Neusner, Jacob. Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Noth, Martin. Leviticus. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1965. _ _ _ . Numbers. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1968. _ _ _ . The Chronieler's History. JSOTSup 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Phillips, A. Aneient Jsrael's Criminal Law. Oxford: University Press, 1970. Ploeg,1. P. M. van der. ''The Meals of the Essenes", JSS 2 (1957), pp 163-175. ___ . "Une halakha inedite de Qumran", Qumrdn. Sa piete. sa theologie et son milieu, pp 107-113. Edited by M. Deleor. Paris-Gembloux- Lueven: University Press, 1978. ___ . "Les Manuserits de la Grotte XI de Qumran. Aperyu par 1.P.M. Van der Ploeg, O.P.", RevQ 12 (1986), pp 3-15. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblieal Hebrew: Toward an Historieal Typology 0/ Biblieal Hebrew Prose. HSM 12. Missoula, Montana: Seholar's Press, 1976. Pueeh, E. "Notes en Marge de llQpaleolevitique le Fragment L, des Fragments Inedits et une Jarre de la Grotte 11", RB 96 (1989), pp 161-183. Qimron, Elisha. "New Readings in the Temple SerolI", JE! 28 (1978), pp 161-172. ___ . ''The Language of the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Lesonenu 42 (1978), pp 83-98. ___ . ''The Text of the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Lesonenu 42 (1978), pp 136-145. ___ . ''The Voeabulary of the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Shnaton 4 (1980), pp 239-262. ___ . ''Three Notes on the Text of the Temple SerolI", (Hebrew) Tarbiz 51 (1981-82), pp 135-137. "Further New Readings in the Temple SerolI", JE! 37 (1987), pp 31-35. ___ . "Column 14 of the Temple SerolI", JE! 38 (1988), pp 44-46. Rabin, Chaim. Qumran Studies. London: Oxford University, 1957. ___ . ''The Historieal Background of Qumran Hebrew", Aspeets 0/ the Dead Sea Serolls. Seripta Hierosolymitana N, pp 144-161. Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958. _ _ _ . The Zadokite Documents. Oxford: Clarendon,1954. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1964.

254

BffiLIOGRAPHY

Rashi. Commentary. Translated and annotated by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann in Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and prayers for Sabbath and Rmhi's Commentary, 5 Vols. London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co, 1929-1934. Robinson, Stephen E. "The Testament of Adam and the Angelie Liturgy", RevQ 12 (1985), pp 105f. Rokeah, David. ''The Temple SerolI, Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud", J T S 3 4 (1983), pp 515-526. Rosen, Debra, and Alison Salvesen. "A Note on the Qumran Temple SeroIl56:15-18 and the Psalm of Solomon 17:33", JJS 38 (1987), pp 99-10l. Rosso, Liliana. "Deuteronomio 21,22: eontributo dei Rotolo dei Tempio alla valutazione di una variante medievale dei Settanta", RevQ 9 (1976-77), pp 231-236. Saera, Rafael Vieent. "La Halaka de Dt 21 :22-23 y su Interpretacion en Qumran y en Jn 19:31-42", Salvacion en laPalabra: Targum, Dermh, Berith, pp 699-709. Edited by Domingo Muiioz Leon. Madrid: Edieiones Cristiandad, 1986. Sanders, JA. The Psalms of Qumrtin Cave 11 (11 QPs·). DJD, IV. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1965. Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Seroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod" and the Samaritan Tradition. Atlanta, Georgia: Seholars Press, 1986. Sandmel, Samuel. ''The Haggada Within Seripture", JBL 80 (1961), pp 105-122. Seheehter, S. Documents of Jewish Seetaries, Voll, Fragments of a Zadokite W ork. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1910. Sehedl, Claus. "Zur Ehebruehklausel der Bergpredigt im Lieht der neu gefundenen Tempelrolle", TPQ 30 (1982), pp 362-365. Sehiffman, Lawrenee H. The Halakha at Qumran. Leiden: E.J. BrilI, 1975. ___ . ''The Temple Seroll in Literary and Philologieal Perspeetive", Approaches to Aneient Judaism, II. Brown Judaie Studies 9, pp 143-158. Chieo, CA.: Seholars Press, 1980. ___ . ''The Impurity of the Dead in the Temple SerolI", Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Serolls. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ___ . "The King, His Guard, and the Royal Couneil in the Temple SerolI", PAAJR 54 (1987). _ _ . "The Laws of War in the Temple SerolI", RevQ 13 (1988), pp 299-31l. ___ . "The Law of the Temple Seroll and its Provenanee", Folio Orientalia 25 (1988), pp 89-98. ___ . ''Tbe Temple Seroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Seeond Temple Period", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 239-255. Edited by G. J Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Sehürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols. Revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Miliar and Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987.

BffiLIOGRAPHY

255

Siomovie, E. "Exegesis in the Dead Sea Serolls", RevQ 7 (1969-71), pp 3-15. Smith, Morton. "The Case of the Gilded Stairease. Did the Dead Sea Serolls Seet Worship the Sun?" BAR 10 (1984), pp 50-55. Snaith, N.H. Leviticus and Numbers. The Century Bible. London: Nelson, 1967. Stegemann, Hartmut. "«Das Land» in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten aus den Qumranfunden", Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Edited by G. Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeek und Ruprecht, 1983, pp 154-171. _ _ _ . "Is the Temple Seroll a Sixth Book ofthe Torah - Lost for 2,500 Years?" BAR 14 (1987), pp 28-35. "The Literary Composition of the Temple Seroll and its Status at Qumran", Temple Seroll Studies, pp 123-148. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. '"fhe Institutions of Israel in the Temple Serolf', The Dead Sea Serolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Malthew. Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup-Lund, 1954. Sukenik, E.L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1955. Sweeney, Marvin A. "Seruah at Qumran: Aspeets of the Counting Formulas for the First-Fruits Festivals in the Temple SerolI", BASOR 251 (1983), pp 61-65. _ _ _ . "Midrashie Perspeetive in the Torah Ham-Melek of the Temple SerolI", Hebrew Studies 28 (1987), pp 51-66. Talmon, Shemaryahu. King, Cult, and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986. Thiering, B. E. Redaling the Teacher of Righteousness. Sydney: Australian and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion, 1979. _ _ _ . "Mebaqqar and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple SerolI", JBL 100/1 (1981), pp 59-74. ___ . The Qumran Origins ofthe Christian Church. Sydney: Australian and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion, 1983. Thorion-Vardi, Talia. '"fhe Personal Pronoun as Syntactieal Glide in the Temple Seroll and in the Massoretie Text", RevQ 12 (1986), pp 421-422. _ _ _ . "'T Nominativi in the Qumran Literature?" RevQ 12 (1986), pp 423-424. Thorion, Y. "Zur Bedeutung von (1979-81), pp 597-598.

i17Jn;7J; ;'n

',,:::ll in 11 Q T 11, 9", RevQ 10

_ _ . "Zur Bedeutung von NDn in llQ T", RevQ 10 (1979-81), pp 598-599. "Die sprache der Tempelrolle und die Chronikbücher," RevQ 11 (1982-1984), pp 423-426. _ _ _ . "Neue Bemerkungen Über die Sprache der Qumranliteratur", RevQ 11 (1982-1984), pp 579-582.

256

BmLIOGRAPHY

Throntveit, Mark A. "Linguistie Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronieles, Ezra and Nehemiah", VT 32 (1982), pp 201-216. ___ . When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronic/es.SBLDS 93. Atlanta: Seholars Press, 1987. Tosato, Angelo. "The Law of Levitieus 18:18: AReexamination", CBQ 46 (1984), pp 199-214. Tov, Emanuel. "The 'Temple SerolI' and Old Testament Textual Criticism", (Hebrew) Eretz-Israel 16 (1982), pp 100-1li. ___ . "The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblieal Manu-scripts", JSOT 31 (1985), pp 3-29. Trebolle, Julio. "Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings", The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: E J BrilI, 1992. Tyloeh, Witold. "La provenanee et la date du Rouleau du Temple", Folio Orientalia 25 (1988), pp 33-40. Ulrieh, E. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Missoula, MT: Seholars Press, 1978. VanderKam, 1. C. "The Temple Seroll and the Book of Jubilees", Temple Scroll Studies, pp 211-236. Edited by G. 1. Brooke. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Vargas-Machuea, Antonio. "Divorcio e indisolubilidad dei matrimonio en al Sagrada Escritura", EstBib 39 (1981), pp 19-61. Vaux, R. deo Ancient Israel, IIS Life and Institutions. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,1973. ___ . Arr:haeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Sehweieh Lectures of the British Aeademy, 1959. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. ___ . Qumrdn Grotte 4, JJ. DJD, VI. Oxford: University Press, 1977. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. SPB 4. Leiden: E. 1. BrilI, 1967. ___ . "Sectarian Matrimonial Halakha in the Damascus Rule", J.JS 25 (1974), pp 197-202. Post-biblical Jewish Studies. Leiden: E. J. BrilI, 1975. ___ . The Dem Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London: SCM, 19822 • ___ . The Dem Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 19873 • Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Down of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Tea:her of Righteousness. Cincinnati: HUCA Press, 1983. ___ . "Rules ofTestimony in Qumranie Jurisprudence: CD 9 and 11Q Torah 64", J.JS 40 (1989), pp 163-174. Wallenstein, M. Review ofY. Yadin, The Scroll ofthe Warofthe Sons of Light, JSS 2 (1957), pp 291-294. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: C1arendon Press, 1972.

257

BIBLIOGRAPHY

" 'Temple SerolI' or 'King's Law'?", (Hebrew), Shnaton 3 (1978), pp 214-237. Weiser, A. The Psalms. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: 1962. Welch, Adam C. The Work

0/ the

Westminster Press,

Chronicler, Its Purpose and Its Date. London:

Oxford University Press, 1939. Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History

0/ Ancient Israel.

Cleveland:

Meridian

Books, ET 1957. Wenham, GJ. The Book 0/ Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979. Wentling, Judith L. "Unraveling the Relationship between llQT, the Eschatological Temple, and the Qumran Community", RevQ 14 (1989), pp 61-73. Wernberg-Moller, P. The Manual 0/ Discipline. STDJ I. Leiden: EJ. BrilI, 1957. Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial A uthority in A ncient Israel. JSOTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979 Whybray, R.N. The Making o/the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Wilcox, Max. "'Upon the Tree' - Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament", JBL 96 (1977), pp 85-99. Williamson, H.G.M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible. London: Marshali, Morgan and Scott, 1982. Wilson, Andrew M., and Wills, Lawrence. "Literary Sources of the 'Temple Scroll"', HTR 75 (1982), pp 275-288. Wise, Michael. "The Dead Sea Scrolls, Part 1: Archaeology and Biblical Mss",BA 49 (1986), pp 140-154. _ _ _ . "The Dead Sea Scrolls, Part 2: Nonbiblical Manuscripts", BA 49 (1986), pp 228-243. _ _ _ . "The Covenant of Temple Scroll XXIX, 3-10", RevQ 14 (1989), pp 49-60. Woude, A.S. van der. "Ein Bisher Unveröffentlichtes Fragment der Tempelrolle", RevQ 13 (1988), pp 89-92. Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre Midrmh. New York: Alba House, 1976. Yadin, Yigael. TheScrollo/the Waro/theSonso/LightAgainst the Sons 0/ Darkness. Translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: University Press, 1962. "A Note on 4Q 159 (Ordinances)", IEI 18 (1968), pp 250-252. _ _ . "Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered", IEl21 (1971), pp 1-12. "Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?" (translated by Victor Hurowitz), Humanizing America's Iconic Book, pp 153-169. Edited by G. M. Tucker & D. A. Knight. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

_ _ _ . The Temple SerolI, Three Volumes and Supplement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1983.

The

258

BmLIOGRAPHY

___ . The Temple Seroll: The Hidden Law 01 the Dead Sea Sect. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985.

INDEX OF CITATIONS HEBREW BIBLE

Genesis 1:1 14:20 24:40, 21, 42, 56 24:40 39:8 47:24 Exodus 2:23 12:7,22 12:17 13:18 15:3 15:18 18:21 18:24 18:25 19:14 20:17 21:10 23:6-8 23:14 23:15 23:16 23:17 23:27 25:17-18 25:18 25:20 25:21 26:2 26:16 26:31 26:33 27:20 28:43 29:18 29:22-24 29:26 29:26-28 29:27 29:39 29:40 30:14

11QT 21:8a 58:12c-14a 58:21 57:15b-17a 58:3-4a 58:6b-7a

59:5b-7a 49:13a 18:3 58:6b-7a 57:6b-7 57:6b-7 57:3c-5a, 57:7b-9a 57:3 21:06,57:3,57:6b-7 49:18-19a 57:20b-21 57:17b-18 57: 19b-20a 19:9 57:9b-lla 19:9 22:15b-16 59:19b-20a 7:10 57:6b-7,7:10 7:11,7:12 7:9 5:5/6:3 7:4 7:13 4:7 21:15b 21:05 22:04-05 20:14b-15a 21:03,21:04 20: 14b-15a 20:15b-16 21:1, 22:12-13a 18:5,21:15b 57:3

30:28 5:10/6:8a 30:32 22: 14c-15 34:11-17 57:15b-17a 34:22 18:14/15. 19:9, 19:11-15 36:35 7:14

Leviticus 21:16 1:3 22:01 1:9, 13 22:5 1:11 22:04-05 1:13 20:10-11a 2:1-2 20:11b-12 2:3a 20:11b-12 2:11 20: 13b-14a 2:1-13 20: 13b-14a 2:13 19:7,20:13b-14a 2:14 22:4 3:2 20:9,22:6 3:9 20:5-7a 3:9-10 21:8b-9 3:9-11 20:7b-8, 22:7- 8a 3:11 20:5-7a 3:14-15 20:4 3:14-17 21:05, 22:13b-14, 23:01 3:17 20:10-11a 5:11 20:10-11a 6:8 19:5 6:9 19:7,20:10-11a 6:9-10 20:11b-12 20:11b-12 6:10 19:5 6:19 6:23 22:04-05 20:9,20:10-11a 7:10 7:15 22:13b-14 7:30 20:15b-16 7:31 22:5,21:1 7:32 22:11b 7:33 21:02,21:03,22:1O-11a 20:15b-16, 21:04, 21:02 7:34 7:36 22: 10-11a, 22: 13b-14 8:21 22:04-05 8:27 20:16c 8:35 57:9b-lla 9:3 18:4 9:13 20:4,22:6 9:15 20:10-11a

260 9:17 10:6 10:7 10:9 11:12-15 11:21-22 11:23-24 11 :25 11:28 11:31-32 11:32 11:33-34 11:33 11:34 11:36 11:38 11:44 12:4 13:58 14:10 14:10ff 14:21 14:28 14:37-48 14:37,39 14:41 14:47 14:48 14:54 15:5 15:13 15:16-17 15:31-33 16:29 16:30 16:31 16:33 16:34 17:7 17:8 18:18 19:5 19:9 19:9,10 19:28 19:33 21:1 21:5 21:8

INDEX OF CITATIONS

20:4,20:10-1Ia.22:6 22:02 22:02 21:05 48:7-10 48:1-7 49: 16a 49:16b-17 49: 16a 49:8-9a 49:5-6a. 49: lIc-12a 49:13b-14,49:14c-15 49:16a 49:7-10,49:9-10 49:8-9a 49:lIc-12a 49:9-10 49:7-8a 47:18,48:1-7,48:7-10 49:21a 49:19b-21a 18:4 18:5 18:5 49: 12b 49:16a 49: 12b 49:12b 49:16a 49:13b-14 48:17-49:4 49:16b-17 49:13b-14 49:16b-17 48:14-17 18:8 21:8a. 22:13b-14 21:05 18:7, 19:01-06, 21:8, 20:04, 21:8a. 22:02 22:15-16 18:7 18:8, 18:9,21:05 18:9 57:17b-18 18: lOb-lI 48:10-14 19:7, 48:7-10 48:7-10 48: 10-14 49:21b 48:7-10 18:7

49:7-8a 21:10 22:lIb 22:2 22:lIb 22:5 18:7 22:15-16 22:lIb 22:16 18: lOb-lI 22:29 20: 12b-13a 22:30 19:14-15a 23:10 19:11-15 23:10-11 18:1-10 23:10-14 18:10b-1I 23:11 18:10,20:3 23:12 18:5, 20:02 23:13 23:14 18:3, 18:8,20:03,21:05, 22:13b-14 18:12, 18:10b-ll 23:15 18:10b-ll 23:15a 19:11-15, 21:12-14a 23:15-16 22:9 18:10-19:9, 19:12ff 23:15-24 21:13ff 18:10b-11,18:12 23:16 19:14-15a,19:15-16a 21:14b-15a 18:13 23: 16-17a 18:13, 18:14/15 23:17 19:01-06, 21:14b-15a 21:16 19:01-06, 19:1 23:18 19:2, 19:4, 20:04, 20:06 20:7b-8, 22:04-05 23: 18-19a 19:8-9a 19:4,20:03,20:1 23:19 20:4, 22:04-05 19:4, 19:5, 19:6 23:20 19:11-15,21:16 23:21 18:3, 19:8-9a. 19:9 21:05, 21:8b-9, 23:01 19:6, 19:7,48:10-14 23:22 19:9 23:24 21:8a 23:28 23:31 21:05 21:05 23:41 21:05 24:3 18: 14/15 24:5 18:10b-11,18:12 25:8 19:11-15, 21:12-14a 18:12,48:10-14 25:9 18:12 25:13 7:10 25:17-18 7:11,7:12 25:20 7:9 25:21 48:10-14 25:45

INDEX OF CITATIONS

26:2 26:3 26:5,6 26:12 26:15,42,43 26:16 26:20 26:31 26:31-34 26:33 26:34,39 26:36 30:28 36:35

5:5/6:3 59:16-17a 48:10-149 59:11-13 59:7b-9 7:4 22:15b-16 7:13 59:4-5b 4:7 59:5b-7a 59:5b-7a 5:10/6:8a 7:14

Numbers 57:3 1:3 57:5b-6a 1:4 21:5, 21:6, 57:3c-5a 1:16 21:15b, 57:6, 57:11b-13a 1:44 57:3 1:52 21:5,57:3 2:2 21:5 2:3 21:5 2:10 21:5, 57:3 2:17 21:5 2:18 21:5 2:25 21:5 2:32 21:5 2:34 21:7 6:3-4 22:3 7:17 20:1 7:17,23 19:3 7:87 49: 19b-21a 8:7 48:10-14 10:9 21:5,57:3 10:14 21:5 10:18 21:5 10:22 21:5 10:25 49:14c-15 11:8 18:9 15:3,11 18:5 15:4 18:6 15:5 20:9 15:4,5 18:14/15,20:01,20:02 15:6 19:14-15a, 20:02 15:7 19:15-16a, 21:15b 18:14/15, 21:15b, 22:03 15:9 22:04-05 22:04-05 15:10 18:8 15:15 20:12b-13a, 20:14b-15a 15:19 18:5 15:21

261

18:5, 20:01, 20:9 15:24 18:7,22:02 15:25 18:5 15:27 59:13b-14a 15:39 22:02 16:2 57:20b-21 16:15 22:02 16:22 21:1 18:8 20:16c 18:8ff 20:14b-15a 18:8-19 20:9,21:1 18:9 21:1 18:11 22:9,21:8a 18:11-13 22:6,22:8a 18:17 20:15b-16 18:17-18 21:03,22:9 18:18 20:13b-14a, 22:8, 21:1 18:19 21:1,22:4 18:21 49:8-9a 19:6 49:8-9a, 49:11-16, 19:8,18,19 49:16a, 49:16b-17 49:5-6a, 49:8-9a 19:3,7,9 49:9-10 19: 13,14,16 49:6-7a, 49: 12b 19:14 49:16b-17,49:18-19a 49:21b 49:5-10 19:14-19 49:21b 19:14-22 49:9-10 19:15 49:13b-14, 49:14c-15 19:18 49:18-19a 19:19 49:13a, 49:16a 49: 16b-1749: 18-19a 49:19b-21a 49:18-19a 19:20-21 49:21a 19:22 26:2-4 57:3 27:18-22 58:18-19a 27:21 58:18-19a, 58:19b-20a 57:9b-lla 28:3 21:15b 28:5 28:9 18:14/15 28:12 18:2, 18: 14/15 28:13 18:5, 14:16-18 28:14 19:14-15a, 20:02 28:15 18:4, 14:10-11 28:19 18:2 28:19-25 17:10-16 28:22 18:4, 17:14-15 28:26 19:6, 19:9 28:26-30 20:04 28:27 19:1, 19:3,20:04,20:06 21:1, 22:12-13a, 22:04-05

262

INDEX OF ClTATIONS

20:01, 20:02 28:28 21:1, 22: 12-13a 28:29 18:4, 18:5, 18:7, 22:02 28:30 18:2ff 28:26-31 18:5 28:31 18:5 29:6 20:2,22:3 29:13 18:2 29:14 19:3 29:17 19:4 29:17-37 20:7b8 29:18,21,24 20:03 29:18 19:14-15a, 21:2-3a 31:4 21:15b 57:9b-11a 31:4-5 31:4,14 21:06 31:5 57:5-6, 57:3, 57:5b-6a 57:6b-7 31:10 57:3c-5a 31:19 49:16a, 49:18-19a 49:14c-15,49:16a 31:20 49:16a 31:20-23 31:22-23 49:14c-15,49:18-19a 49:19b-21a 31:24 31:27f 58:11b-12,58:14-15a 58:11b-15a 31:27-30 57:6b-7 31:28 58:12c-14a 31:28-30 57:6b-7 31:49 18:16 32:28 58:18-19a 35:25,28 48:7-10,48:10-14 35:34 48:10-14 Deuteronomy 57:3 1:9f 57:3c-5a 1:13 21:06, 57:3, 57:3c-5a 1:15 21:06,57:3,57:6b-7 1:9-18 57:5b-6a 1:23 57:6b-7 2:14 59:3b-4a 4:28 59:9bl0 4:29 57:9b-11a 5:12 57:20b-21 5:21 59:16-17a 6:17-18 57:15b-17a 7:1-7 48:7-10 12:2 48:7-10 12:5 22:13b-14,23:01 12:7 48:7-10,45:14,53:8 12:11 21:8b-9,22:15b-16 12:18 23:01

48:7-10, 53:8 12:25 12:27 21:9b-l0 14:2 48:7-10 48:7-10, 48:7-10 14:1-2 14:2-21 48:1-7 14:3-20 48:7-10 14:18 48:1 15:6 59:19b-20a 21:9b-1O,22:13b-14 15:20 16:3 20: 11b-12 16:9 19:11-15,21:12-14a 16:10 19:11-15 16:11 22:4 16:14 22:4 16:16 19:9, 19:11-15 16:18-19 57:19b-20a 17:7 57:15b-19a 17:9 22:4, 57:11b-13a 17:12 49:9-10 17:17 57:17b-18,57:19b-20a 17:18 59:17b-19a 17:19 57:1, 57:5b-ll, 57:5b-6a 57:9b-lla, 57: 13b-15a 57:17b-18,57:19b-58-2 58:15b-21, 58:5b-6, 58:21 59:9b-l0 17:20 57:13b-15a, 59:13b-15 59:21b 21:03,22:4 18:1 20:16c 18:2 21:03,22:10-11a 18:3 18:3-4 20: 15b-16, 22:9, 22:9 18:4 21:03 18:6 49:9-10 58:6b-7a, 58:7b-9 20:1 58: 15b-21, 58: 15b-17a 58:21 58:18-19a 20:2 21:8a 20:6 57:3c-5a 20:9 49:9-10 21:9 59:14b-15a 21:17 48:10-14 21:23 23:10 57:9b-lla, 58:15b-17a 58:17 23:15 59: 19b-20a 23:26 19:7 24:15 20: 12b-13a 59:16-17a 28:1 28:13 59:20b-21a 28:29 58:21, 59:7b-9 59:3b-4a 28:36 59:2-3a, 59:4-5b 28:37

INDEX OF CITATIONS

28:40 28:43-44 28:46 28:48 28:58 28:64 30:2,5,7,9 30:7 31:16-18 32:14 33:5 33:8

22:14c-15 59:20b-21a 59:15b 59:2-3a 58:21, 59:9b-l0 59:2-3a 59:11-13 59: 17b-19a 59:7b-9 21:7, 22:14c-15 57: 11b-13a 58:18-19a

Joshua 58:6b-7a, 58:15b-17a 1:14 58:3-4a 5:1 18:2 5:11 57:5b-6a 7:12 58:5b-6 8:1 58:11b-12 8:24 58:3-4a 9:1 58:15b-17a 10:7 58:11b-12 10:28,30,32,35,37 58:3-4a 11:1 58:7b-9 11:4 58:5b-6 11:7 18: 16 12:7 18:16 14: 1 57:6b-7 17:1 58:6b-7a 17:15 58:18-19a 20:6 19:14-15a, 57:5b-6a 22:14 57: 11b-13a Judges 2:18 3:20 9:43 15:5 11:3

1 SamueJ 1:7 2:28 7:16 8:3 8:12 8:14 8:15,17 10:19 14:21 15:17 16:18

59:11-13, 59:17b-19a 5:6/6:4 58:7b-9 22:05-1 58:5b-6 21:9b-l0 18:16 21:9b-l0 57: 19b-20a 21 :06, 57:3c-5a 57:20b-21 58:12c-14a 21:06 57:5b-6a 18:16 57:7b-9a

18:13 24:12 30:23 30:24-25 30:26

263 58:18-19a 59:17b-19a 58:7b-9 58:11b-15a 58:14-15a

2 SamueJ 58:11b-12 5:20 57:19b-20a, 57:20b-21 8:15 58:10-11a 10:6-11 58:18-19a 11:1 57:6b-7 17:1 57:6b-7 17:8 57:3c-5a 18:1 58:7b-9 18:2 58:10-11a 19:41 58:3-4a 20:19 1 Kings 2:4 59:14b-15a 5:25 21:9b-l0 6: 1,9,10,14,17,22,37,38 4:3 6:2 4:7 6:3 4:9 6:5 4:2,4:3 6:10 4:2 6:12 59:16-17a 6: 15 5:6/6:4, 7: 5 6:15ff 7:4,7:7 6:16 49:12b 6:20 4:13,4:14 6:23 7:10 4:1,4:5 7:15 7:26 5:3 8:7 7:11 8:16-18 4:7 8:25 59:14b-15a 8:44 58:5b-6 9:5 59:14b-15a 10:25 21:9b-l0 10:26 57:6b-7 12: 11 59:2-3a 12:20 57:2 15:20 58:4-5a 16:21 58:10-11a 19:10 57:6b-7,59:17b-19a 20:1 58:7b-9 21:2ff 57:20b-21 22:3 58:5b-6 22:34 5:1 2 Kings 1:9

58:4-5a

264 2:4 3:26 5:2 6:14 6:23 6:25 6:27 8:7 11 :4-20 11:5-7 12: 11 14:5 18:32 21:14 24:6 25:6 26:20 31:10 Isaiah 5:22 14:25 21:8 25:8 44:9 52:14 52: 11 54:12

INDEX OF CITATIONS

59:14b-15a 58:10-11a 58:7b-9 58:7b-9 58:6b-7a 20:06 7:12 7:12 58:18-19a 58:7b-9 58:18-19a 58:10-11a 22:15b-16 59:7b-9 58:18-19a 57:6b-7 58:18-19a 58:18-19a 21:7 58:11b-12 57:9b-l1a 58:11b-12 57:20b-21 59:5b-7a 49:21a 18:16

Jeremiah 7:24 58:20-21a 11:4 49:11, 49: 13b-14, 57:2 49:16a 11:11 59:5b-7a 15:21 59:11-13, 59:17b-19a 19:8 59:4-5b 21:7 59:17b-19a 21:11-14 58:3-4a 21:12 59:5b-7a 57: 19b-20a 22:2-3,15 22:25 59: 19b-20a 22:30 59:15b,59:17b-19a 25:9 59:4-5b 59:5b-7a 26:3 28:8 59:2-3a 21:7 31:29-30 22:14c-15 31:30 31:31-34 59:11-13 31:32 59:7b-9 32:21 20:15b-16 59:15b 33:11 33:17 59:14b-15a 33:18 59:14b-15a, 59:15b

34:13 34:21 36:12 36:30 44:3 44:10 44:22 46:26 48:38 52:9 Ezekiel 9:4 11:16 16:9 20:38 27:35 28:19 32:16,18 34:8 39:23 40:46 40:48 41:4 41:7 42:14 44: 10-11 44:11,15,16 44:26 44:31 45:8 46:21 47:21 48:29 Hosea 3:5,5:15 Micah 2:2 3:4 6:15 Zephaniah 3:1 Haggai 1:12,14 2:4 Zechariah 7:13

59:17b-19a 57:2,49:11 59:17b-19a 57:13b-15a 59:14b-15a 59:7b-9 59:7b-9 59:5b-7a 59:17b-19a 58:11b-12 57:6b-7 59:5b-7a 59:2-3a 22: 14c-15 57:5b-6a 59:5b-7a 59:5b-7a 57:15b-17a 59:7b-9 59:7b-9 22:4 4:8 4:13 7:6 22:13b-14 22:4 22:4 49:16b-17 48:1-7 57: 11b-13a 21:3, 22:13b-14 18:16 18:16 59:7b-9 57:20b-21,58:10-11a 59:5b-7a 22: 14c-15 49:11c-12a, 49:16a 58:18-19a 58:18-19a 59:5b-7a

INDEX OF CITATIONS

58:18-19a 58:18-19a 59:11-13 58:10-11a

3:1,8 6: II 10:8 14:2 Malochi 1:7 3:21

49:11c-12a 57:2, 49:11, 49:13b-14

Psolms 59:2-3a 68:31 58:20-21a 83:6 59:15b 89:2 59:15b 89:5 59:15b 89:6 49:19b-21a 89:90 59:11-13, 59:17b-19a 106: 10 57:6b-7 106:28-31 57:6b-7, 59: 19b-20a 106:41 59:3b-4a 115:4 57:9b-lIa 121:7 58:7b-9 127:1 59:3b-4a 135:15 Job 2:8 20:19-20 31:22

49:12b 57:20b-21 20:15b-16

Proverbs 20:5 3l:l2

58:20-21a 57:17b-18

Ruth 3:3

22:14c-15

Cantieies 2:4 3:8

21:5 57:9b-l1a

Ecclesiastes 2:25 3: 18 5:15 9:1 10:18 11:6 Lamentations 1:11 1:16

57:13b-15a 57:5b-6a 20:9 57:5b-6a 5:6/6:4 49:19b-21a 59:5b-7a 59:4-5b

Daniel 2:22 11:3

Ezra

265 20:9 59: 19b-20a

2:63 3:3 6:3 6:21 7:5 8:24 8:29 8:35 9:12 10:5 10:14 10:44

58:18-19a 49:19b-21a 4:10 21:3, 22: 13b-14 58:18-19a 57:11b-13a 57:lIb-13a 18:5, 19:3,22:04-05 57:15b-17a 57:lIb-13a 57:11b-13a 57:15b-17a

Nehemiah 3:1,20 3:3 4:3 4:10 5:18 7:65 10:35-36 10:40 11:1 12:25 12:44 13:4 13:6 13:10-12 13:25 13:26

58:18-19a 49:13a 57:9b-l1a 58:10-lIa 57:5b-6a 58:18-19a 21:9b-l0,22:13b-14 22:4 58:5b-6 49:13a 21:03, 22:9 58:4-5a 59:4-5b 21:03 57:15b-17a 57:15b-17a

1 Chronicles 5:23-26 57:7b-9a 21:6 5:24 5:34 57:5b-6a 58:4-5a 6:33 6:49 22:5 57:5b-6a, 57:7b-9a 7:40 57:5b-6a 9:22 9:33 57:9b-lla 12:9 58:10-11a 12:31 21:6 13:1 20:06 14:3 57:17b-18 16:7f 57:6b-7 16:40 49:19b-21a 16:41 57:5b-6a 18:14 57:19b-20a, 57:20b-21

266 22:11 23:28ff 23:30 26:15,17 27:1 28:11 28:11f 29:6 29:9 29:22

INDEX OF CITATIONS

4:8 57: 11b-13a 49: 19b-21a 49:13a 21 :06, 57:3c-5a 4:3, 4:8, 5:8/6:6 4:8 57:3c-5a 21:8b-9,22:15b-16 21:3, 22: 13b-14, 21:4 21 :9b-l0

2 Chronicles 21:06 1:2 58:14-15a 1:14 4:3 2:2-5,8,11 49:19b-21a 2:3 3:1,3,6,7,8, etc. 4:3 4:7,4:10, 5:4 3:3 4:10 3:4 3:7 5:6/6:4 4:13,4:14 3:8 5:8/6:6, 5: 11/6:8b 3:9 7:10 3:10 3:13 7:12 3:14 7:13 7:7 3:16 5:3 4:5 19:5,20:11b-12 4:9 22:05-1 4:20 5:2 21:5 7:11 5:8 6:5-6 4:7 5:10/6:8a 6:13 58:5b-6 6:34 7:18 59: 15b, 59: 17b-19a 48:14-17 8:11 19:9 8:13 59:2-3a 10:11 57:17b-18 11:20 13:3 57:7b-9a 13:5 20: 13b-14a 57:15b-17a 13:21 14:12 58:l1b-12 58:4-5a 16:4 58:4-5a 17:7 57:7b-9a 17:13 58:5b-6 18:3 5:1 18:33 57: 11b-13a 19:4-11 58:18-19a 19:11 19:6-8 57: 11b-13a

19:8-10 20:25 23:3-5 23:7 24:3 24:11 25:3 25:5 25:13 26:5 28:15 28:16 29:34 30:15-16 30:16 30:19 31:4 31:5 31:4-5 32:15 34:9 34:30

21:06,57:13 57:13b-15a 57:20b-21 58:7b-9 58:7b-9 57:15b-17a 58:18-19a 58:10-11a 21:06 58:6b-7a 58:21 22: 14c-15 58:4-5a 22:4 22:4 22:5,22:6 49:21a 22:4 21:8a 22:9 58:3-4a 49:13a 21:6

NEW TESTAMENT

1 Corinthians 15:54

58:11b-12

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

49:21a

QUMRAN, AND OTHER WRITINGS

Damascus Covenant 4:17 57:20b-21 4:19-5:2 57:17b-18 10:4-7 57:5b-6a 10:6-7 57:3 10:10-11 49:18-19a 11:21-22 49:18-19a 12: 11b-20 49:11c-12a 12:16 49:11c-12a 12:18 49:5-6a 12:19-20 49:5-10 57:3c-5a 13: 1-2 14:3-4 21:4 14:4 21:5 14:6-7 57:3 14:14,15 57:9b-lla 14:17-19 57:20b-21

INDEX OF CITATIONS

19:12

59:5b-7a

lQH. The Thanksgiving Hymns 59: 13b-14a 4:20 15:23 57:20b-21 lQM, The War Scroll 21:4 2:1-6 21:2-3a 2:1-3 57:11b-13a, 58:18-19a 2:1-4 18:16 2:2-3 21:06 2:3-4 22:02 2:5 21:6,21:6 2:6 18:16 2:7 21:6 3:3-4 21:5,57:3 3:6 19:16b 3:15-16 21:06 3:16 19:16b,21:06 4:1-2 57:3c-5a 4:1-5 21:5, 57:3 4:10 21:5,57:3 5:3 58:3-4a 6:6 57:7b-9a 6:12 57:3 6:12-16 57:3 7:1 57:3,48:14-17 7:3 58:17 7:7 49: 11c-12a 9:8 58:17 10:1 10: 1-2 59: 19b-20a 57:7b-9a 10:6 14:2-3 49:18-19a 14:7 58:3-4a 16:9 21:7 lQpHab 5:3 8:9 8:11

57:6b-7 59:15b 57:20b-21

lQS, The Community Rufe 1:13 57:20b-21 1:16-2:18 57:6b-7 2:2-4 59:11-13, 59:15b 2:19-20 21:4 2:19-22 21:6 2:21-23 57:3c-5a 3:3-6,9 49:18-19a 4:21-22 49:18-19a 5:3,6 57:13b-15a 5:13 49:21a

267

5: 15 5:20 6:4-6 6:8-9 6:16,25-26 7:2-3 7:15-16,18-19

58:17 57:20b-21 21:8a 57:13b-15a 49:21a 49:21a 49:21a

lQSa, The Messianie 1:3 1:14,29 1:15-16 1:29 1:29f 2: 1 57:3c-5a, 2:3-6 2:11ff 2:12-17 2:13 2:14-15,18-19 2:17-20 2:21b-22

Rufe 22:15b-16 21:06 57:3c-5a 57:3c-5a 21:06 57: 13b-15a 48:14-17 21:6 57:13b-15a 22:5 19:16 21:8a 21:8a

lQ27 1:12

57:20b-21

4Qmisn""

49:11c-12a

4Q405 4:6-7

59:17b-19a

4Q504 4:7-8

59:14b-15a

4Q508 2:3

21:05

4Q512 Purification Ritual 12:5-7 11:3 4916b-17 49:18-19a 12:7-8, 10 4Q514 (Ortf) 1:3,7

49:16b-17

4QHalakhd' 5:4

18:16

4QpaleoEx'" 28:43

21:06

268

INDEX OF CITATIONS

4QpIscl 5 7

58:20-21a 18:16

4QpPs37 2:7

59:14b-15a

Joseph and A seneth 7:4-6

57:15b-19a

Jubilees 6:17-18 6:17-22 6:21 7:1-6 7:3 7:3,36 15: 1-3 22:1-6 23:2 44:1-4 Judith 8:2

18:lOb-11,21:6 18:10-19:9 19:9, 19:11-15 21:8a, 21:9b-l0 21:8a 18:10-19:9 18: 10-19-9 18:10-19:9 57:7b-9a 18:10-19:9 57:15b-17a

1 Maccabees 2:26

57:5b-6a

4 Maccabees 18:12

57:5b-6a

Sirach 45:23

57:5b-6a

Tobit 1:9

57:15b-17a

Midd. 4:3-4

4:2

m. Taan 4:1-6 5:6

y. Demai 7:4

19:16b 19:16b 21:7