The Dead Sea Scrolls, John J. Collins, Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freedman), Doubleday, NY, 1992, Vol.2, p.85-101.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
DEAD SEA SCROLLS. The name given to deposits of ancient texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, on papyrus or leather, that since 1947 have been discovered near the W shore of the Dead Sea. This label is used in both a narrow and a broad sense. The narrow definition is restricted to mss found in 11 caves in the vicinity of Khirbet Qumran. The broad usage includes documents found at Masada, Wādı̂ Murabba˓at, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Ṣe˒elim, and Naḥal Mishmar. In this review we will focus primarily upon the Qumran scrolls and will refer to the others only when they are relevant to the discussion. See also WADI MURABBAAT.

———

A. Discovery and Publication

B. Provenance of the Scrolls

C. Community Rule Books

1. The Rule of the Community

2. The Damascus Document

D. Biblical Texts

E. Biblical Interpretation

1. Continuous Pesharim

2. Thematic Pesharim

3. Other Use of Biblical Material

F. Halakic Works

1. 4QMMT

2. The Temple Scroll

G. Hymnic and Liturgical Works

1. Nonsectarian Works

2. Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH)

3. Angelic Liturgy (4QShirShabb)

4. Other Works

H. Eschatological, Apocalyptic, and Related Texts

1. The War Scroll (1QM)

2. Other Texts

I. Miscellaneous Compositions

J. History of the Community

K. Character and Significance

———

A. Discovery and Publication

The initial find, in 1947, consisted of seven rolls of leather from Cave 1. The eleventh cave was discovered in 1956. Only Caves 1 and 11 have produced relatively intact mss. The largest find, however, was in Cave 4 in 1952, which yielded thousands of fragments from more than 500 mss. The larger, relatively intact scrolls were published promptly—three by M. Burrows for the American School of Oriental Research (the Isaiah scroll, 1Q Isaa, and a commentary on Habakkuk in 1950; and the Rule of the Community, then called the Manual of Discipline, in 1951, all now reprinted, Cross et al. 1974), and four by the Hebrew University (the War Scroll, Hodayot, and a fragmentary scroll of Isaiah, 1Q Isab, in 1954 [see Sukenik 1955], and the Genesis Apocryphon in 1956 [Avigad and Yadin]). Beginning in 1955 the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert from Oxford University Press (DJD) became the main vehicle for publication of the fragmentary material. DJD 1 (1955) contained the fragments from Cave 1; DJD 2 (1961) contained the Murabba˓at fragments; DJD 3 (1962) the material from the “minor caves” 2, 3, and 5–10, including the Copper Scroll from Cave 3 and the Aramaic “New Jerusalem” text from Cave 5; DJD 4 (1965) is devoted to a single scroll, the Psalms scroll from Cave 11; DJD 5 (1968) contains a batch of material from Cave 4 edited by J. M. Allegro (but note the book length review by J. Strugnell in RQ 7- 163–276); DJD 6 (1977) contains another batch of Cave 4 material edited by J. T. Milik; DJD 7 (1982) yet more material from the same cave edited by M. Baillet; and DJD 8 (1990) contains the Greek Scroll of the Minor Prophets from Naḥal Ḥever (8 Hev XII gr) edited by E. Tov in collaboration with R. A. Kraft. A number of mss have received preliminary publication in scholarly journals (notably 11QMelch by van der Woude in OTS 14- 354–73), but there have also been major critical editions outside the DJD series- the Targum of Job from Cave 11 (ed. van der Ploeg and van der Woude 1971), the Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch from Cave 4 (ed. Milik 1976), the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice (ed. Newsom 1985), the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (ed. Freedman and Matthews 1985), a collection of noncanonical Psalms (4Q 380–81, ed. Schuller 1986), and the fragments of Daniel (Ulrich 1987, 1989). At the time of writing, the publication of the “halakic letter” 4QMMT is awaited in Revue de Qumran. The latest discovery from Qumran is the so-called Temple Scroll (11Q Temple), which was acquired by Y. Yadin in 1967. His edition was published by the Israel Exploration Society in 1977. Much of the material from Cave 4 still awaits publication. (For an inventory of publications up to the mid-seventies, see Fitzmyer 1975, revised and updated edition currently in press).

B. Provenance of the Scrolls

These documents are usually thought to constitute the library of an Essene community (see ESSENES) which inhabited the site of Qumran and whose way of life is described in the Rule of the Community from Cave 1 (1QS). The scrolls come from approximately the same period as the settlement the ruins of which stand at Qumran. The date of the settlement is fixed on archaeological grounds as extending from the mid-2d century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. (de Vaux). The scrolls can be dated paleographically from the mid-3d century B.C.E. to the third quarter of the 1st century C.E. (Cross 1961). Paleography provides a relative chronology based on the development of handwriting style. Fixed points of reference are provided by dated documents from the 1st and 2d centuries C.E. (e.g., the Bar Kokhba letters from Murabba˓at and Naḥal Ḥever) and by the fact that some documents were discovered in situ (e.g., a fragment of the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice was discovered at Masada and must have been placed there before the Roman siege). The presence of documents which are older than the Qumran settlement is not surprising since we should expect that the settlers would bring some documents with them. Golb has observed the peculiar lack of original documents such as letters and legal deeds in the Qumran finds (in contrast to those of Murabba˓at and Naḥal Ḥever). He has attempted to explain this fact by the hypothesis that the library did not belong to a community on the site, but to the Jerusalem temple, and had been hidden in the desert before the onslaught of the Romans. He fails, however, to account for the community described in 1QS or for Pliny’s location of an Essene settlement between Jericho and En-gedi to the W of the Dead Sea. It is conceivable that the Qumran community, because of its peculiar religious nature, did not keep deeds and records. It is also possible that such documents were hidden separately and have not yet been discovered. The association of the library with a religious settlement at Qumran remains overwhelmingly probable.

C. Community Rule Books

The documents which describe the way of life of the community provide a crucial vantage point from which to view the nature of the library. Two main books of regulations have been found at Qumran- the Rule of the Community and the so-called Damascus Document (CD). See also COMMUNITY, RULE OF THE (1QS); DAMASCUS RULE (CD); and ZADOKITE FRAGMENTS (DAMASCUS DOCUMENT).

1. The Rule of the Community. This book of regulation is extant in 12 copies ranging from about 100 B.C.E. to the Herodian period. An almost intact ms (1QS) was discovered in Cave 1 and was one of the first scrolls published (Burrows). Two fragments from Cave 5 covering 1QS 2-4–7, 12–14 have been published in DJD 3 (180–81) by Milik. Ten copies from Cave 4 are still unpublished, but Milik has listed the significant variants in a book review in RB 67- 410–16. The date of 1QS is usually put at 100–75 B.C.E., but Milik claims that the oldest ms of the work is the unpublished 4QSe.
The Rule is composed of a number of distinct literary units. There is a general statement of the purpose of the community in 1-1–15. The rite of covenant renewal is described in 1-16–3-12 and the instruction on the two spirits follows in 3-13–4-26. Introduced by 1QS 5-1 (“And this is the rule for the members of the community”) is a collection of regulations which runs to the end of col. 9. This section is quite probably composite. Formally, at least, we may distinguish the community rules in 5-1–6-23; the penal code in 6-24–7-25; instructions for a specific subgroup in 6-1–9-11 and for the maśkı̂l or instructor in 9-12–26. The last two columns of the scroll are taken up with a number of hymnic passages (10-1–8; 10-9–11-2a; 11-2b–15a; 11-15b–22).

The purpose of the community is set forth clearly in col. 5- “to be converted from all evil . . . to separate themselves from the congregation of perverse men . . . under the authority of the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant, and under the authority of the majority of the members of the community.” The regulations for admission to the community bear strong, though not perfect, resemblance to the description of the Essenes in Josephus (importance of oaths, multiyear process of admission, some provision for communal property, reference to a common meal). The penal code reveals strict discipline even in minor matters (interrupting another, laughing loudly) and providing for the irrevocable excommunication of anyone who turned apostate after ten years membership.

The most difficult problem in the collection of communal regulations concerns the relation between the special subgroup in col. 8 and the community described in cols. 5–7. Vermes notes that “these three priests and twelve men are referred to nowhere else” and leaves open three possible interpretations- “whether they formed the nucleus of the sect as a whole, or the minimum quorum of the sect’s leadership symbolizing the twelve tribes and the three Levitical clans, or a special elite within the Council designated elsewhere ‘the Foundations of the Community’” (Vermes 1981- 91–92). In 1959 E. F. Sutcliffe suggested that they were “the first fifteen members of the Qumran Community.” This suggestion has been taken up by Murphy-O’Connor, who finds in 8-1–16a + 9-3–10-8a the oldest nucleus of the Community Rule—a “manifesto” proposing the exodus to Qumran, possibly composed by the Teacher of Righteousness (Murphy-O’Connor (1969- 531). This is certainly a straightforward way to interpret 1QS 8-13- “and when these become a community in Israel . . . they shall be separated from the midst of the habitation of the men of perversity to go into the desert to prepare the way of ‘Him’ . . .” The likelihood that cols. 8–9 contain material from a stage different from that of cols. 5–7 is enhanced by the difference in views of authority in the community. In 9-7 “the sons of Aaron alone shall command in matters of justice and property and . . . in every decision concerning the members of the Community.” By contrast, in 5-2 the community is under the authority of the sons of Zadok and under the authority of the majority of the members of the community. Murphy-O’Connor has plausibly suggested that this change is related to the expansion of the community in the archaeological phase 1b (about 100 B.C.E). He goes on to posit four stages in the evolution of the Rule- (1) the “manifesto”; (2) 1QS 8-10b–12a; 8-16b–9-2 (“penal legislation for a small community); (3) 1QS 5-1–13a; 6-8b–7-25 (reformulation for expanded community); and (4) 1QS 1–4; 5-13b–6-8a; 10-9–11-22 (material from various sources of a hortatory and theoretical nature; Murphy-O’Connor 1977- 114; Pouilly 1976).

This reconstruction is attractive and at least the distinction between stages 1 and 3 is well founded, but some observations are in order. (1) In view of the paleographical evidence, the evolution of the document must have been complete close to 100 B.C.E. There cannot have been a great lapse in time between stages 3 and 4. (2) It is noteworthy that part of Murphy-O’Connor’s original nucleus (1QS 8-17–9-11) is missing from the oldest ms, 4QSe (Milik 1959- 123). The omission may, of course, be accidental, but nonetheless it calls for a reservation. (3) The special group of 12 men and 3 priests are said in 8-11 to be set apart as holy within the council of the community. If this passage was part of the original manifesto (Murphy-O’Connor 1969) it would seem to imply that the members of the pioneer community in the desert were selected from a larger community. Their departure does not appear to be the result of any schism in the movement. If this passage belongs to a later, second stage (Murphy-O’Connor 1977; Pouilly, 1976), it would seem to imply that such a select group continued to function within the community as Vermes proposed. (4) The diverse elements assigned to stage 4 by Murphy-O’Connor were not necessarily the latest compositions.
The treatise on the two spirits is indeed a self-contained piece which was not necessarily composed for its present context. Even if it was only integrated into the Rule of the Community in the final stage of its composition, it could still be older, and indeed may have a literary history of its own (von der Osten-Sacken 1969- 167). It is one of the most striking passages in all of the scrolls insofar as it attests a cosmic dualism far beyond anything in the OT. The sovereignty of God is safeguarded, but “He allotted unto man two spirits that he should walk in them until the time of His visitation” (3-18). All the righteous are in the hands of the Prince of Light, while the wicked are ruled by the Prince of Darkness. God has allotted these spirits in equal parts until the final judgment. There is a general consensus that this dualism shows some measure of Persian influence, but the channels through which this influence came about remain unclear.

The place of the treatise on the two spirits in the evolution of 1QS is important for our overall view of the theology of the community. As the document now stands, it is strongly dualistic, not only because of the passage on the two spirits, but also because the covenantal ceremony is permeated with dualism. (It is prescribed for “all the time of the dominion of Belial,” 2-19). By contrast there is no reference to “two spirits” or to “Belial” in the supposedly original “manifesto.” Yet it would be hasty to think that dualism was a secondary development in the Qumran community. The manifesto does not expound doctrinal beliefs, and it is certainly compatible with a dualistic view of the world- the exodus to the desert is intended as separation “from the habitation of the men of perversity.” The instructor (maśkı̂l) is to “weigh the sons of righteousness according to their spirits” (9-14) and not rebuke the men of the pit but conceal the maxims of the law from them (9-16–17). There is at least an ethical dualism here, and a metaphysical dualism may already be implied. The treatise on the two spirits itself can scarcely be later than 100 B.C.E. (The suggestion that it is the work of the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be substantiated, even if it cannot be refuted either.)

2. The Damascus Document. The other major sectarian rule, the Damascus Document (CD), was already discovered in the Cairo Genizah at the turn of the century (Schechter 1910). Its relation to the Qumran scrolls is shown not only by its style and terminology but by the fact that fragments of seven mss have been found at Qumran. Of these only two have been published- 5Q12 (= CD 9-7–9 in DJD 3- 181) and 6Q15 (= CD 4-19–21; 5-13–14; 5-18–6-2; 6-20–7-1, plus a fragment not in the Genizah text, DJD 3- 128–31). The oldest fragment, 4QDa, is dated by Milik to the first half of the 1st century B.C.E. (Milik 1972- 135, where he cites a passage. At present the fragments of CD have been entrusted to J. M. Baumgarten for publication).

There are two mss of CD from the Cairo Genizah- Ms A (10th century) contains cols. 1–16 on 8 sheets while Ms B (12th century) contains cols. 19–20 on 1 sheet. Columns 7 and 8 overlap with 19 and 20, but with important variants, and the last part of col. 20 has no parallel. According to Milik, the unpublished fragments from Cave 4 show that cols. 15 and 16 should precede col. 9 directly. They also show major omissions in the Genizah mss at the beginning, middle (after col. 8), and end of the document. The outline of the work, then is as follows- (1) introduction [4Q] (2) the admonition, which consists largely of historical review but contains some laws and warnings (Ms A 1–8 and B 19–20); and (3) the laws (4Q, Ms A 15–16, 9–14, final columns from 4Q). The 4Q material at the beginning of the laws reputedly contains laws, mostly dealing with purity. The final columns contain a penal code and a liturgy for renewal of the covenant (Milik 1959- 151–52; 1972- 135; his placement of the legal fragments is questioned by Dimant 1984- 497, who relies on analogies with Deuteronomy).

In view of the overlap between CD 7–8 and CD 19–20, it is clear that the document has a redactional history. The most elaborate reconstruction has been worked out by Murphy-O’Connor, who sees CD as “a compilation of diverse documents which enjoyed an independent existence before being assembled into the present text” (1977- 121). He regards the laws (CD 9–16) as “legislation for a Diaspora community;” CD 2-14–6-1 as a “missionary document” to win Palestinian Jewish converts; CD 6-11–8-3 as an exhortation addressed to Essenes; 8-3–18 as a critique of the ruling class in Judea. He also finds an “appeal for fidelity” in cols. 19–20 (19-33–20-1b; 20-8b–13; 20-17b–22). This analysis of CD is closely bound up with Murphy-O’Connor’s theory that the Essenes originated in Babylon and that the designation šby yśr˒l (CD 6-5, usually understood as “penitents of Israel”) should be taken as “returnees.” A different though related analysis has been offered by P. R. Davies, who accepts the basic unity of the admonition in cols. 1–8, but places it in the Babylonian Exile. Cols. 19–20 are viewed as part of a “Qumran redaction,” which also involves glosses in col. 1–8. This latter theory, however, requires some textual surgery, esp. in CD 1, which presupposes the career of the Teacher of Righteousness (whom Davies, like most scholars, regards as the founder of the Qumran settlement).

Others besides Murphy-O’Connor regard the laws in CD 9–16 as a separate composition (e.g., Stegemann 1971- 21, 128). Against this, however, Milik claims that the Qumran fragments present the two sections as a continuous text (1959- 38–39). A few important threads link both parts of CD—e.g., reference to those who “live in camps” (7-6; 12-22), and the phrase “Aaron and Israel” (1-7; 12-23–31). The argument that the laws were designed for a Diaspora setting is based on the presence of a few laws regulating relations with Gentiles (e.g., 12-7–9). There were Gentiles in Palestine, however, and the law that the Sabbath not be celebrated in the vicinity of Gentiles (11-14) would be difficult to observe in the Diaspora. In the case of the admonition, Davies has made a strong case for the substantial unity of cols. 1–8, while cols. 19–20 necessarily reflect some redactional activity. The attempts to date any part of CD before the establishment of the Qumran community are, at best, inconclusive (see White 1987).

Whereas the rule in 1QS was designed for a quasi-monastic community (the yāḥad), CD provides rules for “the assembly of the towns of Israel” (12-19) and for “the assembly of the camps” (12-23). The most obvious difference is that those who “live in camps according to the rule of the land . . . take a wife and beget children” (CD 7-6–7), a possibility not envisaged in 1QS. The laws of CD presuppose an environment where members of the covenant come in contact with strangers and with Gentiles. They are required to contribute only two days wages a month to the common fund (CD 14-13). (1QS 1-11–12 required that members bring all their possessions into the community, but the penalties in the Rule presuppose that they still had some private property.) CD also legislates on the subject of temple worship (6-12) and sending offerings to the temple (11-18–22). While the interpretation of these passages is debated, they do not seem to preclude all contact with the temple and may be reconciled with the (equally problematic) statement of Josephus on the Essenes (Ant 18.1.5 §§18–19). There is also legislation for conduct “in the city of the sanctuary” (12-1–2).

The circumstances envisaged in CD are clearly different from those envisaged in 1QS. Yet there is general agreement that both documents pertain to the same movement or sect. The affinity between them may be illustrated by the regulations for gatherings of ten-
“in every place where there are ten persons of the Council of the Community, let there not lack among them a man who is a priest. And let them sit before him, each according to his rank . . . and in the place where the ten are, let there not lack a man who studies the Law night and day . . .” (1QS 6-3–6).

“and where there are ten of them, let there not lack a man who is a priest learned in the Book of Meditation; they shall all obey his orders” (CD 13-2–3).

Both rules, then, provide for priestly leadership, although CD 13 (the constitution of the camps) allows that the priest may be replaced by a Levite who is more competent.
Both rules also provide for another authority figure, the “overseer” (mebaqqēr, 1QS 6-12; CD 13-7; 14-8). In CD 13-5–6, in the rule for the camps, the overseer is clearly distinguished from the priest. There is also an overseer of all the camps (CD 14-9), who is again distinguished from “the priest who enrolls the congregation” (14-7). In 1QS the “overseer” is probably to be identified with the paqîd (1QS 6-14) and the maśkı̂l (1QS 3, 9). According to CD 14 the overseer is supposed to have mastered all the secrets of men; in 1QS 3 the maśkı̂l is charged to instruct the sons of light concerning the spirits. A difference in community structure appears in the fact that in 1QS much authority is vested in the Council of the Rabbim (“Many”). There is no mention of a council in CD and the Rabbim have a more passive role; however, the term Rabbim is an important link between the two rules. Also, the fact that the community in CD is said to come from Aaron and Israel (1-7) parallels the division of 1QS between “the house of holiness for Aaron” and “the house of community for Israel” (1QS 9-6). Both documents refer to messiahs of Aaron and Israel. Both show a similar preoccupation with purity and holiness. Both documents attach central importance to a covenant, which is interpreted in a dualistic context. The main theological difference is that CD contains no systematic exposition of dualistic doctrine like the treatise on the two spirits in 1QS, although CD 2-2–13 parallels 1QS 3-15–4-26 in some other respects. (The contrast between Belial and the Prince of Lights appears at CD 5-18, but some have regarded this passage as redactional [Murphy-O’Connor; Duhaime 1987]). The apparent omission of the doctrine in CD may be due to any of a number of factors- the full doctrinal exposition may have been reserved for the members of the Qumran yāḥad; it may have been presupposed in CD, or the two documents may come from different points in the evolution of the sect. In the latter case, however, the interval cannot have been great, since both documents had reached their extant form by the beginning of the 1st century B.C.E.

Vermes has offered the best explanation for the relationship between the two rule books- they reflect the two orders of Essenes mentioned by Josephus (1981- 106–9). He further suggests that the “assembly of all the camps” (CD 14-3) took place at Qumran and that the “overseer” of the camps was the same person as the “overseer” of the yāḥad in 1QS. These suggestions cannot be verified, but the view that the two rules relate to complementary aspects of the life of the sect is very probable.

The “rule for all the congregation of Israel at the end of days” (1QSa), which was appended to 1QS (see DJD 1-107), confirms the overarching unity of the two branches of the sect, since it, like CD, provides for women and children, although the regulations for the council of the community and for the common meal are more similar to 1QS. Further, 1QSa specifies the stages through which a youth advanced in the sect and also legislates for the exclusion from the assembly of people smitten with impurity.

D. Biblical Texts

In view of the importance attached to the study of the Law (1QS 6-6–8), it is not surprising that biblical texts figure prominently in the library. All the books of the traditional Hebrew canon have been found, with the exception of the Book of Esther. The oldest mss date back to the end of the 3d century (4Q Samb, 4Q Jera, 4Q Exb). All are much older than any witnesses to the biblical text previously known. They have provided important new evidence for the development of both text and canon. See TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OT).

The antiquity of the traditional Masoretic Text type was confirmed by the Isaiah scrolls from Cave 1 (1Q Isaa and 1Q Isab). See also ISAIAH SCROLL (1QIsa). Fragments of Samuel from Cave 4, however, provided the Heb prototype for LXX readings which differed from the MT; and the Exodus scroll in paleo-Hebrew from Cave 4 attested a text type similar to that found in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see now Sanderson 1986). W. F. Albright proposed in 1955 that three recensions of the Bible developed, in Babylonia (MT), in Palestine (Samaritan), and in Egypt (LXX). This theory was developed and refined by F. M. Cross, who concluded that the “Egyptian” LXX tradition was also at home in Palestine and that the developments were not controlled by recensional activity. Cross’s theory has been taken up by his students (Ulrich and others). Others (Talmon, Tov), however, resist the distinction of text types and argue for a more variegated transmission of the text in the Second Temple period. The paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll from Cave 11 lends some support to their position since it cannot be clearly aligned with any one text type. The Qumran evidence has, however, established that diverse forms of the Heb text were current down to the 1st century C.E.
The evidence on the canon is likewise controversial. The canonicity of the Pentateuch is not in doubt. Five pentateuchal mss are written in paleo-Hebrew script, a distinction also accorded to the book of Job. (The book of Hagu or Meditation, CD 10-4–6; 13-2; 14-7–8, is probably the Torah itself, but it has also been identified with the Temple Scroll). Formal commentaries or “pesharim” have been found for the Psalms and for the prophetic books of Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah and Habakkuk. Various biblical books are quoted with the formulas “it is written” (Exodus in 1QS 5-17; Isaiah in 1QS 8-14; Hosea in CD 1-13; Deuteronomy in CD 5-2; Numbers in CD 7-19; Nahum in CD 9-5; Proverbs in CD 11-20–21), or “He said,” or “it said” (Micah in CD 4-20; Amos in CD 7-14–16), or “God said” (Deuteronomy in CD 8-9–10). At other times we read that God spoke “by the hand of the prophet Ezekiel” (CD 3-20) or of Isaiah (CD 4-13) or again, without reference to God, that “Moses said” (CD 5-8) or “Isaiah said” (CD 6-8). The Florilegium (4Q174) strings together quotations from Exodus, Amos, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Psalms to interpret 2 Samuel 7. The second column cites Daniel in the same manner as the first cited Isaiah and Ezekiel- “As it is written in the Book of Daniel the prophet.”

These citations support the general correspondence of the sect’s canon with the later Hebrew Bible, but some qualifications are in order. Not all the Writings are cited formally and so we cannot be sure of their status. Moreover, CD cites the Apocryphon of Levi (4-15 “of which Levi son of Jacob spoke”) and Jubilees (16-3- “it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the Times . . .”). Neither quotation necessarily implies canonical status, but “Levi spoke” is comparable to “Isaiah said.” It is uncertain whether there was a clear distinction at Qumran between the Kethubim and other authoritative writings.

The main debate about the canon at Qumran has centered on the Psalms scroll of Cave 11 (DJD 4). This scroll contains most of the last third of the Psalter but in an unconventional arrangement. It also includes a poem identical with 2 Sam 23-1–7 (“the last words of David”) and several apocryphal psalms- Psalm 151 (a variant of the corresponding psalm in the Greek Psalter), Psalms 154–155 which are also extant in Syriac, and a poem related to Sir 51-13–19, 30). There are also three psalms which were previously unknown- a “Plea for Deliverance,” “Apostrophe to Zion,” and “Hymn to the Creator.” There is also a prose catalogue of David’s compositions. This, however, is not the last item on the scroll- it is followed by Pss 140-1–5, 134-1–3 and Psalm 151.

The editor (J. A. Sanders) has argued that the Psalms Scroll was considered a portion of the Davidic Psalter. The inclusion of “the last words of David,” and the prose catalogue, and the concluding position of the Davidic Psalm 151 are taken as evidence that the entire collection was thought to be Davidic. No distinction is made between canonical and noncanonical psalms. Others (most notably P. W. Skehan) have argued to the contrary that the 11Q scroll was a liturgical collection with no implications for canonicity. It is not clear, however, why a liturgical collection should include a catalogue of David’s works; and, in any case, the inclusion of apocryphal psalms in a predominantly canonical collection, with no apparent distinction, is remarkable. The evidence is not conclusive (cf. Wilson 1985), but again it leaves a question as to whether the Kethubim were clearly distinguished from other authoritative writings at Qumran.

E. Biblical Interpretation

The Qumran sect had its own distinctive method of biblical exegesis (Fishbane 1988). This is most fully displayed in the continuous commentaries or pesharim on individual books, but it can also be seen in thematic pesharim which string together passages from different books (11QMelch, Florilegium) and in isolated interpretations of particular passages which occur in other works.

1. Continuous Pesharim. The continuous pesharim on prophetic books and psalms are extant in single mss. No copies of any of them have been found. For this reason, some scholars have proposed that they are autographs, but there is evidence that at least some of them contain copying errors (Horgan 1979- 3–4). The mss are dated variously to the late Hasmonean and Herodian periods and so are later than those of 1QS and CD. Moreover, the Pesher on Nahum clearly refers to events in the 1st century B.C.E. (Horgan 1979- 161). It is possible, of course, that some of the commentaries are older than this or that they draw on oral tradition. The pesher style of interpretation is already evident in CD.

The underlying presupposition of this exegesis is clearly stated in the Pesher on Habakkuk, col. 7- “and God told Habakkuk to write down the things that are going to come upon the last generation, but the fulfillment of the end-time he did not make known to him . . . the interpretation of it concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servant the prophets.” In short, prophecy was not to be interpreted in its historical context but was assumed to refer to “the last generation.” Scripture was a mysterious code and required further revelation for its true interpretation. Since the pesharim refer to some events in the 1st century B.C.E. which can scarcely have been known to the original Teacher, the task of interpretation was presumably attached to the office of interpreter of the law.

The pesharim follow a basic pattern- citation of a short passage, followed by the interpretation. The interpretation is introduced by a formula (e.g., “its interpretation concerns . . .”) The procedure is atomistic, without necessary regard for context. The interpretation often concerns the history of the sect, and much of the interest of the pesharim derives from the light they shed on its origins (see further below).

The continuous pesharim have a strongly eschatological orientation (e.g., 1QpHab 7-7–8- “The final period will be prolonged and will exceed everything spoken by the prophets, for the mysteries of God are marvellous”; or 4QpPs a 2-7–10- at the end of forty years the wicked will perish and the poor will inherit the earth). This orientation is even more strongly evident in the thematic pesharim.
2. Thematic Pesharim. 11QMelchizedek has survived only in fragments of a single ms from the Herodian period. Nine of 14 fragments were arranged by the editor. There were originally three columns. Only the second can be reconstructed intelligibly. Here Lev 25-13 (the year of the jubilee) provides the point of departure and is interpreted with the aid of other biblical texts—e.g., it is identified with the year of favor in Isa 61-2. This in turn is said to be Melchizedek’s year of favor, and he is identified with the ˒elohı̂m (‘god’) of Ps 82-1. Melchizedek is said to exact the vengeance of El’s judgments (cf. Isa 61-2) on Belial and his spirits. See MELCHIZEDEK (11QMelch).

A similar midrashic technique is evident in the Florilegium, of which two fragmentary columns have survived (DJD 5-53–57). 2 Samuel 10–11 is understood to refer to “the house . . . at the end of days” which is alluded to in Exod 15-17–18. 2 Sam 7-11–12 (“Yahweh declares that he will build you a house”) is interpreted to refer to the Davidic messiah, with the aid of Amos 9-11. Ps 1-1 is interpreted through quotations of Isa 8-11 and Ezekiel (the quotation is lost). The technique of interpreting Scripture by citing other scriptural passages departs from the normal practice of the continuous pesharim, but 11QMelch and 4QFlor use the typical formulas pišrô ˓al (“its interpretation, or pesher, concerns”) or pešer haddābār (“the interpretation of the passage”). The Florilegium also uses the term midrash for its interpretation. See FLORILEGIUM (4QFlor).

Another thematic Pesher from Cave 4, the Catena (DJD 5-67–75) is very fragmentary. It describes the circumstances of the sect in dualistic terms, by interpreting a string of biblical passages. The fragmentary “Words of Consolation” (4Q176); DJD 5- 60–67) also consists of a string of biblical passages, but these may have been part of a larger composition. Finally the work which is introduced as a “Pesher on the Periods” (4Q180; DJD 5- 75–77) does not appear to be a work of biblical interpretation but a treatise on the periods of history and on Azazel and his followers. In view of the fragmentary nature of the ms, however, it is possible that it contained a thematic pesher using a number of biblical passages (col. 2 apparently contains an interpretation of Gen 18-1–2, 19-1; see Dimant 1979- 83).

In other documents, such as the Rule books, biblical quotations are often worked into the text, introduced by a phrase like “as it is written” (cf. the famous quotation from Isaiah 40 in 1QS 8-14). While CD is a veritable tissue of biblical quotations and allusions, in some cases there is more direct interpretation. Amos 5-27 is quoted in CD 7-14 and interpreted with the aid of Amos 9-11 and Num 24-17. While the word pesher is not used, the technique is similar, e.g., “the books of the law are the hut of the king” and “the star is the seeker of the Law” (compare CD 4-1–4; 6-3–6). The term pesher is used in CD 4-14, where the “terror and pit and snare” in Isa 24-17 are interpreted as the three nets of Belial. The basic style of interpretation in all these pesharim is allegorical in the sense that one thing is asserted to mean something else. The interpretation of Scripture at Qumran is similar to the interpretation of dreams and mysteries in the book of Daniel, where the Aramaic cognate pšr is used. The ultimate roots of this style of interpretation must be sought in the dream interpretation of the ANE.

3. Other Use of Biblical Material. Two other forms of biblical interpretation in the Qumran library should be noted- Testimonia and biblical paraphrases. 4Q175 preserves almost intact a collection of biblical passages- Deut 5-28–29 + 18-18–19 (the prophet like Moses); Num 24-15–17 (the star and the scepter); Deut 33-8–11 (blessing of Levi by Moses), and a quotation from the apocryphal Psalms of Joshua, which includes Josh 6-26. (On the Psalms of Joshua, see Newsom 1988). See also JOSHUA, PSALMS of (4Q378–379). There is no commentary, but the collection evidently provides the basis for the messianic expectations of the sect. (Compare 1QS 9-11 “until the coming of the prophet and the anointed of Aaron and Israel”; the “man of Belial” may be a kind of antichrist [antimessiah], or an enemy of the sect [the Wicked Priest] or both.) This document has been labelled Testimonia by analogy with the collections of quotations which have long been posited in early Christianity (see Fitzmyer 1974). Another instance of a messianic proof text is found in 4Q Patriarchal Blessings, which cites Gen 49-10 (“The scepter shall not depart from the tribe of Judah . . .”) and relates it to the coming of “the Messiah of Righteousness,” the “branch of David.” See also TESTIMONIA (4QTestim).

Several compositions found at Qumran come under the heading of biblical paraphrase. These include- the Targum of Job from Cave 11, which is generally a faithful rendition with only a few theological alterations, e.g., the substitution of “angels of God” for “sons of God” at 30-4–5 (Milik also claims to have identified a Targum of Leviticus, but it is very fragmentary, DJD 6-87); the Genesis Apocryphon, which is a looser midrashic elaboration of Genesis; the book of Jubilees, which retells the story of Gen 1-1–Exod 15-22 with strong halakic interest; and the “prophetic words of Moses” from Cave 1, a farewell speech which draws primarily on Deuteronomy but also shows some influence from Leviticus. These latter compositions are among several Moses Pseudepigrapha found at Qumran. “Ordinances,” 4Q159, is a reinterpretation of various pentateuchal Laws. Other fragments of Moses Pseudepigrapha from Cave 4 have not yet been published. Apparently related to 1Q29 (DJD 1-130–32) are 4Q376 + 6Q408, which deal with a priestly liturgy (Strugnell in Schiffman 1990). The status of these Moses Pseudepigrapha is uncertain- they may have been regarded as authoritative texts in their own right rather than as biblical interpretation. The issue here is most vividly illustrated by the Temple Scroll, which is largely composed of biblical paraphrase but may have been regarded as a Torah in its own right (see below). Moreover, it is not clear that any of the biblical paraphrases were composed at Qumran. Jubilees is generally assumed to be an older composition, and some of the others may be also. See also GENESIS APOCRYPHON (1QapGen); JOB, TARGUMS OF (11QtgJob); JUBILEES, BOOK OF.

Biblical paraphrase also plays a part in 4QEzekiel, a fragmentary work which has only recently come to light. According to the editors, “The subject matter on the one hand is based on the prophecies of canonical Ezekiel and, on the other hand, it presents historical surveys of the kind found in historical apocalypses. Most of the extant fragments contain dialogues between God and the Prophet, including occasionally also references to the Patriarchs and to King David and King Solomon. From the dialogue between God and the prophet, it appears that the narrative is pseudepigraphically located in the time of Ezekiel; it therefore refers in the past to events that occurred before Ezekiel’s time, and in the future to events after the prophet’s time” (Strugnell and Dimant 1988- 48). The editors also find analogies with 4 Ezra.

F. Halakic Works

1. 4QMMT. It is evident from CD that halakic issues played a major role in the separation of the sect from the rest of Judaism. In CD 3-13–15 is the claim that God revealed to the righteous “the hidden things in which all Israel strayed” and specific mention is made of the cultic calendar. In CD 5 is found the complaint that “they” (the opponents of the sect) defile the sanctuary and violate marriage laws. The importance of these considerations is now confirmed by 4QMMT, which is identified by its editors as “a letter from a leader of the Qumran sect (possibly the Teacher of Righteousness himself) to the leader of its opponents” (Qimron and Strugnell 1985- 400). This letter or manifesto sets out the points at which the sect differed from its opponents. According to the preliminary report, these points fall into three categories- the cultic calendar, ritual purity (esp. in connection with the temple and sacrificial cult), and laws on marital status. In 4QMMT it is specifically stated that such halakic differences were the reason for the separation of the sect from the rest of Judaism. See also MIQSAT MA˓ASE HATORAH (4QMMT).

2. The Temple Scroll. Perhaps the most important halakic document discovered at Qumran is the Temple Scroll. See also TEMPLE SCROLL (11QT). The scroll, acquired by Yadin in 1967 (for the story of the acquisition see Yadin 1985- 8–55), is the longest of all the Qumran scrolls, extending for nearly 9 m. It is divided into 67 columns, of which the first is missing and the last is almost completely blank (there is nothing on the preserved portion of the column). This ms was the work of two scribes, both from the Herodian period. Fragments of other copies have been found in Cave 4. Yadin identifies the earliest copy as Rockefeller 43.366 and dates it “not later than the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 B.C.E.), or the beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76).” Strugnell, however, denies that these fragments belong to the Temple Scroll. Instead they belong to “a Pentateuch with frequent non-biblical additions” which either influenced or was influenced by the Temple Scroll (letter cited by Wacholder 1983- 206). There are, however, unpublished fragments of the Temple Scroll from Cave 4 which date no later than the beginning of the 1st century (Strugnell, oral communication; the letter cited by Wacholder puts the date about 150 B.C.E.).
Since the beginning of the scroll is lost, we do not know how it was presented. Most of the extant scroll is written in the first person and the speaker is God himself. The addressee is Moses, as can be seen from the reference to “Aaron your brother” (44-5). The revelation deals with the following topics-

Col. 2 the covenant relationship

Cols. 3–12 the temple building and altar

Cols. 13–29 feasts and sacrifices

Cols. 30–44 the temple courts

Cols. 45–47 the sanctity of the holy city

Cols. 48–51-10 purity laws

Cols. 51-11–56-11 various laws on legal procedure, sacrifices, and idolatry

Cols. 56-12–59 the law of the king

Cols. 60–67 diverse laws on cult officials, prophets, military affairs, family, and sexual matters
These laws often correspond, even verbally, with the biblical laws, esp. those of Deuteronomy, but they also contain much additional material. The biblical formulations are often translated into the first person, e.g., “the place which the Lord will choose” becomes “the place in which I will put my name.” The first person usage is not maintained consistently, however; the first extant column (col. 2) refers to God in the third person. Cols. 13–29 also use the third person, except that the conclusion in chap. 29 reverts to the first person. The third person is also used in the purity laws of 48–51-10, but again the conclusion (51-5b–10) reverts to the first person. Wilson and Wills (1982) have made a strong case that the variation is due not to lapses of attentiveness by the scribe but to the combination of sources, since the variation in person can be correlated with the variation between singular and plural address.

The prominence of the first person usage for divine speech highlights the problem of the nature of the Temple Scroll. If the document was accepted as a revelation from God, its status can hardly have been less than that of canonical Scripture. The divine name in the Temple Scroll is written in the square script, according to the practice in biblical books (e.g., Isaiah). In the pesharim or commentaries, in contrast, the divine name is written in paleo-Hebrew script so that it stands out from its context. Yadin (1985- 68) sees here evidence that the Temple Scroll enjoyed the status of Scripture at Qumran. Wacholder goes farther and argues that the author of the Temple Scroll “set out to rival Moses, hoping to succeed where his predecessor had failed” (Wacholder 1983- 228) and that the scroll was the Torah of the Qumran community. On the other hand, if the scroll had such fundamental importance, it is surprising that it is not referred to more clearly in other Qumran writings.

Yadin has suggested several possible allusions in the other scrolls. The “Book of Hagu” or “Hagi” (the “Book of Meditation”) is mentioned as an authoritative document in CD (10-4–6; 13-2–3; 14-6–8) and 1QSa (1-6–8). In each case someone is required to be learned in that book. It is associated with “the Constitutions of the Covenant” (CD 10-4–6 cf. 1QSa 1-6–8) and “the Judgments of the Law” (CD 14-6–8). The name is derived from Josh 1-8 (“This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night”). Yadin (1983, 1- 394) points out that the law of Moses is often called Torath Moshe, but this does not preclude the possibility that the “Book of Hagu” is another name for the Mosaic code. The evidence is simply inconclusive. A second possibility concerns the “sealed book of the law” in CD 4-20–51. The point at issue is the law of Deut 17-17, “he shall not multiply wives for himself,” which is construed to prohibit marrying another woman while the first is alive. King David, however, is excused, because he had not read the “sealed book of the law” which was in the ark and which was not opened from the death of Joshua to the rise of Zadok. Yadin, tentatively, and Wacholder, at length, identify Zadok here as the founder of the sect and suppose that the book in question was the Temple Scroll. In this case, however, it makes far better sense to identify Zadok as the high priest of Solomon (see VanderKam 1984) and to suppose that the reference is to a temporary concealment of the law of Moses. Finally, Yadin refers to two fragmentary passages in the commentaries. The pesher on Ps 37-32–33 tells of a plot by the Wicked Priest against the Teacher of Righteousness “and the Law which he sent to him.” This obscure passage is more likely to refer to 4QMMT than to the Temple Scroll. A very fragmentary passage in the Catena refers to seper hattôrâ šēnı̂t. Yadin emends the text to hašēnı̂t and translates “the book of the second law” (so also Allegro 1985). In view of the fragmentary nature of the text, the interpretation is most uncertain. Even if we suppose that the “Book of Hagu” is the Temple Scroll, the references are sparse and certainly do not support the idea that it in any way replaced the law of Moses. It may have enjoyed canonical status, but it was not the Torah of Qumran.

The question of the status of the scroll is bound up with the question of date and of its sectarian character or lack thereof. Yadin dated the scroll to “the reign of John Hyrcanus or shortly earlier” (Yadin 1983, 1- 390). He argued that the statutes of the king were relevant to the Hasmonean era in a way they had not been earlier. Column 34 deals with the rings used to fasten animals in the slaughterhouse. According to Talmudic tradition the rings were introduced by John Hyrcanus. Yadin allows that the scroll may have influenced Hyrcanus rather than reflect an established custom. He also mentions the death penalty of hanging alive as possibly relevant to the dating. Hengel, Charlesworth, and others have rightly noted that the statutes of the king and the use of hanging or crucifixion point rather to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76). The statutes would certainly have had pointed relevance in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, who used the title king, employed mercenaries, and was said to have crucified 800 Jews while he caroused with his mistresses. Nonetheless, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the statutes were developed as an elaboration and updating of the Deuteronomic law of the king and that their polemical relevance was secondary. The paleographic evidence would seem to require that at least some parts or sources of the scroll go back to the 2d century (and possibly earlier). The arguments both of Yadin and of Hengel/Charlesworth for a Hasmonean date rely heavily on the statutes of the king and do not exclude the possibility that much of the scroll may be older.

Yadin saw the scroll as an Essene composition, which confirmed the identification of the Qumran sect. He pointed to the affinities of the scroll with CD and the book of Jubilees. More specifically, he suggested that the “Feast of Oil” (Col. 22-14–16) explains Josephus’ statement that the Essenes considered oil defiling (JW 2.8.3 §123) and that the provision for a latrine outside the temple city was also a distinctively Essene feature (cf. JW 2.8.9 §147–48); but ultimately he found “the draconic nature of all the laws in the scroll pertaining to matters of purity and to the holiness of the Temple” to be “the determining factor of identification” (1983, 1- 399). The weakness of these arguments can be seen from the parallel with Jubilees, which is not usually considered a strictly sectarian work, although, like the Temple Scroll, it adheres to the 364-day calendar and is greatly concerned with purity. The Feast of Oil is in fact incompatible with Josephus’ actual statement unless we posit a misunderstanding. Provision for a latrine outside the city is rooted in Deut 23-12–14. The scroll is conspicuous for the lack of reference to a distinct community structure, a yāḥad, or a new covenant. It also lacks the most distinctive theological themes of the Qumran scrolls, such as cosmic dualism or the role of Belial. Accordingly, some scholars (Schiffman, Stegemann) deny that the scroll is a sectarian composition and see it as part of the older heritage of the sect, like the book of Jubilees. Particularly noteworthy is Schiffman’s observation (1983- 17) that the derivation of law in the scroll is fundamentally different from what we find in other Qumran documents- “whereas the other texts from Qumran see the extrabiblical material as derived from inspired biblical exegesis, the author of the Temple Scroll sees it as inherent in the biblical text.” While there are some striking points of affinity with the laws of CD (e.g., TS 45-7–12; CD 12-1–2, on the prohibition of sexual intercourse in the temple city), these are likely to attest a common tradition rather than common authorship. The Temple Scroll certainly originated in priestly circles, but it lacks the explicitly polemical character of the sectarian scrolls.

The Temple Scroll is primarily concerned to outline an ideal temple and system of purity laws. It does not, however, describe an eschatological or messianic temple- it is “the temple on which I will settle my glory until the day of blessing on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times” (29-8–10). It is, then, a reformist proposal which lays claim to divine authority, but it may be representative of circles from which the sect emerged rather than of the sect itself.

G. Hymnic and Liturgical Works

1. Nonsectarian Works. We have already noted the Psalms scroll from Cave 11, which includes psalms which are not part of the traditional canon. Some scholars see this scroll as a liturgical collection. Regardless of their canonicity, there is no reason to think that any of the psalms in the scroll were composed at Qumran or are specifically sectarian. A collection of non-Davidic Psalms from Cave 4, published by Schuller (1986), also lacks distinctive sectarian traits. Another traditional, nonsectarian prayer is found in “The Words of the Heavenly Luminaries” (4Q504–6; DJD 7-137–75), of which three copies survive, one from about 150 B.C.E. This is a communal prayer for deliverance, based on the covenant relationship, of a type similar to the confessions of sin in Nehemiah 9, Daniel 9, etc. See also WORDS OF THE LUMINARIES (4QDibHam). Several other liturgical works have survived in very fragmentary form. These include daily prayers (4Q503, DJD 7- 105–36), which seem to presuppose the solar, 364 day calendar; prayers for the festivals (4Q508–9; DJD 7- 177–215, also 1Q34); a ritual for purification (4Q512; DJD 7- 262–86); lamentations (4Q501; DJD 7- 79–80; 4Q179, DJD 5- 75–77); and a collection of blessings which have been construed by Baillet as a ritual (4Q502; DJD 7- 81–105). In view of the fragmentary nature of these texts, their ultimate provenance is uncertain.

2. Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH). There are also hymnic and liturgical works which are clearly sectarian compositions. The most important of these is the collection of thanksgiving hymns or Hodayot. See also THANKSGIVING HYMNS (1QH). An extensive though poorly preserved ms from Cave 1 was among the earliest scrolls published. This ms dates from the Herodian period. (Two additional fragments can be found in DJD 1- 136–38.) There are also six unpublished mss from Cave 4 of which the oldest dates to about 100 B.C.E. (see Dimant 1984- 523; Lichtenberger 1980- 28) and other fragments in the same style which do not correspond to any known section of the Hodayot. A new edition, including the 4Q data, is being prepared by Stegemann and Strugnell. The Cave 4 fragments reportedly complement 1QH at several points and show that the order of the hymns was variable. Whereas 18 columns were reconstructed in the first edition, Lichtenberger (1980- 29) refers to 24 in the light of Stegemann’s work and says that most of the fragments have now been placed.

The great majority of the units begin with the declaration “. . . give thanks to you, O Adonai”—hence the designation “thanksgiving hymns.” There are some exceptions, however- 10-14 begins “blessed are you, O Adonai” (cf. 5-20 where “I give you thanks” is erased; 11-27, 32–33) and the opening verses of several hymns are lost. Cols. 1 and 10-1–12 are hymns of praise to the Creator rather than of thanksgiving for deliverance. Even within the psalms of individual thanksgiving it has become customary to distinguish a number which attest to an exceptionally strong authorial personality. These hymns are characterized by personalized accounts of the distress and affliction of an individual and by the claim to be recipient or mediator of revelation (so Kuhn 1966- 22; Lichtenberger 1980- 29) and are thought to be the work of the Teacher of Righteousness. Other psalms of individual thanksgiving are thought to be “hymns of the community.” The “Teacher hymns,” according to Kuhn, are 2-1–19; 4-5–5-4; 5-5–19; 5-20–6-36; 7-6–25; 8-4–40. G. Jeremias, who does not make the theme of revelation a criterion, also includes 2-31–39 and 3-1–18 and extends the hymn which begins with 5-20 to 7-5. The distinction between Teacher hymns and community hymns is not universally accepted and there is disagreement about the classification of some hymns (e.g., Becker [1964] would include 2-20–30). Lichtenberger (1980- 65) remarks that not all the Teacher’s works were necessarily stamped with his own personality to the same degree. Yet Jeremias (1963- 172–73) has documented significant differences in linguistic usage between the Teacher hymns and other psalms. If the Teacher was not the author of these hymns, we would have to posit some powerful personality who is otherwise unknown. The distinction of a group of Teacher hymns, then, while hypothetical, has much to commend it.

Because of their poetic nature the hymns do not give much factual information about the career of the Teacher, but they do make clear that he was driven out “like a bird from its nest” (4-9) and that he encountered opposition not only from outsiders but also from “all who joined my assembly” (5-20). The cause of dissension was evidently his claim to be entrusted with a mystery. (Compare the Pesher on Habakkuk 7-4–5, which says that God revealed the mysteries of the prophets to the Teacher).

While the “Hymns of the Community” are not as vivid in their imagery as those of the Teacher, they share the same major theological themes. These include a strong deterministic sense of the omnipotence of God and the unworthiness of humanity, e.g., col. 1, cf. 4-28–33; the importance of the covenant (evidently the sectarian understanding thereof; e.g., 2-22; 4-5); and the idea that membership in the sectarian community involves fellowship with the angels or holy ones, e.g., 3-21–23; 6-13–14.

While there is no exposition of dualism like that of the treatise on the two spirits in 1QS, there is a clear moral dualism throughout. This is most vividly expressed in the simile of the two pregnancies in 3-1–18 (which Jeremias reckons a Teacher hymn)- the first issues in the birth of a messianic “wonderful counsellor,” the second in the “asp” or “wickedness” (the ambiguity of the term is intentional). “Belial” occurs several times in the Hodayot, but it is unclear whether it is used as a proper name in its biblical sense of “worthlessness” (von der Osten-Sacken 1969- 73–76). At least in 1QH3- 29, 32 the reference is to a satanic figure, and cosmic dualism is implied.

We do not know whether the Hodayot were ever recited in public. A few liturgical texts contain instructions for their use. The Benedictions (1QSb) were originally appended to the Rule of the Community (see DJD 1-118–30). They are introduced as “words of blessing for the maśkı̂l” (i.e., to be recited by him). Blessings are provided for “those who fear God . . . and hold fast to his covenant” (the community), the chief priest (the title is missing but is inferred from the blessing), “the sons of Zadok, the priests,” and for “the Prince of the Congregation . . . that he may restore the kingdom of his people forever.” In light of the eschatological overtones of the latter blessing, the editors suggest that the chief priest and prince in question are the messiahs of Aaron and Israel respectively. Like 1QSa, 1QSb then, is intended for “the end of days.”

Two other liturgical fragments have eschatological overtones. It is alleged by Milik (1972) that 4Q280 belongs to a document on purities (4QTeharot). In 4Q280-1–2 is a curse on Melchiresa which is related to the curse on the lot of Belial in 1QS2. In 4Q286, which is part of 4QBerakot, a collection of blessings and curses, is contained a curse on Belial and his guilty lot. By analogy with 1QS, we might suppose that such curses were recited in a covenant renewal ceremony (Milik 1972- 136).
3. Angelic Liturgy (4QShirShabb). A remarkable liturgical text, 4QShirShabb (the Angelic Liturgy), is preserved in fragmentary form in eight mss from Cave 4 (4Q400–7) ranging in date from late Hasmonean to early Herodian. The end of another scroll was found in Cave 11, and another fragment in later Herodian script was found as Masada. The work consists of 13 sections, one for each of the first 13 sabbaths of the year. They evidently presuppose the 52 week, 364 day calendar, but no songs for further sabbaths have been found, despite the number of mss. The individual songs begin with the heading lĕmaśkı̂l, which may indicate either authorship or the person intended to use them. At Qumran maśkı̂l was a technical term for the master or overseer. (The word maśkı̂l is used in biblical psalms without the initial lamed to indicate a type of song.)

These songs call on the angels to praise God, describe the angelic priesthood, and the heavenly temple, and its sabbath worship. The climactic seventh (middle) song begins with a series of seven calls to the angels. Then the heavenly temple, with all its parts, is summoned to join in the praise. There appears to be a brief description of the divine throne, and the song concludes with the praise uttered by the markābôt, “chariots.” The 12th song, in 4Q405, also contains a description of the merkābâ, “throne of glory,” in terms heavily dependent on Ezekiel. According to Newsom (1985- 37) it is “highly likely” that 4Q401 should be restored to yield two references to Melchizedek, one of which calls him “a priest in the council of God.” The reference to the council seems to presuppose the exegesis of Psalm 82 in 11QMelch but adds the element of priesthood. 4Q401 also contains several references to war in heaven and to the mustering of angelic hosts (Newsom 1985- 8).
Newsom (1985- 17) reasonably suggests that this composition is intended to evoke within a human community “a sense of being in the heavenly sanctuary and in the presence of angelic priests and worshippers” (cf. the first person plural forms in (4Q400). Only the 13th song refers explicitly to sacrifices, so it is not clear that they were envisaged as accompaniment to heavenly sacrifices, but they may have been recited at the time of the sabbath sacrifices.

There is a lack of references in 4QShirShabb to the yāḥad or any form of community structure which would mark it as clearly sectarian. Nonetheless, 4QShirShabb was evidently congenial to the Qumran community and throws light on the fellowship with the angels which we have seen in the Hodayot. It is also related to 4QBerakot, which contains praise of God and the heavenly temple as well as curses on Belial and refers explicitly to the council of the community. In view of the use of maśkı̂l and of the probable dependence on 11QMelch, it is likely that 4QShirShabb was composed at Qumran, but it is still possible that it is an older document from circles such as those that produced Jubilees. See also SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE (4QShirShabb).

4. Other Works. Yet another collection of hymns associated with a maskil is found in 4Q510–11 (DJD 7-215–62). Here the author refers to himself as a maśkı̂l ( 4Q510 v 4). These hymns are intended to praise God and terrify all evil spirits (including “bastards” and Lilith).

Liturgical texts of a different kind are also announced by Milik (1959- 41). These are Mišmarôt, “courses,” in which the rota of the priestly families’ service in the temple is given in detail according to the solar calendar and is also synchronized with the lunar calendar. Fragments of calendrical texts have also been found (e.g., 6Q17).

H. Eschatological, Apocalyptic, and Related Texts

1. The War Scroll (1QM). We have repeatedly noted the eschatological orientation of works from all categories of literature at Qumran—e.g., the rule for the end of days (1QSa), eschatological midrashic works such as 11QMelch, and liturgical texts such as the Benedictions. The most elaborate and distinctive eschatological composition is the War Scroll. See also WAR RULE (1QM). The introductory heading is unfortunately lost. It is usually supposed that the scroll was designated as a serek, “rule”—cf. 1QM 3-12; 4-9; 5-3; 9-10. The main text is provided by 1QM, which preserves most of 19 cols., including the beginning but not the end. (Two small fragments are published in DJD 1-135–36 as 1Q33.) Fragments of six mss (4Q491–97) have been found in Cave 4 (DJD 7-12–68). A seventh ms, previously identified as part of the War Scroll, is now categorized as a related document (DJD 7-69).

The opening column of the scroll lists the adversaries (Sons of Light/sons of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin against Sons of Darkness/army of Belial-troops of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, and “the Kittim of Asshur”) and outlines the day of battle (the forces of light and darkness shall each prevail in three lots and in the seventh lot God will subdue Belial). Column 2 sets out regulations for a war of 40 years duration. Columns 3–9 contain directions for deployment of troops and descriptions of trumpets and