Combined Consecutive 1996 Minutes, for Global Searching RelSt 225 Dead Sea Scrolls Minutes #1, Thursday 9/5/96, by Eleni Zatz Litt 1. First assignment: Get familiar with electronic resources! One entry point is Bob Kraft's home page. (Editorial comment: it's GREAT!). http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html Check information from Spring 95 when course was previously taught and begin lurking on ORION list and archives [see general information about the list in the electronic information for the course] Also: check out "DSS Revealed" CD-ROM at MMETS (basement, Rittenhous Lab) 2. While DSS were discovered in late 1940s there has been a revival of interest in the past 6-7 years due, in part, to access to the materials; many "traditional" theories are now being challenged. An atmosphere of radical skepticism now surrounds this material. 3. In an ideal world we would approach the material completely inductively by beginning with the manuscripts and with archaeological site reports from which to build our own theories, but in the context of a one semester course we will need to rely on secondary sources from the get go. 4. Recommended Resources: VanderKam: an excellent and balanced condensed overview Fitzmyer: good supplement, but approach is not linear/connected (use index and Table of Contents to pursue your own interests). Garcia Martinez: the most complete of the available translations. Vermes: Martinez's principal "rival," now in an updated edition. Gaster: translation is intentionally interpretative ("free") and sometimes idiosyncratic but useful in comparison with the others. Schiffman: interesting for a compelling alternative view of the material; in contrast to many earlier works which focused on issues of Jewish varieties and conceptual differences (reflecting especially "Christian" scholarly interests), Schiffman is one of the first to examine the DSS closely from a more traditional Jewish viewpoint, with special focus on law ("halakah") and practice. 5. DSS provide a "gigantic window on someone's Judaism(s)". References in the 1st century ce writings of Josephus, Philo and Pliny the Elder are all useful for context and provided the basis for the older (and still dominant) theories suggesting that DSS were written by the Jewish group called "Essenes" -- and identification now under severe attack. 6. Worth noting: High levels of confusion can be expected to be produced from the available scholarly discussions, and there will be a certain amount of "disorganization" in the approach taken in class, to give ample opportunity to discussing both the known and the many unknowns. We're "plunging into an abyss with few handles." 7. There are interesting connections between politics and scholarship. There are also connections between archaeological digs and religious sensitivities in some active elements of Israeli society -- for example, concerns about excavating graves on the part of some orthodox Jews. Access to sites can be harder/easier depending on who owns the land. Access to DSS themselves has been much facilitated by Herschel Shanks and his magazine called Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR); access really opened only as recently as 1989. The Huntington Library in California played a crucial role in making available a set of photos that had been deposited in its archives. 8. Most scrolls were found in caves 4 and 11, with the most complete from cave 1 . Convention of how scrolls are names was explained -- 1QM = the War scroll from Qumran cave 1. Vendyl Jones recently helped to identify new sites in the Qumran area worth exploring based on ancient paths. 9. There are interesting questions about the relationship between the DSS materials and the community in Qumran. What is the nature of the ruins? Was Qumran a fort? a monastic Jewish community of Essenes? another type of Jewish community? Ostraca found this past summer have generated an exciting rumor: that one of the ostraca refers to the "Yahad" -- the same term for "community" as found in some of the scrolls. Question: was there self understanding that the Qumran inhabitants were a special sort of community such as some scrolls describe? 10. Dating of scrolls plays an important role in exploring connections between site and the Qumran community. Handwriting analysis (paleography) has found some significant support from recent carbon 14 dating, and more recently some DNA testing has explored the origin of leather scroll materials (i.e. whether from same or different flocks) to help determine whether scrolls were manufactured by one community or came from many sources. 11. Much of the course will be conducted via email. Minutes will be distributed this way. Bob is available "anytime" via email and in Room 413 (Duhring) when his schedule allows (previous warning is appreciated, although not absolutely necessary). //end// RelSt 225 DSS CLASS MINUTES #2 (9/10/96) by Tamar Lasson (lasson@sas.upenn.edu) NOTE: For details on items mentioned in these and other Minutes, see the set of Minutes from Spring 1995 on the class gopher slot at ccat.sas. 1. 1) assignment for 9/12 -- read VanderKam's introduction 2) short discussion of various scholars and their contraversial theories (Golb, Schiffman, Eisenman, Allegro; the now "traditional" view in F. M. Cross and M. Burrows; sensationalism in the Sun) 3) viewing photocopies and pictures of the scrolls 4) refamiliarization with required texts for course 2. 5) definition of "eschatology" (treatment of "last things") and its significance for understanding the scrolls 3. 6) certain examples and types of scrolls (based esp on the photos) a. The "Manual of Discipline" (rules for the community) b. Pesher (commentary) on the biblical book of Habbakuk, and other types of "exegetical" literature (interpretation of texts considered authoritative) including "Targums" (translations of biblical works; usually in Aramaic) c. The large Isaiah scroll 4. 7) general survey of periods of Jewish history up to and through the DSS era, with focus on languages used a. (Neo) Babylonian (fall of "first temple" c 586 BCE) b. Persian (c 525-325 BCE) --Aramaic as primary language c. Hellenistic (c 325-65 BCE) --Greek as primary language d. Roman (destruction of "second temple" in 70 CE) --Greek remained the main commercial-political language in the eastern Mediterranean 8) language of the scrolls --mainly Hebrew, some Aramaic, a few Greek 5. 9) Other scrolls from the Judean Desert not treated with the Qumran area "DSS" material proper (see Garcia Martinez Introduction) e.g. "Second Revolt" material (135 CE) - Bar Kokhba/Kosibah //end// RelSt 225 (Dead Sea Scrolls) Class Minutes #3 (9/12/96) by Ben Fogelman with Tamar Lasson New Book published called "New Translation of Scrolls" by M. Wise, E. Cook, and M. Abegg. Dr. Kraft's homepage can connect you to ccat.gopher and then to online reviews **also check the minutes from spring 1995 because they will often contain further information about the issues discussed in class including problems with the CD-ROM Questions 1) What languages were spoken in Palestine at the time of the scrolls? Many questions have no simple answer, and this is one Traditional scholarship works with what survived and apart from the DSS, only a small body of semitic works from the period have survived Hebrew and Aramaic are semitic languages The Persian empire spread its language as it power grew the primary language of the empire was Aramaic The Hellenistic empire does not really establish linguistic superiority over all parts or strata of that empire the Hellenistic (Greek) empire splits into two sections Seleukid - Asia Minor area; borders hard to protect Ptolemaic - Egypt; borders easy to protect Parthia is a growing power in the eastern areas that replaces (by successfully resisting/expelling the Seleukid presence) the Persian empire in the Persian Gulf area in the early 2nd c bce at about the same time (168 bce) the Jewish Hasmonean Revolt (Maccabean) occurred in the Syro-Palestine area Parthians used Aramaic; it is not clear what language the Hasmoneans "officially" used, but likely guess is Aramaic, although inscriptions on coins usually include Greek along with some semitic (hard to distinguish Hebrew from Aramaic) Evidence of language surviving in "liturgical" contexts (formal prayer, sacrifice, etc.) includes some examples of Aramaic, as also does traditional Jewish rabbinic literature of a later period, transliterations of certain words attributed to Jesus, and the like To conclude from all this that Aramaic was the main language for everyone in Jewish Palestine would be very simplistic -- the ingredients for bilingual or even trilingual knowledge by some (Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek) are strongly present 2) Are there other historic records that might give insight into the language question and related issues of everyday life then? Egypt is our main source of ancient written materials because the climate is so dry, thus preserving an abundance of writings on papyrus, which was grown and manufactured in that area Dead Sea Scrolls were written mostly on leather and were stored in dry caves, but not much else of this sort has survived from the Palestinian area in using the evidence from literature that has been passed along by living communities (in contrast to that found archaeologically) one problem is that it is not easy to determine what modifications might have been made over the centuries of copying Example: Josephus, who has left us some autobiographical information (born about 27 ce, from a priestly family, served as military leader in the Jewish War, surrendered to Rome and he became a "court pet" in Rome where he rewrites in Greek his treatment of the War, originally addressed -- probably in Aramaic -- to Jewish readers in the Persian Gulf east) writes his "Antiquities [or History] of the Jews" which gets translated into various languages over the centuries; the Slavic version has a detailed description of John the Baptist and his vegetarian eating habits which does not appear in any other versions of Josephus Example: Philo "On the Contemplative Life" writes about a community of Therapeutai ("servants/healers") who lived near Alexandria (Lake Mariotis) and are described in terms very similar to Philo's description of the Palestinian Essenes -- some scholars see them as sister communities; the Christian author Eusebius (about 325 ce) claims that Philo is describing early Christian monastic communities and until about a century ago, some scholars argued that Philo's treatment was a Christian forgery, in the interests of proving that Christian monasticism developed very early. 3) Why are certain communities labeled Christian or Jewish? the KEY to such questions rests with the definitions used! not always clearly answerable if no specific positive references to Joshua/Jesus as "messiah" are present (or whatever other criteria are used in the particular definition) many varieties of early Judaism, and of early Christianity, existed -- Josephus himself experimented with different types of Judaism if a Jewish Pharisee started following Jesus, at what point is the Pharisee no longer Jewish (and by whose definition)? the question of self-definition (what does the ancient witness consider itself to be?) is crucial for clear understanding //end// RelSt 225 DeadSea Scrolls Minutes #4 (9/17/96) by David Hiltzik, with Ben Fogelman 1. Administrative Matters -- 1. CD-ROM available in the library at the reference desk. 2. e-mail minutes to kraft@ccat.sas. 2. Different Types of Judaism Attested in the DSS Period -- 1. Pharisees (=? Scribes), possibly related to the early Hasidim ("pious," "loyalists"), and later "rabbinic" perspective 1. Judaism survived after two revolts against Rome in 66-73 c.e. and again in 132-135 c.e. 2. Built around changes in authority structure -- the Rabbi operating in local synagogues, since the Temple in Jerusalem with its priesthood is no longer functioning 3. Concept of "oral Torah" in addition to "written" ultimately produced rabbinic Talmuds, Midrashim literature 1. Exact connection between Pharisees and later Rabbinic Judaism is not clear, but there are commonalities between groups. 2. Not clear how much (dis)continuity in 2 centuries of Pharisees. 3. Most surviving information has been "filtered." 4. Pharisees seem to have had "more popular" appeal than others. 2. Christians 1. Joshua/Jesus died under Roman governor Pontius Pilate (26-36 ce). 2. Joshua/Jesus and earliest followers are Jewish in origin. 3. Christians also filter their traditions, for various reasons. 4. Many non-rabbinic Jewish texts preserved by Chrstians (eg Philo, Josephus, Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha). 5. Eschatological focus on change from "old" to "new covenant" is similar to some emphases found in DSS. 3. Sadducees 1. Named for Zadok? priestly family/ high priest. 2. Perhaps also refer to themselves as "sons of Zadok" 3. Ruling class, elite, monied, involved in world affairs. 4. Involved in liturgical practices of Judaism in Jerusalem 5. Rifts within Oniads? (the high priestly family some of whom left for Egypt around 170 bce) Some probably remained in Jerusalem, and might have helped form the Sadducees 6. After the fall of the Second Temple we do not hear of living Sadducees (information about them may also have been suppressed in writings by their victorious opponents) 7. Opposed the "Oral Law" emphasis of the Pharisees 8. Arguments with Pharisees over Halakha -- Jewish Law 9. Uneschatological -- do not believe in Messiah, Last Judgement, and other "end-times" related ideas 4. Essenes (see also Philo's Therapeutae) 1. Withdraw from society much like later Christian monastics 2. Perhaps missionary minded 3. Probably engaged in trade 4. Pacifist 5. Theocracy 6. see 1 & 2 of Zealots 4b. Note: Two manuscripts in Cairo Geniza from 10th and 12th century 1. describe "sectarian" group of "Damascus Covenanters" 2. similar to DSS Manual of Discipline 3. fragments of Damascus Document ("CD") also in DSS 5. Zealots (perhaps related to Sicarii) 1. Traditionally minded 2. Against "worldly" moves in Jerusalem 3. Want to recreate theocratic society with a new start 4. Rebellion/violence as a method 6. Samaritans (still survive today) 1. Maintain elements similar to Pharisees (eschatology) 2. But also resemble aspects of Sadducees (priesthood, cult) //end// RelSt 225, DSS Class Minutes #5 (September 19, 1996) by Michael Singer, with David Hiltzik Assignments: Continue to read the "Sectarian" materials; also read Josephus and Philo on Essenes in Vanderkam In tandem with the most recent discussions on the ORION list, the subject of the calendar in the DSS was raised. Some of the writings show that they followed a strictly solar calendar of 364 days, divided into 12 months of 30 days each, with 4 days left over, one for each of the 4 seasons (thus 30 + 30 + 30 + 1 = 91 times 4 = 364), and exactly 52 weeks. This is a symmetrical and predictable calendar in which annual holidays will always fall on the same day of the week (usually Wednesday) from year to year. -some scrolls contain polemics against the lunar-based calendar of the accepted Jewish tradition (consists of 354 days, adjusted to the solar cycle every 3 years). -some of the newer finds show that some scroll fragments recorded equivalences between a solar and a luni-solar calendar. -it is not clear how the DSS solar calendar of 364 days was adjusted to the actual solar cycle of 365.25 days. Some relation to the "Jubilee" year cycle (every 49th or 50th year) is possible. For definitional clarity, a distinction is made between "ancient Israel" which produced most of the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and "Judaism" which resulted from the "Babylonian captivity" (about 586 - 516 bce) and the restoration activities associated with Ezra and Nehemiah. -Judaism retained many traditional elements of the religion of ancient Israel, filtered through the southern kingdom of Judah, such as the centrality of Jerusalem and its Temple (and the Temple priestly system) -- the 1st (or Solomonic) Temple from about 960- 586 BCE, and the 2nd from about 516 BCE- 70 CE. -When the Temple is destroyed there is a fall of the priestly hierarchy and the complimentary cult surrounding it. The priestly authority is replaced with Rabbis and the local synagogues as the focal point of post-70 Judaism. -the cultic practices (such as sacrifices) are now seen to be represented symbolically in other actions (such as prayer, philanthropy, etc.) With the destruction of the 1st Temple (586 BCE) the Jews are exiled to the Babylonian area in the Persian Gulf. After approx. 2 generations the Jews are given permission by the new Persian government to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild the Temple around 520 BCE. -the people are led by people such as Ezra and Nehemiah in their return to Palestine. This period is often called Early Judaism, which preceeded Rabbinic ("classical") Judaism. There were surely events in the time between the 1st and 2nd temples that would have caused dissension among various Jewish groups -- such dissension is surely reflected in the DSS. Masada - overtaken by the Romans in 73 CE. Who were these people? -Some think that they were radical Jewish "Zealots" and/or "Sicarii." Sicarii were a terrorist group fighting against the Roman occupation. -Possibly there was some connection between DSS and Masada since some of the same "unusual" documents were found in both places. The DSS may reflect a rift in Judaism between the leadership in Jerusalem and the Dead Sea people who also considered themselves the "sons of Zadok." They thought that the Temple authorities (often Sadducees) had gone off the proper path and they (DSS people) were on the true, proper path. 2nd century BCE included conflicts in Judaism with "hellenizers," who wanted to make adjustments in the direction of Greek culture. -this included many in the elite priesthood. -others (including some in the same group) were against this hellenization. ->Seleucid king Antiochus 4th (Epiphanes) tired of negotiating with Jerusalem and imposed some anti-traditional edicts on them. -this incites a rebellion by the "Hasidim" who eventually have problems due to their refusal to fight at all on the Sabbath. -Hasmoneans/Maccabeans also start a successful rebellion against such provocations as: prohibition of Sabbath and circumcision, forced sacrifice of pigs in the Temple. The DSS show anger about what was occuring (and had occurred) in Jerusalem. The DSS people were apparently dissidents who once had some connection to the priesthood -- or at least a high respect for it. Apparently they felt they needed to separate themselves from the perceived corruption in order to maintain true religion. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #6 by Behir Sabban (with Michael Singer) We discussed the difference between "history" and "filtered history" and concluded that there really was no basic distinction. All history is filtered, we just have to try to figure out how much and by who. We try to look at the most reliable sources that are available. Regarding a note in a traditional liturgical handbook that the Sadducee High Priests would die upon exit from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) every year, because they had not conducted the ritual correctly, it was suggested that critical judgment must always be exercised in assessing historical claims. Some claims may look suspicious at the outset -- they do not seem reasonable. If we search the available early sources, such as Josephus, and cannot find such a story in his writings, we would think the story regarding the Sadducees as doubtful (especially in light of his priestly lineage). In this case, the Talmud might not be as good a place to look since it generally takes a negative stance to "Sadducees," and it was redacted at least four centuries after the destruction of the second Temple. Dr. Kraft says that in matters of history, he does not like to shave with Occam's razor -- ie to embrace a certain conclusion because it is the simplest alternative -- but should be careful to recognize the complexities of any historical occurance. The number of the Pharisees in Palestine/Israel at the turn of the era seems rather small, if Josephus is to be believed; he refers to 6000 Pharisees in a particular episode (Ant 17.41ff), while scholars estimate the total population of the area as between 1/4 of a million to a million. Josephus may be referring to an "initiated" Pharisee leadership or to local representatives in the episode in question, but in any event it would seem to constitute a small percentage of the current population. The way the DSS and other ancient manuscripts were reproduced and distributed most likely was like a "tree" diagram. Someone wrote the original text, then a couple of copies would be made and a number of copies would be produced from those copies. Therefore, we must be very careful with interpreting what he have, because a point in the manuscript may be a later addition. For example, the declaration of Jesus as Messiah by Josephus was probably a later addition by Christian copiest editors (especially in light of its absence from the writings of Origen -- an early Church father). There are lots of questions regarding the Damascus document (often called the Zadokite fragments). Does it intend to give us historical information? What does it mean by "Damascus"? The document is a good example of manuscript transmission problems. It has not been found in it's entirety in the DSS caves, although there are fragments. Indeed, it was known from two copies found in the "Cairo Genizah" decades before the DSS were discovered. The synagogue that housed the Genizah may once have been a Christian church, as some reused copies of Origen's writings have been found in the Genizah; the Jewish synagogue was functioning in the 9th century and may have become Karaite at some point. The Genizah contained parts of two copies of the Damascus document. The larger one is from 10th century while the smaller one is from the 12th. Though removed in time from one another, the documents display many similarities but also some differences. Dr. Kraft believes that the Karaite movement may have been founded on some ideas that were taken from DSS documents discovered in the late 8th century; there are many interesting similarities between early Karaite ideas and the DSS. //end// RelSt 225 (DSS) Class Minutes #7 (9/26/96) by Andrew Fleming (with Behir Sabban) We had a film today (from the NOVA series, about 1994): There is another copy in MMETS if anyone missed the film or would like to view it again. Some history: -1947 bedouins stumbled upon the scrolls in what is now cave 1. -They took scrolls to Bethlehem to be sold. -E.L. Sukenik (archaeologist) went to Bethlehem from Jerusalem and bought three of the scrolls. -Bedouins found Kando who took the other scrolls to St. Marks and sold them to Archbishop Samuel for $100. -Samuel then took scrolls to U.S. offering the scrolls for a millon dollars. -Sukenik's son sees ad in NY Times so he bought them for $250,000 after negotiations. Now all 7 scrolls were together. Shrine of the Book was built shortly after. -1952, 2nd cave was found with only a few manuscripts. -Cave 4 turned out to be a gold mine. 1000's of fragments were found. -Jordan bought the scrolls for about $2.50/square centimeter. Who wrote the scrolls:-Initial Reactions. -Once scrolls were found the Qumran ruins were excavated. At first thought to be a fortress. -Initially it was suspected that they were written by an independent Jewish group who broke off from greater Judaism at around 160 BCE. -Thought to be Essene because a lot of parallels to what was known about the Essenes were found in the Qumran documents. De Vaux and his excavations:- -He thought DSS were written at the Qumran site. -Struck by the fact that the rooms were communal (dining halls)--De Vaux mentioned the ruins were analogous to monatsic buildings -There are refernces to communal dining in the scrolls--sometimes the word "monastery" can be found in the ancient materials on Essenes. -Cisterns found--Could be analagous to "great baths" spoken of in the scrolls. -Found ink wells and desks where the scrolls could have been written. -Therefore De Vaux unofficially concluded that the scrolls were written at the Qumran site. -Never managed to publish his work so scholars have sifted through his notes and the evidence and some are challenging his theory. -Desks that were found could have been dining tables and the ink wells could very well have been connected with the perfume industry which existed along the Dead Sea in ancient times. -Cisterns probably were not likely baths due to the lack of rain in the area and the need to preserve water. Highlighted find:-4QMMT--Works of the Torah. -This manuscript is likely to be a letter from the Teacher of Righteousness to the Wicked Priest in Jerusalem. -Sheds new light on who could have written the scrolls. -Wicked Priest might be John Maccabee who usurped the high priesthood in about 160 BCE. -It was at this time that sect could have split and fled to the desert, namely Qumran. -Then again, no one knows who wrote the scrolls and what really happened after the Maccabean/Hasmonean Revolt. -It does seem that the sect clearly had significant disagreements with the Jewish leadership in the Jerusalem Temple. -Note that this is a tentative theory and should not be considered as final. -But can't ignore that this document was copied at least five times so it had to be important--a "foundational document." //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #8 (1 Oct 1996) by Andrew Fleming Started class with a question... --Does Masada have any connection with Qumran/DSS? --According to R. Kraft, some DSS documents were also found at Masada but this only means that the document was popular enough to reach other areas in the desert. --Not necessarily a significant connection here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Next, we read some of the scrolls-- DAMASCUS DOCUMENT-- Significance of the word Damascus -some say that in the background of the group who wrote the scrolls there is a connection with the city of Damascus. -Others say that Damscus is symbolic. ie. maybe for a place of exile etc... 1st Line- "And now, listen, all those who know justice, and understand the actions of God; for he has a dispute ... and will carry out judgment ..." -- this reflects a traditional formula ("RIV gattung") found also in Jewish scriptures for focusing on the divine justice that will eventually come to all the people of the community and all humankind. MINOR INTERJECTION-- -Gaster gives a translation of the DSS that sometimes is more readable. -He tries to read the minds of the scribes and interpret what was written. -On the other hand, Garcia Martinez tries to reflect what's found in the text even though he may not know exactly what it means. -In this document there is a formalized use of the confrontation imagery in order to get a message accross -- the "RIV gattung." -usually the scene has God calling witness against his people who have done wrong -- witnesses being the sun, moon, stars, trees etc... -Riv Gattung is a formulaic approach to God's dissatisfaction with his people in relationship to the "covenant" God has given. "For when they were unfaithful in foresaking him, he hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword." -This first column of the document is about a dispute about Israel and "his sanctuary"--most likely the Jerusalem Temple. -It is evident that the aforementioned line from the DD is referring to the fall of the first Temple in 586 B.C.E. -- Nebuchadnezzar came in and destroyed the Temple and exiled the Jewish leaders, etc. -However, God remembered the covenant he made with his people and he saved a "remnant" of Israelites -- this is not quite eschatological for it's not clearly focusing on the endtimes as yet, as it will in some other texts about the "righteous remnant." "However, when he remembered the covenant of the very first, he saved a remnant for Israel and did not deliver them up to destruction." MINOR INTERJECTION-- -Historical Reference--a direct reference to an occurrence in history (Nebuchadnezzar) -Very rare in the DSS. -"...he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and from Aaron a shoot of the planting, in order to possess his land and to become fat with the good things of his soil." -above quote may set the stage for the two Messiahs that the DSS elsewhere mention, or at least refers to one community or person with dual roots -- "Israel" often refers to the general group, and "Aaron" to its priestly leaders. -Two Messiahs spoken of -- 1) a military or political messiah/leader (Israel) 2) a religious or priestly messiah/leader (Aaron) -"sprout" was a term used in many passages of the Jewish Bible. Could be a community term or could be a messianic term. -Basically, the community could have thought of themselves as a messianic shoot. This is very possible; e.g. Paul said that the eschatological community is the "body" of messiah -- this idea could have derived from his Jewish training, unless he invented it. Definition of Midrash-- -refers to a type of Rabbinic literature. -Another form of biblical commentary. -Normally applied to texts that quote a Biblical passage and give it an explanation. -biblical commentry is NOT unique to Rabbinic lit., although the use of the term "midrash" suggests something special about that material. -There is a similarity of form between some DSS and some Rabbinic lit. but there's not necessarily a direct connection; lots of problems stand in the way of attempts to draw straight lines from the DSS to Rabbinic Judaism. //end// RelSt 225: DSS Class Minutes #9 (3 Oct 1996) by Jessica Wiener book review -not due next week -the list on the course page is not updated, you can use a newer book or other material that gets you into a dialogue with the material-options -Schiffman or Golb (he argues that Qumran was a Jewish fortress and that the scrolls were not produced there, but stored by regular Jews of the time from Jerusalem, etc.) -Miller Burrows' 2 volumes published in 1955-7, in light of current discussions -topical review from Revue de Qumran or the new DSS Journal (e.g. 3 or 4 articles) -topical review from archives of IOUDAIOS-L or ORION-L -for ORION, see earlier notes to get on -for IOUDAIOS, listserv@lehigh.edu sub ioudaios-l [your name] Two new issues being discussed on the internet: -forgeries -- the market was not flooded by forgeries at the time of DSS discoveries, from all indications -relevence of inkwells found at Qumran -- even though most excavations don't uncover an entire archaeological site, it's unusual to find inkwells; even though a few were found at Qumran, there's not enough evidence to to know if the inhabitants were active writers or scribes There is a view that says some caves were Genizot -- ex: cave 4 storage method of cave four is unclear because Bedouin ransacked and by the time archeologists got there, it was too late to determine how the materials may have been stored -- e.g. on shelves that are no longer there or on the ground. Not everything in a Geniza has to have the divine name on it or associated with it, judging from the "Cairo Geniza" discoveries. Clarification of some terms "Rabbinic" Judaism -- took formalized shape after DSS and is especially obvious in the two Talmudim "Oral law" and tradition comes to be written down and codified in -Talmudim (=learning/instruction) -no earlier then 5th C ce -2 productions -- Babylonian and Palestinian/Jerusalem -compiled by Geonim -Mishna+Gemara=Talmud -Mishna (=repetition/learning) -up to 200 ce -used in both Talmudim -compiled by Tannaim (ex: Aqiba, Ishmael, Judah HaNasi) -Gemara (=completion) -supplements Mishna -produced by Amoraim -different gemara in Babylonian and Palestinian/Jerusalem Talmudim "Written Law" -Masoretic Text -- standarization of Hebrew Bible in the way that it comes to be used in classical Judaism -is already taking shape in 2nd C ce during Tannaitic period -Masoretes were a group of scholars who operated during the ninth and tenth centuries, some of whom were Karaites -Targumim -interpretation/translation -developed because many people didn't speak/understand Hebrew -comes to be standard term for Aramaic translation -also used for other languages, like Greek Targum -Targum Onkelos is most commonly used for the Torah -- a connection has been suggested between him and Aquila, a greek translator dated to the second century ce DSS -- prove that there was fluidity in Jewish biblical texts before MT -have produced fragments of Targums as well as of pre-Masoteric texts and other texts similar to Masoretic texts -Big Isaiah scroll is closer to MT than other DSS fragments of Isaiah LXX/OG (Septuagint/Old Greek) -72 translators were commissioned to translate the Torah from Hebrew to Greek in 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria, says the legend -subsequent translations of other biblical books are called Old Greek because they aren't neccesarily from the same place or time Apocrypha -books in Old Greek, but not in the Jewish Scriptures (MT) -ex: Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Macabees I and II -not respected by Rabbinic Judaism like other texts and the Talmud DSS discovery opens new evidence of other writings being accepted as authoritarian by Jews, showing that we can't jump to conclusions about what was "scripture" in the DSS period. -Midrashim -based on MT -commentary on written scriptures -Halacha -- legal material -- how to lead one's life -Haggada(h) -- all non-legal material (stories, traditions, prayers, etc.) Observations on working from Translations: The same semitic word may be translated differently. For example, in the scrolls, the Hebrew word Satan is used five or six times. In all but one time, it is translated as foe, opponent, adversary. Once, however, it is translated as Satan by Garcia Martinez. Bnei Elohim (literally, "sons of God") in Genesis 6.1-4 DSS, Jubilees, Enoch and other passages also mention this tradition LXX translated Bnei Elohim as "angels" in some places DSS (Dam Doc.) refers to "watchers" as a related category Also mentioned in DSS are Angels of Light and Angels of Darkness- various references (see Gaster's Index): -divine beings, holy ones, hosts of heaven -Malchai Resha / Malchai Tzedek -Gabriel, Raphael, Michael their roles -transcendental knowledge -sing praises in heaven -eschatological war participants Query: Why is the name of God in a different script? "LORD" = God's special four letter name (tetragrammaton) "Lord" = words such as Adonai (meaning "Lord") Also, in DSS, divine names are sometimes written in archaic Hebrew, which separates them from their surroundings and enhances their special significance Elohim -- plural of El (God, power) came to mean God (as singular) //end// RelSt 225: DSS Class Minutes #10 (8 Oct 1996) by Adam Kaplan For the assignment, a book or 2 or 3 articles should be chosen. The articles should include a common theme, for example, the finding of inkwells discussed in a previous class. There were inkwells found at the Qumran site while none were found at other sites. Does the presence of inkwells tell us anything about the material in the caves? The paper should include an evaluation of the author's argument and a critical stance. The research project should focus on the scrolls themselves, on terms or themes found in them. There was discussion of why Christian scholars got involved in Dead Seas Scrolls study. The scrolls reached the outside through the Jordanian side, not the Israeli side with the exception of the scrolls purchased by Dr. Sukenik. The initial connection that drew Christian scholars to the scrolls was the mention of two spirits, truth and deceit, discussed in the Rules of the Community (1QS, p. 6 in Garcia-Martinez). Rabbinic scholars would read this passage and make a connection to the two Yetzers (inclinations), of good and evil. Christian scholars made a connection to the two ways approach to Christian ethics. This idea was known in early Christian sources, for example, the Epistle of Barnabas (2nd century ce, latest 130). The Epistle is one of the earliest Christian documents and contains an exhortation to follow the angels of light, part of the Christian halaka, ethical and legal statements about life. This was paralled by Didache, which contained the same kind of material about the two ways approach. The Manual of Discipline presented this approach in similar terms. There were two ways, one has light and the other had darkness. This similarity struck a note with Christian scholars that were familiar with the two ways approach and could possibly shed light on the development of early Christianity. This parallel with early Christianity was one among others, including a central group of authoritative leaders, and the communal nature described. The Book of Acts in the New Testament is similar to some "sectarian" DSS with regard to communal organization. Christians saw these parallels and asked several questions. Was early Christianity an offshoot or an imitation of Judaism at Qumran? Was John the Baptist an Essene? Was Jesus an Essene? Now, people are more critical of this approach. Schiffman believes that there is a connection between the early Judaism at Qumran with Rabbinic Judaism. The scrolls are multivalent, in that they provide evidence about early Judaism as well as its Christian offshoot and the world in which these "movements" existed. The discovery of fragments has proven to be frustrating at times. With a long document, one can ask more questions, because you have the beginning and the end. Things are put in context. With fragments, this is much more difficult. For example, there is a fragment that describes angels of lights singing hymns, but we don't know anyhting else, like what came before or after, or even whether it is part of another fragmentary document. Several questions are involved with dating the scrolls, including: What are the dates for the occupation of the site of Qumran? How is the site related to the DSS? In earlier times, some scholars wondered if the scrolls might be medeival forgeries, or were written by early Christian writers, although these positions seem less tenable today. 68 ce is generally the date assigned to the end of the Qumran community, and therfore, the scrolls. Coins were found dating to 68 ce, but nothing later. The site seems to have been abandoned. It is unlikely that it was occupied until 73 (see Masada), it was probably occupied until 68, and no later than 69 or 70. The community was probably dysfunctional after 68. Two Latin technical terms are useful here. terminus a quo -- a quo means "from which." This is the earliest posible date for something. terminus ad quem -- ad quem means "to which." This is the latest possible date for something. 68 ce is the terminus ad quem for the Qumran site. If this also is the date for the last of the scrolls, then one might assume that the ruins gave the terminus for the caves. Coins apparently were not found in the caves (VanderKam 21). Dating material in the caves can be done in several ways. Paleography is the study of handwriting [see VanderKam 16ff]. It is not as accurate as the finding of coins for certain dates. Paleographers study the shapes of letters and the division of words. Usually, they can compare undated documents with dated documents, but for the Qumran cave texts there are few non DSS documents with which to compare (and no dated DSS manuscripts) so they must mainly be compared with each other. This can create a range for the scrolls in the caves. The range is probably 200 - 250 years and maybe as much as 300 years. The earliest are at least before the 1st century bce, probably in the early 100s. The Maccabean revolt occurred in this period (ca 168 bce). Some people think they have found clues in the material to the political conditions relating to that revolt. Another way to date the material is by using Carbon 14 dating. Selected manuscripts are tested and they have generally supported the findings of paleographers. One document tested earlier than 200 bce. There wers some into the first century ce. Some scrolls have internal clues that help to date them. The Deliah deed and the Wadi sale contain explicit dates but they are not part of the Dead Sea Scrolls proper. The scrolls do not generally have internal evidence of dates [see VanderKam 19f]. Carbon 14 tests the leather, not the ink. So, it is possible for a scroll to be written on an old piece of leather. One scroll dates a couple hundred years earlier than expected, and the leather factor might explain this. The hymn scroll dates from about the turn of the era to the middle of the first century CE. It is one of the latest scrolls. The Genesis Apocryphon also probably dates to the turn of the era. Recent technological developments involving bouncing waves off the inked areas of manuscripts has enabled scholars to read pages that had been fused together by dampness and were difficult to separate. There are several writings associated with Enoch. The Enoch material apparently was popular reading, and the DSS have produced 11 copies of different portions. Some say that copies existed as early as the third century bce that were then passed to the caves. If copies were brought to the caves, then an earlier dating for the scrolls would not indicate an earlier beginning to the community or a contradiction of paleographic findings. Enoch scrolls from the 12th century (and later) in Ethiopic reveal few changes or revisions. There was a compilation of 5 or more older sources. Questions concern the extent to which the Dead Sea Scrolls joined together in small collections, not identical in scope to what we know from the later Ethiopic version. The "sectarian" scrolls are generally dated to the expected time framework. The "sect" probably self-consciously separated from other types of Judaism around 170 bce. They probably brought older materials with them that were associated with their outlook. The original language of the scrolls was primarily Hebrew, with some Aramaic. For related materials that were preserved only in translations (e.g. Greek), scholars have debated what their original language may have been by focusing on such things as proper names and sentence structure. Some could have circulated in both Hebrew and Aramaic, like Tobit, of which there are DSS fragments in each. The Wisdom of Solomon may have been in Greek originally. The "LXX" (Septuagint) proper is only the Pentateuch. "OG" (Old Greek) refers to other translations of Jewish books into Greek. There is no homogeneity between Pentateuch in Greek and Isaiah in Greek because they were done by different translators, doubtless at different times and possibly in different places. There is a process by which writings came to be "canonized." There is wide diversity among DSS texts, representing a pre-canonization situation. The text is fluid in Qumran. For example, in one text of Gen 46.27, Jacob went down to Egypt as one of 70 people, in another the number given is 75. Every copy does not necessarily have the same text, even within the Dead Sea Scrolls. This reflects the transmission of biblical and nonbiblical materials. Texts were different at different points. The differences can give insights into the periods and the people. Query: What is the date of the Christian "Didache" manual? Around the year 30 ce, Joshua (Jesus) is executed by the Romans. A new movement begins, the early members are Jewish. Thus the terminus a quo for the Didache would be 30 ce, since the Christian community to which it applies would have begun no earlier than 30. Some date the early Christian prophets mentioned in the Didache around 70 ce, but the final form of the document can be placed more broadly between 30 and about 200 ce. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #11 (10 Oct 1996) by Tamar Lasson I. Article distributed: "Has Every Book of the Bible Been Found Among the DSS?" by Sidnie White Crawford (BIBLE REVIEW Oct '96) II. Discussion on Orion List about Nahum Pesher (4QpNah) A. Historical Background --discussion about Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II (Hasmonean kings in 1st century BCE) as to whether they're alluded to in the Pesher --Turmoil in Middle East/Transitional Period/Roman rule --Caesar dies in 44 BCE --Octavian Augustus rules from at least 31 BCE -14 CE --Rome assumes control over Egypt in 25 BCE B. Attempt to define term "Kittim" --identified with Romans --earlier scrolls might associate "Kittim" with Greeks --biblical references relating "Kittim" to a foreign, Western people III. Nahum Commentary Text (4QpNah = 4Q169) A. Author sees Nahum as an authoritative work B. "Pesher" (interpretation) reflects situation of the commentators own community and times C. Sample passages [as time ran out] --"those looking for easy interpretations" ("those looking to smooth things over") = Pharisees? We experiment in interpretation of the text based on what we think we know about the history of the period (e.g. from Josephus); we attempt as objectively as possible to reconstruct a picture of the relationships of the different "known" sects of Judaism in the Second Temple period, and if things don't seem to fit, we struggle to create new hypotheses to accommodate the available information. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #12 (17 Oct 1996) by Adam Kaplan Use "ioudaios-l" (Ioudaios List) to subscribe with listserv@lehigh.edu A question was raised raised on the ORION list about who invented the term "parabiblical." It seems to have been coined by H. L. Ginsberg in a 1967 article. The issues relating to the need for this term are central to the study of the DSS and their significance. Regarding the relationship between the scrolls and the terms "biblical" and "canonical," early discussions tended to take for granted that the DSS authors privileged the traditional canonical "biblical" texts over other writings. The traditional biblical "canon" is the collection of authoritative texts that includes certain books and excludes others. When discussing canonical biblical literature, one needs to specify whether they are referring to the classical Jewish canon (= the Protestant "Old Testament") or the classical Christian canon (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) which includes the Apocrypha. Even the term canon has some flexibility with regard to where it was used and by whom. In the 1950s, biblical and canonical meant that you were dealing with a specific list of books that had long been considered authoritative. When Qumran was discovered it challenged old assumptions about the canon. Literature was found at Qumran that did not become canonized (as far as we know) but clearly was held to be authoritative in some special sense. Interestingly, around 200 ce the Christian Latin author Tertullian considered Enoch "scriptural." Enoch was not included in any mainstream biblical canon but was considered biblical by someone in 200 ce and was widely copied in the DSS materials. Similarly, in the New Testament, in the book of Jude, there is a quotation about Michael disputing with the devil about the body of Moses. While the book of Jude is canonical for traditional Christianity, the quote is not found in the Christian or Jewish scriptures. The book of Enoch is an example of "pseudepigrapha." These are (largely Jewish) writings that did not become part of the traditional Hebrew-Aramaic or Greek Jewish bibles. They are written in the name of and from the perspective of someone who couldn't have been the author. Enoch was in one of the early generations between Adam and Noah. There were legends about Enoch, including the biblical claim that he didn't die. He was an ancient figure that supposedly invented writing, science, geography, and communicated with God. He was a key figure in ancient literature associated with Jewish and Christian tradition. Did Enoch actually write anything? Some have said yes. But, modern scholarship says that Enoch is "pseudepigraphical" because Enoch could not have written it. Other works attributed to people such as Adam/Eve, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are similarly problematic. The traditional assumption is that anything not in the canon is suspect; the canon = truth. There are serious historical flaws in this approach. We are taking late formulations of canonical judgements and reading backwards in time. In reality, the historical processes leading to the traditional collections of canonical scriptures must have been quite complex. The DSS provide us with a new glimpse of one stage in those developments. The use of the term "parabiblical" is a reminder that canon terminology, with all of its traditional assumptions, may be quite misleading in the study of the DSS. A question was raised concerning stories about ancient figures. Why were they circulated? And, in these stories, the "bad" aspects of the figure often were not mentioned, leaving only the good side. We are assuming, though, that people back then were critical the way that we are now. That may not be the case. There is a danger in projecting our insights back into antiquity. Not everyone had access to information the way we do. Then, there was often only oral transmission. The writer may have only known the good side about the ancient figure and therefore did not consciously remove the bad parts. We take traditions about figures and compare them to the text. We make judgements that the author knew all and then omitted, when he may not have known all. * The danger is in assuming that we are dealing with people that had a firm concept of biblical, canonical material. The Greek Orthodox canon has several differences from Roman Catholic. It contains Maccabees 3 and 4 among the "Apocrypha." It also contains a Psalm 151, when other traditional collections only have 150. This psalm was found in Hebrew among the DSS. Were there several collections of psalms? When did the collection become fixed? Two psalms that are numbered separately in Hebrew (9-10) are found together, as a single Psalm (9), in Greek and Latin, and this messes up the numbering until Psalm 147 (Hebrew, = 146-147 in Greek/Latin), where the situation is reversed. Some other books have major differences. Jeremiah is a collection of oracles that the prophet proclaimed, and some narratives. In Greek form, the book is 1/7 or so shorter and the order is different. This shows that even within the canon there are textual differences. Outside canonical literature, as in the Apocrypha, these differences are even more complex. The question was raised as to why Job would be included in the canon and not with other pseudepigraphical works? Doesn't it seem to fit better with the other literature? First, we are now trained not to accept things at face value. Second, we have knowledge of literature that gives legends about Job and how they relate. Third, we look at the content, which deals with God and the devil. In sum, we are looking at things differently than someone back then. These things are probably not what motivated ancient people. They were motivated by what was accepted and had authority within the community, and often by what had explanatory power (e.g. why do the righteous suffer? what is the source of evil?). Aetiology/Etiology is a Greek word which means the study of causes and origins. If we had information about the origins of the writing of Job and when it was accepted then we could understand better why it was accepted. Back then, writings were not judged through the same sorts of critical processes that we tend to employ. People took what they had and they passed it along. A question about the purpose of including Job. Maybe, so that people could question their faith within the confines of religion. But, we don't now if they shared the same assumptions. With regard to the collection of poems in Job, one scholarly approach is to say that the old poems were put together with a later narrative. But how and why were the old poems passed along? Some were probably oral and perhaps some were written. We don't know exactly why certain poems were passed along and others not. A qustion about why, when dealing with similar books (like Proverbs and Ben-Sira), one is excluded from the canon and the other not. For example, why was Chronicles chosen and not Maccabees? Maybe it involves who was sympathetic to the Maccabee victory and who wasn't. Some people were not happy that the traditional priesthood was replaced by the Maccabees and maybe those people had more influence as to what books would be considered authoritative or scriptural. The truth is that we don't know exactly what people thought and what they were motivated by. We do a lot of guessing! Why is the Psalm book constructed as it is? There are traditions about David as a shepherd lad on the hills, composing poems. How do you get from the specific items to the framework that the materials get put into? It needs a title, author, situation, who said what. The community does this and put things in a setting. This kind of process is going on with biblical materials in antiquity. Chronicles and Samuel/Kings. These books have a lot in parallel. They have the same stories, sometimes told in radically different ways. When David took the census, in one version God told David to do it (1 Sam 24.1), and in the other Satan influenced David to do it (1 Chron 21.1). The census is seen unfavorably in both accounts, but the reasons are not entirely clear. A census is useful for taxes so maybe that is a factor. This shows that in the Bible itself, a story can be described so differently. Not everything is as smooth as one would think with canonical materials. Some books are mentioned in the bible, but not preserved in antiquity, like "the Book of Yashar." We don't have copies of it. We assume that if a book is not in the bible, then it is suspect, even though Enoch and Yashar would seem to be older than the biblical materials that mention them! This terminology carries pejorative judgements because when you hear something is not in the canon it immediately beomes suspect. It may be possible to use this vocabulary but take away the pejorative judgements. "Parabiblical" moves away from the canonical/biblical terminlogy. But "parabiblical" and "pseudepigrapha" still do not make the ground completely level for materials. Pre-DSS, we had virtually no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of ancient Jewish literature of any sort. Non-biblical materials were preserved in Christian circles in translations; e.g. Enoch was translated from the original semitic form into Greek and then into Ethiopic where it survived. Materials that were not preserved in Hebrew or Aramaic were often pushed aside from the canon. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira was known in Hebrew for a long time. It is mentioned by Saadya and is at the Cairo Geniza and Masada. So, it can't be written off as something adopted by the Christians and therefore no longer available in semitic. Here, the Rabbis knew about the book so the reasoning that it is not in the correct language (like Enoch probably wasn't by then) can't be used. Some Rabbis said that Ben-Sira was valuable for instruction but it was not biblical. They made a distinction between the two. 3 Enoch is another example of a book in Hebrew but not in the canon. 1 Enoch had legends that were discussed earlier. It survived in Ethiopic. 2 Enoch also has similar materials, and survives in old Church Slavonic. 3 Enoch is a Hebrew work preserved in Rabbinic circles. It concerned mysticism and ascending to the heavens. Enoch is seen as a mediatoral figure between humans and God. Also, Tobit and Judith were available in Semitic. Fragments of Tobit came up in the DSS in Aramaic and Hebrew. These texts were already going through development in semitic forms. There were different textual forms in DSS times. Not all variants are attributable to translation from semitic to Church languages. The differences were already there in the texts being translated. The texts themselves saw different groups collecting information in various ways (like Chronicles and Samuel/Kings). There is a relationship to the problem of sources -- what was available and how was it used? Also, we don't know the reasons for some texts not getting approval. The Rabbis or Christian authors create answers for why some are not approved. They are probably rationalizations. They say that certain works were earlier, in the right language, accepted by the right people. But according to modern scholarship this fails, because, for example, Daniel and Psalms are late works from the Greek period but are included. Onkelos produced a translation of the Bible into Aramaic (a targum) for Babylonian Jewry that came out around the time of the Talmud. He relied on earlier translations, maybe some from Palestine. In places, Onkelos probably translated a variant semitic text. It had been suspected that Greek translators somehow misread the claim that 70 people entered Egypt in the household of Jacob when they wrote 75 instead (Gen 46.27). The DSS, however, also have a Hebrew text with 75. This shows that Greek translators didn't cause the problem. There was already variety way, way back in Hebrew texts themselves. Greek translators translated a Hebrew text that had the number 75. In Sirach, there are similar variations in the preserved Greek and Latin texts. The Cairo Geniza fragments of that book have textual differences in the Hebrew. They updated the material to reflect contemporary uses of language, like what happens today with English translations of the Bible. It may be true that Masoretes worked with the same biblical text as the first century texts but it also may be false. This can also vary from book to book. P. 219 in Garcia-Martinez. Paraphrase of Pentateuch assumes that the passage is dependent on the Pentateuch. It is possible that the reverse is true. The passage is like Deut 18. Parabiblical is material that is like what is in the bible. It is not necessarily reworked. That the DSS people were probably not so involved with "canonization" issues yet is apparent from their wide variety of texts, including variant biblical texts. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #13 (22 Oct 1996) by Brian Stern 1. Finding a Historical Setting for the DSS: In the new translation by Wise-Abegg-Cook, the focuses is on the 40 year period from around 100 bce to 63 bce, as reported by Josephus (who wrote nearly 150 years later). Jannaeus (Jonathan) was the Hasmonian/Maccabean leader who favored the Sadducees and oppressed the Pharisees, even crucifying some of them. So the Pharisees sought the aid of Demetrius to overthrow Jannaeus. But some of the Pharisees were against the idea of invoking "gentile" aid, which resulted in a split among the Pharisees. The Nahum Pesher (4Q169 [4QPNah]) supposedly reflects this situation. 2. Reading the Nahum Pesher Frgs 3-4, col 1 -- reference to Kittim = western powers: Rome, Greece or others; reference to a king likely to be Demetrius, King of "Yavan" (= Greece); Demetrius wanted to enter Jerusalem, but could not for "God did not deliver Jerusalem into the the hand of the kings of Yavan from Antiochus up to the appearance of the chiefs of the Kittim" (195) -- i.e. subsequent to the Hasmonian/Maccabean revolt which began in opposition to Antiochus IV. Next there is allusion to the Angry Lion who acts out the persecution upon the "seekers of smooth things" by hanging people alive -- there are two different translation-interpretations at this point (the text is fragmentary): Martinez has "which had not been done in Israel since ancient times" while Cook (in the new translation) has "as it was done in Israel in former times." This shows us how filling in the blanks can be very troublesome: Martinez's interpretation takes the writing as reflecting the first occurrence of such an event (Jewish crucifixion of Jews, under Jannaeus according to Josephus), while Cook's interpretration suggests that such an event had taken place also in the remote past -- thus permitting the text to be dated significantly after Jannaeus. The interpretative use of blanks can significantly shift the direction and the time period of a text. Col 2: "Ephraim" (the name of one of the sons of Joseph, and thence a tribal designation in ancient Israel) is used to designate the misled Israelites in this current crisis period when terrible things begin to happen, but (col 3) when people begin to recognize the sin of the "smooth seeking" leaders, "the glory of Judah is revealed" and "the simple people of Ephraim" desert the evil rulers and join the remnant(?) of Israel. A question posed at the end of class concerned the extent to which all of this information could be placed into other historical contexts from the Maccabean/Hasmonean revolt of 165 bce to the Roman takeover in 63 bce? //end// RelSt 225: Introduction to DSS DSS Class Minutes # 14 (24 Oct 1966) by Jin Kyu Kim General Topic: Readings in "Para-Biblical" Materials 1. Genesis Apocryphon [=GenApocr] (Garcia Martinez 230ff) Question: What are the differences between "para-biblical" materials such as the "Genesis Apocyphon" and the "pesharim"? One difference is that the "pesharim" are explicit commentaries characterized by the formulas that get used when they move from the biblical text (sometimes called the "lemma") to the interpretative comments. So they have been, somewhat artificially, designated by the special term used in the formula, "pesher" ("its meaning is") -- thus "pesharim" (plural). These are the earliest known Jewish commentaries, comparable in age to Philo of Alexandria's "Questions and Answers in Genesis" and in Exodus ( mid-first century ce). While Philo wrote in his native Greek, his commentaries do not survive intact in that language, but in various fragments and translations. In these works, Philo also quotes a biblical text, then gives the interpretations of others as well as his own. Although he does not use the pesher formula (or its Greek equivalent), he is following the same sort of format -- lemma, then interpretation. A similar format characterizes the later rabbinic "midrashim." These are all explicit commentaries. When we get to the "para-biblical" materials, they do not display that kind of format. They do not distinguish between some biblical source text and their own contribution. Rather, they provide materials that for the most part parallel what is found in biblical texts, sometimes providing more detail, sometimes less -- thus they are called "para-biblical." The Genesis Apocryphon does not make explicit reference to the biblical book of Genesis or other such sources. It reflects many of the same stories and themes as are found in biblical Genesis, but they are told -- or perhaps retold -- without explicit reference to the biblical accounts. Reading the Genesis Apocryphon is like reading Genesis itself. We can compare the translation by Garcia Martinez [=GM] with that in the recently published translation by Wise, Abegg and Cook [=WAC], where the "Genesis Apocryphon" is called "Tales of the Patriarchs" -- these titles are modern, attempting to capture the contents of the hitherto unknown writing. Since it is from Qumran cave 1, it is among the first texts translated in WAC, which is organized quite differently from GM. This particular DSS text is in Aramaic, not Hebrew, and that may be significant; some scholars argue that the Aramaic materials probably were adopted by the DSS sectarians rather than generated by them, in contrast to such texts as the (Hebrew) Manual of Discipline or commentaries. Many of the other Aramaic materials among the DSS represent texts that we knew about from our pre-DSS collections of "Apocrypha" and "pseudepigrapha" -- such as the Enoch cycle, Jubilees, Testaments of the Patriarchs, Tobit, and the like. Prior to the DSS discoveries, it was not clear what the original languages of these writings might have been, but now Aramaic seems most likely. According to this theory, then, the Genesis Apocryphon might be more ancient than the sectarian Hebrew DSS with which it came to be associated. The first part of the GenApocr [GM 230] seems to allude to material that resembles the controversial "mythological" passage in Genesis 6.1-4, about the "sons of God" generating unusual children with the "daughters of men." In the GenApocr col 2 [= "col 3" in WAC], Lamech questions his wife Bitenosh about the unique child to which she has just given birth (Noah), suspecting that perhaps she was impregnated by a "foreigner or Watcher of Son of Heaven" (line 16). Lamech even checks things out with his grandfather, the wise Enoch, who confirms that Lamech is indeed the father of the child. That this material is related to the Genesis 6.1-4 passage is quite obvious, but it is not so clear in which direction the relationship goes. Did the Genesis passage get expanded, or is it a summary of a much larger and older tradition? This story in various forms leaves traces in a large number of DSS scrolls and related material. Much of the Enoch literature and Jubilees build on it and references to Nephilim, Watchers, and errant angels are also found in the Damascus Document and other DSS. It is a foundational tradition, an etiological tale answering various questions about "origins": why are there giants? whence esoteric knowledge? why is there sin? Divine or otherworldly beings came down to humans to reveal such things and influence conduct. Who is the child being talked about in GenApocr? Noah, son of Lamech and Bitenosh, his wife (2.3). Note also how his wife refers to him as "my brother and lord" (2.9); interesting terminology similar to that found in the traditions of Abraham and Sarah. We know that brother-sister marriage was practiced in Egypt, at least among the ruling classes, and even when this might not have been literally true, brother-sister language might be used for married couples. Perhaps it was also used in other ancient Near Eastern contexts. Cols 3 - 11 are very fragmentary. Noah is mentioned in col. 6 and the ark col. 10. Then we have a less fragmentary column 12: Yavan is the father of the Greeks, as we already noted in the Nahum Commentary. Noah is said to have planted a huge vineyard on Mount Lubar that produced wine four years later, which accords with agricultural observations found also in rabbinic literature. Regarding the long life span attributed to Methuselah (369 years) and other early figures, various explanations have been attempted: e.g. months were called "years," or every 6 months constituted a "year" (since in the Jewish calendar there are two cycles in a year, with corresponding new years days and initial high feasts), or the entire length of a "dynasty" was given as the lifetime of the founder (as in some ancient Near East records that have survived). No explanation is entirely satisfactory. The damage is again severe until column 19 is reached, possibly because of the way the roll was exposed to destructive elements over the centuries. Sometimes important things can be learned from the patterns of damage. In col. 19, "sons of Ham" is a traditional generic reference to Egyptians (Ham was a son of Noah). Abraham seems to be the narrator at this point, as becomes obvious in line 14, concerning his dream. In line 25 he reads from a book, described as the words of Enoch. This is consistent with other accounts found in the Enoch materials, Jubilees, Testaments of the Patriarchs, etc. Sometimes reference is also made to the heavenly tablets, which contain all knowledge regarding history, science, individuals, etc. The angelic/heavenly beings sometimes reveal these secrets to people like Enoch. Cols. 20-22 are nearly complete. Note 2.8 concerning HRKNWS, who seems to be one of the three Egyptian informants who interviewed Abraham in col. 19. The name HRKNWS is reminiscent of the Hasmonean royal name Hyrkanos, although there does not seem to be any attempt to make such a connection in this text. Next comes the detailed description of Sarai's beauty, which serves as background for the desire of the Egyptian king to have her, and her protecting Abraham by claiming that he is her "brother." In such a text, we have gone far beyond what the biblical book of Genesis reports, and the questions remain concerning the relationship of our "para-biblical" works to the "biblical." Note that the technique is not that of a commentary -- no texts are quoted as the basis for explanation or elaboration. Some other samples: 4Qbook of Giants (4Q530 [4QEnGiants ar] in GM 261f) has Ohyah, brother of Enoch, relating his dream in which "The power of the heavens came down to earth" (2.16). This may be a reference to Michael the archangel, who is described in some other traditions as the power of the Most High. The Nephilim are also mentioned in this and the following fragment ("the Giants and the Nephilim" at the start of 4Q531; GM 262). In the "Elect of God" text (4Q534 = GM 263), we again hear of the Watchers, associated with some unnamed special agent of God who "knows the three books" and all the secrets of humankind! Again, in the "Apocryphon of Jacob" (4Q537 = GM 265) an angel delivers heavenly tablets to the human recipient, including information about cultic activities in the Temple. All these different, but similar, texts come from different hands; one enigma of the DSS is that hundreds of "scribal" hands are represented, and the same hand is almost never responsible for more than one writing. It makes it difficult to visualize a community of scribes producing all this literature in one place, but not copying more than one text each. Jin Kyu Kim (Westminster Seminary) //end// RelSt 225 Class Minutes #15 (29 Oct 1996) by Dan Cohn and Frank Catrickes 1) Thousands of fragments which represent 800 or so works -The scrolls are written/copied by many different writers -Thus some scholars question whether the DSS could be the work of one community (as in the "Essene hypothesis") -Golb argues that they represent the general literature of Judaism during the period 2) Rule of the Community (p.9, Garcia Martinez) -They breaking the night into "watches" to do observe the proper regulations of the community (6.7f) -Self designation of community as "the Many" (6.8ff) -What is "the book" that is read? Perhaps the bible or some portion of it, but other possibilities present themselves as well 3) Damascus Document (GM 41, column 10, lines 2ff) -This portion concerns community judges -The priestly representatives from "Levi and Aaron" are distinguished from the more general "Israel" membership (10.5) -The hitherto unknown Book of HAGY/HAGU is mentioned (10.6, 13.2, see 14.7) as an important source of instruction 4) The notion of two "messiahs" appears in DSS literature -One is portrayed as a priestly messiah and the other as a royal and/or military messiah (CD 12.23f may be based on this hope) -Elsewhere, ther is also mention of a dying messiah from the Joseph line who dies in war (e.g. 4 Ezra 7) -Compare also "the two anointed ones" (Zachariah 4) -The word messiah used in literature has various connotations; there seems to be no single concept of messiah at this point -The meaning of messiah (Hebrew) is literally "anointed" -As usage developed, some people speak of "the Messiah" in the singular as a technical term (in Greek, Messiah = Christos) -The DSS sometimes refer to the kingly son of David and the priestly son of Aaron/Levi 5) Isaiah 53: the significance to Christians -In Christian interpretation, the "suffering servant" of Isa 53 is thought to be Jesus -Isa 53 refers to the death, burial, remembrance of the servant -This passage may also be interpreted as a reference to the suffering community (e.g. Judaism) and not to a particular individual -In DSS, "the Teacher of Righteousness" is depicted as persecuted as are certain other "just" figures, but it is not clear that Isa 53 is read in that connection. 6) The writings of Paul, who was Jewish, incorporated the idea of a righteous community as well as the anointed one (an individual) at its head ("Joshua/Jesus the Messiah") 7) The expression "son of God" varies depending on its context such as the Greco Roman world on one hand or the Semitic world on the other. Even the Emperor Augustus was called son of God, lord, and savior. Hence, the term "son of God" may not always carry the same sense. 8) Copper Scroll/Plaque -Vendel Jones, a modern semi-amateur archaeologist, has been involved in searching for its treasures -- he may have provided the model for Indiana Jones of modern film fame -The text of the copper plaque/scroll is difficult to decipher as well as difficult to interpret -- very cryptic 9) Damascus Document cols. 13-14 (p.43-44) -Authority structures, subdivisions, casting lots -High view of authority, determinism 10) The Rule of the Congregation (1QS\a = GM 126) -Includes the preparation of soldiers for eschatological warfare (1.21) 11) Josephus, Jewish War 2. -his writings describe "Essene" Jewish communities that have similar structure to what is found in DSS, and with the specific goal of preserving the revered "books" //end// From: mselya@sas.upenn.edu (Micah Y Selya) RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #16 (1 Nov 1996) Minutes by David Hiltzik, with Micah Selya <1.> The first subject we addressed concerned the physical aspects of the scrolls; e.g. the different handwriting styles (print, cursive, paleo Hebrew). The conversation turned to the overall quality of the writing. Deuteronomy 17:14 was alluded to because of the fact that the king was to write a scroll himself -- how would that compare to the work of professional scribes? The discussion then moved over to DNA tests on the scrolls -- it was discovered that the leather of some of the tested scrolls came from the same (goat?) herd. Someone on ORION wondered whether such tests were done on the pottery found on the sites as well. The next related issue was whether the manuscripts were of professional quality and its significance. We agreed that this would displayed a certain positive attitude towards authority, if true. On the other hand, one must examine each scroll separately for what it might show, and not approach the interpretation of the scroll with a certain agenda already in mind. <2.> Class then "officially" began by looking at some other eschatological texts in GM 138ff, such as 4Q246 mentioning a "son of G-d" in connection with warfare that leads to an "eternal kingdom." A famous "son of G-d" passage from Jewish scriptures that gets applied to Joshua/Jesus is Hosea 11.1, which in context appears to be referring to the Exodus from Egypt, but gets used as a reference to the return of the child Jesus and his parents from Egypt in the Gospel of Matthew. As we have seen, "sons of G-d" are also mentioned in the tradition reflected in Gen 6.1-4, as well as elsewhere. The 11QMalchizedek text (GM 139) was then discussed. Malchizedek literally means the king of righteousness. He is mentionaed in one of the stories in Genesis when Abraham offers cultic respect to him after he assists him in battle. Malchizedek is again spoken about in Psalms as a man with no ancestry. He is described as both a king and a high priest and comes to be a model for the Maccabean rulers. <3.>The original topic of this discussion concerned the range of the smaller fragments. 11Q13(Melchizedek) also speaks about the jubilee and calendrical issues. The discussion turned to several times in history when ther were calendrical shifts. The Zoroastrians had a thirty day month, twelve month calendar that needed a five day adjustment each year. There was also a shift when the Julian calendar was first installed in place of the older Roman calendar and when the Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian calendar in the 18th c. In both circumstances extra days were needed to calibrate the calendar. <4.> 11Q13 has the form of a commentary (see 2.4, 12, 17, 20, etc.) with Melchizedek victorious over Belial and the wicked sons of G-d. Belial is the name used for an evil spiritual figure and his "sons." In the very fragmentary 4QAramaic Apocalypse scroll (4Q246 = GM 138), the son of G-d might also be fighting the deceiving sons of Belial. Regarding different types of quotations encountered in the texts, certain distinctions are significant: 1) Attributed quotes have introductory formulas, showing that they are intentional; 2) There can be quotes (replication of wording) with no indication of intention to quote; 3) Allusions of various sorts (reflecting rather than replicating) abound, both lengthy and brief. The book of HAGY reemerged in this discussion (how would we know if it was quoted or alluded to if no formula were present?), and the Psalms of Joshua as cited in 4QTestimonia (GM 137) and as a separate DSS text (GM 283) not previously known. The question of how the "Psalms of Joshua" materials (4Q378 and 379) might relate to the "biblical" book of Joshua was raised, especially with regard to the "youngest son" in Joshua 6.26. The available translations were themselves unhelpful, leaving the issue unresolved. The discusion also included the 4QFlorigelium material (GM 136f) -- another collection of quotations from different "biblical" sources, with commentary on the selected texts. //end// RelSt 225 Class Minutes #17 (5 November 1996) Taken by Micah Y. Selya; reviewed by ... could it be Belial? Assignment for 7 Nov 1996: Read Temple Scroll & War Scroll Topic 1: Why are the scrolls seen as relevant for early Christianity? 1) For scholars who are trained in Christian studies (e.g. Abegg) it is natural to focus on material that seems relevant to Christianity. 2) There is also a hangover from the earliest period (ca 1950) when virtually all DSS scholars (except Yadin and Sukenik) were Christian. 3) Example: the organization of the "sectarian" community may seem to throw light on the earliest Christian reports in the NT book of Acts -- distinct | 1. priests = super apostles | distinct from | 2. council = apostles | from Greater Israel | 3. the many = brethren | Greater World 4) Even before 1950 the CDC was thought by some to refer to Essenes and was often seen as a parallel to early Christain groups which had a concept of communal property, strict rules of behavior, etc. Topic 2: Bible Variants, question by Tamar Lasson Dr. Kraft answered using the book of Jeremiah (not by the famous bullfrog!) as an example -- 1. The oldest Masoretic text (MT) MSS we have are from around 800 CE. 2. The Latin "Vulgate" translation by the church father Jerome (around 400 CE) is based on Hebrew that is very close to the later MT. 3. In the early 200s CE, Origen of Alexandria creates his "Hexapla," a six column work consisting of [information corrected here]: 1.Hebrew | 2.Hebrew | 3.Aquila | 4.Symmachus | 5.LXX/OG | 6.Theodotion in Greek letters The Hebrew behind Aquila's translation (made around 135 CE?) is close to what later became the MT. However the LXX/OG is sometimes quite different from MT, as in Jeremiah, where it is 1/6 to 1/7 shorter than the MT. Dr. Kraft then went on to explain that the "Bible" should not be looked at as a single textual unit in this early period. Each "biblical" work must be investigated individually. Topic 3: The Hodayot/ The Hymns Three types of hymns are found, relative to the biblical materials: 1. Those with no clear relationship to biblical Psalms 2. those which are clearly copies of biblical Psalms 3. Those with some overlap (wording, style, etc.) but no identity We began by looking at Garcia Martinez' 1. "Apocryphal Psalms" section, 11QPsalms\a, col. 27 (p.309), with its narrative section on David and his psalms 2. Then Psalm 151 (col. 28; p.310) -- some traditions include it among the biblical Psalms 3. "Psalms of Exorcism" in 11QApocryphalPsalms\a (p.377) -- Belial is the baddest boy of of both man and angels! Bdi Bdi Bdi that's all folks (for now)!!!! //end// [[Minutes #18 missing]] RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #19 (12 November 1996) By Jessica H. Wiener A promising looking new textbook has come out on the origins of Christianity -- The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman (Oxford 1997). There are two article on Qumran in the recent BAR. One, by Jodi Magness, discusses the fact that Qumran does not fit any such patterns and therefore, is not a resort like Masada. In the other, Edward Cook argues that Qumran was a ritual purification center. We don't know how the Hymns of the DSS were used. The Hodayot don't sound liturgical in general. We don't know if they were used in public readings the same way as the Hebrew Bible came to be used, as in an annual or a triennial cycle with passages selected each week from the three subcategories of Torah, Haftorah and Psalms. There are fragments of several copies of the hymns, showing that they were "popular" in some sense, but how? VanderKam discusses the presence of Tefillin and Mezuzot. None of these were found in the ruins of Qumran, so they do not provide a connection between the ruins and the caves. Pottery fragments are the only current connection. Additional evidence may someday be found in the graves, but that information probably will not become available any time soon because of contemporary strictures on excavating graves. We read through various hymnic compositions and discussed a number of ideas found in them: In 1QH, sea imagery is frequent (e.g. cols. 10-11 = GM 328-333). It has been suggested that the author, and/or the intended audience (at Qumran?), may have been sea traders on the Dead Sea. Eschatology is also represented in 1QH col. 11 (GM 331-333), with references to Belial (e.g. 28-32) and angelic beings (e.g. 22), and elements of personal (fate of the individual), as well as cosmic eschatology. Especially interesting is the "crucible" section (8-12) with the imagery of birth pangs, which elsewhere in early Jewish literature is sometimes used for the transition to the eschatological new world. If the two different births represented are interpreted in that context, one might think of the messiah and antimessiah -- the heroic man (9-10) and the serpent dominated one (12, 18). But that is not the most obvious reading of this material. In 1QH col. 12 (GM 334-336), the idea of judgement on those who deviate from the covenant is presented as the triumph of God's truth over deception -- including the imagery of a net spread, catching even those who were once connected with the covenant (e.g. 19). The "Songs of the Sage" (GM 371-6) include a listing of beings from which/whom God can rescue a person -- the ravaging angels, the bastard spirits, demons, Liliths, owls and jackals. It is a personal psalm reflecting a dualistic outlook -- the struggle between good and evil. On GM 376 are "Psalms of Exorcism" providing magical formulae to protect from the influences of the demonic world. 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman (GM 379) deals with the theme of foolishness (anti-wisdom!) in the imagery of a seductive woman (compare Proverbs 8-9 on wisdom as a woman). The counterimage of Sarah in the Genesis Apocryphon is noteworthy with regard to some of the descriptive details. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #20 (14 November 1996) by Frank Catrickes (primary) with Dan Cohn (secondary) 1. Essenes and the DSS The "old line" is that the Essenes and the DSS/Qumran community are the same. However, the "middle ground," which is more defensible, holds that some parallels can be drawn between the ancient descriptions of Essenes (Philo, Pliny, Josephus) and the DSS "sectarian" materials. It is possible to read aspects of ancient descriptions into such texts as the Damascus Document and the Manual Discipline. But even Josephus' description suggests that there were various types of "Essenes" -- some lived in the cities, others apart; some were married, others not. The most likely scenario is that the DSS community was at least "Essene- like." The parallels that do exist cannot just be ignored. 2. The Problems of Calendar The calendar reflected in much of the DSS material was solar, and seems to have been a point of contention. Some of the DSS fragments reveal an effort to correlate various available calendars. It is difficult for us to assess the general situation since there is so little evidence from sources contemporary with the DSS. Even looking back at the history of Israel can provide more information, but does not solve the problems. Some scholars interpret the seemingly odd calendar presented in the DSS as a key point of "sectarian" emphasis. Most have assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the calendar used in the Temple then is what became the classic rabbinic calendar that survives today. But our knowledge is very limited -- e.g. it is possible that the Maccabees/Hasmoneans made changes in the calendar they inherited. 3. Can the DSS be used to explain some of the apparent discrepancies in the canonical gospels of the Christian Bible? The DSS sometimes may shed some light on these problems. Jesus asked his disciples to prepare a passover meal on Thursday evening (according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke). But according to John, Jesus was on the cross when the passover lamb is being slaughtered. One possibility that has been suggested is that these accounts reflect the use of different available calendars (solar and luni-solar). A more likely explanation is that the authors of the synoptic gospels did not have adequate information available to supply an objective biography of Jesus that could withstand modern criticism, even if they had wished to do so. 4. LITURGICAL TEXTS ("Liturgy" -- from the Greek "to do service for God" that is both regular and formal) Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (GM 419ff; also found at Masada): These are songs/hymns that relate to celebrations in a heavenly context. GM 422 line 30 "the Instructor" is involved somehow with these hymns (other offices in the DSS include: prince, High Priest, general priests, Sons of Zadok, Teacher of Righteousness, 10 judges, Levites, Elders, Messiah(s), Inspector, Interpreter, Expositor...). Just who is this "Instructor"? GM 422 line 33 "all the divinities": the gradations of beings between humanity and deity is complex. These texts depict God's activity in human and angelic contexts. Examples of terms for the latter include Holy Ones, Sons of God, Watchers, Angels... Line 34 "For he is God of the gods of all the chiefs of the heights" (and similarly elsewhere). The author is not shy about using "polytheistic" language in presenting the majesty of the supreme God. It seems clear that for the authors of the DSS God is one and supreme, but their preoccupation with the intermediate spiritual realm(s) encourages use of such terminology that might otherwise be considered suspect (a similar approach may be seen in Paul, 1 Corinthians 8, writing to an audience familiar with Greek "polytheistic" traditions). This particular song is one that extols songs, praises God, directs people to get in line with the praisers of God, and is associated with the liturgy in connection with the Instructor. Knowledge of the heavenly things, as reflected in these songs, may derive from the idea expressed elsewhere of learning what is inscribed on the hevenly tablets. A bonus mystery: GM 423 lines 10-16 speak of "the debir" -- perhaps an area of sanctuary, the innermost sanctuary/sanctum (possibly the "holy of holies" in the Temple). //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #21 (19 November 1996) by Frank Catrickes (primary) with Dan Cohn (secondary) 1. Final Research Paper Loose guideline for length is about 15 pages. It is due the last day of class or due after reading days if you need the extra time to finish up, but be sure to include a telephone number where you can be reached if you will not be on campus (or will not check your email). 2. Methodology Comments on pros and cons of viewing the DSS through the lens of traditional rabbinic Judaism which has survived to the present, and of attempting to recreate or recapture the world of the DSS at the time they were written? 3. Role of the "Teacher of Righteousness" Where he is mentioned, he is at least a special person, possibly a "prophet" (at least funtionally he is a prophet, but the term might not be used; in traditional Judaism, the period of prophecy does not extend beyond the Persian period, around 400 bce). 3. HALAKHIC LITERATURE: TEMPLE SCROLL The Temple Scroll survives in two copies from cave 11. It has not been found in cave 4, although the same scribe's handwriting has been found in both caves. The Temple Scroll deals with things associated with the Temple, especially legal material. GM strangely groups it with "exegetical literature," although it certainly is more similar to the Halakhic texts, or to the "para biblical" materials. If the DSS represent a community, is this a presentation of what they would like to see in their Temple (or even an eschatological Temple)? The tendency to expand laws to cover newly discovered details may be at work here -- the idea of building walls/fences around the law, as it came to be expressed in rabbinic Judaism. Col. 2 (GM 154) -a "historical" prelude -warns reader to stay away from certain groups Col. 15 (GM 156 and the cover photo) -parallels the second copy (GM 179): seven yearling lambs, he-goat, sacrifice -"High Priest" is a key figure (line 15) Col. 19 (GM 158) -some hitherto unattested Halakic laws are included -"and you shall carry new wine for the libation" (ln 14) Col. 22 (GM 159) -priests = sons of Aaron -specifications of sacrifice -holocaust means "burned up completely" Col. 24 (GM 160) -different tribal designations and what their halakic responsibilites are (compare with similar lists) Cols. 30ff (GM 162) -this section deals with laws, architecture, and authority structure concerning the temple -is this to be interpretted as a righteous remnant or looking forward to a temple that will exist? -is this their vision of an idealized Temple when Israel is restored? Col. 43 (GM 166) -another novelty: feast of the offering of wood Cols. 44ff (GM 167f) -purity laws -gates mentioned again -not even "unclean birds" should fly over the temple -latrines outside the city //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #22 (21 November 1996) by Benjamin Fogelman HALAKHIC TEXTS: Further Comments on the Temple Scroll Col. 51. 6-7 (GM 170) This line seems to be picking up on the notion of Mt. Sinai as the place of Revelation (use of the word mountain). Narrator is God, presumably speaking to Moses. Line 15 of the same column "Pursue justice exclusively so that you can live and enter and take possession of the land which I give you so as an inheritance for ever." The DSS group presumably saw this as legislation for the future and read these scrolls in the same manner as they read forward looking portions of what came to be Tanakh (Hebrew Bible); or perhaps they saw it as a "historical" document of their past, like Deuteronomy. Digression over English Bible Versions: AV = authorized version (published 1611) = King James Version RV = revised version (of the AV), published 1881 ASV = American standard version, basically RV (1901) RSV = revised standard version (1952) NRSV = new revised standard version (1989) The RV/ASV rendered the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah," not LORD. The RSV was controversial among conservative Christians especially for rendering Isaiah 7.14 as "young woman" not "virgin," although the Greek translation used in the Christian gospels with reference to Jesus' birth is rendered "virgin." The Gideon society in Christianity, which distributes Bibles to hotel rooms and gives them away on the streets, stuck with the AV/KJV for years, and now uses the New King James Version. The terminology and style in the Temple Scroll echoes Torah to a significant degree as seen in the following examples: Col. 54.5-6 (GM 172) "I order you today" -- same language as when G-d would speak through Moses in Deuteronomy, especially; Col. 56.3-4 (GM 173) "act in accordance with Law" Col. 60.16 (GM 176) again shows how G-d spoke through Moses The DSS group apparently did not see this material as derived from, or an appendage to Torah, but as directly along side of it and was viewed with equal importance. In Deuteronomy 18.19 (see 11QTempleScroll 54; GM 172) the idea of a "prophet like Moses" has been interpreted variously, including the Samaritan belief that the future agent of God will be a new Moses. This topic moved into a variety of areas relating to ancient eschatology and also to the development of what came to be traditional Jewish biblical literature. Possible topics for the research paper assignment: 1) The protection of purity/sanctity of the people and the city as well as the Temple. Issues can be raised with regard to the places of sacrifice. Also, what is the actual role of the sacrifice and what does it mean. Can acceptable sacrifice occur in places other than the Jerusalem Temple? 2) The role of women. There is much concern about women in some of the scrolls. What areas of life should daughters, wives, and women stay away from? The Temple Scroll is very explicit and open about the presence of women. 3) The rules for the King. The Temple scroll contains a theocratic section. How is this viewed and organized? //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #23 (12/03/1996) by FRANK CATRICKES The "HALAKHIC LETTER" (4QMMT) = GM 77-79 This fragmentary work has caused a paradigm shift with regard to theories about the origins of the DSS community. There are six different copies each in different handwriting. It was one of the more recent scrolls to be published. The community must have thought well enough of this scroll that there were copies made. What does this tell us? The Halakic Letter is not like Enoch, Jubilees, or Genesis in the sense that it is not a "public" writing, although not quite private either, yet in the form of a letter. Schiffman views the Halakic Letter as a foundational document, representing the beginning point for a community. It is short enough, in the synthesized form provided by GM, and important enough for us to read it through, with random observations along the way. line 8: "none of the wheat of the Gentiles shall be brought into the temple" -- note that a sacrifice does not necessarily have to be burned; here a sacrifice of wheat seems to be envisioned (wine is also used similarly in the ancient world, poured out to the deity or deities). line 12: "thank offering" is a certain category of offering, also mentioned in TaNaKh/Torah. line 14: a debate is going on here whether the complete liturgy should be done on the same day as the sacrifice. This sort of halakhic dispute with regard to the timing of the sacrifice is also attested in later rabbinic materials. This section also mentions very detailed halakhic rituals. line 24: "unclean animals" -- on using products made from carcasses of forbidden animals such as the pig. Carcasses of clean animals are also considered impure, but presumably are not subject to the same restrictions. line 33: Organization of the community into "camps." Does such a "camp" represent a separate village, a subset of Jerusalem or perhaps the city of Jerusalem itself? Similar references elsewhere in the DSS may be instructive. line 39: "pregnant animals" -- note the special considerations with regard to sacrificing an animal parent and offspring. line 77: The text says that a corpse should be considered unclean regardless of whether it is "stripped of flesh or complete." line 80: Laws about "mixing" of animals, clothing materials, seed in fields, fornication (pure and impure seed), etc. Fornication here means some kind of mixing of human things that shouldn't be mixed, with special reference to the "priests." As we have seen elsewhere, the people of the DSS place a high priority on "purity" at all levels. line 92: "we have segregated ourselves" -- is this a reference to the circumstances that originally led this group to segregate themselves from "the rest of the people"? lines 100, 107, 116 -- note the "end of days" theme that is so frequent also elsewhere in the DSS (and the Belial connection in line 115). lines 106-118: the idea of covenant renewal and continuity with the history of Israel (Moses, prophets, blessings and curses, punishments, etc.) is built upon in the exhortations at the end. //end// RelSt 225 DSS Class Minutes #24 (5 December 1996) by: Micah Y. Selya The first topic discussed was the distinction between eschatological and apocalyptic materials: Eschatological (end times) normally refers to an "end" for either an individual person or for the world/cosmos in a general sense. Apocalyptic (revealed) usually refers to a particular type of eschatological imagery regarding the end (usually of the world/cosmos) -- thus a graphic subset of eschatology. "Apocalyptic" details of "the end of days" may include: battles/forces/cosmic signs/disasters judgement {court scene} resurrection agents/messiahs/divine beings "the end" (cataclysmic) "millenium" -- the concept of God and/or God's agents reigning for a period of time (1000 years) in utopian conditions; a concept in early Judaism taken over by Christianity and Islam. Two major perspectives permeate the sectarian DSS: 1. "halacha" in the sense of preoccupation with rules for living in the idealized community (the term itself is not present) 2. apocalyptic outlook on present and future existence These two are intertwined -- being faithful to God's rules is the "lot" of God's people as they participate in the last times. The assumption is that God knows everything and has it all under control. We then looked at the War Scroll: * resurrection is not mentioned here (and seldom elsewhere in DSS) * the opening lines have been preserved...very rare * Sons of Light vs. Sons of Darkness=Agents of Belial, identified as Edom, Amon, Philistines, Kittim of Ashur (traditional adversaries) Sons of Light include Sons of Levi, Judah, Benjamin and the "exiled of the desert" (the remnant of the true Israel?) Concepts mentioned: * recognition of many "gods" {perhaps called "angels" in other works} * everlasting redemption for the just * destruction for the evil forces * 6 initial battles, won alternately by light and darkness until in the 7th battle God wins Dr. Kraft then was asked to give some of his thoughts regading the scrolls... I leave them out so that the next RELS 225 will have a surprise in store! //end//