DSS.950404 Class Minutes #21, Dead Sea Scrolls, 4 April 1995 University of Pennsylvania, Religious Studies 225, Robert Kraft Jake Jaffe, Inscriber; Reuben Wetherbee, Examiner 1. Announcements and Preliminaries: The Yamauchi lecture is on Wed April 5 at 1:00 PM in the Faculty Club. If someone will take notes, we can post a summary. RAK passed around a copy of Larry Schiffman's new book, Reclaiming the DSS (Jewish Publication Society 1994) which is weighty (in content and bulk) and in addition to its many valuable features has "many good pictures." 1.1 Handouts: RAK passed out Fitzmyer's outlines for the Temple and the War scrolls for all to have, except that he accidently didn't make enough copies, so he made all his grad students donate theirs so that the undergradutate thirst for knowledge could be sated. Jake was caught hoarding outlines and forced to turn his extra copy over. 1.2 Schedule for remainder of course: For the immediate future, we will concern ourselves with the War Scroll (GM 95-125), the Temple Scroll (GM 154-184), and the Hodayot (Hymns, Thanksgiving Praises; GM 317-370). *NEW* For the remainder of the term, the assignments are: 11 April -- "other eschatological" works (GM 126-138) 13 April -- "exegetical" texts (GM 185-216) 18 April -- "para-biblical" materials (GM 219-237, 260-296) 20 April -- "halakhic" items, including 4QMMT (GM 77-92) [24 April, probably, Schiffman visit] 25 April -- "poetic" materials (GM 371-403) 27 April (the last day!) -- "liturgical, calendric," etc. (GM 407-463) You will, of course, have worked through these materials for your papers, which are technically due at the end of the "reading days" -- at the very least, send in a page with your title and preliminary observations by 4 May. Electronic submissions are requested (which means that you need to think about how to produce appropriate "text only" electronoscripts). The best studies will be circulated on the DSS electronic list. 1.3 Preliminary Question: "Why were Cave 1 materials so well preserved compared to other cave materials?" Possible factors include: -Cave 1 scrolls had been wrapped in linen and placed in jars in antiquity, and were not simply "loose" as seems to have been the situation in caves 4 and 11, for example. The relatively less protected materials were all the more subject to all sorts of "natural" processes of decay and degeneration (including layers of bat dung) from which the relatively protected materials in cave 1 were shielded. [ADDED NOTE: By the time cave 1 was discovered, some of the jars probably had been broken by various means (earthquake, animals, etc.); here is a relevant paragraph from Millar Burrows' 1955 account in The DSS (Viking Press) -- "Whenever and however the discovery came about, the cave, when first entered, contained several jars, most of them broken, with pieces of many others. Protruding from the broken jars were scrolls of leather wrapped in linen cloth. They were very brittle and rather badly decomposed, especially at the ends, but it was possible to see that they were inscribed in a strange writing" (p.5, apparently based on the accounts of the bedouin discoverers). A comparable account of caves 4 and 11 would be instructive.] -This raises the interesting question whether the functions of the caves might have been different in antiquity: might cave 4 have been a genizah-like resting place for already damaged scrolls, for example, especially in view of the multiplicity of different documents and copies evidenced there (several hundred!). -A related issue is the extent to which the bedouin discoverers contributed to the damage and loss; we hear horror tales of how other discoveries of papyrus ended in some of the material being used as fuel or incense (note that the earliest DSS discoveries were taken to Kando since it was thought that the leather might be of value to his trade in leather goods!); the problem of how much care was exercised in the removal of the DSS materials from relatively inaccessible locations by the untrained discoverers may also have been a significant factor. 1.4 Roman Numerals are the work of Belial (another typo in GM): The header at the top of page 104 in GM Is printed: 1QM X 12-10 Should read: 1QM XI 2-10 1.5 Other Clean-up Matters: The word mevaqaar has been multiply translated by GM as both the "Examiner" and the "Inspector" (1QS 6.12 and 6.20). The debate still rages whether these are two separate people or just the duties of a single person. Gaster complicates things by translating it several ways, including examiner, guardian, and overseer while rendering the Hebrew word paqid as inspector. Both words may have a relation to the greek word episkopos (=overseer, bishop), as this is offered as a translation for both Hebrew terms in ancient translations of Jewish scriptures (LXX/OG = Septuagint/Old Greek translations). Some commentators have seen here a possible link between the writers of the scrolls and early Christianity. Comparison of use of "locators" in English translations: -Vermes provides column #s but no line #s, and his own paragraphing; -Gaster gives col.line indicators for his major "thought groupings"; -Garcia Martinez is the most complete and careful to date, with columns and lines noted along with other replicated features of the originals (such as blank spaces or lines, corrections, etc.), but even GM is still missing some significant fragments, including 4Q225 (4QpsJub\a/) with its reference to the wicked angel Mastema (see DD 16.5). 2. Discussion focus: THE WAR SCROLL 2.1 Preliminaries: Note on a Spanish to English typo: "Sion" is the Spanish spelling of Zion and the conversion of the "S" to a "Z" seems to have been missed at least in War 12.13 (compare 19.5!) in the translation of GM's Spanish version into the English edition. The poor vs. the Poor (evionim/ebionim; another example of the effect of editorial choices): Does this frequently used term refer to impoverished people or is it (at least sometimes) a term of selfidentification in the community (similar to "the Many")? GM repeatedly translates it with a lowercase "p," which might suggest that he believes that it is used in a general sense (although GM is not always consistent in such matters), but its repeated use in standard phraseology suggests it may have a more technical meaning (see e.g. War Scroll 11.9, 11.13, 13.14; see also pesher Habakkuk 12.3-10, and pesher Psalm37 2.10, 3.10). Note that an early Christian Jewish group was called the "Ebionites," reflecting the same Hebrew term. GM's Presentation of the War Scroll: 1. Main copy from cave 1 2. Fragments from cave 4 3. Other "texts connected with the War Scroll" (pp. 123-125) -- It should be noted that the fragment at the bottom of p. 123 is parallel to the fragment at the bottom of p. 124, although GM does not note this in his presentation of the materials. Similarly, the presence of "4QWords of Michael" (4Q529) in this section is questionable. How is it connected with the War Scroll? 2.2 Some similarities of Terminology between the War Scroll and the other texts we have read: -"Sons of Light" vs. Sons of Darkness has echoes in DD 13.12-14 (inductees must be worthy of "the lot of life" and avoid contact with "the sons of the pit") and is more clearly present in the Manual (e.g. 1.9, 3.13, 3.24 -- see further, Gaster's index, p. 550). -The priests and the levites appear frequently in their leading roles in the DD and Manual as well. -The larger eschatological and otherworldly context, with extrahuman allies and adversaries, good and bad angels, heavenly hosts, spirits, Belial, and the like, is well attested in also in the DD and the Manual. (Whether these people would distinguish it as "otherworldly" is worth investigation and discussion.) 2.3 Some Notable Differences -- Geographical Concerns: The War scroll definitely centers itself in Jerusalem, which was the site of the Temple and the hub of both the "united kingdom" of David and Solomon and the later "southern kingdom" of Judah. However, Jerusalem may have its main value as a symbolic ideal for our writer, and it is a common focus in other eschatological writings as well. The apparent enmity between "Israel" (as the northern kingdom) and Judah found in the DD is not evident here, and the War scroll states that the "final" battle force will be drawn from ALL the twelve tribes of Israel (as in descendants of the sons of Jacob, not solely from the northern or the southern kingdoms; see 3.14). David's kingdom of Israel was created around 1000 bce, and was politically and geographically united until about 921 bce, when it split into the northern "Israel" (aka Ephraim, Joseph, or Jacob) and the southern "Judah," from which the terms Jew and Judaism derive. By the time the DSS look back on this history, the Samaritans were also part of the mix, as survivors from ancient Israel, located just north of Jerusalem in Samaria (their temple was on mount Gerizim). Be on the lookout for possible references to this group in the DSS. Jerusalem was the capital of the united Jewish kingdom, and then served as the capital of Judah after the split, continuing the dynasty of David until the Temple fell in 587-586 bce. The influence of the Davidic tradition (either its presence or its absence) is another thing to be alert to in studying the DSS. Damascus was never part of the Israelite kingdoms, and is located approximately 88 miles NNE if Jerusalem. The Damascus Document, however, connects its community's history to the split of the "two houses of Israel" (7.11-13 in Cairo A, but not in Cairo B). The Manual of Discipline does not contain such a reference. At this point in the class, the debate of who the "renegades" were in DD 7.13ff (Cairo A) was rehashed (see last minutes for a full overview), and the main points that came out of it were: -the "fallen Sukkat of David" is interpreted as the "books of the law," although a broader polemical tone might also be inferred; -the "princes of Judah" were a negative entity in the DD; -The previous point fits the evidence that the DSS community did not look too favorably on the contemporary Temple establishment in Jerusalem (4QMMT and other texts may prove relevant here). The War Scroll has a much more positive outlook on the Kingdom of Judah than that suggested in DD. Perhaps this refers to some ideal, unified state stemming from a restoration of God's plan. The CD-ROM claims that even all the Essenes together could not manage to wage a war of the proportion described in the War Scroll in support of their ideals (note the large numbers given in War descriptions). Additionally, Philo stated that the Essenes themselves had nothing to do with making weapons, but perhaps the conditions described in the War Scroll are some special eschatalogical conditions in which the Essenes would take up arms under divine instructions. 2.4 RAK's Suggestions for studying such "alien" materials: -try to find analogies from your own experience or history to help to understand these situations that are presented in the DSS; -Do not get trapped into trying to create consistency in the DSS. They may not have been consistent, even if they came from the same community! Conduct an inductive investigation, especially citing inconsistencies if you find them! Is it possible that the DSS Community did not write the War Scroll? RAK says: of course, almost anything is possible; they may have obtained the Scroll from elsewhere for some reason, just as they had biblical and other texts not of their own direct composition. We can only make educated guesses, for this as for any of the DSS materials. More Suggestions from RAK: Try to envision the transmitters of the DSS as a living community involved with many practical as well as theoretical concerns. How do they perceive themselves in the actual world in which they must eat and drink, survive hardships and illness, relate to each other, etc., as well as how they have developed their own special practices or beliefs and the lifestyle associated with them? Imagine yourself as part of their world. To what extent would the self-perception of correctness mitigate other factors such as isolation and minority status? Is there anything more important than being right? 2.5 The War Scroll and issues of fate/determinism/destiny: -The references to "lots" (e.g. the lot of Belial, the lot of God's people) continue to abound in the War Scroll, as in the Manual and DD. E.g. War 1.1-5 refers to the general framework of conflicting "lots"; 1.12-14 is more specific, and describes the 7 "lots" (destined campaigns?) of the war where each side is triumphant 3 times, and then God steps in and lifts the sons of light to victory the 7th time. 16.10ff Belial steps in to help the sons of darkness, perhaps in the final "lot" period, and some of the "good guys" die in accord with God's "mysteries." The priests and a "High Priest" rally the troops for this encounter with the "crucible" of God to determine their fate and ultimately God's victory, which is accomplished with aid from the angel Michael on behalf of the "sons of the covenant" (War 16.10- 17.9). The "crucible of God" imagery points to a final crisis time of testing that will involve suffering on the part of the righteous; it is described as one of the divine "mysteries," expected from ancient times (see especially War 16.15-17.9; compare DD 20.3, which seems to focus more on the individual judgment). What the relationship is to the concept of the "messianic woes" or the "birthpangs of messiah" known from other eschatological sources remains to be seen. 17.16 refers to the third lot (of Belial? the text is broken here), apparently followed by the final confrontation, and the victory of the forces of God, who thereby has kept his covenant (18.7-8). //end dss.950404//