Arts, Faculty of
Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Schrottner, Elisabeth Isabelle
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) is a parabiblical Hebrew manuscript found at Qumran. The text reworks the biblical Samuel narrative by adding, omitting, and rearranging existing material from the Samuel tradition. Through this process, Samuel becomes the prophetic, authoritative voice through which the rest of the text is read. Besides the Samuel tradition, the manuscript also contains new material: two prayers in which the intercessor prays that “they” (an unnamed group) would remember their relationship with God and return to him with renewed purity. These prayers are “new” in the sense that they depart from the Samuel narrative and the author uses words and phrases from other traditions, such as the psalms. When read this way, with the Samuel narrative framing the prayers, the author is engaging in pseudonymity to lend authority to the text. The author’s interpretation of the biblical tradition can serve as a commentary on inter-Jewish dynamics and issues of purity and piety in the second century BCE. I propose that 4Q160 is a valuable source that contributes to our understanding of the Second Temple period and the inter-group dynamics that shaped Judaism at the time. In order to discover where 4Q160 fits literarily and historically, this study is a comparative analysis; 4Q160 is placed beside parallel texts from differing categories. First, 4Q160 is placed beside other Samuel narratives from Qumran and in later traditions (e.g., Josephus). Second, 4Q160 is compared with three different categories of non-biblical texts from Qumran: the Damascus Document, Community Rule, MMT, and Jubilees. All of these texts, including 4Q160, shed light on the socio-historical situations of the authors. While the study seeks to answer the question of “who’s who?” in the text, 4Q160’s fragmentary nature only lets us catch a glimpse. However, the comparative examination of 4Q160’s context proves that this text is useful for understanding the diverse expressions of Second Temple Judaism.
THE SAMUEL APOCRYPHON (4Q160) IN CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS by Elisabeth Isabelle Schrottner B.A., Columbia Bible College, 2014 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Religious Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2019 © Elisabeth Isabelle Schrottner, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) in Context: A Comparative Analysis submitted by Elisabeth Isabelle Schrottner in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Religious Studies Examining Committee: Dr. Anthony Keddie (Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies) Supervisor Dr. Sara Milstein (Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies) Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Gregg Gardner (Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies) Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) is a parabiblical Hebrew manuscript found at Qumran. The text reworks the biblical Samuel narrative by adding, omitting, and rearranging existing material from the Samuel tradition. Through this process, Samuel becomes the prophetic, authoritative voice through which the rest of the text is read. Besides the Samuel tradition, the manuscript also contains new material: two prayers in which the intercessor prays that “they” (an unnamed group) would remember their relationship with God and return to him with renewed purity. These prayers are “new” in the sense that they depart from the Samuel narrative and the author uses words and phrases from other traditions, such as the psalms. When read this way, with the Samuel narrative framing the prayers, the author is engaging in pseudonymity to lend authority to the text. The author’s interpretation of the biblical tradition can serve as a commentary on inter-Jewish dynamics and issues of purity and piety in the second century BCE. I propose that 4Q160 is a valuable source that contributes to our understanding of the Second Temple period and the inter-group dynamics that shaped Judaism at the time. In order to discover where 4Q160 fits literarily and historically, this study is a comparative analysis; 4Q160 is placed beside parallel texts from differing categories. First, 4Q160 is placed beside other Samuel narratives from Qumran and in later traditions (e.g., Josephus). Second, 4Q160 is compared with three different categories of non-biblical texts from Qumran: the Damascus Document, Community Rule, MMT, and Jubilees. All of these texts, including 4Q160, shed light on the socio-historical situations of the authors. While the study seeks to answer the question of “who’s who?” in the text, 4Q160’s fragmentary nature only lets us catch a glimpse. However, the comparative examination of 4Q160’s context proves that this text is useful for understanding the diverse expressions of Second Temple Judaism. iv Lay Summary The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) is a manuscript from among the Dead Sea Scrolls that sheds light on the inter-group dynamics that shaped Judaism in the second century BCE. The text reworks portions of the Samuel tradition from the Hebrew Bible and adds original material in the form of prayers for outside groups. We get a sense of how different groups viewed themselves and viewed outsiders, especially when 4Q160 is placed beside parallel texts from Qumran that have similar literary features and rhetoric. The present study first compares 4Q160 with the other Samuel traditions, found at Qumran and also those known from later historians. Second, 4Q160 is compared with texts from three different categories of texts found at Qumran. The results from this study show that 4Q160 is a valuable source for understanding the socio-historical context and diverse expressions of Judaism in the Second Temple period. v Preface This thesis is the original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Elisabeth I. Schrottner. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 History of Scholarship .................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 1968-2000 ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1.1 Classification of the Text: Title and Genre ......................................................... 3 1.1.1.2 Translation .......................................................................................................... 6 1.1.2 2006-2015 ............................................................................................................... 6 1.1.2.1 Relationship to Other Texts ................................................................................ 6 1.1.2.2 Arrangement ....................................................................................................... 8 1.2 A Note on Categories: Parabiblical, Rewritten Bible, and Apocrypha........................... 8 1.3 The Manuscript ............................................................................................................. 11 1.3.1 Hebrew .................................................................................................................. 11 1.3.2 English .................................................................................................................. 12 1.4 The Fragments: The Four Major Text Blocks .............................................................. 13 1.4.1 Fragment 1 ............................................................................................................ 13 1.4.2 Fragments 2, 6, 10 ................................................................................................. 14 1.4.3 Fragments 4i, 5...................................................................................................... 15 vii 1.4.4 Fragment 7 ............................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 2: Textual Analysis .......................................................................................................18 2.1 Samuel at Qumran......................................................................................................... 18 2.2 The Portrayal of Samuel in 4Q160 and Other Texts..................................................... 20 2.2.1 The Ideal Priest ..................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 The More Ideal Prophet ........................................................................................ 22 2.2.3 4Q160 and 4Q382 ................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3: Historical Analysis ....................................................................................................25 3.1 Historical Context ......................................................................................................... 27 3.1.1 The Temple ........................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 Scriptural Interpretation ........................................................................................ 31 3.1.3 Qumran ................................................................................................................. 33 3.2 Sectarian Literature ....................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 The Damascus Document and the Community Rule ............................................ 36 3.2.1.1 The Texts .......................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context ......................................... 38 3.2.2 4Q160: A Comparison .......................................................................................... 38 3.3 Proto-Sectarian Literature ............................................................................................. 44 3.3.1 MMT ..................................................................................................................... 45 3.3.1.1 The Text ............................................................................................................ 45 3.3.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context ......................................... 46 3.3.2 4Q160: A Comparison .......................................................................................... 47 3.4 Non-Sectarian Literature ............................................................................................... 50 viii 3.4.1 Jubilees .................................................................................................................. 51 3.4.1.1 The Text ............................................................................................................ 51 3.4.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context ......................................... 52 3.4.2 4Q160: A Comparison .......................................................................................... 55 Chapter 4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................59 4.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 59 4.2 New Insights and Future Research ............................................................................... 62 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................64 ix Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Anthony Keddie, for his expert guidance and persistent confidence in my ability as a scholar. He has inspired me to rethink categories and assumptions that limit us, and to pursue interdisciplinary methods for a richer understanding of the past. I also appreciate Dr. Keddie’s enthusiasm with my pursuit of a fragmentary, overlooked manuscript. He encouraged me to think creatively and to see the gaps as opportunities. I would like to acknowledge my two committee members, who have offered incredible support beyond the thesis. My second reader, Dr. Sara Milstein, is an inspiring educator and I hope she will always encourage her students to “find their delight” in what they study. I am grateful for her feedback and help in becoming a better writer. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Gregg Gardner for his guidance in my work and in attaining my academic goals. I am grateful for his commitment not only to the success of his students, but also to their overall well-being. Our conversations are always enjoyable, and they remind me why this discipline is so important. Gratitude is due to the faculty, staff, and my fellow graduate students in the Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies. I am grateful for their support and companionship during this program. Extending beyond UBC, I am indebted to Dr. Orit Peleg-Barkat at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is solely responsible for arranging my “meeting” with the Samuel Apocryphon at the Israel Antiquities Authority in June 2019! Thank you also to the staff of the Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library for allowing this nervous and excited graduate student to enter and observe their workspace. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their continual prayers, patience, and confidence in me. I couldn’t have done this without them. A special thank you to my friends at WPGBC, who have become my family here and have carried me through these last two years. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) is a Hebrew parabiblical manuscript from among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran that reworks the biblical Samuel narrative by adding, omitting, and rearranging material. It originated in the second century BCE and may be understood as a sort of commentary on issues of purity and piety among Jewish groups. Since the Samuel Apocryphon’s publication in 1968, the initial configuration of the fragments has been accepted and have since gone mostly unchanged. However, in the last twelve years, the text blocks have been re-evaluated and rearranged, creating a new picture of the manuscript and allowing for a more nuanced study. The following study identifies both the literary and historical contexts of the Samuel Apocryphon (hereafter 4Q160), illuminating the potential influence that this text had on Jewish audiences in a period of purity and piety disputes. The study is carried out in three parts: first, the manuscript itself is described in terms of its history in scholarship and classification. The Hebrew text and English translation are provided, which follow the translations and fragment configurations of past scholars, with my revisions. Four principle text blocks are most relevant to the study, which range from one fragment to three combined fragments; these are detailed individually. In the second part, 4Q160 is compared to other Samuel narratives. Four copies of Samuel have been found at Qumran, which provide a witness to biblical textual history in the Second Temple period. 4Q160, however, stands outside this corpus because of its classification as an apocryphon, with its rewritten portions of text. 4Q160 is then compared to other interpretations of the Samuel narrative, from literary traditions such as the Septuagint and Masoretic Text, to later Jewish authors like Josephus. The third part of this study examines the historical context of 4Q160 through comparisons with similar texts found at Qumran, which all provide nuanced 2 interpretations of the setting in which they were produced – namely the situation of the priesthood in Jerusalem and the rise of sectarianism. By reading sectarian, proto-sectarian, and non-sectarian works in light of these circumstances, one gains a deeper understanding of how different Jewish groups engaged with the situations around them, and how the groups interacted with one another. The comparative texts examined in this study are the Damascus Document (CD), the Community Rule (1QS), Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah (MMT), and Jubilees. The scholarship on the textual and historical significance of these works is by no means lacking. Scholarship on the historical significance of 4Q160, however, is less substantial. Most studies have engaged with the literary character of the text, examining the intertextuality between 4Q160 and other biblical and Qumranic works. But I propose that 4Q160 is a valuable primary source that contributes to our historical understanding of the Second Temple period. By using the pseudonymous voice of the prophet Samuel, the author of 4Q160 provides a unique interpretation of events, making his case in a period of inter-group conflict. Thus, 4Q160, when placed beside the parallel texts, demonstrates that the diverse literary traditions from Qumran can shed light on the diverse expressions of Second Temple Judaism and the broader historical currents of the Second Temple period. 1.1 History of Scholarship 4Q160 was published in the fifth volume of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series in 1968, by John M. Allegro.1 The original title was “The Vision of Samuel,” based on one section in Allegro’s arrangement of the fragments. There were seven fragments and Allegro 1 John M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4, DJD 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 9-11. 3 translated each of them as separate text blocks, save for fragments 3 and 4. The resulting arrangement provided three main sections: 1) Samuel’s vision, based on 1 Samuel 3:14-18; 2) a prayer for Israel to be returned to God; and 3) an autobiographical summary. Allegro’s configuration and translation of 4Q160 remained the standard for subsequent scholars. The fragmentary nature of 4Q160 has likely contributed to its limited study, or, where present, brief comments on the text. However, there have been significant changes in the interpretation of 4Q160 over time, and I categorize them into two periods. First, the last three decades of the twentieth century saw changes that mostly had to do with the classification of the text (i.e., genre) and the translation itself. Then, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there was increased study of the text’s relationship to other scriptural texts, which affected the arrangement of the fragments. 1.1.1 1968-2000 1.1.1.1 Classification of the Text: Title and Genre The text was originally entitled “The Vision of Samuel,” based on the opening section of Allegro’s arrangement of the fragments. The rest of the text was read through the pseudonymous voice of Samuel, which tied it together. The “Vision” title has been maintained by some scholars, such as García Martínez and Tigchelaar in their 1997 study edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the relevance of the title has been questioned.2 John Strugnell was the first to reconsider the title in 1970. He opened his essay, entitled “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’”, with a comment that the title, while applicable to the first section, 2 Florentino García Martínez, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 311-313. 4 does not define the entire text.3 Strugnell drew attention to the text’s apocryphal nature, as it relied on a biblical base text (1 Sam 3:14-18), while adding prayers and speeches. Strugnell dated the text to the early to middle Hasmonean period (ca. 150-100 BCE), and this view has been maintained since then.4 Géza Vermes, in his additions to Schürer’s History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, expanded on Strugnell’s conception of 4Q160 as a pseudepigraphic-apocryphal text.5 The text was categorized as biblical midrash and, for the first time, named the “Samuel Apocryphon”. Since then, the text has typically been classified as part of the “parabiblical” literature at Qumran, having a basis in the Hebrew scriptures.6 Parabiblical is a category used to define the texts that rework a scriptural passage through a number of different methods. The author can expand the base text by adding words and phrases, or by rephrasing the existing text. Another way of reworking the text is by omitting words and phrases; this is a way to handle problematic sections, or a way in which the author deems material irrelevant to the overall text. The parabiblical genre is similar to “Rewritten Bible,” a term coined by Géza Vermes in the 3 John Strugnell, "Notes en marge du volume V des 'Discoveries in the Judaean desert of Jordan'" RevQ 7 (1970): 179-183. 4 The paleographic designation is based on Frank M. Cross’s framework, which divides the Qumran scribal hands into three categories: Archaic (ca. 200-150 BCE); Hasmonean (ca. 150-30 BCE); and Herodian (ca. 30 BCE to 70 CE). See Frank M. Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 147-172. 5 Géza Vermes in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), vol. III.I (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973), 335. 6 Polak classifies 4Q160 as “Rewritten Bible” and strongly suggests this because of its relationship to the biblical text. But other scholars (e.g., Jassen) write that even with the few direct quotes and biblical allusions, 4Q160 does not “rewrite” the bible to the extent that other Second Temple texts, like Jubilees, do. See Frank H. Polak, “Samuel,” in Lawrence H. Schiffman and J.C. Vanderkam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 822-823. 5 1960s.7 Rewritten Bible usually follows the base text closely, and the manuscripts in this category seem to have had a higher level of influence, based on the status of the scripture being rewritten, or the abundance of the manuscripts found (e.g., the book of Jubilees). 4Q160 was classified as Rewritten Bible early on, but, as the relevance of this term changed, so did scholars’ classification of 4Q160.8 The change from “The Vision of Samuel” to “The Samuel Apocryphon” marks this shift. Apocrypha, under the rubric of parabiblical texts, tend to rely less on their base texts and were not intended to supplant the original text. Another feature of the parabiblical texts is pseudepigraphy, where the text is imbued with authority through the voice of a divine or historical figure. In the case of 4Q160, the voice of Samuel is used in the first and final sections of the text, where the narrative adheres closely to the scriptural texts. The implication, then, is that the prophet is speaking the two prayers in the middle section. The prayers are, on the one hand, composed of original words and phrases, and, on the other hand, adhering to pre-existing scripture. Altogether, the four major sections contribute to our understanding of textual reworking and the reception of older narratives in a period of Jewish conflict. The sections are presented below, followed by comments on the four major text blocks. 7 Géza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1961). 8 Jonathan G. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in József Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Géza Vermes, JSJSup 166 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 49-77; and Molly M. Zahn, "Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment," JBL 131 (2012): 271-288. 6 1.1.1.2 Translation Allegro’s original translation of the Hebrew script has provided the template for all subsequent scholars, who then either changed his rendering of the legible characters or filled in the lacunae differently. Strugnell rightly notes that, although Allegro cites 1 Samuel 3:14-18 as the text on which 4Q160 fragment 1 is based, he does not fill in the lacunae with the missing biblical text. Strugnell does this for fragment 1. The most significant changes were made to fragments 3 and 4, the middle section that contains a prayer. Initially, the placement of fragments 3 and 4 directly beside each other led to a “disjointed and abrupt” translation.9 Allegro had translated the verbs in the perfect and imperfect tenses: “he was a help to him”, “he lifted him up”, “he will raise for them a rock”, etc. However, Strugnell translated them as imperatives and vocatives, which was consistent with the petitionary tone of the section. Strugnell also added fragment 5, a small piece with an allusion to the prayer in Psalm 40. Allegro’s initial form was rejected, and Strugnell’s form was followed by all subsequent scholars. 1.1.2 2006-2015 1.1.2.1 Relationship to Other Texts The close relationship between 4Q160 and other biblical texts has been assumed since Allegro’s reference to 1 Samuel 3 in the editio princeps. As with other apocryphal texts in the Qumran collection, 4Q160 is based on biblical texts – in this case, 1 Samuel 3 and 12. By employing the pseudonymous voice of the biblical priest and prophet, the text is imbued with authority. There are other instances of reliability on biblical text, not related to the Samuel 9 Alex P. Jassen, “Intertextual Readings of the Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q160 (Samuel Apocryphon) and Psalm 40,” RevQ 22 (2006): 403-430 (407). 7 narrative. In his notes on fragments 3, 4, and 5, Strugnell mentions the allusion to Psalm 40:3, where the supplicant appears to be making a reference to God’s provision in the past; Strugnell is followed by Andrew Gross in 2013.10 The allusion to Psalm 40 was fully examined in 2006 by Alex P. Jassen, and his article was the first work dedicated to the intertextuality of 4Q160, namely 4Q160’s literary and textual dependence on Psalm 40. This was the first extensive work done on 4Q160 in over 30 years. The lacunae that were originally left blank in fragments 3 and 4 were filled in with the content from fragment 5. In 2008, Jassen published another article on 4Q160, providing a new translation based on Strugnell’s arrangement.11 Jassen’s aim in the 2008 article was to offer more literary and historical observations on the entire text, building off his previous work. One of the article’s most significant contributions to the study of 4Q160 is the emphasis on the inter-Jewish conflict that possibly inspired the prayer in fragments 3, 4, and 5. According to Jassen, the manuscript is clearly not the product of a sectarian community, as it does not contain the hallmarks of sectarian literature at Qumran, such as dualism, eschatology, and discussions on the calendar.12 However, the pseudonymous and apocryphal nature of the text bears witness to proto-sectarian thought, creating a connection to similar works being produced in the mid-second century BCE. This is the focus of the third chapter, the Historical Analysis. 10 Andrew D. Gross, “The Vision of Samuel,” in Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, eds., Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 1517-1519. 11 Alex P. Jassen, "Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160)," JJS 59 (2008): 21-38. 12 Ibid., 36. 8 1.1.2.2 Arrangement Until the beginning of the present decade, the fragments of 4Q160 retained the numbers that were assigned to them in DJD 5. The arrangement remained mostly the same since then, with the exceptions listed above. In 2012, the fragments of 4Q160 were digitized and published online. The image shows three small, additional fragments, as well as one of the larger fragments having separated into two layers of parchment. Currently, there are twelve fragments instead of the original seven, and the numbering has since changed.13 In 2014, Ariel Feldman was the first scholar to create a new text block, combining fragments 2, 6, and 10. Feldman also recognized the textual similarities with another manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Paraphrase of Kings (4Q382). Elisha Qimron published a new translation of 4Q160, based on Feldman’s reconfiguration.14 The translation differs slightly from the previous ones, but there are no significant changes; the most prominent aspect of this edition is the connection drawn between 4Q160 and 4Q382. In The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings (2015), Feldman elaborates on this connection; and, according to him, the two texts likely come from the same literary work.15 1.2 A Note on Categories: Parabiblical, Rewritten Bible, and Apocrypha The terminology used for the classification of 4Q160 reflects the text’s relationship to the texts of the Hebrew Bible, because there are clear connections to the Samuel tradition and 13 “The Dead Sea Scrolls – 4Q Vision of Samuel,” The Dead Sea Scrolls, www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-298173. 14 Elisha Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls 1: The Hebrew Writings (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Publications, 2014), 26-27 (Hebrew). 15 Ariel Feldman, The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings: Texts and Commentary (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 33. 9 allusions to other biblical passages. However, like many other manuscripts found at Qumran, 4Q160 does not belong to a single category; moreover, the categories assigned to 4Q160 reflect later scholarly assumptions about the nature of the biblical text in the Second Temple period. These categories are used throughout this thesis, sometimes even interchangeably. I fully acknowledge the limitations of anachronistic categories, and the dynamic nature of the scholarship on terms like “parabiblical”. Thus, in light of the preceding History of Scholarship, this section establishes my approach to the categories and the terminological foundations on which this thesis is built. 4Q160 is classified first as a parabiblical text, and this term is used for texts that engage significantly with existing textual traditions through a process of re-interpretation. The original textual traditions might have been part of what later becomes the Hebrew Bible, but this is not a requirement; there were many traditions in circulation. This calls into question the categories that are anchored in a canonical Bible, such as parabiblical. Scholars have tried to move away from this assumption by changing biblical to scriptural (e.g., parascriptural). This word does not carry the same weight as biblical, but still has a connotation of authority and precedence over other texts.16 I employ the term parabiblical for 4Q160 because of its relationship to the Samuel tradition in the Second Temple period. The Samuel tradition was prevalent at this time, seen in the texts found at Qumran that come from different time periods. The author of 4Q160 would have had access to a Samuel narrative and used it for the creation of a new version – one with 16 Molly M. Zahn, “Parabiblical Texts/Rewritten Scripture,” in Charlotte Hempel and George J. Brooke, eds., T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 378-385 (381). 10 additional material (i.e., the prayers). 4Q160 was not meant to replace the other, existing Samuel traditions. However, I argue that the author of 4Q160 was reworking the text for didactic purposes, offering the readers a new interpretation that stemmed from his understanding of how the text resonated with one’s circumstances. Parabiblical, then, should not be regarded as a category that is limited by our assumptions about canon and biblical authority. The main factor is the relationship between existing textual traditions and their later reworkings and reinterpretations for purposes that stretch beyond a faithful retelling of one’s cultural traditions. When viewed in this light, parabiblical becomes a more expansive category. Some scholars have even included the sectarian texts under this category, because of their engagement with scripture through allusions and quotations.17 Another category that appears in relation to 4Q160 is Rewritten Bible. As a genre, Rewritten Bible is very similar to parabiblical: scriptural texts are reworked for a particular purpose. However, Rewritten Bible has traditionally been a more restrictive genre, focusing on the biblical text itself. More scholars now approach the term as a technique or process that is applied to a textual tradition.18 Finally, 4Q160 is named an apocryphon. Apocryphal texts from Qumran are often associated with characters from Israel’s history, such as Joshua (4Q378) and Noah (1Q20), and they include narratives and speeches from their lives. The additional material in the texts earns them the designation of parabiblical, as opposed to strictly biblical. 17 Florentino García Martínez, “Parabiblical Literature from Qumran and the Canonical Process,” RevQ 100 (2012): 525–56. 18 Zahn, “Parabiblical Texts/Rewritten Scripture,” 383. 11 tpircsunaM ehT 3.1 werbeH 1.3.1 1 tnemgarF91 ]נשבע[תי ל]בית [עלי אם יתכפר עון בית עלי בזבחכ]יא ] 1 וי]שמע שמוא[ל א]ת דב[ר יהוה] ובנחה עד עולם] 2 ]ויפתח את ד[לתות בית יהוה ושמואל[ו]שמואל שוכב לפני עלי ויקום 3 ]ו[יאמר שמואל בני ויאמר הנניאת המשא לעלי ויען עלי הגיד ו]ל[א] ירא [ 4 ] אלוהיםה לכ אלנ[א תכחד ממני כה יעשההו]דיעני את מראה האלוהים ויאמר [ 5 ה]ממני ד[בר מכל הדבר אשר דבר אליכ וכה יוסיף ]אם תכחד[ 6 [ ] שמואל 7 ,2 stnemgarF ,6 denibmoC 0102 ]דק בשבריכה]לכה ואתה תהיה להמה ותצ[ מען יהיואותם ולהבר כפים ל[ 1 ]לתם ו]הייתה לה[םכ]יא אתה למרישונה בע[ ותזכה בשפטכה[ 2 ] המש]ל[תה בעמךלאב ולאלוהים ולוא עזבתם בידי מלכים ולוא [ 3 i3 tnemgarF [ ]ראה 1 ii3 tnemgarF [ ]֗מים הואה[ 1 [ו]בארצות ובימים[ 2 אתה בראתה[ 3 וה [ 4 denibmoC 5 dna i4 stnemgarF [ ]עבדכה לוא עצרתי כוח עד זואת כיא 1 [ י]קוו אלוהי לעמכה ועזרתה היה לו והעלהו 2 [מבור שאון ו]מטיט יון[ הצי]ל[ם ו]העמד להמה סלע למרואש כיא תהלתכה 3 [היא מ]עוז עמכה ומ[חסהו ואתה מק]דשו ובזעם שונאי עמכה תגביר תפארת 4 [ותתן ]יראתכה על כ[ו]ל[ עם וגוי ]וממלכה וידעו כול עמי ארצותיכה[ כיא] 5 [ ] [ וי]בינו רבים כיא עמכה הוא[ ] 6 [ קדו]שיכה אשר הקדשת[ה ] 7 ii4 tnemgarF citerosaM eht htiw detcurtsnocer neeb sah 1 tnemgarf 061Q4 fo txet yratnemgarf ehT 91 emoS .dlob si tnof eht ,TM eht htiw sdnopserroc txet eht erehW .81-41:3 maS 1 fo txeT neewteb secnereffid citsilyts dna lacitammarg era srehto elihw ,stnairav lautxet era secnereffid .werbeH narmuQ dna werbeH lacilbiB txet eht htiw detcurtsnocer si 01 dna ,6 ,2 stnemgarf denibmoc s’061Q4 fo txet ehT 02 .tnof dlob eht ni sraeppa hcihw ,)sgniK fo esarhparaP( 283Q4 morf12 1 תא הלחמ[ [ 2 [ומש Fragment 7 1 ל[ע וקיו ינ֗] 2 ירוענ[מ יתיולנו ידעומ ומע יתרגו] 3 הינפ יתלחי] אול יתחקל אול [ריחמו ןוהו שוכר 4 וי[עוצי ינפל בוכשל יתרחבו ינודא] 1.3.2 English21 Fragment 1 1 For I have sworn [to] the house [of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated with sacrifice 2 or offering forever]. Samuel heard the word [of God] 3 Samuel was lying before Eli. And he rose and opened the [doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel] 4 [was afraid and he did] not tell the pronouncement/oracle to Eli, and Eli answered [and said “Samuel, my son.” And he said, “Here I am.”] 5 [And he said], “Make known to me the vision of God. Please, do not [withhold it from me. May God do thusly to you] 6 [and may he add], if you hide from me [a word from all that he spoke to you.”] 7 Samuel [ ] Fragments 2, 6, 10 Combined 1 …them and to cleanse hands [so that they will be] to you and you will be to them. And you will be found [righteous in your words] 2 [and just in your judging.] For you became [their] owner from the beginning, [and] you were for them 3 [as a father and as God. And you have not abandoned them in the hands of k]i[ngs, and you have not made ma]s[ter over your people…] Fragments 3i 1 …(he) saw Fragment 3ii 1 …he 2 [and] in the lands and in the seas 3 you have created 4 … 21 Translation is based largely on J.M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4 (1968), and A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings (2015), with my revisions. 13 Fragments 4i and 5 Combined 1 Your servant. I did not retain strength before this, for 2 Gather your people, my God, and be a help to him. And raise him up. 3 [From a miry pit and] muddy clay [rescue them]. Establish for them a rock as beforehand. For your praise 4 [is the] stronghold of your people and [his refuge. And you are the one] sanctifying him. And in the fury of those who hate your people, make your glory prevail. 5 [And you shall put] your fear on every [people] and kingdom, and all the people of your lands will know [for] 6 …(the) many will understand that this is your people 7 …your sanctified ones whom you sanctified Fragment 4ii 1 appeasing the… 2 his name Fragment 7 1 …he hoped in [ ] 2 [I dwelt] with him my whole life and I joined myself [from my youth] 3 [I did not] hope for her favour. Property, wealth, and money [I did not seek/take]. 4 [ ] my lord, and I chose to lie before [his] bed. 1.4 The Fragments: The Four Major Text Blocks 1.4.1 Fragment 1 Fragment 1 presents a version of 1 Samuel 3:14-18, which is the end of God’s first oracle to Samuel against the house of Eli. 4Q160’s rendering of the biblical text has close parallels to both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT). Of the four major sections, fragment 1 follows the scriptural base text the closest. The deviations from other ancient texts have led some scholars to believe that 4Q160 follows an earlier textual Vorlage.22 The MT is used to reconstruct sections of 4Q160 that are missing and correspond to 1 Samuel 3. The narrative begins with God’s final statement in Samuel’s oracle, the indictment upon the priestly house of 22 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 50. 14 Eli. It can be assumed that the beginning of the oracle is missing in 4Q160. The phrase “And Samuel heard the word [of the Lord]” is added at the end of the statement in line 2, a phrase which deviates from both the MT and the LXX. The line may be emphasizing Samuel’s role in this narrative, in direct contrast to the sinful house of Eli; furthermore, it emphasizes his role at the time when visions from God were rare (1 Sam 3:1). The following line is also unique to 4Q160: “Samuel was lying before Eli” (ילע ינפל בכש לאומש) before he opened the doors to the temple. The implication is that Samuel remained in the presence of the one whom he served, which echoes an earlier statement about Samuel’s service to Eli (1 Sam 3:1). In the LXX, Samuel is lying in the temple of the Lord, where the ark is kept (3:3).23 At first glance, the MT also places Samuel in the temple: יהב ֑בכש לאומשוהוהי לכ אש־רשםיהלא ןורא ם . However, the athnah placed under בכש creates a clause that separately describes the placement of the ark in the temple. Thus, the MT shows a possible attempt to resolve the issue of a priest sleeping where the ark of the Lord was kept. Although Samuel was already performing priestly duties alongside Eli, it was not normal for priests to sleep within the holy of holies.24 Therefore, the text of 4Q160 discards the notion of Samuel sleeping in the temple. The emphasis is rather on Samuel’s service as a priest and protégé of Eli, which is repeated in the fragment at the end of the manuscript (fragment 7). 1.4.2 Fragments 2, 6, 10 Fragments 2, 6, and 10 were first combined by Feldman in 2014, which created a new section with similar themes to the rest of the manuscript, particularly the other prayer. He noted 23 Pseudo-Philo’s LAB also reads, “And Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the Lord” (53:2). 24 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 51. 15 that the text resembles the Paraphrase of Kings (4Q382), a papyrus manuscript written in the Hasmonean script. Expanding on this new arrangement and discovery, Feldman drew close parallels between these two Dead Sea Scrolls. With the text from 4Q382 104 ii filling in the numerous lacunae of these three fragments of 4Q160, this section provides more sectarian and proto-sectarian rhetoric that matches the other sections. The major idea of the section is supplication on behalf of another Jewish group. Like the first section, 4Q160 begins in the midst of a narrative from its base text, which corresponds to the end of the first line of 4Q382 104 ii.25 In 4Q382, the prayer is one of many liturgical sections, interspersed with episodes from the lives of prophets and rulers from Israel’s monarchic period.26 The opening lines do not name the supplicant nor the recipient of the prayer, but one can draw conclusions from the context, and determine several themes. The narrator begins the section in 4Q382 with reference to a covenant, implying that the subject is the nation of Israel; this is followed by language of purity ( ,ךשדקלרבהל). The same word שדקל is used in the next section (fragments 4i and 5) that contains the other prayer of the manuscript. Sanctification accompanies selection as God’s possession. The election of God’s people and the ensuing separation from the rest of society are sectarian themes, especially read in the possessive language of God being Israel’s owner (םתלעב); furthermore, along with the ownership language, God is also described as a father to Israel. 1.4.3 Fragments 4i, 5 Fragments 4i and 5 make up the third major section of 4Q160, which contains the second prayer of the manuscript. As stated above, the original arrangement by Allegro had fragments 3 25 See ibid., Chapter 6. 26 Ibid., 54. 16 and 4 combined; Strugnell, followed by Jassen, included fragment 5. Fragment 4 contains the bulk of the text, with fragments 3 and 5 filling in the gaps. However, Feldman noted that the three fragments did not fit together lexically and thematically, namely fragment 3. In Feldman’s rendering, without fragment 3, nothing significant is lost. The prayer begins in the second line of the section, with a direct supplication to God on behalf of the unnamed group. In the original publication, Allegro did not translate the verbs as imperatives, which weakened the petitionary force of the section. Strugnell, followed by Jassen, read the verbs as imperatives, such as “Gather your people”, “be a help to him”, and “raise him up”. The second line continues the theme, where the main scriptural parallel of the section is found. Lines 2-3 echo Psalm 40:3: “And he brought me up out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay” (NRSV). According to Jassen, the author has reconstructed the opening lines of Psalm 40 to form the text of 4Q160, retaining its literary style and maintaining liturgical continuity between the two texts.27 After the opening petitions, the narrator develops a broader prayer, in which he refers to God’s actions not just for the specific group, but for nations and enemies as well. The narrator uses emphatic language, particularly in the fourth line where he refers to those “who hate your [God’s] people” (הכמע יאנוש). This word construction is not found in the Hebrew Bible or at Qumran.28 The breadth of God’s dominance is seen in the use of “every people, nation, and kingdom/and all the nations of your lands shall know…” 27 Jassen, “Intertextual Readings”, 416. 28 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 43. 17 1.4.4 Fragment 7 Fragment 7 is the final section of the manuscript and appears to be a reworking of 1 Samuel 12:2-3, which is part of Samuel’s farewell address. The majority of the verbs are written in the first-person, and the content – as it matches the rest of the manuscript – suggests that it is meant to be the voice of Samuel. He is recounting his role as Israel’s judge, and his honour is found in his devotion to his service to Eli and in his renunciation of property, wealth, and money. 18 Chapter 2: Textual Analysis 4Q160 provides one interpretation of the Samuel narrative from the Hebrew scriptures, alongside several other textual witnesses from the Qumran collection. The other manuscripts are labelled as “biblical” manuscripts because they are versions of the scriptures found in the LXX and MT, with slight deviations from both. 4Q160 is unique among the Qumran accounts of Samuel in its categorization as an apocryphon, due to the additional material within the manuscript. The fragments that follow the Samuel narrative portray this important character in ways that differ from other accounts, demonstrating the need to consider 4Q160 as a valuable textual witness with the others. In the following chapter, 4Q160 is examined in relation to other Samuel narratives. The presence of Samuel at Qumran is examined first, but briefly because there are fewer points of connection. The four biblical manuscripts from Qumran do not contain 1 Samuel 3:14-17 or 1 Samuel 12:3, which serve as the basis for 4Q160. Second, 4Q160 is examined in comparison with other Samuel narratives that contain the relevant sections from 1 Samuel 3 and 12. Although these witnesses come from a different time periods, the parallels demonstrate that 4Q160’s account is useful for understanding Jewish dynamics in the Second Temple period. 2.1 Samuel at Qumran The Samuel manuscripts from Qumran are extensive in number, ranging paleographically from ca. 250 BCE to the middle of the first century BCE.29 The four manuscripts, 1QSam, 4QSama, 4QSamb, and 4QSamc, have received much attention because of their variations and so- 29 Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTS 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 74. 19 called pluses and minuses from the main Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX) traditions.30 In text critical studies, Eugene Ulrich has concluded that the textual variants do not form the patterns that are seen when a new, authoritative edition is being written.31 Rather, there were multiple versions of the Samuel narrative in circulation among Jews in the late Second Temple period. In addition to the four biblical Samuel manuscripts, other Qumran literature engages with the Samuel narrative in two ways, according to Feldman: expositionally, by means of interpretation, and compositionally through rewriting, references, and quotations.32 4Q160 is considered in the latter category. 30 Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker, Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, VTS 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); see selected bibliography on pages 13-19. 31 Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, 108. 32 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 8-32. 20 2.2 The Portrayal of Samuel in 4Q160 and Other Texts 2.2.1 The Ideal Priest The first section of 4Q160 is a reworking of 1 Sam 3:14-18, which narrates the end of God’s first oracle to Samuel at Shiloh and then depicts Samuel’s ensuing interaction with Eli. The portrayal of Samuel and Eli in the account (within the larger context of the priesthood at Shiloh) appears to elevate the character of the emergent priest. While the initial part of the narrative is missing in the fragmentary manuscript, the first two extant lines provide an important ideological feature. In the opening line, God concludes his indictment upon the house of Eli for the sins of his sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1 Samuel 3:11-14). Their misconduct and moral failures are highlighted more than once, beginning in 1 Samuel 2:12: “The sons of Eli were scoundrels; they had no regard for the LORD” (NRSV). They are condemned for disobedience to their father, to the people they serve, and ultimately to the Lord. One of the sins is their laying with the women who came to the doors of the tent of meeting (1 Sam 2:22). Samuel, on the other hand, is laying before Eli when he receives the oracle. In the other ancient texts, including later editions such as Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities from the first century CE, Samuel is laying in the temple at night with the ark of the Lord. Where Samuel’s position is not stated, as in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities from the first century, the phrase “Samuel went off to Eli” implies distance between the two men.33 4Q160’s placement of Samuel sleeping before Eli demonstrates an important feature of the text’s ideology toward purity and perceptions of the Temple. Samuel is described as completely devoted to his master and to God – unlike Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas. The appointed heirs to the local priesthood have proven 33 Josephus, A.J. 5.348-352. 21 that they are unfit for the task, and their fate is an early death at the hand of their enemies, the Philistines (1 Sam 4:11). Likewise, Eli is rarely painted in a positive light – from the repeated statements of his old age and physical weaknesses, to his inaction towards his sons’ failure, and finally to God’s actions resulting in the sons’ deaths. Therefore, the only ideal character left in the narrative is Samuel. Josephus, in his rewriting of the narrative, also promotes Samuel “at the expense of” Eli, according to Louis Feldman.34 Within the context of the contentious priesthood in Jerusalem and negative Jewish sentiments toward the situation, 4Q160’s elevation of a Levitical and non-Aaronide priest is significant. It sets the text of 4Q160 apart from the other narratives. The status of Levites in the Second Temple period is ambiguous across the texts, and we are left with competing narratives and questions: did Levi inherit the high priesthood, as in the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD)? Or were the Levites subordinate to the descendants of the first high priest, Aaron? It is possible that the portrayal of Levites in particular texts, such as the ALD, is a construct created by a community that was troubled by the lack of Levites in this period. In the words of Cana Werman: “The writers of the Qumran literature create a fictive existence for the Levites, a literary creation designed to camouflage their scarcity.”35 It is possible that the portrayal of Samuel as a Levite, or, at least, as distinct from the current priestly family, is part of this “fictive” model of the Levites. 4Q160 is potentially following in the same rhetorical style. 34 Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 495. 35 Cana Werman, “Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period,” DSD 4 (1997): 211–25. 22 Furthermore, the final section of 4Q160 appears to be rewriting 1 Sam 12:2-3, where Samuel describes his service to the nation of Israel. The narrator uses words that promote Samuel’s strong connection to the people and to his role: רוג (to dwell), הול (to join), and, in the same vein as the opening section, ויעוצי ינפל בוכשל יתרחב (“I chose to lie before his bed”). Together, the two sections show Samuel’s devotion to Eli, and his commitment to his role as a religious leader. 2.2.2 The More Ideal Prophet Samuel’s role is not only as a priest; he is also a prophet. The prophetic tone is clear in the opening narrative of 4Q160. While the text closely parallels the MT and LXX, there is an added line: ש עמשלעומ הוהי רבד תא (“Samuel heard the word of the LORD”). The phrase, which follows the oracle, emphasizes the prophetic role that Samuel played in this event involving the current priesthood and the changing nature of the prophetic office in the Second Temple period.36 The notion of the age of prophets had ended, as argued by Karel van der Toorn, with the final production of the Book of the Twelve (the Minor Prophets). Revelation was still understood as a sensory and visionary experience; however, this revelation now came through the written word. Thus, the prophet, as an authoritative office, was increasingly accompanied by the sages and scribes.37 In Josephus’ reworking of Samuel-Kings in Jewish Antiquities, Samuel’s status as a prophet is enhanced. Josephus identifies Samuel as prophet more than the Hebrew and the Greek 36 Eli uses a common expression in prophetic or oracular texts: “Please, do not withhold [the oracle] from me. May God do thusly to you and may he add, if you hide from me a word from all that he spoke to you.” This is also used in Deut 4:2, 12:32; Jer. 26:2. 37 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 229-231. 23 scriptures, beginning from Samuel’s birth narrative.38 In the end, Josephus uses the term prophet for Samuel forty-five times.39 Josephus’ rewriting of the biblical narratives promotes a high view of both the prophetic office and the priesthood, as he considers himself both a prophet and a priest.40 But as a prophet, the voice of Samuel imbues the text with authority and, in a way, differentiates him from the other, perhaps less credible voices of the priests. In summary, 4Q160 promotes Samuel’s devotion to his priestly and prophetic roles in Israel as exceeding that of the other characters. The emphasis on his prophetic role is congruent with other ancient historical sources, such as Josephus. I argue that the prophetic role is emphasized because of the historical situation in which 4Q160 was written, a time when the priestly office was a source of contention among Jewish groups. 2.2.3 4Q160 and 4Q382 The relationship between 4Q160 and the Paraphrase of Kings (4Q382) also demonstrates the literary emphasis on the prophetic office in this time of conflict between Jewish groups. Feldman and Qimron have argued that the two works are related, originating from the same literary work. 4Q382 itself is a rewriting of the Samuel-Kings tradition, with additional prayers and liturgical elements. The textual fragments of 4Q160 and 4Q382 which overlap are a prayer (4Q160 2, 6, and 10 and 4Q382 104 ii), among the other narratives in which a prophet is the central character.41 Feldman notes that the reworked passages found in 4Q382 focus on prophetic 38 L. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 491. 39 See ibid., 491. 40 B.J. 3.352-353. Josephus is particularly pro-priestly in his writing, but he excludes the Levites. He denigrates their role in the temple cult either by downplaying their position or eliminating them. This may be why he promotes the prophetic angle of Samuel, rather than his priestly heritage (as a Levite); cf. L. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 61-62. 41 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 182. 24 figures, like Elijah and Elisha, although royal figures like Ahab and Jezebel are not excluded. The specific biblical connections, furthermore, are not found in 1-2 Chronicles, which is another rewriting of Samuel-Kings.42 This leads Feldman to suggest that the shared literary tradition of 4Q160 and 4Q382 acted as a supplement to Chronicles. The addition of the prayers to reworked narrative shows that the author seeks to give credibility to his message by drawing on older prophetic traditions and characters. 42 Ibid., 183. 25 Chapter 3: Historical Analysis 4Q160 has been presented as a manuscript with affinities to comparable Hebrew Bible texts, from the Samuel narratives to the liturgical psalms. Written in the early Hasmonean script, which stretches from the middle to late second century BCE, 4Q160 shares a chronological setting with proto-sectarian and non-sectarian texts, such as MMT and Jubilees. The parabiblical texts present a rewriting of portions of scripture and added sections with ideological significance. The texts were brought to Qumran by those outside the community, and the later scribal copying of some texts show that the community at Qumran considered particular texts as authoritative and relevant to their lives. The Qumran manuscripts studied here do not provide any explicit historical facts; however, information can be gleaned through inferences in the text. Indeed, scholars have tried to connect the scrolls to historical events and people since the beginning of Qumran scholarship.43 The sobriquets in the interpretative pesharim, for example, have drawn significant attention when attempting to discern historical context, as the pesharim were one of the main forms of biblical interpretation by the sectarian communities at Qumran.44 The “Teacher of Righteousness” and the “Wicked Priest” are two of the characters who have been used to connect the sectarian texts (and their respective communities) to the present historical situation.45 43 John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 98. 44 Ibid., 99. 45 Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 26. By interpreting the Hebrew prophets' words, the pesharist is applying them to his situation; this is particularly appropriate, as the sectarians believed they were living in the end times. The retrieval of the historical Other and redefining them in the present was already being done since the return from Babylonian exile, evidenced by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. See Anthony 26 As for the non-sectarian literature, with which I have placed 4Q160 because of its departure from strictly sectarian rhetoric and themes, the interpretation of the social and historical context could take the form of what scholars call pseudepigraphic apocrypha.46 The combination of rewritten scripture and innovative prayers can create a new narrative with connections to current situations. According to Jassen: “Prayers that appear in parabiblical texts are commonly inserted at critical junctures of the reformulated narrative in response to exegetical exigencies presented by the base-text or literary considerations generated by the new narrative.”47 The prayers found in 4Q160’s combined fragments 4i and 5, and 2, 6, and 10 are this placed at this “critical juncture” of the overall text, indicating a possible tension within the wider Jewish community which necessitated the intercession by the text’s author for another group. This chapter seeks to expand on Jassen’s assessment by outlining the socio-historical context of 4Q160, namely the growing sectarian movement in light of their perception of the inadequate temple cult in Jerusalem. Through the lens of historical sources, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, this study will provide a brief summary of the growing disillusionment with the temple cult and why Jewish groups seceded from what had been the centre of Jewish life. The study then continues with the comparative approach, placing 4Q160 beside other texts from Qumran: sectarian (the Damascus Document and the Community Rule), proto-sectarian (Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah), and non-sectarian (Jubilees). The goal of this chapter is threefold: 1) to demonstrate that the three Finitsis, "The Other in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8," in Daniel C. Harlow, The "Other" in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 130. 46 Jassen, "Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160)", 31. 47 Ibid., 32. 27 different categories of texts provide three lenses through which to view inter-group disputes over purity and piety; 2) to demonstrate that 4Q160 is similar to texts in each category; and in conclusion, 3) to prove that 4Q160 also serves as a valuable source for understanding purity and piety disputes in Second Temple Judaism. 3.1 Historical Context 3.1.1 The Temple The re-establishment of the Temple cult in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile provides the first historical situation from which to understand the context for the later secession of sectarian groups. The history of the Judaean community after exile is provided by a variety of late biblical texts and histories, each providing a particular author’s interpretation of the events that befell the Judaeans. After the return from exile in the mid-sixth century, the two institutional pillars of Second Temple Judaism were established: the Jerusalem Temple and the Torah. The Temple was rebuilt and completed around 515 BCE, backed by the Persian authority; and a high priest, Joshua, was appointed from among the returnees.48 At this point, the high priesthood was still an inherited position, based on genealogical connections to Aaron and the priestly families of the biblical period (1 Chr 24). The political leader, Zerubbabel, was also chosen as a descendant of David, and the two leaders mirrored the leadership of the monarchic period.49 Nevertheless, the waning authority and eventual loss of the Davidic dynasty, and the shift to servitude under a new empire, however moderate it was compared to past empires, led to new 48 Joshua is first mentioned in his priestly role in Ezra 3:2 and corroborated in Hag 1:1 and Zech 3:1. 49 James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 19. 28 problems. For example, the overall power of the high priesthood increased, and this marked the beginning of divisions within the priestly community of Judaea.50 In his review of the high priests from the Persian period to the Roman period, James C. VanderKam argues that the high priest continuously performed civic duties, along with the expected cultic duties, in contrast to Deborah Rooke who argues that the high priest held little power after exile.51 As the Hellenistic period began, different factions of the priesthood interacted with the foreign rulers to varying degrees. The “hellenization” of all Judaean people, not only priests, was a cause for concern for some (1 Macc 1:11). When the Seleucids gained control over the Judaean territory at the beginning of the second century, dissension reached its peak. The high priest Onias III, a descendant of Joshua, was deposed by his brother Jason, who instigated his infamous “Hellenistic reforms” (2 Macc 4:7-13).52 Jason’s successor, Menelaus, also gained the high priesthood by unjust means (bribery) and became the first high priest from a different family. Furthermore, as seen with Jason and Menelaus, royal approval and legitimization became a necessity for the high priest; the same is seen with the Hasmonean dynasty in the following decades.53 But, of course, the foreign rulers had their own goals for their territories. The Seleucid king Antiochus IV plundered the Jerusalem Temple in 169 BCE and began what has been called 50 Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 5. The diversity within the biblical narratives on priestly matters, particularly in history and heredity, confirms the growing factions. 51 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, xi; and Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 52 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 200. The author of Maccabees narrates the event as a “usurpation,” whereas Josephus later describes a more peaceful event (A.J. 12.5.1). 53 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 229 and 281. 29 the religious persecution of the Jewish people. Mattathias, a priest in Modein, and his sons organized the initial campaigns of the Maccabean uprising, and the ensuing revolt marked a turning point in Judaea’s political and cultural life. Traditionally, the revolt has been viewed as a conflict between the pious Jews behind Mattathias’ family and the “Hellenizers”, those Jews who were influenced by Hellenism and had turned away from the “religion of their ancestors” (1 Macc 2:19).54 Priestly families were at odds with one another, especially when it became clear that ancestry alone would not suffice to keep a high priest in his position.55 Piety itself was questioned. The Maccabean family took over the priesthood in Jerusalem and then purified the temple of Antiochus’ abomination. Hanukkah, the celebration to commemorate the event, was the crowning achievement of the family and the legacy that the authors of both 1 and 2 Maccabees chose as their narrative climax.56 However, the shift to a new priestly family was not accepted by every Judaean. The usurpation, which marked the beginning of the Hasmonean dynasty, was seen as a tragedy in itself, although the Hasmoneans were said to have the proper genealogical connections to obtain the priesthood.57 As stated above, the Hasmoneans sought the support of foreign rulers, from Judas Maccabeus sending an envoy to Rome to establish an alliance (1 Macc 8:17), to his brother Jonathan being supported by his Seleucid sovereigns (1 Macc 10:3-6). The alliances with the foreigners caused divisions; 54 The traditional view is still valid, although the causes of the conflict appear to have been more varied than was previously thought. There were economic and social factors at play as well; cf. Sylvie Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), 314. 55 Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests, 7. 56 Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 183. 57 Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam, “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?,” JBL 124 (2005): 73–87. 30 furthermore, the Hasmonean high priests were more reputable as civic and military leaders than as religious leaders.58 John Hyrcanus was the first Hasmonean ruler to expand the territory, notably his subjugation of the Idumaean people to the south of Judaea. His son Aristobulus is known for being the first of the Hasmonean family to formally combine the roles of high priest and king into one position, naming himself King of Judaea (Josephus, A.J. 13.11.1). When his brother, Alexander Jannaeus, took over the position, his military successes and crackdowns on Jewish opposition increasingly turned his subjects away from supporting the Hasmonean dynasty.59 The brief overview of high priestly succession from the Persian period to the end of the second century shows the dynamic nature of the position and that the changes were met with both support and opposition. The first problem was genealogical, as the position moved away from the traditional father to son inheritance that was practiced by the Oniad family. Jason and Menelaus are criticized as being illegitimate and unfit priests, which, as Sylvie Honigman argues, shapes the agenda of 2 Maccabees.60 When the Hasmoneans took over the position, the authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees sought to exonerate the negative view of the dynasty that may have infiltrated the narrative surrounding the religious rulers of Judaea in this period. Because the Hasmoneans were originally from rural Judaea and without a known connection to the ruling priestly class of the day, some Jews were troubled. 58 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 287. John Hyrcanus, in the second generation of Hasmonean priests, is the first to have a priestly act mentioned. 59 Ibid., 322. 60 Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 292-294. Honigman argues that the admonishment of the priests in 2 Maccabees is crafted as a parallel narrative to the admonishment of the Seleukids in 1 Maccabees, strengthening the continuity between the two books. 31 However, there has been increasing scholarship on the question of Hasmonean illegitimacy and more conclusions that genealogy was not the reason for discontent with the Hasmoneans.61 Rather, the scriptural interpretations and actions of the priests caused rifts among the Judaeans, thus making the second problem ideological and economic. The priests were representatives of God, serving in the Temple and carrying out the ritual functions according to biblical prescriptions. They were also participating in the economic activities of the temple, functioning as intermediaries between the Jewish people and the economy of the Roman empire. Particularly through two institutions, tithing and the Temple tax, the priests in Jerusalem increased their own wealth by representing the institutions as “divinely mandated,” based in their interpretations of the Torah.62 Consequently, some priestly families became part of the ruling elites in Jerusalem. But this group did not include all priests, as the early sectarians were likely priests themselves and chose to separate themselves from the politicized religious institution. 3.1.2 Scriptural Interpretation The second historical issue that led to the rise of sectarianism was the increase of interpretations of the Torah, the second pillar of Second Temple Judaism. The Torah was being established in the sense that the post-exilic community had begun to re-interpret and compile its history. There is no evidence for a canonized Torah until the late Second Temple period; thus, using terms such as “bible” or “scripture” to describe early Second Temple period Jewish literature is problematic.63 Rather, the pluriformity of authoritative texts indicates that there were 61 Alison Schofield and James C. VanderKam, “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?,” 86. 62 Anthony Keddie, Class and Power in Roman Palestine: The Socioeconomic Setting of Judaism and Christian Origins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 188. 63 Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). 32 many different expressions of Jewish practice and identity.64 In the early formations of the Hebrew scripture, communities produced varying interpretations of their history. From the Persian period to the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty in the mid-second century, there were different interpretations of the law as evidenced, for instance, in the developmental stages of the Hebrew Bible. Different interpretations led to different schools of thought and writing, seen in different sections of the Hebrew scriptures, which led to the formation of different Jewish sects. The sects, according to Brian Wilson’s typology from the mid-20th century, interacted differently with the rest of society, whether it was their foreign rulers or other Jewish groups.65 Wilson’s types are based on the groups’ response to the values of society around them, and the proceeding action (or lack of action). Three main groups emerged in the Second Temple period – the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes – and they each had varying levels of interaction with their respective Other, whether foreigners, other groups of Jews, or both. The sectarian group at Qumran, as argued by Eyal Regev, began as a “reformative” group, which sought to change the culture to what it considered the ideal; then, it became an “introversionist” group, which was marked by seclusion and self-preservation.66 The shift is 64 Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 65 Bryan R. Wilson, “An Analysis of Sect Development,” American Sociological Review 24 (1959): 3–15. Wilson’s model was developed within the framework of Protestant Christianity, but later was revised to fit non-Christian groups. See Grabbe’s essay, “When is a Sect a Sect – Or Not?” in David J. Chalcraft, Sectarianism in Early Judaism (London: Equinox, 2007), 114-132. The seven types of sects are based on their response to the world: conversionist, revolutionist, introversionist, manipulationist, thaumaturgical, reformist, utopian. 66 Eyal Regev, “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran,” DSD 10 (2003): 243–78. 33 noted in the content of the scrolls at Qumran, particularly two “rule” books (serakhim): the Community Rule (1QS) and the Damascus Document (CD). Before the comparison between the sectarian texts and 4Q160 is made, as well as an elucidation of their role in understanding Second Temple inter-group dynamics, a few notes must be made on the site of Qumran and the Essenes. 3.1.3 Qumran Based on the archaeological record, the first structures at Qumran are from the eighth to seventh centuries BCE, but the remains from the sectarian community appear to have begun between 100 and 50 BCE.67 The director of the first excavations in the 1950s, Roland de Vaux, dated the beginning of the sectarian settlement to the mid-second century, based on structural and (limited) ceramic evidence.68 This coincides with the setting provided at the beginning of the Damascus Document, which states that God would restore Israel 390 years after return from exile (CD 1, 4-7). However, these dates are symbolic, as with the other dates and historical hints in the texts.69 Jodi Magness’ revised chronology, based on a re-evaluation of stratigraphy and pottery types, has become widely accepted.70 Qumran was inhabited until the First Jewish Revolt, the destruction layer attesting to a fate similar to many Jewish settlements and towns. There is 67 Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 48, 65. 68 Roland de Vaux, “Les fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân,” Comptes-rendus des séances de l'année - Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 99 (1955): 378–86. 69 Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 66. 70 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 91. 34 structural and numismatic evidence for habitation into the second century, likely by Roman soldiers in the period following the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE).71 The archaeological evidence shows that purity and communal living were some of the longstanding concerns of the people at Qumran, particularly with the prevalence and large size of ritual baths (mikva’ot), and communal spaces that have been given names like “refectory” and “scriptorium”. Thus, a popular conclusion from the early years of Qumran scholarship was that the community was part of the ascetic and isolationist sect known as the Essenes.72 The Jewish Essenes were already known from contemporary Hellenistic-Jewish and Roman authors, such as Philo and Pliny the Elder. Philo, writing from Alexandria, notes the practices of the sect and upholds the Essenes as an exemplary Jewish group.73 Pliny, the Roman author, includes Qumran in his geographical survey of the land, providing a precise geographic location “on the west side of the Dead Sea” and above En Gedi (Nat. Hist. 5.73).74 Pliny’s quick sketch, however, is negative in tone and appears to “caricaturize” the group to his Roman audience.75 And while Josephus’ accounts are certainly biased and crafted in a particular way, his positive reports of the Essenes in Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War provide useful information 71 Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 62. Joan E. Taylor argues for continued sectarian inhabitation into the second century CE, even as far as the Bar Kokhba Revolt from 132 to 136. One of the major clues to this extended chronology is a section of structural damage that de Vaux (and Magness) had dated to the earthquake in 31 BCE. Taylor contends that the section was damaged by the earthquake in 115; see Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, The Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 72 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 2; Taylor, The Essenes, 12; Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 41. 73 Taylor, The Essenes, 22. 74 Ibid., 131. Translation H. Rackham (LCL). 75 Ibid., 133. 35 on the sect.76 The longer account of the two, in Jewish War, provides a detailed explanation of Essene ideology and practice. When compared to the sectarian texts, such as the Community Rule, the similarities are noticeable. Thus, the present study works with the supposition that at least some of the Essenes, at one point, may have existed at Qumran and may have produced the serakhim. The archaeological evidence shows variation in those who inhabited Qumran over the centuries, and the scrolls found at Qumran further attest to the diverse expressions of Judaism identity. There are several explanations for this phenomenon. First, Qumran’s remote location in the desert was an ideal repository for manuscripts.77 Scrolls produced elsewhere were likely brought here, perhaps left in the care of the current Qumran community, before the impending Roman victory over Jews around the province. Joan E. Taylor further hypothesizes that Qumran was a burial site for scrolls, a genizah; on the one hand, sacred scrolls were carefully preserved in closed jars, and on the other hand, the unimportant (or potentially heterodox) scrolls were discarded.78 Second, there were different sectarian groups residing at Qumran in the course of the site’s existence. Third, the group who identified itself as the yahad was more than just a single group. Rather, according to John J. Collins, yahad was “an umbrella term for several communities of variable size,” and even represented different stages of a particular community.79 The term yahad only appears in the Community Rule, but that does not discount the possibility 76 B.J. 2.119-166 and A.J. 18.11-22. 77 Taylor, The Essenes, 272. 78 Ibid., 273. 79 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 68. 36 that there were other groups who identified themselves in the same way. Thus, I return to the concept that the Qumran group(s) turned from “reformative” to “introversionist” over time. This transition can be traced in the two serakhim, offering a wider picture of sectarianism over time. 3.2 Sectarian Literature The sectarian literature is the first category of text that gives insight into the historical context surrounding Qumran, and the first category with which to compare 4Q160. The term “sectarian”, when used for Jewish literature, is multi-faceted and is explained by Carol Newsom in her essay “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran”.80 According to Newsom, sectarian literature is defined by three things: the texts’ use and readership, authorship, and rhetorical function of texts. The final category, rhetorical purpose, is the most useful because the content reveals the purpose of writing the texts. Sectarian literature from Qumran is dated paleographically to the late Hasmonean and Herodian periods (ca. 75-1 BCE), but the ideologies were not innovations of these particular sectarians. They were developed prior to the first century, employing biblical themes and language. 3.2.1 The Damascus Document and the Community Rule 3.2.1.1 The Texts The Damascus Document (CD) was first discovered among the cache of manuscripts from the genizah at the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo, and collectively they were called the Zadokite Fragments. The Qumran fragments of CD were discovered later in Caves 4, 5, and 6.81 80 Carol A. Newsom, "'Sectually Explicit' Literature from Qumran," in William Propp, Baruch Halpern and David N. Freedman, eds., The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167-87. For more recent, sociological discussions on the sectarian features of Qumran texts, see the other essays in Chalcraft’s Sectarianism in Early Judaism. 81 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 12. 37 The community described in the Hebrew manuscripts was clearly sectarian, and they understood themselves as the only correct interpreters of the Torah. They called themselves the “Sons of Zadok”, referring either to the Jewish priest who presided around 200 BCE, or the eponymous priest appointed by David in 2 Samuel, who is also mentioned in Ezekiel.82 One can infer that this group, descendants of the Aaronide priestly line, was active in the religious circles of Jerusalem but found reasons to separate themselves.83 They resided in camps around the land of Israel; furthermore, they resided with women and children (CD VII, 6-7). For a sectarian text, this depiction of proximity to other groups (even gentiles!) and other family members is a curious feature. The rhetoric also implies hope for both the reconciliation of the whole nation of Israel and the restoration of the Temple’s corrupted priestly practices (CD XIV, 19). This is what Regev calls the period of being the reformative sect, its adherents believing that the surrounding society could be reformed to a particular ideal. The Community Rule, on the other hand, shows a more stringent community that believed it was the new Temple and ultimate representation of Jewish piety. The Community Rule (1QS) was one of the initial manuscripts found at Qumran, along with a selection of other sectarian manuscripts in Cave 1. Additional copies of the Community Rule were discovered in Cave 4, Cave 5, and Cave 11 in subsequent years.84 1QS outlines the community’s separation 82 Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 46. 83 Ibid., 62. In light of the later date of the Qumran community’s beginning described above (ca. 100 BCE), a priestly dispute earlier in the second century would have set the precedent for later separation. 84 Kenneth Atkinson and Jodi Magness, “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran Community,” JBL 129 (2010): 317–42.The diversity of manuscripts for texts, such as the Community Rule, changes the way that they are interpreted and understood. The Community Rule was found in fifteen separate copies at Qumran, thus muddying the picture of the sectarian community described in 1QS (p. 320). 38 from society into the desert, following Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 40:3, and then the recognizable sectarian disillusionment with the religious establishment in Jerusalem (1QS VIII, 1-16). The community of 1QS is a more hierarchical organization of celibate men, who believed their community was the new “holy of holies”, performing the rituals that the Temple establishment had ceased to do righteously.85 3.2.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context The Damascus Document and Community Rule provide insight into two stages of the community at Qumran, as it moved from a more open community to a closed one that appears to have embraced complete separation from the rest of society. The reasons for the separation would likely have been based on the two historical issues described above: conflict with the temple priests in Jerusalem and the interpretation of the Torah. As stated above, the serakhim do not provide information on specific events or characters, nor do they show any discourse with opposing groups. Rather, the historical realities are implied by the dualistic rhetoric and ideals that are used to represent the community’s identity. 4Q160 contains several parallel themes to those found in the sectarian literature. 3.2.2 4Q160: A Comparison The communities represented in the Qumran texts believed they were called out from society as God’s elect, harking back to the covenant between God and Israel. In referring to itself as the true “Israel”, the community is conferring this special status on itself. Moreover, the way that the Other is portrayed and prayed for shows that they may attain this special status as well. 85 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 54. 39 While 4Q160 seems to show that election can be achieved through supplication, the rhetoric of election appears differently across the sectarian texts. The concept of the תירב (covenant) features prominently in the Community Rule (i.e., 1QS IV, 22-23), and the Damascus Document (i.e., CD XV, 5-9).86 Like the sectarian texts, the section of 4Q160 comprising fragments 2, 6, and 10 is particularly strong in its election rhetoric. The section contains a prayer – noted in the use of the third common plural pronoun, similar to the prayer in fragments 4i and 5. The prayer appears to be directed outside of the community, and the author is conveying his group ideals. If one follows Feldman and Qimron’s proposition on the close relationship between 4Q160 and the paraphrastic 4Q382, the case is strong. The first line of 4Q382 104 ii states: “…and to hold on to your covenant. And that their hearts may be to you, so that you may sanctify them”; this is where 4Q160 matches with the former text.87 While this particular construction of Israel “holding on” to the covenant with God is not found in the Hebrew Bible, the concept of the covenant is central to Israelite ideology and, thus, the ideology of the sectarians who wanted to emulate this community of God’s chosen people. In the following lines, God is revealed as בא (father) and םתלעב (their owner). The notion of God as Israel’s “owner” or “husband” in the covenant relationship is prominent in Jer 31:31-33, a message for the post-exilic Judahite community: The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says 86 Hannah K. Harrington, “Identity and Alterity in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Benedikt Eckhardt, Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals, JSJSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 80-84. 87 A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 109. 40 the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (NRSV) The renewed covenant that is envisioned here, in the days after the exile, resonated with the communities of the later Second Temple period. The communities who produced Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, for example, connected their understanding of the covenant back to the patriarchal age, adding to their authority.88 Once a sectarian group understood itself as divinely elected by God, it separated itself from the rest of society. This removal took different forms, as revealed in the sectarian texts and from the historical sources that describe the location of Jewish sectarian groups.89 Whether or not the separation was a physical removal, the ideological differentiation was conveyed in the writing. Dualistic rhetoric is pervasive in sectarian literature, as a way of distinguishing between “us” and “them”. In some cases, such as in the eschatological war of the War Scroll (1QM), the sectarians are labelled as God’s righteous people in opposition to the forces of evil, who could be non-sectarians, Jews from other sects, or foreigners. In the case of the War Scroll, the Sons of Light oppose the Sons of Darkness, who belong to Belial (1QM I, 1).90 With the Other envisioned as God’s enemy, the sectarian texts imitate biblical texts. In the next prayer of 4Q160, in fragments 4i and 5, the supplicant asks God to make his glory known, before הכמע יאנוש םעזבו (“the fury of those who hate your people”). The same 88 Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 60. 89 Jutta Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement, STDJ 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 29. 90 In the Hebrew Bible, Belial does not appear as a proper noun for a demonic being; rather, it is usually translated as “worthless”, in conjunction with a noun, such as “sons of…” (cf. Deut 13:13). This is the word used to describe Eli’s sons in 1 Sam 2:12. 41 word םעז (fury) is used in Daniel 8:19 to describe a period of tribulation, brought on by the enemies.91 There are a few other points of convergence with the book of Daniel, which suggests either a reliance of 4Q160 on what can already be considered an authoritative scripture, or the two texts being composed concurrently in a similar cultural context. Daniel is known for being an apocalyptic text, providing commentary on the political situation and turmoil brought by foreign rulers, such as Antiochus Epiphanes IV of the Seleucid dynasty. In separating from the rest of society, some sectarian groups pursued an ascetic lifestyle – with varying degrees of renunciation. 4Q160 implies this ideology through the final section of the manuscript. In fragment 7, the narrator Samuel is describing his life’s work, particularly his actions and his relationship with his mentor Eli. The third line is significant, as the narrator speaks of not seeking one’s favour and eschewing worldly things, namely וכרריחמו ןוהו ש (property, wealth, and money). The list may be a paraphrase of 1 Sam 12:3, which states: “Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it?” (NRSV).92 The author is promoting an ascetic lifestyle, which was esteemed in some sectarian communities. The Community Rule, more than the Damascus Document, promotes such a lifestyle, evidenced in the rules for the section on communal living for members.93 Although the sectarians saw themselves as elected by God, and thus separated themselves accordingly, they maintained the constant pursuit of purity; they believed themselves to be “elect 91 Jassen, “Intertextual Readings of the Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 406 n.9. 92 Jassen, "Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160)," 26. 93 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 52. 42 but [were] not immune to sin and punishment”.94 The sectarian works from Qumran convey both a desire for purity and the disdain for the impurity of others. For example, the beginning of the Community Rule (1QS II, 25 - III, 7) outlines the sinful man as being ritually impure until he enters the community and receives atonement there. According to Jonathan Klawans, the moral and ritual impurity that were once demarcated in the Hebrew Bible and pre-Qumranic literature were now merged into one category; in other words, into “a single conception of defilement”.95 In order for an outsider or present community member to be considered ritually pure, as well as a community member, one had to repent. Repentance and purification went hand in hand.96 In other words, atonement for sins was an integral part of the community’s ideology and one of the reasons for their separation from society.97 In 4Q160, the repetition of the word שדק (to sanctify) is significant. In the prayers found in fragments 4i and 5, three forms of the word appear: as a participle, substantive adjective, and verb. The word sanctify also appears in the parallel text to fragments 2, 6, and 10. 4Q382 104, which contains a prayer, beseeches God to sanctify “them” if their hearts are turned toward him (line 1). Although the text of 4Q160 joins 4Q382 immediately following this phrase, their relationship denotes a common literary origin. The mention of cleansing hands in the next line shows a common theme in the Hebrew 94 Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 77. 95 Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 75. 96 Ibid., 85. 97 Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran, 75. 43 scriptures: the pairing of the heart and hands in wholistic purity.98 The sectarians could have adopted this imagery in their writings. Sectarian themes that are present in the serakhim, and function rhetorically to define the community, are also present in 4Q160. Election, separation, renunciation, and sanctification are four themes that are either implied or explicitly used to differentiate the sectarian community from the Other. While 4Q160 contains elements of this sectarianism, the text diverges from the classification of “sectarian” because it lacks references to important sectarian issues like the proper Jewish calendar and beliefs about the end times, and it also does not include dualistic imagery. Prayers, a common part of sectarian literature and liturgy, often contain dualistic rhetoric. These sectarian prayers, when inserted into texts or when they make up a collection like the Hodayot, function to strengthen the already separate sectarian identity. The prayers are a form of interaction between two groups, as an indirect form of communication through a third party (i.e., God); however, I argue that their dualistic rhetoric and implied ideology offer little to no hope of reconciliation between the group and their reconstructed Other. There are other texts among the parabiblical corpus that delineate different groups in a similar way, but with some differences. Due to this departure from the sectarian rhetoric, it is worth considering whether 4Q160 fits better with other categories of Jewish texts. 98 Also in the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHa VIII, 18), with similarities in Gen 20:5 and Ps 24:4; see A. Feldman, Rewriting Samuel and Kings, 110. 44 3.3 Proto-Sectarian Literature The second category to which 4Q160 can be compared is the proto-sectarian literature, which functions in a similar way to the sectarian literature. The difference, however, is that the proto-sectarian literature offers a view of inter-Jewish group dynamics that has the groups interacting. The sects have not separated themselves from society as formal groups yet. Interaction took place indirectly, through prayers, or directly as described in the texts or letters. In the scholarship on the Second Temple period and Jewish sectarianism, the prefix “proto-” designates the texts that preceded the sectarian groups and literature and influenced them; this is seen in similar themes and motifs across the category.99 The literature of the Qumran sectarian communities, as explored in the section above, emerged in the first century BCE; however, the political, religious, and social currents of the preceding century were the driving forces behind the later sectarian movements, particularly when it came to interpretation of the law. There are no concrete attestations to specific sects in this time period, although scholars have found late biblical appellations that could signify groups who extended past the end of Persian period.100 The following section explores how a proto-sectarian text, Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah (MMT), can serve to illuminate Second Temple dynamics and how 4Q160 relates to this text and the broader proto-sectarian category. 99 Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 68. The term pre-sectarian is also employed for texts like MMT and the Temple Scroll (11QT), as they relate to the “pre-history” of the sects (Klawans). However, I choose the term “proto-” to emphasize the continuous relationship between the types of literature. 100 For example, the “congregation of returned exiles” (Ezra 10:8), the “covenanters” of Neh 10, and the “prophetic school” of Isa 65; see Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987), 138-143. 45 3.3.1 MMT 3.3.1.1 The Text Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah (MMT), or the Halakhic Letter, is an epistolary discourse from one group to another, in which different versions of Jewish law are compared. The text is attested in six manuscripts in Cave 4 and was published later than many of the Dead Sea Scrolls.101 The manuscripts are written in a Herodian script, dating it to the sectarian period; however, the content and evidence of recension both lead to the conclusion that MMT was an earlier text that proved important enough to be copied over the centuries by the sectarians. The manuscripts have been reconstructed into three sections, each offering a different rhetorical program: (A) the solar calendar; (B) specific laws according to the author’s community; and (C) the exhortation to the addressee to adopt the correct teaching. The origins of MMT are still debated, particularly concerning both the author and the addressee.102 In section B of the text, where the correct interpretations of specific laws are defined, there is a consistent “us versus them” rhetoric. For example, the improper practices of the Other are listed, followed repeatedly by the phrase “we are of the opinion that”.103 Such rhetoric, combined with phrases that denote sectarian separation from society, such as the repeated “camps” and “settlements” outside of Jerusalem, has caused scholars to place MMT in 101 Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 102 E.g., Gareth Wearne, “4QMMT: A Letter to (not from) the Yahad,” in Jutta Jokiranta et al., Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Leuven 2016 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2019). 103 See section B in Qimron and Strugnell, Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah, 46-57. 46 the category of proto-sectarian texts that were influential for later sectarian groups.104 If one places this text in the second century, what was happening in Judaea that would cause such a letter to be written then? 3.3.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context The most important theme of MMT is the proper interpretation of the law, the halakha, and proper action. MMT’s presence among Second Temple literature and among the other proto-sectarian texts found at Qumran shows that different interpretations were causing conflict among Jewish groups. The groups represented in the text are interacting and attempting to influence one another, displaying the proto-sectarians being in a stage of “incomplete” withdrawal from Jewish society, according to Regev.105 MMT appears to be addressed to a leader, as the author mentions his concern for the welfare “of your people” (4Q398 14-17 ii 27). If the addressee is the leader of a group, MMT’s author is intent on persuading the authority figure towards a different and restored interpretation of the halakha. Then, from the leader, the rest of the group could be changed and reconciled. The hope for the reconciliation of all Israel is seen in other proto-sectarian literature, whereas the later sectarian texts are written with the underlying idea that the sectarians constituted the new Temple, and everyone else is, essentially, a lost cause. Intercession, let alone direct exhortation, would not be necessary. 104 4Q394 3-7 ii. The apex of the manuscript’s sectarian nature is found in section C, which reads “we have separated ourselves from the multitude” (4Q397 16,6). However, scholars like Wearne have argued that this is a “halakhic” separation, rather than a geographical separation (115). 105 Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran, 131. Already in the initial publication of 4QMMT, Qimron and Strugnell note the "moderate" tone of the letter (Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah, 116), although most of the subsequent scholarship focused on its polemical nature. Wearne uses the term “eirenic” (“4QMMT”, 100). 47 Gareth Wearne proposes that MMT is, in fact, a “cautionary” letter from one concerned group to another, instead of a polemical condemnation towards a lawless group like the Temple priesthood: “As such, its purpose was to outline and justify a method of continuing to observe the sacrificial cult of the temple, without participating in what the writers perceived to be the errant practices of the presiding priests”.106 As Wearne points out, most hypotheses about MMT are based on the assumption that its author’s purpose was polemical. However, a more amiable tone expresses concern for the addressee to follow the right interpretation, with the continued conviction that something is wrong with how the leading priests are functioning. Similarly, the prayers in 4Q160 show concern for another party; this time, the author interacts with the other group as its intercessor. This is the connecting point between 4Q160 and MMT. 3.3.2 4Q160: A Comparison Unlike the later sectarians, the authors behind some of the proto-sectarian works sought to reform the society of which they are a part or seek their restoration as God’s people. But what gave the author, on behalf of his group, the right to think that he had the author to proclaim such messages? MMT consists of three parts that tell three different stories, and the way that the parts are ordered shows a similar pattern to 4Q160. The two outer sections assert the authority of a particular nature, whether sectarian or biblical, which in turn affects the reading of the middle section. Section A is the solar calendar that was used by the sectarians, the interpretation of which was already causing division among proto-sectarian groups. Section C is the final exhortation to the addressee, which uses more biblical language and also references biblical 106 Wearne, “4QMMT”, 103. Similarly, the Temple Scroll outlines a reformed temple and its cultic practices, based on an idealized image drawn from the Pentateuch. 48 characters.107 Together, these frame the middle section (B) which arguably contains the most important information: the halakhic declarations. The community behind MMT interpreted the law in a particular way and used the interpretation of select laws to define part of its identity. There are different reasons for why these laws were chosen by the author of MMT, but they seem to represent the greatest concerns, e.g. ritual purity.108 The text implies that priests were straying from proper practice and profiting from the economy of the Temple, perhaps seen as part of “hellenization” and following the ways of their rulers and neighbours. The priests and the rest of the people had allegedly forsaken the religion of their ancestors, and MMT shows the concern of one party for another. Similarly, 4Q160 displays pre-sectarian interaction and has a tripartite structure in which the central component is framed by two sections which lend authority to the overall text. Both the first and the final fragment (fragment 1 and 7) are rewritten portions of the Samuel narrative from the Hebrew Bible.109 The two prayers in the middle of the reconstructed manuscript display the author’s concern for an errant Jewish group. In the first prayer (fragments 2, 6, and 10), the author beseeches God to restore the purity of the group, and then to restore his relationship with them. In the second prayer (fragments 4i and 5), the author prays that God would gather the group back to him. Furthermore, the author shifts his focus beyond the one group, praying that everyone – including enemies – would recognize God’s glory and control. Again, this shows the greater sense of urgency for the restoration of all peoples of Israel, found within the proto- 107 Ibid., 107. 108 Qimron and Strugnell, Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah, 131. 109 The authority granted by the pseudonymous voice of Samuel will be explored in the next section on non-sectarian literature. 49 sectarian literature. When Israel follows the proper precepts and is duly restored, the surrounding people will acknowledge the change and acknowledge Israel’s God. MMT was written by a community that included or, at least, recognized members who were spread throughout the Kingdom, rather than remaining in seclusion. Thus, proper practice by the addressee group was important to the overall portrayal of Judaism at the time.110 In 4Q160, the scope of Israel’s restoration extends beyond Israel to the surrounding nations and even Israel’s enemies. In other words, God’s actions on behalf of Israel have broader implications. Furthermore, the word םיבר (“the many”) used in the final lines of combined fragments 4i and 5 affects our understanding of inter-group interaction. In 4Q160, the term is used to describe those who will recognize God’s restoration of the unnamed Jewish group in the prayer. If translated substantively, the term can be understood in two different ways depending on the era of its composition. In Biblical Hebrew, םיבר is often translated as an unspecified “multitude”, neither positive nor negative. The author of MMT uses the term בור for the Jewish community at large, from which his group separated. In sectarian manuscripts from Qumran, however, םיבר is used to describe the members of the sectarian community (e.g., 1QS VI, 1). The word is written both with and without the definite article, yet usually translated as “the Many”.111 In the fragments of 4Q160, the word is clearly visible and found to be missing the definite article. Thus, scholars translate it as both a regular adjective and as a substantive. If םיבר is translated substantively, following other examples of Qumran Hebrew, then one may glean a 110 Qimron and Strugnell argue that the disagreements over proper practice, rather than correct dogma, were the main reasons for the later sectarian “schism”, Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah, 176. 111 See note 104. 50 sectarian connection. The text would then read: “The Many will understand that this is your people…your sanctified ones whom you sanctified”. If 4Q160 has thematic and rhetorical connections with sectarian or proto-sectarian literature, then one can say that a form of the Qumran sect is being referenced here, thus showing an example of the interactions between different Jewish groups. MMT, like the Temple Scroll and other proto-sectarian literature, contained material that was influential in later sectarian circles. And while these texts weren’t found in numerous copies, which is a usual sign of their importance, they were copied by scribes in later eras. 4Q160 may not have experienced the same popularity among the Qumran communities as MMT. This might have been because 4Q160’s content lacks a didactic nature and themes that later communities thought worth preserving. 3.4 Non-Sectarian Literature The final category of texts with which to compare 4Q160 is the non-sectarian texts, particularly those that employ the process of “Rewritten Scripture”. The texts in this category shed light on the historical context by their unique interpretation and use of scripture as commentary on contemporary realities. Non-sectarian denotes a broad category of Qumran manuscripts, used to identify biblical and parabiblical manuscripts that do not exhibit specific sectarian ideologies.112 The presence of non-sectarian texts at Qumran, in large numbers, shows that they were authoritative texts, read and copied by the community or else deposited there for 112 There are certain texts that straddle the boundaries between different classifications, such as the interpretive pesharim. The pesharim are considered sectarian because they do, in fact, refer to characters such as the “Teacher of Righteousness” and the “Wicked Priest”, and they use dualistic rhetoric. 51 safekeeping. This is particularly true of the biblical manuscripts, which make up almost one third of the entire Qumran collection.113 One of the non-sectarian texts found at Qumran was the book of Jubilees, which employs the rewriting process and pseudepigraphy to promote a particular interpretation of scripture. Though far smaller, 4Q160 functions in a similar way. 3.4.1 Jubilees 3.4.1.1 The Text Jubilees, or the “Book of the Division of the Years”, was found in 14 Hebrew manuscripts at Qumran, ranging from the last quarter of the second century BCE to the mid-first century CE. These were the first copies found in Hebrew, which scholars conclude was the original language.114 The text is mentioned by its Hebrew title in the Damascus Document, which infers that a form of Jubilees already existed before the sectarian era.115 The text had already been discovered in other locations, in languages including Syriac, Greek, and Ethiopic.116 The proliferation of versions in different languages provides a testimony to Jubilees’ importance in Jewish and early Christian communities around the Mediterranean. Jubilees is an interpretation of Genesis and the first part of Exodus, shaping the events of Israel’s early history as part of the angelic discourse at Sinai. The narrative extends back to the creation of the world, from whence the characters and stories are rewritten with an emphasis on the law and proper Jewish practice. The framework for the Jewish history is the biblical Jubilee 113 Devorah Dimant, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha At Qumran,” DSD 1 (1994): 151-159. 114 James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 5. 115 CD XVI, 2-4. 116 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 8-15. 52 (Lev 25) and the 364-day calendar, which was arguably different than the calendar being used by the priestly establishment in Jerusalem.117 The conflict over the calendar, as noted earlier, was one of the reasons for the separation of sectarian groups. Jubilees’ rewriting of Genesis and Exodus reveals the author’s concern over the correct interpretation of Jewish law, particularly about cultic practice, sexual conduct, and interaction with Gentiles.118 In light of its halakhic interpretation, Jubilees resembles other biblical texts and is part of what Hindy Najman calls “Mosaic Discourse”: a classification of texts in which Moses’ authority and voice are added to and developed in existing biblical texts.119 The stories of Genesis and Exodus were familiar to Jewish communities, as they constituted part of their national and religious identity; thus, changes would be noticeable and would lead the reader to a particular interpretation. One of the additions to Jubilees was the structure of the text – namely the pseudepigraphic framing at the beginning, which showed part of the author’s ideological intentionality in the time of purity and piety disputes. The following examination focuses specifically on the prologue and first chapter of Jubilees. 3.4.1.2 Main Themes and Relevance to Historical Context The book of Jubilees, as an example of “Rewritten Scripture”, closely follows its base texts of Genesis and Exodus. However, Jubilees also introduces entirely new material that 117 Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 67. 118 Ibid., 67. Crawford lists five areas in which one can detect the distinctive emphases of Jubilees: 1) chronology, 2) law and ethics, 3) elevation of Israel's ancestors, 4) priestly line from Noah to Levi, and 5) eschatology. 119 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 10-13. 53 supplements the text as it stands in the canonical Pentateuch.120 The prologue to the book sets the stage: These are the words regarding the divisions of the times for the law and for the testimony, for the events of the years, for the weeks of their jubilees throughout all the years of eternity as he related (them) to Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up to receive the stone tablets – the law and the commandment – by the word of the Lord as he had told him that he should come up to the summit of the mountain.121 The text is based on the story in Exod 24, when Moses ascends Mount Sinai and receives a revelation from God. The text that follows in chapter 1, while drawing on a handful of passages and phrases from the Pentateuch and other scriptures, does not adhere to the biblical text exactly. God interacts directly with Moses and gives instruction to him before the law is imparted, outlining his relationship with Israel (1:4-18). Then, Moses prays for Israel, which is followed by God’s response, before the angel of the presence is introduced in 1:27 to write the account of creation. The content of the first chapter, even before the Jewish history begins, could be indicative of the author’s desire to craft a narrative that promulgates a nationalistic message. VanderKam argues that the entire book is “an all-out defence of what makes the people of Israel distinctive from the nations and a forceful assertion that they were never one with them”.122 Jubilees’ origin was in the second century and can be understood as a response to certain Jewish people’s desire to make a covenant with the gentiles (1 Macc 1:11-13).123 120 Zahn, “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment”, 275. 121 All citations of Jubilees come from VanderKam's Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees (2018). 122 James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 140; see also Najman, Seconding Sinai, 60. 123 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 40. 54 The author wants to draw his readers back to God’s original covenant with Israel, when it seems that they had forgotten that they were God’s elect. The author does this through the presence and voice of one of Israel’s patriarchal figures: Moses. He is instructed to transcribe the words of the angel of the presence, acting as the mediator of divine revelation.124 The author is engaging in pseudonymity in order to make a point. Pseudepigraphy, or attributing a text to an important historical figure, was a more common phenomenon in the post-exilic and pre-sectarian ages, seen in texts like the Enochic literature. Scholars have noted that pseudepigraphy is not a common method in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly in the sectarian texts. Collins gives two reasons for the lack of pseudepigraphy in these later texts. First, the development of the sects was accompanied by the designation of a group leader, notably the “Teacher of Righteousness” in the Damascus Document, and one of the important roles of the leader was interpreting scripture. Secondly, the pesharim texts themselves became the most reliable source of interpreted scripture. Pseudepigraphy, then, as a form of authoritative interpretation, was used before sectarian formation and coincided with what Collins calls “low group definition”.125 This means that sectarian identity was still in period of development, particularly when referring to the Qumran community.126 The rifts among the Jewish groups have already been mentioned as the impetus behind the composition of certain works. As was noted with MMT, the proto-sectarian literature shows 124 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 65. See also Matthew P. Monger, "The Development of Jubilees 1 in the Late Second Temple Period," JSP 27 (2017): 83-112. 125 John J. Collins, Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 232-233. 126 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 322. 55 engagement and the potential desire to see reconciliation between groups. Jub. 1:19-21 records Moses’ intercessory prayer for Israel, which follows God’s charge against the people. The prayer reflects intra-group dynamics, meaning that the leader is praying for members of his own community. However, in accordance with the rest of the book of Jubilees, the prayer can be regarded as a reaction to inter-group conflict among different Jewish communities. Furthermore, when inserted in the middle of God’s speech and prefacing the rest of Jubilees, the voice of Moses offers an authoritative opening frame for the rest of the book.127 Scholars who view Jubilees as the product of redactional activity have argued that the prayer is a later addition, along with the surrounding verses (Jub. 1:15b-25). The section is not present in the Qumran fragments, namely 4Q216, which is the oldest of all the Jubilees manuscripts and contains most of the book’s first two chapters.128 The text is argued to be of sectarian origin, particularly as the prayer resembles other penitential prayers among the Dead Sea Scrolls.129 However, other scholars contend that the prayer was part of the original Jubilees because the content matches the rest of the text.130 3.4.2 4Q160: A Comparison The first chapter of Jubilees, as a prologue to the rest of the book, is a useful parallel to 4Q160. Both works can be considered products of the process of “Rewritten Scripture”, a process that was used as an authoritative form of interpretation in the pre-sectarian age. 4Q160 127 Collins has argued that the angel is, in fact, the primary authority in this text, rather than Moses; Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy, 99. 128 Monger, “The Development of Jubilees 1”, 96-97. 129 Ibid., 106. 130 James C. VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees,” CBR 6 (2008): 405–31. 56 contains rewritten portions of 1 Sam 3 and 1 Sam 12 (fragments 1 and 7), and they act as the opening and closing frames to the rest of the text. The framing leads to the first point of comparison between Jubilees and 4Q160, which is pseudonymity as a way of adding authority to the text. The introduction to Jubilees (the prologue and chapter 1) presents the character of Moses as the recipient of divine revelation and the messenger to the people of Israel. 4Q160, similarly, uses the voice of Samuel in the opening and closing rewritten text blocks to give authority to the other sections. Samuel was an important character in the Hebrew imagination, and was lauded in his roles as intercessor, prophet, and priest (see Textual Analysis above).131 Samuel’s role as a religious leader is significant, in connection to the conflicts over proper religious authority in wake of Maccabean revolt.132 The second point of comparison between Jubilees and 4Q160 is the intercessory prayer(s) by the authoritative figure, which I argue is the main indicator of inter-group conflict in this context. Moses’ prayer in Jubilees intercedes for a named group, Israel, and the prayers of 4Q160 do not specify the group; however, there are similar themes and rhetoric in both. The prayer of Moses is a petition by the leader for his people: Then Moses fell prostrate and prayed and said: “Lord my God, do not allow your people and your heritage to go along in the error of their minds, and do not deliver them into the control of the nations with the result that they rule over them lest they make them sin against you. May your mercy, Lord, be lifted over your people. Create for them a just spirit. May the spirit of Belial not rule over them so as to bring charges against them before you and to make them stumble away from every proper 131 Jassen, "Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160)", 33. 132 Scholars argue that Jubilees is authored by someone connected to the priesthood, because of the dominant themes and the author’s knowledge of the Pentateuchal material; cf. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 38. 57 path so that they may be destroyed from your presence. They are your people and your heritage whom you have rescued from Egyptian control by your great power. Create for them a pure mind and a holy spirit. May they not be trapped in their sins from now to eternity” (Jub. 1:19-21).133 The prayer follows God’s indictment on the people of Israel because of their disobedience and abandonment of the covenant. Similarly, the prayers for the unknown group in 4Q160 follow the indictment on the priestly house of Eli (cf. 1 Sam 2:27-36; 3:11-14). Since Israel forsakes its covenant with God, God will also turn his back on his people. The covenant relationship between the two parties is suggested by Moses with the word “heritage” to describe Israel, as well as the repeated “your people”. In 4Q160, הכמע (your people) is repeated as well. 4Q160 also implies God’s ownership of Israel (םתלעב) and his status as their father (בא). Regarding enemies, both texts draw attention to the nations as Israel’s opponents. In Jubilees, it is the Egyptians, and in 4Q160 the enemies are the “kings” and “those who hate your people”. Additionally, Belial is mentioned in Jubilees as an enemy to Israel. Moses prays that Israel would be ruled by a clean and holy spirit rather than by the “spirit of Belial”. Belial is only mentioned one other time in Jubilees (15:33) and can be translated either as a proper noun above, or as the mass noun “wickedness”. Here, the more adjectival use of Belial acts as a foil to the clean spirit that Moses desires for Israel.134 Belial is not mentioned in 4Q160 as a proper noun, nor is the adjective used to describe Israel’s enemies. However, Belial appears earlier in the 133 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 156-157. The prayer is not found in the original revelation in Exod 24, but rather is based on Moses’ prayer in Deut 9:25-29 after the golden calf incident (which itself is a paraphrase of Moses’ petition in Exod 32:11-13). 134 The Second Temple period sees a shift in the usage of the term לעילב (Belial), as it moves from being a negative adjective to the name of a principal demon; see Monger, “The Development of Jubilees 1”, 107; and VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 157. 58 Samuel narrative when the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, are described as “sons of wickedness” or “scoundrels” (1 Sam 2:12).135 The misdeeds of Eli’s sons, which can be drawn out from the themes in 4Q160, match the sins that a sectarian author calls the three “nets” of Belial: fornication, wealth, and defilement of the temple (CD IV, 15-18). In the Damascus Document, they are mentioned in the discourse decrying priests and priestly families who disobeyed God, which resulted in Belial’s victory over the people of Israel.136 The interpolated interpretations (pesharim) in the CD passage refer to prophets like Isaiah, which reinforces the severity of the issue. Evidently, the problem of impious priests was not one to be resolved easily. The parallel prayers in Jub. 1 and 4Q160 show concern for the people of Israel and a desire to see them reconciled to God, especially as their practice betrays a lapse in piety and purity. In the pre-sectarian era, from which both of the manuscripts originated, the concern reflects the rift between Jewish groups that would later become sects. Jubilees is explicit in identifying the intercessor and the recipient of the prayer, as Moses and Israel are the important characters in the rest of the narrative of Jubilees. 4Q160, on the other hand, does not provide the information to determine “who’s who” in the situation. However, one can infer that the author believes he has the authority to intercede for another Jewish group – seen in his use of the prophet Samuel’s voice. 135 Belial also appears in the final section of MMT (section C), as the author encourages the addressee to pray for deliverance from the “device of Belial”. 136 Kenneth Atkinson, “The ‘Three Nets of Belial’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Pre-Qumran Tradition,” Qumran Chronicle 26 (2018): 23-38 (28). 59 Chapter 4: Conclusion 4.1 Summary In conclusion, the Samuel Apocryphon is one version of the Samuel narrative found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, categorized as a parabiblical text because of its original text blocks that are not found in the book of Samuel. This study has examined how the author used the process of rewriting and pseudepigraphy to craft a distinct account of the scripture, which in turn can be interpreted as a commentary on the realities of the second century BCE. Since its publication in 1968, 4Q160 has received relatively little attention from Qumran or biblical scholars due to its fragmentary state. But the most recent studies have led to reinterpretations of the text, mostly through comparative and intertextual studies with other biblical manuscripts. In relation to the other Samuel narratives from Qumran, 4Q160 differs because it reworks the text and adds material, namely the two prayers – a common feature of parabiblical apocrypha. Furthermore, while the manuscripts from Qumran contain a large portion of the Samuel narrative, 1 Sam 3:14-17 is not found among them. Turning to the other interpretations of Samuel, this study considers the similarities and differences between 4Q160 and contemporary texts and those from the following centuries. The intertextual variants may be considered minute, but they are by no means dismissible. The most noticeable textual variant is the location of Samuel when he receives the vision from God. In fragment 1, 4Q160 appears to have Samuel lying before Eli, his master, which is echoed in fragment 7. The variant, I argue, is added to show Samuel’s devotion to his temple service, placing him above the other characters in the narrative, i.e. Eli and his sons, Hophni and Phinehas. 60 Furthermore, Samuel is genealogically from the Levite tribe, which was seeing a decline in prominence in the Second Temple period. 4Q160 was composed in the mid to late second century BCE, thus making the elevation of a Levite – in other words, a non-Aaronide priest – a conspicuous feature. In addition to the text’s promotion of Samuel’s priestly status, the text also lauds his prophetic role in Israel. The addition of the phrase, “Samuel heard the word of the Lord”, which is not found in any corresponding text, highlights the importance of Samuel’s revelation. Josephus also promotes Samuel as a prophet. In the Second Temple period, the role of prophets and prophecy was changing, with the rise of scribal culture and revelation through the written word. Hence, 4Q160’s emphasis on Samuel’s prophetic role would have piqued the interest of its readers – especially in the era when Jewish leaders, namely the priests in Jerusalem, were causing tension and eventual sectarian separation. An understanding of the problematic priesthood and interpretation of scripture is critical to one’s overall interpretation of the inter-group dynamics in the second century BCE. Reactions to the rise of Hellenism, the changes in the high priesthood, and the unjust means by which the high priesthood was earned (i.e., bribery rather than ancestry), all led to disillusionment with the establishment. Moreover, this was a period when different interpretations of scripture abounded. Eventually, groups defined themselves by their various relationships with the outside world – including other Jewish groups. Some separated themselves into ascetic communities, while others were still engaged with the rest of society. The settlement at Qumran was the home of various sectarian groups, revealed in the textual and archaeological evidence at the site. The Essenes, an ascetic group mentioned in the historical accounts of Josephus, Philo, and Pliny, were thought to reside at Qumran for a time. And although the Essenic connection to Qumran remains a debated topic among scholars, this 61 current study is built on the premise that Essenes were one of the sects present at Qumran. The diversity among the so-called sectarian literature, particularly the rule books (serakhim), indicates the presence of diverse Jewish communities; moreover, this diversity is indicative of the changes that groups underwent, usually in terms of their relation to outsiders. For example, the transition from the “reformist” to “introversionist” sectarian worldview is seen within the various sectarian works. The changing interpretations of the current social situations and scripture are also seen in the broader scope of Second Temple period parabiblical literature. The historical analysis above examined the interpretations three different types of texts: sectarian, proto-sectarian, and non-sectarian. 4Q160 has comparable features to all of the texts, which demonstrates that 4Q160, like its counterparts, is valuable for understanding contemporaneous developments, including inter-group dynamics. First, 4Q160 parallels the sectarian texts – the Damascus Document and the Community Rule – in the rhetoric used to describe the author’s relationship to God and to the Other, concerning covenant, election, separation, and even hints at asceticism. 4Q160 departs from this category because of its lack of dualistic rhetoric and, realistically, its Hasmonean script pre-dates sectarian literature. Second, 4Q160 compares with proto-sectarian literature, those works that pre-date and influence later sectarian groups. MMT, while being in the form of a letter, is similar to 4Q160 in its tripartite structure and prayer for the addressee. In the case of 4Q160, the prayers are not addressed to a specific group, nor are they addressed to someone with which the author has an established relationship. And finally, 4Q160 is comparable to the non-sectarian book of Jubilees. Once again, a prayer is the focal point. Both works use the voice of an important biblical character to frame an intercessory prayer: Moses prays for Israel, and Samuel prays for God’s people, understood as Israel or one of the Jewish groups of the second century. 62 4.2 New Insights and Future Research The purpose of the study was to examine the broader context of 4Q160 and to develop a more nuanced understanding of this text. The goal was not to identify unequivocally the authoring community or the recipients of the prayers; unfortunately, the fragmentary nature prevents such solid conclusions. However, the textual and historical analyses have shown that the prayers in 4Q160, when framed by the two rewritten, pseudepigraphic scriptural sections, represent the inherent dynamics between different Jewish groups and one group’s approach to issues of purity and piety. While 4Q160 has textual and thematic affinities to sectarian and proto-sectarian literature, the conclusion at the end of this study is that 4Q160 most resembles the non-sectarian literature. 4Q160 and Jubilees have already been placed side-by-side in discussions about biblical midrashim (e.g., Schürer’s History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ), but the connections have not been elucidated. A closer examination reveals that the 4Q160 and Jubilees share important features. One of the features is the authors’ use of the rewriting process to reformulate the scriptural text. The revised text is not meant to replace the original but, rather, it acts as a supplement to enhance the original. Furthermore, the authors can use the rewritten text to communicate a particular message. Jubilees and 4Q160 were both written in the second century, after the Maccabean revolt. This period saw a continuation of the increase in the wealth of the priestly elites, and it marked the beginning of the splintering of Jewish groups. The number of different interpretations of scripture also increased. On that account, employing the voice of an authoritative figure from Israel’s history was an effective way in which to enhance the credibility of one’s message or interpretation in this period. 63 4Q160, while not gaining the same popularity as Jubilees or the other parabiblical literature examined here, nevertheless is a witness to the situations of its time and offers modern readers a window into Jewish inter-group dynamics of the Second Temple period. 4Q160 effectively uses the prophetic voice of the biblical Samuel to promulgate a hopeful message of Israel’s restoration, through narratives and prayers that reflect (but do not replicate) the identity-forming rhetoric of later sects. The parameters of this study did not allow for deeper investigation into particular topics around identity formation and alterity, nor provided space for the use of theoretical frameworks such as the social identity theory137. Aspects of this social-scientific approach were used to examine 4Q160 and its context, particularly in the discussions on sectarianism. However, future studies on 4Q160 (and its related texts) would benefit from a thorough investigation using a greater number of social-scientific methodologies. Nonetheless, this comparative analysis of 4Q160 and its related texts has opened a new window into our understanding of the diverse expressions of identity in the Second Temple period. 137 For a summary on the social identity theory (SIT) and biblical studies, see Coleman A. Baker, “Social Identity Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” BTB 42 (2012): 129–38. 64 Bibliography Allegro, John Marco. Qumrân Cave 4. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Atkinson, Kenneth. “The ‘Three Nets of Belial’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Pre-Qumran Tradition.” Qumran Chronicle 26.1 (2018): 23-38. Atkinson, Kenneth and Jodi Magness. “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran Community.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129.2 (2010): 317–42. Baker, Coleman A. “Social Identity Theory and Biblical Interpretation.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 42.3 (2012): 129–38. Campbell, Jonathan G. “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment.” Pages 49-77 in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Géza Vermes. Edited by József Zsengellér. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 166. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Chalcraft, David J. Sectarianism in Early Judaism. London: Equinox, 2007. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987. Collins, John J. Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015. ———. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74.3 (1955): 147-172. Dimant, Devorah. “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha At Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1.2 (1994): 151–59. Feldman, Ariel. The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings: Texts and Commentary. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. 65 Finitsis, Anthony. "The Other in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8." Pages 116-131 in The "Other" in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. García Martínez, Florentino. “Parabiblical Literature from Qumran and the Canonical Process.” Revue de Qumrân 25.4 (100) (2012): 525–56. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Gross, Andrew D. “The Vision of Samuel.” Pages 1517-1519 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013. Harrington Hannah. “Identity and Alterity in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 71-89 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Hugo, Philippe and Adrian Schenker. Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Jassen, Alex P. “Intertextual Readings of the Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls: ‘4Q160 (Samuel Apocryphon)’ and ‘Psalm’ 40.” Revue de Qumrân 22.3 (87) (2006): 403–30. ———. "Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160)." Journal of Jewish Studies 59 (2008): 21-38. Jokiranta, Jutta. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Keddie, Anthony. Class and Power in Roman Palestine: The Socioeconomic Setting of Judaism and Christian Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. 66 Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. Monger, Matthew P. “The Development of Jubilees 1 in the Late Second Temple Period.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 27.2 (2017): 83–112. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Newsom, Carol A. "'Sectually' Explicit Literature from Qumran." Pages 167-187 in The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters. Edited by William Propp, Baruch Halpern and David N. Freedman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Polak, Frank H. "Samuel." In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Qimron, Elisha. Dead Sea Scrolls 1: The Hebrew Writings. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Publications, 2014. Hebrew. Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell. Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Regev, Eyal. “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10.2 (2003): 243–78. ———. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schofield, Alison and James C. Vanderkam. “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” Journal of Biblical Literature 124.1 (2005): 73–87. Schürer, Emil, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Edinburgh: Clark, 1973. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Strugnell, John. "Notes en marge du volume V des 'Discoveries in the Judaean desert of Jordan.'" Revue de Qumrân 7 (1970): 179-183. 67 Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, 2001. ———. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. ———. “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees.” Currents in Biblical Research 6.3 (2008): 405–31. ———. Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018. Vaux, Roland de. “Les fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’année - Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 99.3 (1955): 378–86. Vermes, Géza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Wearne, Gareth. “4QMMT: A Letter to (not from) the Yahad.” Pages 99-126 in Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Leuven 2016. Vol. 128. Edited by Jutta Jokiranta and Molly M. Zahn. Boston: Brill, 2019. Werman, Cana. “Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period.” Dead Sea Discoveries 4.2 (1997): 211–25. Wilson, Bryan R. “An Analysis of Sect Development.” American Sociological Review 24.1 (1959): 3–15. Zahn, Molly M. “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131.2 (2012): 271–88. 68 Zahn, Molly M. “Parabiblical Texts/Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 378-385 in T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Charlotte Hempel and George J. Brooke. London: T&T Clark, 2019.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Religious Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
The Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) in context : a comparative analysis
Text