DSS.950330 Class Minutes #20, Dead Sea Scrolls, 30 March 1995
University of Pennsylvania, Religious Studies 225, Robert Kraft
Recorded by Christine Boulos and Syri Koelfgen


1. Administrative and Preliminary Matters

(1) According to Jim B., Oh Esteemed Grad Student, there will be a 
lecture open to all interested on April 5 by Professor Edwin Yamauchi 
of Miami University (Ohio) at 1 pm in the Faculty Club. The lunch 
preceding the lecture is only open to grad students and faculty. 
Yamauchi will discuss the significance of the scrolls in relation to 
early Christianity. 

(2) Negotiations are underway to arrange a lecture by "cult hero" 
Lawrence Schiffman, possibly in the second week of April. 


2. Damascus Document (DD) Continued: Questions for the Class

(1) In what ways is the community described?

Note that the term "Israel" is used to refer to the special community 
(e.g. DD 3.13, 12.8; see also 1.4-5, 12.8) and also to the larger body 
out of which that remnant "converts" (e.g. DD 1.3, 2.9, 3.14, 7.12-18; 
see also 3.19, 4.2-4, 8.16). Even within the community, "Israel" can 
refer to a subset (DD 10.5, distinguished from those of Levi and 
Aaron; see also 14.4) of the pure and righteous, who keep the  
covenant correctly. Other general titles used include "the Many" (e.g. 
DD 14.7, 14.12, 14.17; not as frequent as in the Manual!), and 
reference is made to organization by "camps" (e.g. DD 7.6, 12.20-
14.12). 

Various titles are given to leaders, which sometimes may refer to an 
individual priest (e.g. DD 13.2), or a righteous teacher (e.g. DD 
1.11, 6.11, 20.1-32), or  a messiah (e.g. DD 19.10f, 20.1), or to 
groups of "judges" (DD 10.4ff) including priests and levites, or to a 
general council (e.g. DD 20.24f; compare Manual 8.1, with 12 men and 3 
priests!). 

(2) Of what sort of socio-political climate is the author aware? 

"Damascus" is a location (geographically north of Jerusalem) that is 
connected to the community's perceived history (e.g. DD 6.5). It is 
also part of the exegetical self-referential language drawn from the 
author's scriptures (Amos 5.26f in DD 7.14ff). It is where the 
righteous "converts" entered the "new covenant" (DD 6.19, 7.21=19.14), 
although not all remained faithful (DD 19.14). Whether there is any 
intention of connecting literally to "Damascus" is unclear, but the 
ideas of separating from "Judah" and moving "north" reflect the 
history of ancient Israel and are clearly in the author's 
consciousness (see DD 7.10-8.21, etc.) with reference to the larger 
world around him, and the roots of his community. In DD, "Judah" often 
has a negative significance, and the contrast between Judah and 
Israel, south and north, is part of the scriptural heritage with which 
our author works.

With regard to the larger world, on the fringes of the main focus of 
"Israelite" traditions, our author alludes to "kings of the peoples" 
and the "kings of Greece" (DD 8.10f), and knows of "proselytes" 
(outsiders who join; DD 14.4, although it is not clear that they would 
necessarily be non-Jews), and apparently of "gentiles" with whom 
community members might come into contact (DD 12.6). But at this 
point, these are fairly incidental references.

DIGRESSION --

An interesting example of how the author sometimes cleverly plays on 
the ambiguity of certain words and passages is the reference to 
"Sikkut" and "Sukkat" in DD 7.14-16. The unpointed Hebrew text is 
identical for these two terms, but the editor has supplied different 
vowels. Why? "Sikkut" is found in the Amos 5.26 passage quoted in DD, 
while "Sukkat" is found in the Amos 9.11 passage, also quoted. Thus he 
brings these two passages together, through the ambiguous word, and 
applies them to his situation: Sikkut/Sukkat refers to the laws that 
have "fallen" from use and need to be restored by the righteous 
assembly. The community affirms that the law is the center of their 
lives, placed on a plinth (or platform, identified with "the books of 
the prophets" from which the quotations are taken!). Kraft reminded 
the class that the original text of the scrolls does not contain 
quotation marks (or for that matter, punctuation or distinctions 
between upper and lower case letters), but they are added in the 
translation so that readers can distinguish between quoted materials 
and normal text.  

(3) To further understand how these people saw themselves we began 
with 8.8-12 where two bothersome biblical varmints (serpent, asp) are 
interpreted as two sets of unfriendly kings. A question arose about 
who Seth was (DD 7.21 "all the sons of Seth" are to be destroyed; 
note that the overlapping section in DD 19.12 lacks this reference, 
but it is found in the 4Q267 parallel section).  Kraft began answering 
the question at the beginning, with the garden of Eden tradition, by 
defining the names Adam and Eve.  Adam can be a personal name (Adam 
Schaffer) or a term for "humanity," while Eve means life-giver or 
agent of life. Together, Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel. 
As a result of the jealousy Cain felt toward his brother, he killed 
Abel and was ostracized and marked evil by God. Now, since Abel, who 
was to be the progenitor of the godly line, was dead, Seth was born 
(Gen 4.25, 5.3) to continue that good line. The notorious passage in 
Genesis 6.1-4 when the "sons of God" shack up with earthly women and 
giants are born has sometimes been taken as a reference to the "sons 
of Seth" (as God's children). In early Christianity, there were even 
some groups that were called "Sethians," and who apparently held Seth 
in high esteem. But in DD 7.21 the reference to the sons of Seth seems 
to be to wicked people, whom the "prince of the congregation" will 
destroy, presumably to Israelites who do not "convert" to the truth, 
or perhaps to the fallen "Watchers" mentioned in DD 2.17-21, who are 
deserving of judgment. In any event, the Seth passage seems to allude 
back to the earlier judgment reported in DD 7.13, where the renegades 
(in the separation of "the two houses of Israel," Ephraim and Judah) 
are delivered to the sword (presumably in the historical events of 721 
bce). The question arises regarding who is being delivered and who 
remains to escape. The renegades delivered to the sword may be Judah, 
as explained in the section that follows in DD. (Note that the 
overlapping section of the second Cairo manuscript of DD is very 
different throughout this difficult passage; see DD 19.) 

(4) More on how the term "Judah" is used and an explanation of the 
association between the Temple and Jerusalem: 

In DD 8.2ff, "the princes of Judah" clearly has a negative connotation 
-- God will vent his rage on them as wicked and traitors.  It should 
be kept in mind that the Damascus Document was copied and preserved 
during the time of the Karaites when the internal Jewish struggles 
between Karaites (rebellious "readers" of scripture) and Rabbinates 
(the main stream at the time, defenders of living tradition) were 
underway. Therefore, the copyist may have made changes in the 
original to fit the polemic ideas of that later time. The fragments of 
this passage from 4Q267 (GM p.51b) do not seem to include the "princes 
of Judah" passage, which is in both DD 8.2ff and DD 19.15ff, but in 
slightly different forms. 

Jerusalem is the location of "the Temple" for most Jews in the DSS 
period, and the body of overlapping terms such as Zion, the sanctuary, 
the holy of holies, etc., needs to be kept in view. There are other 
temples associated with Jews and Jewish history, but they would 
normally be specified as such (e.g. Elephantine, Heliopolis, Gerizim). 
We found some passing Temple references in the Manual of Discipline, 
with the community taking the place of the holy of holies (1QS 8.5f, 
9.6) and sacrifice depicted as "an offering of the lips" rather than a 
literal act of burnt flesh. In the Damascus Document, the many 
references to the sanctuary, to the priestly rituals, and to the 
Temple as such may be intended as a preview of an idealistic state 
that is not yet in existence (the purfied Temple) or it may be based 
on the references to the historical Temple of the past as found in the 
scriptures and/or traditions (before it became corrupted?). Another 
possibility is that the references in the Damascus Document may be of 
an ambivalent nature, where the community felt it could still have 
something to do with the present Temple and its rites. This 
illustrates how the attitudes towards the Temple may differ from 
document to document. Always test your assumptions!

(5) Explanations for the origins of evil vary early Jewish sources: 

-The passage in DD 2.17ff about the fallen "Watchers" reflects the 
traditions found in the Enoch corpus (compare Gen 6.1-4), where the 
origins of sinfulness are associated with those activites of the 
"angels." 

-The Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs also build on the fallen 
"Watchers" tradition, and we have fragments of this work among the 
DSS, attesting the widespread availability of this explanation. 

-The traditional biblical story of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the 
garden provides another explanation of the origin of human sin. Watch 
for any references to this tradition in the DSS.


3. Closing Remarks and Directives:

In order to investigate the range of non-human agents, such as Belial, 
in the DSS, it may be convenient to refer to Gaster's analytical 
index, Section F in the revised edition, under "Angelology" (including 
the DD 20.8 "Holy Ones" and the Manual 3.20 [DD 5.18] "Prince of 
Lights" and DD 16.5 "Mastema"). Also look under Belial and his forces 
in Gaster's section D.1, p. 557. 
         
//end dss.950330//