'At the Entrance Sin is Crouching'': The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature

“At the Entrance Sin is Crouching”: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature

by

Miryam T. Brand

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies New York University September, 2011

Lawrence H. Schiffman

UMI Number: 3482858

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3482858 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

© Miryam T. Brand All Rights Reserved, 2011

DEDICATION

For my mother and father

No verse can express what I owe you, and no quote conveys what you mean to me.

‫ שלכם הוא‬- ‫שלי‬ is the simple truth.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a number of people whose support has made this project possible. First I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Lawrence Schiffman, whose guidance and encouragement enabled me to complete this project. Professor Schiffman’s comments and criticism enriched my dissertation immeasurably, while he himself provided a personal role model of both scholarship and Menschlichkeit. Professor Mark Smith has guided me in my biblical studies and in my pursuit of scholarship. I am particularly grateful for his close reading of my dissertation and his careful comments and guidance, which have taught me the meaning of “constructive criticism.” Professor Frank Peters helped me form the theoretical framework of this project and continued to shine the light at the end of the tunnel throughout my efforts. I have been fortunate to benefit from the scholarship of Professor Daniel Fleming and Professor Robert Chazan in my biblical and medieval studies and from their guidance throughout my teaching efforts. They deserve special acknowledgment for their participation in the dissertation defense. There are many who devoted time to discussing topics relevant to this study with me. Professor Menahem Kister shared his considerable expertise in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. Shai Secunda addressed questions in Persian thought, and Professor Michael Segal took the time to discuss central issues in Jubilees. Dr. Esther Chazon

iv

clarified issues regarding Dead Sea Scrolls prayer. Others have generously shared their work with me prior to publishing. These include Professor Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Professor Loren Stuckenbruck, and Professor Devorah Dimant. I have benefited from the generous financial support of several institutions in completing this project. Doctoral research grants were provided by Targum Shlishi, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature at the Hebrew University. I also received a Henry H. McCracken graduate fellowship from New York University, which made my doctoral studies possible. I thank each of these fine institutions for generously supporting my research. I benefited greatly from presenting portions of several chapters at various venues in the United States and Israel. Sections of chapters were presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (New Orleans), the Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem (2009), two discussion hour presentations at the Orion Center at the Hebrew University (2010 and 2011), and a presentation at the Haifa Colloquium for Research of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Haifa University, 2011). My thanks to all those who attended and provided constructive feedback. The majority of this dissertation was completed with the help of the substantial resources of the National Library of Israel at Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel. I am grateful to the wonderful librarians of the National Library, who consistently provided

v

assistance and a warm feeling of belonging to all library regulars, myself included. I would also like to thank Katja Vehlow for her constant friendship and support, whether from the adjacent library seat or from across the ocean. This project would never have been completed without the enthusiastic support and encouragement of my family. My sister, Menucha Wilk, and my brothers, Reuven and Shlomo Brand, provided constant support and relevant input. There are no words to express my gratitude to my parents, Don and Peninah Brand, with whom I have been truly blessed. They carefully read and commented on every chapter of my dissertation and were constant sounding boards for ideas, offering suggestions that improved my work tremendously. More than that, their love and faith in me have sustained me throughout this project. To them I dedicate this dissertation.

vi

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the problem of the existence of sin and the determination of its source as reflected in texts of the Second Temple period. The study surveys the relevant Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the works of Philo and (where relevant) Josephus, in order to determine the extent to which texts’ presentation of sin is influenced by genre and sectarian identification and to identify central worldviews regarding sin in the Second Temple period. The analysis is divided into two parts; the first explores texts that reflect a conviction that sin’s source is an innate human inclination, and the second analyzes texts that depict sin as caused by demons. This study finds that the genre or purpose of a text is frequently a determining factor in its representation of sin, particularly influencing the text’s portrayal of sin as the result of human inclination versus demonic influence and sin as a free choice or as predetermined fact. Second Temple authors and redactors chose representations of sin in accordance with their aims. Thus prayers, reflecting the experience of helplessness when encountering God, present the desire to sin as impossible to overcome without divine assistance. The need for God’s help in preventing sin is central to prayer texts regardless of whether the source is a human inclination or a demon and whether the text is sectarian or nonsectarian. In contrast,

vii

covenantal texts (sectarian texts explaining the nature of the covenant) emphasize freedom of choice and the human ability to turn away from the desire to sin. The emphasis on free will in these texts makes it clear to the member that there is no excuse for not keeping the community’s laws. Even demonic influence as described in these texts does not impinge upon the member’s free will. Genre, however, is not the only determining factor regarding how sin is presented in these texts. Approaches to sin in sectarian texts frequently built upon already accepted ideas reflected in nonsectarian literature, adding aspects such as predestination, the periodization of evil, and a division of humanity into righteous members and evil nonmembers.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication.......................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. iv Abstract............................................................................................................. vii Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... x Symbols Employed in Text Transcriptions .................................................... xvii I.

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

II.

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin .............. 33

III. Sectarian Prayer and the Innate Desire to Sin .......................................... 69 IV. Covenantal Texts and the Inclination to Sin........................................... 105 V.

Wisdom Literature and the Inclination to Sin: The Book of Sirach ....... 152

VI. Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin ....................................... 208 VII. After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch ........................................... 231 VIII. 1 Enoch and the Demonic Paradigm ..................................................... 269 IX. Jubilees and the Demonic Paradigm ...................................................... 309 X.

The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls ................................................... 376

XI. Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll .......................... 409 XII. Belial in the Community Rule and Liturgical Curse Texts .................... 453 XIII. Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits............................. 491 XIV. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................... 525 Bibliography ................................................................................................... 555

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

AARSR

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992.

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AGPh

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

AJEC

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

ALGHJ

Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums

AnBib

Analecta biblica

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972–

AOAT

Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ASTI

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

ATDan

Acta theologica danica

Aug

Augustinianum

BDB

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907

x

BEATAJ

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum

BETL

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib

Biblica

BibOr

Biblica et orientalia

Bijdr

Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie

BJS

Brown Judaic Studies

BLE

Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique

BRS

The Biblical Resource Series

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBC

Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBET

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CJAS

Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series

CQS

Companion to the Qumran Scrolls

CREJ

Collection de la Revue des études juives

CRINT

Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

CSCO

Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium

CSRT

Cambridge Studies in Religious Traditions

DCLS

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EBib

Etudes bibliques

EDSS

Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

EgT

Eglise et théologie

EHAT

Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

xi

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GAP

Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller

HALOT

Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994– 1999

Hen

Henoch

HR

History of Religions

HSAT

Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet. 4th ed. Tübingen, 1922–1923

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

IOS

Israel Oriental Society

JAJSup

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JCTCRS

Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JJTP

The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy

JLCRS

Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion Series

JSHRZ-St

Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

xii

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods

JSJSup

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

JSP

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSPSup

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

KUSATU

Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LSJ

Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996

LSTS

Library of Second Temple Studies

MLBS

Mercer Library of Biblical Studies

MScRel

Mélanges de science religieuse

NJPS

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NTL

New Testament Library

xiii

NTS

New Testament Studies

Numen

Numen: International Review for the History of Religions

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OLA

Orientalia lovaniensia analecta

OTL

Old Testament Library

OtSt

Oudtestamentische Studiën

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research

PACS

Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series

PTSDSSP

Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project

PVTG

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece

QC

Qumran Chronicle

RB

Revue biblique

RelSoc

Religion and Society

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

RRJ

Review of Rabbinic Judaism

RStB

Ricerche storico bibliche

SAACT

State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLEJL

Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLSCS

Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SBLSymS

Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SBLTT

Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

SC

Sources chrétiennes

ScrHier

Scripta hierosolymitana

SDSSRL

Studies in the Dead Sea scrolls and Related Literature

xiv

SGRR

Studies in Greek and Roman Religion

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SPhilo

Studia philonica

SR

Studies in Religion

SSN

Studia semitica neerlandica

STAC

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

StPB

Studia post-biblica

SubBi

Subsidia biblica

SUNT

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

SVTP

Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica

TBN

Themes in Biblical Narrative

TSAJ

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

TUGAL

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

TZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

VCSup

Vigiliae christianae Supplements

VD

Verbum domini

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

YJS

Yale Judaica Series

ZA

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

xv

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xvi

SYMBOLS EMPLOYED IN TEXT TRANSCRIPTIONS

Dead Sea Scrolls ‫א‬ ‫֗א‬ ‫֯א‬

certain letter probable letter possible letter, except for texts in 1QHa. In 1QHa this indicates a damaged letter whether the reading is certain or uncertain, following the Schuller/Sukenik edition in DJD 40 ‫( ׺‬mid-line circlet) remnant of an undetermined letter ֿ‫ו‬ either yod or waw [‫]א‬ reconstructed text _____ paragraphos < > a modern correction, sometimes an addition > a modern deletion {‫}א‬, {a} usually: erased letter(s) or surface ⌈ ⌉ ‫א‬ reconstructed text (according to a parallel manuscript) ‫אמתו‬, truth crossing out a letter or word with a line ‫ׄמעל‬ Deletion dot(s) above, below, or around letters (‫)א‬ alternative or uncertain reconstruction. In the texts of DJD VII, these parentheses denote reconstructions in parallel texts. (saying) in the translation: words added for clarity ‫ ׄשזעקתם‬, six months supralinear insertion ‫ה‬Â‫ה‬È Tetragrammaton (the four-letter name of God represented in paleo-Hebrew letters) ‫׻׻׻׻‬ Tetrapuncta (the four-letter name of God represented in the text by four or five dots) vacat interval (usually: the writing space was intentionally left blank) recto/verso observe/reverse side of a document top/bottom margin part of the top/bottom margin has been preserved word 1/word 2 (in translation) Alternative translations

xvii

Sirach (Hebrew) ‫֗א‬ 15add (‫)א‬ * manuscript [‫]א‬ {‫}א‬

probable reading verses/stichs that do not appear in the Septuagint version insertion in the original manuscript marginal notations and additions in the original reconstructions by the editor reconstructions by Segal based on LXX

xviii

I. Introduction

The question of the origin of human sin holds an important place in Second Temple Jewish literature. 1 This is not only a problem of theodicy, a problem that is more usually associated with the presence of natural evil, but also the dilemma of the human desire to sin and the existence of evildoers. The Hebrew Bible includes statements regarding the origins and nature of human sin, but these statements are not presented as “answers” to any explicit driving question. It is only during the Second Temple period that the problem created by the existence of moral evil (sin) becomes prominent. How is it possible to reconcile the existence of sin and the desire to sin with the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God? In attempting to solve this problem, the composers of texts during the Second Temple period propose a variety of solutions regarding the origin(s) of moral (as well as natural) evil, sometimes based on diverse biblical texts and traditions. Jews during the Second Temple period struggled with their own desires to sin as well as persecution by others whom they considered sinners, and the texts composed during this period reflect these concerns.

1

For the purposes of this study, “Second Temple literature” will include works composed from approximately 300 BCE to 100 CE. 1

While a variety of terminologically-driven studies regarding attitudes toward sin have been completed, the attempts to study the portrayal of sin across terminology and genres have been limited. This has led to conclusions concerning attitudes toward the source of sin based on a single word (e.g., yēṣer, often translated “inclination”) or a single type of explanation (for example, demonic spirits). A broad study, covering a wide range of texts, terminology and genres, is required to understand and compare the different views concerning sin and its appearance in the different genres that existed during this period. To what extent was the source of sin considered innate to the human being or, alternatively, the result of the influence of an external, nonhuman force? Was the choice to sin considered predetermined or the result of human free will? Without an extensive investigation addressing these questions in a wide variety of Second Temple texts it is impossible to fully understand Jewish worldviews during the Second Temple period. This is the goal of the current study.

The State of Research The majority of previous studies regarding the source of sin in Second Temple literature can be divided into those that focus on the idea of an innate inclination to sin, and those that study demonic influence as presented in these texts. There have also been several studies regarding dualistic beliefs concerning good and evil as they are reflected in Second Temple texts, and studies that explore aspects of sin not specifically related to its source.

2

Initial research focusing on the presentation of the human desire to sin in Second Temple texts attempted to find the source of the rabbinic idea of “the evil inclination.” “The evil inclination” (yēṣer hāra‘) is presented in rabbinic literature as a defined entity that functions within the human being but independently of the human. The attempt to find the source of this distinct idea motivated and continues to motivate a wide range of terminological studies that trace the use of the term yēṣer in the Bible, Second Temple texts, and rabbinic sources. For example, an early work by F. Porter explored the rabbinic view of the evil inclination 2 and then searched for possible sources of this idea in Sirach, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 2 Enoch. 3 The attempt to find sources for rabbinic thought in Second Temple texts received fresh impetus following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Early studies regarding Qumran views of sin naturally placed them in the context of a continuum from biblical to rabbinic thought. Some of these studies tended to present a single, unified Qumran view of sin, or focused on a single Qumran text, such as J. P. Hyatt’s

2

Following the study of F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (ed. D. Schnedermann; 2nd ed.; Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1897). Porter argues with Weber’s conclusion that the rabbinic yeṣer is connected to corporeality, explaining that this aspect of the rabbinic yeṣer was inserted by Weber. See Weber, ibid., 218-31. 3 F. C. Porter, “The Yeçer HaRa: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,” in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University (Yale Bicentennial Publications; New York: Scribner’s, 1901), 93-156. 3

study of the Hodayot and its presentation of the basic sinfulness of human beings. 4 3F

Other studies have been of a terminological nature, focusing on the development of the term yēṣer. For example, R. Murphy explored the appearance of the term yēṣer in the Hebrew Bible, Sirach, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Hodayot. 5 4F

His findings distinguished between the “non-individualized” tendency to evil found in the Hebrew Bible, the “individualization” of the yēṣer in Sir 15:14, and the more dualistic associations found in the Testaments and at Qumran. Murphy’s study of yēṣer in the Hodayot did not distinguish fully between yēṣer as creature and yēṣer as inclination, for example citing yēṣer ḥēmār (‫ )יצר חמר‬as an example of both human weakness and sinfulness. Murphy concludes that while yēṣer is sometimes used in the Hodayot (or as Murphy puts it, “in the Qumran literature”) to reflect a neutral tendency, it usually refers to the inclination to sin.6 5F

As more Qumran texts became available, particularly in the 1980s, interest was renewed in exploring aspects of sin in these texts. An important study by H. Lichtenberger examined views of sin in Qumran literature in the course of an anthropological analysis of these texts, focusing particularly on the relationship of human beings to God. 7 While Lichtenberger noted the diversity of approaches found 6F

4

J. P. Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” NTS 2 (1955-1956): 27684. 5 R. E. Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39 (1958): 334-44. 6 Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” 343-4. 7 H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980). 4

in different Qumran texts regarding determinism and free will, his aim was to reconstruct a single, unified anthropological view reflected in Qumran texts. 8 He concluded that the basic belief revealed in Qumran texts is that, as creatures, humans require divine assistance to choose the right path and keep the law. In his view this belief is a reflection of the anthropology set forth in the Hebrew Bible. Lichtenberger posited that, following the influence of dualism on Qumran thought, the basic belief in obedience to the law was impacted by questions of determination and predestination, resulting in the variety of views reflected in Qumran texts. He noted that some of these clearly reflect the possibility of human choice. A later terminological study by Lichtenberger focused specifically on the use of the term yēṣer in Jubilees and in Qumran texts; he determined that the use of yēṣer in these texts was closer to the neutral biblical use than it was to the later negative rabbinic use of the term. 9 A more extensive terminological study by G. Cohen Stuart, like the earlier study by Porter, attempted to find the source of the rabbinic yēṣer hāra‘ in Second Temple texts. 10 Cohen Stuart understood yēṣer in Sirach 15 as “freedom of choice” and, like Lichtenberger, found that yēṣer in the Dead Sea Scrolls is principally a neutral term. 11 He concluded, in findings reminiscent of the previous studies by

8

Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 237-9. Hermann Lichtenberger, “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von ‫ יצר‬im Jubiläenbuch,” JSJ 14 (1983): 1-10. 10 G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: an Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Haraʼ (Kampen: Kok, 1984). 11 Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 196-7. 9

5

Murphy and Lichtenberger, that in the period when the the books of Judith and Sirach were written, the term yēṣer indicated “disposition” or the power to choose. In contrast, at Qumran the word was used to indicate man’s weakness due to his physical nature. Only through God's help could this weakness be transformed. 12 More recent studies attempting to trace the early roots of the rabbinic “evil inclination” in Second Temple texts have followed the assumption that the rabbinic concept of the evil inclination was basically sexual and/or part of a dualistic framework (an assumption sometimes also found in earlier studies, such as Cohen Stuart’s study mentioned above). This assumption had been supported by D. Boyarin’s influential study espousing the position that the rabbinic view of the inclination was both sexual and opposed by a good inclination. 13 Boyarin searched earlier literature for possible sources of this idea, noting the neutral use of yēṣer in Sirach and finding a precursor to “rabbinic dualism” in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered by Boyarin to be a Hellenistic Jewish work. A view similar to Boyarin’s

12

Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 205. D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 61-76. The assumption that the evil inclination (yēṣer hārā‘) in rabbinic literature principally expresses sexual desire was later adopted in several studies, such as those of E. S. Alexander, “Art, Argument, and Ambiguity in the Talmud: Conflicting Conceptions of the Evil Impulse in b. Sukkah 51b-52a,” HUCA 73 (2002): 97-132, J. Schofer, “The Redaction of Desire: Structure and Editing of Rabbinic Teachings Concerning Yeṣer (‘Inclination’),” JJTP 12 (2003): 19-53, and P. W. van der Horst, “A Note on the Evil Inclination and Sexual Desire in Talmudic Literature,” in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity (WUNT 1/196; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 59-65. 13

6

assumptions regarding dualism in the rabbinic evil inclination has been adopted in a recent study by J. Cook. Cook argues that the source of the idea of two inclinations can be found in the Septuagint translations of Prov 2:11 and 2:17 and in Sir 15:14. 14 A recent study by E. Tigchelaar also seeks out traces of a “sexual” evil inclination as well as the opposition of a positive counterpart to the evil inclination as signs of a precursor to the rabbinic “evil inclination.” 15 Tigchelaar finds suggestions of these ideas in the connection between an evil inclination and “lecherous eyes” in the Damascus Document (CD II.16) and in the “ethical dualism” he sees in the Barkhi Nafshi text. In addition, Tigchelaar considers the juxtaposition of a śāṭān and an “evil inclination” in the Plea for Deliverance to be parallel to the identification of Satan with the evil inclination in the Babylonian Talmud (b. B.B. 16a). 16 However, the association of the rabbinic evil inclination with sexual desire and dualism has been vigorously refuted by I. Rosen-Zvi. In two separate studies, RosenZvi has argued that the “good inclination” is barely present in Tannaitic texts and is marginal even in later Amoraic literature 17 and that the sexualization of the yēṣer lacks

14

J. Cook, “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬,” JSJ 38 (2007): 80-91. 15 E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-van de Weg; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-57. 16 Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 353. 17 I. Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” JSJ 39 (2008): 513-39. 7

textual evidence even in the Amoraic period, occurring only afterwards. 18 In a recent work focusing nearly exclusively on the term yēṣer, Rosen-Zvi argues that the rabbinic idea of the evil inclination was part of a move to psychologize evil and demonic forces. 19 Rosen-Zvi points to specific texts in the Qumran corpus as evidence of the early reification and internalization of the yēṣer. 20 He also sees these texts as evidence of an early association of demonic forces with the yēṣer. However, Rosen-Zvi’s exclusive focus on the term yēṣer slanted the results of his study to overemphasize the association of the yēṣer with demonic forces in Qumran texts. While Rosen-Zvi’s argument for an association between the term yēṣer and terms of a demonic nature is valid, it does not follow that the yēṣer was a central and demonic figure at Qumran and impacted Qumran thought as such. As M. Kister has observed, while phrases including yēṣer do appear in Qumran texts, they are not particularly central at Qumran. 21 Studies on the representations of “spirit” in Second Temple texts have also touched on the understanding of the human and demonic drives to sin. However, these

18

I. Rosen-Zvi, “Sexualising the Evil Inclination: Rabbinic ‘Yetzer’ and Modern Scholarship,” JJS 60 (2009): 264-81. 19 I. Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011, forthcoming). I would like to thank Dr. Rosen-Zvi for sharing this book with me before it was published. 20 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 52. 21 M. Kister, “‘Inclination of the Heart of Man,’ the Body and Purification from Evil,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VIII (ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2010), 256. 8

studies have been significantly influenced by Pauline ideas. Early studies, such as that of W. Davies, focused on finding possible links between Qumran ideas and Pauline concepts. 22 Davies concluded that while the terms “flesh” and “spirit” are shared by the Pauline epistles and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pauline epistles are more in line with both Old Testament and rabbinic thought than the Scrolls. More recent studies of “spirit” or ruaḥ terminology at Qumran have suffered from severe methodological deficiencies. An example is a study by A. Sekki, who concluded that, apart from the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III.13-IV.26), one column of the Hodayot (1QHa XV) and 4QHoroscope (4Q186), rûaḥ in the Scrolls reflects biblical categories. 23 The drawbacks of Sekki’s study “ranging from assumptions and methodology to clarity and expression” were identified at length by M. Horgan. 24 As noted by Horgan, the fatal flaw of Sekki’s work is the treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a homogeneous body of literature. A later survey of nonbiblical Qumran texts by R. Kvalvaag, 25 who relied heavily on Sekki’s conclusions while at the same time recognizing the range of views reflected in Qumran texts, constructed a division between body and spirit in 22

W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Flesh and the Spirit,” in Christian Origins and Judaism (The Jewish People: History Religion Literature; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 145-78; repr. from The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957). 23 A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 24 M. P. Horgan, review of Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, CBQ 54 (1992): 544-6. 25 R. W. Kvalvaag, “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 159-80. 9

Qumran texts that was influenced more by Pauline thought than by Qumran approaches. Several significant studies regarding the depiction of sin and free will in specific Second Temple texts deserve mention, such as Hyatt’s early study of the Hodayot noted above, 26 J. Hadot’s wide-ranging study of sin and free will in Ben Sira, 27 and the studies of Philo conducted by G-H. Baudry 28 and D. Winston. 29 Evident from these studies is the degree to which Second Temple works differ from each other regarding their depiction of sin, free will and the human condition. The idea of the demonic origin of sin has also enjoyed particular prominence in studies of Second Temple literature. This is due in part to the studies of P. Sacchi, who posited an apocalyptic “Enochic Judaism” with a theology centered on ideas from the Enochic Book of the Watchers (BW). 30 The Book of the Watchers tells the story of the mating of angels (the “Watchers”) and human women (based on an interpretation of

26

Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” J. Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (l’Ecclésiastique) (Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1970). 28 G-H. Baudry, “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie,” MScRel 50 (1993): 99115; “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel,” BLE 95 (1994): 271-301. 29 D. Winston, “Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhilo 3 (1975 1974): 47-70; “Theodicy and Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky (ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud; CREJ 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 105-11. 30 P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (trans. W. J. Short; JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); P. Sacchi, “The Theology of Early Enochism and Apocalyptic: the Problem of the Relation between Form and Content of the Apocalypses; the Worldview of Apocalypses,” Hen 24 (2002): 77-85. 27

10

Gen 6:1-4) that resulted in the evil that led to the flood. According to Sacchi, BW reflects the conviction that evil derives from a contamination of the natural and human sphere through the disorder that angels brought into God’s cosmic order. Therefore, salvation cannot be effected by human beings, but only by God’s influence on the “inbetween,” angelic sphere. 31 While most scholars have not accepted the idea of an apocalyptic “Enochic Judaism,”32 Sacchi’s student G. Boccaccini has developed Sacchi’s theories in order to explore the possible origins of the Qumran community, proposing that this community resulted from a schism within “Enochic Judaism.” Boccaccini has posited that the author of Jubilees limited the effects of the universal contamination in his retelling of the Watchers story by allowing this contamination to be purified by the flood; otherwise the Jews would also be subject to it and could not be depicted as the chosen people. 33 Boccaccini also noted that “the myth of the fallen angels was silenced” at Qumran, and proposed that this “silence” resulted from difficulty with the angels’ free

31

P. Sacchi, “The Book of the Watchers and Apocalyptic,” in Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (trans. W. J. Short; JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 60-61; repr. and transl. from “Il Libro dei Vigilanti e l'apocalittica,” Hen 1 (1979), 4298. 32 See, for example, the discussion in J. J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2001), 287-99. 33 G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: the Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 94. 11

will in this story and the irrelevance of the Watchers story to individuals who saw their own destiny as preordained by God. 34 While it is widely accepted that the story of the Watchers is central to the presentation of sin and evil in many Second Temple texts, most scholars read these texts differently from the readings proposed by Sacchi and Boccaccini. D. Dimant was the first to attempt to trace the different strands of the Watchers myth integrated in BW centering on different angelic villains. 35 These different strands not only focus on different characters, but present different explanations of the Watchers’ initial sin and its effect on humans. Dimant also noted, both in this work and in a later pivotal article, 36 that in BW the story of the Watchers does not depict the source of ongoing sin after the flood; rather, it is meant as a paradigmatic story of primordial sin and punishment. Dimant’s conclusions have had considerable influence in the current understanding of BW. In a study on Jubilees, M. Segal developed Dimant’s findings and explored the degree to which the account of Jubilees is based on BW. 37 A great deal of scholarship has focused on the role of the demonic figure Belial, who appears briefly in Jub. 1:19-21 but is particularly prominent in Qumran

34

Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, 172. D. Dimant, “‘The Fallen Angels’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974 [Hebrew]). 36 D. Dimant, “1 Enoch 6-11: A Methodological Perspective,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 329-30. 37 M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 35

12

literature. Belial’s prominence at Qumran stands in contrast to the portrayal of Mastema, who is prominent in Jubilees but barely appears in Qumran texts. Segal assimilated the figures of Belial and Mastema in his analysis of the origin of evil and sin in Jubilees. 38 In contrast, Dimant has taken pains to separate these figures as they are depicted at Qumran and to distinguish the roles they play in Qumran literature. 39 However, Dimant’s study presents Belial as a single consistent figure based on a harmonistic reading of all Qumran texts that refer to him. This stands in contrast to A. Steudel’s survey, which notes the composite nature of Belial in Qumran texts. 40 The roles of various demonic figures in the understanding of human sin have been explored by D. Dimant, M. Segal, D. Flusser, E. Eshel, M. Kister, and L. Stuckenbruck, among others. 41 Dimant, in a continuation of her study separating the

38

Segal, Book of Jubilees, 99, 182 n. 5, 263-9. D. Dimant, “Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6-8, 2008) (ed. A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 235-56. 40 A. Steudel, “God and Belial,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947-1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 332-40. 41 D. Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’”; “Methodological Perspective”; “1 Enoch 6-11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work,” JJS 53 (2002): 223-37; “Belial and Mastema”; M. Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16:4-6 and Related Texts),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 167-84; M. Kister, “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (2 vols.; Between Bible and Mishna; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009), 2:497-528; 39

13

strands of the Watchers myth, has shed doubt on the idea that the original story of the Watchers as reflected in BW explains the origins of evil. She argues that the strand of the story connected to Šemiḥaza and the Watchers emerges as a paradigmatic story of sin and punishment, while the Asael strand presents Asael as a one-time tempter before the flood, not an eternal inciter. 42 In his study of Jubilees, Segal addresses the question of the origin of evil at length. He argues that, while different sources within Jubilees attribute the origin of evil to a historical event (the Garden of Eden or the Watchers), the redactional layer attributes evil to the demonic influence of Belial/Mastema. This demonic attribution of evil, according to Segal, is part of a dualistic system including the creation of both evil and good by God at the beginning of time. In Segal’s view, this dualistic framework strengthens the connection between Jubilees and Qumran sectarian literature. 43

L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63; Tübingen, 1997); “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354-77; “Genesis 6:1-4 as the Basis for Divergent Readings during the Second Temple Period,” Hen 24 (2002): 99-106; “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North; JSNTSup 263; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 45-70; “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in the Second and Third Centuries BCE,” in The Fall of the Angels (ed. C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck; TBN 6; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 87-118; “Giant Mythology and Demonology: from the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 318-38. 42 Dimant, “Methodological Perspective,” 329-30. 43 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 263-9. 14

Stuckenbruck has also traced the development of the Watcher traditions, in particular regarding the contrast of illicit knowledge and commendable knowledge in specific Second Temple texts. Stuckenbruck has argued that Jubilees creates two separate “lines” of knowledge: good knowledge that passes through the good angels, Noah, and Shem to Abraham and bad knowledge (astrology) that passes from the Watchers to Cainan, Noah’s great-grandson, and finally to the Chaldeans. Stuckenbruck contrasts the approach in Jubilees to another tradition reflected in the “Pseudo-Eupolemus” fragments, where there is no distinction made between the knowledge of good and of bad angels, and where the giants are the implied tradents of Enoch’s knowledge to Abraham. 44 In addition, in a study focusing on Jubilees, Stuckenbruck has reviewed several paradigmatic stories of sin, 45 and concluded that these stories are not meant to explain why people sin but rather to explain “the way things are in the world” and to exhort their audience to keep the law and avoid punishment. However, he grants special status to the story of the Watchers as an explanation of “the way things are,” noting

44

Stuckenbruck, “Origins of Evil,” 113; “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 304-5; “‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’,” 361. 45 Including the sin of Adam and Eve, the murder of Abel by Cain, the story of the Watchers, the account of Noah’s nakedness, and the story of the Tower of Babel. 15

that in the Jubilees narrative it is the Watchers episode that leads to ongoing suffering and sinning after the flood. 46 Special attention has also been paid to the roles demonic forces play in apotropaic prayers that have survived in Second Temple texts. D. Flusser has argued that apotropaic prayer illuminates the shift from sin to demonized sin, and that the focus of such prayer was primarily to prevent sin. Only later did apotropaic prayer address the disease and physical ailments that might follow sin. 47 In her dissertation, E. Eshel reviewed presentations of a demonic origin of sin in Second Temple literature, but focused on texts that reflect demonic possession, indicating demonic influence that is physical rather than moral. 48 Eshel’s subsequent studies on apotropaic prayer have made important distinctions between apotropaic prayers, addressed to God and including a multitude of different demons, and incantations, which are addressed to a specific demon and generally include the use of the tetragrammaton. 49 Menahem Kister has proposed that certain Qumran apotropaic prayers, particularly the Songs of

46

Stuckenbruck, “Book of Jubilees,” 307-8. D. Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” IEJ 16 (1966): 204. 48 E. Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1999 [Hebrew]). 49 E. Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 69-88; “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitischjüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 395-415. 47

16

the Sage and 4Q444 (4QIncantation), are actually connected to rites of spiritual exorcism that took place upon a member’s entry into the Qumran sect. According to Kister, individuals that did not belong to the sect were considered to be possessed by evil spirits, while sect members were considered immune to these spirits. 50 In contrast, and in a continuation of Eshel’s conclusions, Stuckenbruck has concluded that apotropaic prayer reflects a worldview that came to include demonic forces within the framework of traditional prayers for deliverance already present in biblical tradition. 51 The role of dualism in Qumran thought is another area of study that has influenced the understanding of sin as it was viewed in the Second Temple period. Dualism, specifically the contrast between cosmic forces of good and evil and between the righteous and the wicked, has long been considered central to Qumran theology. Much discussion has centered on what type of dualism was original to the Qumran community 52 and the different types of dualism that are evident in Qumran texts. 53

50

Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 172, 174-5. L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance from the Demonic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Early Jewish Literature,” in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (ed. I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema; JSHRZ-St 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 163. 52 See H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten: der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente, ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangelismus (ATANT 34; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959); P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); and J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32-56. 53 For example, see J. G. Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 93 (1974): 356-85 and J. Frey, “Different Patterns of 51

17

Recent scholarship, however, has begun to shed doubt on the centrality of dualism for the Qumran community, while not denying the dualistic background of specific texts. Hence, P. R. Davies has noted that many sectarian texts are not basically dualistic even if they contain a dualistic component, and has posited that dualism itself may be a later development in the history of the community. 54 Stuckenbruck has noted that not all dualities are of the same degree or ilk, and has suggested the investigation of “oppositional or contrastive ideas” without necessarily identifying them as types of dualism. 55 Other studies have focused on aspects of sin that, while significant, do not necessarily affect the understanding of the source of sin. For example, several studies have been conducted regarding the question of whether sin was considered a cause of ritual impurity at Qumran. 56 G. A. Anderson has also explored the development of

Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275-335. 54 P. R. Davies, “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 8-19. 55 L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III:13-IV:26) in its Tradition-Historical Context,” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (ed. A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 146-7 56 See J. Klawans, “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” JJS 48 (1997): 116; Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), the response of M. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,” DSD 8 (2001): 9-37, and the later study of M. Ginsbursky, “The Idea of Sin-Impurity: The 18

attitudes toward sin, specifically investigating the development of the “debt” metaphor of sin. 57 This metaphor is not in evidence in the texts under investigation in this study.

Rationale and Method of the Present Study The present study is the first to address the “problem of sin” as it is reflected in Second Temple literature in a single comprehensive analysis. The studies described above have provided important insights into different views of sin, but they suffer from substantial drawbacks that are the natural result of their specific focus. Studies that focus on a single work, or even on a group of works, often lack an analysis of what these works share with others of the same period or genre. For example, studies on sectarian Qumran prayer sometimes emphasize the internal human sinfulness portrayed in these prayers, without noting that this emphasis is frequently to be found in other Second Temple prayer texts. Without a wider range for comparison, it is impossible to discover in what way sectarian texts actually differ from other Second Temple texts of the same genre or type and in what ways they draw from common worldviews. Similarly, only a comprehensive study can properly expose ideas common to all texts or to a previously unrealized category. Finally, it is important to study Second Temple literature on its own terms before any connections can be drawn to other groups of texts. Dead Sea Scrolls in the Light of Leviticus” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2008). 57 G. A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 19

The wide range of the present study is designed to avoid the drawbacks noted above. However, the extensive range of this study has necessitated a preliminary categorization of the texts for organizational reasons, based on an initial survey. The texts have been categorized first according to their broad approach to sin: whether they depict the source of sin as internal and human or external and demonic. Texts that reflect an internal view of sin have then been divided according to the genre they represent: prayer, covenantal, and wisdom texts. Texts that portray a demonic source of sin require a different approach, as many texts reflect the development of a demonic figure based on another, earlier text or a common tradition. Therefore, the second section of this study is not divided principally according to genre, but first traces the development of certain demonic figures thought to be responsible for human sin in Enoch, Jubilees, and then in Qumran texts. Certain groups of texts that share generic features, such as apotropaic prayers and liturgical curse and blessing texts, are grouped together within this framework.

Definition of Sin For the purposes of this study, “sin” is defined as transgression against God’s will, whether this will is made explicit or not. Sin, or moral evil, is distinguished from natural evil. Natural evil includes negative factors that are “naturally” present in the universe and are not explicitly caused by human action, such as earthquakes, disease

20

and famine. Sources of moral evil, not natural evil, are the principal subject of this study.

Texts to be Studied Second Temple works included in this study vary in their original language and geographic provenance, but share a Jewish origin. These works include the Apocrypha, selected Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the works of Philo. 58 Works for which the possibility of a Jewish origin remains in serious doubt, such as 2 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 59 will not be dealt with as primary texts.

Terminology No study of sin in Second Temple literature can ignore the terminology used to express it. In order to properly study the portrayal of sin in Second Temple literature, 58

The works of Josephus also fall within the scope of this study, but Josephus does not directly discuss the ongoing source of sin. The works of Josephus are referred to as relevant. 59 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, while it draws from Jewish sources, is in its current form a Christian work; see M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Van Gorcum’s theologische Bibliotheek 25; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953); “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (ed. M. de Jonge; SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193-246; R. A. Kugler, “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the,” EDSS 2:952, and the recent study by V. Hillel, “Structure, Source and Composition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), particularly 232-3. 21

it is necessary to determine the terminology used regarding sin in the different texts included in this study. As this study’s object texts have survived in a variety of languages, this terminology includes terms in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Ethiopic. However, this study is not solely terminology-driven, but rather pays close attention to the manner in which terms are used in each case. The meaning of specific terminology differs according to context. For example, bĕlīya‘al may be used to indicate the angel/demon “Belial” or an abstract notion of wickedness, and an “evil heart” may describe what would elsewhere be termed an “evil inclination.” This study encompasses a wide range of terms for sin and its cause, while distinguishing between the various meanings of these terms according to their context.

The Plan of the Present Study For each text explored, this study will focus on several specific questions: 1) What, if any, is the connection between a text’s genre (and purpose) and its representation of sin? 2) How does the representation of sin in Qumran community texts differ from the portrayal of sin in other Second Temple texts? 3) How do different factors (such as internal versus external source of sin, sectarian versus nonsectarian, and genre) influence or interact with the degree of determinism or free will presented in the text?

22

4) Is it possible to describe the contours of specific worldviews of sin in this period? As noted above, the range of the present study has required a preliminary categorization of Second Temple texts. Consequently, the body of this study is divided into two principal sections. The first section (chapters 2-7) explores texts that reflect a view of sin as resulting from an innate human inclination to sin. These texts are further categorized according to their genre: prayer (nonsectarian and sectarian), covenantal texts (the introductions to legal texts found at Qumran), wisdom texts, the works of Philo of Alexandria, and finally texts composed shortly after the Temple’s destruction, namely 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The first section aims to trace the contours of the idea of a human inclination to sin as it appears in different genres. These chapters examine the nature of genre’s influence on the presentation of the human inclination to sin and the strength of generic influence. In addition, the analysis in this section includes an investigation of the common elements in sectarian and nonsectarian views of sin as well as those aspects that mark the difference between sectarian and nonsectarian works. Throughout this section the paradigm of an internal inclination to sin is explored in the context of the motivation apparent in each work or group of works. This section also explores ideas that cross genres as an indication of a commonly accepted view of sin in the Second Temple period that may elucidate otherwise surprising polemic in specific texts.

23

Chapter 2 (the first chapter of this section) explores nonsectarian prayer and its reflection of a human, internal source of sin. Few Second Temple prayers have survived outside of Qumran. Consequently, this chapter focuses on prayers found at Qumran but not considered sectarian due to their lack of sectarian terminology and ideas and, in some cases, their survival in sources outside of Qumran. Also included is a prayer found in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon. The second chapter in particular investigates the connection between prayer, the paradigm of an innate human desire to sin, and the expressed need for divine help against such a desire in order to overcome it. Chapter 3 analyzes sectarian Qumran prayer, particularly the Hodayot and the “Hymn of Praise” in the Community Rule. This chapter demonstrates, on the basis of the findings of the previous chapter, in what way the view of sin in Qumran prayer differs from the view of the innate desire for sin reflected in nonsectarian prayer. Finally, for the purposes of comprehensiveness, this chapter explores the implications of the belief in an innate source of sin as it is reflected in both sectarian and nonsectarian prayer and notes petitionary prayers that do not reflect this belief. Chapter 4 examines the genre of covenantal texts, that is, introductions to legal texts.60 This chapter studies the depiction of the innate desire to sin in the covenantal texts contained in the introductions of the Damascus Document and the Community 60

It is necessary to distinguish “covenantal” texts, which discuss the nature of the covenant that the member has entered, from the legal texts they introduce. These legal texts are essentially lists of regulations and therefore rarely address theological issues. 24

Rule, in particular regarding the human freedom to turn away from this desire. Chapter 4 explores the depiction of sin and human will in these texts, as well as the different emphases evident within the redactional stages of the Community Rule. Chapter 5 investigates the view of sin found in a central wisdom work, the book of Sirach. 61 The chapter explores the different sections of Sirach that deal directly with the question of sin and its source as well as noting Sirach’s complex textual history and possible Hellenistic influences. Chapter 6 explores “wisdom” works from an author in a different Jewish milieu: Philo of Alexandria. This chapter directs attention to the various passages in which Philo addresses sin and analyzes Philo’s approach, while considering the influence of Plato’s thought and works on Philo’s outlook. This chapter ends with a comparison of Ben Sira’s and Philo’s approaches: the extent to which they agree and the important aspects in which they differ. Chapter 7 is an investigation of two important Jewish works connected to the wisdom genre and written soon after the destruction of the Second Temple: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. While these works are not technically “Second Temple literature” (by definition), they are key to a complete understanding of sin’s portrayal during this period, particularly of assumptions regarding how innate sin could be curbed. As the final chapter of the first section, the end of chapter 7 includes conclusions regarding 61

“Sirach” is the name of this book in the Septuagint, reflecting its Greek spelling. For clarity’s sake, I have chosen to refer to the book as Sirach, and to its author as Ben Sira. 25

the “inclination to sin” paradigm as a whole as it is presented in the different genres explored in this section: prayer, covenantal, and wisdom works. It also includes an analysis of the connection between the idea of an innate inclination to sin and the “paradigmatic Gentile” of certain Second Temple works. The second part of the study (chapters 8-13) focuses on the demonic view of sin, that is, the view that the source of sin originates with demonic forces external to humans. As noted above, the belief in demons reflected in these texts builds on earlier works and traditions regarding demonic figures. Consequently, this section is not divided according to genre, but rather traces the development of traditions regarding demonic influences and their role in human sin. This section begins with the portrayal of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, continues with the book of Jubilees’ depiction of the Watchers (which itself draws on 1 Enoch), Mastema, and Belial, and finally explores how these various figures are depicted in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which draw on these earlier works while sometimes rejecting their approaches to sin. The section ends with an analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits, which combines internal and external views of sin. Chapter 8, the first chapter of this section, is an analysis of the Book of the Watchers and other passages in the collection of works included in 1 Enoch. This chapter is a necessary investigation into whether, in fact, BW explains ongoing sin, that is, sin after the flood, as the fault of demonic spirits.

26

Chapter 9 includes an in-depth analysis of the book of Jubilees and its views of sin. The book of Jubilees draws on multiple traditions 62 and reflects different ideas regarding sin. At the same time, the author of Jubilees has integrated these ideas into a whole. Consequently, this chapter investigates both the ideas reflected in the different sections of Jubilees and the editorial/authorial trend of the book in its entirety. Chapter 10 traces the tradition of the Watchers as a source of sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly in apotropaic prayer. Sectarian and nonsectarian prayers are compared, and the demonic view of sin in these prayers is compared to the presentation of innate sin in the prayers investigated in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 11 investigates the demonic character of Belial and how he is presented in two central texts from Qumran, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll. Belial is also compared to the figure of Mastema as he appears in the Damascus Document and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah. Chapter 12 explores the appearance of Belial in the liturgical blessing and curse texts found at Qumran, including the liturgical passage in the Community Rule and in the thematic pesher 4QFlorilegium. The manner in which Belial is reflected in these texts and the degree of dualism and determinism his role denotes is compared. In the conclusion to this chapter the depiction of Belial in the the Damascus Document and the War Scroll explored in chapter 11 is compared with his depiction in these

62

As shown at length by Segal, Book of Jubilees. 27

other Qumran texts, and the role of Belial as a whole is compared to that of Mastema in Jubilees and that of the Watchers in the apotropaic prayers discussed in chapter 10. Chapter 13 analyzes the depiction of sin and its source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits, a self-contained exposition found in the Community Rule. The Treatise combines both demonic and innate views of sin, and it is therefore appropriate to address this text only after these different views have been explored fully in other texts. Chapter 14 summarizes the study’s results and presents its conclusions. This chapter also suggests directions for future study.

28

Theoretical Concerns The texts included in this study present a series of challenges for the researcher. Those texts that have survived in their original language are fragmentary in nature, and are frequently given to multiple interpretations. Many other texts, specifically those belonging to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, have a complicated history of textual transmission, and many have survived only as a translation of a translation. 63 It is therefore necessary to avoid “over-analyzing” a fragmentary text and to eschew too great an emphasis on translated terminology. The broad range of this study will serve as an additional degree of protection against this potential error, allowing a comparison among a relatively large number of texts without over-reliance on one particular text. Another potential concern is the selective nature of those texts that have survived. The Dead Sea Scrolls of necessity form a large part of the present study, although they represent the library of a relatively small group with very specific beliefs. This study relies on previous scholarship in distinguishing between those texts that are purely sectarian and those that may reflect a wider use among Second Temple Jewry. By making this distinction, it will be possible not only to trace paradigms of sin among Second Temple Jewry as a whole, but also to determine the degree to which the Dead Sea sectarians were unique in their understanding of sin.

63

For example, the Ethiopic of the Book of Jubilees is a translation of the Greek, which is itself a translation of the original Hebrew. 29

The terms “sect,” “sectarian” and “nonsectarian” are not intended to indicate the existence of a religious orthodoxy; rather, they are used here in a social sense, as elucidated by P.R. Davies: “I define sect in terms of social behavior...In other words, I understand the ‘Damascus community’ (or communities) to have constituted a sect because they separated from their surrounding society and regarded themselves as an alternative to it, not merely a part of it. It is this ideological and physical separation that makes them a sect, regardless of the beliefs that provoke such separation.” 64 The “sectarian” mindset of the Qumran community, as it is represented in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule among other Qumran texts, has been explored at length by J. J. Collins, among others. 65 “Nonsectarian” refers to texts not considered exclusive to the Qumran group. In general, texts considered “nonsectarian” are classified as such because (a) they display distinctively nonsectarian features, (b) they lack sectarian features, or (c) they have been found outside of Qumran as well. 66

64

P. R. Davies, “Who Can Join the ‘Damascus Covenant’?,” JJS 46 (1995): 134. J. J. Collins, “Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 177-92, particularly 1814. Collins notes the sectarian nature of the yaḥad as it is expressed in both the Damascus Document and the Community Rule; according to Collins, these texts reflect a separatist and exclusivist movement. 66 See E. G. Chazon, “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications,” DSD 1 (1994): 272, D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 27-28 and 28 n. 14, and C. A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible 65

30

The Qumran community itself was a dynamic one, and has a long and complicated history. Due to the disputed nature of this history, 67 this study will not attempt to place different sectarian texts in a timeline. In the case of texts which are the result of widely acknowledged stages of redaction, such as the War Scroll and the Treatise of the Two Spirits, this study will rely on previous research regarding the texts’ redactional history. However, this analysis will also address the meaning of these texts as they would have been read in their latest form.

Reading Gender in Second Temple Works The use of gender-inclusive language presents a challenge when discussing Second Temple works. These works were generally written by men and intended for men. However, as noted by M. Grossman, underneath the androcentric language of these texts there is frequently an assumption that women are included in their audience. 68 Consequently, when a gender-neutral term is not an option, I have striven to use the feminine equally, except when referring to the author of a text. This includes

and its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman; Biblical and Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 177. 67 See, for example, the opposing opinions of C. Hempel and E. Regev regarding whether the stage of the community reflected in the Damascus Document preceded that described in the Community Rule or vice versa in C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 149-51 and E. Regev, “The Yaḥad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship,” RevQ 21 (2003): 233-62. 68 M. Grossman, “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,” DSD 11 (2004): 212-39; in particular, see her references to the Deuteronomic covenant at 223. 31

references to readers of the text and general statements regarding such concepts as sin, free will, or determinism, but not cases where use of the feminine would explicitly contain a judgment regarding the inclusion of women in the celibate group of the Qumran community.

The Identity of the Qumran Community There is a long-standing debate regarding the identity of the Qumran community. While most scholars today assume a basic Essene identity of the group, 69 several have acknowledged that such an identity is not linear. 70 As Josephus’ and others’ reports on Essene belief and practice are not relevant to the current study, this study is not part of this debate. The term “the Qumran community” is used as a general term to refer to the various stages of the larger community whose beliefs are reflected in the sectarian texts. 71

69

See the overviews in T. S. Beall, “Essenes,” EDSS, 1:262-9 and J. J. Collins, “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 97-98, but cf. L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 75, 273. 70 See, for example, A. I. Baumgarten, “Who Cares and Why Does It Matter? Qumran and the Essenes, Once Again!” DSD 11 (2004): 174-90 and the nuanced study by E. Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (RelSoc 45; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). 71 See n. 67 above. A similar approach is taken by C. Werman, “The Eschaton in Second Temple Literature,” Tarbiẓ 72 (2003 2002): 37-57 (Hebrew); see ibid., 37 n. 3, and see also W. J. Lyons and A. M. Reimer, “The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Preventative Measures,” DSD 5 (1998): 24-25. 32

II.

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

As noted in the introduction, one prominent approach to the source of sin in the Second Temple period assumed the view that the desire to sin is innate and basic to human beings. The idea that the source of the desire to sin is a natural (and unavoidable) component of human existence is found in the prayer, covenantal, and wisdom genres. However, the manner in which this idea is related to the concepts of free will and determinism varies by text and genre. The idea of an innate inclination to sin is particularly prominent in prayers of the Second Temple period. 1 In the prayers discussed in this chapter and the one following, the desire to sin (and in certain cases, the condition of sinfulness) is described as inborn and inevitable to the human condition. It is commonly acknowledged that the theology of the Qumran community was distinctive. Central aspects of this theology, such as a generally deterministic outlook and an emphasis on purity, can be expected to influence the prayer of the community. 1

Prayer as it is defined here includes both individual prayer and communal or liturgical texts. The formal definition used is that of J. H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 6-7: “Prayer is address to God that is initiated by humans; it is not conversational in nature; and it includes address to God in the second person, although it can include third person description of God.” C. A. Newsom has used a similar approach when she defines prayer as “language addressed to God” (Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran [STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 204). 33

Consequently, it is necessary to analyze sectarian prayers (that is, prayers composed by members of the community) separately from prayers generally considered of nonsectarian origin (even if known at Qumran). 2 Nonsectarian prayer is analyzed in this chapter, and sectarian prayer that reflects the idea of an innate human desire to sin is explored in the following chapter.

God’s Help against the Desire to Sin: 11Q5 col. XXIV The psalm found partially preserved in the Psalms Scroll (11Q5) col. XXIV, between Psalm 144 and Psalm 142, 3 is generally understood to be the Hebrew Vorlage of Psalm 155 (Syriac Psalm III) of the Peshiṭta. 4 In the third strophe of the psalm, 5 the speaker presents himself as sinful, and asks God to assist him in fighting his

2

“Nonsectarian” refers to prayers not considered exclusive to the Qumran group; see the previous chapter and n. 66 above. In the taxonomy proposed by C. A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” 172-3, texts here called nonsectarian also include those that fall into her second category, texts composed outside the community but used by the community. It is the authorship of the text that is the focus in the present study, not only the text’s subsequent use. 3 See J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 45. 4 Psalm 155 is part of a collection of five apocryphal psalms that have survived in the Peshiṭta (the Syriac translation of the Bible), for which the earliest manuscript has been dated to the twelfth century. For an overview of the Syriac manuscripts and their dating, see Willem Baars, “Apocryphal Psalms,” in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version (part 4 fasc. 6, ed. The Peshiṭta Institute Leiden; Leiden: Brill, 1972), i-x. 5 As identified by Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 74. 34

inclination to sin.6 This inclination is described metaphorically in 11Q5 XXIV.1113a. 7 ‫חטאת נעורי הרחק ממני ופשעי אל יזכרו לי‬

11

‫ה מנגע רע ואל יוסף לשוב אלי יבש‬Â‫ה‬È ‫טהרני‬

12

‫שורשיו ממני ואל ינצו ע]ל[יו בי‬

13

11 The sins of my youth cast far from me, and may my transgressions not be remembered against me. 12 Purify me, O Lord, from (the) evil affliction 8, and let it not return again to me. 9 78F

79F

Dry up 13 its roots from me, and let its le[av]es not flourish within me… The meaning of “evil affliction” (ng‘ r‘)can be determined by investigating its immediate context. In its literal sense, ng‘ in 11Q5 XXIV.11-13 simply means “pain” or “disease.” 10 However, the parallelism of “evil affliction” (ng‘ r‘) 11 with the “sins of 80F

81 F

6

This request follows an appeal for understanding of God’s law in XXIV.8-9, and another for rescue from hardship in XXIV.10. On the juxtaposition of the motif of a request for knowledge of the divine statutes and that of a request for salvation from sins (either past or future) see the analysis of 4Q504 (Frgs. 1 + 2 ii recto) 13-17 below. 7 Text and translation follow Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 71, except where otherwise noted. 8 Following M.G. Abegg, M.O. Wise and E.M. Cook, “11QPsa (11Q5) (non-canonical segments),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 195. Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 71 translates “scourge.” However, nega‘ in its biblical sense does not denote a plague; nega‘ is used to denote disease or general pain (see discussion below). Hence, “affliction” seems the best translation here. 9 Sanders translates “let it not turn again upon me.” The translation chosen here reflects the more common meaning of ‫לשוב‬, “to return.” 10 The biblical semantic range of nega‘ includes its use to indicate leprosy (in Lev 1314), disease (e.g. 1 K 8:37), pain (as in 1 K 8:38) or punishment for sins committed (e.g. 2 Sam 7:14, Is 53:8, Ps 89:33). At Qumran nega‘ is found in reference to disease 35

my youth” (ḥṭ’t n‘wry) in the previous line of the strophe, as well as the following extended metaphor of a plant that takes over the speaker from within, implies that the “evil affliction” from which the speaker must be purified is not a physical disease, but a metaphysical one: the desire to sin. Moreover, this desire is an “evil affliction” that must be purified by God, both for the present good of the speaker and to prevent future sins or maladies (“and let its le[av]es not flourish within me”). The choice of the term ng‘, “affliction,” is significant; the desire to sin is, like a disease, an infection within

or impurity, in clear echoes or parallels of Biblical use. (See, for example, CD XIII.5; 4Q270 [4QDᵉ] 2ii:12; 4Q274 [4QTohorot A] 1i:4; 11Q19 XLVIII.15, XLIX.4, LVIII.4.) In the Hodayot, nega‘ is used for general pain or trouble; see VIII.24, IX.11, XII.36, XVI.27, XVII.6, XVII.12, XXII.6, and J. Licht, Megillat ha-Hodayot miMegillot Midbar Yehudah: ‘im Mavo, Perush u-Milon be-Tseruf Qeta‘im mi-Sefer haRazim umi-Pesher Tehilim (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), 250, “‫נגע‬.” Two exceptions may be Hodayot XIII.28, where nega‘ is used in leprosy imagery (and is therefore coupled with ‫ נמאר‬- see Lev 13:51,52; 14:44) to denote the pain caused by the speaker’s enemies, and in Hodayot IX.32, where the term nega‘ may be referring to sin, due to a possible parallel with ‫“( מרוב עוון‬from the abundance of iniquity”); however, the text in IX.32 is too fragmentary for such a possibility to be established beyond conjecture. D. Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 201, has noted the parallel between nega‘ ra‘ “evil affliction” in the psalm under discussion and pega‘ ra‘ “evil occurrence/affliction/plague” in the rabbinic apotropaic prayers found in b. Ber 16b and 17a. This is useful in understanding the background of these rabbinic prayers, but does not illuminate the use of nega‘ in this psalm. 11 The Syriac translation is “evil leprosy”; see J. A. Sanders, “Non-Masoretic Psalms (4Q88=4QPsf, 11Q5=11QPsa, 11Q6=11QPsb),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 185. This translation is apparently based on the biblical use of nega‘ (specifically nega‘ ṣāra‘at) in Leviticus 13-14. 36

the speaker that is inimical to him. 12 Its growth is a frightening prospect, and one that only God can prevent. In this psalm, the source of the desire to sin is internal and human and can be defeated only with divine aid. Here the desire to sin is not simply a tendency to commit a sinful act; it is an internal toxin: a “condition” of sinfulness from which the human must be freed (as opposed to merely a desire to do acts of sin). This approach to sin, one that is not universal to prayers of this period, 13 is a development of the idea that moral impurity 14 can be caused by sin. This idea is biblical in origin (see Lev 17:17; Ezek 14:11, 37:23), as first noted by D.Z. Hoffmann, 15 and most recently discussed by J. Klawans 16 and M. Ginsbursky. 17 In the text under discussion, the connection between

12

Compare the rabbinic presentation of the evil inclination as a wound which must be “bandaged” with Torah study in b. Qidd. 30b. 13 Even those that reflect the idea of an internal evil inclination; see the discussion of the Words of the Luminaries and 4QCommunal Confessions below. 14 As distinct from ritual impurity; see n. 18 below. 15 D. Z. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (2 vols.; Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905), esp. 1:315; as noted by Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 13-14. This idea has also been explored by, among others, A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (London: Oxford University, 1928), 212-69; J. Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 253-92); T. Frymer-Kensky (“Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399-414); and D. P. Wright (“The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 150-81); on previous research in this area (particularly regarding impurity caused by sin), see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 4-19. 16 J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21-42 and “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” 1-7. 37

a condition of sinfulness and biblical impurity is made clear through the metaphorical use of a term associated with ritual impurity: ng‘ “affliction/blemish.” 18 The use of

17

M. Ginsbursky, “The Idea of Sin-Impurity.” Many of the scholars previously cited have made some differentiation between the impurity caused by sin and that caused by physical defilement, from Hoffmann’s distinction between the defilement of purity and the defilement of holiness to Wright’s distinction between permitted and prohibited defilement. Klawans builds on previous research in determining that the Hebrew Bible presents two parallel systems, one of moral impurity and one of ritual impurity. His method of determining what constitutes “impurity” depends on the appearance of specific terminology expressing impurity such as tô‘ēbâ (‫ )תועבה‬and ṭāmē’ (‫)טמא‬. Klawans also makes a sharp distinction between metaphorical and nonmetaphorical use of these terms, a distinction that has been criticized by B. Chilton (Chilton, review of J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, RRJ 4 [2001]: 350-5). Klawans’ conclusions regarding the biblical approach to moral impurity have been disputed by M. Ginsbursky, “The Idea of SinImpurity,” who sees moral impurity as resulting from every sin, and moral and ritual impurity in Leviticus as a single system expressing the distance between human and God. (Her conclusions regarding the connection between sin and ritual impurity in the Bible are based partially on the fact that the same sacrifice, the ḥaṭṭā’t (‫)חטאת‬, is required for purification from both sins and ritual impurity.) Klawans’ conclusions regarding Second Temple texts, particularly those composed by the Qumran community, have not been universally accepted. Klawans has concluded that while in biblical texts and nonsectarian Second Temple texts ritual impurity and moral impurity were discrete concepts (Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 60), in the Qumran community these concepts were intertwined: moral impurity led to ritual impurity and vice versa (see ibid. 67-91 and “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” 10). Klawans’ observation of a connection between moral and ritual impurity at Qumran is not unique; for a partial list of those who preceded him, see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 187 n. 3. However, his statement that at Qumran “ritual and moral impurity were melded into a single conception of defilement which had both ritual and moral qualifications” (Klawans, Ritual and Moral Impurity, 90) is particularly far-reaching. It has been disputed particularly by M. Himmelfarb; see n. 22 below. Most of the studies cited above are concerned with the consequences of sin or ritual impurity in a ritual or legal context. No evidence has been found that ritual impurity was thought to be the actual source of sin or sinfulness either within or outside of Qumran. Whether contracting impurity is considered a sin or whether sin itself causes impurity, ritual impurity is not blamed as the reason that one sins, at 18

38

this term evokes the context of biblical leprosy in Lev 13-14, where nega‘ appears extensively. 19 The use of the term ng‘ in 11Q5 XXIV is purely metaphorical. No 89 F

cleansing ritual is required to be free of this “evil affliction” as is the case for biblical leprosy; only the assistance of God is needed. The understanding of impurity in this context is similar to the use of the term “impure” in Isa 64:4b-5: 20 “…It is because you 90F

are angry that we have sinned; we have been steeped in them from of old, and can we be saved? We have all become like a (ritually) impure person (‫ )כטמא‬and all our virtues like a filthy rag.” 21 Here the sins of the speaker(s) have caused them to be “like 91 F

a (ritually) impure person.” Likewise, language of ritual purity appears in Ps 51:4-5,9: “Wash me thoroughly of my iniquity, and purify me of my sin; for I recognize my transgressions, and am ever conscious of my sin…Purge me with hyssop till I am pure; wash me till I am whiter than snow.” In Ps 51:1-11, the repeating references to sins that the speaker has committed indicate that the “purification” mentioned is

Qumran or elsewhere. Hence, for the purposes of this study, while the possible connections between sin and ritual impurity are interesting, they are not directly relevant. They will be revisited tangentially in the discussion of the Hodayot below. 19 See notes 10 and 11 above. This connection is what lies behind the Syriac translation of this term. 20 This verse and Ps 51, cited below, are mentioned by Klawans as an example of metaphorical use of ritual impurity in the Hebrew Bible (Impurity and Sin, 36). 21 The translation of Hebrew Bible verses in this study follows that of Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985) (NJPS) unless otherwise noted. The translation “an impure thing” in Isa 64:5 has been changed to “a (ritually) impure person” to convey the meaning of the text more closely. 39

concomitant with atonement for these sins. Thus, these verses reflect the idea that metaphorical impurity may result from undelineated sins. 22 The passage in 11Q5 XXIV begins in a similar vein, with a request that the speaker’s sins be “cast away.” But in the speaker’s subsequent request that the “evil affliction” be purified and not allowed to return (as a plant growing within the speaker), the original metaphorical use of purification to signify atonement in Ps 51 shifts to a request for purification that will immunize the speaker from future sin. In fact, the “affliction” that grows within the speaker no longer seems to be connected to specific sins at all; it represents a general condition of sinfulness which in itself must

22

This conclusion corresponds to the findings of M. Himmelfarb and H. Birenboim regarding sin and impurity in sectarian literature. M. Himmelfarb has disputed Klawans’ interpretation of Qumran texts and J. M. Baumgarten’s interpretation of 4QD and 4Q512 as reflecting the sectarian conflation of ritual impurity and sin; see Klawans, Impurity and Sin 67-91; Baumgarten, “‘Zab’ Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law,” JJS 45 (1994): 275; “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 209; “270. 4QDamascus Documente,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 146); cf. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin.” Himmelfarb has argued that in 4QD there is no connection between sin and ritual impurity at all (in this she does not disagree with Klawans, who surprisingly groups CD with nonsectarian Second Temple texts; see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 52-6). She also argues that in 1QS and 4Q512, the association of sin and ritual impurity is purely evocative, not literal. Based on an analysis of 4Q414 (4QRitual of Purification A) and 4Q512 (4QRitual of Purification B), H. Birenboim maintains that sin and impurity at Qumran are connected as expressions of the physical lowliness of humankind. Hence, terms of sin are used in these purification rituals as an expression of human lowliness, and not because all impurity is seen as a result of a sin; see Birenboim, “‘For He Is Impure among All Those who Transgress His Words’: Sin and Ritual Defilement in the Qumran Scrolls,” Zion 68 (2003): 366 (Hebrew). 40

be removed and prevented from growing again. This removal and prevention must be accomplished by God.

Need for Divine Aid: 4QBarkhi Nafshi The necessity for divine aid in fighting the will to sin is also seen in 4Q436 (4QBarkhi Nafshic), a hymn of thanksgiving. Its origins, while not unanimously agreed upon, have been identified as nonsectarian in most recent scholarship. 23 In

23

D. Seely has been the main proponent for a sectarian provenance of the 4QBarkhi Nafshi texts due to “connections with the language and themes of texts that are generally considered to be of sectarian origin”; Seely, “The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434-439),” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert. Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (ed. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks; STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 202 and D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “434-438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 258. However, E. M. Cook and G. J. Brooke have both noted the absence of sectarian language and have identified the composition of the Barkhi Nafshi texts as nonsectarian; see E. M. Cook, “A Thanksgiving for God’s Help (4Q434 II-III),” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley; London: Routledge, 1997), 15; G. J. Brooke, “Body Parts in ‘Barkhi Nafshi’ and the Qualifications for Membership of the Worshipping Community,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 79. Brooke subsequently analyzes how these texts may have been understood by their later sectarian readers. Most recently, C. Hempel has convincingly argued for a non-sectarian provenance (C. Hempel, “Review: Esther Eshel et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts Part 2 (DJD 29),” JSS 47 (2002): 338). Hempel notes that two of the three “sectarian” features determined by Weinfeld and Seely, namely the presence of poverty terminology and the divine origin of piety, are familiar from biblical sources. The third, references to an environment among gentiles, is not necessarily sectarian. Like Brooke, Hempel concludes that “the link between the 41

4QBarkhi Nafshi, God is initially portrayed as the speaker’s teacher, who has instructed him to walk in his ways (4QBarkhi Nafshic [4Q436] 1i a,b:5b-6). 24 ‫… לבי פקדתה וכליותי שננתה בל ישכחו חוקיכה‬.

5

‫]על לבי פקד[תה תורתכה וכליותי פתחתה ותחזק עלי }׺{ לרדוף אחרי‬

6

[‫דרכי֯ ֯כ]ה‬ 5 ....You have commanded my heart, and my inmost parts you have taught well, lest they forget your statutes 25 95F

6 [On my heart] you [have enjoined] your law, on my inmost parts you have engraved it; and you have prevailed upon me, so that I pursue after you[r] ways…” These lines explain that God himself has ensured that the speaker will follow his commandments. However, there is a more drastic change wrought by God in 4QBarkhi Nafshi: not merely pedagogical, but a change in the speaker’s internal being. 4QBarkhi Nafshic (4Q436) 1i a - 1ii:2 par. 4Q435 2 i 1-5 (underline)

26 96F

[‫גער]תה מן כליותי‬ ֯ ‫]לב האבן ג[̇ערתה ממני ותשם לב טהור תחתיו יצר רע‬ ]

vacat

[

]

10 11

community and Barkhi Nafshi might be better located at the level of Rezeption and Redaktion rather than composition.” 24 Text and translation follow D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 297, 299, unless otherwise noted. 25 Seely and Weinfeld translate “lest your statutes be forgotten,” but this verb appears to be a qal referring to the speaker’s heart and “inmost parts.” 26 Text and translation follow Seely and Weinfeld, “4QBarkhi Nafshic,” except where otherwise noted. (Certain changes have been made to maintain a literal translation of the text.) 42

bottom margin [‫]ורוח קוד[ש שמתה בלבבי זנות עינים הסירותה ממני ותבט ֯א]ת כול‬

1

[‫]דרכיכה ע[ו֯ רף קשה שלחתה ממני ותשמו ענו̇ה זעף אף הסירותה ]ממני ותשם‬

2

[‫ממני ]רוח שקר‬ ֗ ‫ורו֯ ם עינים התנ׺׺תה‬ ֯ ‫]לי רוח אר[וך אפים גבה לב‬

3

[

‫ולב] נד[ ֯כה נתתה לי י֯ ֯צ]ר‬ ֯ ‫[ ֗ה‬

‫]אבדת‬

4

10 [the heart of stone] you have [re]buked out of me, 27 and have set a pure heart in its 97F

place. The evil inclination [you] have rebuked 28 [out of my inmost parts] 98F

11 [ ] vacat [ Col. ii 1

[and the spirit of ho]liness you have set in my heart. Lechery of the eyes you have removed from me, and they (lit., “it” 29) gazed upon [all] 9F

2

[your ways. S]tiffness 30 of neck you have expelled from me, 31 and you have made 10F

10F

it into humility. Wrathful anger you have removed [from me, and have set] 3

[in me a spirit of lo]ng suffering. Haughtiness of heart and arrogance of eyes you have ‫ ׺׺׺‬from me. [A spirit of deceit]

4

[you have destroyed inclina[tion

33

103F

] 32h and a [bro]ken heart you have given to me. The 102F

]

27

Seely and Weinfeld translate “you have [dri]ven with rebukes far from me.” Seely and Weinfeld translate “you have driven with rebukes [from my inmost parts].” 29 And so translated by Seely and Weinfeld. 30 Seely and Weinfeld translate “[The s]tiffness.” 31 Seely and Weinfeld translate “you have sent away from me.” However, the verb šlḥ is most likely in pi‘el form, meaning to expel (see Gen 3:23, 25:6; Job14:20). 32 “A spirit of deceit you have destroyed” is restored from this text’s parallel in 4Q435 2 i 5. The rest of this line, however, is very fragmentary and largely reconstructed. While Weinfeld and Seely translate the remaining fragmentary conclusion of the line “you have for[got]ten to reckon to me,” it is not clear how they reach this reconstruction from the remaining text ‫התנ׺׺תה ממ̇ני‬, which could represent any number of verbal phrases. 28

43

This passage emphasizes God’s assistance in transforming the speaker’s internal evil nature. E. J. C. Tigchelaar argues that yṣr r‘ in 4Q436 1 i 10 is an external spirit due to the use of the verb g‘r (‫“ )גער‬rebuke,” commonly used regarding Satan or evil spirits. 34 However, g‘r is also used to refer to another sinful internal part of the 104F

petitioner in this passage, apparently the heart, which is “rebuked” and replaced with a pure heart in 4Q436 1 i 10. Hence, in 4Q436 1 i-ii the evil inclination is paralleled on the one hand with the heart and on the other with sinful inclinations such as the “lechery of eyes” removed by God in 4Q436 1 ii 1. This indicates that despite the use of the verb g‘r, the yēṣer ra‘ here is an internal evil inclination, and not an external spirit. The distinction between the biblical use of g‘r and its appearance in this passage is strengthened by the fact that the biblical idiom regarding evil spirits is g‘r b-, not g‘r m- as seen here. 35 105F

The use of the term yēṣer in this prayer draws on its biblical sense in Gen 6:5 and 8:21. 36 106F

Gen 6:5 ‫שׁב ֹת לִבּ ֹו ַרק ַרע כָּל הַיּ ֹום׃‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ְוכָל יֵצֶר ַמ ְח‬ ֶ ‫ַויּ ְַרא ה' כִּי ַרבָּה ָרעַת הָאָדָ ם בּ‬

33

This word is largely reconstructed and hence highly uncertain; the two letters read in the scroll are conjecture. 34 Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 351. 35 See Gen 37:10; Isa 17:13, 54:9; Jer 29:27; Nah 1:4; Zech 3:2; Mal 3:11; Ps 106:9; Ruth 2:16. (The verb g‘r is used without any preposition in Mal 2:3, Ps 9:6, and Ps 119:21.) 36 Translation is my own in order to maintain the literal meaning of the verses. 44

And the Lord saw that the evil of humankind was great on the earth, and every inclination (yēṣer) of the thoughts of its heart was only evil throughout the day. Gen 8:21 ‫ַויּ ַָרח ה' אֶת ֵרי ַח ַהנִּיח ֹ ַח וַיּ ֹא ֶמר ה' אֶל לִבּ ֹו �א אֹסִף ְל ַקלֵּל ע ֹוד אֶ ת ָה ֲאדָ מָה ַבּעֲבוּר הָאָדָ ם כִּי‬ ‫שׂיתִ י׃‬ ִ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ֲ‫יֵצֶר ֵלב הָאָדָ ם ַרע ִמנְּע ָֻריו וְ�א אֹסִף ע ֹוד ְלהַכּ ֹות אֶת כָּל חַי כַּא‬

8:21 “And the Lord smelled a pleasing odor, and the Lord said to himself (lit., his heart), I will not continue to further curse the earth because of humankind, for the inclination (yēṣer) of the heart of humankind is evil from his youth, and I will not continue to further smite everything living as I have done.” In these verses the yēṣer is presented in a pessimistic sense, as an aspect of the human that reflects his tendency to sin. While the verse at Gen 6:5 implies that the evilness of the human yēṣer goes against the natural order, following the flood in Gen 8:21 this wickedness is presented as an inevitable element of human nature. How the biblical concept of the yēṣer is developed in 4QBarkhi Nafshi requires further examination. Tigchelaar demonstrates the intertextual relationship between the Barkhi Nafshi text (specifically 4Q436 1 i-ii and 4Q437 4 par 4Q438 4 ii) and Zechariah 3, specifically through the parallel verbs used: ‫ הלביש‬,‫ העביר‬,‫ הסיר‬,‫ גער‬and ‫שים‬. He uses this relationship to further bolster the idea that the yṣr r‘ in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is a stand-in for the śātān (“accuser/satan”) of Zechariah 3:2. However, it can be argued that the conversion of the rebuked śātān of Zechariah to an “evil inclination” (yēṣer 45

ra‘) in the Barkhi Nafshi text is part of a process of abstraction that the author of the Barkhi Nafshi text utilizes throughout. For example, instead of the defiled clothes of the priest that are removed and replaced with pure garments, the speaker in the Barkhi Nafshi text exults that God has removed his sinful ways and “clothed” him in the spirit of salvation (4Q438 4a ii 6: ‫)ורוח ישועות הלבשתני‬, paraphrasing Isa 61:10b “for he has clothed me with garments of salvation” 37 (‫)כִּי ִה ְלבִּישַׁ נִי ִבּגְדֵ י י ֶשַׁע‬. Consequently, this 107F

prayer cannot be described as “demonizing” sin, but rather as creating an abstraction based on the idea of the śātān. 38 108F

The negative characteristics that signify the desire to sin (evil inclination, lechery of eyes, stiffness of neck, wrathful anger, haughtiness of heart, arrogance of eyes) are removed so that they can be replaced with positive qualities (a pure heart, a spirit of holiness, 39 humility, patience). Most of these negative qualities are identified 109F

37

NJPS translates “garments of triumph.” This reanalysis of the Barkhi Nafshi text is in agreement with the observation of I. Rosen-Zvi that the wider context of this passage, i.e. the removal of negative human qualities, indicates that the yṣr r‘ here is not an independent entity; see Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires 47. 39 In this text, rûaḥ (“spirit”) is used to indicate a quality of the human being. The use of the term rûaḥ in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls is varied. While A. E. Sekki has concluded that, with the exception of 1QS III.13-IV.26, 1QHa XV and 4Q186, rûaḥ in the Scrolls reflects biblical categories (The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, 97), his work has been criticized for utilizing a basically flawed methodology; see M. P. Horgan, review of Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, CBQ 54 (1992): 544-6. An investigation of the special status of the “spirit of holiness” bestowed by God in late biblical texts (Isa 63:10-11, Ps 51:13) and throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, as in 1QS IV.21, VIII.16, IX.3, CD II.12, 4Q270 2ii 14, 4Q504 XVIII.16 and throughout the Hodayot, lies beyond the scope of the present study. In the text 38

46

as a basic element of the human condition through the metaphorical use of body parts (eyes, neck, heart) in the phrases that describe them. 40 The replacement of negative, sinful qualities with equivalent positive ones echoes themes already common in biblical use. Parallel verses in Ezekiel, 11:19 and 36:26, speak of God replacing Israel’s heart, thereby enabling the Israelites to follow his will. Ezekiel 36:26-27 reads: ‫שׂ ְרכֶם ְונָתַ תִּ י‬ ַ ‫ְונָתַ תִּ י ָלכֶם לֵב חָדָשׁ וְרוּ ַח חֲדָ שָׁה אֶתֵּ ן ְבּ ִק ְר ְבּכֶם ַו ֲהסִר ֹתִ י אֶת לֵב ָה ֶאבֶן ִמ ְבּ‬ ‫שׁ ְמרוּ‬ ְ ִ‫שׁ ָפּטַי תּ‬ ְ ‫שׁר־ ְבּ ֻח ַקּי תֵּ לֵכוּ וּ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫שׂיתִ י אֵת ֲא‬ ִ ‫ָלכֶם לֵב בָּשָׂ ר׃ ְואֶת רוּחִי אֶתֵּ ן ְבּ ִק ְר ְבּכֶם ְו ָע‬ ‫שׂיתֶ ם׃‬ ִ ‫ַו ֲע‬ And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules.

discussed here, this “spirit of holiness” stands on a par with other “spirits” denoting human qualities, such as the “spirit of long-suffering” and the removed “spirit of falsehood” (both reconstructed from the parallel 4Q435 2 i 4-5). See also P. S. Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. J. M. G. Barclay and S. J. Gathercole; LNTS 335; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 31. The appearance of rûaḥ in Qoh 12:7 as a spirit of life that returns to God upon death, while intriguing, is likewise outside the scope of the present study. 40 Brooke, “Body Parts in ‘Barkhi Nafshi’,” 83, presents the idea that when reading the nonsectarian Barkhi Nafshi texts, sect members attributed these metaphorical terms to actual body parts. He offers the possibility that the composer/redactor of 1QSV.5 was influenced by Barkhi Nafshi when using similar terms. However, as 1QS V.5 is a paraphrase of Num 15:39b from where its “body part” imagery is drawn, and as the use of these terms in 1QS V.5 is also metaphorical (see chapter 4), Brooke’s proposal regarding the influence of Barki Nafshi and its ultimately non-metaphoric meaning are far from conclusive. 47

The parallel verse at Ezekiel 11:19 reads: ‫שׂ ָרם ְונָתַ תִּ י ָלהֶם‬ ָ ‫ְונָתַ תִּ י ָלהֶם לֵב ֶאחָד וְרוּ ַח חֲדָ שָׁה אֶתֵּ ן ְבּ ִק ְר ְבּכֶם ַו ֲהסִר ֹתִ י לֵב ָה ֶאבֶן ִמ ְבּ‬ ‫לֵב בָּשָׂ ר׃‬ I will give them one heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh. Similarly, Psalm 51:11-12 requests divine assistance after a request that God “blot out” his sins: ‫ַהסְתֵּ ר ָפּנֶי� ֵמ ֲחטָאָי ְוכָל־עֲוֹנ ֹתַ י ְמחֵה׃ לֵב טָה ֹור בּ ְָרא לִי אֱ�הִים וְרוּ ַח נָכ ֹון חַדֵּ שׁ ְבּ ִק ְרבִּי׃‬ Hide Your face from my sins; blot out all my iniquities. Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit. While these verses of Psalm 51 mainly emphasize the positive change that has been effected, this section of 4QBarkhi Nafshi focuses first on the negative human aspects that must be removed. 41 In 4QBarkhi Nafshi, for each positive quality that is 1F

granted, a negative quality must be eliminated. 42 In addition, while in Ps 51:11 the 12F

41

B. Renaud, in a structural analysis of Ps 51, has noted the structural division between the purification of sin in vv. 3-11 and the renewal of the speaker’s spirit in vv. 12-19; see B. Renaud, “Purification et recréation: le ‘Miserere’ (Ps 51),” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 62 (1988): 204-6. The purification of sin is thus not concomitant with the speaker’s recreation, but is its prerequisite. This is indeed similar to the situation described in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, especially as it is likely that the Second Temple era reader saw the sins of the speaker in Ps 51 as reflecting a condition of sin rather than individual sins of which the speaker had been guilty. 42 For an analysis of the theme of God instilling pious attributes in the Barkhi Nafshi texts, see D. R. Seely, “Implanting Pious Qualities as a Theme in the Barki Nafshi Hymns,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947-1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 322-31. The 48

speaker requests that God erase his sins, the chief concern of the speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi is not individual sins, but the condition of sinfulness from which he has been rescued. 43 This condition is signified by the characteristics that have been removed by God: heart of stone, evil inclination, lechery of eyes, stiffness of neck, wrathful anger, haughtiness of heart, arrogance of eyes and a spirit of deceit. M. Kister identifies 4QBarkhi Nafshi as one of a group of “purification prayers for the organs,” a category that includes certain Qumran prayers as well as a blessing cited in b. Ber. 17a, in which God grants the petitioner new, pure organs that are identified with positive attributes. 44 In Kister’s view, these prayers succeed in separating sin from the body itself, attaching it instead to organs which can be (metaphorically) replaced. 45 Indeed, 4QBarkhi Nafshi does not blame the speaker’s sinfulness on the fact that he exists in the physical realm. Rather, while the source of sin is within the human, sin is not a necessary corollary of the physical condition. It is possible to live as a sin-free physical being, and this is the existence that the speaker

removal of negative attributes that precedes the “implantation” is not addressed by Seely. 43 See above regarding the request to purge the speaker’s sins in Ps 51:3-4, 9, and Renaud, “‘Miserere’,” 204-6. As mentioned above, the idea of a condition of sinfulness may itself be a development of the concept of moral impurity reflected in this psalm. 44 Kister, “Inclination,” 272. 45 Kister, “Inclination,” 270. 49

desires. 46 However, in order not to be counted as one of the wicked, one must look to God to create an internal change, thereby removing the inclination to sin. The notion that an internal change is necessary in order to be righteous is also apparent in 4QBarkhi Nafshia (4Q434) 1 i:3-4: 47

3

‫ׄשזעקתם ברוב רחמיו חנן ענוים ויפקח עיניהם לראות את דרכיו ואז̇נ֯ ]י[ ֯הם לשמוע‬

3

‫למודו וימול עורלות לבם ויצילם למען חסדו ויכן לדרך רגלם בר]ו[ ֯ב צ̇̇רתם לא עזבם‬

4

that 48 their cry. In the abundance of his mercy, he has been gracious to the needy, 18F

and he has opened their eyes to see his ways, and their ears to hear 4

his teaching. And he has circumcised the foreskins of their heart, and he has delivered them on account of his loving-kindness, and he set their feet to the way. In the abundance of their distress, he did not abandon them… The needy 49 in this passage are fortunate, because God has not only taught 19 F

them the correct way, but has made the internal change necessary to enable their future

46

As noted by H. Pfeiffer, the idea that humans need not be sinful simply because they are human is also an attitude that distinguishes Ps 51 from Near Eastern penitential hymns; H. Pfeiffer, “‘Ein reines Herz schaffe mir, Gott!’ Zum Verständnis des Menschen nach Ps 51,” ZTK 102 (2005): 300. It is not surprising that Barkhi Nafshi, a hymn that relies heavily on Ps 51, should share a similar attitude regarding human physicality. 47 Text and translation follow D. R. Seely and M. Weinfeld, “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 270-1, unless otherwise noted. 48 Reflecting the reconstructed šin (‫ )ש‬in the text; not translated by Seely and Weinfeld. 49 While ‘ānāw (‫ )ענו‬can also mean “humble” (see BDB 776b, HALOT 855) this text refers specifically to the poor, as can be seen from the beginning of the psalm (1i:1-2): God is lauded because he “saved the soul of the poor and did not despise the ‘ānāw, 50

righteous behavior: he has “circumcised the foreskins of their heart.” This is the fulfillment of the biblical promise in Deut 30:6: �‫וּמָל ה' אֱ�הֶי� אֶת ְל ָבבְ� וְאֶ ת ְלבַב ז ְַרעֶ� לְאַ ֲהבָה אֶת ה' אֱ�הֶי� ְבּכָל ְל ָבבְ� וּ ְבכָל נַ ְפשְׁ� ְל ַמעַן ַחיּ ֶי‬ And the Lord your God shall circumcise your heart and the heart(s) of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul so that you may live.” 50 120 F

The “circumcision” in 4Q434 echoes the one promised in Deut 30:6: God himself has circumcised the hearts of his chosen people, allowing the needy to follow his will without impediment: he has “set their feet to the way.” 51 The “circumcision,” 12F

denoting the removal of the “foreskin” of the heart, indicates the removal of a desire to

and did not forget the pain of the destitute; he has opened his eyes to the destitute and heard the cry of orphans,” ‫כי הציל נפש אביון ואת ענו לא בזא ולא שכח צרת דלים פקח עיניו אל דל ושועת יתומים שמע‬. On the use of ‘ānāw in place of ‘ānî (“poor”) as a possible continuation of biblical practice, see E. Qimron, “Improving the Editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4): Benedictions,” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls IV (ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2006), 191-2 (Hebrew). 50 Translation is my own. This verse stands in contrast to Deut 10:16, where the Israelites are enjoined to circumcise their own hearts. 51 This phrase echoes Ps 85:14b ‫שׂם לְדֶ ֶר� ְפּ ָע ָמיו‬ ֵ ָ ‫“ ְוי‬and he sets out on his way,” lit. “and he sets his feet to the path” and Ps 119:133 ‫שׁלֶט בִּי כָל אָוֶן׃‬ ְ ַ‫“ ְפּ ָע ַמי ָהכֵן ְבּ ִא ְמ ָרתֶ � וְאַל תּ‬Make my feet firm through Your promise; do not let iniquity dominate me.” Compare Hodayot 4QHb (4Q428) 10 5 (par 1 QHb [1Q35] 1 9-12), [‫“ כוננתה רגלי בדרך ]לבכה‬you established my feet in the way of [your heart].” (Text and translation of the Hodayot follow E. M. Schuller, “428. 4QHodayotb,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 [ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999], 141-2.) While W. Kahl interprets the passage in Barkhi Nafshi as the compulsion of the subject to walk the correct path (“The Structure of Salvation in 2Thess and 4Q434,” QC 5, [1995]: 109), the context and language reflect facilitation rather than duress. 51

sin that is internal and natural to the human being, though unwanted. 52 The internal change wrought by God is not an end in itself, but necessary to enable righteous behavior. 53

Divine Assistance: The Words of the Luminaries The next nonsectarian text to consider is the Words of the Luminaries 54 (4Q504-506). 55 In these prayers for the days of the week, the speaker calls on God to help curb his desire to sin (4Q504 Frg. 4): 56

52

For more on this understanding of “circumcision” in a purely sectarian context, see discussion of 1QS V-VI in chapter 4. 53 According to Seely and Weinfeld’s reconstruction (“4QBarkhi Nafshia,” 270-1), this is consistent with the continuation of the passage (in line 10), “And he gave them ano[th]er heart, and they walked in (his) w[ay]” ([‫]ח[ר נתן להם וילכו בד̇]רך‬ ֯ ‫)וכלב ֯א‬. 54 The name Words of the Luminaries was found written on the reverse of one of the three copies (4Q504 8 verso), and probably refers to the “change” of the luminaries in morning and evening, indicating the time of the prayer (Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 69) or possibly to the daily and monthly cycles of the sun and moon (Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 108). 55 This text was found at Qumran in three copies but is nevertheless considered nonsectarian. According to E. Chazon, this is due to the lack of sectarian historic conceptualization and terminology where one would expect to find them, particularly in the historical reviews contained in these prayers; see Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam)” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), 88-89 (Hebrew); “Is ‘Divrei ha-me’orot’ a Sectarian Prayer?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 14. Due to the lack of sectarian themes and terminology, D.T. Olson posits that “these prayers may have been inherited from an earlier Jewish community to which the Qumran Community was the spiritual heir”; see D. T. Olson, “Words of the Lights (4Q504-506 = 4QDibHama-c),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 108. D. 52

[

]‫] ממלכת [̇כוהנים וגוי קדוש ] [׺‬

10

[

‫עורלת] לבנו‬ ֯ ‫א[שר בח̇רת מולה‬

]

11

[

]‫[׺ ֯ר] [עוד חזק לבנו ֯לע̇שות‬

]

12

]

13

[

] ‫ל[לכת בדרכיכה‬

10 [ ‘a dominion of] priests and a holy nation’ (Exod 19:6) 57[ ] [ ] 127F

58

11 [ w]hom you chose. Circumcise the foreskin of [ our heart 59] 128F

129F

K. Falk similarly notes that “There is no compelling evidence to indicate a sectarian provenance for Words of the Luminaries”; Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 61. L. H. Schiffman, citing the similarities between Words of the Luminaries and the rabbinic Taḥanun prayer found by M. R. Lehmann, has noted that the Words of the Luminaries reflect a wider Second Temple prayer practice that is a precursor to rabbinic prayer, including the use of certain motifs on weekdays and their avoidance on the Sabbath; see L. H. Schiffman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (ed. L. I. Levine; Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987), 40-41; M. R. Lehmann, “A Re-Interpretation of 4Q Dibrê Ham-me’oroth,” RevQ 5 (1964): 106-10; and also L. H. Schiffman, “From Temple to Torah: Rabbinic Judaism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Shofar 10 (1992): 10. E. M. Schuller notes Schiffman’s observation to reinforce her argument that this prayer pre-dates the community at Qumran and hence reflects more broadly based Second Temple practice; see E. M. Schuller, “Prayer, Hymnic and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam; CJAS 10; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 169. 56 Text follows M. Baillet, “504. Paroles des Luminaires (i),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 154-5, and translation follows Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 123, unless otherwise noted. 57 As reconstructed by Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 154 and translated by M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook, “4Q504 (4QDibHama),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; trans. M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 245. 58 Olson “Words of the Lights,” 123, translates “Circumcision of.” However, Olson does not explain the reasoning behind his translation of ‫ מולה‬as a nominal form. Both Baillet (“Paroles des Luminaires [i],” 156.) and Chazon (“Liturgical Document from 53

12 [ ]° r[ ] 60any longer. Strengthen our heart to do [ ] 13 [ to] walk in your ways [ ]

The request for God to “circumcise the foreskin of[ our heart]” again echoes the circumcision of Israelite hearts in Deuteronomy. Chazon notes that here, the biblical command addressed to the nation of Israel in Deut 10:16 has been changed to a request of God by the speaker. 61 Within the context of Second Temple prayer this request is completely reasonable: God is to be petitioned to effect an internal change in the speakers’ hearts. 62 It is probable, as Chazon proposes, that V.12 refers similarly to strengthening the heart to do God’s commandments. 63 Hence, God is asked to make

Qumran,” 167) interpret ‫ מולה‬as a long form of the imperative, and hence a verbal request. 59 As reconstructed by Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 154. 60 Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 167, reconstructs “[do not stiffen our ne]c[k]s” in this line, but most of the letters of the reconstructed word have not survived in this fragment. 61 Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 167. Chazon connects this passage specifically to Deut 10:16. (Deut 10:16 and the idea of “circumcising one’s heart” are also echoed in Qumran covenantal texts; see below, chapter 4.) It is equally possible that this passage echoes the promise in Deut 30:6 cited above. Chazon notes the parallel between the request here and the rabbinic prayer found in Ber. 29a: ‫מול את‬ ‫לבבנו ליראך‬, “circumcise our heart(s) to fear you.” 62 If Tigchelaar’s revised reading is correct (Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 355), a parallel may also be found in 4Q468i 2-3, ‫[ י[ ֗צר לבנו הרע ֗ה ֗שיבונו‬3 ‫[ כיא חזק עורפנו‬2, “for our neck is stiff…restore/reverse for us the evil in[clination] of our heart” (translation my own). Here the “evil inclination of the heart” is explicitly referred to, and God is requested to change it in some manner, presumably to prevent future sinning on the part of the petitioners. 63 Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 167. Chazon notes the biblical precedents in Josh 1:7, 23:6; 1 Chron 28:7, 2 Chron 31:4, and observes that unlike these verses, in this passage the term is used as part of a request from God to effect the 54

internal changes, particularly to the speakers’ hearts, in order to enable them to follow his will. In another passage, God is praised for already bringing about such a transformation 4Q504 (Frgs. 1 + 2 ii recto): 64 ‫[ל] [׺ ֯בנו בכול לב ובכול נפש ולטעת תורתכה בלבנו‬

]

13

‫]לבלתי סור ממנה ללכת [̇מימין ושמאול כיא תרפאנו משגעון ועורון ותמהון‬

14

‫הן בע[ו֯ ו֯ נותינו נ̇מכרנו ובפשעינו קרתנו‬ ‫[׺׺ והצלתנו מחטוא לכה‬

‫]לבב‬

15

]

16

13 [ ]l[ ]bnw with all heart and with all soul and to plant your Torah in our heart 14 [so as not to turn from it, straying] 65 from the right or the left for you will heal us 66 135F

136F

from madness and blindness and confusion 15 [of heart.

Behold, 67 because of] our [i]niquities we have been sold and in our

transgressions [

137F

] has befallen us 68 138F

change in the speaker. (The verb in 4Q504 is therefore necessarily in pi‘el as opposed to the qal used in the biblical verses.) 64 Text follows Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 139-40, and translation is based on that of Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 127, unless otherwise noted. 65 As reconstructed by Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 139; translation based on that of Wise, Abegg, and Cook, “4Q504,” 251. 66 Following Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 140 and Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 239. Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 127, translates “you have healed us,” but does not explain his non-literal translation of ‫תרפאנו‬, which is in future tense. 67 As reconstructed by Baillet, “Paroles des Luminaires (i),” 139 and translated by Wise, Abegg, and Cook, “4Q504,” 251. 68 Olson translates “but in (spite of) our transgressions you have called us.” However, qrtnw is likely a form of qrh “to occur,” and not qr’ “to call,” as in 4QMMT (4Q397 IV.12 par. 4Q398 14-17i.5) ‫“ שתסור מהדרך וקרתכה הרעה‬that you shall stray from the path and evil will befall you.” The chosen translation also has the advantage of eliminating the need for the insertion of “in spite of.” (This was drawn to my attention by Dr. Moshe Bernstein.) 55

16 [ ] and you will deliver/have delivered 69 us from sinning against you The speakers express confidence that God will “heal us from madness and blindness and confusion” (line 14), all of which are the cause of straying from the law. The condition of madness, blindness and confusion reflects the sinner’s defect in basic understanding. Healing is associated with the “planting of Torah” (line 13) in the hearts of the speakers. An internal positive change is made and an “illness” is cured; in this way, the speakers will be delivered from sinning against God (line 16). 70 It is important to note the connection presented here between the “planting of the Torah” and the removal of the desire to sin. This is the earliest use of the idea of “planting the Torah in our heart,” an idea that appears later in rabbinic liturgy. 71 In fact, the idea that Torah can be used in the internal battle against the desire to sin is found throughout Second Temple literature. As will be seen, it is not particular to one

69

The past tense form of the hip‘il is used, and hence Olson, “Words of the Lights,” 127, translates “have delivered.” However, if this term is subordinate to an imperative clause as emerges from Chazon’s comments (“Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 236, 240), it can be translated in the future tense, as in Lev 19:18, 34; Deut 6:4-5, and Ps 22:22. (As Chazon notes, such a translation indicates that this is part of a request for God to save the speaker from sinning in the future.) This translation also follows M. Baillet, “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 140 and Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 229. 70 In a similar manner, rabbinic texts portray the Torah as an antidote against the evil inclination; see b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b and Sifre Deut. 45. 71 Specifically in Birkat HaTorah; see Chazon, “Liturgical Document from Qumran,” 237-8. 56

paradigm of sin. 72 The apotropaic prayers Songs of the Sage (4Q511) 73 and 4QIncantation (4Q444) 74 attribute sin to demonic forces, and the laws of God within the human are described as battling these forces. 75 Nor is this idea exclusive to a single genre, as will be seen in the discussions of Sir 23:11 and of 4 Ezra in chapters 5 and 7 below. In the passage in the Words of the Luminaries, the commonly accepted idea that God’s “planted” Torah transforms the human desire to sin plays a central role. It is the planting of the Torah by God that delivers the speakers from sinning, curing their madness, blindness and confusion. Sin here is described as a disease, not an entity or organ. It is not displaced by the Torah, but cured by it. Torah is the antidote provided by God, introduced into the speakers’ hearts through divine intervention. Accordingly, in the “Words of the Luminaries,” as in other prayers investigated here, the desire to sin is depicted as human, internal and necessitating divine assistance

72

M. Kister notes the apotropaic function of Torah observance in several Second Temple texts, particular regarding release from the spiritual dominion of demons; see “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 169; “On Good and Evil,” 507-9. However, the idea that the law fights sin is also found extensively in contexts where no demonic forces appear. 73 Songs of the Sage 4Q511 48-49+51ii:2-6. 74 4Q444 (4QIncantation) 1-4i+5:1-5. 75 Both 4Q511 and 4Q444 describe a struggle within the speaker, a struggle that is connected to the presence of spirits of evil on the one hand and the laws of God on the other. In 4Q444, it is clear that these laws will enable the speaker to triumph over the evil spirits that have “invaded” him. It is possible that a similar result is hinted in 4Q511 as well. These texts will be explored further in chapter 10. 57

in the struggle to resist it. Nevertheless, sin is not inevitable, as the required divine assistance is readily available through prayer.

God’s Responsibility for Sin: 4QCommunal Confession In the prayers cited so far, the human being confronts an internal desire to sin by calling on the Deity for help. In these texts divine help is necessary in order to fight the inevitable human inclination to sin. 76 However, these prayers do not hold God responsible for sins committed by human beings. It is not surprising that, in a penitential prayer or a prayer of benediction, the speaker acknowledges the need for divine assistance without shifting responsibility for sinfulness to the Divine. Nevertheless, one text does reach this “logical” conclusion. This is a passage in 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393), a prayer of nonsectarian origins found at Qumran. 77 According to D. K. Falk, 78 4QCommunal Confession is a penitential prayer similar to other post-exilic prayers of communal confession. 79

76

Compare the rabbinic prayers requesting divine help against the evil inclination in b. Ber. 16b and 60b, and the assertion by R. Shimeon b. Laqish that divine help is required to successfully fight the evil inclination in b. Sukkah 52b. See also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chapman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 339-43 and Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 198-9. 77 See D. K. Falk, “393. 4QCommunal Confession,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 48. Falk notes that 4QCommunal Confession has no concrete indications of sectarian origin and includes use of the Tetragrammaton in opposition to sectarian practice. 78 Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” 47. Falk characterizes prayers of communal confession as sharing the following elements: 1) confession of the sins of the fathers, 58

4QCommunal Confession 4Q393 3 3-6 80

3

‫ללכת איש בשרירות לבו‬ ֗ ‫לתך ו֗ אל‬ ֗ ‫תעזוב עמך ]ונ[ ֯ח‬ ֗ ‫]צויתה [ ֗אל מושה אל‬

3

‫]הר[ע ֯כרצונך אלו֗ הי ֗ה]י[ ֯ה הו֗ א ו֗ תע]ז[ו֯ ב עמך ונחלתך ואל ללכת איש‬

4

‫ולא י֗ טהרו ויתקדשו‬ ֗ ‫֗בשררו]ת[ לבו הרע ואז֯ ֯ר כח ועל מי תאיר פניך‬

5

‫ויתרוממו למעלה לכול אתה הוא יהוה בחרתה באבותינו למקדם‬ ֗

6

[you commanded ]to Moses. Do not abandon your people [and] your [in]heritance. Do not (allow) each to walk in the stubbornness of his [ev]il heart.

4

According to your will, O my God, it has [come] to pass, and you have aban[do]ned your people and your inheritance to walk 81 each 15F

5

in the stubborn[ness] of his evil heart. But gird on strength! 82 On whom will you 152 F

make your face shine without their being purified and sanctified

usually in a historical framework; 2) acknowledgment of God’s just sentence; 3) recollection of God’s mercies; and 4) petition for mercy. For an extensive comparison of the texts cited above regarding these characteristics, see D. K. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JJS 45 (1994): 199-207. Falk (tentatively) concludes that 4Q393 is a confession of sins which was regularly recited communally by a nonsectarian group or groups, but may have been used at Qumran as well (ibid., 207). For the difficulty of using penitential prayer as a category, however, cf. E. M. Schuller, who notes that within the context of Dead Sea Scrolls study this categorization has not been obvious; Schuller, “Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: A Research Survey,” in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. J. Boda, D. K. Falk, and R. A. Werline; SBLEJL 22; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 10. 79 Such as Neh 9:6-37, Ezra 9:6-15, Dan 9:4-19, Psalm 106, LXX Dan 3:26-45, Bar 1:15-3:8, and at Qumran, 1QS I.18-II.4 and 4Q504 2 v 1-vii 2. 80 Text and translation (with small modifications) based on Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” 53, 55. 81 The word-for-word translation would be “and not to walk each in the stubbornness …” However, as Falk (“4QCommunal Confession,” 56) has noted, ‫“( אל‬not”) here is in all probability copied from the previous line (which has the same phrase, ‫ואל ללכת‬ ‫ )איש‬due to a scribal error. Falk translates accordingly, so that instead of a repetition of line 3b, the phrase here is an expression of God’s abandonment of his people to persist in their rebellion. 59

6

and exalted above everything? You are the Lord. You chose our fathers from ancient times. 4Q393 3 3-6 presents the logical conclusion to the position that God’s help is

necessary in fighting the will to sin. While God is requested not to let people walk “each one in the stubbornness of his e[vil] heart” 83 (line 3) in an echo of Ps 81:13, 84 God is also reminded that it is because he left his people that they did, in fact, sin. On the one hand, all sinners contain an “evil heart” which they follow in stubbornness. On the other, God’s presence alone is enough to purify and elevate those receiving his presence (5-6), presumably preventing future sin. Thus, because of the need for God’s help in the fight against the “evil heart,” God’s abandonment has facilitated the people’s sinning. God is petitioned on the basis of this responsibility, both for the forgiveness of these sins and for the return of his presence, which is necessary to prevent future sinning. The implication that God’s abandonment lies behind the

82

“Gird on” (‫ )אזר‬is a reconstruction of a fragmentary word (see Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” 53) which differs from Falk’s original reconstruction ‫“ ואיה כח‬Where is strength?” in “4Q393,” 190-3. In his later reconstruction, Falk sees God’s “strength” as referring to his capacity for forgiveness (“4QCommunal Confession,” 57). This phrase is a peculiar construction and requires further study and clarification. 83 As Falk notes (“4Q393,” 193-4; “4QCommunal Confession,” 56), the phrase “the stubbornness of his/their evil heart” (‫לבם הרע‬/‫ )שרירות לבו‬appears only in Jeremiah. On the biblical parallels and patterns in 4Q393, see D. K. Falk, “Biblical Adaptation in 4Q392 ‘Works of God’ and 4Q393 ‘Communal Confession’,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 126-146. 84 ‫שׁ ִרירוּת ִלבָּם יֵלְכוּ בְּמ ֹועֲצ ֹותֵ י ֶהם‬ ְ ‫“ וָאֲשַׁ ְלּחֵהוּ ִבּ‬And I will release them after the stubbornness of their heart, so that they shall follow their own devices.” (Translation my own.) 60

people’s sin stands as a compelling argument for both forgiveness of past sins and the return of God’s presence. The first section of the book of Baruch (in its Septuagint translation) also reflects the assumption that one requires divine assistance in order to resist one’s innate desire to sin. Baruch is commonly divided into two sections: 1:1-3:8, a prose representation of the historical background of the Babylonian exile as part of a confession of guilt on the part of the Babylonian captives, and 3:9-5:9, a poetic homily on a variety of subjects. LXX Bar 1:1-3:8 is generally understood to have had a Hebrew Vorlage, and has numerous linguistic connections tying its translation to the revised Greek translation of the second half of Jeremiah. 85 According to E. Tov, LXX Baruch is dated to approximately 100 B.C.E. 86

85

On the connection between the translation of Baruch and the (revised) Greek translation of Jeremiah (a connection that implies that Baruch, like Jeremiah, had a Hebrew Vorlage), see E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976), 111-26, particularly 125-6. 86 Septuagint Translation, 165-7. Tov reaches his dating of LXX Bar and Jer-R (the revised translation of the second half of Jeremiah) through a terminus ad quem of 50 C.E. based on 1) three cases in which kaige-Theodotion probably presupposes Jer-R, and 2) the assumption that, since there is no trace of the original Old Greek translation of the second half of Jeremiah, it is reasonable to assume that only a short time elapsed between the original translation and its replacement by Jer-R. (The terminus ad quem of the original translation, 116 B.C.E., is determined based on Ben Sira’s grandson’s statement in Sir 1:9 that he knew the prophets in Greek and his actual use of Septuagint texts of the prophets.) Tov further supports his early dating of Jer-R by noting that it is remote from the “slavish literalness” of kaige-Theodotion and Aquila and that the development of Septuagint revisions was toward greater literalness. (Tov, ibid., 176 n. 50, also contests the preference for a late dating of the Vorlage of Baruch 61

In Bar 2:1-10, the exile to Babylon is justified as the result of the Israelites’ past sins. As opposed to 4QCommunal Confession, Bar 2:8 puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of humans, specifically the sinning Israelites: 87 6 τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἡ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη. 7 ἃ ἐλάλησε κύριος ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, πάντα τὰ κακὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς. 8 καὶ οὐκ ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ προσώπου κυρίου τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν νοημάτων τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν 88 τῆς πονηρᾶς. 9 καὶ ἐγρηγόρησε κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς, καὶ ἐπήγαγε κύριος ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ὅτι δίκαιος ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, ἃ ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν. 6 To the Lord, our God, belongs righteousness but to us and to our fathers shame of faces, as this day. 7 All these bad things which the Lord spoke to us have come upon us. 8 And we did not entreat the face of the Lord to turn away, each from the designs 89 of their 90 wicked heart. 9 And the Lord kept

based on the dependence of the prayer of repentance in 1:15-2:9 on Dan 9:4-19. He notes that Dan 9 need not be dated much later than the bulk of Daniel [167-164 B.C.E.], allowing a date preceding 116 B.C.E.) 87 Text follows J. Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XV: Jeremias Baruch Threni Epistula Jeremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 455. Translation follows T. S. Michael, “Barouch,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 928. 88 The Codex Alexandrinus has αὐτου, i.e. “each from the designs of his wicked heart.” 89 Or “thoughts”; see νόημα in 3 Macc 5:30. Also see Emanuel Tov’s tentative reconstruction of the Hebrew (Septuagint Translation, 128) in which he allows for both possibilities: ‫ולא חלינו את פני ה' לשוב איש ממחשבות )ממועצות( לבם הרע‬. 90 See n. 88 above. 62

watch over the bad things, and the Lord brought them upon us, for the Lord is just in all his works, which he commanded us. (Emphasis mine.) The Hebrew Vorlage of 2:8 has been reconstructed by Emanuel Tov 91 as ‫ולא‬ 16F

‫חלינו את פני ה' לשוב איש ממחשבות )ממועצות( לבם הרע‬, “Yet we have not tried to win the favor of the Lord by turning, each of us, from the thoughts of his wicked heart,” based on Dan 9:13b, “Yet we have not tried to win the favor of the Lord by turning from our sin” (‫)וְ�א ִחלִּינוּ אֶת ְפּנֵי ה' ֱא�הֵינוּ לָשׁוּב ֵמעֲוֹנֵנוּ‬. However, LXX Bar 2:8 is significantly different, even when compared with LXX Dan 9:13b. LXX Daniel 9:13b describes the people not “seeking out” (ἐξεζητήσαμεν) God in order “to bewail” (ἀποστῆναι) their sins. 92 In other words, the people did not ask forgiveness for their sins, accurately 162F

reflecting the probable meaning of the Hebrew verse. If the Hebrew Vorlage of Bar 2:8 duplicates this phrase, the translator has suggested a considerably different range of meaning. The mark against the Israelites described in LXX Bar 2:8 is that they have not entreated or beseeched (ἐδεήθημεν) God in order that they will turn away from their sins. Whether this meaning is in the original Hebrew or whether it was interjected by an early translator, it reflects the understanding that God must be asked for help, not only to forgive sins, but to assist his people in turning away from sin itself.

91

Tov, The Book of Baruch: Also Called I Baruch (Greek and Hebrew) (SBLTT 8. Pseudepigrapha 6; Missoula: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1975), 18-19. 92 καὶ οὐκ ἐξεζητήσαμεν τὸ πρόσωπον κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν . 63

In LXX Bar 2:8, the neglect of prayer to God for help against the inclination to sin is itself recounted as one of the past sins of the Israelites. This is the logical alternative to the idea implied in 4QCommunal Confession that God’s absence can be partially blamed for past Israelite sins. The emphasis in the passage in Baruch is on human responsibility for sin, and hence for divine punishment. But if God’s help is necessary in fighting the will to sin, how are humans responsible for sin? Their responsibility, according to LXX Bar 2:8, lies in the requirement for humans to pray in order to receive such assistance. Put differently, if divine help against the will to sin is essential, and this help is achieved through prayer to God, apparently those who commit a sin have not requested help from God through prayer. Thus the passage in Baruch explains how central the idea of sin’s inevitability is in Second Temple prayer; only prayer can thwart the otherwise inescapable “wicked heart.”

Contrasting Views in an Authorial Community: Psalms of Solomon In the Psalms of Solomon, a composite work most likely composed in Hebrew by a single anti-Hasmonean community during the Hasmonean period, 93 different psalms reflect different attitudes regarding free will and the need for God’s assistance against temptation. The contrast between the psalms can be explained on the previously explored connection between the prayer genre and the view of sin as inevitable.

93

See J. L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6: 115-6. 64

In Pss. Sol. 9:4-5, the author declares humankind’s complete free will and freedom of action: 94 Τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν· καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐπισκέπτῃ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων. ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἀδικίαν αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ· τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα καὶ οἶκον. Our works are in the choosing and power of our soul, to do righteousness or injustice in the works of our hands, and in your righteousness you visit human beings. The one who practices righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who practices injustice is responsible for the destruction of his own soul, for the judgments of the Lord are in righteousness for each man and household. According to these verses, the choice between life and destruction is wholly in the hands of the human being, and consequently humans are responsible for their own punishment. In contrast, in Pss. Sol. 16:7-11 God’s help against sin and illicit desire is requested: 7 ἐπικράτησόν μου, ὁ θεός, ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς σκανδαλιζούσης ἄφρονα. 8 καὶ μὴ ἀπατησάτω με κάλλος γυναικὸς παρανομούσης καὶ παντὸς ὑποκειμένου ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας ἀνωφελοῦς. 9 Τὰ ἔργα τῶν 94

Greek follows A. Rahlfs et al., eds., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931). Translation of passages from Pss. Sol. follows K. Atkinson, “Psalms of Salomon,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 76376, unless otherwise noted. 65

χειρῶν μου κατεύθυνον ἐν τόπῳ σου καὶ τὰ διαβήματά μου ἐν τῇ μνήμῃ σου διαφύλαξον. 10 τὴν γλῶσσάν μου καὶ τὰ χείλη μου ἐν λόγοις ἀληθείας περίστειλον, ὀργὴν καὶ θυμὸν ἄλογον μακρὰν ποίησον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 11 γογγυσμὸν καὶ ὀλιγοψυχίαν ἐν θλίψει μάκρυνον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἐὰν ἁμαρτήσω ἐν τῷ σε παιδεύειν εἰς ἐπιστροφήν. 7 Hold me back, 95 O God, from wicked sin and from every evil woman who causes the foolish to stumble. 8 And let not the beauty of a woman who transgresses the law deceive me, nor of anything that is subject to useless sin. 9 Direct the works of my hands in your place, and guard my steps in your remembrance. 10 Protect my tongue and my lips with words of truth; anger and unreasoning wrath put far from me. 11 Grumbling and faint-heartedness in affliction keep far from me, when, if I sin, you discipline me to return me. In this psalm, God is petitioned for help against the desire to sin, and particularly against sexual desire. Despite the view proposed in Pss. Sol. 9:4-5, the authorial community of Psalms of Solomon had no difficulty with petitioning God against the desire to sin. In the context of a direct prayer to God, the request for assistance in fighting one’s inclination toward sin is expected, regardless of any larger theological premise regarding human free will.

95

Following Atkinson, “Psalms of Salomon,” 773 note c. The translation Atkinson has chosen in the body of his translation is “Rule over me,” but the translation proposed in his note is appropriate to the context and a reasonable translation of “ἐπικράτησόν μου.” 66

Conclusion: Innate Inclination to Sin and Inevitability in Nonsectarian Prayer The prayers explored here demonstrate a common, basic paradigm regarding the origin of sin in prayer during the Second Temple period. According to this paradigm, the inclination toward sin is inborn and an inevitable element of the human condition. It is sometimes described as a “condition of sinfulness” from which the human must be freed (as in 11Q5 col. XXIV and 4QBarkhi Nafshi), but is equally often described simply as an inevitable human desire to sin whose results must be prevented. The only “way out” of this inclination to sin is through divine assistance; thus an appeal to God is required in order to be righteous. The strength of the connection between the prayer genre and the perceived need for God’s help in order to fight the desire to sin is demonstrated by the expression of this need in the Psalms of Solomon, a text that also proclaims a belief in human free will. Prayer as a means of escaping from the inclination to sin consequently reduces the inevitability of this inclination to the human condition. The inclination to sin is inborn, but the possibility of receiving God’s help, accessible through prayer, proves that the human in her future existence need not see sin as inevitable. Thus those who do not take advantage of this method of “fighting sin” are doubly culpable of any sins they subsequently commit. As will be further explored in the next chapter, the declared connection between the innate inclination to sin and the need for God’s help serves as both an expression of human inadequacy in the encounter with the Divine and an excuse of

67

sorts for the past and future sins of the penitent petitioner. While these ideas regarding sin have biblical precedents, in the Second Temple period they form the underlying assumption of many of these prayers.

68

III. Sectarian Prayer and the Innate Desire to Sin

Like the prayers reviewed in the preceding chapter, the sectarian prayers in the Hodayot 1 and the “Hymn of Praise” found in the Community Rule (1QS X.9-XI.22) describe the desire to sin as an innate, inevitable human condition that necessitates God’s assistance. While the understanding of sin presented in these sectarian prayers reflects existing views of sin explored in the previous chapter, both these texts develop these underlying views considerably.

Hodayot The Hodayot (known also as the “Thanksgiving Psalms”) are a collection of hymns found in their most complete form in Cave 1, and in more fragmentary copies in Cave 4. The earliest Cave 4 fragments of the Hodayot, 4QHodayotb, have been paleographically dated to shortly after 100 B.C.E. (middle Hasmonean) while 1QHodayota-b is dated to the beginning of the common era. These hymns are frequently divided into two groups, “Hymns of the Teacher” and “Hymns of the

1

For an overview of opinions regarding the liturgical use of the Hodayot, see n. 4 below. As noted above, the definition of prayer for the purposes of this chapter include both individual and liturgical prayer, and therefore includes the Hodayot even if they are classified as non-liturgical. 69

Community.” 2 However, the identification of the hymns as Teacher or Community hymns, while important to the study of the sect’s history, has less bearing on the present study. The “Hymns of the Community” may have had a wider liturgical use, but both sets of hymns belong to the genre of prayer as defined in this study and express certain theological ideas particular to the Dead Sea community. Indeed, C. Newsom has posited that the “Hymns of the Teacher” and the “Hymns of the Community” were equally important in forming the “subjectivity” of sectarians. 3 While many scholars have posited that the Hodayot had a Sitz im Leben which was liturgical or both liturgical and private, such an assumption does not affect the use of 2

There is a certain degree of agreement between scholars regarding which sections to assign to which group, although this agreement is not absolute. “Hymns of the Teacher” are considered to reflect personal experiences of the author (identified by some as the Teacher of Righteousness; see G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit [SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963], 168-80; J. Becker, Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament [SUNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964], 53-54; and more recently M. C. Douglas, “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux,” DSD 6 [1999]: 266). The “Hymns of the Community” are considered less personal in tone, although they are also written in first person singular. The majority of the sections discussed below belong to the “Hymns of the Community,” with the exception of XI.19-22 and XIII.5-9, following the divisions proposed by Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (ATDan 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 320-1; G. Morawe, Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân: Studien zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Hodajôth (Theologische Arbeiten 16; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961), 166; G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 168-267; H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 16-33; and J. Becker (Das Heil Gottes), and supported by the more recently published Hodayot scrolls of Cave 4; see E. M. Schuller, “427-432. 4QHodayota-e and 4QpapHodayotf: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4, XX, Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 74-75. 3 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 197. 70

the Hodayot as prayer. 4 Individual prayers, too, can be expected to reflect the understanding and presentation of sin particular to the prayer genre. The notion of humanity’s innate sinfulness in the Hodayot has been noted by scholars since this text was first studied. 5 The understanding of sinfulness, in the

4

Those who posit a liturgical role of some kind for the Hodayot include Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” 276; Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 332-48; H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (trans. E. T. Sander; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 16; and Kuhn, Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil (specifically regarding the Hymns of the Community). This option has more recently been supported by C. Newsom, who accepts the possibility raised by B. Reike that the Hodayot were recited by the community at meals, similar to the Therapeutae in Philo’s description (Contempl. 80), and by E. Schuller, who notes a number of characteristics found in the Cave 4 copies of the Hodayot that point to liturgical use. These characteristics include imperative calls to praise, a few temporal expressions that may indicate prayer times, multiple copies (possibly for liturgical use) and “we” language; see C. Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 202; B. Reike, “Remarques sur l'histoire de la form (Formgeschichte) des texts de Qumran,” in Les manuscripts de la mer Morte: Colloque de Strasbourg 25-27 Mai 1955 (ed. J. Daniélou; Paris: Paris University Press, 1957), 38-44; E. Schuller, “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179; and eadem, “Prayer, Hymnic and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” 167-87. Those who have viewed the Hodayot as principally didactic or literary include J. Licht, “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll,” IEJ 6 (1956): 3-4; H. Bardtke, “Considérations sur les cantiques de Qumrân,” RB 63 (1956): 231; and B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, 323. 5 See M. Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): texte hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962), 48-49; Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” 278-9, 283; G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 1/12; Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), 170; E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 38; Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” 339-40; L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 151-2; Hyatt, “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” 278-9; 71

Hodayot, unlike that found in the nonsectarian prayers reviewed above, is tied to human physicality. While the use of the metaphorical sense organs “eyes” and “heart” in previously discussed prayers expressed the desire to sin figuratively, here the lowliness and sinfulness of human beings is expressly connected to the physical aspect of humanity. It is communicated through the use of the terms yṣr ḥmr “creature of clay”, 6 bśr “flesh,” and rwḥ bśr “a spirit of flesh” to denote humans and their distance from the Divine. 7 Sinfulness as it is described in the Hodayot is not connected to any particular transgression, but only to the fact that humans are lowly and have a physical form. 8 This understanding of the human condition in the Hodayot is expressed

Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 274; and D. Dombrowski Hopkins, “The Qumran Community and 1Q Hodayot: a Reassessment,” RQ 10 (1981): 325. Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 41, notes that the speaker in the Hodayot desires freedom from sinfulness, rather than asking for forgiveness for individual sins, and Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, 333-43, highlights the absence of petitions for forgiveness in contrast to the prominence of such petitions in other prayers of the Second Temple period. 6 See 1QHa IX.23; XII.30; XIX.6; XX.29; XX.35; XXII.12; XXIII.13. The use of the term to denote the lowly nature of human beings is noted by Licht, Megillat HaHodayot, 33-34; J. Maier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer (2 vols.; München: Reinhardt, 1960), 2:66; Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” 339-40, among others. 7 See 1QHa IV.37; V.15,30,33; VII.25,34; XII.30; XVIII.25 (where yēṣer bāśār indicates not an inclination but a creature of flesh, i.e. a human being); XXI.7,9,23; XXIV.10,14,29; XXV.12; XXVI.35. On the use of bāśār to denote human weakness and/or sinfulness in the Hodayot, see Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 4849; Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 33-34; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 170. 8 The prominence of the human condition of sinfulness in the Hodayot and its connection with the flesh have led some scholars to see the Hodayot as a precursor to the Pauline contrast between (sinful) flesh and the spirit, specifically as found in Gal 5:16-23 and Rom 7:14,18; see Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 49 and the more recent study by J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: an Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” 72

emphatically in 1QHa IX.23-25, where the speaker maintains his own basic sinfulness as a member of humankind: 9 ‫אלה ידעתי מבינתכה כיא גליתה אוזני לרזי פלא ואני יצר החמר ומגבל המים‬

23

‫סוד הערוה ומקור הנדה כור העוון ומבנה החטאה ֯רוח התו֯ עה ונעוה בלא‬

24

‫בינה ונבעתה ֯ב ֯משפטי צדק מה אדבר בלא נודע ואשמיעה בלא סופר הכול‬

25

in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 402. In the Hodayot corporeality is associated with sin in a manner akin to Paul’s description of his own sinfulness in Rom 7:14, 18. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between Paul’s approach and the approach to sin reflected in the Hodayot. The most prominent of these differences is evident in how the terms “flesh” (bśr) and “spirit” (rwḥ) are employed in the Hodayot. While Gal 5:16-23 describes a battle between the flesh and the spirit, in the Hodayot these terms can be used concurrently in the phrase rwḥ bśr “spirit of flesh” (see n. 7 above). In the Hodayot, both bśr and rwḥ are used to denote human beings (see 1QHa XVII.16, where bśr and rwḥ appear in parallel in this sense). Hence, as contrasted to the use of these terms in Gal 5:16-23, in the Hodayot “flesh” and “spirit” are not contradictory elements. When used in conjunction, these two terms emphasize human corporeality; as noted by Maier (Mensch und freier Wille, 170), in the Hodayot the “flesh” is not an entity separate from the human being. As W. D. Davies concludes, while there are similarities between the individual experience of sinful flesh in Paul (specifically in Rom 7:14, 18) and in the Hodayot, Paul’s use of the terms “flesh” and “spirit” is not parallel to that found in the Scrolls; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls” 153-4, 177. 9 Text and translation follow E. M. Schuller, H. Stegemann, and C. A. Newsom, 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 21-23. The line numbering of this and all selections and citations of the Hodayot in this study is based on the later edition of the Hodayot in DJD 40, and variant readings in E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (vol. 1; Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010 [Hebrew]) are noted. Following Schuller and Stegemann, no distinction is made between more or less certain reconstructions; all damaged letters are marked with an open circle. 73

23 These things I know because of understanding from you, 10 for you have opened my ears to wondrous mysteries. Yet I am a creature of clay and (a thing) kneaded with water, 24 a foundation of shame and a spring 11 of impurity, a furnace of iniquity, and a structure of sin, a spirit of error, and a perverted being, without 25 understanding, and terrified by righteous judgments. What could I say that is not known, 12 or what could I declare that has not been told? 13 Everything… The speaker does not claim that he is guilty of particular sins. Rather, as a member of humanity, he shares in its lowly and sinful state. He is a “creature of clay” that has been “kneaded with water.” It is clear from this passage that the human being is not merely weak, but sinful. 14 The speaker is himself a “foundation of shame” 15 and 10

Newsom translates “that comes from you.” Following Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 18 (“a spring of impurity”) and Wise, Abegg, and Cook in M. G. Abegg, “1QHa,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 17 (“a spring of filth”). Newsom, 1QHodayota, 130, translates “well,” but “spring” better reflects the biblical semantic range of the term ‫מקור‬ (māqôr) used both as a source of water (i.e. a spring or a fountain) and a source of menstrual impurity (see HALOT 627, BDB 881a); hence the translations of M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 3; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 101, “the source of impurity” and Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 86, “source d’impureté.” 12 Newsom translates “already known,” but there is no indication of this in the Hebrew text. 13 Newsom translates “that has not already been told.” See n. 12. 14 In contrast to Ps 103:14, where the mention of the “dust” from which humanity is formed is an expression of human weakness and mortality but not of sinfulness. Ps 51:7 does portray a speaker who is “in sin” from birth (‫“ הֵן ְבּעָוֹון ח ֹו ָללְתִּ י וּ ְב ֵחטְא יֶ ֱח ַמתְ נִי ִאמִּ י‬Indeed I was born in iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me”) but the sins in question seem to be specifically those that the speaker has performed, as indicated by the active verb forms in the preceding verse, 51:6 ( �ְ‫ל‬ ‫שׂיתִ י‬ ִ ‫“ ְלבַדְּ � ָחטָאתִ י ְוה ַָרע ְבּעֵינֶי� ָע‬Against you alone have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight…”). 11

74

a “spring of impurity,” 16 impurity that is soon afterwards described in terms that clearly reflect the speaker’s sinful (and not merely ritually impure) 17 condition: the speaker is a “furnace of iniquity,” a “structure of sin” and a “spirit of error,” who is “perverted.” The speaker describes himself in harsh terms as basically sinful, and this sinfulness is tied to the mortal, human nature he decries at the start of his selfdescription. The experience he describes is one of total humility, sinfulness, and unworthiness. This is the “masochistic” element of the experience of the “masochistic sublime” noted by Carol Newsom in her description of the Hodayot. By cultivating the “masochistic sublime,” the speaker deeply experiences the lowliness of his nature contrasted to the “absolute being” of God, and subsequently the elation that results from the encounter with the Divine. 18 Similar terms are applied to humankind in general in 1QHa V.31-35. 19 ‫ הנוראים והוא‬20 ‫ ֯בכו֯ ל אלה ולהשכיל בס׺] [ גדול ומה ילוד אשה בכול ]ג[ ֯ד]ו[ ֯ל]י[ ֯ך‬31 F185

15

Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 84-85 notes that‘rwh, used biblically in a sexual sense, is chosen here to denote the extreme degree of the impurity to which all humankind is subject. 16 This term, like ‘rwh above, reflects biblical sexual terminology, although nddh is used biblically for both sexual and moral impurity. 17 Terminology related to ritual impurity is used extensively in the Hodayot to denote moral impurity. As Birenboim (“‘For He is Impure,’” 366) notes in his analysis of other liturgical Dead Sea texts, this stems from the idea that both physical and moral impurity are expressions of the weakness and lowliness of humankind. For a survey of studies regarding the connection between moral and ritual impurity at Qumran, see notes 18 and 22 in chapter 2. 18 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. 19 Text follows Schuller, Stegemann, and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 76, and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 86. 20 E. Qimron reads [‫ ;]מעשיך‬see Dead Sea Scrolls, 64. 75

‫ מבנה עפר ומגבל מים ֯א]שמה וחט[אה סודו ערות קלו֯ ן֯ ו֯ ֯מ]קור הנ[דה ורוח נעוה משלה‬32 ‫רחוק]י[ ֯ם ֯לבשר רק בטובך‬ ֯ ‫יהיה] לאות עד [ ֯עולם ומופת דורות‬ ֯ ‫ ואם ירשע‬vacat ‫ בו‬33 ‫ ב[ ֯רוב עדנים עם שלום‬21 ‫ותמשי֯ ֯לנ֯ ]ו‬ ֯ ‫רח]מיך [ בהדרך תפארנו‬ ֯ ‫וברו֯ ב‬ ֯ ‫ יצדק איש‬34 F 186

‫ ואני עבדך ידעתי‬vacat ‫ עולם ואורך ימים כי ] ו[דברך לא ישוב אחור‬35 31 all these things and to discern bs [ ] great [ ]? What is one born of woman amid all your [gre]at fearful acts? 22 He 187F

32 is a thing constructed of dust and kneaded with water. Sin[ful gui]lt is his foundation, obscene shame, and a so[urce of im]purity. And a perverted spirit rules 33 him. If he acts wickedly, he will become[ a sign for]ever and a portent for dis[ta]nt generations of flesh. Only through your goodness 34 can a person be righteous, and by [your] abundant mer[cy ] By your splendour you glorify him, and you give [us] dominion 23 [with] abundant delights together 18F

with eternal 35 peace and long life. For [ and] your word will not turn back. And I, your servant, know Here the lowliness of humanity is contrasted to the greatness of the works of God. There is no separation between the physical nature of humans (who are “an edifice of dust, kneaded with water”) and their sinful disposition (“his foundation is obscene shame…and a perverted spirit ruled him.”) As previously shown, many Second Temple prayers express the idea of a basic and inescapable desire to sin, and several present sin as a condition from which the 21

Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 64, reads ‫ותמשילה]ו‬. Alternately, following Qimron’s reading (see n. 20), the translation is more simply “all your fearful acts.” 23 Following Qimron’s reading (see n. 21), the translation would be “and you give him dominion.” 22

76

speaker (and humanity) must be freed. One of the unique aspects found in the Hodayot, however, is the connection between this condition of sinfulness and the physicalnature of human beings. 24 It is the fact that the speaker is a “creature of clay” and “kneaded with water” that gives rise to the sinfulness in his “foundation of shame.” To be free of this basic condition of physical sinfulness, the speaker in the Hodayot relies (as do the speakers in the nonsectarian prayers discussed above) on divine aid. In the Hodayot, the nature of divine aid takes the form of purification from the speaker’s condition of sinfulness. 25 An example of this is found in 1QHa XIX.1317: 26

27

‫וברזי פלאכה השכלתם ולמען כבודכה טהרתה אנוש מפשע להתקדש‬

13

‫לכה מכול תועבות נדה ואשמת מעל להוחד ֯ע ֯ם בני אמתך ובגורל ֯ע ֯ם‬

14

‫לבינתכ ֯ה‬ ֯ ‫קדושיכה להרים מעפר תולעת מתים לסוד ֯א]מתכה[ ומרוח נעוה‬

15

[‫ולהתיצב במעמד לפניכה עם צבא עד ורוחו]ת עולם ו֯ להתחדש עם כול ֯ה]ווה‬ ֯

16

F192

24

But not necessarily the sexual nature of human beings. Compare the description of the speaker in the Hodayot as formed with clay or dirt and kneaded with water with the description of human origins as a “stinking drop” (‫ )טפה סרוחה‬in m. ’Abot 3:1. The rabbinic description has clear sexual connotations that are not present in the Hodayot passage. 25 As Licht (Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 41) asserts, the composer of the Hodayot is not concerned with his individual sins or responsibility for his previous actions, but rather “with ridding (himself) of the common, ancient filth with which each human is contaminated in that he is human. Thus he thanks God specifically for the purification from sin, as this purification is his chief concern, while he does not speak much of the pardon for individual sins.” 26 Text follows Schuller and Stegemann, 1QHodayota, 240, and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 248, unless otherwise noted. 27 Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 88, restores [‫ה]ויה‬. 77

] vacat ‫ו֯ נ֯ ֗היה ועם ידעים ביחד רנה‬

[

17

13 and given them insight into your wonderful mysteries. For the sake of your glory you have purified a mortal 28 from sin so that he may sanctify himself 193F

14 for you from all impure abominations and from faithless guilt, so that he might be united with the children of your truth and in the lot with 15 your holy ones, so that a corpse infesting maggot might be raised up from the dust to the council of [your] t[ruth], and from a spirit of perversion to the understanding which comes from you, 16 and so that he may take (his) place before you with the everlasting host and the [eternal] spirit[s], and so that he may be renewed together with all that i[s] 29 194F

17 and will be and with those who have knowledge in a common rejoicing. vacat [ ] This passage describes both the lowly nature of the human being and the human’s purification by the Divine so that he may join “the council of your truth.” Only God can purify the mortal from sin, and it is only through this divine intervention that he can take his place as one of the righteous, joining the angels. 30 The 195F

28

Or, “humanity.” Or, following Qimron’s reconstruction (see n. 27), “all existence.” 30 Similarly, in IX.33b-35a, God is thanked for cleansing humans (specifically the poor, according to E. Schuller’s reconstruction) of sin so that they can tell of God’s greatness. (Text follows Schuller and Stegemann, 1QHodayota, 119 and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 131, except where otherwise noted.) ‫ ואתה ברחמיכה‬vacat 33 ‫טהר ֯ת ֯ה מרוב עוון‬ ֯ [‫וגדול חסדיכה חזקתה רוח אנוש לפני נגע ו֯ נ֯ ֯פ ֯ש] אביון‬ 34 ‫לספר נפלאותיכה לנגד כול מעשיכה‬ 35 33 And you, in your mercy 34 and your great kindness, you have strengthened the human spirit in the face of affliction and [the poor] soul you have purified (Newsom: cleansed) from great iniquity 35 so that it might recount your wonders before all your creatures. 29

78

severe description of the impurity and lowliness of the human (a “corpse infesting maggot”) makes the purification and elevation of the human all the more miraculous, and clearly the work of God. In spite of his inherent sinfulness, the speaker declares his own chosenness. It is the speaker’s special status, and that alone, which allows him to be freed from the seemingly inevitable connection between humanity and sin. 31 By choosing the speaker, God has enabled him to resist the desire to sin, 32 as described in IV.33-37: 33

Hence, those chosen are not free of sin to begin with, but merit divine cleansing which then allows them to fulfill their role of recounting the wonders of God. A similar approach is espoused in Pss. Sol. 10:1-3, according to which the “righteous” must be cleansed of sin; see K. Atkinson, “Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 564. However, as noted below (n. 100), in the Psalms of Solomon the “righteous” may continue to sin, unlike the elected in the Hodayot. For parallels in the Pauline letters, see n. 31 below. 31 The poetic analysis of the Hodayot by B. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary (SBLDS 50; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), has demonstrated the Hodayot’s stress on personal salvation from sin through God’s grace (see ibid., 175). The presentation of this idea in the Hodayot is suggestive of the Pauline doctrine of grace, particularly as it applies to Paul himself in 1 Cor 15:10 and 2 Cor 12:9; see Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, 247 and W. Grundmann, “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Chicago: Priory Press, 1968), 104. Like the speaker in the Hodayot, Paul describes himself as weak and sinful, but rescued by God’s election. (The salvation from sin through grace is more widely applied in passages such as Rom 3:21-23 and in the possibly deutero-Pauline Eph 2:1-10.) 32 This election thereby underscores the need for God’s assistance in fighting the desire to sin or one’s condition of sinfulness. Newsom notes on 1QHa IV.29-37 that “As is typical of the Hodayot, there is a relentless consistency in the way in which all moral initiative is attributed to God and utter moral incapacity is attributed to the speaker…The very possibility of a moral life depends upon God’s action in choosing one.” (Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 265.) 79

‫בחר ֯ת ֯ה ֯ה]כינותה[ דרכו ובשכל‬ ֯ ‫ כי את אשר‬34 ‫] [תמו רשעים ואני הו֯ בינותי‬

33

‫ לבו‬35 ‫] ת[ ֯חשכהו מחטוא לך ול׺׺ב לו ענותו ביסוריך ובנס]וייך חזק[ ֯תה‬

34

‫ לעמו[ד על רוחות‬36 ‫מתנ֯ ]יו‬ ֯ ‫] [ עבדך מחטוא לך ומכשול ֯ב ֯כול דברי רצונך חזק‬

35

‫שנא ֯ת ֯ה] ולעשות[ ֯ה ֯טוב בעיניך‬ ֯ ‫] לה[ ֯תהלך בכול אשר אהבתה ולמאוס ֯ב ֯כול אשר‬

36

F19

F20

F201

vacat [

] vacat [ ] ‫בש ֯ר ֯עבדך‬ ֯ ‫ כי רוח‬37 ‫] ממ[ ֯שלתם בתכמו‬ F20

37

33 [ ]tmw the wicked. As for me, I understand that (for) the one whom you have chosen [you determi]ne his way and through insight 34 [ you] hold him back 38 from sinning against you. And in order to °°b to him his 203F

humility through your disciplines and through [your] tes[ts] you have [strengthened] his heart 35 [ ] your servant from sinning against you and from stumbling in all the matters of your will. Strengthen [his] loi[ns that he may sta]nd against spirits 36 [ and that he may w]alk in everything that you love and despise everything that [you] hate, [and do] what is good in your eyes. 37 [ ]their [domi]nion in his 39 members/innards; 40 for your servant (is) a spirit of 204F

205F

flesh. [ ] vacat [ ] vacat Text follows Schuller and Stegemann, 1QHodayota, 63 and translation follows Newsom, 1QHodayota, 73-74, unless otherwise noted. 34 Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 63, reads ‫הבינותי‬, an alternate spelling with the identical meaning. 35 Qimron restores ‫ובנס]וייך בחנ[תה‬. 36 Qimron reads the alternate spelling ‫מות]ניו‬. 37 Qimron proposes reading ‫תכמי‬, although he recognizes the other possible reading ‫תכמו‬. 38 Newsom translates “draw him back.” 39 Or, according to Qimron’s proposed reading (see n. 37), “my.” 40 The term translated here, tkmy (‫)תכמי‬, appears only in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see 1QS IV.20-21, 1Q36 14 2, 4Q444 1-4i+5 3, 4Q511 28-29 4, 4Q511 48-9 + 51 ii 3-4, and 4Q525 13 4) and is always in construct, presumably deriving from the plural *tĕkāmîm (‫)*תכמים‬. While the specific meaning of *tĕkāmîm is uncertain, it indicates either a part or the inside of the human body, as is evident from its conjunction with the flesh 33

80

In this passage, it is only through God’s assistance that the speaker has been (and will be) able to resist sin. This is a key aspect of the petitioner’s “chosenness,” expressed by noting that God “chooses” (bḥr) those who will then be saved from sinning (IV.33-34). In order to do what “is good in God’s eyes,” the speaker must be (and is) strengthened by God. The nature of the “spirits” in line 35 against whom the speaker must stand firm is unclear, due to the lacuna in the beginning of line 36, but

(in all but one instance, 4Q525 13 4) in the term tkmy bśr ‫תכמי בשר‬, a term found in synonymous parallelism to “my body” (‫ )גויתי‬in 4Q511 48-9 + 51 ii 3-4. In addition, as noted by E. G. Chazon, “444. 4QIncantation,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 376, “in every case where something is said to be in takmê/tĕkāmê bāśār, that thing is evil.” Based on the coincidence of *tĕkāmîm with ng‘ nm’r, a term frequently indicating skin disease, in 1QHa XIII.30, E. Qimron concluded that the meaning of *tĕkāmîm was “blood vessels.” Qimron supported his conclusion with a parallel he found between gîdîm “sinews” and *tĕkāmîm in a preliminary reading of 4Q525 13 4 provided to him by Emil Puech: ‫ ;]ב[גדיה תנחל ובתכמיה‬see Qimron, “Notes on the 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Diseas,” JJS 42 (1991), 256-9. However, this reading was not retained in the published version of this text; in the DJD edition Puech reads ‫גאוה‬ (“pride”) and describes this reading as “certaine”; E. Puech, “525. 4QBéatitudes,” in Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579) (ed. E. Puech; DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 143. In addition, Qimron’s initial conclusion that collocation with nega‘ must indicate that *tĕkāmîm denotes “blood vessels” is questionable due to the metaphorical use of ng‘ in the Hodayot, including this instance. There is therefore little need for biological accuracy in describing the speaker’s pain. In addition, while the link between evil and *tĕkāmîm is evident, there is rarely a link between evil and blood in the Scrolls, apart from the legal implications of blood: the actual act of bloodshed, the transgression of the consumption of blood, and contraction of impurity from the blood of the dead. Finally, elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particular in the Cave 4 copies of the Damascus Document, blood vessels are indicated with the term gyd; see 4QDa (4Q266) 6 i.12 (par. 4QDg [4Q272] 1 ii.1), 4QDd (4Q269) 7 2, 4QDg (4Q272) 1 i.3, 6a. Consequently the word *tĕkāmîm appears to be a more general expression referring the innards of the body, especially when the body is “infested” with sinfulness or affliction. 81

“spirit” (rûaḥ) in the Hodayot does not refer to an external being, but rather to humans, their tendencies, and occasionally to internal enlightenment granted by God. 41 Line 37, while fragmentary, ties these negative tendencies to the speaker’s status as a human: because he “is a spirit of flesh” 42 these negative tendencies will necessarily hold sway within him unless God assists him. The designation of the human as a “spirit of flesh” is intriguing. It can indicate that humans are a fleshly type of spirit or a spiritual type of flesh. In either case, the phrase includes within it an important aspect of the Hodayot’s anthropological stance. Humans are basically physical, a situation that explains human lowliness and sinfulness (V.31-33, IX.23-25). They are nevertheless capable of purification and elevation, even to the level of the angels (XIX.15-16). These twin characteristics of the human condition cannot be separated from each other, and fleshliness does not end after one’s elevation to stand among the angels. Although the speaker praises God for having purified him, he still designates himself a “spirit of flesh” (IV.37). Similarly, in 4QHb (4Q428) 10 2-10, the speaker portrays his deep condition of sinfulness and his elevation through divine assistance: 43

41

As in the phrase rûaḥ qodšĕkā “the spirit of your holiness.” For a general description of the semantic range of rûaḥ in Second Temple texts, see n. 64 in chapter 10 below. 42 For parallels to the Pauline epistles, see n. 8 above. 43 Parallel to and reconstructed according to 1QHa XV.38-XVI.4, 1QHb (1Q35) 1. Text found in 1QHa and 1QHb parallels underlined. Text not in 4QHb marked in brackets. Text follows Schuller, “4QHodayotb,” 141 and Translation follows C. 82

[‫לכ]ול משפטי צדק ואני איש טמא ומרחם‬ ֯ ‫ובהמון רחמיכה‬

2

[‫֯הוריתי באשמת מעל] ומשדי אמי בעולה ובחיק אומנתי‬

3

[‫בד]מים ועד שיבה בעוון בשר ואתה‬ ֯ ‫לרוב נדה ומנעורי‬

4

[‫אלי כוננתה רגלי בדר ֗ך] לבכה ולשמועות פלאכה גליתה‬

5

44

[‫אטומה‬

‫באמתכ]ה‬ ֗ ‫אוזני ולבי להבין‬

6

]‫אשר‬ ֯ ‫אוזן בלמודיכה עד‬

7

‫הכ ֯א ֯תה מתכמי וכבו֯ ]ד לב‬ ֗ ‫דעת‬

8

[‫לי עוד למכשול עוון כי תג֯ ֯ל]ה ישועתכה וצדקתכה תכין‬

9

[‫לעד כיא לוא] לאד[ ֗ם דרכו כ]ול אלה לכבודכה עשיתה‬

10

F209

[‫ורוח נעוה בלוא‬ [‫׺ ׺׺׺׺ ואין‬ 45 F210

2

and into your overflowing compassion for [all righteous judgments. But I am an unclean person and from the womb]

3

I was conceived in faithless guilt, 46 [and from the breasts of my mother 47 in 21F

21F

iniquity, and in the bosom of my nurse] 4

(attached) to great impurity, and from my childhood in bl[ood,48 and unto old age 213F

in the iniquity of flesh. But you,] 5

my God, have set my feet in the way[ of your heart. And you have disclosed reports of your wonders]

6

to my ear 49 for my heart to understand 50 your trut[h… closed is] 51 214F

215F

216F

Newsom’s translation of the combined texts (4Q428 and 1QHa XV-XVI) in Schuller, Stegemann, and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 215, 223 except where otherwise noted. 44 According to Qimron’s reading, Dead Sea Scrolls, 82. Schuller and Stegemann read ‫ אטומם‬and Newsom translates “I close.” 45 Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls 82, reads ‫תכון‬. 46 Newsom translates, “of the one who conceived me (I have lived) in faithless guilt.” However, ‫( הוריתי‬here, “I was conceived”) is more easily read as a first person singular passive (pu‘al) perfect of hrh; for a similar appearance of this verb in third person, see Job 3:3. 47 Newsom translates “(I have lived) in faithless guilt.” 48 Newsom translates “blood guilt.” 83

7

(my) ear to your teachings until [ and a perverted spirit 52 without]

8

knowledge you expelled from my innards 53 and hardn[ess of heart… and not]

9

for me anymore as a stumbling-block of iniquity. For you reve[al your salvation, and your righteousness you establish] 54

10 forever. For a hu[man]’s way is not his (own). 55 A[ll these things for your (own) glory you have done.] As in 4QBarkhi Nafshi, God is described as removing the negative qualities of the speaker (“a perverted spirit,” 56 “heaviness of heart”). However, in contrast to Barkhi Nafshi, in the Hodayot this divine help is firmly linked to divine determinism: “For [the way of] a hu[man] is not in his control.” The need for God’s assistance in fighting sin fits easily into the broader framework of determinism, which in the Hodayot is to the speaker’s advantage. Even though the speaker was “conceived in faithless guilt,” God has determined his righteous actions and “set his feet” in the correct path.

49

“to” is not found in the Hebrew, but has been inserted by Newsom apparently to maintain the meaning in English. 50 Newsom translates “and my heart contemplates.” 51 According to Qimron’s reading; see n. 44. 52 Newsom translates “an erring spirit.” The translation has been changed to maintain consistency with the translation of ‫ נעוה‬elsewhere in the Hodayot. 53 Newsom translates “from my innermost being”; see n. 40 above. 54 Or according to Qimron’s reading, “shall be established.” See n. 45. 55 Newsom translates “For the way of a hu[man] is not in his control.” I have chosen a more literal translation (which ultimately has the same meaning). 56 As in the Barkhi Nafshi text cited above, the term “spirit” here refers to a characteristic of the human being. This is frequently the case in the Hodayot and in Second Temple literature in general. (For an overview of the semantic range of rûaḥ in Second Temple literature, see n. 64 in chapter 10 below.) 84

Both the previous passages emphasize that it is because God has chosen the speaker (IV.33) and has “set his feet” in the correct path and prevented him from sin (IV.33-34 , 4QHb 10 4-5) that he is free from his innate and physical desire to sin. No reason is given for God’s choice, but it is clear from the general language in IV.33-37 that the speaker is not the only member of the “chosen,” a class that seems to include all righteous people. The idea that it is the speaker’s special relationship with God that has enabled him to free himself from his sinful condition is further illustrated in 1QHa XIII.7-11a. ] ‫עזבתנ֯ י בגורי בעם נ֯ ֯כ ֯ר‬ ֯ ‫אודכה אדוני כי לא‬

7

‫ותתן֯ ֯לי֯ ׺] פ[ ֯ל ֯ט בתוך‬ ֯ ‫שפטתני ולא עזבתני בזמות יצרי ותעזור משחת חיי‬

8

{‫לביאים מועדים לבני אשמה אריות שוברי עצם אדירים ושותי ֯ד ֯ם גבורים ותשמני}׺׺׺׺‬

9

‫במגור עם דיגים רבים פורשי מכמרת על פני מים וצידים לבני עולה ושם למשפט‬

10

...‫יסדתני וסוד אמת אמצתה בלבבי ומזה ברית לדורשיה‬

11

‫ולא [ ֯כאשמתי‬

7

I thank you, O Lord, that you have not abandoned me when I dwelt with a foreign people [not 57] according to my guilt 2F

8

did you judge me. You did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination. And you delivered my life from the pit, you gave me 58 [ es]cape in the midst 23F

9

of lions appointed for the children of guilt, lions that crush the bone 59 of the 24 F

mighty and drink the blood of warriors. You placed me

57

This corresponds to the reconstruction of most commentators; see Schuller’s textual note, 1QHodayota, 170. 58 Newsom translates “and you gave me,” but ‫ ותתן‬indicates a waw-conversive, not a waw-consecutive. 59 Newsom translates “bones,” but I have chosen to translate the singular/abstract form ‫ עצם‬literally. 85

10 in a dwelling place among the many fishers who spread a net over the surface of the waters and among the hunters of the children of iniquity. And there, for judgement, 11 you established me, and the counsel of truth you strengthened in my heart. From this comes a covenant for those who seek it… The speaker thanks God for rescuing him from both the consequences of past sins and the internal desire to commit future sins: “[not] according to my guilt did you judge me. You did not abandon me to the devices of my inclination.” The freeing of the speaker from the “devices of his inclination” is understood as part of his chosen role: by rescuing the speaker and putting him in the metaphorical lions’ den, God has “established him for justice,” to judge the real sinners: the “children of iniquity.” The phrase “the devices of my inclination,” zmt yṣry, indicates that the yēṣer here is independent of the speaker, at least to a certain extent. 60 The term zīmôt refers to the advice of the wicked in Isa 32:7, and is similar to the mzmwt (plots) of the wicked against the speaker in 1QHa X.18-19 and XIII.11-12. The depiction of the speaker’s inclination as an independent entity that seeks to mislead him into sin is unlike other references to sin in the Hodayot, and somewhat similar to the depiction of the inclination in the Plea for Deliverance (see chapter 10). This may reflect the influence of apotropaic prayers that ask for assistance against demonic forces. The main effect of this portrayal of the yēṣer as an independent force is to demonize the desire to sin and to distance it from the speaker. As noted by I. Rosen-Zvi, it may 60

As noted by Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 50. 86

represent the beginning of the later more reified version of the evil inclination in rabbinic literature. 61 As elsewhere in the Hodayot, in 1QHa XIII.7-11a the speaker presents himself as helpless in the face of his inclination to sin, although here that inclination is presented in a unique manner, as somehow separate from the speaker himself. The speaker’s salvation from human sinfulness results from God’s special relationship with the speaker, a relationship that seems to include the choice of the speaker as one of the righteous despite the speaker’s “guilt” (XIII.7). The speaker’s faith that God has chosen him for salvation from sin is further illustrated in XI.19-22. ‫ אודכה אדוני כי פדיתה נפשי משחת ומשאול אבדון‬vacat

19

‫העליתני לרום עולם ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר‬

20

‫יצרתה מעפר לסוד עולם ורוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב להתיצב במעמד עם‬

21

‫ביח ֯ד עם עדת בני שמים‬ ֯ ‫צבא קדושים ולבוא‬

22

19 I give thanks to you, O Lord, for you have redeemed my soul from the pit. From Sheol and Abaddon 20 you have raised me up to an eternal height, so that I might walk about on a limitless plain, and know that there is hope for the one whom 62 27F

21 you created from the dust for the eternal council. The perverse spirit you have purified 63 from great transgression, that he might take his stand with 28F

22 the host of the holy ones, and enter in the Yahad with the congregation of the sons of heaven. 61

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 44-64. Newsom translates “for him whom.” 63 Newsom translates “you have cleansed,” but “purified” is a closer translation of ‫טהרתה‬. 62

87

It is because of the speaker’s confidence in his status as one of the divine chosen that he can thank God in XI:19-22 for the knowledge that there is hope for “him whom you created from dust.” Despite beginning in a state of sinfulness, through God’s actions humans may be purified of their “perverse spirit,” cleansed of their “great transgression” and stand “with the host of the holy ones.” It seems, however, that only the chosen have merited such redemption. Only someone with a special relationship with God like the speaker’s can hope to be raised from the lowest human beginnings, creation from dust and the possession of a perverse spirit, to the highest of spiritual attainments, being placed within an eternal council and the host of the holy ones. It may be said that God’s aid to those who are righteous demonstrates that they have been chosen for righteousness from the beginning. If God’s aid is necessary to be righteous, anyone who is righteous, despite his “muddy” beginnings, has been aided by God. Such a one has been chosen by God to receive divine assistance toward righteousness, as described in IV.33-34. This logical progression sheds light on such passages as 1QHa VII.27-32. 64 ‫הכינותה בטרם בראתו ואיכה יוכל כול להשנות את דבריכה רק אתה ]ברא[תה‬

27

‫ עליו‬65 ‫צדיק ומרחם הכינותו למועד רצון להשמר בבריתך ולתהלך בכול ולהג֯ ֯די֯ ֯ל‬

28

F230

Text and translation follow Schuller and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 98, 106, except where otherwise noted. The alternative readings proposed by Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, are also noted. 65 Qimron reads ‫ולהגיל‬. 64

88

‫בהמון רחמיך ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו לישועת עולם ושלום עד ואין מחסור ותרם‬

29

‫ ומרחם הקדשתם ליום הרגה‬66 ‫מבשר כבודו ורשעים בראתה ל]י[ ֯צ ֯ר ֯ח ֯רו̇נכה‬

30

‫ תעבה נפשם ולא רצו בכול אשר‬67 ‫בברי֯ ֯ת ֯כ]ה וחוקי[ך‬ ֯ ‫כי הלכו בדרך לא טוב וימאסו‬

31

‫כיא ֯ל ֯ק]צי חרו[נ֯ ך הכינותם לעשות בם שפטים גדולים‬ ֯ ‫צויתה ויבחרו באשר שנאתה‬

32

F231

F23

27

you determined before you created it. How could anyone change your words? Only you 68 [crea]ted 23F

28

the righteous, and from the womb you prepared him for the time of favor, to be attentive to your covenant and to walk in all things 69 and to advance (him) 234F

upon it 70 235F

29

in your abundant compassion, and to relieve all the distress of his soul for eternal salvation and everlasting peace, without lack. And so you raise

30

his honor higher than flesh. But the wicked you created for the [pur]pose of your wrath, 71 and from the womb you dedicated them for the day of slaughter. 236F

31

For they walk in the way that is not good, and they despise yo[ur] covenant, [and] their soul abhors your [statutes].72 They do not take pleasure in anything 237F

that 32

you have commanded, but they choose what you hate. For you determined them for the a[ges of] your [wra]th in order to execute great judgments upon them This passage sets forth the principle of the predestination of the wicked and the

righteous as it is reflected in the Hodayot. 73 Like the righteous, the wicked have been 238F

66

Qimron reads ‫לקצי חרונכה‬. Qimron reads ‫ואמתך‬. 68 Newsom translates “you alone.” 69 Newsom proposes “your way.” 70 According to Qimron’s reading (see n. 65) “and to rejoice over it.” 71 According to Qimron’s reading (see n. 66) “for the (time) periods of your wrath.” 72 According to Qimron’s reading (see n. 67) “abhors your truth.” 67

89

determined from the womb (line 17). This is demonstrated by their actions. These actions show that, unlike the righteous, they have not been rescued from their sinful nature by the Divine. The fact that the wicked “choose that which you hate” (line 19) reflects their predetermined state, and proves that they have always been “set apart” as wicked. Predestination is a theme apparent elsewhere in the Hodayot. It is expressed, for example, in VI.22-23: ‫ בין טוב לרשע ]ו[ ֯תכן כי לפי רוחות ֯ת ֯פי֯ לם‬74 “For according to 239

F

(their) spirits you cast (the lot) for them between good and evil, [and] you have determined…” God’s predetermination of all human actions is expressed strongly in VII.25b-27a: ‫]רוחו ולא ל[אדם‬75 ‫ואני ידעתי בבינתך כיא לא ביד בשר‬ F 240

25

‫ דרכו ולא יוכל אנוש להכין צעדו ואדעה כי בידך יצר כול רוח ]וכול פעול[תו‬26 ...‫ הכינותה בטרם בראתו‬27 25

And as for me, I know, by the understanding that comes from you, for [one’s spirit] is not in the power of flesh and a human’s

73

For the purposes of this study, while determinism or predeterminism is defined as the expressed belief that all actions are predetermined by God, predestination refers specifically to the predetermined election or rejection of particular human beings. 74 Qimron reads ‫ ; ֗ת ֗כולם‬see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 65. It is unclear how Qimron understands this reading. 75 Reconstruction follows Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 66, and the translation has been changed accordingly. Schuller reconstructs ‫כיא לא ביד בשר ]יוכל להתם[ אדם דרכו‬, and Newsom translates “that it is not through the power of flesh [that] an individual [may perfect] his way.” Qimron’s reading is more convincing. The underlying implication that only God determines human actions is identical in both reconstructions. 90

26 path [is not his (own)],76 nor is a person able to direct his steps. And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty 27 you determined before you created it… The themes of predestination and determinism in the Hodayot have been recognized and explored by numerous scholars. 77 It is apparent that the speaker’s insistence on his own chosenness and his consequent freedom from sinfulness is part of an overall view according to which the righteous are chosen, indeed predestined, by God, who also determines all human actions. In a comparison with other Second Temple prayers, it is apparent that the author of the Hodayot has integrated an understanding of the source of sin common to many Second Temple prayers, namely that all humans suffer from an innate inclination to sin which cannot be resisted without divine help, with a specific theological stance. The Hodayot portrays the internal desire to sin as sinfulness tied to human physicality. At the same time, the need for divine help is incorporated into the author’s belief in the predestination of the wicked and the righteous and the 76

Translation of this phrase is my own, based on Qimron’s reconstruction; see n. 75 above. 77 See Merrill, Qumran and Predestination, 39; Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, 1067; D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984), 524; Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 27-28; Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 279, 281-2; Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 55-57; Licht, “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll,” 89-90; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 147-9; and A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 195-232, esp. 229-32. 91

predetermination of all human action. In the worldview presented by the Hodayot, divine help in fighting the desire to sin, or for the composer of the Hodayot, in fighting basic human sinfulness, is granted only to the predestined righteous. Those who behave wickedly clearly did not receive such assistance, and must be among the predestined wicked. “Hymn of Praise” in the Community Rule The hymn found at the end of the Community Rule (1QS XI.2-15) 78 provides another, compatible perspective on the nature of sin and its source. In 1QS XI.2-9a, the speaker describes his chosen status, but this is contrasted with the following description of his sinful nature in 1QS XI.9b-15a, put into the context of divine determinism. In this part of the prayer predestination (that is, the election of the speaker or of a particular group) is emphasized less than the determinism of all actions by God. 79 78

It is also found in fragmentary form in 4QSb (4Q256), 4QSd (4Q258), 4QSf (4Q260), and 4QSj (4Q264). The fact that this hymn, and its introduction, are not included in 4QSe (4Q259) has led S. Metso to conclude that this psalm had an independent existence before being incorporated into the Community Rule. However, Metso confirms the psalm’s sectarian nature; S. Metso, The Serekh Texts (CQS 9; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 14. 79 Text below follows M. Abegg, M. Wise, and E. Cook,“1 QS V 1-XI 22,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; trans. M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 40-41. Translation follows Charlesworth in J. H. Charlesworth and E. Qimron, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 49, except where otherwise indicated. In addition, in lines 13-14 92

‫ עם נעוות לבבי‬80 {◌ׄ ◌‫קצ נהיה ואני לאדם רשעה ולסוד בשר עול עוונותי פשעי חטאתי } ׅ◌ ׅ◌ ׄ◌ ׅ‬

9

‫לסוד רמה והולךי חושכ כיא לאדם דרכו ואנוש לוא יכין צעדו כיא לאל המשפט ומידו‬

10

‫תום הדרכ ובדעתו נהיה כול וךול הויה במחשבתו יכינו ומבלעדיו לוא יעשה ואני אם‬

11

‫אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי לעד ואמ אכשול בעוון בשר משפטי בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬

12

‫ואם יפתח צרתי ומשחת יחלצ נפשי ויכן לדרכ פעמי ברחמיו הגישני ובחסדיו יבוא‬

13

‫֗משפטי בצדקת אמתו שפטני וברוב טובו יכפר בעד כול עוונותי ובצדקתו יטהרני מנדת‬

14

‫אנוש וחטאת בני אדם להודות ֯לאל צדקו ולעליון תפארתו ברוכ אתה אלי הפותח לדעה‬

15

F245

9

time to come. And I (belong) to wicked humanity81 and to the assembly of 246F

deceitful flesh. My iniquities, my transgressions, my sins, [….] as well as the perverseness of my heart 10 (belong) to the assembly of maggots and of those who walk in darkness. For is a human’s way his (own)? And the human cannot establish his step; 82 for to 247F

83

God (alone) belongs the judgment and from him is 248F

11 the perfection of the way, and by his knowledge all has occurred. 84 And all 249F

which is occurring he establishes by his design, and without him (nothing) shall be done. 85 And I, if 86 250F

251F

Charlesworth translates all verbs in the present tense regardless of form; the translation has been changed to reflect the different tenses of the verbs in the Hebrew. 80 ‫ עם‬is preceded by an erasure approximately three letters in width with traces of (unreadable) letters/marks above and below. 81 Charlesworth translates ‫ אדם‬as Adam throughout; however, there is no indication that Adam himself is intended. The translation “humanity” is to be preferred. 82 Charlesworth translates “For my way (belongs) to Adam. The human cannot establish his righteousness,” reading ‫ דרכי‬against Qimron and the editio princeps. The translation above follows the standard reading of the text, and reflects the literal meaning of ‫לוא יכין צעדו‬. 83 Lit., “from his hand.” 84 Charlesworth translates ‫ נהיה‬as a continuous future “By his knowledge all shall occur.” 85 Charlesworth translates “nothing shall work.” 86 Charlesworth translates ‫ אם‬as “when.” 93

12 I totter, the kindness 87 of God (is) my salvation forever. And if 88 I stumble in 89 fleshly iniquity, 90 my judgment (is) by God’s righteousness which endures forever. 13 And if 91 he will relieve my distress 92 and he will rescue my soul from the pit and he will establish my footsteps for the way. In his mercy 93 he has drawn me (near), and in his kindness 94 my judgment 14 will come. 95 In the righteousness of his truth he judges me and in his great goodness he will atone for all my iniquities. And in his righteousness he will purify me 96 of the impurity of 15 humanity and (of) the sin of humans, 97 to 98 praise God (for) his righteousness, and the Most High (for) his glory. Blessed are you, my God, who opens for knowledge…

87

Charlesworth translates “mercy,” but I have chosen to translate ‫ חסד‬as kindness for the sake of consistency. 88 Charlesworth translates “When.” 89 Charlesworth translates “over.” 90 Alternatively, “iniquity of the flesh.” 91 Charlesworth translates “When.” See n. 86 above. 92 Charlesworth translates “my affliction starts.” The translation chosen reflects a parallel phrase in 1QHa VII.29 (cited above): ‫ולפתוח כול צרת נפשו‬, “and relieving all the distress of his soul,” where the identical terms are used to describe a positive action performed by God for the petitioner. Based on this parallel it appears that the phrase ‫יפתח צרתי‬, translated here “he will relieve my distress,” begins a positive apodosis and that the negative protasis (following the word ‫“ אם‬if”) has been mistakenly omitted by the scribe. Whether this proposed reading is accepted does not affect the following analysis of this passage. 93 Charlesworth translates “compassion.” 94 Charlesworth translates “mercy”; see n. 87 above. 95 Charlesworth translates “he will bring my judgment.” However, ‫ יבוא‬is in qal and not hip‘il, indicating that the subject is the speaker’s judgment, not God. 96 Charlesworth translates “he cleanses me.” 97 Charlesworth translates “(of) the sin of the sons of Adam”; see n. 81 above. 98 Charlesworth translates “in order (that I might).” 94

The similarity between this hymn’s approach to sin and the stance of the Hodayot is clear. The hymn in the Community Rule includes the idea that sinfulness is connected to the physicality of humans (XI.9 “assembly of deceitful flesh,” XI.12 “fleshly iniquity”). As in the Hodayot, the speaker’s physical lowliness is described in the harshest terms. This basic sinfulness, in turn, is connected to the idea that humans are unable to be righteous without divine assistance, as part of divine determinism: all actions are established by God’s plans (XI.11). However, the speaker in the Community Rule hymn, while emphatic regarding the human inability to reach “perfection of the way” through his own efforts (XI.11), expresses the explicit hope for forgiveness of individual sins (see XI.3,14). 99 The focus of this hymn is on the speaker’s actions; unlike the speaker of the Hodayot, the petitioner in the “Hymn” does not seek freedom from a condition of sinfulness unconnected to individual acts. The determination of the Divine does not only include choosing the speaker; it seems in line XI.11 that all the speaker’s actions are determined as well. The petitioner’s hope is not that God will miraculously elevate him to the level of angels; he has faith that he will be able to be righteous in the future because God “will establish my footsteps for the way” (XI.13), determining his future righteous actions so that he will be able to avoid committing sins.

99

J. Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: Serekh ha-Yaḥad, Serekh ha-‘Edah, Serekh ha-Berakhot (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), 225. 95

Unlike the Hodayot, this hymn portrays a “righteous” petitioner who nevertheless faces the possibility – or even probability – of future sin. He may yet “stumble in fleshly iniquity” (XI.12). It seems that, despite the speaker’s “purification” (XI.14), he must still contend with an inclination to sin connected to his physicality, unlike the already elevated speaker of the Hodayot. 100 This sectarian hymn is not completely uniform in its limitation of the human capability to avoid sin. The speaker promises as part of his duties not to “keep bĕlîya‘al (evil) in my heart” (X:21). 101 The implication that the speaker is, in fact, capable of keeping evil out of his “heart,” i.e. his thinking/feeling faculties, assumes a certain amount of independent control over the presence of any sinful inclination. Nevertheless, the chief stance of the prayer is clear. In 1QS XI:9-10, the speaker declares both his sinfulness and his acts of sin in terms of his own fleshly nature: “And I (belong) to wicked humanity and to the assembly of deceitful flesh. My iniquities, my transgressions, my sins, [….] as well as the perverseness of my heart (belong) to the assembly of maggots and of those who walk in darkness.” In his 100

Compare the “righteous” (ὁ δίκαιος) of Psalms of Solomon 3:6-8 (also see 13:10), who sins but atones for his sins regularly. In this view, the righteous can sin but still be considered righteous. In the Psalms of Solomon this is the result of atonement. In the Hodayot, salvation by God saves one from one’s previous sins. But in the hymn in the Community Rule, the righteous may sin, but can rely on God’s help in preventing the consequences of these sins, as one who is already designated as righteous. On attitudes reflected in Second Temple texts regarding the possibility that the righteous can sin, see Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism.” 101 Belial here is used in its biblical sense, meaning abstract evil. This use is similar to that in the Hodayot, where Belial is not personified, as noted by Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 51. 96

request that God “will establish my footsteps for the way” (XI.13), the speaker relies on God for help in preventing further sin and echoes Ps 119:133 “Make my steps firm through your promise; do not let iniquity dominate me.” 102 Like the Hodayot, this prayer expresses human lowliness contrasted with divine power and knowledge, expressing the experience of a humble petitioner in the encounter with the divine. The source of the petitioner’s sin is the human condition. As in the Hodayot, the key factor of the human condition that causes sin is human physicality. As part of the human race, which must contend with physical bodies, the speaker necessarily sins. This is put in the context of divine determinism in the passage that follows (XI:10-11) whose beginning echoes Jer 10:23: 103 “For is a person’s path his own? And humanity does not set his own step; for God’s is the judgment and from his hand is the perfection of the path, and with his intention was everything created; and all of existence is set through his thought, and without him nothing can be done.” Consequently, the speaker explains, everything is

102

This verse is also echoed in 1QS III.9-10: ‫“ ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים בכול דרכי אל‬May he establish his steps for walking perfectly in all God’s ways...” (Translation following Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 15.) 103 ‫“ י ָדַ עְתִּ י ה' כִּי �א לָאָדָ ם דַּ ְרכּ ֹו �א ְל ִאישׁ הֹלֵ� ְו ָהכִין אֶת ַצ ֲעד ֹו‬I know, O LORD, that man’s road is not his [to choose], that man, as he walks, cannot direct his own steps.” A similar idea, where the emphasis is on the human inability to bring plans to fruition without divine help, is found in Prov 16:9: ‫“ לֵב אָדָ ם י ְ ַחשֵּׁב דַּ ְרכּ ֹו וַה' יָכִין ַצעֲד ֹו‬A man (lit., a human heart) may plot out his course, but it is the Lord who directs his steps.”

97

predetermined, including the sinfulness of humanity. But if humanity is sinful because of its physical nature and all human action is determined by God, what in fact can the human do to prevent her own sin? In this understanding of sin, only an appeal to God and his mercy can save humans from the consequences of their sins. These consequences include the (moral) impurity attendant upon these sins, the devastating punishment for these sins following God’s judgment, and the inevitability of future sin. Following this heartfelt prayer, God will answer the appeal of the petitioner and save him from the results of his sin through divine mercy. By the same token, God will cleanse him of “human” defilement – the inevitable sinful condition in which all humanity finds itself (XI:14-15). The hymn appended to the Community Rule presents the idea of innate sin and the need for divine assistance, but with a sectarian “twist” similar to that found in the Hodayot. In the hymn’s description of humanity’s lowly condition, innate sinfulness is connected to the physical nature of the human being. Even the righteous cannot escape it. The need to appeal to God for help in avoiding sin and its consequences, a need which might seem unreasonable, is put in a deterministic context. Everything is determined by God, and therefore it is completely reasonable that predetermined human sinfulness can only be combated through prayer to God. Reliance on God can stop the cycle of sinfulness, for God can cleanse the petitioner of his physical sinfulness and prevent the speaker’s future sin, while forgiving the sins he has already committed.

98

Sectarian Prayer: Hodayot and the Community Rule Hymn The understanding of sin presented in the Hodayot and the Community Rule hymn is to be viewed within the context of the broader genre of prayer during the Second Temple period. The sectarian prayers explored here reflect ideas common to the broader genre, but also show the sectarian development of these ideas in their emphasis on human physicality and predestination. These ideas are absent in nonsectarian prayers that reflect the assumption of an inevitable human inclination to sin, but are prominent throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and particularly in the sectarian prayers examined here. The approach to sin in the Hodayot and in the Community Rule hymn is not a complete innovation. Rather, these sectarian prayers present the development of a paradigm already common in Second Temple prayer: that sin is inborn and inevitable given the human condition, and that divine assistance is required in order to fight it. The association of sin with the physical nature of humans in these sectarian prayers builds upon the idea of sinfulness as a human condition found in other Second Temple prayers. In addition, the ideas of predestination and determinism are presented in a manner consistent with the more general view of sin common to Second Temple prayer: that divine intervention is required in order for a person to be righteous. Stating this divine intervention in terms of determinism and predestination is, again, the sectarian development of a common idea.

99

The Road Not Travelled: Prayers Not Connected to an Inclination to Sin While the connection between the prayer genre and the idea of an innate human inclination to sin is particularly evident in the prayers reviewed here, it is not a necessary component of the genre. For example, prayers embedded in narrative do not reflect this idea. These embedded prayers sometimes assume righteousness on the part of the speaker; for example, in the prayer of Amram described by Josephus in A.J. 2.211, Amram asks God to pity the people, who were not guilty of any transgression. 104 Alternatively, prayers in narratives may attribute the cause of sin to demons, as in Noah’s prayer in Jub. 10:3-6. Even in the Prayer of Manasseh, 105 in which a self-acknowledged sinner prays for forgiveness, Manasseh does not mention any internal inclination. Rather, he contrasts himself with the righteous patriarchs, who needed no such prayer (Pr Man 8); the righteousness of the patriarchs demonstrates that sin is not an inevitable aspect of the human condition. 104

For a collection of prayers in Josephus which bear out this idea, see T. M. Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (AJEC 70; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 105 According to D. K. Falk, the Prayer of Manasseh was composed sometime between the second century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. in order to recreate the penitential prayer of Manasseh mentioned in 2 Chron 33:12-13, 18-19; see D. K. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid; WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 13. Nevertheless, cf. J. R. Davila, who argues that while an early Jewish provenance is possible, given the lack of evidence for such a provenance the text should be treated as an early Christian text; Davila, “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 75-85. 100

There is also a large collection of apotropaic prayers from this period, prayers whose purpose is to obtain God’s protection from evil spirits. Unsurprisingly, in these prayers (discussed in chapter 10) the tendency is to portray demons or evil spirits as the cause of human sin. It is also important to note that Second Temple petitionary prayers owe more to the biblical tradition and perhaps to Hellenistic influence than to prayers of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamian petitionary prayer, the petitioner typically claims ignorance of the sins he has committed, thereby removing these sins from the petitioner’s realm of responsibility. 106 Early Hittite kings frequently take a different approach in their penitential prayers, blaming their fathers for committing sins for which they themselves are being held accountable, or complaining that they are paying “too much” for their sins. 107 Hellenistic prayer displays a stance closer to that of Second Temple prayers, but without the attribution of sin to an inevitable internal inclination. Rather, the attribution of sin to foolishness, found widely in Hellenistic literature, is also found in Hellenistic prayer. The famous Hymn to Zeus written by Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoic school, is instructive in this respect. In this hymn, sin is attributed to

106

See K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: a Comparative Study (SSN 22; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 94-99. 107 See I. Singer, “Sin and Punishment in Hittite Prayers,” in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 557-67. 101

foolishness. 108 (Cleanthes nevertheless requests the deity’s help in overcoming this ignorance.) As noted by J. C. Thom, Cleanthes echoes the Pythagorean Golden Verses 109 and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (256-57). 110 These hymns also attribute evildoing to foolishness or misperception by the wicked, as do two Orphic fragments. 111 Plato later provides a similar explanation for evildoing, explaining that wickedness stems from a misunderstanding of the good (Leg. 716a-b). However, an interesting pre-Socratic parallel to the requests for God’s help against sin in the Second Temple prayers explored above is found in Xenophanes’ symposium elegy: 112 Joyful men should first hymn the god with pious words and pure thoughts and after libations and prayer for the strength to act righteously (τὰ δίκαια δύνασθαι πρήσσειν) - for this is our immediate task… (Emphasis mine.) It is intriguing that Xenophanes, one of the first Hellenistic thinkers to argue for a belief in the morality of the gods (and consequently for a rejection of Greek 108

πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέραισιν ἀνοίαις “…except what bad people do in their folly.” (Text and translation following J. C. Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus”: Text, Translation and Commentary [STAC 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 36, 40.) 109 See Carm. Aur. 54-56. In these lines, the “wretched” (τλήμονας) neither see the good nor hear it. 110 “Ignorant and senseless human beings, unable to foresee/the allotted share of coming good or evil”; see Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus,” 118-9. 111 Orphic frg. 233 Kern=337 Bernabé and frg. 49.95-97 Kern=396.14-15 Bernabé. See Thom, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus,” 119. 112 Translation follows P. A. Meijer, “Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas,” in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S Versnel; SGRR 2; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 222. 102

myth), should also prescribe prayer to the god for “the strength to act righteously.” 113 As has been shown, the idea that the desire to sin is both innate and inevitable without divine aid is a basic feature of many Second Temple prayers.

Conclusion: Second Temple Prayer and the Innate Inclination to Sin It is evident from the prayers reviewed in the past two chapters that the paradigm of an innate, human inclination to sin was a popular (though not exclusive) explanation of sin within the prayer genre. Another aspect of this paradigm in prayer is the inevitability of sin. Throughout all the prayers reviewed here, the possibility of human free will in controlling the urge to sin is either diminished or negated. The internal inclination to sin is portrayed as a basic and inescapable aspect of the human being, controllable only with divine assistance. It is this assistance that is requested or gratefully acknowledged in prayer. It seems that the experience of prayer determines this approach to sin. C. Newsom has termed the contrast between the nothingness of the speaker and the absolute being of God in the Hodayot the cultivation of the “masochistic sublime.” 114 However, this experience is not restricted to the Hodayot. It is a religious stance vis-à-

113

The belief in a righteous god does not logically necessitate a belief in the human need for divine strength to act righteously, and thus this juxtaposition in Xenophanes, also found in Second Temple prayer, begs further investigation. Unfortunately, the little that is known of Xenophanes and his milieu precludes an in-depth exploration of his thought in the course of the present study. 114 Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. 103

vis God, particularly when coming to terms with the existence of evil. 115 In the meeting with the divine, the religious petitioner minimizes herself and exalts God. During this experience, she exaggerates her own sinfulness while attributing all power over her sins to God. This personal and experiential aspect of prayer does not exist in prayers embedded in narrative. These prayers have the propulsion of the narrative as their main goal, unless they were originally stand-alone prayers that have been integrated into the narrative. This may explain why these embedded prayers do not stress the inevitability of human sin without divine help. Since these prayers do not result from a feeling of the “masochistic sublime” but from a literary need, they do not reflect a strong feeling of human helplessness in the encounter with God and consequently do not attribute all power over the human sinful inclination to the Deity. The preceding analysis has demonstrated the importance of examining the prayers of the Dead Sea community within their broader Jewish context. When examined in context, it is clear that these sectarian prayers develop ideas about sin already common to Second Temple prayer. However, these more widespread ideas are given a sectarian slant. Sectarian prayers add the connection between sin and corporeality and put the commonly expressed need for divine assistance into a framework of predestination and determinism.

115

See P. L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1969), 55-57. 104

IV. Covenantal Texts and the Inclination to Sin

A different approach to the human inclination to sin is reflected in covenantal texts. For the purpose of this study, covenantal texts are defined as texts aimed at new and existing members of a community that explain the nature of the community and the covenant the members are accepting. While the compositions that contain these introductions may be termed legal texts, here the focus is not on the legal material in these texts, but rather on the introductory description of joining the covenant of the community; thus the term “covenantal texts” is more appropriate here. These covenantal texts address the need to turn away from sin in the context of an introduction to the covenant and an explanation that nonmembers continue to sin. Due to the lack of other Jewish covenantal material from the Second Temple period, this chapter will necessarily focus on texts from the Dead Sea community. As the examination below demonstrates, the Damascus Document and the Community Rule (in its different redactions) reveal a view of the innate inclination to sin and its relationship to free will that differs dramatically from that found in prayer texts.

105

The Community Rule The Community Rule has a complex redaction history that is still being explored by scholars; it is composed of several sections, apparently originating in different source texts, which reflect divergent attitudes regarding the source of sin. 1 Sections of the Rule will be addressed in different chapters of this study according to the paradigm that they reflect. (For example, the section of the Community Rule that addresses the character Belial will be dealt with separately, as will the Treatise of the Two Spirits in 1QS III.13-IV.26.) This chapter will address 1QS V.1-VI.23, a section that reflects the assumption of an innate human tendency toward sin. A comparison between 1QS V.1-VI.23 and its Cave 4 parallels, 4Q256 (4QSb) and 4Q258 (4QSd), reveals significant differences regarding the manner in which the versions of the Community Rule discuss the source of sin; reflection of an innate inclination to sin connected to free will are found only in 1QS. 2 In the Community Rule as represented in 4Q256 (4QSb) and 4Q258 (4QSd), the member of the sect is described as “not walking in the stubbornness of his heart to err,” ‫( לא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות‬4Q258 I.4 and 4Q256 IX.4, parallel to 1QS V.4). 3 283F

1

On the definition of the sections of the Community Rule, see Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 502 and Metso, The Serekh Texts, 7-14. 2 For a summary of scholarship regarding the redaction history of the Community Rule and the relationship between 1QS and 4QSb,d, see discussion below and notes 53-56 ad loc. 3 Parallel 4QS texts read as follows: a. 4QSb (4Q256) IX 4, 4-5 [‫דרכיה ֯מ ֯ה ֯א ֯ש]ר לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות‬ ֯ ‫֗חסד והצנע לכת בכול‬ 4 106

This is a straightforward description of sinning through human willfulness, echoing biblical terminology. 4

[‫מס ֗ד אמת לי֗ ֗שראל לי֗ ֗ח ֗ד ]ל[כול] המתנדב לקודש באהרון ובית‬ ֯ ‫כי אם ליסד‬

5

4 kindness, walking circumspectly in all their ways. So th[at no one shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart to wander.] 5 But a foundation of truth is to be laid for Israel for the Community (yaḥad; see n. 13 below) and [for] all [who dedicate themselves as a sanctuary in Aaron and a house of] b. 4QSd (4Q258) I 1a i, 1b, 3-4 ‫ואהבת] חסד וה[ ֗צנע לכת בכל דרכיהם‬ ֗ ‫לתורה ולהון ולעשות ענוה וצדקה ומשפט‬ ‫]אשר [ ֗ל ֗א ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות כי אם ליסד] מוסד [אמת לישראל ליחד לכל‬ 3

3 4

concerning Torah and property and to do humility, righteousness, justice, and loving [kindness,] walking [circ]umspectly in all their ways. 4 No [one] shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart to stray. But a [foundation of] truth is to be laid for Israel, for the Community and for all Texts follow P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, “256. 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadb,” in Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 53 and P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, “258. 4QSerekh haYaḥadd,” in Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 93. Translation (with slight changes) is based on that of J. H. Charlesworth in J. H. Charlesworth and E. Qimron, “Cave IV Fragments Related to the Rule of the Community (4Q255-264 = 4QS MSS A-J),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 63, 73. 4 The phrase “to walk in the stubbornness of his heart” as an expression of sinning is found in Deut 29:18, throughout Jeremiah (3:17, 7:24, 9:13, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12, 18:12, 23:17), and in slightly altered form in Ps 81:13. While this phrase is echoed throughout literature of the Second Temple period, its context differs. In Jub 12:21 a similar phrase is used by Abram in a prayer immediately following a request to be saved from the power of “evil spirits” and in Rom 1:24 a somewhat similar phrase is used in connection with physical lust. (“Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν”; “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts…” [NRSV]) 107

The version of the Community Rule found in 1QS V.4-6, however, expands on this description considerably. (Words that are not found in the parallel Cave 4 version of the Community Rule, found in 4QSb, d, appear in bold.) 5 ‫ צדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהם אשר לוא ילכ איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר‬4 ‫לבבו‬ ‫ למול ביחד עורלת יצר ועורפ קשה ליסד מוסד אמת‬6כיא אם‬ F

286

5

‫לישראל ליחד ברית‬ ‫ עולם לכפר לכול המתנדבים לקודש באהרון ולבית האמת בישראל והנלוים עליהם ליחד ולריב‬6 ‫ולמשפט‬ 4

righteousness, justice, and loving kindness, 7 walking [circ]umspectly in all 287F

their ways. So that 8 no one 9 shall walk 10 in the stubbornness of his heart, to 28F

289F

290F

stray 11 following his heart, 291 F

5

his eyes, and the thought 12 of his inclination. He shall rather circumcise in 29F

the Community [yaḥad; alternatively: together] 13 the foreskin of the 293F

5

Text follows Abegg, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 22. Translation follows J. H. Charlesworth in Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community,” 21, unless otherwise noted. For parallel text in 4QSb,d, see n. 3. 6 This has been reconstructed based on 4QSb,d; see Abegg, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 22 and Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community,” 20 n. 103. 7 Charlesworth translates “mercy” for ‫חסד‬. 8 Translation my own; Charlesworth does not translate the particle ‫אשר‬. 9 Charlesworth translates “No man,” but ‫ איש‬here is general rather than genderspecific. 10 Charlesworth translates “wander,” but “walk” is the plainer sense of ‫ילכ‬. 11 Charlesworth translates “to err.” I have chosen “to stray” as encompassing both the physical meaning of ‫“ תעה‬to wander” and the metaphorical meaning “to err”; see BDB 1073a-b, HALOT 1766-7. 12 Charlesworth translates “the plan of his inclination.” “Thought,” however, is the most literal meaning of ‫מחשבה‬, and suits the context. (Given that plene spelling is typical of sectarian texts, it is unlikely that ‫ מחשבת‬reflects the plural maḥšĕbōt.) 108

inclination (and) a stiff neck. They shall lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the Community of an eternal 6

covenant. They shall atone for all those who devote themselves, for a sanctuary in Aaron and for a house of truth in Israel, and for those who join them for a Community. In a lawsuit and judgment… In contrast to the parallel version in 4QSb,d, 1QS V.4-5 includes a gloss that

explains the meaning of “walking in the stubbornness of his heart.” It paraphrases Num 15:39b: “and recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them, so that you do not go about after your heart and eyes, after which you whore.” 14 The author/redactor 15 equates “walking in the stubbornness of his heart” with straying after one’s heart, eyes, and the thought of one’s inclination. The “heart” and “eyes” are taken directly from Num 15:39b, while the “thought of his inclination” is an addition probably drawn from Gen 6:5. 16 These words are echoed in 1QS I.6-7 (for which no Cave 4 parallels have survived), where the member is admonished “not to walk any 13

Following the translation of M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook, “1 QS V 1XI 22,” 23. The term ‫( יחד‬yaḥad) can be read either as the typical term used by the Dead Sea community to refer to itself, or in its usual sense, “together.” Here it is more likely that the text is referring to enrollment in the community itself; see Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 124 n. 5. 14 ‫שׁר אַתֶּ ם זֹנִים אַח ֲֵרי ֶהם׃‬ ֶ ‫שׂיתֶ ם א ֹתָ ם וְ�א תָ תֻ רוּ אַח ֲֵרי ְל ַב ְבכֶם וְאַח ֲֵרי עֵינֵיכֶם ֲא‬ ִ ‫וּזְכ ְַרתֶּ ם אֶת כָּל ִמצְוֹת ה' ַו ֲע‬ Translation follows NJPS except for “go about after” and “after which you whore,” both changed in order to maintain the literal sense of the verse. 15 Whether this was written by an author of the original text or a later redactor depends on the approach taken to the redaction of the Community Rule. This question will be revisited in the conclusion to the analysis of 1QS V-VI. 16 ‫שׁב ֹת לִבּ ֹו ַרק ַרע כָּל הַיּ ֹום׃‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ְוכָל יֵצֶר ַמ ְח‬ ֶ ‫ ַויּ ַ ְרא ה' כִּי ַרבָּה ָרעַת הָאָדָ ם בּ‬And the Lord saw that the evil of humankind was great on the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of its heart was only evil throughout the day. (Translation is my own.) 109

longer in the stubbornness of a heart of guilt and lecherous eyes to do any evil” ( ‫ולוא‬ ‫)ללכת עוד בשרירות לב אשמה ועיני זנות לעשות כל רע‬. 17 In 1QS V.4-5, the means of avoiding 297F

this possibility are clear. In order to resist straying, the new member must “circumcise the foreskin” of his inclination as well as that of his “stiff neck,” in an echo of Deut 10:16, ‫“ וּ ַמלְתֶּ ם אֵת ע ְָרלַת ְל ַב ְבכֶם ְוע ְָר ְפּכֶם �א תַ קְשׁוּ ע ֹוד‬And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart(s), and you shall no longer stiffen your neck(s).” 18 In fact, this seems to 298F

be the purpose of joining the sect: to “circumcise” the “foreskin of the heart” and thereby rid new members of their inevitably evil inclination. This may be compared with the description of the wicked priest in Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 11:12-13, ‫“ ; אשר גבר קלונו מכבודו כי לוא מל את עורלת לבו‬his shame prevailed over his glory, for he did not (or had not) circumcise(d) the foreskin of his heart…” 19 The wicked priest had 29F

refused to join the community and thereby curb his inclination to sin, and therefore he continues in a state where “his shame prevailed over his glory.”

17

Licht in particular notes the connection between 1QS I.7 and Num 15:39; Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 60 n. 6. Hadot notes the connection between 1QS V.1-7 and I.1-15 and concludes that for the author “stubbornness of the heart” (‫ )שרירות הלב‬was the principal obstacle to entrance into the sect, an obstacle that must be removed before positive action can be taken; Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 51. However, it is evident in 1QS V.4-5 that it is the very act of joining the community that removes this “obstacle”; see further discussion below. 18 Translation my own. 19 Translation based on that of M. P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 181. 110

In this passage of the Rule, the potential cause of the member’s sin is described as a part of the member himself. The heart, eyes, and thought of the inclination are all a natural part of the potential member, and all have the potential to lead the member into sin. The phrase “thought of his inclination,” mḥšbt yṣrw, added to the repetition of the biblical “heart and eyes,” requires further clarification. This phrase is influenced by biblical terminology, particularly Gen 6:5b, which describes the evil of humankind before the flood: “and every inclination (yēṣer) of the thoughts of its heart was only evil throughout the day.” 20 In the Community Rule, however, thoughts are attributed to the inclination, not vice versa as in Gen 6:5. The Rule thereby portrays the yēṣer as the repository of evil thoughts; it is not simply a term for the “shape” of one’s intentions. By equating this inclination with the stiff neck in V.5, the composer/redactor shows that the inclination to sin is not an external force; it is the part of the human that leans towards sin. In addition, just like the heart in Deut. 10:16 and Jer. 4:4, the inclination must be “circumcised” in order to allow atonement, thereby equating the inclination with the heart. 21 The correspondence of the inclination and the heart is

20

Translation my own. See O. J. F. Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man: an Essay in Biblical Exegesis,” NTS 6 (60 1959): 94; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 197; and Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 94-95. This equation of the heart with the inclination is similar to the rabbinic exegesis of Deut 6:5 in m. Ber. 9:5, Sifre Deut. 32 and Deut. Rab., where Deut 6:5 is used as a prooftext for the two inclinations (based on the double bet in lĕbābkā, “your heart”). 21

111

further proof that the apparently negative human inclination that must be “circumcised” of sin is considered a basic part of the human being and is not an independent entity.

Inclination to Sin as “Enabling” Free Will in 1QS V However, in 1QS V.4-6 the innate and internal nature of the evil inclination does not obviate free will. No deterministic aspect is mentioned regarding prospective members’ need to deal with their inclination to sin. In this passage, the initial act to join the Yaḥad and repent does not seem to be attributed to a predetermined, inclination-free birth. It is clear that those who join the group have an evil inclination, and have joined in order to “circumcise” it. In this respect, the “circumcision” in 1QS reflects that found in the biblical imperative to “circumcise your hearts” found in Deut 10:16 and Jer 4:4, where the “circumcision of the heart” is an act of the people. 22 The members of the Yaḥad have decided to “circumcise their inclination,” a decision that in 1QS is not predetermined or even assisted by the Divine. A similar expansion in 1QS V.26-VI.1 reveals that, in the view of the author/redactor of this section of 1QS, the internal inclination toward sin has not been R. Le Déaut interprets the transformation of the foreskin of the heart to the foreskin of the inclination (yēṣer) as signifying what must be pruned inside the heart, namely the source of evil that infects the disposition (yēṣer) of the heart; R. Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur (Dt. 30:6, Jer 4:4) dans les versions anciennes (LXX et Targum) et à Qumran,” in Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 192. 22 In Deut 30:6, in contrast, it is God who circumcises the people. 112

completely removed by joining the sect. 23 (Words not found in the parallel version in 4QSd appear in bold.) 24 ‫ח‬

‫לפי שכלו ותום דרכו ולאחרו כנעוותו להוכי‬ ֗ ‫ פוקדם את רוחם ומעשיהם שנה בשנה להעלות איש‬24

‫ באפ או‬25 אל אחיהו‬vacat ‫ איש את רעהו בא]מ[̇ת וענוה ואהבת חסד לאיש‬25 F305

‫בתלונה‬ ‫ או בעורפ ]קשה או בקנאת[ רוח רשע ואל ישנאהו ]בעור[̇ל]ת[ לבבו כיא ביומ}׺׺{ יוכיחנו ולוא‬26 ‫ ישא עליו עוון וגמ אל יביא איש על רעהו דבר לפני הרבים אשר לוא בתוכחת לפני עדים ב}׺{אלה‬1 24 examine their spirit and their works year after year, so as to elevate each according to his insight and the perfection of his way, and 26 to keep him back 306F

according to his perversion. Each man is to admonish 25 his fellow 27 in t[ru]th, humility, and kindly love 28 to another. He must not 307F

308 F

speak to his fellow 29 with anger or with grumbling, 30 309F

310F

23

Text follows Abegg, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 24. Translation follows Charlesworth in Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community,” 25-27, unless otherwise noted. 24 Parallel 4QSd (4Q258) text (4Q258 II 1a ii, 4-5) appears below: ‫שכל]ו[ ולאחרו כנעותיו להוכיח איש את רעהו ואהבת חסד‬ ֯ ‫ בתורה שנה בשנה ל ֗העלות איש כפי‬4 ‫ ואל ידבר איש אל רעהו באף או בתלונה או בקנאת רשע וגם אל יבא איש על רעהו דבר לרבים‬5 4. in Torah year after year, so as to elevate each according to [his] insight and to keep him back according to his perversion. Each man is to admonish his fellow (with) kindly love. 5. He must not speak to his companion in anger or with grumbling or in jealousy. Also let no man accuse his companion to the Many Text follows Alexander and Vermes, “4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadd,” 98. Translation is based on that of Charlesworth in Charlesworth and Qimron, “Cave IV Fragments Related to the Rule of the Community,” 75, with changes corresponding to those in the translation of the 1QS text above. 25 For this editorial correction, see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218 n. 25. 26 Charlesworth translates “or.” 27 Charlesworth translates “They shall admonish one another.” The translation used above is the more literal meaning, following the translation of Abegg, Wise, and Cook, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 25. 113

26 or with a [stiff] neck [or in a jealous] spirit of wickedness. And he must not hate him [in the fores]k[in] of his heart, for he shall admonish him on (the very same) day lest 1

he bear iniquity because of him. And also let no man accuse his companion before the many without a confrontation before witnesses. In these …

The text of 1QS V.26-VI.1 above contains an explanation not found in 4QSd concerning the need to admonish one’s fellow for a sin he has committed, based on Lev 19:17: :‫שּׂא ָעלָיו ֵחטְא‬ ָ ִ‫שׂנָא אֶת אָחִי� ִבּ ְל ָבבֶ� ה ֹו ֵכ ַח תּ ֹוכִי ַח אֶת ֲע ִמיתֶ � וְ�א ת‬ ְ ִ‫�א ת‬ You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman, and you shall not bear sin over him. 31 31F

The reference to this verse in 1QS accomplishes several objectives. First, it provides a biblical basis for the rule of admonishment as applied by the Dead Sea community. 32 Second, it allows the author/redactor to transmit a procedural rule of the 312F

28

Charlesworth translates “merciful love.” In this study I have translated ‫חסד‬ consistently as kindness. 29 Based on the modern editorial correction to ‫ ;אל אחיהו‬see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218 n. 25. 30 Charlesworth “Rule of the Community,” 25 translates “with a snarl.” “Grumbling,” as per Abegg, Wise and Cook, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 25, is closer to the biblical meaning of ‫תלונה‬: “murmuring, murmuring against”; see BDB 534a and HALOT 524-5. 31 Translation of Lev 19:17a follows NJPS, translation of 17b is my own in order to maintain the literal meaning of the verse. 32 On the legal procedure of admonishing another member in CD and 1QS, see L. H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 94-96. One of the markers of the 1QS redaction of the Community Rule is its inclusion of biblical prooftexts; see S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran 114

sect also found in CD IX.6-8: 33 one must rebuke a fellow member publicly within the day of the transgression. 34 Finally, the expanded reference also explains the source of the desire to hate another member of the sect: the hate festers in the still existing “foreskin” of the member’s heart. In the ambiguous third-person paraphrase of the verse cited here, the consequences of not admonishing another member on the day of the infraction can be interpreted in a two-fold manner: the object of the admonishment will thereby not “bear sin” for his transgression, and (as in the biblical verse) the admonisher will not be in danger of “bearing sin” on account of the original sinner. 35

Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 105 and eadem, “The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 217-31, esp. 228-9. 33 In combination with Num 30:15, regarding the law of a husband who does not deny his wife’s oaths; Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 90-94. The ruling’s basis in Num 30:15 is clearer in CD IX.6, where the phrase used for not admonishing, ‫אם החריש לו מיום ליום‬, is parallel to that used for the husband in Num 30:15, ‫וְאִ ם ַהח ֲֵרשׁ יַח ֲִרישׁ לָהּ ִאישָׁהּ ִמיּ ֹום אֶל‬ ‫י ֹום‬. In 1QS V.26-VI.1, the emphasis is not on Num 30:15, but on the need to avoid the festering of hate in one’s heart (see discussion below). 34 This rule may find its parallel in Hebrews: “But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13 NRSV). This depends on whether παρακαλεῖτε in Heb 3:13 means to “exhort,” reflecting the rule of exhortation/rebuking, or simply to “encourage.” Either interpretation is possible, although there is reason to support the latter; see, for example, the use of παρακαλέω to indicate comfort, in a translation of ‫וינחם‬, in LXX Sir 48:24: “καὶ παρεκάλεσεν τοὺς πενθοῦντας ἐν Σιων.” 35 On the development of the metaphor of “bearing sin” in biblical texts, see G. A. Anderson, Sin: A History, 15-26, and idem, “From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt: towards a Theology of Sin in Biblical and Early Second Temple Sources,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies 115

As described in 1QS, the sin of the negligent admonisher is not only the responsibility for the other’s sin; 36 it is also for allowing hate in his uncircumcised heart. 37 In keeping with the previous expansion in 1QS V.4-6, in V.24-VI.1 the source of sin is described as a basic and internal part of the human being, without in any way diminishing the human’s free will. On the contrary: in both passages above, the source of sin is described in the context of a choice by the group member not to sin. The presence of an internal desire to sin may underscore the member’s responsibility to fight such a desire. This freedom of choice is clear in the 1QS description of the nature of the inveterate sinner, the nonmember, in 1QS V.10-13. 38 (Words not found in the parallel version in 4QSb, d appear in bold.) 39

Research Group on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1-30. 36 As would be understood from legal exegesis based on Num 30:14; see Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 90-94. 37 Hence Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 130: “The member of the sect must admonish the (other) member on that day, so that he will not harbor a grudge in his heart.” 38 Text follows Abegg, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 22. Translation follows Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 23, unless otherwise noted. 39 The parallel texts in 4QSb,d read as follows: a. 4QSb (4Q256) IX 4, 8 [‫עצת ֗אנ֗ ֗שי֗ ֗הי֗ ֗ח ֗ד ולהבדל מ]כו[ ֯ל ֗אנ֯ שי ֯העול ו֯ ]אשר לוא יגעו לטהרת אנשי‬ the Council of the men of the Community and to separate from [al]l the men of injustice. [They will not approach the purity of the men of] b. 4QSd (4Q258) I 1a i, 1b, 6-7 ‫לב ובכל נפש כל הנגלה מן‬ ֗ ‫]היח[ד ֗יק]י[ ֗ם על נפשו באסר ל]שוב א[ל ]ת[ו֗ רת ֗מ ֗ש]ה [ ֯בכל‬ ‫ עצת אנש]י[ ֗הי֗ ֗ח]ד ולהבדל מכל אנשי[ העול ]וא[ ֯ש ֯ר לא יגעו לטהרת אנשי‬39[‫]התורה[ ל]רוב‬ 116

6 7

‫ המתנדבים יחד לאמתו ולהתלכ ברצונו ואשר יקים בברית על נפשו להבדל מכול אנשי העול ההולכים‬10 ‫ בדרכ הרשעה כיא לוא החשבו בבריתו כיא לוא בקשו ולוא דרשהו בחוקוהי לדעת הנסתרות‬11 ‫אשר תעו‬ ‫ בם לאששמה והנגלות עשו ביד רמה לעלות אפ למשפט ולנקום נקם באלות ברית לעשות בם‬12 ‫} ׅ ׄמ{שפטים‬ ‫ אל יבוא במים לגעת בטהרת אנשי הקודש כיא לוא יטהרו‬vacat ‫ גדולים לכלת עולם לאין שרית‬13 10 who devote themselves together to his truth and to walking in his will. And (he) that 40 shall take (it) upon himself 41 by covenant to separate from all of the 320F

321F

men of injustice, 42 who walk 32F

11 in the way of wickedness. For they are not 43 accounted in his covenant, 32F

since they have neither sought nor inquired after him through his statutes, in order to know the hidden (laws) 44 in which they erred 324F

6

the C[ommunity] will take upon his soul by an oath [to return t]o the [T]orah of Mose[s] with all (the) heart and with all (the) soul, (to) everything revealed from 7 [the Torah] to the [multitude of] the Council of the men [of] the Community [and to separate from all the men of] deceit.39 They will not approach the purity of the men of Texts follow Alexander and Vermes, “4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadb,” 53 and Alexander and Vermes, “4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadd,” 93. Translation based on that of Charlesworth in Charlesworth and Qimron, “Cave IV Fragments Related to the Rule of the Community,” 63, 73. 40 Charlesworth translates “He”, without translating the particle ‫אשר‬. 41 Charlesworth translates “shall take upon his soul,” but ‫ נפשו‬here simply indicates the self. 42 Charlesworth translates “men of deceit,” and Abegg, Wise, and Cook, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 23, translate “perverse men.” However, the standard and simplest translation of the biblical ‫ עול‬is “injustice” (see BDB 732 and HALOT 797-8) and so the most literal (although possibly least poetic) translation has been chosen. 43 Here following Abegg, Wise, and Cook, “1 QS V 1-XI 22,” 23. Charlesworth translates “cannot be,” which carries additional force not found in the original text. 44 Charlesworth instead inserts “(ways).” However, given that the nonmembers have not inquired after God through his statutes, it is reasonable to assume that the unstated 117

12 to (their) guilt 45, nor the revealed (laws) 46 in which they acted 47 with an arrogant hand, (thus) arousing anger for judgment and taking vengeance by the curses of the covenant. Against 48 them (God) will execute great 13 judgments resulting in eternal destruction without a remnant. vacat He shall not 49 enter the water in order to touch the purity of the men of holiness. For they shall not 50 be cleansed The gloss in 1QS V.10-13 explains why nonmembers have been doomed to destruction. It is striking that neither predestination nor an internal inclination is used as an explanation. Rather, what is stressed in this passage is that the nature of the nonmember has been determined by a choice: nonmembers (unlike those who have joined the group) have not sought out the law of God. Here, the author/redactor of the Community Rule in 1QS is not interested in the source of the sinning ways of nonmembers, but rather the nature of the choice that they have made to sin. The entire passage, from V.10 to V.13, can be understood as a gloss on the phrase “the men of injustice.” 51 For the author/redactor of this version of the Community object is “laws” as opposed to the more general “ways”; see Licht, Megillat haSerakhim, 132 n. 12. For the use of the term ‫ נסתרות‬to indicate sectarian law, see L. H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 22-5; idem, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 247-9, and A. Shemesh and C. Werman, “Hidden Things and their Revelation,” RQ 18 (1998): 410. 45 Charlesworth translates “incurring guilt.” The translation chosen is a more literal one, although the basic meaning is the same. 46 See n. 44 above. 47 Charlesworth translates “treated.” 48 Charlesworth translates “In them.” “Against” is within the range of the preposition ‫ בם‬and makes more sense in context. 49 Charlesworth translates “must not.” 50 Charlesworth translates “cannot.” 118

Rule, this epithet cannot remain without explanation. Nonmembers cannot be called “men of injustice” arbitrarily. By means of the gloss in 1QS, the author/redactor explains that the fact that nonmembers have not joined the group shows that they have chosen a sinful and unjust path, neither seeking out God’s hidden law nor obeying his revealed laws. 52 This passage sheds further light on the nature of sinfulness as portrayed in 1QS V. Unlike the descriptions of human lowliness in the Hodayot and in the “Hymn of Praise,” here there is no “condition of sinfulness” independent of the act of sinning. Even nonmembers are only considered “men of injustice” as a result of their sinning ways, exemplified by their refusal to join the group, and not as the result of a predetermined “lot.” The other side of the coin is that members, while dealing with a continuous desire to sin, are not “men of injustice,” as they have chosen to curb their desire by joining the sect and by keeping its rules. How these members would be classified before this choice is not clear. The author/redactor of 1QS V-VI has a particular view of sin that is emphasized throughout. This view combines the idea of an internal, innately human desire to sin, as found in V.4-5, with a recognition that the decision to sin is the result of human 51

As noted by Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 128, long before the publication of the Cave 4 parallels. 52 This is possibly an interpretation of Zeph 1:6b, ‫שׁהוּ‬ ֻ ‫שׁר �א ִבקְשׁוּ אֶת ה' וְ�א דְ ָר‬ ֶ ‫“ ַו ֲא‬and those who have not sought the Lord and have not inquired after him.” According to Licht, Megillat ha-Serakhim, 132 n. 11, the term ‫“ בחוקוהי‬through his statutes” has been added in order to clarify that the purpose of the “seeking” is to determine what the binding statutes are. 119

choice (as in V.10-12). The composer does not refer to a condition of human sinfulness that cannot be resisted. On the other hand, while joining the Qumran group is a step toward controlling the urge to sin, it does not completely suppress it. Therefore the member must continue to be on his guard, as shown in the rules of rebuke in 1QS V.24-VI.1 It remains to examine the passages analyzed above in the context of the Community Rule’s redaction history. The version represented by 1QS differs notably from copies of the Community Rule found in Cave 4 (4Q255-264), and scholars are still divided regarding the relationship between these texts. 53 At present, the majority

53

The evidence for the relationship between the versions represented by 1QS and the Cave 4 texts is not unequivocal. 1QS is considerably longer than its Cave 4 parallels. However, F. M. Cross has identified the script of 4Q256 and 4Q258 of the Community Rule as early Herodian, dating from approximately 30 to 1 B.C.E.; see Cross, “The Palaeographical Dates of the Manuscripts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 57; idem, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G. E. Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), 169-71; “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 164 and The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961), 1189. In contrast, the paleographic dating of 1QS is considerably earlier, between 100 and 75 B.C.E; see J.H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community: Introduction,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 2 and n. 15 ad loc. See also Cross, ibid., 118-9 and 119 n. 17. Due to this disparity, P. S. Alexander has concluded that 1QS is earlier, while P. Garnet in a similar vein has concluded that 4Qb,d share a common ancestor which is a shortened version of the precursor of 1QS; P.S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 448-9 and P. Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5.1-7: Towards a Serek Text History,” JSP 15 120

of scholars accept the theory that the Cave 4 texts represent an earlier version of the Community Rule, 54 despite the late paleographic date of the copies found at Qumran. 55

(1997): 75 and n. 19 ad loc. Alexander notes that it is unlikely that the community would keep copying an earlier, defunct version of their defining texts. He supports his argument by noting that the Cave 4 copies are “expensive” ones, written on skins and usually by professional scribes. Garnet uses the abbreviation of material from Mark in the gospel of Matthew as an example of abridgement of authoritative texts in ancient times. He concludes that superfluous texts could have been removed in order to create a more concise version of the Community Rule. J. Charlesworth and B. Strawn have proposed that the Community Rule was abridged for communal or private use and Charlesworth has noted that the astronomical book of Enoch was abbreviated from one full scroll to about 11 verses, and that therefore the possibility of errors or abbreviations in 1QS should be considered; Charlesworth and Strawn, “Reflections on the Text of ‘Serek ha-Yaḥad’ Found in Cave IV,” RQ 17 (1996): 414 and Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 21 n. 90. Charlesworth proposes that the text of 1QS is redundant and that a copy for personal use would not need to have the repetitions it includes (“Rule of the Community,” 23 n. 103). E. Qimron, however, in his preliminary notes on 4Q258 (4QSd), observes that the Cave 4 version of the Community Rule, in contrast to 1QS, is conservative in both its language and its orthography, preserving biblical language and practice rather than language popular at Qumran; E. Qimron, “A Preliminary Publication of 4QSd VIIVIII,” Tarbiẓ 60 (1991), 437 note b (Hebrew). A. I. Baumgarten has noted that Qimron’s observation supports the idea that the Cave 4 version is, in fact, the more original compared to 1QS, and draws an analogy to certain Yemenite manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, that, while copied relatively late, preserve better readings than other earlier manuscripts; A. I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” DSD 4 (1997): 138-9, 139 n. 8. 54 For those who support this idea, see Baumgarten, “Zadokite Priests at Qumran”; M. Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),” RevQ 18 (1998): 541-60; C. Hempel, “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa,” DSD 3 (1996): 253-69; R. Kugler, “Priesthood at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 2:93-116; G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok - Priests - Congregation,” in Geschichte - Tradition Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. P. Schäfer; 3 vols.; 121

The consistent nature of these glosses supports the idea that 1QS V-VI represents a later, more edited version of the Community Rule compared with 4QSb,d. This view is most prominently supported by S. Metso, who has traced the evolution of the Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 1:375-84; P. R. Davies, “Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne; VTSup 49; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 152-63. As noted above, 1QS represents a longer version of the Community Rule than those found in the Cave 4 texts, and some scholars, including G. Vermes (“Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 42 [1991]: 255) and M. Bockmuehl, (“Redaction and Ideology,” 545) have seen this as sufficient reason to assume the primacy of the version reflected in the Cave 4 manuscripts, based on the assumption that community members would not abbreviate an authoritative text. Others, such as C. Hempel, have added reasons related to the content of the versions. Based on J. Murphy-O’Connor’s analysis, Hempel has argued for the primacy of 4QSd over 1QS V based on the presence of the maskil in the earliest layer of 1QS and in 4QSd I, 1 as opposed to the later 1 QS V; see Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 (1969): 533-7, C. Hempel, “Comments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1,” JJS 44 (1993): 128. M. Knibb, while noting Cross’ dating, supports the view that the Cave 4 versions are earlier, as such a view better explains the composite nature of 1QS; M. Knibb, “Rule of the Community,” EDSS 2:796. 55 Those scholars who have concluded that the Cave 4 versions are earlier have, of necessity, addressed the reason for the continued late copying of these “outdated” versions of the Community Rule. Bockmuehl has presented possible reasons for earlier versions to be copied after 1QS was written, such as the creation of copies for unofficial study as well as the presence of dated versions brought in by members of outlying or urban communities; Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology,” 545. Bockmuehl as well as Metso have noted that different versions of biblical texts were copied concurrently at Qumran. Thus it appears that it was not unusual for the Qumran community to continue to copy different recensions of texts that were regarded as authoritative; see Bockmuehl, ibid., 545-6 and Metso, “The Redaction of the Community Rule,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 19471997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 381-2. P. Davies has gone so far as to conclude, based on the assumption that the Cave 4 texts are earlier and yet were continually copied, that the “Community Rule” was never an actual rule at all, but was rather an idealized rulebook not meant for practical application; see Davies, “Redaction and Sectarianism,” 157-8. 122

Community Rule from versions reflected in Cave 4 texts to 1QS. 56 From the glosses in 1QS V-VI it appears that during the redactional process, a member or group of members of the Qumran community who held a particular view of the source of sin

56

Metso, The Serekh Texts; “Redaction of the Community Rule”; Textual Development; and “The Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141-7. Metso has argued convincingly for the primacy of the Cave 4 texts, in particular the primacy of 4QSb (4Q256) and 4QSd (4Q258). She notes that the insertion of theologically significant words into the text, found in 1QS in comparison with 4QSb,d, is a familiar process of textual development, whereas the omission of such words is difficult to explain (Metso, “Redaction of the Community Rule,” 379). In addition, it would be difficult to explain the omission of biblical texts found in 1QS but not in its Cave 4 parallels; it cannot be explained as the omission of self-evident expansions, as in most cases the verses require a gloss to explain their connection to the regulation in question (Metso, “The Use of Old Testament Quotations,” 226). Finally, Metso notes that from a literary perspective, in 4QSb,d the text is smooth, while in 1QS the natural flow of the text is interrupted, indicating that 1QS contains subsequent additions to the original version. Metso acknowledges the relatively late paleographical date of the relevant Cave 4 manuscripts, but suggests that the Community Rule may not have been a rulebook in the modern sense, but rather a record of judicial decisions and a digest of oral traditions. It could have existed in numerous and differing versions simultaneously without causing a problem for the community; Metso, “In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 314 and eadem, “Redaction of the Community Rule,” 383. Metso also notes the number and variety of rule texts found at Qumran as further proof of her claim that numerous simultaneous versions of the Community Rule need not present a problem, and that therefore the late paleographic dating of the Cave 4 manuscripts does not require a late composition date (Metso, “Redaction of the Community Rule,” 384). Metso concludes that there were two lines of tradition regarding the recension of the Community Rule, both based on an earlier, shorter version of 1QS V-IX addressed to the Maskil. One became 4QSe and the other 4QSb,d. According to Metso, the redactor of 1QS (or of its predecessor) was a compiler who knew both traditions; see Metso, “Textual Traditions,” 145-6 and eadem, The Serekh Texts, 18-9. 123

and the human capacity to resist it inserted phrases that made this view an integral part of one of the principal rule texts of the community. It would be more difficult to explain the purpose of a redactor removing such glosses from 1QS, resulting in the Cave 4 versions of the Community Rule. While it is possible that a group in the Qumran sect was actively opposed to the idea of human free will in fighting sin, it is unlikely that such a group would remove these short glosses in order to further their theological agenda, given the wide range of theological stances represented in texts at Qumran (or in passages of the same text). If the 1QS version is in fact earlier, the simplest explanation of the omission of these glosses would be, as P. Garnet claims, 57 because the redactor of the 4QSb,d version felt that they were superfluous in this more compact version of the Community Rule. However, the above analysis shows that it is more likely that these glosses were added in a consistent manner, representing a specific theological stance. In contrast to Bockmuehl’s contention 58 that the 1QS redaction reinforces rather than innovates, there is clearly a degree of innovation in these selections, especially regarding their theological stance toward sin. For the redactor of the 1QS version of the Community Rule, the tendency to sin is inherent characteristic of the human being, as evidenced by the redactional addition in V.4-5. Internal to the human, it is associated with parts of the human being in a reflection of biblical terminology.

57 58

Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels.” Bockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology,” 557. 124

However, it is the responsibility of the individual, and apparently fully within the individual’s power, to turn away from this tendency to sin. It is this battle that the redactor uses to explain the process enabled by joining the sect in 1QS V.4-6. By joining the sect, the new member curbs his internal inclination to sin: he “circumcises the foreskin” of his inclination and stiff neck (1QS V.5). In fact, this is the new member’s motivation for joining the sect. Nonmembers, in contrast, have doomed themselves to being sinners by refusing to join the sect (1QS V.10-13). Unlike the member, nonmembers now suffer from a continuous state of sin (and defined as “men of injustice”) because they have refused to “seek out” the correct law and join the community. The texts explored above demonstrate that, at some stage in the Dead Sea community’s history, there was an understanding of an inherently human, internal inclination to sin combined with an assumption that humans are capable of fighting this inclination, specifically by joining the community. This understanding was strong enough that a member of the community revised the Community Rule in order to include it. The emphasis on free will produced an interpretation of the epithet “men of injustice” not as a preexisting condition, but as the result of freely taken actions: the nonmembers’ continuous refusal to turn away from sin.

125

The Damascus Document (CD) II.14-III.12a Like the Community Rule, the text commonly termed the Damascus Document (CD) has a complex redaction history, and is widely regarded as a composite work. 59 In its most complete version, the Damascus Document was found in two medieval copies that survived in the Cairo Geniza and were published by Solomon Schechter in 1910. Manuscript A comprises sixteen columns, the first part of which, columns 1-8 (frequently termed “The Admonition”) is a review of Israelite history and a promise of future salvation of a portion of the people, while the second part, columns 9-16, is legal in nature. 60 Very small fragments of the Damascus Document were found in Caves 5 and 6, and more complete fragments in Cave 4, where a total of eight manuscripts of the Damascus Document were found. The latest possible date of

59

For a summary of the different approaches to the redaction history to the Damascus Document, see C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (CQS 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 15-8 and 44-53. Among scholars who discuss the connection between 1QS and the Damascus Document, few claim a direct connection. S. Metso, for example, sees the penal codes in 1QS and 4QD not as directly dependent on each other but as having a common source; Metso, “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in The Damascus Document - A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4-8 February, 1998 (ed. J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90. M. Kister has presented the idea of a dynamic relationship between Qumran texts, in which the same stock of terms and phrases appear in various permutations in a variety of Qumran texts with differing degrees of dependence; Kister, presentation at the Orion Center, Jerusalem, April 23, 2009, and in personal conversation, cited with permission. 60 Manuscript B comprises two columns, one parallel to columns 7 and 8 of MS A and the other consisting of additional material. The original editor referred to MS B as columns 19 and 20, and this method of numbering is still used. 126

composition, determined by the paleographic date of the earliest of these manuscripts (4Q266), 61 is the first half or middle of the first century B.C.E. 62 The different parts of the Admonition and of the legal section of the Damascus Document reflect different purposes and perhaps different stages of the life of the community. It is no surprise that the Damascus Document also reflects different approaches to the source of sin. 63 This section will focus on those passages that reflect the paradigm of an internal, non-demonic source of sin. The main passage in the Damascus Document that reflects this paradigm is CD II.14-III.12a, 64 an exhortation to the member (or potential member) 65 not to sin. It

61

J. M. Baumgarten, “Damascus Document 4Q266-273 (4QDa-h),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 3, Damascus Document II Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 2. 62 J. M. Baumgarten, “266. 4QDamascus Documenta,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 26-30. 63 As J. J. Collins notes, the Damascus Document reflects a number of different traditions regarding sin without synthesizing them into a coherent theory. However, he treats the Damascus Document as a single whole, without noting the ramifications of its redaction history; Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 379. 64 For a description of the sections of the Damascus Document, see J. M. Baumgarten and D. R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 5. 65 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14-VI,1,” RB 77 (1970): 201-29, maintains that this is addressed as a missionary document to nonmembers, while P. R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOT 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 77, proposes that this exhortation is directed to initiates in the process of choosing to become members. 127

includes a description of biblical history focusing on those who have sinned, with few exceptions, and were punished. 66 CD II.14-16 67 ‫ ועתה בנים שמעו לי ואגלה עיניכם לראות ולהבין במעשי‬vacat

14

‫אל ולבחור את אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא להתהלך תמים‬

15

‫בכל דרכיו ולא לתור במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות כי רבים‬

16

14 And now, O sons, hearken to me and I will uncover your eyes so you may see and understand the works of 15 God and choose that which he wants and despise that which he hates: to walk perfectly 16 in all his ways 68 and not to go about 69 in the thoughts of a guilty inclination 348F

349F

and lecherous eyes. 70 For many… 350 F

66

This section of the Damascus Document was found at Qumran in fragmentary form in 4Q266 (4QDa) 2 ii-iii, 4Q269 (4QDd) 2, and 4Q270 (4QDe) 1 i, but due to the incomplete nature of these manuscripts they do not provide evidence of any significant diversions from the medieval copy. Any differences between the manuscripts regarding the text under discussion will be included in the textual notes below. 67 For all citations of CD in this chapter, text follows M. G. Abegg, “CD (Damascus Document, Cairo Geniza),” n.p., in Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (ed. E. Tov; version 7.0.24; Provo: Brigham Young University, 2006) and translation follows Schwartz in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 15-17, unless otherwise noted. 68 The fragmentary parallel to III.15 in 4Q266 2 ii 15 (see Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documenta,” 37) allows additional space for the words between “th[at which]” and “with integrity,” indicating that there may have been additional words in this passage that did not survive in the medieval copies. 69 Schwartz translates “to stray,” but as the original is ‫ לתור‬and not ‫לתעות‬, it is translated “to go about” to avoid confusion. 70 Schwartz translates “licentious eyes.” 128

In a manner comparable to 1QS V.4-6, the first mention of the source of sin in this section is an expansion of Num 15:39b: “and recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them, so that you do not go about (tātûrû) after your heart and eyes, after which you whore.” This verse is not only paralleled in the beginning of the exhortation, but also at its end (as will be discussed further below). In CD II.16 the new member is admonished “not to go about (ltwr) in the thoughts of the inclination of guilt and lecherous eyes.” It is clear that the composer of this passage has interpreted “your hearts” in Num 15:39 as “the thoughts of the inclination of guilt” 71 while “your eyes after which you whore” has been collapsed into “lecherous eyes.” In this way, the author makes it clear that these metaphorical sense organs – the heart and the eyes – are inherently sinful. 72

71

See Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 199-200 and Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 98. It should be noted that while the term yṣr ’šmh (‫ )יצר אשמה‬is also found in the Hodayot (1QHa XIV.32; ‫ )ואין פלט ליצר אשמה‬the term there refers to the sinners themselves, “creatures” of guilt. (On this probability, see Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot), 183 and Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran, 102, contra Licht, Megillat Ha-Hodayot, 118 n. 32.) The context in 1QHa XIV is the destruction of sinners during the eschaton, an idea repeated in 1QHa XIV.18-19 and XIV.29-30, both times using genitival constructs of ’šmh (‫ )אשמה‬as terms for the wicked (XIV.19 ‫ ;אנשי אשמה‬XIV.30 ‫)בני אשמה‬. It thus seems likely therefore that 1QHa XIV.32 refers to the destruction of sinners, and not to the destruction of sin itself, which is an idea reflected nowhere else in the psalm. 72 While some have attempted to identify the “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” with specific types of sin (see I. Fröhlich, “‘Narrative Exegesis’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May 1996 [ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 84-6), the vague descriptions in the historical survey that follows these 129

Immediately following this introduction, the author presents a history of sinners, both angelic and human (CD II.16b-III.1): ‫בכל דרכיו ולא לתור במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות כי רבים‬

16

‫בלכתם בשרירות‬ ֗ ‫תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה‬

17

‫עידי >עירי< השמים בה נאחזו אשר לא שמרו מצות אל‬ ֗ ‫לבם נפלו‬

18

‫ובניהם אשר כרום ארזים גבהם וכהרים גויותיהם כי נפלו‬

19

‫כל בשר אשר היה בחרבה כי גוע ויהיו כלא היו בעשותם את‬

20

‫רצונם ולא שמרו את מצות עשיהם עד אשר חרה אפו בם‬

21

‫ בה תעי >תעו< בנ֗ י֗ נח ומשפחותי֗ הם בה הם נכרתים‬vacat

III.1

16 in all his ways and not to go about in the thoughts of a guilty inclination and lecherous eyes. For many 17 have strayed 73 due to them; mighty men of valor 74 have stumbled due to them, 35F

354F

from their earliest times and until today. Walking 75 after the stubbornness 76 of 35 F

356F

18 their heart(s), the Watchers of heaven fell. They were held by it, 77 for they did 357F

not keep God’s commandments; 78 358F

lines demonstrate that it is not the specific nature of the sin that is important, but the basic disobedience to God’s will that it represents. Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” 353, posits that the association of a guilty and evil inclination with lecherous eyes in CD II.16 may be the backdrop of the rabbinic association of the evil inclination with the sexual urge. However, the prevalence of this association in rabbinic literature has been contested; see Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations?” 73 Schwartz translates “failed.” For ‫ תעה‬as “stray,” see n. 11 above. 74 Schwartz translates “mighty warriors.” I have translated “mighty men of valor,” a wordier and more literal translation, in order to facilitate comparison with possible parallels. In Ps 103:20 angels are called “mighty men of strength” (‫)גבורי כח‬. Hence, the term “mighty men of valor” (‫ )גבורי חיל‬may be used here to designate both sinning human heroes and the Watchers, described immediately following the mention of the sinning “mighty men.” 75 Schwartz inserts “(Thus, for example,)” before “walking after…” 76 Schwartz translates “wantonness.” I have chosen to translate ‫ שרירות‬throughout this analysis in its more standard sense of “stubbornness”; see BDB 1057a, HALOT 1658. 130

19 and (so too) 79 their sons, who were as high as lofty cedars and whose bodies were like mountains. 80 For 20 all flesh which was on dry land fell, for they died and were as if they had not been, for they had done 21 their (own) will and had not kept the commandments 81 of their Maker, until his wrath was kindled against them. III. 1 vacat Through it strayed the sons of Noah and their families; through it they were cut off. 82 In the history of humans who sinned, it is the metaphorical heart and eyes, the author explains, that are at the root of the straying of “many.” The “many” who are enumerated here begin with the heavenly Watchers, continue through the sinning sons of Noah, and eventually include the sinning Israelites, who succumb despite the Patriarchs’ resistance to their own evil will in CD III.2-12 (cited below). All these

77

Schwartz inserts “(the wantonness of heart)” after “held by it.” Schwartz translates “ordinances.” 79 These words are added by Schwartz. They are not actually found in the original text, although they clarify the meaning of the passage. 80 Schwartz translates “their corpses were as mountains.” However, the simile in line 19 seems to be a description of the Watchers’ giant offspring in life. While the term ‫ גויה‬frequently indicates a dead body, as in Nah 3:3, it can also be used to describe living bodies or torsos, as in Gen 47:18 and in the descriptions of celestial beings in Ezek 1:11, 23 and Dan 10:6. 81 Schwartz translates “ordinances.” 82 Use of the past tense, based on context, following Abegg, “CD,” n.p. Schwartz translates literally “they are cut off.” Following the use of the present tense, Schwartz proposes that the “sons of Noah” is a general term referring to contemporary Gentiles, as in rabbinic literature; that is, contemporary Gentiles are “cut off’ in the present. Given the historical and chronological nature of the passage, however, such a meaning is unlikely. The passage is translated here as referring to the biblical sons of Noah. 78

131

have sinned due to “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes,” i.e., due to their own inherent desire to sin.

Change in the Watchers Myth It is significant that the exhortation begins its history of sinning with the Watchers. The myth of the Watchers, based on Gen 6:1-4 and its description of the mating of angels and human women, was a popular explanation for the source of sin during this period (as will be discussed in chapter 8). 83 However, the exhortation in the Damascus Document does not use the Watchers story as an explanation for the source of human sin. 84 Instead, it equates the Watchers with “mighty men of valor” who have sinned in the past, explaining that the Watchers stumbled into sin in the same way that human heroes do: by operating according to their own will and not according to God’s commandments. 85 The Watchers’ offspring do not cause sin (as they do in 1 En 8-9

83

As Schwartz notes (“Damascus Document [CD],” 15 n. 20), CD II.18-19 presupposes the identification of the Watchers who “fell” with the nĕpīlîm (literally, “fallen”) of Gen 6:4. According to Schwartz, the description of the Watchers’ descendants as “tall as cedars” identifies them with the Amorites, who are so described in Amos 2:9-10, although with slightly different language. While this is not a necessary identification, it is likely due to the description of the occupants of Canaan in Num 13:33 as nĕpîlîm, as noted by Schwartz. 84 See Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 153, and Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 292. 85 See n. 74 above. Compare the reference in Pesiq. Rab. 34.2 in the context of a plea regarding the internal desire to sin: ‫רבש"ע לב אבן נתתה לנו והוא התעה אותנו ומה עזא ועזאל שגופן אש כשירדו לארץ חטאו אנו לא כל‬ ‫שכן‬ “Master of the Universe, you gave us a heart of stone and it led us astray. If Azza and Azzael, whose bodies were fire, sinned when they came down to earth, would not we 132

and Jub 10; see chapters 10 and 11), but apparently perish with all flesh as a result of their own sin. Similarly, Noah’s sons do not sin due to demonic influence as they do in Jub 7:27, but stray after their own “thoughts” and “eyes.” In this manner the composer of this section ignores the tradition that the Watchers’ descendants cause human sin and provides an alternate explanation, while still acknowledging the Watchers myth.

Use of šryrwt lbbm (‫ )שרירות לבם‬and rṣwn (‫ )רצון‬in CD III.2-12a In the continuation of the exhortation, the terms “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” are not used again. Instead, the terms “the stubbornness of their heart” (šryrwt lbbm) and “will” (rṣwn) are used to indicate the cause of human sin. Their appearance in CD III.2-12a is indicative of a particular view of the internal inclination to sin. CD III.2-12a ‫ ֗ב ֗ש ֗מרו מצות אל ולא בחר‬86‫ויעל ֯או֯ הב‬ ֗ ‫אברהם לא הלך בה‬

2

‫ברצון רוחו וימסור לישחק וליעקב וישמרו ויכתבו אוהבים‬

3

‫ בני יעקב תעו בם ויענשו לפני‬vacat ‫לאל ובעלי ברית לעולם‬

4

‫משגותם ובניהם במצרים הלכו בשרירות לבם להיעץ על‬

5

F

36

all the more?” (Translation is a slightly modified version of that of W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts and Special Sabbaths [2 vols.; YJS 18; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968], 2:666.) The characters Azza and Azzael represent a rabbinic version of the Watchers story, seen also in Deut. Rab. 11 and Gen. Rabbati 6:2. 86 Both Abegg, “CD,” n.p., and Schwartz in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 16, read ‫ ויעל אוהב‬here, but while Abegg reads this in the text itself, Schwartz considers it a reconstruction. 133

2

‫מצות אל ולעשות איש הישר בעיניו ויאכלו את הדם ויכרת‬

6

‫זכורם במדבר להם בקדש עלו ורשו את רוחם ולא שמעו‬

7

‫יהם מצות יוריהם וירגנו באהליהם ויחר אף אל‬ ֗ ‫לקול עש‬

8

‫בעדתם ובניהם בו אבדו ומלכיהם בו נכרתו וגיבוריהם בו‬

9

‫אבדו וארצם בו שממה בו הבו >חבו< באי הברית הראשנים ויסגרו‬

10

‫לחרב בעזבם את ברית אל ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו אחרי שרירות‬

11

‫ ובמחזיקים במצות אל‬vacat ‫לבם לעשות איש את רצונו‬

12

Abraham did not walk in it and he was acce[pted as a lo]ver, for he kept God’s commandments 87 and did not choose to follow 367F

3

the will of his (own) spirit. 88 And he transmitted (his way) to Isaac and Jacob; 368F

and they observed (them) and were recorded 89 as lovers 369 F

4

of God and parties to (his) covenant forever. The sons of Jacob strayed through them and were punished according to

5

their error. And their sons in Egypt walked in the stubbornness 90 of their 370F

heart(s), plotting against 6

the commandments 91 of God, each man doing what was right in his own 371F

eyes. 92 And they ate the blood and their male line 93 372F

37F

87

Schwartz translates “ordinances.” Following M. O. Wise, M. G. Abegg, and E. M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 53. Schwartz in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 17, translates “(that which) his (own) spirit desired.” For the purposes of the analysis that follows I have chosen the more literal translation. 89 Following Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 53. Schwartz translates “registered.” 90 Schwartz translates “wantonness.” See n. 76 above. 91 Schwartz translates “ordinances.” 92 This is a paraphrase of Jud 17:6, 21:26. (See also Deut 12:8 and cf. Deut 12:25, 28; 13:19; 21:9.) 93 Schwartz translates “males”; the chosen translation reflects the singular form of the original. For similar use of ‫זכור‬, see Deut 20:13. 88

134

7

was cut off in the desert (after they were told) in Kadesh “Go up and possess (the land”; but they chose to follow the will of) 94 their spirit and they did not listen

8

to their Maker’s voice, the commandments of their teacher. 95 They murmured in their tents and God’s anger was kindled

9

against their congregation and their sons perished through it and their kings were cut off through it, and through it their heroes

10 perished, and their land became desolate due to it. The first ones who entered the covenant became guilty through it; and they were given up 11 to the sword, having abandoned 96 God’s covenant, and they chose their (own) will, and strayed 97 after the stubbornness 98 12 of their heart, for each one to do 99 his (own) will. vacat But out of those who held fast to God’s commandments 100…

94

Insertion following Abegg, “CD,” n.p., and Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 53. The space allowed for this passage in the fragmentary parallel found in 4Q269 2 ii indicates that this (or something like it) was the original text that was omitted later through a scribal error. See J. M. Baumgarten, “269. 4QDamascus Documentd,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 125-6; Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 53; and Baumgarten, “Damascus Document 4Q266-273,” 109 n. 3-5. 95 Following Abegg, “CD,” n.p. Schwartz translates “to the voice of him who made them (and) taught them ordinances,” but the translation chosen is more literal and maintains the parallelism of the original. 96 Schwartz translates “departed from,” but here ‫ עזב‬is used to denote not just “departing,” but abandonment. 97 Schwartz translates “and chosen their own will, and straying…” The translation chosen more accurately mirrors the form of the verbs. 98 Schwartz translates “wantonness.” See n. 76 above. 99 Schwartz translates “each doing his (own) will.” The form of the infinitive in ‫לעשות‬ ‫איש רצונו‬, however, indicates a result of or a motivation for the previous clause. 100 Following Abegg, “CD,” n.p. Schwartz translates “ordinances.” 135

The term the “stubbornness of their heart” is found three times in II.14-III.12, in an extension and echo of biblical usage. 101 The use of the phrase “walking in the stubbornness of the heart” for sinning is found in Deut 29:18 in the internal monologue of the unrepentant sinner “for I will walk according to the stubbornness of my heart” and extensively in Jeremiah (in 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17). 102 In Ps 81:13, God himself “releases” the people to walk according to the stubbornness of their heart after they refuse to heed him. While it has been noted that the phrase šĕrîrût libbām is commonly used to express sinning in the Damascus Document, 103 it is found seven times in the entire composition, 104 nearly half of those instances in the passage under discussion, CD II.14-III.12a. At first glance, in the three cases found here the meaning of the term does not depart greatly from its biblical meaning: walking in the stubbornness of one’s heart is an expression of sin. However, the composer of CD II.14-III.12a uses the stubbornness of the heart interchangeably with the “inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” to explain the sins of generations. In the exhortation, “walking in the stubbornness of their heart” appears in parallel to following the “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and “lecherous eyes” in expressing the sin of the Watchers, the

101

See n. 4 above. In three cases it is specified that the people are walking according to the stubbornness of their evil heart: Jer 7:24; 11:8; 18:12. 103 See Davies, Damascus Covenant, 80 and Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin,” 13-14. 104 II.17, III.5, III.11, VIII.8 (and parallel in XIX.20), VIII.19 (and parallel in XIX.33), XX.9, and the additional section found in 4Q266 (4Da) 5ii:11. 102

136

sins of the sons of Noah, 105 of Jacob’s grandsons in Egypt, and of the “first ones who entered the covenant,” a reference either to the Israelites in the desert or to the Israelites exiled during the First Temple period. Hence, the “stubbornness of their heart” as it appears here is not simply a description of sinning itself. Like the “thoughts of the inclination of guilt” and the “lecherous eyes” in II.16, the “stubbornness of their heart” is an expression of the basic disposition of the human heart for sin that must be rejected in order to follow God’s laws. It is no accident that, in the additional paraphrase of Num 15:39 that ends this passage (III.11-12a), the “stubbornness of their heart” (šryrwt lbbm) is used as a substitute for the biblical “your hearts,” after which the Israelites must not stray. Like the heart in the biblical verse, this “stubbornness” is considered an innate component of human beings that predisposes them toward sin, but one that, it is assumed, they have the capacity to resist. The tragedy as described in the exhortation is that humans and angels throughout history have refused to do so. 106 CD II.14-III.12a includes a unique use of the term “will” (rāṣôn), appearing four times in this passage. In the Hebrew Bible, rāṣôn almost always indicates the

105

Assuming that ‫ בה‬in III.1 does, in fact, refer to the singular feminine antecedent phrase ‫לכתם בשרירות לבם‬. See G. A. Anderson, “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. J. Milgrom et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 62 n. 28. 106 As noted by Lichtenberger, Menschenbild, 154, humans here are addressed in terms of their ability to do the right thing; while historically humans have sinned, this in no way indicates that they are destined to do so. 137

favor, acceptance or will of God 107 and in rare instances, of kings (as in Pr 14:35; 387F

16:13,15; 19:12). 108 The appearances of the term in later biblical books reflect an 38F

expansion of the semantic range of rāṣôn to include the desires or will of human beings. 109 A particularly significant development in the use of the term is represented 389F

in 2 Chron 15:15b, where rāṣôn is used to indicate a purely positive, independent inclination on the part of the Judahites: ‫שׁהוּ‬ ֻ ‫“ וּ ְבכָל ְרצ ֹונָם ִבּ ְק‬and they sought him (God) with all their will.” However, outside of CD II.14-III.12a, Qumran texts use the term rāṣôn within the semantic range found in earlier biblical books, connecting rāṣôn to the will or favor of God. In contrast, in CD II.14-III.12a, the term rāṣôn, while used in a manner that is semantically similar to the use in Chronicles, exclusively indicates the desires of the human being (or rebellious angel) to sin. These human desires are contrasted with

107

See BDB 958b and HALOT 1282a-1283a. Hence, in Lev 1:3, 19:5, 22:19, 22:29, and 23:11 lirṣōnô/lirṣōnkā refers to the acceptance of the human by God, an acceptance facilitated by the sacrifice. (Contrast Est 1:8 [discussed below], where kirṣōn’îš wā’îš “according to each one’s desire” refers to the actual wishes of the person and not to his acceptance by the king or the almighty.) 108 Proverbs also includes the use of rāṣôn in the sense of general goodwill, perhaps of God; see Prov 10:32; 11:27; 14:9. 109 In Dan 8:4;11:3,16,36; Neh 9:24, and Est 1:8; 9:5 the phrase kirṣôn/nô/nām is used to mean “according to his/their desire” referring to the desires of human beings, whether for good or ill, and in Ps 145 rāṣôn is used twice, once to indicate the desires of those who fear God (145:19) and once as an indication of the desires of “all living things” (145:16). (In Ps 145:16 it is possible to interpret rāṣôn differently, but this is the most probable [and standard] interpretation.) 138

the commandments of God. 110 Thus, the Watchers caused destruction through their illconceived offspring: “for they had done their (own) will (rṣwnm) and had not kept the commandments of their Maker” (CD II.20b-21a). In contrast, Abraham is considered a “lover of God,” “for he kept God’s commandments and did not choose to follow the will (rṣwn) of his own spirit” (CD III.2-3). 111 The juxtaposition of “love of God” and Abraham’s fulfillment of the commandments, as well as the description of Isaac and Jacob as “lovers of God” and “parties to (God’s) covenant” (III.3-4), reflects the Deuteronomic association of covenantal loyalty with the love of God first elucidated by W. L. Moran. 112 Finally, in the conclusion of the section it is explained that the

110

Compare with the Deuteronomic opposition of each Israelite doing “what is right in his (own) eyes” in Deut 12:8 and the command to do “what is right in God’s eyes” in 12:25, 28. 111 Contra Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, 119, who connects the negative connotation of the term rṣwn rwḥw to a negative connotation of spirit (rûaḥ), in parallel to Ezek 13:3. However, the use of rāṣôn in CD III.10-12 demonstrates the negative nature of the human will in this passage, not of the human spirit. 112 W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77-87; repr. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. F. Greenspahn; Essential Papers on Jewish Studies; New York: NYU Press, 2000), 103-15. Moran notes the use of the term “love” in a variety of Near Eastern texts from the eighteenth to the seventh century B.C.E. to denote the loyalty and friendship connecting king and subject or sovereign and vassal. The nature of this association has been refined in recent studies. J.E. Lapsley has noted that the covenantal aspect of love in Deuteronomy does not obviate the emotional aspect of love. Love in Deuteronomy includes both action and emotion, both in describing God’s love for his people and the love expected from the Israelites; see J. E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350-69. S. Ackerman has argued that in much of the Bible ’hb denotes a unidirectional hierarchical love directed from the more powerful actor to the less, but her argument regarding Deuteronomy is weak. Ackerman discounts the mutual commitment of love between Israel and its God in Deuteronomy, which includes a description of God’s 139

“first ones who entered the covenant” were given over to the sword because they left the covenant of God, having “chosen their (own) will (brṣwnm), straying after the stubbornness of their heart for each one to do his will (rṣwnw) ” (CD III.10-12). The will of humans is consistently contrasted not to the will, but to the commandment or covenant of God. In this way the term rāṣôn is used exclusively to describe negative and non-divine desires. Consequently, rāṣôn here is an expression of the internal evil will of the human being, which must be resisted in order to follow God’s commandments. The use of the term rāṣôn in this atypical sense, in combination with the repetition of the biblical phrase “the stubbornness of their heart,” indicates that the author had a specific concept of sin in mind. Human acts of sin stem from the internal will of humans predisposed to sin. As presented in this passage, the human will in its essence contradicts the commandments of God, 113 and the only way to be obedient to the commands of God is to ignore this will, as Abraham does in III.2-3. Nevertheless, in CD II.14-III.12, the decision to sin is not inevitable. 114 The author indicates this point through the use of the root bḥr – to choose – in conjunction with the sinful will of the human being. The sinning of previous generations is love and a command that Israel return this love, with the justification that, while the command is given, it is not clearly fulfilled. See S. Ackerman, “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437-58, particularly 445. 113 See Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 186. 114 Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 52, notes the emphasis on free will here and its connection to the “evil inclination,” but does not elaborate. 140

described throughout this section as a choice. In CD III.2-3 Abraham does not choose the will of his spirit, while in CD III.11, the “first ones” to enter the covenant choose their will and walk according to the stubbornness of their heart. It is likely that the text missing in CD III.7 is similar; as opposed to Abraham, the Israelites did choose the will of their spirit in opposition to the divine commandment to “Go up and possess (the land)” (Deut 9:23). The emphasis on choice serves to justify the harsh punishment of Israelites past and suits the manner in which sin is described. Sin is an expression of human will, which by its nature takes a wrong turn unless it is consciously rejected in favor of God’s commandments. Similarly, elsewhere in the Admonition “the stubbornness of their heart” is paired with language that connotes choice. In VIII.7-8 (and in its parallel MS B XIX.19-20) the undetermined evil leaders signified by the “princes of Judah” in Hos 5:10 115 are described as each doing what was right in his own eyes, in a reference to

115

See S. Hultgren, “A New Literary Analysis of CD XIX-XX, Part 1: CD XIX:1-32a (with CD VII:4b-VIII:18b): The Midrashim and the ‘Princes of Judah’,” RQ 21 (2004): 554-5, 567, who maintains that this term refers not to rulers, but rather to “those who depart from Judah.” In Hultgren’s analysis, the term “princes of Judah” (‫ )שרי יהודה‬in VIII.3 gains its meaning from the word-play of ‫סור‬-‫ שר‬in CD VII.12-13 (ibid., 558), in an exegetical twist on Hosea. Consequently, the term ‫ שרי יהודה‬in CD VIII.3 refers to those who have joined the covenant and subsequently left it. This possibility is intriguing, as it provides further parallels with the apostates described in XX.9-10. However, for the purposes of the present study it is not critical to determine the exact meaning of “princes of Judah” in VIII.3. What is important is that those under discussion are considered to be sinners. 141

the sinning of the Israelites in Judges 17-21 (see Jud 17:6, 21:26), 116 and each “choosing” the stubbornness of his heart. The harshest (and most unusual) language connected to the “stubbornness of their heart” is found in XX.9-10. There, those who refuse to continue to follow the covenant after joining the group are described as those “who placed idols on their hearts” and then “walked in the stubbornness of their heart.” 117 The unusual phrase “who placed idols on their heart” is taken from Ezek 14:3-8, which begins “Son of Man, these people have ‘set up idols upon their hearts’” 118 (14:3a) and concludes: ‫שׂ ָראֵל ְויִנָּז ֵר מֵ ֽאַח ֲַרי ְויַעַל גִּלּוּלָיו אֶל לִבּ ֹו וּ ִמכְשׁ ֹול עֲוֹנ ֹו י ָשִׂ ים‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁר י ָגוּר ְבּי‬ ֶ ‫שׂ ָראֵל וּ ֵמ ַהגֵּר ֲא‬ ְ ִ ‫ כִּי ִאישׁ ִאישׁ ִמבֵּית י‬7 ‫נֹכַח ָפּנָיו וּבָא אֶל ַהנָּבִיא לִדְ ָרשׁ �ו בִי ֲאנִי ה' נַ ֽ ֲענֶה �ו ִבּי׃‬ :'‫שׁלִים ְו ִהכ ְַרתִּ יו מִתּ ֹו� ַע ִמּי וִ ֽידַ עְתֶּ ם כִּי ֲאנִי ה‬ ָ ‫ ְונָתַ תִּ י ָפנַי ָבּ ִאישׁ הַהוּא ַוה ֲִשֽׂמ ֹתִ יהוּ לְא ֹות ְו ִל ְמ‬8 7

For every person of the house of Israel and of the strangers who dwell in Israel who separates from me and ‘sets up idols on his heart’ and puts the stumblingblock of his sin before himself, and comes to the prophet to inquire for him of me: I am the Lord – he will be answered through me.

8

And I shall set my face against that person, and I shall make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people, and you shall know that I am the Lord.” 119 39F

116

And perhaps to the sinning proscribed in Deuteronomy; see Deut 12:8 and cf. Deut 12:25, 28; 13:19; 21:9. 117 ‫אשר שמו גלולים על לבם }וישימ{ וילכו בשרירות לבם‬ 118 "‫ ;" ֶהעֱל֤ וּ גִלּוּלֵיהֶם עַל ִלבָּם‬my translation here conveys the literal meaning of the verse. 119 Translation is my own. 142

The borrowing of this phrase from Ezek 14:3-8 achieves a twofold purpose. On the one hand, the bitter end prophesied for the idol worshippers in Ezek 14:3-8 is transferred to the rebellious ex-member. On the other, the imagery of idolatry from Ezekiel is used to describe an action that has reversed the initial entrance of the member into the group. Entrance into the group, at least according to 1QS V.5 (“He shall rather circumcise in the Community the foreskin of the inclination (and) a stiff neck”) enables the member to curb his desire to sin. However, when the erstwhile members described in CD XX.9-10 rejected the laws of the group, they reversed this internal change, tantamount to “placing idols” on their hearts, i.e., allowing sin into their decision-making faculties. This act reflects an internal reversal that ensures the ongoing desire to sin. The ex-member’s subsequent walking in the stubbornness of their heart is doubly evil. They have made an initial choice to free their will of the bonds of the group’s covenant, and have then followed their naturally stubborn hearts once free of these constraints.

CD II.2-13: Possible Contradiction of Free Choice The free choice emphasized in CD II.14-III.12 seems to contradict the previous section of the Damascus Document, CD II.2-13. This preceding section, while assuring the reader of the possibility of repentance (II.4-5), also emphasizes divine foreknowledge. God has withheld his choice from the wicked from the beginning (II.7), apparently in distinction from the righteous, who have been chosen.

143

The connection and relationship between these two passages goes beyond their proximity. 120 In the first of the two passages, II.3b-4 presents a wisdom-centric perspective on the Divine:

3

‫ אל אהב דעת חכמה ותושייה הציב לפניו‬vacat ‫רשעים‬

3

‫ערמה ודעת הם ישרתוהו ארך אפים עמו ורוב סליחות‬

4

the evil ones. vacat God (who) loves knowledge; 121 wisdom and prudence he 401F

has set up before him, 4

craft and knowledge shall serve him. Long forbearance (is) with him and manifold forgiveness… Following this description of God’s knowledge, the passage concludes with

divine enlightenment of the anointed in II.11-13: 122 402 F

‫ובכולם הקים לו קריאי שם למען התיר פליטה לארץ ולמלא‬

11

֗‫ ויודיעם ביד משיחו >משיחי< רוח קדשו וחוז֗ י‬vacat ‫פני תבל מזרעם‬

12

‫אמת ובפרוש >>שמו