DSS.950302 Class Minutes #16 (16 March 1995), Dead Sea Scrolls
University of Pennsylvania, Religious Studies 225, Robert A. Kraft
Recorded by Arthur Cho and Tal Golob (born 3/21!) 

Pre-Class:

<t>The Treasure of the Copper Scroll</> by John Marco Allegro is an
interesting book on these unique, metallic plaques. Dr. Kraft has a copy
for those who are interested in looking at it.  Also, an article from the
Feb. 19 Philadelphia Inquirer on DNA tests on the DSS was introduced and
Kraft has a copy of this also.  Finally, for the undergrads and graduates
who are need of financial support, a directory of scholarships from 
inside and outside the University is available from the General Honors 
office. 

Class itself:

Dr. Kraft immediately began to delve into the Manual of Discipline (Rule
of the Community; 1QS) of the DSS translation.  The thirty day punishment
for giggling caused a titter among the classmembers and a brief, sarcastic
discussion.  Kraft brought us to order by asking the question, "Who is
this document (the Manual of Discipline) about?" Common names used in the
text for the main participants included "the Many," "the Community," "the
sons of Zadok" and "the sons of Aaron." The relative importance and
relationship of such designations raises question how the actual
addressees of the "Manual" saw themselves and the authority structures
around them.  Did they see themselves actually as "the sons of Zadok"
(with the priestly historical connections of such terminology), for
example, or was the phrase used in a more symbolic manner, detoured from
its historical roots.  Kraft stressed that awareness of this sort of
distinction is important, even when no clear answer can be found. 

Discussion continued about who "the sons of Zadok" and "the sons of Aaron"
might be, in this context, whether one or both terms refer to the
community as a whole or rather to specific members (subgroups) of the
community.  Kraft noted that the name "Zadok" is historically connected to
an important priestly leader alongside the famous political leader, King
David, around the year 1000 BCE. The possible conflict between the
Hasmoneon priest/kings, who apparently could not literally claim
"Zadokite" priestly lineage, and the DSS community was reiterated.  After
reading from the translation, col. 5 line 2, the context points to the
priests of the community to be "the sons of Zadok," as distinct from the
"the many." "The sons of Aaron," are described similarly, and the class
decided these names were not used to describe the entire DSS community but
only (some of?) the priestly leaders. 

It was further discussed how the use of the name, "sons of Zadok," may
reflect the DSS people's view of Jerusalem and the Temple cultus. This
topic was returned to later in the class. Discussion of the "Levites" was
postponed for the present. 

The question of the flow and organization of 1QS led to a detailed
discussion of the possible significance of the blanks and other possible
"pointers" left in the texts.  These blanks are indicated in the GM
translation with the italicized word "blank." Kraft clarified (again
showing the photofacsimiles) that these blanks are regions where the
scribe did not write, leaving blank spaces in the text, rather than
referring to portions of the text that are mutilated or missing. Kraft
pointed to an interesting place where blanks were used right after the
famous reference to the two messiahs, "of Aaron and Israel" (9.11) -- does
the presence of an apparent break in the text at this point have any 
special significance? 

More about the special markings in GM: Blanks are indicated by "blank"(in
italics), holes or gaps in the text by [...], superscript writing is
enclosed between /.../, and erasures within pointed brackets thus {...}.
Discussion of erasures, regions of the text where something was written
but later erased and are now unreadable for translation purposes, ensued.
The sheer number of times erasures appear in the text is interesting in
itself and raises the question of the extent to which changes in the
community's perception and application of its rules could be traced in
these materials. 

Discussion continued about the mysterious "Chinese" symbol noted in the
previous class, in the margin between 8.3 and 9.3 (see also a similarly
elaborate symbol between the last lines of cols 6 and 7). (The
significance of other, more simple marginal symbols was also discussed.)
Someone suggested that it might be a signature by the scribe while others
postulated that it might be "doodling," or a mistake, or just blots of
ink. Kraft pointed out that clear strokes, some of which resemble other
simple marginal marks, are distinguishable. As noted in the earlier
minutes, a recent claim that the symbol is "Chinese" (representing "God")
has not found wide acceptance among experts. Also, the use of **** in the
text (at 8.14) to represent the tetragrammaton was briefly commented on --
the scroll itself actually has four dots here. 

The question of the attitude to the Jerusalem Temple cultus was revived. 
Column 9 of the text (1QS) portrays the scroll community as
non-sacrificing -- instead opting for offerings "of the lips," presumably
prayer and praise, and correct conduct. (An aside to this was raised
regarding GM's use of the literalistic translation "holy of holies" vs.
Vermes' "house of holiness" -- see 9.6 and 8.5-6. Kraft pointed out that
the cultic specifity of the term may also lend insight into how the scroll
people viewed themselves in relation to the Jerusalem Temple cultus and to
ideals of "purity" and "holiness"; the community is or becomes the true 
"holy of holies.")

Tangent: The resonance of biblical phrases (e.g. plantation of Israel) can
be traced by using a biblical concordance. Some implications of this
resonance will be further discussed when we read para-biblical texts. 
Even more tangental:  The question was raised about the use of formulas
such as "as it is written. . .," in ancient texts without the quotation it
refers to being identifiable today.  Kraft commented that this can happen
in the DSS as in other early literature (e.g. the Christian Gospel of
Matthew 2.23) where references may be made to texts that no longer exist. 
We will even encounter references to books that can not be identified --
1QS 6.7 might be a case in point, while 1QSa (=1Q28a) 1.7 almost 
certainly is.

Discussion of the focus on a perfected, everlasting "covenant" in 1QS 8.10
and elsewhere in the "Manual" led to comments on the possible connections
with the "new covenant" expectations in Jeremiah 31.31 and 32.40
("everlasting covenant"). Some early Christian interpreters also found
these texts to be congenial, and the Christian idea of a "new testament" 
began as an attempt to apply the "new covenant" prediction to themselves 
(later it came to designate the Christian scriptural collection).

//end dss.950316//