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 banners. In cols. 10–14 there are prayers for various occasions in the war. Columns 15–19 describe the battle against the Kittim apparently in seven lots (lots 3 and 4 are mentioned at the bottom of col. 17, but the following lines are lost).

While a few scholars accepted the essential unity of 1QM (Yadin 1962; Carmignac 1958), most have assumed a literary history. The eschatological battle in col. 1 takes place in one day and in seven lots. This outline is elaborated in cols. 15–19. Column 2, in contrast, describes a 40-year war and, moreover, lacks the contrast of light and darkness and the references to Belial which dominate col. 1. There are also duplications between different parts of the scroll. The hymn in col. 12 (“Arise, O mighty one . . .”) is repeated in col. 19. The battle order of cols. 1 and 15–19 is at least partially reflected in cols. 7–9 (von der Osten- Sacken 1969: 52). These and other observations have led scholars to formulate contrasting theories. Von der Osten- Sacken sees cols. 1, 15–19 as the original nucleus, and dates it to the mid-2d century b.c.e. because of its affinities with Daniel. P. R. Davies, in contrast, sees cols. 2–9 as a compilation from the Hasmonean period of traditions from the Maccabean wars, while 15–19 reached its final form (seven phases of battle, Kittim) only in the Roman period (after 63 b.c.e.). He regards col. 1 as a preface supplied by the final redactor. At one extreme L. Rost argued that 1QM was written before the establishment of the Qumran community, since it lacks reference to a separate community and uses the word yāḥad in a nontechnical sense. At the other extreme Vermes and Davies put the final redaction in the 1st century c.e. Yadin argued for a Roman date on the basis of military tactics, but his conclusions are disputed.

The source-critical arguments are of somewhat dubious merit. Since the War Scroll is arranged thematically (directions for deployment, prayers, description of the battle), some duplication is natural. Even the contrast between the one day of battle in col. 1 and the 40-year war in col. 2 does not involve logical incompatibility, although at least in this case different traditions are being utilized. While cols. 2–9 are less obviously dualistic than 1, 15–19 (Davies 1977), dualistic terminology is, nonetheless, interspersed in these cols, too (“Sons of Darkness” in 3:7, 9; Belial in 4:2). New light has been shed on the development of the War Scroll by the fragments from Cave 4. Two mss (4Q493 and 496) are dated paleographically before the middle of the 1st century b.c.e. The first of these does not correspond to any known section of 1QM but is clearly part of the same work. The other contains fragments of cols. 1–4. This early attestation of both cols. 1 and 2 would seem to preclude a dating of the final redaction to the Christian era, or even to the Roman period. Another ms, 4Q497, presents a recension which is significantly different from that of 1QM. C. H. Hunzinger (1957) had published part of this ms as an “older form” of the scroll. This is disputed by Baillet (DJD 7:12). It includes some passages unattested in 1QM, most notably a hymnic passage in the first person where the speaker boasts that he is reckoned with the angels (or gods) and speaks of a throne of power in the council of the gods. Baillet suggests that the speaker was the archangel Michael. On the evidence of this ms it would seem that different recensions of the scroll were copied in the Herodian period and that its literary history did not follow a neat logical progression. The closest conceptual parallels are found in works like Daniel and 1QS which date to the 2d century. The expressions “Kittim of Asshur” and “Kittim in Egypt” in col. 1 can plausibly be identified with the Seleucids and Ptolemies rather than with the Romans (on the range of “Kittim” see Yadin 1962: 24–25). The sectarian origin of the scroll is open to question in view of the lack of reference to a new covenant or community. Yet the dualism of light and darkness is not attested in Judaism outside the scrolls. Reference to the “Prince of the Congregation” in 5:1 and the citation of Balaam’s oracle in chap. 12 constitute parallels with CD 7:19–20. Since 1QM 7:3–4 specifically bars young boys 96and women from the battle, the scroll seems to presuppose that there were such people in the community (cf. lQSa), and hence it seems that the scroll was not designed only for a celibate settlement.

The Rule of the Community promises not to lay hands on the men of the pit until the day of vengeance (1QS 10:19). It is quite possible that the War Scroll was intended precisely for that day. It was not, however, a realistic guide to warfare and is primarily concerned with matters of ritual and purity. The impracticality of the regulations is shown by the fact that “the men of the serek” (i.e., the fighters) are 40 to 50 years old, while those who guard the arms and prepare the provisions are 25 to 30 (7:1–3). Great attention is paid to the role of the priests. The purity of the camp was required because “holy angels are with their hosts” (7:6; cf. 12:7–8). Ultimately their hope was that God would raise among the angels the authority of Michael and the dominion of Israel among all flesh (17:7). Like the book of Daniel, the influence of which it shows at many points, the scroll relied on divine and angelic aid rather than on military power.

2. Other Texts

The War Scroll is perhaps the most obvious example of the affinity of the newly discovered scrolls with the apocalypses. The apocalypses which make up 1 Enoch are found in several (Aramaic) copies at Qumran, (with the exception of the Similitudes, 1 Enoch 37–71). Some of these copies are older than the Qumran community (see Milik 1976). Fragments of a related work, “the Book of Giants” is also found there, and fragments of a “book of Noah” and (possibly) of Lamech have been found in Cave 1 (DJD 1:84–87). In addition to the canonical book of Daniel, a number of related “Danielic” writings have been found. Milik (1956) has published fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab), which may have been a source for Daniel 4, and of 4QpsDaniel ar, which apparently contained a review of history from the Flood followed by a prediction with an eschatological conclusion. See nabonidus, prayer of (4QPrNab). He also mentions a document which includes one or more visions. The visionary encounters four trees, of which the first identifies itself as Babylon. Milik speculates that they represent four kingdoms. Another unpublished composition, 4Q243, has been labelled 4QPsDan A, although it is not clearly related to Daniel at all. This latter text is noteworthy for mention of one who will be called “Son of God.” Milik thinks the reference is to a Seleucid king, but Fitzmyer thinks rather of a Jewish messianic figure (Fitzmyer 1979: 92). Other apocalyptic or related pseudepigrapha include Jubilees (several copies), an Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi, and fragments related to some of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, including a Heb parallel to the Testament of Naphtali, relating the genealogy of Bilhah.

Despite the evident interest in apocalypses and related texts at Qumran, the library has yielded no example of an apocalypse which was previously unknown and is likely to have been composed within the sect. There are, however, a few fragmentary works whose genre is uncertain but which may be apocalypses. The most important of these is 4QAmram (Milik 1972; Kobelski 1981: 24–36). This Aramaic document is introduced as “a copy of the book of the words of the vision of Amram son of Qahat, son of Levi: everything that he made known to his sons and that he commanded them on the day of his death . . .” It is then a testament rather than an apocalypse, but it contains a report of a dream vision in which Amram saw two supernatural beings contesting over him. One of these was called Melchiresa, who rules over darkness. The other rules over light. If Milik has reconstructed the text correctly, each figure had three names: the first called Belial, Prince of Darkness, Melchiresa, and the second called Michael, Prince of Light, Melchizedek. It is then an exceptionally full statement of the dualistic mythology which underlies 1lQMelch and the opposition of light and darkness in 1QS and 1QM.

The exceptional importance of the document comes from its early date—early or mid 2d century b.c.e. It is likely then to have been composed before the foundation of the Qumran community, although the dualism of light and darkness is only attested in ancient Judaism in the Qumran scrolls.

Another quasi-apocalyptic Aramaic text is the Description of the New Jerusalem (1Q32; 2Q24,∙ 5Q15; there are further fragments from Caves 4 and 11; see DJD 3:184–93). This is a vision of the ideal city in which the visionary is guided by an angel. The literary prototype is clearly Ezekiel 40–48. Another unpublished work attributed to Ezekiel will reportedly be published by Strugnell under the sigla 4Q384–90. Milik (1976: 254) refers to it as an “Apocalypse of Ten Jubilees.” It evidently bears some resemblance to 1lQMelch and to the Pesher on the Periods, but its literary form is as yet uncertain. The Book of Mysteries (1Q27, also composed of fragments from Cave 4), speaks of “the mystery to come” and proceeds to give the signs that these things will come to pass. A fragmentary text from Cave 4 reports a vision of Samuel which shows some affinity with Daniel (God will raise up a rock and a kingdom which people of all lands will know). A very fragmentary text, 6Q14, is labelled “an apocalyptic text” by the editors for no apparent reason. Another allegedly eschatological text (which may not, in fact, be such) is 4QMess ar, the so-called “Elect of God” text. This Aramaic fragment is a horoscopic prediction of the life of an individual who is called the “Elect of God,” but that title is not necessarily messianic. The reference may be to Noah (so Fitzmyer 1965). See also aramAIC “MESSIANIC” TEXT (4Qmess ar). It should be noted that such compositions as 1 lQMelch and 4Q2Ezekiel (see E above) are also closely related to apocalyptic literature.

I. Miscellaneous Compositions

Several other categories of literature are represented in the Qumran library. These include:

sapiential works such as “The Wiles of the Wicked Woman” (4Q184, DJD 5:82–85), which is similar to the warning of Proverbs 1–9, and other admonitions (4Q185 and the unpublished 4Q371);

horoscopes: 4Q186, written in archaic Heb letters (with some Gk ones) from left to right, comments on physical and psychological features, assigns portions in the “houses” of light and darkness, and specifies astrological signs (4Qmess ar also falls in this category);

list of treasures: one of the most puzzling of all the Qumran documents is the Copper Scroll (3Q15; DJD 3: 201–302). See also copper scroll (3q15). Two scrolls 97were discovered which appear to have originally formed a single plaque of copper-based metal. On this was inscribed, in postbiblical Hebrew, a list of 64 deposits of gold, silver, aromatics, and mss. Because of the enormous amount involved, Milik, the editor, was convinced that the list was fictional. He also argued that the author was not an Essene, because of the lack of distinctively Essene features but also because of the language and orthography. Others, however, (e.g., Golb 1985) have argued that the list records the disposition of the treasures of the Jerusalem temple. There is no close parallel to the Copper Scroll in the Qumran library, but Milik notes a similar preoccupation with detail in such imaginative documents as the Description of the New Jerusalem and the War Scroll;

a quasi-medical text? An obscure fragment, 6QTherapeia, is interpreted by Allegro (1985: 235–40) as “a clinical report on some aspects of Essene therapy.” This fragment consists of ten lines, and Allegro’s published photo is largely illegible. Allegro’s interpretation has now been decisively refuted by Naveh (1986), who suggests that the document in question is merely a writing exercise.

J. History of the Community

The origin of the Qumran settlement is dated on archaeological grounds to the second half of the 2d century b.c.e. (probably prior to the reign of John Hyrcanus, 135–104

C.E., but not by much; de Vaux 1973: 5). Most scholars date the activity of the Teacher of Righteousness to this period. See also qumran, khirbet; teacher of righteousness. The major dissenters from this consensus (Dupont-Sommer 1973, who favors the 1st century B.C.E., and Driver [1951] and Rabin [1957], who argued for a 1st century c.e. date) have found few followers in recent years. There have been several idiosyncratic proposals in recent years (Thiering [1979]; Eisenmann [1983], diversely, for an Herodian date; Golb [1985] denies that the library belonged to a Qumran settlement), but they have made little impression on the scholarly debates. The dominant consensus (Vermes, Cross, Milik) sees the Essenes as an offshoot of the Hasidim of the Maccabean period which broke away when the Hasmoneans took over the high priesthood, to which they had no traditional right. The “Wicked Priest,” who appears as the adversary of the Teacher in the pesharim is usually identified as Jonathan Maccabeus, alternatively as Simon (so Cross). (For a very skeptical review of the discussion, see Callaway 1988).

The primary internal evidence for the history of the community is found in the Damascus Document (CD) and the pesharim. Only CD provides a narrative account of its origin. According to CD 1 God caused “a root of planting to spring from Israel and Aaron” 390 years after he delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. It has been argued, for metrical reasons, that the chronological data are added as a gloss (Davies 1983: 63), but even if this be granted, their evidence cannot be disregarded because they preserve the sect’s own recollection of its history. The chronological precision of the information is questionable. The figure 390 is taken from Ezek 4:9. If it is extended by 20 years until the arrival of the Teacher, by 40 for his career, and by another 40 from his death until the overthrow of his opponents (CD 20:15), we arrive at the classic figure of 490 (the “seventy weeks of years” of Daniel 9). It is then a schematic figure which gives at best an approximate date in the early 2d or late 3d century b.c.e. CD 1 goes on to say that this “plant root” was “like blind men” for 20 years until the arrival of the Teacher of Righteousness.

Some scholars (Murphy-O’Connor, Davies) have argued that the origin of the movement can be traced back further to the Babylonian exile. Their arguments rest primarily on the interpretation of disputed passages in CD. In CD 3 God is said to establish his covenant with a remnant, and this statement follows directly on the description of the Babylonian exile. In the context of CD, however, this passage must surely be understood in light of the chronological data of CD 1: i.e., the new covenant should be placed “390 years” after the Exile. Other writings from the 2d century (the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, Jubilees’) skip over the postexilic period in a similar way. Again the phrase šby yiśrāʾēl (CD 4:2–3; 6:5) is translated by Murphy-O’Connor as “the returnees of Israel” (Davies takes it as “the captivity of Israel”). CD 6:5 says that those who dug the well of the Law were the šby yiśrāʾēl who went out from the land of Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus. These are men of understanding from Aaron and men of wisdom from Israel and must be identified with the plant root of CD 1. In 4:2–3 the priests are the šby yiśrāʾēl who went forth from the land of Judah. In these cases, however, the “going out” is not the indiscriminate deportation of exiles but the voluntary separation of a reform movement. Consequently, most scholars translate šby yiśrāʾēl as “penitents of Israel” (compare the phrase šby pešaʿ, “those who turn from sin” [CD 2:5; 20:17]). Moreover, the “plant root” is explicitly said to be a penitential movement in CD 1:8. The geographical significance of Damascus remains in dispute. It is variously taken as Babylon, Qumran, a place or state of separation from Jewish society, or literally as Damascus. The identification with Babylon depends on the broader theory that the movement originated in Babylon, and in view of the symbolic language of CD a literal reference to Damascus is improbable. The reference to Damascus symbolizes separation from Jewish society, whether Qumran is specifically intended or not. The general sense is clarified by CD 8:16, which refers to the šby yiśrāʾēl “who departed from the way of the people” (for a critique of the Babylonian hypothesis, as based on CD, see Knibb 1983).

If the development of the movement is located in Palestine in the early 2d century, it must be seen in the context of other developments at that time. The Apocalypse of Weeks (7 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17) speaks of the emergence of “the chosen righteous from the eternal plant of righteousness” at the end of the seventh “week.” The Animal Apocalypse (7 Enoch 83–91) speaks of “small lambs” who begin to open their eyes and who find a leader in a horned ram, which is evidently to be identified with Judas Maccabeus. Jubilees 23:26 tells how “the children will begin to study the laws” in a time of crisis. A group of wise teachers (maśkîlîm) play a key role in the prophecy of Daniel 10–12. Many scholars (e.g., Hengel) take all of these passages and also CD 1 as references to the Hasidim, who are known from the books of Maccabees (1 Macc 2:42; 7:12–13; 2 Macc 14:6). We have little direct information about the 98Hasidim. They were militant supporters of Judas Maccabeus, and they sought peace with the high priest Alcimus, who betrayed them. Their support of Judas Maccabeus is compatible with the lambs of the Animal Apocalypse, but scarcely with Daniel or CD. The Maccabean books tell us nothing of the beliefs or organization of the Hasidim. Nonetheless, there was evidently some relationship between the various reform groups of the Maccabean era. It may be that “Hasidim” was a loose umbrella term which covered more positions than are indicated in the books of Maccabees. It is not possible, however, to relate all the references to groups in the Maccabean era to a single organization. Since CD refers to a “new covenant,” this movement at least was formally organized. The Enoch apocalypses, by contrast, make no reference to the organization of their groups and so can scarcely be identified with the plant root of CD, although they were related to it (contra Davies 1987: 107–47, who speaks of the Apocalypse of Weeks and Jubilees as “Essene texts.”)

It is not fully clear from CD at what point the new covenant was formed. In CD 1 two stages are distinguished, the emergence of the “plant root” and the arrival of the Teacher 20 years later. In CD 3 it is said that God established his covenant with a remnant; and when they sinned, God forgave them and established a sure house for them. If two distinct stages are meant here, as in CD 1, then the covenant was probably established before the Teacher arrived. In CD 6, however, one continuous process is envisaged. The elect group from Aaron and Israel dig the well of the Law with the “staffs” provided by the interpreter of the Law (presumably the historical Teacher; CD 6:11 refers to another eschatological figure who will teach righteousness at the end of days). In CD the Teacher is seen as confirming and establishing the covenant, so that there is no discontinuity with the “plant” which preceded him. It is not clear how far the movement had separated itself from the rest of Judaism before the arrival of the Teacher. Most scholars assume that at least the settlement at Qumran came about after his arrival.

In CD the Teacher is opposed by the Man of Scoffing who “let flow over Israel the waters of falsehood” (1:14–15). This figure is elsewhere known as “the Man of the Lie.” He is mentioned again in 8:13; 19:26; and 20:15. The latter passage refers to the end of “all the men of war who went with the Man of the Lie.” He also appears in the Pesher on Habakkuk 2:1–2; 5:8–12; and 10:9–13. There he is grouped with the traitors who “were not faithful to the covenant of God” (2:3–4) and rejected the words of the Teacher. He is also said to have rejected the Torah and rebuked the Teacher in a council where the “house of Absalom” failed to oppose him (5:8–12) and to have established a congregation with deceit (10:10). He is also mentioned in the Pesher on Psalm 37, where he is said to have led many astray and caused them not to listen to the Teacher (a further alleged reference in lQpMic 10:2 is not actually attested—see Horgan 1979: 60).

The pesharim also refer to an opponent of the Teacher called “the Wicked Priest” (lQpHab [1:13]; 8:8–13; 8:16–9:2; 9:9–12; [9:16–10:1]; 10:3–5; 11:4–8; 12:2–10; 4QpPs 37 4:8–10). We are told that this figure “was called by the true name at the beginning of his course, but when he ruled in Israel he became arrogant, abandoned God, and betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth” (lQpHab 8:9–13). He is also said to have persecuted the Teacher, when the latter was observing the Day of Atonement (11:4–8). Several passages predict his punishment at the hand of God.

Some scholars assume that the Wicked Priest and the Man of the Lie are one and the same (e.g., Vermes). Jeremias and Stegemann have argued strongly that they are distinct. The Man of the Lie is the leader of a group which rejected the authority of the Teacher. The Wicked Priest is a high priest of Judaism as a whole. While both are enemies of the Teacher, only the priest is accused of defiling the sanctuary. The feud with the Man of the Lie concerns the true teaching. It appears then that the Teacher was involved in two disputes, one with the high priest and another with a rival teacher.

The points of dispute between the “new covenant” and “all Israel” can be inferred from CD. All Israel erred with regard to “his holy sabbaths and his glorious feasts” (CD 3:14–15), i.e., the cultic calendar. It is well-known that the Qumran community held to the 364 day calendar, which is attested in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll. Furthermore, CD 4:15–5:15 expounds the “three nets” in which Belial ensnared Israel—lust (by marrying two women in their lifetime), riches, and defilement of the sanctuary by failure to observe purity laws. Much light will be thrown on the points of dispute between the sect and other Jews by the publication of 4QMMT, supposedly a letter from a leader of the sect (possibly the Teacher of Righteousness) to a high priest (possibly the Wicked Priest). From the preliminary description of this document it seems that the main issue concerned the cultic calendar, ritual purity, and marriage laws.

Many scholars have supposed that the occasion for the break away of the sect was the assumption of the high priesthood by the Hasmoneans, either by Jonathan, who was appointed high priest by the Syrian king Alexander Balas in 152 b.c.e. (so Vermes, Milik, and most scholars) or by Simon, who was both recognized by a Syrian king and acclaimed by the priests and people in 140 b.c.e. (so Cross). Recently some scholars have also held that the Teacher of Righteousness was himself high priest during the interval between the death of Alcimus and the accession of Jonathan. (Stegemann; Murphy-O’Connor says he was de facto high priest; Josephus, Ant 20.10.3 §237 says that the office was vacant for seven years. Elsewhere he says that Judas Maccabeus had functioned as high priest and that the interval was only four years, Ant 12.112 §434; 13.2.3 §46.) The Teacher is called “the priest” in 4QpPs37 2:19; 3:15 (compare lQpHab 2:8), and it has been claimed that this absolute designation is elsewhere reserved for the high priest in the postexilic period (Stegemann, Murphy- O’Connor). This claim is not justified, however (see Collins 1989: 166). Ezra is called “the priest,” and he is not generally thought to have been a high priest. Moreover, the succession to the high priesthood is not an issue in CD (nor in what has been made public of 4QMMT). In lQpHab 8:8 we are told that the Wicked Priest was called by the name of truth at the beginning of his course and only “betrayed the statutes” when he ruled in Israel and became arrogant. It would seem then that he was not considered to be illegitimate because of his descent or to 99have usurped the rightful office of the Teacher. Rather, the objections to him were that he violated the halakôt of the sect by his wealth and impurity (lQpHab 8:10–13; 12:8–9). Besides, the Wicked Priest took the offensive against the sect. We are told that he pursued the Teacher to his place of exile on the Day of Atonement “to swallow them up and to make them stumble on the fast day, their restful sabbath” (lQpHab 11:4–8; cf. 4QpPs37 4:8–10). From this it would seem that the Wicked Priest attempted to suppress the observance of the heterodox calendar. The polemic against him in the pesharim may be a reflex of his own hostility to the sect. Yet, from lQpHab8 it would seem that better things had been expected of him. If the followers of the Teacher had been among the Hasidιm who supported Jonathan, their disappointment would be understandable. (On the Teacher and the high priesthood see Burgmann 1980. Van der Woude [1982] has proposed that each reference to “Wicked Priest” in the Habakkuk pesher refers to a different individual. While this is not persuasive, it is possible that the title is used for more than one of the Hasmonean high priests.)

The Man of the Lie is depicted in the scrolls as one who rejected the Teacher and caused others to do likewise. From CD 20:11–13 it appears that those who “turned back with the men of scoffing had been members of the new covenant. It would seem then that the advent of the Teacher brought about a split in the movement that had existed up to that point. The only reason given is that the Man of the Lie refused to accept the teaching authority of the Teacher. This may have been a matter of personal rivalry, or may have resulted from a new proposal of the Teacher (e.g., the establishment of the Qumran settlement, so Murphy-O’Connor).

Scholars have understood this split in the movement in various ways. In Stegemann’s reconstruction, the followers of the Man of the Lie became the Pharisees (those who broke off). Murphy-O’Connor and Davies suppose that the followers of the Teacher were confined to Qumran, while those of the Man of the Lie became the “non- Qumran Essenes” (cf. Garcia-Martinez 1985, who argues that the Essenes originated in Palestine in apocalyptic circles in the early 2d century, but that the Qumran community resulted from a schism in the Essene movement). The latter suggestion is implausible because CD clearly comes from the Teacher’s movement. Yet it legislates for life in camps and in towns—i.e., in several settlements. Moreover, the accounts of the Essenes in Philo and Josephus have most affinities with the quasi-monastic Rule of the Community which is presumably the rule of the Qumran settlement; yet they both say that the Essenes were found throughout the land. There is no evidence of a schism between the Qumran community and other Essenes. Stegemann’s suggestion on the origin of the Pharisees is attractive but cannot be verified conclusively. There are indications that the withdrawal to the desert was not entirely voluntary. In 1QH 4:8–9 the hymnist (presumably the Teacher of Righteousness) says that he was driven out like a bird from its nest. The retreat to Qumran, “to expiate iniquity” (IQS 8:3), may also have been a way of escaping from hostile opponents, some of whom persisted in their pursuit (lQpHab 11:4–8).

From the archaeology of Qumran it appears that the community attracted an influx of new settlers in the early first century b.c.e.—possibly Pharisees fleeing from Alexander Jannaeus (who appears as the “Lion of Wrath” in the pesher on Nahum). The site of Qumran was abandoned for several decades at the end of the 1st century B.C.E. after it had been destroyed, perhaps by the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., perhaps by the Parthian invasion of 40 B.C.E. The settlement was finally destroyed by the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 c.e.).

K. Character and Significance

The identification of the Qumran community as an Essene settlement is well established. See essenes. Yet the character of the community as it emerges from the scrolls is very different from that conveyed by Philo and Josephus in their descriptions of the Essenes. The ascetic tendencies of the community arise not from the pursuit of philosophical mysticism or from the dualism of mind and body but from the observance of priestly purity laws, the dualism of light and darkness, and the expectation of divine judgment.

The priestly character of the community is pervasive and is reflected in its leadership and even in the name “sons of Zadok.” (See Davies 1987: 51–72, on the limitations of what can be inferred from this term.) It is also reflected in the sense of participation in the angelic world, which is evident in hymnic compositions, such as the Hodayot and 4QShirShabb. Some of the most fundamental points at issue between the community and other strands of Judaism pertained to cultic and purity laws—notably the calendar. In the scrolls, however, these issues are viewed in a particular context (see Collins 1984: 115–41). Right observance depends on right revelation, which in this case is provided by the inspired exegesis of the Teacher (and presumably of his successors). The revelation of Qumran also contains an understanding of the world and of history which is enshrined in the Rule of the Community. The dualistic opposition of the two spirits provides a new context even for such a traditional institution as the covenant. The persistent importance of this dualism is shown by the War Scroll, which was copied in the Roman period. While other documents (CD, the Hodayot), do not expound the dualism of the two spirits, they also ascribe a role to Belial as a supernatural enemy of God and thereby attest the essential structure of dualism.

We have repeatedly noted the eschatological orientation of the scrolls. Several documents attest a periodization of history, culminating in the penultimate age of wrath, in which the community lived. The settlement in the desert was supposed to prepare the imminent way of the Lord (1Q58), and rule books were prepared for the community of the end of days (lQSa) and for the final war. The scrolls frequently refer to the coming of the messiahs of Aaron and Israel—the eschatological counterparts of the priest and the overseer of the actual community. We should expect that the level of eschatological fervor rose and fell during the two centuries of the community’s existence, but attempts to trace development in the extant literature have not been successful. The Pesher on Habakkuk shows an awareness of the problem of the delay of the end times, but insists that all of God’s times will come in their fixed order (7:9–14). While the War Scroll cannot be simply 100assigned to the Roman period, the late copies of it show the continued vitality of eschatological hope. Whether that hope led the community to participate in the revolt against Rome in the belief that the day of vengeance had come, remains a tantalizing but unanswerable question.

The primary importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they greatly enrich our understanding of Judaism around the turn of the era. Not only do they preserve the actual documents of a sect which had been known through second (or third) hand accounts; they also preserve a range of documents which were not strictly sectarian but illustrate the variety of Judaism. In recent years increasing attention has been paid to the presence of nonsectarian material in the Qumran library (conceivably including the entire Aramaic corpus). In some cases this material sheds light on the pre-Maccabean period, from which we have so little material. The scrolls also show that variety in text and canon persisted at the turn of the era and help dispel the mirage of normative Judaism in this period.

Christian scholars have naturally been preoccupied with the relevance of the scrolls for the NT. Sensational attempts to find direct references to Jesus or John the Baptist in the scrolls have not entirely disappeared but have been thoroughly discredited. The significance of the scrolls for the NT is less direct, but more far-reaching. The scrolls attest another Jewish community which, like the early Christians, lived in the belief that the end of days was at hand and that its struggle was with principalities and powers, and which reinterpreted the Scriptures in that context. There were of course great differences between the priestly Teacher and the miracle worker from Galilee, between the pursuit of purity at Qumran and the Christian mission to the Gentiles. Yet the scrolls have provided a wealth of comparative material which will continue to occupy NT scholars for the foreseeable future (Stendahl 1957; Vermes 1981: 211–25).

Bibliography

Albright, W. F. 1955. New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible. BASOR 140: 27–33.

Allegro, J. Μ. 1985. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Myth. Buffalo.

Avigad, N., and Yadin, Y. 1956. A Genesis Apocryphyon. Jerusalem.

Becker, J. 1964. Das Heil Gottes. Göttingen.

Brooke, G. J., ed. 1989. Temple Scroll Studies. JSPSup, 7. Sheffield.

Burgmann, H. 1980. Das umstrittene intersacerdotium in Jerusalem 159–152, v. Chr. JSJ 11: 135–76.

Burrows, Μ., ed. 1950–51. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. 2 vols. New Haven.

Callaway, P. R. 1988. The History of the Qumran Community. JSPSup, 3. Sheffield.

Carmignac, J. 1958. La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres. Paris.

Charlesworth, J. H. 1981. The Origin and Subsequent History of the Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four Transitional Phases among the Qumran Essenes. RQ 10: 213–33.

Collins, J. J. 1984. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York.

Collins, J. J. 1989. The Origin of the Qumran Community. A Review of the Evidence. Pp. 159–78 in To Touch the Text. Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph, A. Fitzmyer, S. J. Ed. Μ. Horgan and P. Kobelski. New York.

Cross, F. Μ. 1961. The Ancient Library of Qumran. Garden City, NY.

Cross, F. Μ. et al. 1974. Scrolls from Qμmran Cave, 1. The Great Isaiah Scroll. The Order of the Community. The Pesher to Habakkuk. Jerusalem.

Cross, F. Μ., and Talmon, S. , eds. 1975. Qμmran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA.

Davies, P. R. 1977. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran. Rome.

Davies, P. R. 1987. Behind the Essenes. Brown Judaic Studies 94. Atlanta.

Delcor, Μ., and García-MartÍnez, F. 1982. Introducción a la literatura essenia de Qμmrdn. Madrid.

Dimant, D. 1979. The “Pesher on the Periods” (4Q180 and 4Q181). IOS 9: 77–102.

Dimant, D. 1984. Qumran Sectarian Literature. Pp. 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Ed. Μ. Stone. Philadelphia.

Driver, G. R. 1951. The Hebrew Scrolls. Oxford.

Duhaime, J. L. 1987. Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran. CBQ 49: 32–56.

Dupont-Sommer, A. 1973. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Gloucester, MA.

Eisenman, R. 1983. Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran. Leiden.

Fishbane, Μ. 1988. Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran. Pp. 339–419 in Mikra. Test, Translation, Reading and Interpretation in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Ed. Μ. Mulder. Philadelphia.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1965. The Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave, 4. CBQ 27: 348–72.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1966. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qμmran Cave 1. Rome.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1974. “4Q Testimonia” and the NT. Pp. 59–89 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the NT. Missoula, MT.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1975. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study. Missoula, MT. Revised ed., 1990.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1979. The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the NT. Pp. 85–113 in A Wandering Aramean. SBLMS 25. Missoula, MT.

Freedman, D. N., and Mathews, K. A. 1985. The Palaeo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11 Qpalaeo Lev). Winona Lake, IN.

Garcia-Martínez, F. 1985. Origenes apocalípticos del movimiento essenio y origenes de la secta qumranica. Communio 18: 353–68.

Golb, N. 1985. Who Hid the Dead Sea. Scrolls? BA 48: 68–82.

Hengel, Μ.; Charlesworth, J. H.; and Mendels, D. 1986. The Polemical Character of the “On Kingship” in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11Q Temple. JJS 37: 28–38.

Horgan, Μ.P. 1979. Pesharim: Qμmran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington, DC.

Hunzinger, C. H. 1957. Fragments einer alteren Fassung des Buches Milhama aus Hohle 4 von Qumran. ZAW 69: 131–51.

Jeremias, G. 1963. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen.

Knibb, Μ.A. 1983. Exile in the Damascus Document. JSOT 25: 99–117.

Kobelski, P. J. 1981. Melchizedek and Melchiresa. Washington, DC.

Kuhn, H. W. 1966. Ednerwartung and Gegenwärtiges Heil. Göttingen.

Lichtenberger, H. 1980. Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qμmrangemeinde. Göttingen.

Mathews, K. A. 1986. The Leviticus Scroll (1 IQ Paleo-Lev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible. CBQ 49: 171–207.

Milik, J. T. 1956. Prière de Nabonide et autres Écrits d’un Cycle de Daniel. RB 63:407–11.

Milik, J. T. 1959. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. London.

Milik, J. T. 1972. Milki-sedeq et Milkiresa dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens. JJS 23: 95–144.

Milik, J. T. 1976. The Books of Enoch. Oxford.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1969. La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communaute. RB 76: 528–49.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1974. The Essenes and Their History. RB 81: 215–44.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1977. The Essenes in Palestine. BA 40: 100–124.

Naveh, J. 1986. A Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-Called 4QTherapeia. IEJ 36: 52–55.

Newsom, C. A. 1985. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Atlanta.

Newsom, C. A. 1988. The ‘Psalms of Joshua’ from Qumran Cave 4. JJS 39: 56–73.

Osten-Sacken, P. von der. 1969. Gott und Belial. Göttingen.

Ploeg, J. van der, and Woude, A. S. van der. 1971. Le Targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumran. Leiden.

Pouilly, J. 1976. La Règle de la Communauté de Qμmran. Son evolution littéraire. Paris.

Qimron, E., and Strugnell, J. 1985. An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran. Pp. 400–7 in Biblical Archeology Today. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archeology. Jerusalem.

Rabin, C. 1957. Qumran Studies. Oxford.

Rost, L. 1950. Zum “Buch der Kriege der Sohne des Lichts gegen die Sohne der Finsternis.” TLZ 80: 205–8.

Sanderson, J. E. 1986. An Exodus Scroll from Qμmran. 4QpalaeoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta.

Schechter, S. 1910. Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Documents of Jewish Sectaries. Cambridge (reprint, with a foreword by, J. A. Fitzmyer, New York, 1970).

Schiffman, L. H. 1983. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Chico, CA.

Schiffman, L. H. 1990. Archeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sheffield.

Schuller, E. 1986. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qμmran: A Pseudepigraphical Collection. Atlanta.

Skehan, P. W. 1978. Qumran and OT Criticism. Pp. 163–82 in Qumran: sa piété, sa theologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Ed. M. Delcor. Gembloux.

Stegemann, H. 1971. Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde. Bonn.

Stegemann, H. 1983. Das Land in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten aus den Qumranfunden. Pp. 154–71 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Ed. G. Strecker. Göttingen.

Stendahl, K., ed. 1957. The Scrolls and the NT. London.

Strugnell, J. 1990. Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran, in Schiffman 1990.

Strugnell, J., and Dimant, D. 1988. 4QSecond Ezekiel. RQ 13: 45–58.

Sukenik, E. L. 1955. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem.

Sutcliffe, E. F. 1959. The First Fifteen Members of the Qumran Community: A Note on 1QS 8: lff. JSS 4: 134–38.

Thiering, B. E. 1979. Redating the Teacher of Righteousness. Sydney.

Tov, E. 1981. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem.

Ulrich, E. 1984. Horizons of OT Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniversary of Qumran Cave, 4. CBQ 46: 613–36.

Ulrich, E. 1987. Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of 4QDana. BASOR 268: 17–37.

Ulrich, E. 1989. Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc. BASOR 274: 3–26.

VanderKam, J. C. 1984. Zadok and the SPR HTWRH HHTWM in Dam Doc V, 2–5. RQ 44: 561–70.

Vaux, R. de. 1973. Archeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London.

Vermes, G. 1981. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective. Philadelphia.

Wacholder, B. Z. 1983. The Dawn of Qumran. Cincinnati.

Weinfeld, Μ. 1986. The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. Göttingen.

White, S. A. 1987. A comparison of the “A” and “B” Manuscripts of the Damascus Document. RQ 12: 537–53.

Wilson, A. Μ., and Wills, L. 1982. Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll. HTR 75: 275–88.

Wilson, G. 1985. The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate. CBQ 47: 624–42.

Woude, A. S. van der. 1965. Melchisedech als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI. OTS 14: 354–73.

Woude, A. S. van der. 1982. Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary. JJS 33: 349–59.

Yadin, Y. 1962. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford.

Yadin, Y. 1983. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem.

Yadin, Y. 1985. The Temple Scroll. The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect. New York.

Copyright © Yale University Press. All rights reserved. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without prior permission in writing from the publishers.