DSS. 950406 Class Minutes #22 Dead Sea Scrolls 6 April 1995 University of Pennsylvania, Religious Studies 225, Robert Kraft Kim Noble, Primary Recorder; Matt Dworkin, Editor Dr. James VanderKam, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at Notre Dame University, part of the expanded DSS team as of 1989, and author of our text, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today visited class today. Dr. VanderKam wrote his dissertation on Jubilees at Harvard under John Strugnell, and has also worked a great deal on apocalyptic literature prior to his DSS days. Class was conducted in an interview format, where students had the opportunity to ask Dr. VanderKam any and all burning (or smoldering) questions regarding the scrolls. The chronology of the War Scroll. In Column 2 of the War Scroll (1QM) the length of the anticipated war is discussed (GM 96). The mathematics here are not at all clear, as VanderKam (the book, 66) notes, but probably should be read in light of the focus on "seven" found throughout these materials, and especially the calendrical emphases attested in many of the DSS texts, especially the Book of Jubilees, which divides history into fourty-nine year cycles (seven "weeks" of years constitute a "jubilee" -- see Leviticus 25.8ff) and at the end of time apparently a fifty-year cycle (see Lev 25.10). VanderKam feels that despite the ambiguities of the War Scroll text, the war was expected to be roughly forty years, a number stated explicitly in the commentary to Psalm 37 (GM 203) and in the Damascus Document 20.15 (GM 46) -- compare the eschatological "seven weeks of years" mentioned in Daniel 9.25 and the figure 400 years found in the pseudepigrapical 4 Ezra (also called 2 Esdras) 7.28; Jubilees 50.4 might also be relevant here. In line 6 of 1QM it states, "They shall arrange all /these/ during the appointed time of the year of release. During the remaining thirty-three years of war..." Clearly, the war lasted for more than thirty-three years. In line 8, the text refers to the "years" of release, as opposed to the singular "year" above. This is a period of rest from the war, a "sabbath of rest for Israel." The first number problem occurs in line 9, when it mentions the "thirty-five years of service." The subsequent math is consistent as it goes on to state that the war will be prepared for six years and fought during the remaining twenty- nine (29+6=35). However, these figures are inconsistent with the above mentioned thirty-three. The thirty-five year figure is more consistent with the jubilee mini-cycle of seven years, as thirty-five is divisible by seven. VanderKam followed Yadin in assuming that fourty was probably the total figure in view (see above); lacking evidence that this was achieved by adding seven to the aforementioned "33," he looked more closely at the details of the "35." He then pointed out that, if we assume six years of war took place followed by one year of sabbatical, it is inconsistent with the bottom of the column, where there appear to be at least nine consecutive "years" of specific battles listed. In addition, is this series intended to be sequential, or distributed? It was pointed out that, since it states that there were thirty-five years of "service," it is possible that the ninth year refers not to the ninth consecutive year, but the ninth year of explicit service. Dr. Kraft pointed out that since 7x6=42, if we eliminated the first year and the last period of rest (or the final two years, which would include the last period of rest), we can get the forty-year period we'd like which would include 35 years of service (i.e. fighting) and 5 years of rest. Unfortunately, we would have expected to find a total forty-nine year period to fit in with the jubilee cycle (and with Daniel 9.25?). While the number thirty-three could be obtained by subtracting a seven-year period from forty, and twenty-nine can be obtained by subtracting a six-year period from thirty-five, it seems impossible to reconcile the two sets of numbers. In addition, there are three different Hebrew words which were translated to mean "preparation," none of which actually implies a sense of "previousness." We are left at this point with many question marks! The number seven and the idea of a "jubilee" year. The Book of Jubilees organizes its historical account in forty- nine year units or "jubilees." The normal "biblical" understanding based on Lev 25.10-12 is that the fiftieth year after every cycle of seven sevens is called a jubilee year, when slaves were to be released, and property returned to its original owner -- a year of liberation and restoration. (Whether such a system was ever actually observed is questionable.) However, in Jubilees there seems to be another understanding that designates the forty-nine year unit as a "jubilee" (presumably focusing on its final year of rest in a special way) until fifty such cycles have passed. After the fiftieth jubilee, a jubilee year is proclaimed when the Israelite slaves are released, and the land is returned to its owners, etc. Thus, what is expected to happen on a micro level in a regular jubilee cycle based on Leviticus is reflected only on a macro level in the fiftieth unit of the Book of Jubilees (see 50.1-7). What is the evidence that Jubilees (GM 238) was/was not authored in the Qumran community? (See VanderKam 39f.) It has been argued that it wasn't authored in the DSS community because its author appears to still be operating in connection with Israel as a whole, as opposed to representing a cut-off, segregated community. However, just because he doesn't explicitly mention a separate community doesn't mean he was not a part of one. The first copy of Jubilees found in Cave 4 (4Q216) preserves material from the first two chapters of the book. This was dated by VanderKam to about 125 BCE, although Milik gave it the earlier date of 150 BCE. In either case, it is almost certain that Jubilees is older than this fragmentary copy, which means that the book would be dated prior to the founding of the DSS community. Although the "sectarians" probably didn't write it, it is evident that the community admired the text greatly, since with some fifteen copies found in caves 1,2,3,4 and 11, there are more copies of Jubilees than of any other biblical books except Psalms and Isaiah. Some argue that the similarities in outlook, such as the solar calendar of 364 days, give evidence for possible sectarian authorship. However, while Jubilees argues that you may never use the moon in calculations of time, because that is what the gentiles do, and because God structured the universe in cycles of 364 days, which is divisible by seven, some DSS calendars appear to have used lunar calculations. Do we really have evidence of the New Testament in Cave 7? (See VanderKam 166.) According to O'Callahan, 7Q5 preserves parts of Mark 6. To make his case, he needs to have two textual variations from the normal texts of Mark in this sequence of twenty-eight letters, which makes the idea of a match rather "chancy." However, part of this sequence occurs nowhere else in Greek literature except in Mark and in the Qumran fragment. Thus, while the argument is not very strong, it is not entirely dismissible either. A more reasonable approach to studying the New Testament would be to study the parallels in eschatological ideology found in the texts of the Qumran community and in those of early Christianity. Did the books of Enoch originate with the DSS community? (See VanderKam 37ff.) Possibly, but parts of "Enoch" were probably written too early to have originated with the sectarians. The oldest DSS fragment of the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72-82) was dated by Milik to about 200 BCE, which would clearly make it pre-Qumran. The Book of Watchers (Enoch 1-36) has been dated to around the second century BCE and the Book of Dreams (83-90) and the Epistle of Enoch (91-107) probably soon after. Aramaic fragments of all of these sections of the Enoch library appear among the DSS. How do the sectarians relate to other contemporary Jewish groups? The DSS people present themselves as traditionalists -- it was everyone else who went astray -- although they appear to us as a rift in the fabric of ancient Judaism. However, the Maccabees were also a rift who became the establishment. Clearly, the interpretation is very dependent on the historical results. The Maccabean rift is analogous to that of the DSS sectarians; however, the Qumranites disappeared while the Maccabees flourished. Our friend Larry Schiffman has made the point that the scrolls contain a Sadducean approach to law. This shows that, in their legal teachings, the DSS have some relationship to one of the major streams of legal interpretation in the final centuries BCE. It becomes confusing to call the scrolls "Sadducean" in terms of the NT evidence about that group, although from a legal point of view, it may be a valid identification. Dr. VanderKam didn't want to venture into attempting to identity the "Book of HAGY"; however, he did comment that Schiffman believes it might be the Torah and Yadin thought it could be the Temple Scroll. Footnote to the "Scrolls Controversy." When the controversy regarding the scrolls blew up in the BAR, VanderKam became a spokesperson of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), which drew up a statement regarding a policy on what should happen if new finds were discovered. It encouraged the discovering authorities to make their texts readily available to anyone who wanted to study them. However, the American School of Oriental Research (ASOR) thought that, given how much money it takes to organize a dig, it seemed unfair that the finder wouldn't have the first opportunity to examine (and publish) his work. Finally a policy was enacted that gave rights to the excavators, although they were encouraged to be open with their findings. The class expressed its warm appreciation for this stimulating and largely fortuitous visit. A good time was had by all. //end dss.950406//