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

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

Author: Miryam T. Brand

19 downloads 891 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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

by

Miryam T. Brand

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

Lawrence H. Schiffman

UMI Number: 3482858

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

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

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

© Miryam T. Brand All Rights Reserved, 2011

DEDICATION

For my mother and father

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

‫ שלכם הוא‬- ‫שלי‬ is the simple truth.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

iv

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

v

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

vi

ABSTRACT

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

vii

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

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

AARSR

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

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

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AGPh

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

AJEC

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

ALGHJ

Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums

AnBib

Analecta biblica

ANRW

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

AOAT

Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ASTI

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

ATDan

Acta theologica danica

Aug

Augustinianum

BDB

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

x

BEATAJ

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum

BETL

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib

Biblica

BibOr

Biblica et orientalia

Bijdr

Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie

BJS

Brown Judaic Studies

BLE

Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique

BRS

The Biblical Resource Series

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBC

Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBET

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CJAS

Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series

CQS

Companion to the Qumran Scrolls

CREJ

Collection de la Revue des études juives

CRINT

Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

CSCO

Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium

CSRT

Cambridge Studies in Religious Traditions

DCLS

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EBib

Etudes bibliques

EDSS

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

EgT

Eglise et théologie

EHAT

Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

xi

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GAP

Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller

HALOT

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

Hen

Henoch

HR

History of Religions

HSAT

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

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

IOS

Israel Oriental Society

JAJSup

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JCTCRS

Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JJTP

The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy

JLCRS

Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion Series

JSHRZ-St

Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

xii

JSJ

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

JSJSup

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

JSP

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSPSup

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

KUSATU

Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LSJ

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

LSTS

Library of Second Temple Studies

MLBS

Mercer Library of Biblical Studies

MScRel

Mélanges de science religieuse

NJPS

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

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NTL

New Testament Library

xiii

NTS

New Testament Studies

Numen

Numen: International Review for the History of Religions

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OLA

Orientalia lovaniensia analecta

OTL

Old Testament Library

OtSt

Oudtestamentische Studiën

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research

PACS

Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series

PTSDSSP

Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project

PVTG

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece

QC

Qumran Chronicle

RB

Revue biblique

RelSoc

Religion and Society

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

RRJ

Review of Rabbinic Judaism

RStB

Ricerche storico bibliche

SAACT

State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLEJL

Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLSCS

Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SBLSymS

Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SBLTT

Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

SC

Sources chrétiennes

ScrHier

Scripta hierosolymitana

SDSSRL

Studies in the Dead Sea scrolls and Related Literature

xiv

SGRR

Studies in Greek and Roman Religion

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SPhilo

Studia philonica

SR

Studies in Religion

SSN

Studia semitica neerlandica

STAC

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

StPB

Studia post-biblica

SubBi

Subsidia biblica

SUNT

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

SVTP

Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica

TBN

Themes in Biblical Narrative

TSAJ

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

TUGAL

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

TZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

VCSup

Vigiliae christianae Supplements

VD

Verbum domini

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

YJS

Yale Judaica Series

ZA

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

xv

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xvi

SYMBOLS EMPLOYED IN TEXT TRANSCRIPTIONS

Dead Sea Scrolls ‫א‬ ‫֗א‬ ‫֯א‬

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

xvii

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

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

xviii

I. Introduction

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

1

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

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

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

2

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

8

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

5

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

12

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

6

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

14

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

26

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

10

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

31

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

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

34

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

12

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

38

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

13

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

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

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

44

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

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

46

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

16

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

50

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

17

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

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

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

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

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

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

20

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

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

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

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

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

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

22

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

23

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

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

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

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

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

26

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

62

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

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

28

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

63

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

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

64

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

30

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

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

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

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

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

69

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

II.

Nonsectarian Second Temple Prayer and the Inclination to Sin

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

11

‫ה מנגע רע ואל יוסף לשוב אלי יבש‬Â‫ה‬È ‫טהרני‬

12

‫שורשיו ממני ואל ינצו ע]ל[יו בי‬

13

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

79F

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

81 F

6

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

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

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

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

12

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

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

17

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

38

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

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

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

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

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

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

22

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

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

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

23

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

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

5

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

6

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

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

26 96F

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

vacat

[

]

10 11

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

[

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

‫]אבדת‬

4

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

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

11 [ ] vacat [ Col. ii 1

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

2

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

10F

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

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

4

[you have destroyed inclina[tion

33

103F

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

]

27

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

43

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

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

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

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

33

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

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

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

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

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

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

37

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

46

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

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

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

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

41

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

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

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

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

3

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

3

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

4

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

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

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

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

46

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52

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

[

]‫] ממלכת [̇כוהנים וגוי קדוש ] [׺‬

10

[

‫עורלת] לבנו‬ ֯ ‫א[שר בח̇רת מולה‬

]

11

[

]‫[׺ ֯ר] [עוד חזק לבנו ֯לע̇שות‬

]

12

]

13

[

] ‫ל[לכת בדרכיכה‬

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

58

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

129F

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

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

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

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

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

]

13

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

14

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

‫]לבב‬

15

]

16

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

136F

from madness and blindness and confusion 15 [of heart.

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

transgressions [

137F

] has befallen us 68 138F

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

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

69

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

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

72

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

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

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

76

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

4QCommunal Confession 4Q393 3 3-6 80

3

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

3

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

4

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

5

‫ויתרוממו למעלה לכול אתה הוא יהוה בחרתה באבותינו למקדם‬ ֗

6

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

4

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

5

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

make your face shine without their being purified and sanctified

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

6

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

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

82

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

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

85

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

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

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

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

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

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

91

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

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

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

93

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

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

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

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

95

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

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

67

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

68

III. Sectarian Prayer and the Innate Desire to Sin

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

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

1

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

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

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

74

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

15

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

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

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

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

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

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

76

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

27

‫וברזי פלאכה השכלתם ולמען כבודכה טהרתה אנוש מפשע להתקדש‬

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

F192

24

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

] vacat ‫ו֯ נ֯ ֗היה ועם ידעים ביחד רנה‬

[

17

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

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

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

28

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

78

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

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

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

F19

F20

F201

vacat [

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

37

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

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

205F

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

80

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

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

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

41

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

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

2

[‫֯הוריתי באשמת מעל] ומשדי אמי בעולה ובחיק אומנתי‬

3

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

4

[‫אלי כוננתה רגלי בדר ֗ך] לבכה ולשמועות פלאכה גליתה‬

5

44

[‫אטומה‬

‫באמתכ]ה‬ ֗ ‫אוזני ולבי להבין‬

6

]‫אשר‬ ֯ ‫אוזן בלמודיכה עד‬

7

‫הכ ֯א ֯תה מתכמי וכבו֯ ]ד לב‬ ֗ ‫דעת‬

8

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

9

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

10

F209

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

2

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

3

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

21F

iniquity, and in the bosom of my nurse] 4

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

in the iniquity of flesh. But you,] 5

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

6

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

215F

216F

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

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

49

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

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

...‫יסדתני וסוד אמת אמצתה בלבבי ומזה ברית לדורשיה‬

11

‫ולא [ ֯כאשמתי‬

7

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

8

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

9

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

mighty and drink the blood of warriors. You placed me

57

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

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

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

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

19

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

20

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

21

‫ביח ֯ד עם עדת בני שמים‬ ֯ ‫צבא קדושים ולבוא‬

22

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

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

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

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

87

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

27

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

28

F230

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

88

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

F231

F23

27

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

28

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

upon it 70 235F

29

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

30

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

31

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

that 32

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

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

66

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

89

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

F

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

25

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

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

73

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

F245

9

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

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

83

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

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

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

251F

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

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

87

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

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

99

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

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

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

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

102

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

97

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

98

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

99

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

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

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

106

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

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

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

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

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

113

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

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

115

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

IV. Covenantal Texts and the Inclination to Sin

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

105

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

1

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

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

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

5

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

3 4

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

The version of the Community Rule found in 1QS V.4-6, however, expands on this description considerably. (Words that are not found in the parallel Cave 4 version of the Community Rule, found in 4QSb, d, appear in bold.) 5 ‫ צדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהם אשר לוא ילכ איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר‬4 ‫לבבו‬ ‫ למול ביחד עורלת יצר ועורפ קשה ליסד מוסד אמת‬6<‫ועינוהי ומחשבת יצרו י֯ אאם >כיא אם‬ F

286

5

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

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

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

289F

290F

stray 11 following his heart, 291 F

5

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

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

5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17

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

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

20

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

111

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

308 F

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

310F

23

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

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

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

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

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

28

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

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

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

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

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

6 7

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

321F

men of injustice, 42 who walk 32F

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

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

6

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

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

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

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

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

53

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

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

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

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

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

56

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

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

57 58

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

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

125

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

59

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

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

61

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

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

14

‫אל ולבחור את אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא להתהלך תמים‬

15

‫בכל דרכיו ולא לתור במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות כי רבים‬

16

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

349F

and lecherous eyes. 70 For many… 350 F

66

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

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

71

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

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

16

‫בלכתם בשרירות‬ ֗ ‫תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה‬

17

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

18

‫ובניהם אשר כרום ארזים גבהם וכהרים גויותיהם כי נפלו‬

19

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

20

‫רצונם ולא שמרו את מצות עשיהם עד אשר חרה אפו בם‬

21

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

III.1

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

354F

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

356F

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

not keep God’s commandments; 78 358F

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

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

77

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

131

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

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

83

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

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

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

2

‫ברצון רוחו וימסור לישחק וליעקב וישמרו ויכתבו אוהבים‬

3

‫ בני יעקב תעו בם ויענשו לפני‬vacat ‫לאל ובעלי ברית לעולם‬

4

‫משגותם ובניהם במצרים הלכו בשרירות לבם להיעץ על‬

5

F

36

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

2

‫מצות אל ולעשות איש הישר בעיניו ויאכלו את הדם ויכרת‬

6

‫זכורם במדבר להם בקדש עלו ורשו את רוחם ולא שמעו‬

7

‫יהם מצות יוריהם וירגנו באהליהם ויחר אף אל‬ ֗ ‫לקול עש‬

8

‫בעדתם ובניהם בו אבדו ומלכיהם בו נכרתו וגיבוריהם בו‬

9

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

10

‫לחרב בעזבם את ברית אל ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו אחרי שרירות‬

11

‫ ובמחזיקים במצות אל‬vacat ‫לבם לעשות איש את רצונו‬

12

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

3

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

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

4

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

5

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

heart(s), plotting against 6

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

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

37F

87

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

134

7

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

8

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

9

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

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

94

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

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

101

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

136

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

105

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

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

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

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

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

107

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

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

110

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

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

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

115

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

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

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

8

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

116

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

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

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

143

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

3

‫ אל אהב דעת חכמה ותושייה הציב לפניו‬vacat ‫רשעים‬

3

‫ערמה ודעת הם ישרתוהו ארך אפים עמו ורוב סליחות‬

4

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

has set up before him, 4

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

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

‫ובכולם הקים לו קריאי שם למען התיר פליטה לארץ ולמלא‬

11

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

12

‫אמת ובפרוש >>שמו<< שמותיהם ואת אשר שנא התעה‬

13

11 And during all (these epochs) he (God) raised up for himself known people in order to preserve a remnant for the earth and to fill 12 the face of the earth with their descendants. And he has informed them through those anointed by his holy spirit and (through) the seers

120

See Davies, Damascus Covenant, 75. Davies sees these sections as integrally connected due to their shared terminology and, in Davies’ view, ideology. 121 Schwartz translates “God loves knowledge.” 122 Translation follows B. Z. Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (STDJ 56; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 31, with minor changes. 144

13 of his truth and by elaborating (on) their names. But those whom he hated he led astray. This concluding passage goes further than simply stating God’s wisdom. God transmits “his truth” to the “remnant,” apparently the community, via the community’s leaders, namely the “anointed” and the “viewers of truth.” There are two possible meanings for the statement in 12b-13a: either God shares the names of the community members (the “remnant”) with the community’s leaders, or God has determined the names of these leaders. Finally, God caused the previously determined wicked (“those whom he hated”) to stray. There are several parallels between the introduction to CD II.2-13 and the introduction to CD II.14-III.12. CD II.14-III.12 includes an introduction reminiscent of wisdom literature. 123 The preface in II.14 (‫“ ועתה בנים שמעו לי‬And now, O sons, 403F

hearken to me”), while mirroring the prefaces in I.1 (‫“ ועתה שמעו כל יודעי צדק‬And now hearken, all who know righteousness”) and II.2 ( ‫ועתה‬ ‫“ שמעו אלי כל באי ברית‬And now hearken to me all who enter the covenant”), duplicates Prov 5:7a, 7:24a and 8:32a. The passage continues in II.14-15 with a promise of enlightenment and “understanding the works of God.” After the historical survey, in III.12b-18, the audience is assured that those who continued to hold fast to the divine

123

As noted by Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 175-6. 145

commandments were rewarded by God, who revealed to them “hidden things in which all Israel had strayed.” 124 ‫ ובמחזיקים במצות אל‬vacat

12

‫אשר נותרו מהם הקים אל את בריתו לישראל עד עולם לגלות‬

13

‫ שבתות קדשו ומועדי‬vacat ‫להם נסתרות אשר תעו בם כל ישראל‬

14

‫כבודו עידות צדקו ודרכי אמתו וחפצי רצונו אשר יעשה‬

15

‫ פתח לפניהם ויחפרו באר למים רבים‬vacat ‫האדם וחיה בהם‬

16

‫בפשע אנוש ובדרכי נדה‬ ֗ ‫ומואסיהם לא יחיה והם התגוללו‬

17

‫ויאמרו֗ כי לנו היא ואל ברזי פלאו כפר בעד עונם וישא לפשעם‬ ֗

18

vacat But out of those who held fast to God’s

12

commandments, 125 405F

13 who remained of them, God established his covenant with Israel forever, to reveal 126 406 F

14 to them hidden things in which all Israel had strayed: his holy Sabbaths, his glorious appointed times, 15 his righteous testimonies, his true ways, and the desires of his will, which a person shall 16 do and live by them. (These) he opened before them and they dug a well of abundant water. 17 But those who scorn them will not live. Rather, they wallowed in human sin and the ways of impurity, 124

L. Schiffman notes that these “hidden things” include the Sabbath, indicating that the community felt that Israel did not possess the correct interpretation of the Sabbath law, as well as holidays, reflecting the calendar differences between the community and the Jerusalem establishment; Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 77. 125 Schwartz translates “ordinances.” 126 Schwartz translates “revealing.” 146

18 and said, “For it is ours.” But God in his wonderful mysteries atoned for their iniquity and forgave their sin… The sinning nonmembers will not be forgiven for the sinning that stems from their delusion that they, in fact, possess knowledge of God’s will (III.18; “and said ‘For it is ours’”). This document promises to share the knowledge of the true divine commandments with the initiate. While most of CD II.2-13 emphasizes foreknowledge and not (necessarily) the predestination of particular human beings, it concludes with a section that outlines the predestination of community members, their leaders, and the wicked. The section’s ending phrase is particularly difficult to reconcile with free will: ‫ואת אשר שנא התעה‬ “and those he (God) hated he caused to stray.” This assertion calls for further investigation. The meaning of II.13 “But those whom he hated he caused to stray (ht‘h)” can be explained in the context of this promise of enlightenment, through an analysis of the root t‘h “to stray” in II.14-III.12. As seen in Gary Anderson’s analysis of this text 127 and in a comparison with 4Q266 (4QDa), 128 the root t‘h is used 407F

408F

127

Anderson, “Intentional and Unintentional Sin,” 59-60. In II.14-III.12, the root t‘h is used to describe the sins of the sons of Noah (III.1) and those of Jacob (III.4-5). Anderson has noted the difference between the description of the sinning of Jacob’s sons (CD III.4-5) and that of Jacob’s grandsons in Egypt (CD III.5-6). While the Israelites in Egypt walked in the stubbornness of their heart, Jacob’s sons “strayed” (t‘w) and were punished for their inadvertent errors (mšgwtm). As Anderson asserts, this reflects an inherent difference in the view of the composer between sinning against revealed commandments (such as eating blood, as do the Israelites in Egypt who walked in the stubbornness of their hearts) and sinning against commandments 147

specifically to refer to transgressions against “hidden” commandments. It follows that this is the manner in which God causes those he hates to “stray”: he does not reveal the hidden commandments to them. The chosen, however, have been and will be enlightened with knowledge of these commandments. Nevertheless, as described in this section of the Damascus Document, all humans, even those who have merited knowledge of the commandments, may stray after their hearts, inclinations and eyes, in which case this exercise of their free will results in a stringent punishment. not yet revealed, as Israel does in CD III.14, “straying” (t‘w) against the “hidden” commandments (nstrwt). 128 In 4Q266 (4QDa) 11, which preserves the text of the final portion of the Damascus Document, not found in the medieval manuscripts, the nations are “led astray” by God, in contrast to the Israelites, who have received his commandments (text and translation following Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documenta,” 76-77): ‫וענה‬ ֗ ‫המופק ֯ד] ע[ל הרבים‬ ֯ ‫וידבר בו הכוהן‬ ֗ ‫הרבים ישתלח‬ 8 ‫רוכ את אונ הו הכול ו֯ ֗בי֯ דיך הכול ועושה הכו֯ ל אשר יסדתה‬ ֗ ‫]וא[מר ֯ב‬ 9 ‫]ע[מים למשפחותיהם ולשונות לאומותם ותתעם בתהו ולו‬ 10 ‫בחרתה לזרעם נתתה חוקי אמתכה‬ ֗ ‫)ולו( דרך ובאבותינו‬ 11 ‫קודשכה אשר י֗ ֯עשה ֗האדם וחיה‬ ֗ ‫ומשפטי‬ 12 8 the Many. The priest appointed [ov]er the Many shall declare, 9 saying: Blessed are you, who are everything, and in your hand is everything, and who makes everything. You established 10 [pe]oples in accordance with their families and tongues for their nations, but made them go astray in a 11 trackless void. But our ancestors you did choose and to their descendants you gave your truthful statutes 12 and your holy laws, which a person shall do and live. (In line 9, the translation “who are everything” is used for the cryptic ‫ אונ הו הכל‬instead of Baumgarten’s translation “Almighty God,” following F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [2 vols.; Eerdmans, 2000], 1:597. In line 12 Baumgarten translates “which if a man does them, he shall live,” but the conditional is not represented in the text.) As noted by Baumgarten, the phrase “to lead them astray in a trackless void” (‫ )ותתעם בתהו ולו דרך‬is an echo of Ps 107:40 and Job 12:24. 148

Like the author of the Hodayot, the composer of CD II.14-III.12 integrates the paradigm of an innate inclination to sin with a belief in predestination. However, the paradigm itself differs significantly from that found in the Hodayot. While the Hodayot presents human sinfulness that is inevitable without God’s intervention, the Damascus Document in this section, as in 1QS V-VI, presents a human desire to sin that is completely under human control. It is the responsibility of Israelites past and community members present to fight their desire to sin. The “logical” precondition is that they have received knowledge regarding what God really wants. Without this knowledge, the unchosen are doomed to “stray.”

The Paradigm of the Human Inclination to Sin in Covenantal Texts The analysis of Qumran covenantal texts reveals a paradigm that pairs an inborn human inclination to sin with complete human freedom in combating this inclination. The fact that both 1QS and CD draw on the same biblical prooftext (Num 15:39) in their presentation of this paradigm may be evidence that this was a common prooftext for those at Qumran who argued for an internal, combatable evil will. 129

129

The pairing of heart and eyes in imitation of Num 15:39 is found only in one other Qumran text: 11Q19 (the Temple Scroll) LIX.13-14, regarding the sinning king ‫)והמלך‬ (‫אשר זנה לבו ועינו ממצותי‬. This points to the probability that the use of Num 15:39 as a prooftext was common either in covenantal texts in general, or in those texts that discussed a freely fought innate inclination to sin. (P. Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels,” 74 n. 15, has pointed out the parallel between 1QS V.4-5 and CD II.14-16, and has 149

The contrast between the paradigm of the internal sinful inclination in these covenantal texts and that found in the prayer texts previously discussed is striking. While prayer texts emphasize the lack of human ability to fight the innate inclination to sin, these covenantal texts emphasize the opposite. In prayer texts a description of the inborn inclination to sin is an expression of the lack of human freedom; in the covenantal texts investigated above the inborn nature of the desire to sin serves as a further impetus for humans to exercise their free choice and to act against it. In the context of these covenantal texts, since humans know that they are naturally inclined toward sin, they have no excuse for following their own will – for “walking in the stubbornness of their heart.” There are important differences between the passages in 1QS and CD above. While 1QS V.11-12 blames nonmembers for not seeking out the hidden laws, in the Damascus Document it seems that at least some nonmembers were predestined not to know them. Nevertheless, both covenantal texts emphasize free will and choice. 130 The presence of a desire to sin as part of the human condition only makes the correct path clearer: one must turn from one’s own desires in order to fulfill God’s commandments, whatever they may be.

concluded that this phrase is important to the sect, without noting the absence of its use in other Qumran texts.) 130 Contra Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 6-7, who maintain that in 1QS humans have no role in determining their “lot.” As has been demonstrated, it is misleading to assign one theological position to 1QS as a whole. 150

It is not extraordinary that the differences between the prayer and covenantal genres are so acute. As noted in previous chapters, prayer expresses human helplessness in the encounter with God. The petitioner experiences her own lowliness and God’s greatness, and must also request mercy for sins already committed. It is natural for the speaker to emphasize her own helplessness against her desire to sin, and her need for divine assistance. Covenantal texts, in contrast, must place responsibility squarely on the new member’s shoulders. Once members have joined the community they must follow its rules, regardless of whether they can claim a sinful human inclination. New and existing members are described in these texts as making an initial choice to curb their inclination to sin upon joining the community, and nonmembers are rebuked for not making a similar choice. However, in accepting the rules of the community members commit to an ongoing choice: the choice to continuously reject their own will in favor of God’s commandments. These introductions to the community’s rules do not deny that this choice will be constantly placed before the member. Nevertheless, the member’s ongoing inclination to sin is no excuse for not complying with these rules, the “true” commandments. While covenantal texts may express the view that humans have an inevitable desire to sin, they also express the expectation that humans will combat it, and that they have the capability and freedom to do so.

151

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

The attempt to address problems of theodicy is typical of the wisdom school. 1 It is not surprising that wisdom literature of the Second Temple period endeavors to explain the source of sin, and as such includes texts that reflect the belief in an innate inclination to sin. However, the various theodicies presented in wisdom literature differ significantly in their focus. Thus, while Job and Qoheleth deal principally with the origin of physical or natural evil, it is Ben Sira who first directly addresses the problem of sin. 2 This problem is the focus of Sir 15:11-17, and references to sin and its source are found in Sir 33:7-15 and in isolated verses and couplets throughout the book.

1

A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 33-35, addresses the centrality of theodicy in wisdom literature and calls the attempt to answer problems of theodicy in wisdom literature “existential wisdom.” His definition of theodicy as the religious legitimation of anomic phenomena follows Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, 53. 2 In fact, the only direct reference in Qoheleth to the source of human sinfulness is found in Qoh 9:3b, where humans are described as basically and naturally evil: ‫ְוגַם לֵב‬ ‫“ ְבּנֵי הָאָדָ ם ָמלֵא ָרע וְה ֹולֵ�ות ִבּ ְל ָבבָם ְבּ ַחיּ ֵיהֶם‬and also the heart of humans is filled with evil and there is madness in their hearts throughout their lives.” (Translation is my own.) This declaration likely draws from the statement regarding the basic evil of humankind in Gen 8:21b. 152

Sirach: Textual History The textual history of Sirach 3 presents a challenge for careful analysis. 4 Originally composed in Hebrew in Judea during the Ptolemaic period, specifically ca. 200-175 B.C.E., 5 Sirach has survived in its entirety only in translation. The first of these was the original Greek translation of Sirach, which according to the Greek prologue was undertaken by Ben Sira’s grandson between 132 and 116 B.C.E. 6 The Syriac version is based on a Hebrew Vorlage that fused two different Hebrew recensions, while the Old Latin translation of this work is a translation of an expanded Greek version. 7 Hebrew texts of Sirach are extant for about two thirds of the text. The most complete of these were four manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah in 1896-1900, expanded in subsequent discoveries in 1931, 1958, 1960, 1982 8 and by purchase from

3

As noted above, I have chosen to refer to the book as Sirach and to its author as Ben Sira for clarity’s sake. 4 For a complete overview of the texts and their history, see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 51-62. 5 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 8-10. 6 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 8 and G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, “Sirach,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 1:293. The Greek translation is itself a subject of the present study, as it falls within the defined time frame of 300 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. 7 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 57. 8 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 51-54. 153

a private collector in 2007. 9 These medieval manuscripts had been copied in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 10 The faithfulness of the Genizah texts to the original Sirach, despite their medieval paleographic dating, was confirmed by Hebrew fragments found at Qumran (Sir 6:14-15, 20-31 in 2Q18 and Sir 51:13-30 in 11QPsa XXI.11-XXII.1) 11 and by the more extensive manuscript found at Masada, containing chapters 39 through 44 and dated to the first century C.E. 12 However, while the medieval copies are considered to preserve the Hebrew of Sirach in its essentials, 13 the Genizah texts bear witness to the existence of more than one recension of the Hebrew text 14 and include retroversions from the Syriac and Greek translations. 15

9

S. Elizur, “A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus),” Tarbiẓ 76 (2007): 17-28 (Hebrew). Elizur identified the pages purchased as part of MS C; they include a small number of verses from various chapters: Sir 3, 6, 20, 21, 23, 36 and 37. The preserved verses are not relevant to the present study. 10 Taken as a group, these manuscripts include Sir 3:6b-16:26; 18:3-19:3b; 20:5-7; 20:13; 25:8,13,17-24; 26:1-2a; 30:11-34:1; 35:11-38:27b and 39:15c-51:30. 11 Sir 6:14-15, 20-31 in 2Q18 and Sir 51:13-30 in 11QPsa XXI.11-XXII.1. 12 M. Gilbert, “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 1. For an overview of these texts and their features, see C. Martone, “Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. P. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 81-94. 13 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 54. Also see B. G. Wright, “Wisdom of Iesous son of Sirach,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 715. 14 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 57 15 As proposed by A. A. Di Lella and supported by M. Gilbert; see Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 58; A. A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: a Text-Critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1; London: Mouton, 1966); and 154

Sirach 15:11-20 As mentioned above, it is in Sir 15:11-20 that Ben Sira directly addresses the challenge of human sin to theodicy. The Greek and Hebrew versions of this section contain significant differences; they are reproduced below, followed by translations of each. 16 LXX 11 Μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην·

MS A

ΜS B

‫ אל תאמר מאל פשעי‬11

‫ אל תאמר מאל ֗פשעי‬11

‫כי את אשר שנא לא‬

‫כי כל אשר שנא ֗א ֗מ ֗ר‬

:‫עשה‬

:...‫֗ל ֗ך‬

ἃ γὰρ ἐμίσησεν, οὐ ποιήσει.

‫ אל תאמר מה פעלתי‬11add ‫כי את אשר שנא לא‬ :[‫אעש]ה‬ 12 μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν·

‫ פן תאמר הוא התקילני‬12 :‫כי אין צורך באנשי חמס‬

‫ פן תאמר היא )!( התקילני‬12 ‫כי אין לי חפץ * באנשי‬

οὐ γὰρ χρείαν ἔχει ἀνδρὸς

:‫חמס‬

ἁμαρτωλοῦ.

[‫* ֗צ]ורך‬

Gilbert, “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends,” 3. As the current study deals directly only with Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, I will focus only on the Hebrew and its Greek translation in this study, except where the Syriac is relevant for determining the Hebrew Vorlage. 16 The Greek text throughout this chapter follows J. Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). The Hebrew manuscripts A and B are found in Aḳademyah la-Lashon ha-ʻIvrit, Sefer Ben Sira: HaMaḳor, Ḳonḳordantsyah Ṿe-Nituaḥ Otsar Ha-Milim (Jerusalem: ha-Aḳademyah lalashon ha-ʻIvrit, 1973). In the Hebrew, the subscript add marks verses and stichs that do not appear in the Septuagint translation; brackets mark reconstructions by the editor, parentheses mark an addition in the manuscript, and asterisks mark marginal notations and additions found in the original manuscript. 155

LXX

MS A

ΜS B

13 πᾶν βδέλυγμα ἐμίσησεν

‫רעה ותעבה שנא ייי‬13

κύριος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν

:‫ולא יאננה ליראיו‬

‫ ]רעה ו[תועבה שנא אלהים‬13 :‫יאנ֗ נ֗ ה ל]יר[ ֗איו‬ ֗ ‫ולא‬

ἀγαπητὸν τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν. 14a αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν

‫ ברא‬17 ‫ אלהים מבראשית‬14a F427

ἄνθρωπον

‫אדם‬ ‫וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬14aadd

14b καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ

:‫ ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬14b

‫ הוא מראש * ברא אדם‬14a ‫* ]א[ל]הי[ם מבראשית‬ ... ‫ וישיתהו ֗בי֗ ֗ד‬14aadd :‫ ו֗ י֗ ֗תנ֗ ֗הו֗ ֗בי֗ ֗ד י֗ ֗צ ֗רו‬14b

διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ. 15 ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολὰς

‫ אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה‬15 :‫ותבונה לעשות רצונו‬

καὶ πίστιν ποιῆσαι

‫ אם תחפץ תשמר מצוה‬15 :*‫ואמונה לעשות רצון אל‬ ‫* ותבונה לע' רצונו‬

εὐδοκίας. ‫ אם תאמין בו‬15add :‫גם אתה תחיה‬ 16 παρέθηκέν σοι πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ·

‫ מוצק לפניך אש ומים‬16 :‫באשר תחפץ שלח ידיך‬

‫ ]וא[ ֗ם ֗ת]א[ ֗מי֗ ן֗ ֗בו‬15add :‫אתה ֗ת ֗חיה‬ ֗ ‫גם‬ ֗ ‫לפניך מים ואש‬ ֗ ‫ ֗מוצק‬16 :‫באשר תחפץ תשלח ֗ידי֗ ך‬

οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου.

17

J. B. Bauer, “Der priesterliche Schöpfungshymnus in Gen. 1,” TZ 20 (1964): 2, proposes that ‫ מבראשית‬in MS A and in the marginal notation of MS B is secondary and is influenced by the Syriac in which the prepositions ‫ מן‬and ‫ ב‬are frequently used together, as opposed to standard Hebrew usage. See also J. B. Bauer, “Sir 15,14 et Gen 1,1,” VD 41 (1963): 243-4. 156

‫‪ΜS B‬‬ ‫‪ 17‬לפני אדם חיים ומות‬ ‫וכל שיחפץ יתן * לו‪:‬‬

‫‪MS A‬‬ ‫לפני אדם חיים ומוות‬ ‫‪֗ 17‬‬ ‫אשר יחפץ ינתן לו‪:‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬ ‫‪17 ἔναντι ἀνθρώπων ἡ ζωὴ καὶ‬‬ ‫‪ὁ θάνατος,‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ὃ ἐὰν εὐδοκήσῃ,‬‬

‫* ינתן‬

‫‪δοθήσεται αὐτῷ.‬‬ ‫לר]ו[ ֗ב חכמת ייי אל‬ ‫‪ 18par‬כי ֗‬ ‫בגבורה ומביט לכל‪:‬‬ ‫‪ 18‬ספקה חכמת ייי‬ ‫אמיץ גבורות וחוזה כל‪:‬‬

‫‪֗ ) 18‬כי֗ ( ספקה חכמת ייי‬ ‫אמיץ גבורות וחוזה כלם‪:‬‬

‫‪18 ὅτι πολλὴ ἡ σοφία τοῦ‬‬ ‫·‪κυρίου‬‬ ‫‪ἰσχυρὸς ἐν δυναστείᾳ καὶ‬‬ ‫‪βλέπων τὰ πάντα,‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪.. ...‬ו מעשיו‬

‫והוא יכיר כל מפעל אנוש‪:‬‬

‫‪ 19‬עיני אל יראו מעשיו והו‬ ‫יכיר כל מפעל איש‪:‬‬

‫‪19 καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ‬‬ ‫‪τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν,‬‬ ‫‪καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιγνώσεται πᾶν‬‬ ‫‪ἔργον ἀνθρώπου.‬‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫‪ ...‬לחטא‬ ‫ולא למד שקרים לאנשי‬

‫‪ 20‬לא צוה אנוש לחט ֹא ולא‬ ‫החלים אנשי כזב‪:‬‬

‫כזב‪:‬‬

‫‪20 οὐκ ἐνετείλατο οὐδενὶ‬‬ ‫‪ἀσεβεῖν‬‬ ‫‪καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν ἄνεσιν‬‬ ‫‪οὐδενὶ ἁμαρτάνειν.‬‬

‫‪ 20add‬ולא מרחם על עושה‬

‫‪ 20add‬ולא מרחם על עושה‬

‫שוא ועל מגלה סוד‪:‬‬

‫שוא ועל מגלה סוד‪:‬‬

‫‪157‬‬

Translation 18 LXX

MS A

MS B

11 Do not say, “On

11 Do not say “From God

11 Do not say “From God

account of the Lord I fell

is my sin,” for that which

is my sin,” for all that he

away,”

he hated he did not make.

hated he told you…

for what he hated, 19 he will not do. 11add Do not say “What have I done? For I would not do that which he hated.” 12 Do not say, “It was he

12 Lest you say “He

12 Lest you say “It/she (!)

who led me astray,”

caused me to stumble,” for

caused me to stumble,” for

for he has no need of a

there is no need for wicked

I have no desire * for

sinful man.

people (lit., “men of

violent people. * n[eed]

violence”).

18

The translation of LXX Sirach throughout this chapter follows Wright, “Sirach,” 731, except where otherwise indicated. Translation of the Hebrew is my own, and is a literal translation of the Hebrew manuscripts as found. 19 Wright, “Sirach,” 731 translates “hates” (perhaps reading ἐμίσησεν as a gnomic aorist). However, given the Hebrew parallels, the more common translation of the aorist is to be preferred. 158

LXX

MS A

MS B

13 Every abomination the

13 Wickedness and

13 [Wickedness and]

Lord hated,

abomination the Lord

abomination God hates;

and it is not beloved to

hates; and will not let it

and will not let it befall

those who fear him.

befall 20 those who fear

those who fear him.

him. 14a It was he who from the

14a God from the

14a He from the first*

beginning made

beginning created

created humankind (lit.,

humankind,

humankind (lit., “man”)

“man”) * God from the beginning

14b and he left him in the hand of his diaboulion.

21

14aadd And placed him in

14aadd And placed him in

the hand of his snatcher

the hand ...

14b and placed him in the

14b and placed him in the

hand of his yēṣer.

hand of his yēṣer.

15 If you want to, you shall 15 If you wish you will

15 If you wish you will

preserve the

keep (his) commandment

keep (his) commandment

commandments, and to

and understanding to do

and faithfulness to do the

keep faith is a matter of

his will.

will of God.*

goodwill. 22

* and understanding to do his will.

20

The root ’nh (‫ )אנה‬is used biblically in pi‘el and pu‘al to indicate both “falling” into sin (as in Ex 21:13 and Prov 12:21) and being met with danger (as in Ps 91:10). (See also HALOT 70.) Hence I have chosen here to follow the translation of Skehan in Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 267. 21 Wright, “Sirach,” translates “deliberation,” but for reasons of analysis I have chosen to leave the term diaboulion untranslated here. See discussion below for a full analysis of this term. 22 While Wright, “Sirach,” translates “good pleasure,” the term is used in the Septuagint for the goodwill of God (translating the word rāṣôn) in LXX Ps 5:13, 18 159

LXX

MS A

MS B

15add If you believe in him,

15add [And i]f you

you too shall live.

be[li]eve in him, you too shall live.

16 He has set aside for you

16 There are poured out

16 There are poured out

fire and water; to

before you fire and water;

before you water and fire;

whichever you want, you

to whichever you wish 23

to whichever you wish you

shall stretch out your hand.

stretch forth your hands.

can stretch forth your hands.

17 Before humans are life

17 Before (each) human

`17

Before (each) human

and death, and whichever

are life and death; that

are life and death; and all

one he desires will be

which he desires shall be

that he desires he will

given to him,

given to him.

give* to him. * will be given 18par For plentiful is the wisdom of God, mighty in strength and seeing everything.

18 because great is the

18 [For] abundant is the

18 Abundant is the

wisdom of the Lord; he is

wisdom of God, mighty of

wisdom of God, mighty of

mighty in dominance and

deed and seeing

deed and seeing

one who sees everything.

everything.

everything.

(MT 19):15, 50 (51):20, and 68 (69):14, and this is the preferred meaning here, as in Sir 33:13 below. See J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 1:185. 23 Hebrew ‫תחפץ‬. While Skehan translates “to whichever you choose” (Ben Sira, 267), the literal semantic range of ḥpṣ (‫ )חפץ‬centers on desiring or delighting in something (see HALOT 340, BDB 342-3), and does not extend to choice as such. 160

LXX

MS A

MS B

19 And his eyes are those

19 The eyes of God shall

19 … …w his handiwork,

who fear him, and he will

see his handiwork, and he

and he will know all the

know every human deed.

shall perceive all the

action(s) of humankind.

action(s) of human(s). 20 He did not command

20 He did not command

20 … to sin, and he did not

anyone to be impious,

humankind to sin, and he

teach lies to deceitful men.

and he did not give anyone

was/is not lenient with

leave to sin.

deceitful men. 20add And he does not take

20add And he does not take

pity on the perpetrator of

pity on the perpetrator of

deceit and on the revealer

deceit and on the revealer

of secret(s).

of secret(s).

In the beginning of this passage, Ben Sira presents a claim he wishes to disprove: namely, that one can attribute one’s sins to God. 24 He is evidently responding to a deterministic stance regarding human agency, one in which divine determinism extends to human sin. Given the popularity of deterministic thinking both in the Hellenistic and the Jewish world, it is likely that Ben Sira is responding to an actual philosophical stance. 25 It is possible that this stance is the logical outcome 24

The formula “Do not say…” (‫ )אל תאמר‬is common to wisdom literature. J. L. Crenshaw, “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: on Human Bondage,” JBL 94 (1975): 48-51, compares the “Do not say” formula in Egyptian wisdom, Qohelet and Sirach and concludes that it is frequently (although not exclusively) found in contexts dealing with theodicy. 25 As noted by Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 93, this proposal is strengthened by Philo’s declaration opposing a similar position: “For Moses does not, as some impious people 161

of the sort of deterministic outlook later expressed in Qumran prayer: by determining the inclination to sin, God has determined the evildoer. It is also possible that Ben Sira is responding to a development within his Judean milieu based on broader Hellenistic thought, 26 which assumed deterministic approaches to human agency. 27 As opposed to

do, say that God is the author of ills. Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them, figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the spontaneous movement of our minds to what is wrong” (Det. 122 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]), discussed in chapter 6. But see discussion below for reasons that this stance may not be a purely Hellenistic one. 26 The stance to which Ben Sira objects, namely that one’s own actions can be attributed directly to the Deity, does not conform to any particular known Hellenistic approach; contra Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 113, and compare V. D’Alario, “‘Non dire: “Da Dio proviene il mio peccato”’ (Sir 15,11 ebr): Dio all’origine del male,” RStB 29 (2007): 121-7. For example, in his Hymn to Zeus, Cleanthes (Zeno’s successor as head of the Stoic school) makes it clear that Zeus is not responsible for human sins or sinners, who act out of foolishness (“Nothing is accomplished save through you, O Spirit, Neither in the divine, heavenly, ethereal sphere, nor upon the sea, save as much as the evil accomplish on their own in their ignorance…”); see W. Cassidy, “Cleanthes - Hymn to Zeus,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (ed. M. C. Kiley; London: Routledge, 1997), 135-6. In addition, it is doubtful whether Ben Sira would respond directly to a specifically Hellenistic philosophy, given the limited access to Hellenistic philosophy in Judea during the Ptolemaic period, when even the Alexandrian school was not particularly interested in philosophy; see S. L. Mattila, “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence,” JBL 119 (2000): 495-7. It is therefore not proposed here that this passage represents a general attitude against Hellenism propounded by Ben Sira; rather, in 15:11-12 Ben Sira opposes a Jewish view that was an outgrowth of Hellenistic attitudes. For an overview of approaches regarding Ben Sira’s antipathy or lack of it toward Hellenism as a whole, see P. C. Beentjes, “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research,” in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 9-11; repr. from Bijdragen 66 (2005). 27 The prevalence of determinism in Greek and Hellenistic thought was not exclusive to Stoic views; it extended to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. In Plato’s view, the relative strength or weakness of the body vis-à-vis the soul could determine the outcome of the conflict between them; H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of 162

the deterministic stance of some of the Jewish prayers examined above, the focus in Hellenistic determinism was not the determinism of human sinfulness but the determination of human actions. For instance, Chrysippus’ famous cylinder analogy, meant to clarify Stoic determinism, expresses the idea that actions, like the rolling of the cylinder, are determined both by antecedent causes (the cylinder being pushed) and by the human’s nature (the cylinder’s roundness). 28 This may have been transposed to Jewish thought to include the act of sin itself. 29 It is the idea that actual sins are

Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), 2:430; D. Winston, “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy and Jewish Hellenistic Wisdom,” SPhilo 2 (1974-1975): 49. For Aristotle, too, responsibility does not require free will, and one’s behavior, while voluntary, is determined by one’s character, rather than by “free volition”; D. J. Allan, “The Practical Syllogism,” in Autour d’Aristote: recueil d’études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion (ed. A. Mansion; Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain 16; Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1955), 333; D. J. Furley, Two Studies in the Greek Atomists: Study I Indivisible magnitudes. Study II Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 223-5. This deterministic stance was not seen as a problem until the Hellenistic age, when, as described by D. Winston, “A feeling of helpless fatality begins to take hold of men…” (Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979], 51). 28 F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1975), 102-4. Nevertheless, while all actions are determined in some way, these actions are performed through a human’s own force and nature, and she is therefore responsible for them; see Cicero, On Fate 42-43. 29 Even if in Hellenistic thought this was not necessarily so; see the approach of Cleanthes described in n. 25 above. 163

determined by God that Ben Sira finds objectionable: “Do not say ‘From God is my sin’” (Sir 15:11). 30 In his response to the claim that one can blame one’s sins on God, Ben Sira presents the argument that God would not create what he, himself, despises, namely sin and sinners. 31 This argument itself points to the challenge of theodicy: if God despises sin, why did he create it? Yet it is clear that from Ben Sira’s point of view this argument is logically convincing; it is reiterated in 15:12b-13. 32 The effectiveness of this statement in refuting God’s responsibility for sin depends on the nature of sin.

30

As noted by F. V. Reiterer, this problem is particularly acute given the fact that the desire to sin, when successfully resisted, is sometimes portrayed as a divine test, as in Job; see “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 110; repr. in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn...” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 375; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). 31 An interesting parallel is found in Wis 11:23-23 “You have mercy on all, because you can do all things, and you overlook the sins of human beings that they may repent. For you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have formed anything if you had hated it.” (Translation following M. A. Knibb, “Wisdom of Solomon,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title [ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 707.) In this passage, the truism used to explain God’s freedom from responsibility for sin in Sir 15:11 is instead presented as the reasoning behind God’s sanction of human repentance. God would not create anything he hated, including humans themselves, and will therefore not destroy them for their sins. 32 M. Gilbert sees Sir 15:12b-13 as a key part of Ben Sira’s argument: God has no need of evildoers and does not cause those who fear him to sin; if God did desire sin, there would be no just people; M. Gilbert, “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference DurhamUshaw College 2001 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 119. This is a logical leap that is not found in the text. 164

As will be seen, Ben Sira argues that sin is not created at all; humans are created, and it is they who are responsible for sin. This key point is only clarified later in the text. Ben Sira’s subsequent depiction of the creation of humans by God in 15:14 serves a twofold purpose: it will form the historical context of humans’ “subjection” to their yēṣer, and it strengthens Ben Sira’s initial argument. God is the creator of humans. God hates sin. Hence, human sin could not have been caused by God, who despises sinners. Again, in an initial reading this “argument” only intensifies the basic conundrum that necessitates theodicy in the face of sin. Why and how does God create a human who will do what he hates? Verse 14 forms the cornerstone of Ben Sira’s argument, providing the logical underpinnings of his previous statements. It describes the relation between God, the human and the human’s yēṣer. In the Genizah manuscripts, the meaning of yēṣer is clear, thanks to an additional stich (15:14aadd in MS A and MS B) that states that God placed the human in the hand of his “snatcher” (ḥwtpw). With the additional stich the verse has three legs, unlike other verses in the passage. Using language similar to the subsequent stich centered on the yēṣer, 14 aadd serves as a gloss, identifying the yēṣer as an anthropomorphic “snatcher.” 33 Di Lella has convincingly argued that the addition is a medieval retroversion of the Syriac of Sir 4:19b, “And I will deliver him

33

As noted by Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1:371, and Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” 335. 165

up to the hand(s) of plunderers” 34 where the root of “plunderers” (ḥṭp) is similar to the root used in the Hebrew of 15:14b (ḥtp). 35 (In both Syriac and Hebrew ḥṭp and ḥtp appear interchangeably, with similar meaning, to “seize” or “snatch”; see Jud 21:21, Ps 10:9, Prov 23:28, Job 9:12.) 36 The added gloss shows that the medieval redactor understood yēṣer as an expression of the already highly developed rabbinic concept of the yēṣer hārā‘: a reified, anthropomorphic evil inclination. 37 This understanding was strengthened by

34

Syriac text and English translations of the Syriac in this chapter follow N. CalduchBenages, J. Ferrer, and J. Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa (Biblioteca Midrásica 26; Estella, Navarre: Verbo Divino, 2003). 35 Di Lella, Hebrew Text of Sirach, 121-5. Di Lella dates the insertion to some time after 800 C.E. 36 Di Lella, Hebrew Text of Sirach, 124. This conclusion has been contested by W. van Peursen, “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives,” KUSATU 2 (2001): 63-64, who sees the use of ḥtp as an internal, though secondary, Hebrew development, based on the appearance of the verb ḥtp in Job 9:12, in the Hodayot (in 1QHa XIII and its parallel in 4Q429), and twice elsewhere in Sirach: 32(35):21 and 50:4. Van Peursen very briefly presents two possible explanations for a Hebrew secondary development of this stich: (1) as a theological addition, following C. Kearns, “The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin” (Ph.D. diss., Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome, 1951) (as cited by van Peursen) or (2) ostensibly following H. P. Rüger, emending yṣrw to ṣrw and considering ‫ ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬an alternative wording of ‫וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬, based on the parallel of mṣr (‫ )מצר‬and mḥtp (‫ )מחתף‬in Sir 50:4. However, see H. P. Rüger’s statement in Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970), 78: “In 1514b stellt (2) (i.e. ‫ )ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬die altere, (1) ‫)וישיתהו ביד‬ (‫ חותפו‬die jüngere Textform dar …‫ מחתף‬und ‫ מצר‬sind in 504 HB einander parallel; möglicherweise ist ‫ חותפו‬Variante eines Fehlers ‫ צרו‬für ‫( יצרו‬Lévi, Segal).” 37 On the demonic nature of the rabbinic evil inclination, see Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, particularly 65-84. 166

the phrasing of the Hebrew verse: literally, humans are placed “in the hand of” their yēṣer, an idea that was compatible with the concept of an almost demonic evil inclination. P. Beentjes has noted that the glosses found in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach are concentrated particularly in passages that deal with theodicy, demonstrating the acute challenge of theodicy for Jews in later centuries. 38 Alternatively, F. Reiterer has proposed an integrative reading of 15:14a-aadd-b, based on Prov 23:27-28: 39 ‫כִּי שׁוּחָה ֲע ֻמקָּה ז ֹונָה וּ ְב ֵאר צ ָָרה נָכ ְִריּ ָה׃ אַף הִיא ְכּחֶתֶ ף תֶּ ֱאר ֹב וּב ֹוגְדִ ים בְּאָדָ ם תּ ֹוסִף׃‬ For a harlot is a deep pit, and a foreign woman is a narrow well. She also ambushes like a robber (ḥetep), and increases traitors among men. 40 450F

In Reiterer’s view, ḥwtpw in Sir 11:14b, like ḥetep in Prov 23:28, depicts something that can be escaped, although with difficulty. Like intercourse with a prostitute, sin has the potential for devastating effect, but is not inevitable, and depends on the person’s voluntary assent. According to Reiterer, the meaning of 11:14 aadd-b is that one must control one’s decision-making capacity, one’s yēṣer, so that one does not rob oneself (ḥtp) of life. 41 451F

However, this interpretation is far from the import of an integrative reading of this verse. The statement that God, by giving humans into the hands of their yēṣer, has 38

P. C. Beentjes, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 524. 39 Reiterer, “Die immateriellen Ebenen,” 114-5. 40 Translation my own. 41 Reiterer, “Die immateriellen Ebenen,” 115. 167

given them into the power of their “robber” or “snatcher,” indicates that the human propensity to sin, metaphorically described as a “robber,” has been determined by God. The prostitute in Prov 23:27-28 is described as part of a warning regarding proper behavior; however, this is not the context of Sir 15: 14. In Sir 15:14, the actor is God, who has acted upon the human being to determine her capacity to sin. The use of the (interchangeable) verb ḥṭp in Ps 10:9 is more illuminating regarding the description in 14aadd than is Prov 23:27-28. In Ps 10:9, a wicked person is described as “snatching” (yaḥṭōp) the poor person like a lion waiting in ambush. Similarly, the description of the human inclination as a “robber” in Sir 15:14aadd indicates both a lack of human decision and the apparent cruelty of the divine decision to place humans in the power of their inclination to sin. The addition of the gloss in 15:14 contradicts the entire thrust of Ben Sira’s argument. While Ben Sira has stated that one’s sin cannot be from God because God does not create what he hates, the expanded verse declares that God has indeed determined that humans will be at the mercy of their inclination. The gloss at 14aadd is not motivated by Ben Sira’s intent to distance God from sin, but rather by a later editor’s wish to illustrate the nature of the yēṣer. The medieval gloss achieves this by describing the yēṣer according to the rabbinic concept of the reified “evil inclination,” a personified and potentially overpowering evil force, created by God from the

168

beginning of time. 42 In doing so, however, the gloss distorts the verse so that it no longer distances God from the responsibility for sin. The gloss must therefore be disregarded in order for the verse to be understood in its original context. The question remains regarding how 15:14, even with the gloss removed, solves Ben Sira’s problem. If God has in fact put humans into the power of their yēṣer, how is their sin not from God? In Sir 15:11-20, Ben Sira endeavors to both acknowledge the divine creation of humans and depict people as responsible for their own sins. He accomplishes this through the introduction of the yēṣer. A further examination of the meaning of this term will illuminate Ben Sira’s logic. Sirach 15:14a echoes Gen 1:1 and 1:27 in its description of human creation, particularly in LXX and MS A, which note that this creation was “from the beginning.” It is reasonable to interpret Sir 15:14b, and particularly the meaning of yēṣer, in its biblical sense, as it appears in Gen 6:5 and 8:21. In these verses the term yēṣer is presented in a pessimistic sense, but must be qualified as evil, i.e., the term is not negative by definition. In fact, the verse at Gen 6:5 implies that the evilness of the human yēṣer goes against the natural order, even if, following the flood, the Deity accepts it as part of human nature (Gen 8:21). Furthermore, as J. Levison notes, Ben Sira distances yēṣer from its negative connotation by removing it from the context of the flood narrative in Gen 6:5 and 8:21 and placing it in the context of creation. Ben Sira thus presents the yēṣer as a neutral capacity which enables the human to make a 42

See Sifre Deut. 45, b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b. 169

moral choice. 43 In other words, the yēṣer in 15:14 reflects the moral choice of the human being or, in keeping with biblical use, denotes human character. G. Maier has noted that the combination of echoing Gen 1:1 and 1:27 in Sir 14a and borrowing yēṣer from Gen 6:5 and 8:21 in Sir 14b demonstrates that from the beginning God has left the decision regarding sin and obedience completely to the will of the human. 44 At the very least, Ben Sira’s reference to the creation indicates that the yēṣer is an intrinsic part of the human. This approach to Sir 15:14 contrasts with that of V. Dalario. Based on the generally pessimistic biblical connotation of yēṣer, Dalario surmises that yēṣer in Sirach must be negative. Therefore, she concludes, 15:14 must be voiced by Ben Sira’s opponents. 45 However, as Gian Prato has noted, in Gen 6:5 and 8:21 the human is free in principle, even if in practice she may choose evil. 46 More to the point, there is nothing in the text to indicate that 15:14 is an argument to which Ben Sira is opposed, in contrast to the directly expressed opposition in 15:11a “Do not say…” If 15:14 were a quote of Ben Sira’s interlocutors like 15:11a, it would be indicated with a similar preface.

43

J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 35. 44 Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 91. 45 D’Alario, “‘Non dire’,” 114-7. 46 G. L. Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975), 240. 170

A similar use of yēṣer as moral character is found in Sir 27:6, where the individual’s yēṣer is presented as reflected in her thinking or reckoning: LXX Hebrew (MS A): γεώργιον ξύλου ἐκφαίνει ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ,

‫על עבדת עץ יהי פרי‬

οὕτως λογισμὸς 47 ἐνθυμήματα καρδίας

‫כן חשבון על יצר אחד‬

ἀνθρώπου; Its fruit brings to light a tree’s cultivation

According to the cultivation of the tree, so

– so reasoning (logismos) (brings to light)

will the fruit be;

notions (enthumēmata) of a person’s

So is the account/reckoning according to the individual’s yēṣer. 48

heart.

458F

Just as a fruit reflects one’s labor concerning the tree, so the thought reflects an individual’s yēṣer: i.e., her nature. It is apparent that the yēṣer in both 15:14 and in 27:6 signifies the nature of each individual, a nature which may choose to follow good 47

While several manuscripts read λόγος here, the preferred reading is λογισμὸς, as per Ziegler, following 253-Syh and 248-493-637. See M. H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira HaShalem (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 167 (Hebrew); Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 356. 48 Translation is my own (leaving yēṣer untranslated for further analysis).’eḥad, “one” is translated as “individual” based on context, and the literal meaning of ḥešbôn is retained in its translation as account or reckoning, comparable to Smend’s trainslation: “und die Ausforschung die Denkweise des Menschen”; R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (3 vols.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906), 1:46. There have been a wide variety of translations of ḥešbôn/logismos in this verse, while yēṣer is alternately translated as indicating mind or nature. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 167 emends the Hebrew ’eḥad “one” to read ’ādām “human,” in accordance with LXX, and so do many of the translators; so, for example, Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1:406, “so (dependeth) man’s thought upon his nature.” While Skehan, Ben Sira, 353, translates “so too does a person’s speech show the bent of his mind” based on the Greek logismos, Di Lella seems to prefer a translation of “reckoning” or “reflection”; see his comments (ibid., 356). 171

or evil. 49 It is this nature, with its ability to turn toward good or evil, which determines the human’s actions. 50 The emphasis of this passage is far removed from the purpose of Sir 15:11-20. Rather than explaining where sin originates, this passage explains to the reader how to take a person’s measure. From a purely external and

49

This explanation is in keeping with many modern translations and studies, although these also integrate the meaning of LXX Sir 15:14 diaboulion, discussed separately below, and therefore tend toward translation of yēṣer as “free choice” rather than as “character.” See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 97, Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1:25, “und überliess ihn seinem freien Willen;” Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 267, “who made them subject to their own free choice;” and Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1:371 n. 14, 15: “Yeṣer is here used in a neutral sense (almost equivalent to Free-will) in which lay the power of doing right or wrong…” (Box and Oesterley also present the possibility that Ben Sira had the evil inclination in mind; see “Sirach,” 1:311.) However, a statement that a person is placed in the power of his character is more reasonable, particularly in the context of early Hellenistic thought, which frequently portrayed character as determining actions (see discussion above and n. 26 ad loc.). In addition, the interpretation of yeṣer as “free choice” is unduly influenced by the Greek translation diaboulion. As discussed below, the translation itself develops the meaning of the text, and therefore cannot be understood as the most accurate understanding of yeṣer here. The interpretation of yēṣer as free choice is contra Collins, who argues that Sir 15 must be read together with Sir 33:7-15. According to Collins, the passage in Sir 33:7-15 and its deterministic tone precludes the understanding of yēṣer as simply free choice, although this is what is being emphasized in Sir 15:11-20; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 83. However, it is far from clear that it is necessary, or even possible, to completely harmonize these two passages. For further discussion of Sirach 33, see below. 50 It is tempting to associate the appearance of yēṣer here with the use of psyche (ψυχή) in Stoic thought, according to which human actions are determined by a combination of antecedent causes and the (already determined) human psyche. (On the psyche in the context of Chrysippus’ cylinder, see F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics [New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1975], 102-3.) However, there is little if any evidence of direct Stoic influence on Ben Sira (see below). In addition, as elaborated further below, this use of yēṣer is not a deterministic one, as is the function of the psyche in Stoic thought. 172

human perspective, one may determine another person’s character by their reasoning or “reckoning.” As LXX 27:7 continues: πρὸ λογισμοῦ μὴ ἐπαινέσῃς ἄνδρα· οὗτος γὰρ πειρασμὸς ἀνθρώπων. “Before reasoning do not commend a man, for this is the test of people.” 51 It is difficult to determine the precise meaning of “reasoning” in these verses. But it seems clear that the “cultivation” brought to light is the person’s character or inner intent, expressed as yēṣer in the Hebrew and the “notions of a person’s heart” in the Greek. Another possible example of the use of yēṣer in Sirach is the description of human creation in LXX Sir 17:1-8. 52 1 Κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτὸν εἰς αὐτήν. 2 ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς. 3 καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐνέδυσεν αὐτοὺς ἰσχὺν καὶ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. 4 ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης σαρκὸς καὶ κατακυριεύειν θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν. [5 ἔλαβον χρῆσιν τῶν πέντε τοῦ κυρίου ἐνεργημάτων, ἕκτον δὲ νοῦν αὐτοῖς ἐδωρήσατο μερίζων, καὶ τὸν ἕβδομον λόγον ἑρμηνέα τῶν ἐνεργημάτων αὐτοῦ.] 6 διαβούλιον καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ὀφθαλμούς, ὦτα καὶ καρδίαν ἔδωκεν διανοεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς. 7 ἐπιστήμην συνέσεως ἐνέπλησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς. 8 ἔθηκεν τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ, [καὶ ἔδωκεν δι’ αἰώνων καυχᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ.]

51

Translation follows Wright, “Sirach,” 741. Brackets indicate glosses considered secondary and found only in the Greek, following Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Translation follows Wright, “Sirach,” 732. 52

173

1 The Lord created a human being out of earth, and he returned him into it again. 2 He gave them days in number and a fixed time, and he gave them authority over the things upon it. 3 He clothed them in a strength like himself, and in his image he made them. 4 He placed the fear of him upon all flesh, even to have dominion over beasts and birds. [5 They received use of the five faculties of the Lord, but, apportioning a sixth, he gave to them the gift of mind, and the seventh, reason, the interpreter of his faculties.] 6 Deliberation (diaboulion) and a tongue and eyes, ears and a heart for thinking he gave them. 7 With knowledge of understanding he filled them, and good things and bad he showed them. 8 He put the fear of him upon their hearts, to show them the majesty of his works. [He allowed that they boast of his wonders through ages.] In Sir 17:6, God grants diaboulion to humans alongside tongues, eyes, ears and a “heart for thinking.” This is the precursor to the gift of wisdom and knowledge in 17:7, a gift that includes the knowledge of both good and evil. While this passage has not survived in Hebrew manuscripts, there is a possibility that the LXX here reflects a Vorlage that also contained the term yēṣer. 53 This possibility is bolstered by the reading in the Syriac version that God “created mouth and tongue and eyes and ears” for humans, possibly reflecting a reading of the verb yāṣar, “formed” instead of yēṣer in the (unpointed) Hebrew Vorlage. 54

53

As reconstructed by Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 103. The Syriac translation of Sir 17:6 uses the verbal root br’ (wbr’ lhw, “and created for them”); the root yṣr is generally not used as a verb in Syriac.

54

174

How can this inform the understanding of yēṣer in 15:14? The context of 17:6, namely the bestowal and teaching of wisdom to humankind by God, indicates that if, in fact, yēṣer is the original term, it is used in 17:6 to express the human capacity for thought. 55 This is a reflection of the biblical use of yēṣer in genitive constructs with the heart (Gen 8:21) and the heart’s thoughts (Gen 6:5). The term yēṣer thus brackets God’s gifts in Sir 17:6 together with “a heart for thinking,” and like the “heart for thinking,” the yēṣer is used here as a positive term to reflect human abilities. At the very least, yēṣer in 17:6 cannot be construed as a negative term, as it is placed in the context of gratitude to God for everything he has bestowed on humans. Hence, the Hebrew text of Ben Sira 15:11-20, once the medieval interpolation has been removed, does not express a tendency toward sin as such: God has allowed humans to be swayed by their own nature, whatever it may be. God has not determined human nature toward good or evil: the choice is the individual person’s, as emphasized in the description of human choice in the continuation of the passage, Sir 15:16-17. In 15:16-17 Ben Sira describes a choice between good or evil: “There are poured out before you fire and water; to whichever you wish stretch forth your hands. Before (each) human are life and death; that which he desires shall be given to him” (15:16-17). Ben Sira’s description echoes Deut 30:19: ‫ָאָרץ ַה ַחיּ ִים ְו ַה ָמּוֶת נָתַ תִּ י ְל ָפנֶי� ַהבּ ְָרכָה ְו ַה ְקּ ָללָה‬ ֶ ‫ַהעִיד ֹתִ י ָבכֶם הַיּ ֹום אֶת הַשָּׁ ַמי ִם וְאֶת ה‬ ‫וּ ָבח ְַרתָּ ַבּ ַחיּ ִים ְל ַמעַן תִּ ְחי ֶה אַתָּ ה ְוז ְַרעֶ�׃‬ 55

As per Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 105. 175

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life – if you and your offspring would live. Ben Sira’s formulation adds the imagery of fire and water, providing a depth of contrast not found in the Deuteronomic passage between fiery evil and life-giving good. It may also imply, as Beentjes notes, that just as fire and water are irreconcilable, so too are sin and faithfulness to God’s commandments. 56 Another development beyond the Deuteronomic passage is the repetition of the verb ḥpṣ (‫)חפץ‬, to “desire, wish,” emphasizing human freedom of choice. Each of the verses in Sirach 15:15-17 repeats a form of this verb, indicating that keeping the law, choosing “fire” or “water,” or determining between life or death are all within reach if the person desires them. This repetition also serves to emphasize human responsibility; there is nothing preventing humans from achieving their desire. In 15:18-19 Ben Sira reaffirms the omniscience of God, perhaps because he fears that the distancing of the cause of human action from God may seem to be a limitation of this omniscience. Finally, in 15:20 Ben Sira concludes with a reiteration of his initial argument: God likes neither sin nor sinners. Ben Sira’s grandson, responsible for the translation of Sirach in the Septuagint, 57 translated yēṣer in LXX Sir 15:14 as diaboulion. This somewhat inexact 467F

56 57

Beentjes, “Theodicy in Ben Sira,” 513-4. See above and n. 6 ad loc. 176

translation seems to be a further step to prevent the reader from understanding this verse to be a description of an implanted tendency toward sin. The word diaboulion has a classic Greek meaning of “debate, deliberation” 58 and a more specific meaning in the Septuagint of “design, plan, counsel.” 59 In the context of Sir 15:11-20, the word diaboulion specifically expresses the ability to deliberate between good and evil, 60 a

58

See “διαβουλιον,” LSJ 390. See T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), 114; J. Lust et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint 1:101-2. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, diaboulion appears as a translation of ‫( מֹעֲצוֹת‬Hos 11:6, Ps 5:11), ‫מְ זִ ָמּוֹת‬ (Ps 10:2), ‫( ַמעֲלוֹת‬Ez 11:5) and ‫( מַ ֲע ְללִים‬Hos 4:9; 5:4; 7:2). Hence, Muraoka initially describes the Septuagintal meaning of diaboulion as “that which one deliberates to do.” 60 As noted by Cohen Stuart, Struggle in Man, 89. Not all scholars have understood diaboulion in LXX Ben Sira as reflecting deliberation or decision. For example, Murphy, “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature,” 336, argues against understanding diaboulion as counsel, decision or free choice in Ben Sira based on the use of diaboulion in T. Ash. 1:3 (where the existence of two diaboulia are described in the context of a dualistic system of good and evil) and T. Benj. 6:1 (where diaboulion is used to describe the inclination of the good man who is not subject to the deception of the spirit of Beliar). However, the late dating and probable Christian provenance (or heavily Christian redaction) of the Testaments shed doubt on the feasibility of using the Testaments to clarify earlier terminology. See Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin; idem, “Christian Influence”; and the recent study by Hillel, “Structure, Source and Composition,” 2323. In an early study, F. Porter (“Yeçer HaRa,” 138), was of the opinion that 15:14b in the Hebrew manuscripts was original, and deleted by the Greek translator. Hence, he asserted that the translator changed the meaning of yēṣer in this passage from a relatively personified evil inclination to a general expression of free will. However, the current acceptance among scholars that 15:14b is not original has precluded this idea. Most recent in-depth studies have incorporated the meaning of diaboulion in Sirach with yēṣer in 15:14 as an expression reflecting the free decision of humankind (see n. 49 above). Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 110, argues that 59

177

meaning that is not naturally associated with yēṣer in the Bible or in the Hebrew version of Sirach, as discussed above. The use of diaboulion in LXX Sir 15:14 also connects the explication of the responsibility for sin in 15:11-20 to the description of human creation in LXX Sir 17:1-8 (see above). The use of the term diaboulion to translate yēṣer in both locations in LXX reflects a conscious choice by Ben Sira’s grandson, who as a rule made no particular effort to maintain one-to-one equivalence between vocabulary in the original Hebrew and his own translation. 61 Thus, a unified message is presented by LXX 15:11-20 and LXX 17:1-7. The ability to deliberate between good and evil was granted by God to humankind at creation; this makes it impossible for any sinner to blame God for her subsequent decision to do evil. The reiteration of the Deuteronomic choice that stands before the human being in Sir 15:16-17 is thereby particularly apt; without the diaboulion, the choice between good and evil presented to humankind would be meaningless. LXX Sir 15:16-17 both justifies God’s gift of the human ability to choose and emphasizes human responsibility for righteous or sinful actions. LXX Sir 15:11-20 removes any indication that the topic of the discourse may be an inclination toward good or evil; it is simply the ability to choose one or the other.

diaboulion in Sir 15:14 reflects a “volitive” aspect of human inclination, through which the person can choose not to sin (ibid., 103). 61 See B. G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 115, 249. 178

By using the term diaboulion, Ben Sira’s grandson has subtly changed the meaning of the base text. In the original Hebrew, placing humans “in the power of” their yēṣer indicates that the yēṣer is something that may determine human actions, i.e. the human character. But by interpreting yēṣer as diaboulion, the translator has distanced God further from the control of human sin. Surrendering humans to their character may indicate that human character is determined by God. In contrast, diaboulion signifies the human capacity for free choice, and therefore cannot be determined. Consequently, in neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version does Sir 15:11-20 present an inborn inclination or predisposition to sin; it expresses a neutral state from which humans can make a choice, reflective of Deuteronomic thinking. This idea, present in the original Hebrew, is made more distinct in the Greek translation. The motivation behind this underscoring of free choice in the LXX may have been the need to further distance the possibility of an inborn evil inclination in the face of Hellenistic thought, which favored a more rational approach to evildoing. Alternatively, it may simply have resulted from a straightforward reading of the text, and an understanding of yēṣer as a positive aspect connected to the perceptive faculties as in Sir 17:6.

179

Sir 33:7-15 The passage in Sir 33:7-15, however, seems to contradict Sir 15:11-20. Sir 33:7-15 justifies the existence of evil in a different context. 62 LXX 33 (36)

MS E 33

7 Διὰ τί ἡμέρα ἡμέρας ὑπερέχει,

‫ }למה מיו{ם יום כי כלו אור ש}ו{נה‬7

καὶ πᾶν φῶς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀφ᾽

:‫}מ{על ֗שמש‬

ἡλίου; 8 ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν,

:‫מת( בחכמת יי נשפטו ויש מהם מועדי֗ ֗ם‬..) 8

καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς· (10) 9 ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀνύψωσεν καὶ

:‫ }מהם ב{רך והקדשו֗ ומהם שם לימי מספר‬9

ἡγίασεν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔθηκεν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἡμερῶν. 10 καὶ ἄνθρωποι πάντες ἀπὸ ἐδάφους,

:‫ }וגם איש כ{לי חמר מן עפר נוצר אדם‬10

καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ· 11 ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος

‫}חכמ{ת ייי תבדילם וישם אותם דרי‬11

διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν

:(‫)ו֗ י֗ ֗שנ֗ ]ה[ ֗א ֗ת דרכיהם‬

{‫הא}רץ‬

τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν·

62

Greek follows Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. In all extant Greek manuscripts, the order of 30:25-33:13b and 33:13b-36:16a is reversed. In addition, certain verse numbers differ. The Greek text below is presented in its proper order while the displaced order is noted in parentheses. Hebrew MS E follows Aḳademyah la-Lashon ha-ʻIvrit, Sefer Ben Sira (square brackets mark reconstructions by the editor), and is presented together with Segal’s reconstructions from Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem marked with curly brackets. Parentheses mark an addition in the manuscript, and supralineal dots mark unclear letters. 180

LXX 33 (36)

MS E 33

12 ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐλόγησεν καὶ ἀνύψωσεν

‫וא}ליו‬ ֗ ‫}מהם ב{רך והקדשו֗ ומהם הקדיש‬12

καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἡγίασεν καὶ πρὸς

:{‫הקריב‬

αὐτὸν ἤγγισεν·

‫ודחפם‬

ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν κατηράσατο καὶ

‫}מהם קלל ו{ ֗השפי֗ ֗ל ֗ם‬ :‫ממעבד}יה{ ֗ם‬

ἐταπείνωσεν καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ στάσεως αὐτῶν. 13 (14) ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ

:‫}כחמר ביד ה{יוצר לאחוז כרצון‬13 :‫}כן אדם ביד{ ֗עו֗ שהו להתיצב מפניו֗ חלק‬

πλάσαι αὐτὸ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτοὺς ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν αὐτοῦ. (15) 14 ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή,

:‫}נוכח רע{ ֗טו֗ ֗ב ונוכח חיים מות‬14 :{‫נ֗ ו֗ ֗כ ֗ח איש ֗טו֗ ֗ב ֗רשע ונוכח האור ח}שך‬

οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός· 15 καὶ οὕτως ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ

‫מע ֗ש ֗ה אל כולם שנים שנים‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה ֗ב ֗ט אל כל‬15

ἔργα τοῦ ὑψίστου, δύο δύο, ἓν

:{‫זה לעומת }זה‬

κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός.

181

Translation 63 LXX 33 (36)

Hebrew MS E 33

7 Why is a day superior to a day, when

7 {Why is one d}ay different from

all the light of a day of a year is from

the other, when all (of the year)

the sun?

receives light {fr}om the sun?

8 By the Lord’s knowledge they were

8 By the Lord’s knowledge they are

marked off, and he made seasons and

judged [separated] 64

feasts different. 9 (10) Some of them he exalted and

9 {Some of them he b}lessed and

hallowed, and some of them he

sanctified, and some he designated as

established for a number of days.

ordinary days.

10 And all human beings are from the

10 {So too a person is a v}essel of

ground, and out of earth Adam was

clay and from earth humankind is

created.

formed.

11 In fullness of knowledge the Lord

11 {The wisdo}m of the Lord

marked them off and made their ways

separates them

different.

And he places them as inhabitants of the ear{th}[And he set their paths] (and he distinguished their paths) 65

63

Translation of the Hebrew follows Wright, “Sirach,” 746, unless otherwise noted. Translation of the Hebrew is my own. In the translation of the Hebrew, Segal’s reconstructions are marked in curly brackets while my posited substitutions for a corrupted text are marked in square brackets and explained in the notes. As in the Hebrew, parentheses mark an addition in the manuscript. (As MS E was discovered in 1931, the Hebrew version of this text did not inform the translations of Box or Smend. They are therefore not used to clarify the translation of the Hebrew here.) 64 The literal meaning of nšpṭw is “judged,” but this may be a corruption of npršw “are separated,” as in the LXX and the Syriac. See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 210, Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 8. 182

LXX 33 (36)

Hebrew MS E 33

12 Some of them he blessed and

12 Some of them he blessed and

exalted, and some of them he hallowed

raised up; some of them he sanctified

and brought near to himself;

and brought near himself

some of them he cursed and brought

Some of them he cursed and brought

low and turned them out of their

low and pushed them away from

position.

their deeds [from their place]. 66

13 (14) Like a potter’s clay in his hand, 13 {Like clay in the hand of the} to fashion it according to his liking,

potter, to grasp at his will, {so is a

so are human beings in the hand of him person in the hand of} his creator, to who made them, to repay them

be set smooth before him. 67

according to his judgment. 14(15) Good is opposite evil,

14 {Opposite evil} is good and

and life is opposite death;

opposite life is death. Opposite a

so a sinner is opposite a pious person.

good man is a wicked man, and opposite light is d{arkness}.

15 And so look at all of the works of

15 Look at all the works of God, all

the Most High, two by two, one

are two by two, one opposite {the

opposite the other one.

other}.

65

Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 211, posits that 11b is a corruption of the correct phrase in 11c (which has been inserted in the original manuscript). As noted by Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 2:298 and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 400, “paths” here indicate “destinies.” 66 As noted by Skehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 12, it is highly probable that m‘bd{yh}m “their deeds” is a corruption of m‘mdyhm “their place (position),” given the frequent confusion of bet and mem; see also Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 211. 67 The text seems corrupted here and the translation proposed above, “to be set smooth before him,” is tentative. Skehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 13b, translates MS E here as “to be stationed before him, a share,” reading ḥlq as ḥēleq “a share” while I have read ḥālāq, “smooth.” 183

In Sir 33:13, in imagery reflecting Jer 18:4,6, 68 God is the “potter” who forms the nature and destiny of all of humankind. 69 However, this section, unlike 15:11-20, is not concerned with the dilemma of the provenance of and responsibility for sin. Rather, the central question is that of differentiation and sanctification. This focus is clear from the initial question: why are some days sanctified while others are not, despite their equality under the sun? The meaning of the following analogous question is evident: why are some people sanctified while others are not, despite what should be their inherent equality? The answer is the same to both questions: such is the wisdom of God. It is this wisdom that determines the “separation” of both days and human beings; both are subject to the divine will. The conclusion of the passage, 33:14-15, indicates that the divine wisdom that determines the differences between days and humans is also reflected in the dualistic symmetry of the universe. The essence of the distinction between different days and humans, Ben Sira suggests, lies in this divinely sanctioned symmetry.

68

Jer 18:4, 6: ‫שׁר ְבּעֵינֵי הַיּ ֹוצֵר ַלעֲשׂ ֹות׃‬ ַ ָ ‫שׁר י‬ ֶ ‫שׁב וַ ֽיּ ַ ֲעשֵׂהוּ ְכּלִי אַחֵר ַכּ ֲא‬ ָ ‫שׁר הוּא ע ֹשֶׂ ה בַּח ֹ ֶמר ְבּי ַד הַיֹּוצֵר ְו‬ ֶ ‫שׁחַת ַה ְכּלִי ֲא‬ ְ ִ‫ ְונ‬4 ‫שׂ ָראֵל׃‬ ְ ִ ‫שׂ ָראֵל נְ ֻאם ה' ִהנֵּה כַח ֹ ֶמר ְבּי ַד הַיּ ֹוצֵר כֵּן אַתֶּ ם ְבּיָדִי בֵּית י‬ ְ ִ ‫ ֲהכַיּ ֹוצֵר ַהזּ ֶה �א אוּכַל ַלעֲשׂ ֹות ָלכֶם בֵּית י‬6 4 And if the vessel that he was making with clay in the potter’s hand was spoiled, he would make it into another vessel, such as the potter saw fit to make. 6 O House of Israel, can I not deal with you like this potter? – says the Lord. Just like clay in the hands of the potter, so are you in My hands, O House of Israel! 69 Hebrew MS E follows Aḳademyah la-Lashon ha-ʻIvrit, Sefer Ben Sira with reconstructions by Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 206-7, marked with curly brackets. Greek follows Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. In all extant Greek manuscripts, the order of 30:25-33:13b and 33:13b-36:16a is reversed. The Greek text below is presented in its proper order while the displaced order is noted in parentheses. 184

Some scholars see Sir 33:7-15 as evidence that predestination is basic to Ben Sira’s thought. 70 Another approach is found in the studies of R. Smend, 71 G. von Rad, 72 A. Di Lella, 73 and most recently J. Klawans, 74 who maintain that these verses are defending the election of Israel; 75 like the holy days of the year, Israel has been chosen to be closer to God. However, as noted by Hadot, this type of nationalism is not typical of Ben Sira, and it is peculiar that if the election of Israel is, in fact, the focus of the passage, the name of Israel is not mentioned. 76 Instead, this passage may be addressing the election of the individual within Israel. If so, this passage would form an explanation of the special status of either the

70

See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 83; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 158-9. Both Collins and Maier see Sir 33:7-15 as evidence of a belief in predestination. Maier, however, thinks that in Sir 15:11-20 Ben Sira refused the psychological consequences of the “traditional” deterministic system, because of the problem it created for accepting the concepts of free will and retribution (ibid., 115). 71 Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 2:297: “An und für sich sind alle Menschen ebenso einander gleich wie die Tage des Jahres, aber wie Gott die Festtage im Jahre ausgezeichnet hat, so hat er Israel vor allen Völkern ausgezeichnet und die Heiden sogar verflucht, sie erniedrigt und vernichtet.” 72 G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; London: SCM Press, 1972), 267. 73 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 400. 74 J. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 60. 75 Klawans, “Josephus on Fate,” 60, distinguishes between predestination, the belief that who will be righteous and who will be sinful has already been determined by God, and divine election, the idea that a certain group has been chosen from among others. 76 Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 159. 185

priesthood (the closest analogy with the “sanctified days” with which the passage begins) or of other religious or political leaders. 77 One objection to such an explanation is the forceful rejection of the “nonelect” described in 33:12c-d. G. Goering has argued that the contrast is between “elect” (Israel) and “anti-elect” (the cursed nation of Canaan), and not between “elect” (Israel) and “non-elect” (non-Israelites); in his view the latter are not diametric opposites. 78 However, it is not clear why Ben Sira would wish to focus on this ancient distinction. S. Olyan has proposed that there remained those who advocated a panLevitic priesthood in this period, and that Ben Sira advocates an Aaronid approach, as opposed to an exclusivist pro-Zadokite approach on the one hand and a broader acceptance of Levites as priests on the other. 79 If Olyan’s proposal is accepted, the

77

Passages such as Sir 7:29-31 have been cited as evidence that Ben Sira had a very positive view of the priesthood. In fact, B. G. Wright claims that Ben Sira intended some passages specifically to respond to complaints against the Jerusalem priesthood; see “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. P. C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 189-222. The passage under discussion is not mentioned in his review of Sirach. 78 G. S. Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (JSJSup 139; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 59-60. 79 S. M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987): 261-86. Olyan bases the idea of Ben Sira’s opposition to a pan-Levitic approach on the disparity between the attention given to Moses (five verses) and that given to Aaron and his descendants (20 verses) in 45:1-25, in addition to the use of the term zār in Sir 45:13 to describe a non-priest, parallel to the description of non-Aaronides in Num 17:5 or Num 3:10 (“Relationship to the Priesthood,” 267, 271). However, it should be noted that only a few verses later in 45:18, Ben Sira uses the plural of zār to describe Datan and Abiram (non-Levites) as well as Koraḥ and his community (Levites). 186

harsh language in 33:12c-d may be read as a rebuke of Levites who dare to claim the priesthood. Nevertheless, due to the lack of evidence for any advocacy of Levites as priests during the Second Temple period, the exact group rejected in 33:12c-d must remain an open question. Regardless of the identity of the “other” group, however, in 33:12 it is this group’s non-elected status, and not their lack of righteousness, that is under discussion. That election, and not righteousness, is the focus of this passage can be discerned from the fact that the verses 33:12-13 discuss not human righteousness or sinfulness, but rather the sanctification and destiny of humans. The human can be “sanctified” and “blessed” or “brought low” and “cursed” by God; they can be brought near to God or exiled. Human sinfulness is not under discussion. As in the covenantal sectarian texts already discussed, while Ben Sira distinguishes between the elect and the non-elect, this distinction does not necessarily determine sinfulness or righteousness. 80 Here Ben Sira presents a system determined wholly by the divine that does not clearly interact with his approach in 15:11-20. As laid out in Sir 15:11-20, humans may sin or may not sin: the Deuteronomic choice between life and death lies in their hands. In Sir 33:7-15, the world operates according to a system of divine election, whereby God decides whom to bring close and whom to reject, who will be holy and 80

This is consistent with the conclusion of Goering (Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel, 248-9) that Ben Sira does not integrate the dichotomies of wise/foolish and righteous/wicked with the system of election he propounds. 187

who will not, without regard to human choice. Ben Sira makes no attempt to integrate the two systems described in 15:11-20 and 33:7-15. The conclusion of this passage (33:14-15) clearly puts selective election into a dualistic context. All the works of God, Ben Sira declares, exist in pairs: good opposite bad, righteous opposite wicked. 81 The purpose of this declaration is to address the challenge of theodicy in the face of the existence of evil within the context of the system of election and non-election. The continued existence of sinners presents a problem, regardless of human power to choose. While humans may freely choose sin, why does God not obliterate the sinner or prevent the damages sinners

81

In Sir 11:14 Ben Sira expresses a similar idea: “Good and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth are from God.” The following two verses include additional pairs from God including the pair “just paths” and “sin” (MS A)/“love” (LXX), and conclude with the assurance of retribution for evildoers. However, these verses are considered secondary by most scholars; see Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, and Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 237, 239. Compare Reiterer, who considers them original on literary and substantive grounds; Reiterer, “Bibelübersetzung: Wiedergabe oder Deutung?” in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn...” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 375; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 166-7. These passages in Sirach draw from the description of God’s creation of contrasting elements in Isa 45:7, “(I) form light and create darkness, (I) make weal and create woe – I the Lord do all these things.” As noted by O. Wischmeyer, the contrast between good and bad and its ascription to God is also found in Qoh 7:14: “So in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune, reflect: The one no less than the other was God’s doing; consequently may man find no fault with him”; O. Wischmeyer, “Gut und Böse: antithetisches Denken im Neuen Testament und bei Jesus Sirach,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 135-6. However, while in Qoh 7:14 this contrast demonstrates humans’ lack of knowledge regarding what to expect, Ben Sira changes the dualistic aspect of God’s works into a general principle that people can apply to reality. 188

wreak upon the righteous? The solution presented in 33:7-15 addresses this problem through the praise of a universe that contains polar opposites. Evil and good, sinner and righteous 82 must exist alongside each other in a harmonious universe. 83 Ben Sira makes no attempt to justify this “necessity of opposites” within the framework of the human choice he espoused in 15:11-20. By juxtaposing this concluding statement with the passage on election, Ben Sira conveys the idea that some people are elected and others are not for the same reason that righteous and wicked coexist: the world consists of opposing pairs. For this justification to work, it matters little that the choice of election – of “bringing close” and “blessing” – is determined wholly by the Deity while the choice to sin or not is in human hands. God creates a harmonious world of opposites where he determines the existence of both elected and non-elected, and where he allows the existence of righteous and sinner. Both sets of opposites are required for the operation of the universe. 84

82

The pair “light and darkness” appearing in 14b of the Hebrew text may be secondary, a retroversion based on a combination of the Greek and the Syriac, which includes the pair “light and darkness” but not “righteous and sinner”; see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 396 n. 14b. This pair is also drawn from Isa 45:7; see n. 81 above. 83 O. S. Rankin considers this Ben Sira’s unique contribution to theodicy, anticipating Augustine and even Leibniz; Rankin, Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion (repr. New York: Schocken, 1969); 34-5. 84 J. K. Aitken, “Divine Will and Providence,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (ed. R. EggerWenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 297-8, proposes a different solution: Sirach 15 and Sirach 33 portray the two sides of the relationship between 189

Possible Hellenistic Influence in Sirach 33 While some have connected this dualistic “doctrine of opposites” to Stoic thought, the relationship between Sirach 33 and Stoic thought is tenuous at best. 85 Dualism is not particularly prominent in Stoic philosophy; while Chrysippus (the third head of the Stoic school) did justify evil by stating that good cannot exist without coexisting bad, in his argument the concepts he pairs are all traits of human beings whose positive qualities can only be appreciated through contrast with their lack (including bravery versus cowardice, self-control versus licence, and good sense versus folly); he does not pair good and evil. 86 It is more likely that Sirach 33 reflects

God and humankind, allowing responsiveness by both God (in Sirach 33) and humans (in Sirach 15). However, the nature of the Deity portrayed in Sirach 33 does not seem particularly responsive, and mutuality is not prominent in this passage. 85 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 85; D. Winston, “Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy,” in Of Scholars, Savants, and Their Texts; Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (ed. R. Link-Salinger; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 239-49. Winston draws connections between Sirach 33 and Stoic thought, but does not cite Sirach 15. Elsewhere (Winston, “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy,” 43-5) Winston claims that the solution to the problem of the contrast between Sirach 15 and the more deterministic passages in Sirach is that Ben Sira used the Stoic formula of contrasting proximate and principal causes. However, this argument assumes that Ben Sira had an in-depth knowledge of Stoic thought that is highly unlikely, and reads a great deal into the passage in Sirach 15. J. T. Sanders notes that similar contrasts between the concepts of human responsibility and divine determinism are found in Proverbs, for example in the disparity between Prov 11:5 and Prov 22:2; see Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBLMS 28; Chico Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 55 n. 127, Consequently when this contrast is found in Sirach it need not be traced to Hellenistic thought. 86 See Sandbach, Stoics, 105. In fact, Mattila (“Ben Sira and the Stoics,” 495-7) has concluded that Ben Sira would not have had access to the basics of Stoicism due to the fact that Hellenistic philosophy was not commonly studied in Alexandria until the very end of the Ptolemaic period (see n. 26 above). She also points to the deep 190

the general theory of polar opposites that formed part of most pre-Socratic

differences between Sirach and Stoic thought, including the doctrine of retribution within one’s lifetime emphasized throughout Sirach, and Ben Sira’s lack of Stoic-style theorizing on the necessity and mutual interdependence of opposites in the universe (even in Sirach 33). Mattila argues that the major outside philosophic influences on Ben Sira were Demotic wisdom and popular gnomic Greek thought (ibid., 497-8) and maintains that Ben Sira, like the Demotic sages, juxtaposed human moral responsibility with a deterministic notion of divine control over human destiny without attempting to reconcile the two (ibid., 480). Contrast the view of U. WickeReuter, who sees Ben Sira’s multiple references to the harmony of God’s creation as parallels to early Stoic thought; Wicke-Reuter, “Ben Sira und die Frühe Stoa: Zum Zusammenhang von Ethik und dem Glauben an eine göttliche Providenz,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 268-81. However, on close inspection there are significant differences between the views of sin in Demotic thought and those in Sirach. While scholars point to the parallels between Papyrus Insinger (a Demotic wisdom text) and Sirach, the majority of the paradoxes that end the chapters of Papyrus Insinger focus on fate and contradict the notion of retribution, but have little to do with sin. In the paradoxes connected to sin (few as they are), it is the individual’s good or evil character that may be determined by the god, presenting a stronger contradiction with the notion of free will (also prominent in PInsinger) than is found in Sirach; see M. Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52; Fribourg, Switzerland: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 150. This is evident in several proverbs cited below. (The following citations of Papyrus Insinger follow the column/line citation format.) There is curse or blessing in the character that was given him. (PInsinger 5/9) It is the god who gives calm and unrest through his commands. (23/18) The heart, the character, and their owner are in the hand of the god. (15/5) Taking counsel, thought, and patience are in the hand of the god. (22/5) In addition, according to Lichtheim, the Demotic writer saw evildoing as the result of “foolishness,” “a state which encompassed the disdain of learning, untrammelled passions, and disregard of the deity” (ibid., 136-7). These were located in the heart. Lichtheim notes that in Demotic writing the human is frequently placed in a true confrontation with her heart, and either (person or heart) may be in the right. While the heart is frequently mentioned in Sirach, it reflects the wide semantic range of the biblical term, and the contrast between the heart and its owner so evident in Demotic texts is not a feature of Ben Sira’s thought. 191

cosmological doctrines, 87 such as in the thought of one Pythagorean group who, according to Aristotle, referred to ten different pairs of opposite principles, including light and darkness and good and evil (Metaph. A 5 986a 21-26). These pairs are closer to those we find in Sirach 33 than the pairs mentioned by Chrysippus, and the language used in Sirach, nwkḥ, “opposite/in front of”88 expresses a polar/spatial relationship between the pairs that is in keeping with wider Hellenistic thought. Consequently, by juxtaposing the idea of election with accepted cosmological theory, Ben Sira shows the “rationality” of the election of some and the non-election of others, legitimating the sanctification of the elite while addressing the perspective of Hellenistic thought. 89

87

See G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1992), 15-8, esp. 16. Lloyd brings a range of examples from surviving fragments of pre-Socratic thought as well as reports by Aristotle. In addition to the Pythagorean example cited below, Lloyd notes that Alcmaeon proposed that “most human things go in pairs,” referring to contrary characteristics such as white and black, sweet and bitter, good and bad, and great and small (Metaph. 986a 31 ff). 88 See BDB 647; HALOT 698-9. Admittedly, the translation in LXX Sirach 33, ἀπέναντι, does not have any particular significance in Hellenistic thought. 89 This is in keeping with the conclusions of H. V. Kieweler, who maintains that Ben Sira, while remaining true to the traditions of his faith, was forced to contend with the “international” form of Hellenistic thought, whether he rejected or accepted it; Kieweler, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp (BEATAJ 30; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 268, contra Th. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973). 192

Other References to the Source of Sin in Sirach The book of Sirach contains further references that are difficult to reconcile with a single viewpoint regarding sin. Perhaps the most prominent of these is Sir 25:24 “From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die/die together.” 90 At first glance, this verse can be read as one of the few references in Second Temple literature to “original sin,” the idea that humans have inherited sin from Adam as a result of his eating the forbidden fruit offered him by Eve. This idea existed alongside the tradition that death resulted from the first sin (as in 4 Ezra 3:7 and 2 Bar. 54:15). Both these aspects of the “original sin” tradition are seldom found in surviving Second Temple literature. Apart from this verse in Sirach and the wellknown passage in Paul (Rom 5:12-21), 91 this idea is found in literature written soon after the destruction of the Temple, namely 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (see chapter 7), 92

90

In Hebrew MS C: ‫ ובגללה גוענו יחד‬,‫“ מאשה תחלת עון‬From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we die together/we die alike” and in LXX: ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀποθνῄσκομεν πάντες “From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die.” 91 See also 1 Cor 15:21-22, frequently cited as evidence of original sin in Paul’s thought. However, this interpretation depends on whether the “death” Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15:21-22 is literal or spiritual. 92 It is also reflected in Apoc. Mos. 32:2, where Eve laments that her actions have caused “all sin”: “καὶ πᾶσα ἁμαρτία δι’ἐμὲ γέγονεν ἐν τῇ κτίσει.” (Text follows J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition [PVTG 6; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 160.) The Apocalypse of Moses (sometimes called the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, in relation to Vita Adae et Evae, with which its text overlaps) is considered Jewish in origin, but its dating is in doubt. While its terminus ad quem is approximately 400 C.E., some claim that the traditions it contains can be dated to the first century of the common era; see J. R. Levison, “Adam and Eve, Life of,” ABD 1: 65-66. 193

indicating that the idea of “original sin” may have become more popular following the destruction. 93 Two different interpretations of this verse preclude reading it as primarily referring to Eve’s sin. The first of these was proposed by F. R. Tennant soon after the publication of the Hebrew Geniza fragments. Tennant proposed a literal reading of 25:24: while Eve (and Adam’s) sin caused death for humankind, it was the first in a series of human sins of which it was not the cause; it was “merely” the beginning of sin. 94 A second possibility is based on the larger context of 25:24: the disaster of being married to an evil wife. The description of the evil wife is found in 25:13-26, but it will suffice to quote the immediate context of 25:24 to convey the sense of the larger passage: 95 LXX 23 καρδία ταπεινὴ καὶ πρόσωπον σκυθρωπὸν καὶ πληγὴ καρδίας γυνὴ πονηρά· χεῖρες παρειμέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυμένα ἥτις οὐ μακαριεῖ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς. 24 ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀποθνῄσκομεν πάντες. 25 μὴ δῷς ὕδατι διέξοδον μηδὲ γυναικὶ πονηρᾷ παρρησίαν· 26 εἰ μὴ πορεύεται κατὰ χεῖράς σου, ἀπὸ τῶν σαρκῶν σου ἀπότεμε αὐτήν. 93

Alternatively, this may be the coincidental result of which books survived the destruction, an example of the disadvantages inherent in the attempt to trace theological concepts based on surviving texts. 94 F. R. Tennant, “The Teaching of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom on the Introduction of Sin and Death,” JTS 2 (1900-1901): 214. 95 Translation follows Wright, “Sirach,” 740, but is also faithful to the Hebrew verses that have survived: 25:23b-24. LXX reads as follows, and the Hebrew that has survived in MS C is noted in each verse. 194

MS C :‫ רפיון ידים ]וכ[שלון ברכים אשה לא תאשר את בעלה‬23b :‫מאשה תחלת עון ובגללה גוענו יחד‬

24

23 A dejected heart and a sullen face and a wound of the heart is a wicked wife; slack hands and weakened knees (are from) a woman who does not make her husband happy. 24 From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die/die together. 25 Do not give water an outlet nor freedom of speech to a wicked wife. 26 If she does not walk according to your hands, cut her off from your flesh. As noted by John Collins, Sir 25:24 is an observation made in the context of a reflection on the ‘wicked woman/wife,’ not as an integrated part of Ben Sira’s approach to sin (or to death). 96 J. Levison has similarly interpreted Sir 25:24 506F

according to its context as referring not to Eve but to the wicked wife; according to Levison the verse should be read: “From (one’s) wife is the beginning of sin, and because of her we (husbands) all die.” 97 As Levison notes, this forms a contrast with 507F

the good wife in 26:1, who doubles her husband’s days. 98 In addition, the description 508 F

96

Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 80-81. On death caused by Adam’s sin, see Collins, “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 296-7. 97 J. Levison, “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24,” CBQ 47 (1985): 617-23. Levison focuses on the interpretation of γυναικὸς as wife. The Hebrew Vorlage ’ššh can be translated in a similar manner. 98 Levison, ibid., 621. 195

of a woman who is the “beginning of perversity” and is a source of death to her intimates is found in 4Q184 “Wiles of the Wicked Woman,” with no connection to Eve. 99 In all probability, Sir 25:24 is principally an observation regarding the wicked wife that nevertheless alludes to the tradition according to which death and/or sin came to the world through Adam and Eve’s sin. 100 If this is so, this verse testifies to the fact that “original sin” traditions emerged at a date far earlier than the references in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch would suggest. 101 However, the context of 25:24 determines that Ben Sira’s primary focus is on the wicked wife; this verse is not meant to reflect his primary view of sin. Other verses in Sirach have been cited as reflecting not an approach to sin as such, but a possible view of an evil inclination. These include Sir 17:31, 21:11 and a particularly puzzling reference in Sir 37:3. In addition, a reference to the desire to sin in the context of prayer in Sir 23:1-2 further illuminates Ben Sira’s approach to sin. Of these four references, only 37:3 has survived in Hebrew. Consequently, for Sir 17:31, 21:11 and 23:1-2 it has been necessary for scholars to attempt to reconstruct an original based on the Greek and Syriac translations. 99

Collins further develops this idea (“Before the Fall,” 297-8), but notes the similarities between Ben Sira’s assertion and later traditions according to which Eve caused death for humanity, as is found in the Apocalypse of Moses. 100 As reflected in Di Lella’s commentary; see Ben Sira, 348-9. 101 Another possible reflection of the tradition that Adam and Eve’s sin led to death (although not sin) may be found in the Damascus Document, CD X.8-9: ‫כי במעל האדם‬ ‫“ מעטו ימו‬for in the treachery of man/Adam his days became few.” 196

Sirach 17:31 In Sir 17:31, the sinning human is compared to the eclipsed sun. LXX reads: τί φωτεινότερον ἡλίου; καὶ τοῦτο ἐκλείπει· καὶ πονηρὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. “What is brighter than the sun? Even this thing fails. And flesh and blood will ponder evil.” 102 However, the Syriac of 31b is “thus is a human being who does not control his inclination (yaṣreh) because he is flesh and blood.” 103 Many scholars consider the use of the term yaṣreh an accurate reflection of a Hebrew Vorlage, although the whole of Syr 31b may be a corruption. 104 Consequently, there is a strong probability that the Vorlage of Sir 17:31 contained the term yēṣer. The analogy presented in 31a presents a complex view of this “inclination,” one that is more pessimistic than the representation in 15:11-20 but nevertheless presents a somewhat positive view of human possibility. The sun, which normally gives light, is sometimes eclipsed. Similarly, humans (who are far weaker than the sun) will sometimes

102

Translation following Wright, “Sirach,” 733. Translation follows Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba, 132. 104 Consequently, Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1:46, translates “und böse ist das Trachten von Fleisch und Blut”; Oesterley, “Sirach,” 378, (reading ἀνήρ ὃς instead of πονηρὸς) translates “And (how much more) man, who (hath) the inclination of flesh and blood!”; and Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 108, reconstructs “and evil is the yēṣer of flesh and blood.” A notable exception to the list of translations that rely on the Syriac is that of Skehan and Di Lella. Skehan (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 278) translates: “Is anything brighter than the sun? Yet it can be eclipsed. How obscure then the thoughts of flesh and blood!” For Di Lella’s explanation, see n. 105 below. 103

197

contemplate or have a tendency toward evil, despite their usual mission to follow God’s commandments. 105 The verse at Sir 17:31, like the passage in Sir 33, explains the presence of evil on a global, not an individual, level. Humanity is presented as a whole, and as such the inevitability of evil contemplation or inclination can be safely acknowledged without justifying the reader’s individual sin. The justification regarding the inevitability of evildoing, particularly in the LXX where it is the pondering of evil that is inevitable, parallels passages in rabbinic literature which depict the inevitability of evil thoughts. 106 Comparable to this passage is the isolated statement in the didactic

105

A similar explanation is given by Di Lella, Ben Sira, 285: “…just as the sun, which is brightest of all, can be eclipsed, so ‘obscure’ (lit., evil) are ‘the thoughts of flesh and blood.’ In more logical terms, the verse says: If the sun, most brilliant of the stars, can at times fail to give light, how much more can a human fail, who is but ‘flesh and blood.’” 106 See, for example, b. Šabb. 64a and Cant. Rab. 4:3, both of which explain Num 31:50 as portraying a sin offering necessitated by inescapable evil thoughts; see E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 1:477 and 2:897 n. 39. An interesting partial contrast to this idea is found in Philo’s On the Change of Names, where Philo describes the seemingly unending tidal wave of evil thoughts with which humans must contend, only to conclude that the solution is simply never to entertain an evil thought (Mut. 239-40). (Possibly Philo depends on divine help to achieve this end; in Leg. 2.32 he describes his own thought process: “…and many a time when wishing to entertain some fitting thought, I am drenched by a flood of unfitting matters pouring over me; and conversely when on the point of admitting a conception of something vile, I have washed the vile thing away with wholesome thoughts, God having by His grace poured upon my soul a sweet draught in place of the bitter one” [LCL; Leg. 2.32].) Responsibility for evil thoughts was an ongoing problem for Jewish thinkers until the modern period, as evidenced by the declaration of Schneur Zalman of Liadi that one must not hold oneself responsible for inevitable (to all but the purely righteous) “strange/foreign thoughts” as they are simply manifestations of one’s 198

collection 4QInstruction (a nonsectarian work of wisdom literature): 107 ‫אל תפתכה‬ 517F

‫ֿצר רע‬ ֗ ‫“ מחשבת י‬Let not the thought of an evil inclination mislead thee” (4Q417 [4QInstructionc] 1 ii.12). This parallel may be evidence of a general tradition regarding evil thoughts common to wisdom literature. Evildoing in Sir 17:31 represents the failing of humans at their mission and not their natural condition, as the sun’s eclipse represents a veering from its usual function. Nevertheless, like the eclipse, human evildoing or its contemplation is, on a universal level, unavoidable.

Sir 21:11 Sir 21:11 is similarly difficult to categorize. The context of this verse is a list of unconnected proverbs regarding sin and folly, which are of little help in determining the overall meaning of this particular verse. 21:11 ῾Ο φυλάσσων νόμον κατακρατεῖ τοῦ ἐννοήματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ συντέλεια τοῦ φόβου κυρίου σοφία.

“animal soul.” Such a thought was not to be accounted sin as long it was not contemplated at length. See Liqutei Amarim (Tanya), 28. 107 J. Strugnell and D. J. Harrington, “General Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 and 4QInstruction (Musar LeMevin): 4Q415 ff. with a reedition of 1Q26 (ed. J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin; DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 36 and T. Elgvin, “An Analysis of 4QInstruction” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), 36, 187-8. J. J. Collins has proposed that 4QInstruction, while not written by a member of the Qumran community, may have been written by a member of a forerunner group; see Collins, “Sectarian Consciousness,” 192. 199

He who keeps the law gains mastery over the object of his thought, and consummation of the fear of the Lord is wisdom. 108 It is probable that the Vorlage of “object of his thought” (τοῦ ἐννοήματος αὐτοῦ) is yēṣer, as indicated by the Syriac, yaṣreh. 109 In the context of the book as a whole this verse is compatible with the approach set forth in Sir 15, where the reader is enjoined to make the correct choice and keep the commandments, 110 and may be seen as a continuation of a similar idea. If the original text of 21:11 includes yēṣer as the entity or object to be controlled, it expresses the idea that while one’s character may determine one’s actions (as in Sir 15), this character may be tempered through the law. The idea that the law is used to curb one’s inclination toward sin is found throughout Second Temple prayer as well as in wisdom literature, as will be explored further below (see chapter 7). In Sir 21:11 (as in the sectarian covenantal texts examined above) following the law is necessary to control one’s desires.

108

Translation follows Wright, “Sirach,” 736. See Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba, 147. This reading is preferred by Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 1:388 and Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem, 127. However, Skehan and Di Lella prefer the Greek, translating “Whoever keeps the Law controls his impulses,” namely temptations to violate the law (Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 304 and 310). The possibility that the Vorlage is yēṣer is also supported by the appearance of the “mastery of the yēṣer” in m. ’Abot 4:1: “…Who is mighty? He who masters his yēṣer.” 110 Indeed, as noted by Prato, Il problema della teodicea, 244, Sir 15:15 integrally connects the importance of the law with the choice to do good. 109

200

Sir 37:3 Sir 37:3 is possibly the most puzzling reference to the origin of sin in Sirach. It appears to depict an “evil notion” that wanders the earth. The inexact parallel between the Hebrew and Greek further complicates the understanding of this verse. LXX

MS B

ὦ πονηρὸν ἐνθύμημα, πόθεν ἐνεκυλίσθης

MS D ‫שא ֗מר מדוע כן‬ ֗ ‫הוֹי ַרע יא ֹ ַמר מדוע נוצָרתי ְל ַמלֵּא היו)!( רע‬

:‫תבל תרמית‬ ֗ ‫ נוצרתי* למלא ֗פני‬:‫ְפנֵי תֵ בֵל ] ַת[ ְר ִמית‬

καλύψαι τὴν ξηρὰν ἐν

‫*הוי רי ֵע י֗ ֗אמר מ' נוצרתי‬

δολιότητι; LXX

MS B 112

MS D 113

O evil notion, how were

Alas, evil/friend who says,

Alas, evil, it says “Why

you involved, to cover the

“Why was I created so,* to

was I created, to fill the

dry land with deceit? 111

fill the face of the earth

face of the earth with

with deceit?”

deceit?”

52F

521F

523F

* O friend who says, “why was I created” The two Hebrew manuscripts witness two different readings of this verse. It is because this verse is so ambiguous that each Hebrew manuscript contains a vocalization to determine whether r‘ denotes rē‘a/rê‘a 114 “friend” or ra‘ “evil”: MS B 524F

through a marginal notation (rê‘a) and MS D (ra‘) in the body of the text. While the 111

Translation follows Wright, “Sirach”. Translation is my own. 113 Translation is my own. 114 The preferred biblical spelling is ‫( ֵר ַע‬with the exception of Job 6:27), while later Mishnaic Hebrew uses the plene form ‫רי ַע‬.ֵ See HALOT 1253. 112

201

LXX clearly reflects a reading of ra‘ (“evil”), and possibly yēṣer ra‘ (“evil notion”) 115 the context in Sirach concerns the nature of friends, both bad and good. Consequently, the correct reading seems to be that found in the margin of MS B: the subject is a deceitful, false friend, and not an “evil notion.” 116 The LXX verse that presents the idea of an “evil notion” is probably a corruption; Di Lella has posited that the Greek translation of yṣr represents a borrowing of ṣr (enemy) from the end of verse 2. 117

115

Although N. Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25; Münster: Aschendorff Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), 301, posits a reading of dê‘a ra‘ (‫)דֵּ י ַע ַרע‬, this hypothetical construction does not fit the terminology of Ben Sira or the Hebrew of his time. As in biblical Hebrew, in Sirach ‫ דעה‬or ‫ דעת‬convey instruction or knowledge, and knowledge is never evil; for ‫ דעה‬see MS B 51:16; for ‫ דעת‬see MS A 3:25, 5:10, MS B 34:24, MS B, C, D 37:22, MS B, D 37:23, MS B 38:3, 44:16. Moreover, the one appearance of ‫ דֵ ַע‬in Sirach (MS A 16:25b ‫ )ובהצנע אחוה דעי‬is in a phrase borrowed from Job 32:10b (‫ ) ֲא ַחוֶּה דֵּ עִי אַף אָנִי‬referring to the instruction the speaker wishes to convey. There is therefore no basis for positing ‫ דע‬as a term for inclination or for proposing the hypothetical phrase ‫דֵּ י ַע ַרע‬. 116 So Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 424, “Alas, my intimate!,” Peters, Jesus Sirach, 300, “ Wehe über den schlechten Freund!” and A. Eberharter, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (HSAT 6; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925), 123, “Weh’ über den schlimmen Freund!” Contra Box, Sirach, 443, “O base nature!” Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1:63, like Box, translates this verse as addressing the evil inclination (“O böse Sinnesart”), but explains it as referring specifically to the treachery of the false friend (2:327). Hadot, Penchant mauvais, 129, recognizes that MS Bmargin better reflects the context of the verse, but rejects it on the basis of the Greek, and concludes that this verse refers to the evil inclination. 117 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 428. As noted by Di Lella, the Syriac translation reflects a similar borrowing, translating 37:3a as “The enemy and the wicked one, why were they created?” (Translation follows Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La sabiduría del escriba, 214.) 202

Indeed, this verse appears to be a continuation of verse 2, which laments the sad case of “a soul-friend who has turned into an enemy” (37:2b). 118 This leads directly into the posited original form of 37:3, which would be translated as “Alas, friend, who says/should say “Why was I created (so) – to fill the face of the earth with deceit?” The betrayal of the friend is so great that the friend himself should realize how unnatural he is. Consequently, Sir 37:3 in its original is not part of the approach to sin or evil in Sirach. While the Greek reading of this verse does reflect a belief in an “evil inclination” or “notion,” little more can be determined from the LXX. The translator was constrained by his reading of the Hebrew, corrupted as it may have been, and so his representation of an independent “evil notion” that “covers the land” cannot be read as an accurate representation of Ben Sira’s thought or his own.

Sir 23:2-6 An intriguing reference to the desire to sin in the context of a prayer to God is found in Sir 23:2-6, a passage that has not been preserved in the Hebrew. 119 This

118

Translation my own, based on the Hebrew; MS D: ‫ ;ריע כנפש נהפך לצר‬MS B margin: ‫רע כנפש נהפך לצר‬. LXX reads similarly: ἑταῖρος καὶ φίλος τρεπόμενος εἰς ἔχθραν. 119 This prayer is the second of two prayers in 22:27-23:6, the first of which asks God for help in curbing the speaker’s tongue; on these prayers and their function, see P. C. Beentjes, “Sirach 22:27-23:6, in zijn context,” Bijdr 39 (1978): 145; F. V. Reiterer, “Gott, Vater und Herr meines Lebens: Eine poetisch-stilistische Analyse von Sir 22,27-23,6 als Verständnisgrundlage des Gebetes,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003 (ed. R. Egger203

passage, while displaying a certain inconsistency with Sirach as a whole, corresponds surprisingly well to expressions regarding sin in the prayers discussed in previous chapters. In Sir 23:2-6, the speaker asks for help in controlling his “thought” and “heart,” namely the source of his desire to sin. 120 2 τίς ἐπιστήσει ἐπὶ τοῦ διανοήματός μου μάστιγας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς καρδίας μου παιδείαν σοφίας, ἵνα ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγνοήμασίν μου μὴ φείσωνται καὶ οὐ μὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν, 3 ὅπως μὴ πληθυνθῶσιν αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου πλεονάσωσιν καὶ πεσοῦμαι ἔναντι τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ ἐπιχαρεῖταί μοι ὁ ἐχθρός μου, [ὧν μακράν ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς τοῦ ἐλέους σου;] 4 κύριε πάτερ καὶ θεὲ ζωῆς μου, μετεωρισμὸν ὀφθαλμῶν μὴ δῷς μοι 5 καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν ἀπόστρεψον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 6 κοιλίας ὄρεξις καὶ συνουσιασμὸς μὴ καταλαβέτωσάν με, καὶ ψυχῇ ἀναιδεῖ μὴ παραδῷς με. 2 Who will set whips upon my thought and discipline of wisdom upon my heart so that they might not spare my faults of ignorance and he shall not let their sins go? – 3 that my acts of ignorance may not be multiplied, and my sins may increase, and I will fall before my adversaries, and my enemy will rejoice over me. [Far from them is the hope of your mercy.] 4 O Lord, Father and God of my life, do Wenzel and J. Corley; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 145-7; and M. Gilbert, “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 117-8. On the association of 22:27-23:6 with the prayer genre, see Beentjes, “Sirach 22:27-23:6,” 146. 120 Square brackets indicate glosses considered secondary, following Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Translation follows Wright, “Sirach,” 737. 204

not give me a lifting up of eyes, 5 and turn desire away from me. 6 Let not the belly’s appetite and sexual intercourse seize me, and do not give me over to a shameless soul. Here Ben Sira explicitly asks God for help in “setting whips” upon his thought and discipline upon his heart in order to prevent future sins, and to prevent any illicit sexual desire that may overtake him. As in Pss. Sol. 16:7-11, a passage explored above as part of the prayer genre, in Sir 23:2-6 the deterministic view of sin reflected in a petition contradicts the theological stance of the work as a whole. In light of the discussion regarding the connection between the inclination to sin and the need for divine assistance expressed in the prayer genre, the request for assistance in overcoming one’s desire to sin in Sir 23 is no surprise. Regardless of the larger theological premise in Sirach regarding human free will, this expression fits its petitionary context, where the request for divine aid against one’s desire to sin is expected. 121

Conclusion: Ben Sira’s Approach to Sin The book of Sirach includes one passage that directly addresses the question of sin’s source: Sir 15:11-20. In this passage, sin is dependent on human character and 121

M. Gilbert (“Prayer in Ben Sira,” 126-7) notes that according to Sir 15:9-10, the praise of God is barred to the sinner. He consequently proposes that the prayer in 23:26, by clearing the speaker of sin, enables the praise of God in the subsequent chapter (Sirach 24). However, in Sir 23:2-6 more emphasis is placed on the prevention of future sin than on atonement for past sins. 205

the free choices that humans make. In this regard Ben Sira’s approach differs from both the prayers examined above, in which humans cannot escape the desire to sin without divine assistance, and the covenantal texts at Qumran, according to which the human is capable of rejecting his inevitably sinful desire. In Ben Sira’s solution to the problem of sin in 15:11-20 there is no “inevitably sinful” desire. There is simply human character, bestowed by the Divine and fully responsible for sin. The medieval interpolation in 15:14aadd, based on the later negative and reified understanding of the yēṣer, subverted Ben Sira’s original message. Following the interpolation the verse becomes a description of the human’s subjection to his evil inclination by God. This direcly contradicts the central idea in this passage, namely that human free will absolves God of responsibility for human sin. The idea set forth in Sir 15:11-20 is distinct from Ben Sira’s description of divine election in Sirach 33, which presents the idea that sinners are allowed to continue their existence due to the universe’s “harmony of opposites.” Ben Sira makes no attempt to reconcile the different stances reflected in Sir 15:11-20 and 33, nor does he attempt to integrate the other approaches to sin that are found in Sirach. These approaches are reflected in a rebuke of the wicked wife that alludes to the idea that sin originated with Eve (25:24), a statement regarding the inevitability of sinful thoughts or actions among humans (17:31), the declaration that one may control one’s inclination by keeping the law (21:11), and a likely corrupted passage describing the “evil notion” as covering the earth with deceit (37:3). Ben Sira’s request for divine

206

assistance against sinful inclinations in a prayer (23:1-2) is in keeping with the stance of general Second Temple prayer explored above. Perhaps, as suggested by G. von Rad, 122 the best explanation for these inconsistencies is that Ben Sira’s teaching is contextual; one “solution” is not meant to apply to all possible contexts. While Ben Sira addresses the problem of sin directly in 15:11-20, he was willing to adopt different stances as necessary, as is evident in this survey.

122

Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 247-51. 207

VI.

Philo of Alexandria and the Inclination to Sin

The works of Philo of Alexandria cannot be considered a standard part of the wisdom genre; they are, on the whole, works of philosophical exegesis which reflect the Alexandrian intellectual milieu in which Philo lived. However, like texts that represent the wisdom genre, Philo’s works directly address the problem of sin and attempt to reconcile it with specific theological views. They may therefore reflect more widespread attitudes toward sin common to Jewish thought, although they do not necessarily do so. In his attempt to reconcile scripture and philosophy, Philo, an Alexandrian Jew who lived ca. 20 B.C.E.-50 C.E., 1 frequently engages the problem of evil. 2 One of

1

Approximately 20 B.C.E.-50 C.E. Philo’s approach to evil has often been explored by scholars, with varying foci and conclusions. Several studies focus not on the origin of moral evil, but on natural or physical evil (i.e. the existence and occurrence of detrimental events or entities); see Wolfson, Philo, 279-303, O. Leaman, Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy (CSRT 6; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 33-47, and D. T. Runia, “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 576-604. Runia (ibid., 604) concludes that the distinction between physical and moral evil is fundamental to Philo’s approach, but that moral evil is explained more easily through the idea of free will. D. Winston and A. M. Mazzanti directly address the anthropology of sin in Philo. Winston, “Theodicy and Creation,” investigates Philo’s approach to the makeup of the human soul through Philo’s descriptions of the creation of humans, as will be discussed further below. A. M. Mazzanti discusses the manner in which the capability for sin or evil is introduced into the human. She concludes that Philo supports two contradictory approaches: the introduction of this capability represents a break with 2

208

Philo’s chief aims is to distance evil from God by any means possible. Toward this goal, Philo goes so far as to limit God’s providence: 3 When Providence is said to govern the universe, it does not mean that God is the cause of everything; certainly not of evil, of that which lies outside the course of nature, or of any of those things that are not at all beneficial. He is no more responsible than the councilmen, the rulers, and the judges of a virtuous city said to be governed by law... Violence, rapine and the like are not caused by the law but by the lawlessness of the inhabitants. The same may be said of the governing of the universe by Providence. It is not that God is responsible for everything; nay, the attributes of his nature are altogether good and benevolent. On the contrary, the nature of matter and that of vice is a product of deviation and not caused by God. (Prov. 2.82; emphasis mine.) divine creation through the use of “helpers” (as in Opif. 72-75, discussed below) or this capability is the implicit result of the vertical continuum of creation (in her view, represented by the second Adam in Opif. 134 ff.). Nevertheless, Mazzanti stresses that for Philo, the human is never totally corrupted, enabling a continuing relationship with the Divine; A. M. Mazzanti, “Antropologia e radici del male in Filone di Alessandria: due possibile opzioni,” Aug 28 (1988): 187-201. For G-H. Baudry’s dualistic analysis of Philo’s approach to sin (“Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie”), see below, n. 35. 3 On Providence has survived only in an Armenian translation from the Greek, and therefore the Greek cannot be reproduced here. The citation follows A. Terian’s translation from the Armenian included in D. Winston’s anthology, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections (Classics of Western Spirituality; New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 181. 209

In this analogy, both natural evil (“the nature of matter”) and moral evil (“that of vice”) are removed from divine responsibility. 4 While here Philo addresses moral and natural evil equally, elsewhere his approach to moral evil is not identical to his explanation of natural evil. 5 Philo addresses moral evil separately, and describes it as innately human. In Fug. 79-80, he describes the nature of human sin in a manner reminiscent of Sir 15:11-20: 6 79. οὐδὲν οὖν τῶν ὑπούλως καὶ δολερῶς καὶ ἐκ προνοίας πραττομένων ἀδικημάτων ἄξιον λέγειν γίνεσθαι κατὰ θεόν, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς. ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὡς ἔφην, οἱ τῶν κακῶν εἰσι θησαυροί, παρὰ θεῷ δὲ οἱ μόνων ἀγαθῶν. 80. ὃς ἂν οὖν καταφύγῃ, τὸ δ’ ἐστὶν ὃς ἂν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων μὴ ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ θεὸν αἰτιᾶται, κολαζέσθω, τῆς μόνοις ἱκέταις πρὸς σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀσφάλειαν καταφυγῆς, τοῦ βωμοῦ, στερούμενος… 79. Accordingly it is not right to say that any wrongs committed with secret hostility and with guile and as the result of premeditation originate from God – they originate from us ourselves. 7 For as I have said, the 4

F-H. Hager notes that nevertheless, unlike Xenophanes and Plutarch, Philo does not present the doctrine that matter constitutes an evil counter-principle, i.e., that it is in the existence of matter that all evil finds its source; F-H. Hager, Gott und das Böse im antiken Platonismus (Elementa 43; Amsterdam: Würzburg, 1987), 114-5. 5 Runia (“Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” 588) maintains that the arguments in On Providence are used for dialectical purposes and do not represent Philo’s views on theodicy in their entirety. See n. 4 above. 6 Translation following F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, LCL, except where otherwise noted. 7 For “originate from God – they originate from us ourselves,” the translation is my own. Colson and Whitaker translate “are done as God ordains; they are done as we ordain.” The translation chosen is a more literal reflection of the Greek (λέγειν 210

treasuries of evil things are in ourselves; with God are those of good things only. 80. Whosoever, therefore, takes refuge, that is, whosoever blames not himself but God for his sins, let him be punished, by being deprived of the refuge which is a place of deliverance and safety for suppliants only, namely the altar… Two elements of Ben Sira’s argument can be found in this passage of Philo: the audience’s potentially misguided attempt to blame God as the source of their sins and the assertion that sins originate within human beings themselves. 8 However, Philo juxtaposes his assertion with the idea that no bad thing can originate with God, while Ben Sira in 15:11-20 is satisfied with the claim that God would not create what he hates. This difference may be the result of Philo’s philosophical approach contrasted to Ben Sira’s more anthropomorphic view of God. In other words, Philo presents an idea similar to that in Sir 15:11-20, but couched in philosophical language. Philo’s view of the human origin of sin is further delineated in Det. 122. In an explanation of Gen. 5:29, Philo notes: 9

γίνεσθαι κατὰ θεόν, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς), and indicates the chief concern of Philo here: the origin of these “wrongs.” 8 This is an observation of similarity, not an argument for Philo’s reliance on Sirach. D. Roure, “L’obtenció del perdó en Ben Sira i en Filó d’Alexandria,” in Perdó i reconciliació en la tradició jueva (ed. A. P. i Tàrrech; Barcelona: Associació Biblical de Catalunya, 2002), 209-21, has concluded that Philo did, in fact, develop traditions he had inherited from Sirach, based on a vocabulary analysis of a variety of theological issues in Philo and Sirach. However, Roure’s analysis does not include the text or topic under discussion. 9 Transl. Colson and Whitaker, LCL, modified as noted below. 211

ὀυ γάρ, ὡς ἔνιοι τῶν ἀσεβῶν, τὸν θεὸν αἴτιον κακῶν φησι Μωυσῆς, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας χεῖρας, συμβολικῶς τὰ ἡμέτερα παριστὰς ἐγχειρήματα καὶ τὰς ἑκουσίους τῆς διανοίας πρός τὸ χεῖρον τροπάς. For Moses does not, as some impious people do, say that God is the author of ills (κακῶν), rather (Moses says that) our own hands (cause them), 10 figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the voluntary 11 movement of our thoughts/intentions 12 to what is wrong. (Det. 122) Here Philo further explains why God is free from the responsibility for human evil. Philo’s emphasis on human freedom of will, and particularly of thought, frees the Divine from responsibility for human evildoing. The implication that humans, while granted free will, tend toward what is wrong reflects a negative view of human tendencies that coincides with the idea of a human “evil inclination” while contrasting with Ben Sira’s more neutral yēṣer in Sir 15:11-20. Creation of the potential for sin in humankind Philo presents the idea that the potential for sin is innate and natural to the human condition while distancing God from this potential in a concrete way in response to the exegetical imperative created by the plural form in Gen 1:26a LXX: 10

Colson and Whitaker translate less literally, but with the same meaning: “Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them.” 11 Colson and Whitaker translate “spontaneous,” but “voluntary” is the usual meaning of ἑκούσιος, and it is used in this sense by both Plato and Aristotle. See “ἑκουσιος,α,ον,” LSJ 514b-515a. 12 While Colson and Whitaker translate “minds,” the use of διάνοια is far more abstract, reflecting thought or intention. (See “διάνοια, ἡ,” LSJ 405b.) 212

Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν “Let us make man according to our image.” In Opif. 74-75, Philo explains: 13 74. τῷ δὴ πάντων πατρὶ θεῷ τὰ μὲν σπουδαῖα δι’ αὑτοῦ μόνου ποιεῖν οἰκειότατον ἦν ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν συγγενείας, τὰ δὲ ἀδιάφορα οὐκ ἀλλότριον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ταῦτα τῆς ἐχθρᾶς αὐτῷ κακίας ἀμοιρεῖ, τὰ δὲ μικτὰ τῆ μὲν οἰκεῖον τῆ δ’ ἀνοίκειον, οἰκεῖον μὲν ἕνεκα τῆς ἀνακεκραμένης βελτίονος ἰδέας, ἀνοίκειον δὲ ἕνεκα τῆς ἐναντίας καὶ χείρονος. 75. διὰ τοῦτ’ ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς ἀνθρώπου γενέσεώς φησιν ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς “ποιήσωμεν,” ὅπερ ἐμφαίνει συμπαράληψιν ἑτέρων ὡς ἂν συνεργῶν, ἵνα ταῖς μὲν ἀνεπιλήπτοις βουλαῖς τε καὶ πράξεσιν ἀνθρώπου κατορθοῦντος ἐπιγράφηται θεὸς ὁ πάντων ἡγεμών, ταῖς δ’ ἐναντίαις ἕτεροι τῶν ὑπηκόων· ἔδει γὰρ ἀναίτιον εἶναι κακοῦ τὸν πατέρα τοῖς ἐκγόνοις· κακὸν δ’ ἡ κακία καὶ αἱ κατὰ κακίαν ἐνέργειαι. Now for God the universal Father it was highly appropriate to make the virtuous beings on his own because of their family relationship with him, and in the case of the indifferent beings it was not alien to him to do so, since these too have no part in the wickedness that is hateful to him. In the case of the mixed natures, however, it was partly appropriate and partly inappropriate, appropriate on account of the better kind mixed in with them, inappropriate on account of the kind that was opposite and inferior. For this reason it is only in the case of the genesis of the human being that he states that God said ‘let us make’, which reveals the enlistment of others as collaborators, so that whenever the human being acts rightly in decisions and actions that are beyond reproach, these can be assigned to 13

Translation follows D. T. Runia, Philo On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (PACS 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 6566. 213

God’s account as universal Director, whereas in the case of their opposite they can be attributed to others who are subordinate to him. After all, it must be the case that the Father is blameless of evil in his offspring, and both wickedness and wicked activities are certainly something evil. In other words, because humans, unlike other creations, have the capacity for evil, they could not be wholly created by the Divine; creation of the human required the collaboration of “others.” This is stated more concisely in Fug. 70: κατεχρήσατο <δὲ> καὶ ταῖς μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν οὐ διὰ τὸ λεχθὲν μόνον, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἔμελλεν ἡ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ μόνη κακῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐννοίας λαμβάνειν καὶ χρῆσθαι ταῖς ἑτέραις, εἰ μὴ δυνατὸν ἀμφοτέραις. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγήσατο τὴν κακῶν γένεσιν ἑτέροις ἀπονεῖμαι δημιουργοῖς, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑαυτῶ μόνῳ. And he employed the powers that are associated with him not only for the reason mentioned, but because, alone among created beings, the soul of man was to be susceptible of conceptions of evil things and good things, and to use one sort or the other, since it is impossible for him to use both. Therefore God deemed it necessary to assign the creation of evil things to other makers, reserving that of good things to himself alone. Philo thereby solves the problem of moral evil by attributing it to “makers” (δημιουργοῖς) other than God. He does not, however, address why God would require the creation of moral evil at all. Philo’s reference to subordinate creators, surprising from a monotheistic standpoint, draws heavily from Plato’s Timaeus, where the demiurge calls upon the

214

“young gods” to help him. 14 Plato’s “young gods” make the mortal parts of humanity (i.e. the body) as well as living beings who “have no part of immortality” (Tim. 41a, 42e). 15 Runia notes a fundamental difference between Plato’s approach and Philo’s. In Plato, the “young gods” are responsible for all things mortal and susceptible to decay, that is, for those beings who suffer from structural evil. In contrast, Philo’s “others” (whose concrete identification Philo avoids) are responsible only for the part of humans capable of moral evil. 16 While Runia attributes the delegation of moral evil to

14

See D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 244-6. 15 According to Runia, Plato has in mind the heavenly beings, including the sun; see Runia, “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” 593 n. 33. 16 Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 247-8. Other differences noted by Runia are (1) while in the Timaeus the demiurge completely delegates this part of creation, the “others” in Philo merely assist the Deity; (2) those responsible for the mortal part of creation in the Timaeus are concretely identified as the “young gods,” i.e. the planetary gods, while Philo avoids any such identification; and (3) while in the Timaeus God creates the rational soul and delegates the irrational soul and the body to his subordinates, the division of labor in Philo is unspecified, and the “others” do not seem to be responsible for the body. The position that in Philo’s view the body was created directly by God is also maintained independently by T. H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS 14; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 41 and B. A. Pearson, “Philo and Gnosticism,” ANRW 21.1: 324. However, D. Winston argues that, based on Spec. 1.329 (according to which God is not directly responsible for the physical universe, called “limitless, chaotic matter”), God could not have made the human body directly. Therefore the human body was part of what was delegated to God’s assistants according to Philo (Winston, ibid., 109). If Winston is correct one would expect this important aspect of human creation to be delineated at least once in Philo’s description of human creation (as is found in the Platonic parallel in the Timaeus). In addition, according to Winston himself (“Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,” Poetics Today 19 (1998): 48-49), Philo’s attitude towards the body is not unrelentingly negative; positive statements regarding the body are found in Opif. 13638, Praem. 119-23, and, as noted by Runia, in QG 4.200 (regarding Isaac, who has a 215

an “understandable extrapolation” of Plato’s text,17 the focus of Philo’s attention on moral evil in contrast to Plato’s focus on structural evil is significant. 18 For Philo, it is the human capacity to sin that cannot be attributed to God in any way; this necessity does not exist for human mortality. It is also noteworthy that the view of creation presented in Opif. 74-5 and Fug. 70, irrespective of any dependence on the Timaeus, is in keeping with Philo’s approach to the source of sin in the passages reviewed above: sin stems from an innate potential for evildoing that is subject to human free will. The natural inclination to sin is also explored by Philo, as further discussed below. Philo’s view of the human potential for evildoing contains yet another contrast with Plato’s approach. Philo mentions his solution to the plural(s) found in Gen. 1:26 in four different texts (Op. 72-75, Fug. 68-72, Conf. 168-83, and Mut. 30-32).

“formidable and wonderful greatness of body”); Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 322. (Philo is not at variance with Plato, whose works also include both negative and positive attitudes toward the body; see Runia, ibid., 321-2.) While the corporeal human is both mortal and perishable (Opif. 134), the “original man” is excellent in both body and soul (Opif. 136). For Philo, the body is not necessarily evil, and he addresses it with both deprecation and praise; see Winston, “Sex and the Body,” 48-49 and Pearson, “Philo and Gnosticism,” 328-9. Thus there is no need, according to Philo’s approach, to delegate the creation of the human body to “others.” 17 Specifically of Tim. 42d 3-4, where the demiurge gives ordinances to the newly created rational soul so that he will be absolved from any blame for the evil resulting from the soul’s wrong choices. 18 R. Radice, “Commentario a La creazione del mondo,” in La filosofia mosaica (ed. R. Radice and G. Reale; Milan: Rusconi, 1987), 275, has proposed that it is possible to connect these differences to Philo’s ethical dualism, as opposed to Plato’s ontological dualism. (He draws from the work of A. M. Mazzanti, “L’aggetivo μεθόριος e la doppia creazione dell’uomo in Filone de Alessandria,” in La “doppia creazione” dell’uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi [ed. U. Bianchi; Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1978], 33 ff.) 216

However, as D. Winston notes, only once, in Fug. 68-72, does Philo connect this explanation to the creation of the irrational soul. 19 In Conf. 179 Philo attributes the “road to evil” to the reasonable soul (τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ). 20 This stands in contrast to the approach of Plato, who attributes evildoing exclusively to the irrational soul. 21 Winston concludes that in describing the tendencies of the human soul, Philo preferred to emphasize the primary role of reason. 22 It would seem, then, that Philo had an interest in emphasizing not only human responsibility for sin, but the human capability to prevent it, and hence emphasized its control via the rational soul. In addition, by deemphasizing the separate “irrational soul” in this context, Philo presents the inclination toward sin as inseparable from the human condition, even the “reasoned” one. For example, in Her. 295, Philo expresses the conviction that, even without wayward teachers, the soul will of itself be guilty of evil in its youth (καὶ ἄνευ τῶν διδαξόντων αὐτομαθής ἐστιν αὐτὴ πρὸς τὰ ὑπαίτια, ὡς ὑπ’ εὐφορίας ἀεὶ κακῶν βρίθειν), thereby explaining the inclination toward sin in youth expressed in Gen 8:21. 19

Winston, “Theodicy and Creation,” 108-9. Contra P. Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 77; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 166, who assumes that the irrational soul is responsible for sin (and consequently that the irrational soul is created by “others”), and the assumption by A. T. Wright, “Some Observations of Philo’s ‘De gigantibus’ and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism,” JSJ 36 (2005): 478, that the rational and irrational soul mentioned in Leg. 2.6 are parallel to good and evil inclinations. 21 The mention of the irrational soul in Fug. 68-72 is in keeping with the strong Platonic influence found in this text; see Winston, “Theodicy and Creation,” 109. In the words of Runia (Philo and the Timaeus, 244), Philo’s explanation in this section of De fuga et inventione “virtually amounts to a Platonic and Platonist medley.” 22 Winston, “Theodicy and Creation,” 111. Winston maintains, however, that according to Philo the irrational soul was formed by the divine assistants. 20

217

Adam and Sin Philo’s retelling of Eve’s creation and Adam’s sin has been cited as an example of a particularly negative view of women and sex, in which both are viewed as corrupting factors. 23 Philo does trace sin to bodily desires in the context of Adam’s sin in Opif. 152, where he states that before the sin of eating the forbidden fruit, the desire between Adam and Eve engendered bodily pleasure “which is the starting-point of wicked and lawbreaking deeds” (ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀδικημάτων καὶ παρανομημάτων ¦ ἀρχή). 24 However, Philo’s initial description of Adam and Eve’s meeting is romantic, and their desire is depicted in a positive manner; it is the bodily pleasure engendered by it that is a source of sin. 25 Consequently this passage does not identify an historical source of sin; rather, it refers to the mechanism of pleasure that may lead to sin. In addition, it is important to note that for Philo, the root of sin is in the soul, not the

23

See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 78-80. Boyarin’s analysis has been contested at length by Winston, “Sex and the Body”. 24 ὁ δὲ πόθος οὗτος καὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἡδονὴν ἐγέννγσεν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀδικημάτων καὶ παρανοημάτων ἀρχή, δι’ἣν ὑπαλλάττονται τὸν θνητὸν καὶ κακοδαίμονα βίον ἀντ’ἀθανάτου καὶ εὐδαίμονος. “But this desire also gave rise to bodily pleasure, which is the starting-point of wicked and lawbreaking deeds, and on its account they exchange the life of immortality and well-being for the life of mortality and misfortune.” (Translation follows Runia, On the Creation, 87.) This passage has been mentioned as evidence of Philo’s misogyny and as an identification of woman with the corporeal degradation of the original man and with misfortune; see Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 79-80 and Baudry, “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie,” 109. For a short overview of scholarship regarding Philo’s views on women and sexuality, specifically in reference to this passage, see Runia, On the Creation, 359-61. 25 Winston, “Sex and the Body,” 56. 218

body. While Philo frequently deprecates the body, his attitude toward it is not wholly negative. 26 In addition, according to both Plato (Rep. 584c) and Aristotle (E.N. 1173b 7-13), the source of feeling is in the body but pleasure is felt in the soul. 27 Hence, it is at the meeting with Eve that Philo (unsurprisingly) identifies the beginning of sexual pleasure, which will be a factor in humans’ sin due to their evil inclination. In Philo’s interpretation, it is the sin of eating the forbidden fruit that demonstrates the human evil inclination to God (Opif. 155): θέμενος δὲ τούτους τοὺς ὅρους ἐν ψυχῇ καθάπερ δικαστὴς ἐσκόπει, πρὸς πότερον ἐπικλινῶς ἕξει. ὡς δὲ εἶδε ῥέπουσαν μὲν ἐπὶ πανουργίαν, εὐσεβείας δὲ καὶ ὁσιότητος ὀλιγωροῦσαν, ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἀθάνατος ζωὴ περιγίνεται, προὐβάλετο κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς καὶ ἐφυγάδευσεν ἐκ τοῦ παραδείσου μηδ’ ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰσαῦθις ἐπανόδου δυσίατα καὶ ἀθεράπευτα πλημμελούσῃ ψυχῇ παρασχών… “Once he (God) placed these boundaries in the soul, 28 he proceeded like a judge to observe in which direction it would incline. When he (God) saw it leaning towards cunning and having little regard for piety and holiness, from which immortal life results, he expelled it, as might be expected, and banished it from the garden of delights. He did not offer any hope of

26

As noted above (n. 16) positive statements regarding the body are found in Opif. 136-38, Praem. 119-23, and in QG 4.200. On Philo’s balanced approach to the body see Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 322; Winston, “Sex and the Body,” 48-49; and Pearson, “Philo and Gnosticism,” 328-9. 27 R. Hackforth, Plato’s “Philebus” (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 61. 28 Apparently a reference to the human virtues, understanding, and the ruling part of the soul, all symbolized by the plants in the Garden of Eden as described by Philo in Opif. 154. 219

future return to a soul which was going incurably and irremediably astray…” 29 God’s recognition of this human inclination is the cause of the exile from Eden as much as is the sin itself, and determines that humans have no hope of returning. The description of God’s “discovery” that humans tend to sin is incongruous but succeeds in disconnecting God from this negative tendency.

Human inclination toward sin Philo’s attitude toward the innate human inclination is usually pessimistic. In Mut. 183-185, Philo describes the inevitable moral failing of humans, despite their reason: 30 πολλὴ δὲ ἄγνοια νομίζειν, τὰς θεοῦ ἀρετὰς τὰς ἀρρεπεῖς καὶ παγιωτάτας χωρῆσαι ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου δύνασθαι…ἀκράτους μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς θεοῦ ἀρετάς, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὁ θεὸς οὐ σύγκριμα, φύσις ὢν ἁπλῆ, κεκραμένας δὲ τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς γεγόναμεν κράματα, θείου καὶ θνητοῦ συγκερασθέντων καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τῆς τελείας μουσικῆς λόγους ἁρμοσθέντων... εὐδαίμων δ’ ὅτῳ ἐξεγένετο τὸν πλείω τοῦ βίου χρόνον πρὸς τὴν ἀμείνω καὶ θειοτέραν μοῖραν ταλαντεύειν· ἅπαντα γὰρ τὸν αἰῶνα ἀμήχανον, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἀντίπαλον θνητὸν ἄχθος ἔστιν ὅτε ἀντέρρεψε καὶ ἐφεδρεῦσαν ἐκαιροφυλάκησε τὰς ἀκαιρίας τοῦ λογισμοῦ, ὡς ἀντιβιάσασθαι.

29 30

Translation follows Runia, On the Creation, 88. Translation follows Winston, Philo of Alexandria, 219. 220

It is a mark of great ignorance to believe that the human soul can contain the unwavering, absolutely steadfast excellences of God….And perhaps this is naturally so, for the excellences of God are inevitably unmixed, since God is not a compound, but a simple nature, whereas those of man are mixed, since we, too, are mixtures, with divine and human blended in us and harmonized in accordance with the proportions of perfect music…Happy is he to whom it has been granted to incline toward the better and more godlike portion for the greater part of his life. For it is impossible to do so throughout the whole of his life, for at times the rival mortal burden turns the balance, and lying in wait watches for the right moment amid the indispositions of reason to forcibly counter it. (Emphasis mine.) According to Philo in this passage, the “rival mortal burden” within the human soul cannot be consistently resisted. In a similar vein regarding the impossibility of complete virtue, Philo states: “For there necessarily remain blemishes congenital to every mortal being, which may well be abated but cannot be completely destroyed” (Mut. 49; ἀπολείπονται γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης παντὶ θνητῷ συγγενεῖς κῆρες, ἃς λωφῆσαι μὲν εἰκός, ἀναιρεθῆναι δ’ εἰσάπαν ἀδύνατον). 31 In Mos. 2.147 Philo explains: “that sin is congenital to every created being, even the best, just because they are created” (ὅτι παντὶ γενητῷ, κἂν σπουδαῖον ᾖ, παρόσον ἦλθεν εἰς γένεσιν, συμφυὲς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐστίν). 32 Consequently, sacrifices are always required to propitiate God (Mos. 2.147).

31 32

Translation follows Winston, Philo of Alexandria, 218. Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 221

This negative view of human inclinations differs from that found in Deus 4950, where Philo expresses a more optimistic view of human tendencies, still within the context of freedom of will. Not surprisingly, Philo uses Deut 30:15 as a prooftext for human freedom of choice: 33 Ὥστε “ἐνεθυμήθη καὶ διενοήθη ὁ θεὸς” οὐχὶ νῦν πρῶτον, ἀλλ’ ἐξέτι πάλαι παγίως καὶ βεβαίως, “ὅτι ἐποίησε τὸν ἄνθρωπον,” τουτέστιν ὁποῖον αὐτὸν εἰργάσατο· εἰργάσατο γὰρ αὐτὸν ἄφετον καὶ ἐλεύθερον, ἑκουσίοις καὶ προαιρετικαῖς χρησόμενον ταῖς ἐνεργείαις πρὸς τήνδε τὴν χρείαν, ἵνα ἐπιστάμενος ἀγαθά τε αὖ καὶ κακὰ καὶ καλῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν λαμβάνων ἔννοιαν καὶ δικαίοις καὶ ἀδίκοις καὶ ὅλως τοῖς ἀπ’ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας καθαρῶς ἐπιβάλλων αἱρέσει μὲν τῶν ἀμεινόνων, φυγῇ δὲ τῶν ἐναντίων χρῆται. παρὸ καὶ λόγιόν ἐστι τοιοῦτον ἀναγεγραμμένον ἐν Δευτερονομίῳ· “ἰδοὺ δέδωκα πρὸ προσώπου σου τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸν θάνατον, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ κακόν, ἔκλεξαι τὴν ζωήν.” οὐκοῦν ἀμφότερα διὰ τούτου παρίσταται, ὅτι καὶ ἐπιστήμονες τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων γεγόνασιν ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὀφείλουσι πρὸ τῶν χειρόνων αἱρεῖσθαι τὰ κρείττω λογισμὸν ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὥσπερ τινὰ δικαστὴν ἀδωροδόκητον, οἷς ἂν ὁ ὀρθὸς ὑποβάλλῃ λόγος πεισθησόμενον, οἷς δ’ ἂν ὁ ἐναντίος ἀπειθήσοντα. Thus God “had it in his mind and bethought him” not now for the first time, but ever from of old – a thought that was fixed and steadfast – ‘that he had made man,’ that is he thought of what nature he had made him. He had made him free and unfettered, to employ his powers of action with voluntary and deliberate choice for this purpose, that, knowing good and ill and receiving the conception of the noble and the base, and setting 33

Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 222

himself in sincerity to apprehend just and unjust and in general what belongs to virtue and what to vice, he might practice to choose the better and eschew the opposite. And therefore we have an oracle of this kind recorded in Deuteronomy. “Behold, I have set before your face life and death, good and evil; choose life” (Deut 30:15, 19). So then in this way he puts before us both truths; first that men have been made with a knowledge both of good and evil, its opposite; secondly, that it is their duty to choose the better rather than the worse, because they have, as it were, within them an incorruptible judge in the reasoning faculty, which will accept all that right reason suggests and reject the promptings of its opposite.” (Deus 49-50) In this explanation, because God has bestowed free will on humankind, and all decisions are led by the reasoning faculty, humans should have an inclination against, rather than for, evildoing. 34 In a similar vein but without the emphasis on free will, Philo in Praem. 63 describes the human soul as bearing the “twins” of good and evil at birth, but nevertheless tending uniformly to the good. 35 In these passages, human free 34

This is similar to the description of human makeup in 4 Macc 2:21-3:5; see below. G-H. Baudry describes Philo’s approach to human sin as dualistic, reflecting the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1 QS III.13-IV.26) (discussed in chapter 13) as well as the (rabbinic) concept of two inclinations, evil and good. For Baudry, Philo is proof that the idea of two inclinations had spread to Alexandrian Judaism. He cites QE 1.23 as a central prooftext: “Into every soul at its very birth there enter two powers, the salutary and the destructive. If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite one is too weak to see. And if the latter prevails, no profit at all or little is obtained from the salutary one” (LCL; QE 1.23); G-H. Baudry, “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel,” 286-9; idem, “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie,” 105-6. While at first glance, this statement does seem to support Baudry’s conclusion, reflecting two innate inclinations, the continuation of the passage speaks against this understanding: “Through these powers the world too was 35

223

will combined with human reason should necessarily result in human righteousness. Philo thereby emphasizes the human responsibility for sin, as sin can be avoided with human reason. Thus, Philo is not consistent in presenting a view of a specifically “evil” inclination; in the passages noted above, humans’ freedom of choice underlies the more optimistic possibility that rational humans will have a proclivity for good. Philo is, however, consistent in seeing evildoing solely as the result of human free will and the potential for evil that results from it. Therefore, humans bear full responsibility for any evil action.

Determinism Nevertheless, there is some evidence for a more deterministic approach in Philo. In Ebr. 125-126, Philo describes the need to petition God that one not take the first steps toward evil: 36 εὔχου δὴ τῷ θεῷ μηδέποτε ἔξαρχος οἴνου γενέσθαι, τουτέστι μηδέποτε ἑκὼν ἀφηγήσασθαι τῆς εἰς ἀπαιδευσίαν καὶ ἀφροσύνην ἀγούσης

created. …Thus, the sun and moon and the appropriate positions of the other stars and their ordered functions and the whole heaven together come into being and exist through the two (powers).” This statement is clearly dualistic, but it is equally evident that mere human inclinations are not what are described here. While there may be “dualistic” descriptions of sin in Philo such as the “twins” in the citation above, the majority of Philo’s descriptions of sin are not particularly dualistic beyond what would be expected for a Platonic philosopher, as can be seen in the various citations brought in this chapter. 36 Translation follows Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 224

ὁδοῦ...τελεσφορηθεισῶν δέ σοι τῶν εὐχῶν ἰδιώτης μὲν ἔτι μένειν οὐκ ἂν δύναιο, τὴν δὲ μεγίστην ἡγεμονιῶν ἀρχήν, ἱερωσύνην, κτήσῃ. “Pray (εὔχου) then to God that you may never become a leader in the wine song, never, that is, voluntarily take the first steps on the path which leads to indiscipline and folly… But if your prayers (τῶν εὐχῶν) are fulfilled you can no longer remain a layman, but will obtain the office which is the greatest of headships, the priesthood.” In this passage Philo borrows a theme from the prayer genre: the need for divine assistance to turn away from evil. The language of prayer (εὔχου, τῶν εὐχῶν), while serving as a figure of speech, is a clear indication of the source of the idea that God’s help is needed to overcome the desire to sin. In parallel to what has been shown in Qumran prayer, especially the Hodayot, this idea is also linked to a form of divine election: if one’s prayers are fulfilled, one will be a “priest” of sorts, as opposed to a regular person (ἰδιώτης). The view expressed in a homily on Deut. 30:15, 19, however, is more difficult to explain: 37

37

This homily is found in a fragment of the lost fourth book of the Legum allegoriae. The text of this fragment is found in the Res Sacrae of Leontius and John (Cod. Vat. 1553), and is printed in J. R. Harris, ed., Fragments of Philo Judaeus (Cambridge: University Press, 1886), 8. In a recent study of Philo fragments this text was not among those judged to be spurious; see J. R. Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria (ALGHJ 22; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 192. The translation above follows Wolfson, Philo, 1.442, parts of which are based on the translation of J. Drummond, Philo Judaeus, or The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion (2 vols.; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), 1:347 note. 225

μακάριον χρῆμα, προθέντος ἀμφότερα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τὸ ἄμεινον ἰσχύειν λαβεῖν τὴν ψυχήν· μακαριώτερον δὲ τὸ μὴ αὐτὴν ἑλέσθαι, τὸν δὲ δημιουργὸν προσάγεσθαι καὶ βελτιῶσαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ κυρίως άνθρώπινος νοῦς αἱρεῖται δι’ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ κατ’ἐπιθροσύνην θεοῦ δωρουμένου τοῖς ἀξίοις τὰ κάλλιστα· δυοῖν γὰρ ὄντων κεφαλαίων παρὰ τῷ νομοθέτῃ, τοῦ μὲν ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἡνιοχεῖ τὰ πάντα ὁ θεός, τοῦ δὲ ὅτι ὡς ἄνθρωπος παιδεύει καὶ σωφρονίζει, ὅτ’ ἂν μὲν τὸ δεύτερον κατασκευάζῃ, τὸ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὸ ἐφ’ἡμῖν εἰσάγῃ, ὡς ἱκανὸς καὶ γνῶναί τι καὶ βούλεσθαι καὶ ἑλέσθαι καὶ φυγεῖν· ὅτ’ ἂν δὲ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ ἄμεινον, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος τὰς πάντων δυνάμεις καὶ αἰτίας ἀνάψῃ θεῷ μηδὲν ὑπολειπόμενος ἔργον τῷ γενομένῳ ἀλλὰ δείξας ἄπρακτον αὐτὸ καὶ πάσχον, δηλοῖ δὲ ὅτ’ ἂν φῇ δι’ ἑτέρων ὅτι ἔγνω ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους αὐτοῦ προσηγάγετο· εἰ δὲ ἐκλογαί τε καὶ ἀπεκλογαὶ κυρίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς αἰτίου γίνονται, τί μοι παραινεῖς ὦ νομοθέτα τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸν θάνατον αἱρεῖσθαι ὡς τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοκράτορι; ἀλλ’ εἴποι ἄν, τῶν τοιούτων εἰσαγωγικώτερον ἄκουε· λέγεται γὰρ ταῦτα τοῖς μήπω τὰ μεγάλα μεμυημένοις μυστήρια περί τε ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ περὶ ἄγαν οὐδενείας τοῦ γενητοῦ. It is a happy thing for the soul to be able to choose the better of the two choices put forward by the Creator, but it is happier for it not to choose, but for the Creator to bring it over to himself and improve it. For, strictly speaking, the human mind does not choose the good through itself, but in accordance with the thoughtfulness of God, since he bestows the fairest things upon the worthy. For two main principles are with the Lawgiver, namely, that on the one hand God does not govern all things as a man and that on the other hand he trains and educates us as a man. Accordingly, when he affirms the second principle, namely, that God acts as man, he

226

represents our mind as capable of knowing something, and willing, and choosing, and avoiding. But when he affirms the first and better principle, namely, that God acts not as man, he ascribes the powers and causes of all things to God, leaving no work for a created being but declaring it to be inactive and passive. He explains this when he says in other words that “God has known those who are his and those who are his holy (and) he has brought (them) near (to himself).” 38 But if selections and rejections are in strictness made by the one cause, why do you advise me, legislator, to choose life or death, as though we were autocrats of our choice? But he would answer: Of such things hear you a rather elementary explanation, namely such things are said to those who have not yet been initiated in the great mysteries about the sovereignty and authority of the Uncreated and the exceeding nothingness of the created. This passage directly contradicts other passages in Philo, including Deus 50 (cited above), where Philo specifically refers to Deut 30:15. In this fragment, Philo accepts a view similar to that of Stoic thought, that all acts have been determined by God. This passage has received a range of explanations; from J. Drummond, who shies from “attempting a reconciliation” with Philo’s other statements, 39 to Wolfson who concludes that this statement referred only to the choice for good. 40 Winston, in contrast, has concluded that Philo, like Plato (in his view), is a proponent of “relative” 38

Philo’s quote is slightly different from LXX Num 16:5b καὶ ἔγνω ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ προσηγάγετο πρὸς ἑαυτόν “and God has known those who are his and those who are holy and he has brought them near to himself.” αὐτοῦ “his” has been added to τοὺς ἁγίους “who are holy” and the words πρὸς ἑαυτόν “to himself” have been omitted, although they are understood. 39 Drummond, Philo Judaeus, 347 note. 40 Wolfson, Philo, 1:446. See also ibid., 1:457-8 and idem, “Philo on Free Will,” HTR 35 (1942): 163-4. 227

free will; that is, that while the choice process is ultimately determined by one’s (predetermined) moral character, the participation in this choice renders a human being morally culpable for any evildoing. 41 Winston’s approach may explain passages such as Leg. 3.88, where God is described as knowing all of a person’s future actions and passions from the womb, and Leg. 3.75-76, a passage that intimates that God has created some souls with a faulty character (φυσίς), and others with an excellent one.

Conclusion: Philo and Ben Sira Philo’s works reflect a clear stance regarding the choice of evil. It is apparent from the collection of sources presented above that according to Philo the choice to sin is subject to the free will (true or apparent) of the human being, whose potential for sin is innate and yet not to be attributed to God. Humans may naturally incline toward evildoing, although Philo is not completely consistent in this belief. Despite human free will, one may appeal to God in prayer for help in fighting the desire to sin. In 41

Winston, “Freedom and Determinism,” particularly 49-50, 57. Winston disagrees with Wolfson’s contention that Philo’s approach is one of absolute free will (with the exception of the choice of good). Wolfson’s claim is based on Deus 47-48, where Philo declares that man alone has received free will (τοῦ ἑκουσίου), the “most peculiar possession” (οἰκείου κτήματος αὐτῳ) of God, and that in this way the human is like God and free “as far as might be” from necessity. Both Wolfson and Winston cite Leg. 3.136 (that, after one has already achieved virtue, one must give credit to God alone), each to support his own view: Wolfson (Philo, 1:446) cites this passage as proof that Philo saw the choice for good as requiring divine assistance, and Winston (“Freedom and Determinism,” 56) cites it as proof that Philo shared Plato’s semideterministic stance. However, as Leg. 3.136 is speaking specifically of attribution to God after achieving virtue, it is not a particularly convincing proof of determinism in Philo’s thought. 228

presenting this stance, Philo draws on Platonic ideas and on Jewish sources, not just as prooftexts for exegesis, but also as sources for already popular “solutions” to the problem of sin. As noted earlier, Philo is not technically part of the wisdom genre; however, Philo addresses many of the same problems as authors of wisdom literature. To the extent that Philo’s philosophical work can shed light on the wisdom genre, it demonstrates a tendency, when directly engaging the problem of sin, to integrate the idea of a wholly human, innate inclination to sin and an emphasis on human free will in fighting this inclination. For both Ben Sira and Philo, the capacity to sin is to be distanced from God, and is uniquely human. While both solve the challenge of theodicy (in regard to sin) by emphasizing human free will, the extent to which they present humans as having an innate tendency toward sin differs. For both thinkers the human capacity for sin is completely subject to human free will, although God’s help may be requested in prayer. Philo, however, frequently describes humans as having an inevitable tendency toward sin, while Ben Sira describes a more neutral human inclination. It is clear from this analysis that, while a Jewish philosophical or wisdom approach toward the idea of sin may be integrally connected to an emphasis on free will, it does not dictate the presentation of an inevitable inclination to sin. It is the more “philosophical” Philo who presents the inevitability of such an inclination

229

clearly, while Ben Sira supports the idea that human character, divinely bestowed, is capable of sin.

230

VII. After the Destruction: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

The extent to which the concept of an innate inclination to sin was typical of the wisdom genre will be examined more thoroughly through an examination of two texts composed following the destruction of the Second Temple which, while not exemplars of the wisdom genre, share certain features of wisdom literature: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 4 Ezra 4 Ezra (also known as 2 Esdras 3-14 1 and in the Vulgate as 4 Esdras 3-14) dates to approximately 81-96 C.E. 2 and was written in the wake of the destruction of

1

2 Esdras as a whole is commonly acknowledged as a composite work, and is presented as such in early Latin mss: 2 Esd 1-2 is known as 5 Ezra, and 2 Esd 15-16 is labeled 6 Ezra. 4 Ezra begins with 3:1, maintaining the original chapter and verse numbers of 2 Esdras. 2 M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (ed. F. M. Cross; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 363-5. Stone agrees with E. Schürer’s conclusion (in Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi [3 vols.; 4th ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909], 3:325-8) that 4 Ezra was composed not long after the destruction of the Second Temple, during the reign of Domitian, 81-96 C.E. This dating is also accepted by M. A. Knibb and R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of Esdras (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 104-5; J. Myers, I and II Esdras (AB 42; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 129; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 270, 275; and J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 196. This conclusion is reached based on an analysis of the “eagle vision” of 4 Ezra, 11:1-12:51, 231

the Second Temple in 70 C.E. It is commonly categorized as an apocalypse, although it also displays characteristics of the prophetic and wisdom genres. 3 Its focus on the challenge of theodicy is typical of wisdom literature. 4 While composed in Hebrew, 4 Ezra has survived only in secondary or tertiary translations of the Greek translation of the Hebrew original. 5 Most current scholarship considers 4 Ezra to be a unified work, composed by a single author. 6

depicting an eagle with three heads symbolizing three kings, one who will die in his bed, a second who will be assassinated by the third, and the third whose reign will be ended by the Messiah. If these rulers are identified as Vespasian, Titus (who was widely believed to be murdered by Domitian) and Domitian, then the author likely lived during Domitian’s reign. 3 M. A. Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1982): 72-74. Knibb notes that 4 Ezra is too distinctive to be a typical apocalypse and therefore cannot be used to explore the characteristics of the genre as a whole. 4 As noted by Di Lella, Ben Sira, 33-35; contrast with D. J. Harrington, “Wisdom and Apocalyptic in 4QInstruction and 4 Ezra,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 354-5. In the context of a comparison with 4QInstruction, Harrington concludes that 4 Ezra is a classic apocalypse, demonstrating little interest in topics typical of traditional Jewish wisdom literature but instead focusing on bigger theological topics. However, while 4 Ezra has little in common with Proverbs, the theological topics it addresses are similar to those addressed in Qohelet, Job, and Sirach. 5 Most scholars conclude that 4 Ezra was originally composed in Hebrew; see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 10-11 and Myers, I and II Esdras, 115-7. See Stone, ibid., 1-9, for an overview of the versions and their relationship to the posited Hebrew original. 6 While R. Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889) and G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (London: Pitman, 1912), were influential in early source critical approaches to 4 Ezra, most contemporary scholars approach 4 Ezra as a single work following the whole-text analysis of H. Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), 2:331-402; see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 14-21 and n. 38 below. 232

4 Ezra contains seven episodes, commonly called “visions.” The first three visions (chapters 3-9), on which this chapter of the study will focus, consist of a series of dialogues between Ezra and an angel sent to answer his questions. The last four visions (chapters 10-14) consist of a series of apocalyptic visions and an epilogue (in which Ezra speaks to the people [14:27-36] and writes the twenty-four revealed and seventy hidden books [14:37-50]). Assumptions about sin and its source play a prominent part in 4 Ezra. The author of 4 Ezra makes no attempt to prove that the evil inclination, or as it is called in 4 Ezra, the “evil heart,” is internal and innate to the human condition; this is assumed as a problematic fact, and produces one of the central theological challenges of the book. The presupposition of the “evil heart” as a problem to be solved may be evidence of a narrowing of paradigms for sin in Jewish thought following the destruction of the Second Temple. 7 The combination of the theological implications of

7

F. García Martínez has portrayed 4 Ezra as a continuation of the (pre-destruction) apocalyptic tradition, maintaining that the author of 4 Ezra sees the origin of evil as “outside history” and proposing that the author of 4 Ezra dismisses the possibility of Belial or an “angel of darkness” as the possible origin of evil in order to avoid Qumranic dualism. However, as noted by Collins, there is no evidence that 4 Ezra belongs to the same tradition as 1 Enoch i the origin of evil or that 4 Ezra deliberately rejects the dualistic explanation of evil found in the Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III.13-IV.26). 4 Ezra refers neither to demons nor to two spirits. The explanation of the origin of evil in 4 Ezra is not outside of history, but at its beginning, with the creation of humans. It is the human heart that holds the source of evil. As Collins observes, “This is not a disagreement with a common framework, but a divergence that arises from radically different premises”; see Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 297-8, and cf. F. García Martínez, “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (ed. E. 233

the disaster and the practical consequences of a more confined Jewish community may have caused a consolidation of theological views regarding sin and its source. The narrative of 4 Ezra is placed thirty years after the destruction of the First Temple, when the distressed Ezra asks God why the Israelites have been punished severely for their sins while their Babylonian conquerors, also sinners, are spared (4 Ezra 3:1-36). The problem represented by the “evil heart” is prominent in this initial speech. 8 The speech begins with a history of the world and its sinners, slightly reminiscent of that in CD II.16b-III.12a (see chapter 4). According to Ezra, all human generations from the time of Adam have been sinners, with just a few notable exceptions (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David). However, the crux of his history is found in the description of the revelation at Sinai and its ineffectiveness in preventing the sinning of the Israelites: 9 “Yet you did not take away from them their evil heart, so that the Torah might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the Torah was in the people’s heart along with the evil root, but what was good departed, and the evil remained.” (4 Ezra 3:20-22) Tigchelaar; STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 162-4; repr. and transl. of “Traditions communes dans le IVe Esdras et dans les MSS de Qumrân” RQ 15 (1991). 8 The term “evil heart” (cor malum/malignum) is a biblical term (see Jer 3:17, 7:24, 11:8, 16:12, 18:12). It also contains overtones of the “heart of stone” in Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26, with the implicit promise that, like the “heart of stone” in these verses, it will be removed at the eschaton. 9 All translations of 4 Ezra in this chapter follow Stone, Fourth Ezra, with small changes to the archaic English preferred by Stone. 234

In Ezra’s description, the “wicked heart” did not originate with Adam’s sin; rather, the wicked heart, which Adam bears as the first human being, was the cause of his sin. 10 As M. E. Stone notes, the actual origin of this evil heart is not clear here, although in 7:92 11 the author comes close to implying that it is from God, as the heart is created with the human. 12 This evil heart, as the author is careful to note in 3:20,

10

Contra W. Harnisch, who follows E. Brandenburger and G. H. Box in distinguishing between the evil inclination, which he identifies with the “evil seed,” and the “evil heart” that results from it as a consequence of Adam’s sin; see W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 48-49 and n. 5 ad loc., E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5, 12-21 (1. Kor 15) (WMANT 7; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), 33, and G. H. Box “IV Ezra,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (ed. R. H. Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2:563 n. 20. According to Brandenburger (ibid., 33), 4 Ezra 3:20 expresses the idea that the “evil root” (i.e. the evil inclination) and the Torah are both in one’s heart; the resulting “fruit” (which may be the “evil heart”) depends on free choice. Such an interpretation is rejected by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 75, who notes that to attribute the “evil heart” to voluntary action contradicts the argument of the chapter. In addition, as noted by A. L. Thompson, the evil heart is used as an explanation of Adam’s sin in 3:21 and 26, in which case it cannot be the result of Adam yielding to his evil inclination; see A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 334-5. (In Ezra’s initial speech, the result of Adam’s sin is death for all future generations, as described in 3:7.) The evil seed and evil heart are equivalent; while there is a certain incongruity in the evil seed being synonymous with the evil heart and yet embedded in the heart, it is misleading to look for consistency in metaphors regarding the evil inclination; see Thompson, ibid., 334 and 352 n. 83. 11 “The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death” (7:92). 12 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 63. 235

was not removed from the Israelites, even when they received God’s law, and therefore they, like Adam before them, sinned and were exiled. 13 While the description of the law and the “evil root” that remain in the people’s hearts is again reminiscent of the choice presented in CD II.16b-III.12a, where human beings must choose between the divine law and their own will, a more illuminating parallel is found in the “Words of the Luminaries,” 4Q504 (Frgs. 1 + 2 ii recto) 13-16 (addressed in chapter 2), where the speaker depicts God’s planting of the law in his heart as a safeguard against sin. In a similar sense (as will be discussed in chapter 10), the Songs of the Sage (4Q511) and 4QIncantation (4Q444) describe the laws that are within the speaker strengthening him in his battle with demonic forces of sin who have also entered his frame. 14 Rabbinic literature correspondingly portrays the Torah as a

13

Adam’s descendants have not inherited his sin; they simply resemble him in their individual failure to resist sin; see Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, 34-35. For a parallel to this idea in polemical form, see 2 Bar 54:15-19, discussed below. 14 Songs of the Sage 4Q511 48-49+51ii:1-6 ‫[ ֯טי ֯ט ֯מאה כיא̇ ֯ב ֯ת ֯כמי‬ ]‫להכני֯ ע‬ ֯ ‫ממזרים‬ ‫֯בשרי יסו֯ ֯ד ֯ד׺] וב[גויתי מ̇לחמ̇ו֯ ֯ת חוקי‬ ‫אל בלבבי ואועי֯ ]ל [ ֯על ֯כו֯ ל מופתי גבר מעשי‬ 3. 4. 5.

3 4 5

of the bastards to subdue [ ] uncleanness. For in the innards of my flesh is the foundation of [ and in] my body are battles. The statutes of God are in my heart, and I prof[it] for all the wonders of man. The works of

Text follows Baillet, “Cantiques du Sage (ii)”Baillet, Maurice. “510. Cantiques du Sage (ii).” Pages 215-219 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Translation, with modifications, based on M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook, “4QShira-b (4Q510-511),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 236

preventive measure against or an antidote for the evil inclination. 15 Similarly, Sir 58F

21:11, discussed above, enjoins the reader to use the law in order to control her inclination. In a Cave 4 copy of the Damascus Document, God, by not giving other nations the law, has “made them go astray in a trackless void” ‫;ותתעם בתהו ולו דרך‬ 4QDa [4Q266] 11 10-11.16 589F

In 4 Ezra, however, the protagonist contradicts the view that the law effectively combats the desire to sin. Ezra complains that the law has been completely insufficient; without the removal of the evil heart, the law is ineffective in preventing the “disease” (evil) which eventually takes over the human being. Hence, while Part 6: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 168-211. 4Q444 (4QIncantation) 1-4i+5:1-5

‫לכ]ו[ל̇] אל[ ֯ה ויהיו לרוחי ריב במבניתי חוק]י אל‬ ֯ ‫֯א ֯מ ֯ת‬ ‫בל]בבי‬ ֯ ‫ב[ ֯תכמי בשר ורוח דעת ובינה א ֯̇מת̇ וצ̇דק שם אל‬ ] ]‫[ו̇ה ותתחזק בחוקי אל ולהלחם ברוחי רשעה ולו֯ א ׺׺‬ ]

2. 3. 4.

2 3 4

truth to a[l]l[ the]se. They became spirits of controversy in my (bodily) structure; law[s of God [ in ]innards of flesh. And a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness, God put in [my] he[art [ ] And strengthen yourself by the laws of God, and in order to fight against the spirits of wickedness, and not [

Text and translation, with small modifications, follow Chazon, “4QIncantation.” 15 See Sifre Deut. 45, b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b. In Song R. 1:4 the evil inclination is actually expelled at Sinai by the revelation of the commandment “You shall not have other gods before me,” but returns when the Israelites request an intermediary for the other commandments, thereby rejecting direct revelation. Moses promises the distraught nation that the inclination will be expelled in the future messianic age ‫)לעתיד‬ (‫לבוא‬, citing Ezek 36:26. 16 Text and translation follow Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documenta.” 237

employing disease and plant terms for sin such as are found in the prayer in 11Q5 XXIV (Psalm 155; see chapter 2 above), the passage in 4 Ezra presents a view that contrasts strongly with what is reflected in the Second Temple prayers previously explored. While these prayers present the law as an almost guaranteed safeguard against sin, for Ezra the law is simply not enough. In 9:31, the law is depicted as a plant: “’For behold, I sow my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and you shall be glorified through it forever.’” But Ezra immediately follows this “quotation” of God’s words with an indictment of the inefficacy of the “sowing”: “But though our fathers received the law, they did not keep it, and did not observe the statutes…” (4 Ezra 9:32a). The notion whereby the giving of the law combats the desire to sin, is also completely overturned by Paul who in a similar context, the history of sin, attributes the increase of sin to the revelation of the law at Sinai (Rom 5:20, 7:7-13). The theological setting of this reversal of expectations is similar to that found in 4 Ezra: the absolute impossibility of a mere human resisting sin. For Ezra in 4 Ezra, this impossibility is a function of the evil heart; for Paul in Romans, it is the result of the human being’s existence in (material) flesh, not spirit (Rom 7:14). It is possible that, like the author of 4 Ezra, Paul was troubled by the widespread belief that the law was sufficient to fight sin; the strength of this belief necessitated an equally strong contradictory statement by Paul as a step toward abrogating the law.

238

It is important to note that “the law” itself is not a consistent entity throughout 4 Ezra. A survey of the appearance of the term “the law” in 4 Ezra by K. M. Hogan 17 has shown that it has a variety of meanings, including the law of Moses, the ways of God (which include laws of nature), and general or esoteric wisdom. This finding speaks against Hogan’s assumption that the word tôrâ is the Vorlage of every appearance of the term “law” in 4 Ezra. It appears to be the concept of the law rather than a specific embodiment of it that is meaningful to the author of 4 Ezra and, one assumes, to his intended audience. In 4 Ezra 4:4, in response to Ezra’s initial plea in 3:1-36, the angel Uriel promises to reveal “why the heart is evil” if Ezra can answer one of three riddles. The angel has no argument with Ezra’s declaration that humans were created with a heart that is inevitably evil. In fact, the angel says as much in 4 Ezra 4:30: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness it has produced until now, and will produce until the time of threshing comes!” However, the angel promises to answer the unasked question that follows directly from this assumption: why would God create a person with an inevitably evil inclination? Through the riddles that follow, Uriel “shows” Ezra that this question is illegitimate: a mere human, corrupt as part of the corrupted world, cannot understand

17

K. M. Hogan, “The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 38 (2007): 530-52 239

“the way of the incorruptible.” 18 Consequently Ezra stands in the face of a particularly cruel paradox: because he is corrupt, he cannot understand why the Deity has made him so. 19

Inevitable Sinfulness in 4 Ezra There are numerous assertions in 4 Ezra that all humans are inevitably sinful as a result of their “evil heart.” Even in the context of a plea to God to reward the just, Ezra declares that there has never been a time when the inhabitants of earth did not sin (3:35). 20 All of humanity sins (4:38); there has never been a man who has not sinned (7:46), and this too has been the way of Ezra’s people, whose “evil heart” has grown strong and led them to ruin (7:48). 21 This is maintained despite a few isolated

18

“And he said to me, ‘you cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can your vessel comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way of the Most High is created immeasurable. And how can one who is corrupt in the corrupt world understand the way of the incorruptible? When I heard this, I fell on my face and said to him, “It would be better for us not to be here than to come here and live in ungodliness, and to suffer and not understand why we suffer.” (4 Ezra 4:10-12) 19 In the Armenian translation of 4 Ezra, this problem is eventually addressed in an addition following 8:62 that is at odds with the rest of the book. Ezra is able to ask God directly why humans desire evil. The answer is that God did not create humans as evil at all; God gave humans knowledge, the law and an honored place among creations. They corrupted themselves, and abused these gifts. (For an English translation of the Armenian, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 278-9 note u.) 20 According to M. A. Knibb (Second Book of Esdras, 205), Ezra is in effect asking that God consider humans “just” when they are, in fact, sinners. However, note that the belief that the “righteous” sin is not unique to 4 Ezra; see the discussion of the Community Rule Hymn of Praise in chapter 3 and n. 100 ad loc. 21 “For an evil heart has grown up in us, which has alienated us from this, and has brought us into corruption and the ways of death, and has shown us the paths of 240

statements by Ezra that there are a very few righteous people who suffer in this world and are rewarded in the next (see 4 Ezra 7:18 and 7:47). It should be noted that in all these examples, the sinfulness depicted in 4 Ezra is not a condition that exists independently of one’s actual sins. The evil heart is expressed in the desire to sin; the inevitable sins that follow demonstrate the sinfulness of humankind. Ezra consequently protests the human situation. If everyone alive is burdened and defiled with wickedness (7:68), and there is no possibility of being otherwise, why is there judgment of these wayward sinners after death (7:69)? The angel responds that humans have understanding and were given laws; despite this, they sinned (7:71-2). 22

perdition and removed us far from life – and that not just a few of us but almost all who have been created!” (4 Ezra 7:48) Given the basic and inevitable nature of the evil heart, it is not surprising that, as noted by J. E. Cook, the creation narrative found in 4 Ezra 6:38-59 omits the assertion that any part of the creation was good (despite its frequent repetition of other language from the Genesis creation narrative); Cook, “Creation in 4 Ezra: The Biblical Theme in Support of Theodicy,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins; CBQMS 24; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992), 138. 22 The Talmud in b. B. Bat. 16a puts a similar debate into the mouths of Job and his companions: ‫ בראת שור פרסותיו‬,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫אמר לפניו‬, ‫ בקש איוב לפטור את כל העולם כולו מן הדין‬:‫אמר רבא‬ ‫ את זה טהרת ואת זה טמאת הכל בא על ידך אתה בראת בו‬:‫ בראת חמור פרסותיו קלוטות; )רש"י‬,‫סדוקות‬ ‫ מי מעכב על ידך! ומאי אהדרו‬,‫ בראת רשעים‬,‫ בראת גיהנם; בראת צדיקים‬,‫( בראת גן עדן‬.‫סימני הטומאה‬ ‫ ברא לו‬,‫ ברא הקדוש ברוך הוא יצר הרע‬- ‫ליה חבריה ]דאיוב[? אף אתה תפר יראה ותגרע שיחה לפני אל‬ .‫תורה תבלין‬ Raba said: Job sought to free the whole world of legal responsibility. He said before him (God): Sovereign of the Universe, you have created the ox with cloven hooves, you have created the donkey with whole hooves (Rashi: one you made pure and the other you made impure; it is all in your hands); you have created the Garden of Eden, you have created Gehinnom; you have created righteous men, you have created wicked men: who can prevent you? And what did [Job]’s companions answer him? 241

In this manner the author of 4 Ezra describes the particularly cruel predicament of the human: while the law does not effectively combat the evil inclination from the perspective of the human Ezra, it does make the hapless human a full moral agent in the eyes of God. 23 In 4 Ezra 7:71 24 the angel deliberately echoes Ezra’s own lament in 7:63-69 that humans are created with a mind, and are therefore liable to judgment. 25 Humans are legally responsible for every sin they do, despite their innate inclination to sin.

The Angel and 4 Maccabees Ezra’s angelic interlocutor consistently propounds a belief in the human capability to fight the desire to sin, albeit with great effort (see 4 Ezra 7:19-24, “You subvert piety (lit., fear) and restrain prayer to God.” (Job 15:4) The Holy One Blessed be He created the evil inclination, (but) He created the Torah as its antidote. In this Talmudic passage, Job presents an argument similar to Ezra’s, although far more deterministic in its approach; as God has created both good and wicked humans, how can he hold them to account at all? His friends answer by presenting a logic similar to that of the angel in 4 Ezra and to that of other Second Temple texts cited above: God did, in fact, create the evil inclination, but the Torah is sufficient to combat it. 23 Compare Rom 5:13, “Sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law” (NRSV). See also Rom 5:20; 7:7-13. 24 “And now understand from your own words, for you have said that the mind grows with us.” (4 Ezra 7:71) 25 “For it would have been better if the dust itself had not been born, so that the mind might not have been made from it. But now the mind grows with us, and therefore we are tormented, because we perish and know it. For all who have been born are involved in iniquities, and are full of sins and burdened with transgressions. And if we were not to come into judgment after death, perhaps it would have been better for us.” (4 Ezra 7:63-69) 242

7:89,92, 26 7:127, 27 8:56-60, 28 and especially 7:72, discussed below). 29 In contrast to Ezra’s complaints, from the perspective of the angel, humans can always avoid sin, although the vast majority has not. (The ability of humans to avoid sin is eventually espoused by Ezra, but only in the epilogue of the book, 4 Ezra 14:34, discussed below.) However, according to the angel’s account even the righteous are not free from the constant struggle with the evil heart. In 7:92 the angel describes the righteous as engaged in a long struggle against their innate impulse to evil (cum eis plasmatum

26

“During the time that they lived in it, they laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour, that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly.” (4 Ezra 7:89) “The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death.” (4 Ezra 7:92) 27 “He answered and said to me, ‘This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth wages.’” (4 Ezra 7:127) 28 “’For they also received freedom, but they despised the Most High, and were contemptuous of his law, and forsook his ways. Moreover they have even trampled upon his righteous ones, and said in their hearts that there is no God – though knowing full well that they must die. For just as the things which have been predicted await you, so the thirst and torment which are prepared (await them). For the Most High did not intend that man should be destroyed; but they themselves who were created have defiled the name of him who made them, and have been ungrateful to him who prepared life for them.’” (4 Ezra 8:56-60) 29 As noted by M. A. Knibb (Second Book of Esdras, 174-5), while Ezra generally takes the position that all humans are doomed because of inevitable sin, the angel is consistent in his insistence that humans could avoid sin and are therefore responsible for it. (The angel acknowledges the struggle that this involves, but it is a struggle that lies within the power of the human to fight; see the angel’s description of the righteous in 7:89, 92 and his portrayal of the struggle against sin in 7:127: “This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth wages.”) 243

cogitamentum malum) that ends in victory only after death 30 (7:88-99) and in the “last times” 31 (8:53). From the angel’s point-of-view, the avoidance of sin is a lifelong struggle, but still an achievable goal. The choice that humans have not made is powerfully described by the angel in 4 Ezra 7:19-24: And he said to me, “You are not a better judge than God, or wiser than the Most High! Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of God which is set before them be disregarded! For God strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live and what they should observe to avoid punishment. Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways! They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works.”

30

A similar idea is found in another post-destruction work, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (LAB). In LAB 33:3, Deborah warns the people that they will not be able to repent after death: “But if you seek to do evil in the underworld after your death, you will not be able, because the desire for sinning will cease and the evil inclination will lose its power…” (Translation follows H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation [2 vols.; AGJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 1:152; dating of this text to post-destruction follows Jacobson, ibid., 1:199-210.) This work, like 4 Ezra, assumes that it is the evil inclination that causes sin, further demonstrating this paradigm’s prominence following the destruction. 31 As noted by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 64 n. 21, the idea that the “evil heart” will be removed in the end-times, already found in Ezek 11:19, is also reflected in Apoc. Mos. 13:5 and is found in rabbinic texts such as Song R. 1:2.4 and Tanḥ. Ki Tiśa (Buber) 13. 244

In this statement the angel is absolutely clear that the very fact of God’s commandments should have sufficed to compel humans to honor them. Humans, in their unbelievable lack of faith, have broken this divine equation. A similar view to that espoused by the angel in 4 Ezra is presented by the author of 4 Maccabees, a Greek work structured as a Hellenistic philosophical oratory 32 whose dating remains a matter of dispute (with proposed dates ranging from 18-55 C.E. 33 to the beginning of the reign of Hadrian in 118-135 C.E.). 34 In 4 Macc 2:21-3:5, reason and the law are presented as God’s antidote against human passions: 35 2:21 ὁπηνίκα γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατεσκεύασεν, τὰ πάθη αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ἤθη περιεφύτευσεν· 22 ἡνίκα δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸν ἱερὸν ἡγεμόνα νοῦν διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐνεθρόνισεν, 23 καὶ τούτῳ νόμον ἔδωκεν, καθ᾽ ὃν πολιτευόμενος βασιλεύσει βασιλείαν σώφρονά τε καὶ δικαίαν καὶ ἀγαθὴν καὶ ἀνδρείαν. 24 Πῶς οὖν, εἴποι τις ἄν, εἰ τῶν παθῶν δεσπότης ἐστὶν ὁ λογισμός, λήθης καὶ ἀγνοίας οὐ κρατεῖ; 3:1 ἔστιν δὲ κομιδῇ γελοῖος ὁ 32

D. A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees (GAP 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 26. 33 E. J. Bickerman, “The Date of Fourth Maccabees,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees (ed. A. Tropper; 2 vols.; AJEC 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 266-71; deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 18. 34 A. Dupont-Sommer, Le Quatrième Livre des Machabées (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1939), 75-86; U. Breitenstein, Beobachtungen zu Sprache: Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuchs (Basel: Schwabe, 1978), 177-8. For a complete overview of arguments for different dates of 4 Maccabees, cf. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 14-18. 35 Translation follows S. Westerholm, “4 Makkabees,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 530-41. 245

λόγος· οὐ γὰρ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ παθῶν ὁ λογισμὸς ἐπικρατεῖν φαίνεται, ἀλλὰ τῶν σωματικῶν. 2 οἷον ἐπιθυμίαν τις οὐ δύναται ἐκκόψαι ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ μὴ δουλωθῆναι τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ δύναται ὁ λογισμὸς παρασχέσθαι. 3 θυμόν τις οὐ δύναται ἐκκόψαι ὑμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ τῷ θυμῷ δυνατὸν τὸν λογισμὸν βοηθῆσαι. 4 κακοήθειάν τις ὑμῶν οὐ δύναται ἐκκόψαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ καμφθῆναι τῇ κακοηθείᾳ δύναιτ᾽ ἂν ὁ λογισμὸς συμμαχῆσαι· 5 οὐ γὰρ ἐκριζωτὴς τῶν παθῶν ὁ λογισμός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ ἀνταγωνιστής. 2:21 Now when God fashioned human beings, he planted in them their passions and habits, 22 but at the same time he enthroned the mind among the senses as a sacred governor over them all, 23 and to this mind he gave the law. The one who adopts a way of life in accordance with it will rule a kingdom that is temperate, just, good and courageous. 24 How is it, then, someone may ask, if reason is master of the passions, that it does not overcome forgetfulness and ignorance? 3:1 But this argument is entirely ridiculous, for it is apparent that reason prevails not over its own passions but over those of the body. 2 No one of us can eradicate such desire, but reason can provide a way for us not to be enslaved by desire. 3 No one of you can eradicate anger from the soul, but reason can help to deal with anger. 4 No one of us can eradicate malice, but reason can fight at our side so that we are not overcome by malice. 5 For reason is not an uprooter of the passions but their antagonist. (4 Macc 2:21-3:5) While the author of 4 Maccabees does not speak of an inevitable evil inclination or heart, the “passions” are clearly inevitable. Nevertheless, reason and the law (4 Macc 2:23, “and to this mind he gave the law”) are sufficient to control them. In a similar vein, the angel of 4 Ezra, while not denying the innate “evil heart,”

246

proposes that humans are responsible for sin because they have been given both law and reason: For this reason, therefore, those who dwell on earth shall be tormented, because though they had understanding they committed iniquity, and though they received the commandments they did not keep them, and though they obtained the law they dealt unfaithfully with what they received. (4 Ezra 7:72) It is only long after his apparent change of heart in the fourth vision (9:2610:59) that Ezra finally echoes the angel’s view. In Ezra’s divinely commanded last words to the people of Israel he declares: “If you, then, will rule over your minds and discipline your hearts, you shall be kept alive, and after death you shall obtain mercy” (4 Ezra 14:34). 36 The source of Ezra’s change of heart and acceptance of the angel’s point-of-view remains a mystery. To most scholars it is the result not of logic, but of an internal transformation. 37 36

Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 210, sees the directive in 14:34 as the summary of Ezra’s message, as it accepts the ultimate justice of God’s judgment. 37 Collins proposes that Ezra’s change is one of “pastoral necessity”; when Ezra is forced to take the role of the comforter in the fourth vision, he realizes that it is necessary to let oneself be persuaded even if one’s problems of faith cannot be solved (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 210-1). G. Hallbäck maintains that Ezra experiences a “transfer of competence” in this vision, having proven his worthiness through his concern for Zion and human salvation; G. Hallbäck, “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra,” SJOT 6 (1992): 283. E. Brandenburger proposes that Ezra’s repeated assertions in the fourth vision (in 9:39 and 10:5) that he dismissed the thoughts/discourse in which he had been previously engaged indicate that, from the point-of-view of the author, Ezra has simply abandoned the entire set of questions that has occupied him since the beginning of the book; E. Brandenburger, Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: das literarische 247

The authorial meaning behind the different theological stances of Ezra and the angel is also a matter of debate. 38 M. E. Stone follows H. Gunkel’s thesis that the

und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches (ATANT 68; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981), 77-78. Harnisch portrays the fourth vision as transformative for Ezra via the role he must play in it; Harnisch, “Die Ironie der Offenbarung. Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Esra,” ZAW 95 (1983): 75-95. M. E. Stone combines the “transformative” approach with a “logical” one, describing Ezra’s meeting with the weeping woman/mourning Zion in the fourth vision as a “conversion experience” in which Ezra’s view of the world is changed; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 31-33, and idem, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion,” JSJ 12: 203. Stone maintains that prior to this experience, Ezra has already begun to accept the angel’s arguments. He proposes that in the first three visions the author of 4 Ezra “externalizes his convictions” in the character of the angel, while in the fourth vision, through a conversion experience shared by both the protagonist and, to some extent, the author, he internalizes these convictions. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of subjective interpretation in determining the extent to which Ezra has “logically” accepted the angel’s views prior to the fourth vision. For example, the same passage (9:14-16) cited by Stone as evidence that Ezra has accepted the angel’s explanation that the many will perish and the few survive (Fourth Ezra, 298) is cited by Thompson (Responsibility for Evil, 218, 341) and by Knibb (Second Book of Esdras, 216) as an example of Ezra’s unrepentant complaints despite the angel’s arguments. 38 In early source-critical scholarship of 4 Ezra, no meaning was assigned to the book as a whole, and therefore the question of the role of the angel was moot; see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 23. As noted earlier, Gunkel’s whole-text analysis of 4 Ezra (“Das vierte Buch Esra”) was a watershed in scholars’ approach to the book, and since his work most scholars have approached 4 Ezra as the composition of a single author. Gunkel has explained the argument between the angel and Ezra as reflecting a conflict within the author between the two views (ibid., 340). While Gunkel’s whole-text approach toward 4 Ezra was nearly universally accepted, he did not adequately address Ezra’s apparent acceptance of the angel’s views in the fourth and seventh visions (Stone, Fourth Ezra, 23). A variety of other explanations for the differences between the stance of the angel and Ezra have been proposed, in addition to those mentioned above. In particular, Brandenburger (Adam und Christus, 30) and Harnisch (Verhängnis und Verheissung, 64) have understood the angel as representing the author’s views while Ezra represents heretical, proto-gnostic views with which the author disagrees. However, their approach has been aptly refuted by A.P. Hayman, 248

argument between the angel and Ezra expresses a conflict within the mind of the author. Stone sees the final solution to this conflict occurring through Ezra’s conversion experience in the fourth vision. 39 Thompson proposes that the angel is a device used by the author to maintain the “appearance of orthodoxy” while voicing dissent through the character of Ezra. 40 In Thompson’s view, the angel represents an orthodoxy that, in the author’s view, is unrealistic regarding human nature.

who notes that Ezra would not have been chosen as the mouthpiece for heretical views and that his views are, in fact, neither heretical nor Gnostic but find their parallels in Jewish complaints of the Hebrew Bible such as Lamentations and Qoheleth and in later rabbinic literature; Hayman, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in the Ezra Apocalypse,” JSJ 6 (1975): 50-53. Hayman cites Gen. Rab. 27, 4 and b. Ber. 61a as examples of blaming God for the evil inclination. Gen. Rab. 27, 4 includes God’s lament that he has created the evil inclination, and b. Ber. 61a includes R. Simeon b. Pazzi’s lament that he has been created with an evil inclination. Hayman’s arguments have been augmented by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 31, who notes that Ezra remains the hero of the book and so is an unlikely mouthpiece for heretical views. Another explanation, one that focuses on the role of Ezra, is that of E. Breech, “These Fragments I Have Shored against my Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra,” JBL 92 (1973): 267-74. Breech, while following Gunkel’s whole-text approach, sees Ezra not as the author’s alter-ego, but as a prophet speaking on behalf of his community, who must be consoled. Hence, according to Breech the “solution” is not intellectual, but consists of the consolation of Ezra and the reaffirmation of God as the true source of life and death for the community (ibid., 272, 274). Then in the final chapter, Ezra as prophet takes over the role of consolation, mediating God’s message to his community. However, Breech’s overly structural approach causes him to virtually ignore the content of Ezra’s questions and the angel’s replies. In his words, “If one focuses on the motif of consolation, instead of on the contents of the several sections, then one notices that the work moves from Ezra’s distress, through his efforts to console a bereaved mother, to his own consolation and subsequent speech of comfort to his community (14:27-36).” (Ibid., 270; emphasis mine.) 39 Stone, 4 Ezra, 33; Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” 340. Collins, too, favors the approach taken by Gunkel and Stone; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 200. 40 Thompson, Responsibility for Evil, 217. 249

In light of the analysis above, it does seem that the author of 4 Ezra, by placing an apparently accepted view regarding human responsibility in the mouth of an angel (that is, a divine agent who acts as an antagonist to the sympathetic and human protagonist), is contrasting the religious ideal with human experience. This religious ideal is found not only in didactic literature like 4 Maccabees, but also in Second Temple prayer, as noted above. 4 Ezra expresses the idea that, although in “divine theory” humans have both understanding and the freedom to choose the law of God, in human experience, as Ezra expresses it, the desire to sin is inescapable. The only purpose of the understanding with which humans have been gifted, in the view of the fatalistic Ezra, is to contemplate their inevitable doom (4 Ezra 7:63-69). The belief in the ability to fight one’s desire to sin with the help of reason and the law, a theological stance that the author of 4 Ezra supports at the close of the book, conflicts with his experience as stated through Ezra in the majority of the book. This internal conflict on the part of the author is not expressive of a split personality but, as A.P. Hayman notes, fits into the Jewish tradition of constructive doubt epitomized in Job and Qoheleth. 41

41

Hayman, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 55-56. Hayman cites R. Davidson, “Some Aspects of the Theological Significance of Doubt in the Old Testament,” ASTI 7 (September 1968): 49, regarding the theological value of the questioning of God. (Davidson focuses on the constructive, theological use of doubt in the Old Testament.) In Hayman’s estimation, the anguished tone of 4 Ezra reflects the author’s mental turmoil at the inadequacy of traditional Jewish theodicy. At the same time, the author’s intense religious experience of God was such that he would never “let him go.” 250

2 Baruch The similarities between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch (also known as the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), both written in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, have been widely noted, although the direction of influence is a matter of dispute. 42 Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch is an apocalypse that addresses the problem of theodicy, in particular the theological challenge of the Destruction, in a series of dialogues initiated by the protagonist. 2 Baruch thereby draws on themes typical of wisdom literature. Unlike the author of 4 Ezra, however, the author of 2 Baruch does not see humans as inevitable sinners. The problem of the destruction is a different one: that the righteous have been destroyed unjustly (2 Bar. 14:6) while Zion (including, apparently, its sinners) should have been spared on account of the righteous (14:7). The result is that those for whom the world was made have perished, while the earth remains (14:19). God’s answer to Baruch is similar to that of the angel to Ezra: because humans have accepted the law and transgressed knowingly, they are responsible and will be punished: “Man would have had excuse for not understanding my judgement, if he had not been given the law, and I had not instructed him in 42

There have been four different opinions in the scholarship on the connection between 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra: (1) 2 Baruch was dependent on 4 Ezra; (2) 4 Ezra was dependent on 2 Baruch; (3) both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra relied on an ealier source; and (4) the direction of dependence cannot be determined. These opinions are reviewed in Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283-5. Nickelsburg himself argues for the primacy of 4 Ezra. 251

understanding. But now, because he has transgressed with his eyes open, on this ground alone (that he knew) he must be punished” (2 Bar. 15:5-6). 43 However, unlike the continuing dialogue in 4 Ezra, there is no clear allusion to an evil inclination (with perhaps one exception; see below). 44 There is therefore no need in 2 Baruch for God to explain that the law is the inclination’s antidote. Adam’s Sin in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch In several places in 4 Ezra, the inborn and human evil heart is given a historical context: it is portrayed as an inherited trait from Adam. In most of these verses the source of sin, namely the evil heart or inclination, is described as inborn in Adam (3:20-22, 25-26; 4:30), and hence beginning at creation. However, in 7:118-126 it is the sin of Adam that is blamed for the evil inclination of his descendants: O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the misfortune was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. For what good is it to us, if an immortal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? Or that an everlasting hope has been predicted to us, but we are miserably shamed? Or that safe and healthful treasuries have been reserved for us, but we have erred wickedly? (4 Ezra 7:118-120)

43

All citations of 2 Baruch in this chapter follow the translation of R. H. Charles as revised by L.H. Brockington in “The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 835-95. 44 The fact that humans are corruptible is lamented alongside their mortality (2 Bar. 21:19), but not directly addressed. 252

The context indicates that the “misfortune” caused by Adam in 7:118 is not simply death or toil, as elsewhere in 4 Ezra (3:7, 7:11). 45 These verses express the tragedy of the sinning human, who has lost the opportunity for receiving the reward contained in the next world. According to these verses Adam’s sin is the cause of the sinning of his descendants. According to Thompson, there are two models of the source of sin at work in 4 Ezra that have not been integrated: one of the “evil inclination” (in 3:1-36 and elsewhere) and one of “Adam’s fall” (in 7:11 and 7:116-126). 46 However, as noted by Stone, it is not sin but the evil inclination that is inherited from Adam. 47 Elsewhere in 4 Ezra, Adam is to blame for the evil inclination as the first human, and is therefore the source of the “evil heart” in his descendants. Even here, when Adam’s sin is blamed, it has not caused an “original sin” from which humans must be freed. Adam’s descendants have themselves accomplished “deeds that bring death” (7:119) due to the evil heart inherited from Adam following his sin. In addition, only in this passage is Adam’s sin blamed for the sinning of his descendants. While it is clear that in 7:118 Adam’s fall is the source of the evil inclination, this isolated lament only shows that, for the author of 4 Ezra, the idea that Adam’s sin had lasting effects on humans’ moral condition did not contradict his main 45

And as in the possible reference in the Damascus Document noted above (n.101), CD X.8-9: ‫“ כי במעל האדם מעטו ימו‬for in the treachery of man/Adam his days became few.” 46 Thompson, Responsibility for Evil, 335-6. 47 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 65. 253

position. 48 The origin of the evil inclination in Adam’s fall does not challenge the concept most central to 4 Ezra: an evil heart that is innate and inevitable to humankind. In fact, tracing the evil heart to Adam’s sin (and not to the creation of Adam) contradicts neither the innate nature nor the inevitability of the desire to sin; it simply removes the source of the desire to sin one step further from God and his creation. This removal, while a central concern of Ben Sira and Philo, is not particularly important to the author of 4 Ezra. He therefore uses the idea of Adam’s fall as the source of sin only once, as a literary device to provide Ezra with a target for his lament. An interesting parallel to this approach is found in 2 Baruch. In 2 Bar. 48:4243, Baruch portrays Adam and Eve’s sin as the source of future generations’ corruption. His lament begins, as does 4 Ezra 7:118, with a rhetorical question directed at Adam: “And I answered and said, ‘O Adam, What was it that you did to all your posterity? And what should be said to Eve who first listened to the serpent? For all this multitude is going to corruption: innumerable are those whom the fire will devour.” The passage is unmistakable in its meaning; innumerable sinners can trace the tragedy of their sinning to the first sin, perpetrated by Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, a later declaration in 2 Bar. 54:15-19 denies any such possibility: For though Adam first sinned and brought untimely death upon all men, yet each one of those who were born from him has either prepared for his 48

As noted by Stone, as the two ideas are not integrated, the idea of Adam’s fall does not play a major role in understanding the origins of evil in 4 Ezra. 254

own soul its future torment or chosen for himself the glories that are to be (for without doubt he who believes will receive his reward). But now, as for you, you wicked that now are, prepare to meet destruction: your punishment will come quickly, because you have rejected the understanding of the Most High. For what he has done has not taught you, nor has the craftsmanship revealed perpetually in his creation persuaded you. Thus Adam was responsible for himself only: 49 each one of us is his own Adam. Here, as opposed to the literary lament penned in 48:42-47, the author presents a statement directly opposing the idea of Adam as the originator of future generations’ sins. This direct polemic is unlike anything found in 4 Ezra. In 2 Bar. 54:15-19 the goal of the author is to ensure that sinners take responsibility for their own sins, a concern that is not reflected unambiguously in 4 Ezra. According to this passage in 2 Baruch, sins are the result of a completely free decision: sinners have “prepared their own souls” (and have not been burdened from the beginning with a soul already inclined toward evil), and have consequently “rejected the understanding of the Most High.” Similarly, in 2 Bar. 56:9-14, while the mating of the angels with human women in Gen 6:2 is described as a consequence of Adam’s sin (which begat human lust [56:6]), the author is careful to emphasize that, while some angels sinned, the majority of angels restrained themselves (56:14). Hence one can choose not to sin 49

Lit. “Thus Adam is not the cause, but of his own soul only.” 255

even when faced with lust and granted the total “freedom” (see 2 Bar. 56:11) of angels. How then could the author of 2 Baruch present a lament blaming Adam for the sins of future generations? While Harnisch postulates that 48:42-43 is an interpolation from a different context, the comparison with the lament in 4 Ezra makes this exercise unnecessary. 50 In both 4 Ezra 7:118 and in 2 Bar. 48:42-47, the lament addressed to Adam is literarily motivated. By addressing the progenitor of humankind and lamenting his tremendous error, an error with horrendous consequences for future generations, the protagonist emphasizes the truly tragic position of “contemporary” sinners. Despite the common literary use of Adam’s sin in lament form, for neither 4 Ezra nor 2 Baruch does Adam’s role as first sinner take a central place in the author’s theological approach to sin. In 2 Baruch, the possibility of such a role for Adam’s sin is openly rejected alongside an emphasis on total free will. In contrast, in 4 Ezra the desire to sin is inherited from Adam and is thus both basic to humanity and inevitable; whether this desire was created within him or whether it results from his sin matters little to Ezra or his contemporaries, who must deal with the consequences regardless. 50

Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung, 74 n. 1. Another attempt at solving the contradiction in 2 Baruch is presented by Levison, Portraits of Adam, 135-6. Levison explains the contradiction between the passages in 2 Baruch by first depicting Baruch’s query in 48:42-43 as a non-rhetorical question that simply asks how it could be that Adam and Eve could cause future generations’ sins, and then by interpreting 48:42-47 as saying that only the wicked are born from Adam and Eve, their spiritual forebears, not the righteous. In Levison’s words, “To be born from Adam is to imitate his sin.” This ingenious explanation is nevertheless distant from the plain meaning of the text, which does not indicate the limitation of 48:42-47 in this way. 256

The toil and travail that Adam has brought to the world according to the angel in 4 Ezra 7:11-12 is likewise now a basic feature of this world that both the righteous and the wicked must experience; it remains only to hope for the next. Who will merit the realization of this hope is yet another bone of contention between Ezra and the angel. The dialogue in 4 Ezra represents the struggle with conventional wisdom following the Temple’s destruction and the magnitude of the tragedy it represented. On the one hand, Ezra accepts that the destruction is a punishment for Israel’s sins. On the other, these sins, whose scale does not seem to match the enormity of the punishment received, are nearly inevitable as part of the human condition. The “solution” proposed in 4 Ezra that only the few righteous will be granted a better future is a sad expression of what must have seemed an almost impossibly grim reality to the author.

2 Baruch and 4 Ezra When taken as a whole, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra present different emphases regarding the choice that lies before the human. In 2 Baruch, each human is free to make a choice, the same choice that stood before the primordial Adam: to sin or not to sin; to reject God or to approach him. No evil inclination need be contended with (although this absence does not solve the problem of theodicy). In contrast, 4 Ezra presents two viewpoints, both based on the assumption of an innate human inclination toward sin. For 4 Ezra’s protagonist Ezra (before his final “transformation”), humans

257

have little or no choice in fighting the desire to sin; their possession of an evil heart, one that dates from Adam’s creation or from his transgression, results in inevitable sin. In contrast, the stance represented by the angel in 4 Ezra emphasizes human responsibility (and culpability) consequent to humans’ possession of reason and the law, together sufficient to overcome the evil heart. The angel’s approach is presented as a divine, logical ideal not reflected in Ezra’s experience. 51 4 Ezra is significant in its portrayal of two different approaches regarding the connection between an innate inclination to sin and free will, both approaches related to those already explored in previous chapters. Ezra and the angel agree that humans have an innate “evil heart,” but disagree on the implications of this evil heart for humankind. Ezra sees the outcome of an innate evil will as inescapable (or nearly inescapable) sin. While the prayers explored in previous chapters reflect a similar understanding, they rely on divine assistance to rescue the petitioner from this cruel equation. In 4 Ezra, however, no divine assistance is forthcoming. Even knowledge of the law, in the protagonist’s view, is insufficient to overcome the “evil heart.” In this view, it matters little whether the evil heart was created with man or whether it is the result of Adam’s sin, except that the first approach makes God culpable. The opposing view, put in the mouth of a divine messenger, emphasizes free will, and maintains, as

51

Brandenburger, Verborgenheit Gottes, 67-68, notes a similar representation of an ideal not borne out by human experience in Ezra’s analogy in 9:34 ff. In Brandenburger’s opinion, this analogy presents an absurd argument showing that the promise that sinners are killed has not been supported by Ezra’s experience. 258

does 4 Maccabees, that a combination of human reason and knowledge of divine law should be sufficient to prevent sinning despite the inclination to sin, albeit with great effort. While it seems, based on his speech to the people in 14:34, that Ezra finally accepts the angel’s view, the majority of the book finds fault with the view that humans, gifted with reason and the law, have complete free will in choosing not to sin. As presented in 4 Ezra, this belief may be a fine, “God’s-eye view” of how sin should work; humans, however, have trouble experiencing free will when in the midst of the struggle with their “evil heart.” In effect, the author of 4 Ezra contrasts the philosophical ideal of free will as presented by Ben Sira, Philo, and 4 Maccabees with the experiential aspect of the desire to sin as expressed in many prayers. In this way the author of 4 Ezra reacts to an apparently widespread paradigm of sin in wisdom literature: an innate inclination to sin that is subject to human free will. While in the conclusion Ezra must accept the divine view of the ideal, the author of 4 Ezra does not allow the reader to forget that for a human with no prospect of divine aid against the “evil heart,” the chance of fighting sin is slim indeed.

Inclination to Sin in Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Of the literature surveyed in the past three chapters, only Sirach and 4 Maccabees are classic examples of wisdom literature, one Judean and the other Hellenistic. Nevertheless, due to the wisdom characteristics of the works of Philo and the books of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, one can reasonably attempt to illuminate the

259

approach of wisdom literature to the source of sin by investigating these works as well. Ben Sira and Philo emphasize the freedom of the human being to fight against her innate inclination to sin. Their approach is not uniform; while Philo frequently asserts the apparently inevitable tendency of humans to sin, for Ben Sira the sinning of humans is due to their character, which does not of necessity tend toward sin. For neither Philo nor Ben Sira, however, is the innate nature of one’s inclination or character an excuse for sinning. Human inclination is completely subject to human choice. The paradigm of an innate inclination to sin is not prominent in 4 Maccabees and 2 Baruch, although these books reflect another idea common to Second Temple Jewish thought: the understanding that it is the law given to humans (or specifically to Israel) that allows them to control their evil inclination or desires. This idea crosses genres as well as the paradigms defined by the present study; it is evident in texts that reflect the belief in a human inclination to sin and, as will be further explored, in texts that indicate a demonic source of sin. The author of 4 Maccabees reflects this trope, incorporating Hellenistic views regarding human passions and their subjection to the mind but adding the law as an essential ingredient, joined with reason in controlling human passions. Sir 21:11 reflects a similar idea to that in 4 Maccabees. In contrast to the author of 4 Maccabees, the author of 2 Baruch concentrates on the responsibility for sinning which results from the receipt of the law. The idea that law implanted

260

within the person can be used to fight sin is also found in the prayer genre, in the Words of the Luminaries and in the apotropaic prayers 4QIncantation and in Songs of the Sage. The author of 4 Ezra, living after the destruction of the Second Temple, draws on a number of concepts current in the Second Temple period. The “ideal” understanding of sin presented by the angel is drawn both from the emphasis on human free will prominent in wisdom literature and from the common conviction that the law is sufficient to fight the desire to sin. Ezra’s point-of-view that the innate desire to sin cannot be overcome without divine help, in contrast, is drawn from the understanding of the inevitable innate inclination to sin as portrayed in prayer. In the pessimistic worldview presented by 4 Ezra no divine help against the evil inclination is forthcoming; human sin is truly inescapable. This review of wisdom and philosophical literature has demonstrated that, other than the emphasis on free will in overcoming the desire to sin, within the wisdom genre the paradigm of the inclination to sin has different contours depending on the individual work. Wisdom literature, in which the problem of human sin is directly addressed, gives free rein to the author to form his own concept of sin whether it stems from Ben Sira’s neutral character, Philo’s human weakness, or the “evil heart” of 4 Ezra.

261

Inclination to Sin and the Gentile The texts discussed above, to the extent that they attempt to answer a particular problem, aim to explain the desire to sin among those who do not, in theory, wish to sin. These may be the self-perceived “righteous,” members of the composer’s own community or group, the entire nation of Israel or even humanity as a whole of which the speaker is a member. All are unable to fully resist their inborn inclination. However, the innate inclination to sin is also used to explain a slightly different phenomenon: the sinning antagonistic “other,” specifically Gentiles. In this case there is no desire to vindicate the sinner. Rather, the intention is both to explain why there are nations who cause Israel grief and to demonize these nations. Thus, sinning is portrayed as a basic part of their nature. For this purpose the inclination to sin appears in two texts that otherwise do not rely on the idea of an innate “evil inclination” to explain the source of sin. One of these is Jubilees, a narrative retelling of the Biblical account from Genesis 1 to Exodus 12, dated to approximately 170-150 B.C.E. 52 It has survived in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew, some of which has survived in fragmentary form at Qumran. In Jubilees the origin of sin is explained by means of the Watchers myth (as discussed in chapter 9). However, the sinful nature of Esau, the paradigmatic

52

J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: Translated (CSCO 511; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989), v-vi. 262

forefather of Edom, is explained with reference to the idea of an inborn evil inclination in Jub 35:9, preserved in fragmentary form in its original Hebrew at Qumran (1Q18, 4Q223-224). The context is Rebecca’s plea to Isaac to make Esau swear not to harm Jacob. She brings force to her argument by reminding Isaac of Esau’s basic evil nature. The translation of the Ethiopic text is as follows: 53 She went in to Isaac and said to him: “I am making one request of you: make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob and not pursue him in hatred. For you know the inclination of Esau – that he has been malicious since his youth and that he is devoid of virtue because he wishes to kill him after your death.” The Hebrew Jubilees text in 1Q18 reads: 54 [‫יצר עשו אשר הו]א‬ ֗ ‫כי י֗ ]וד[ ֗ע אתה את‬

3

3 For you k[no]w the inclination (yēṣer) of Esau, that it/he…

53

This translation is based on that of J. C. VanderKam, Jubilees: Translated, 233-4 and n. 35:9 ad loc. The second half of this verse is not attested in the Hebrew; in fact, there is not enough space for it to have been included in the Dead Sea manuscripts. VanderKam (Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees [HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977], 84-87) argues that the longer text is original and was omitted through parablepsis. This argument does not substantially affect the analysis presented above. 54 Text follows J. T. Milik, “17-18. Livre des Jubilés,” in Qumran Cave I (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 82-84. 263

The Hebrew of the same verse in 4Q223-224 2 i adds: 55 ‫אשר ר[ע מן נעוריו‬

49

49 is ev]il from his youth… The description of Esau as “evil from his youth” is a reference to Gen 8:21 where God describes the inclination of all humankind as “evil from his youth.” The author of Jubilees has reduced this statement regarding all humankind to refer to Esau alone. Rather than God “seeing” humankind’s inclination, Isaac knows Esau’s basically evil nature. In this way the author of Jubilees succeeds in transferring the deterministic aspect of Gen. 8:21 to the paradigmatic Gentile Esau, without reducing the free will of humankind as a whole. The Wisdom of Solomon offers a similar view. This wisdom text employs the form of logos protreptikos/exhortatory discourse 56 and dates to some time between 629 F

220 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. 57 The author 58 generally attributes sinning to foolishness (Wis 630F

631F

12:23, and see Wis 5:4); 59 however, a different state of affairs exists for the Gentiles 632F

55

Text follows J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “223-224. 4QpapJubileesh,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 95-140. 56 Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 18. 57 Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 20-24. Winston (ibid., 23) proposes a narrower range, suggesting that the reign of Gaius “Caligula” (37-41 C.E.) was the likeliest setting for this work. 58 On the unity of the work and past scholarship proposing composite authorship, see Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 12-14. 59 This is an approach similar to that of Stoicism and other Hellenistic schools of thought; see, for example, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, cited above. Winston (Wisdom of 264

of the seven nations of the land of Canaan, decreed to be wiped out at the hands of the Israelites: 10 κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχὺ ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὅτι πονηρὰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν καὶ ἔμφυτος ἡ κακία αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἀλλαγῇ ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 11 σπέρμα γὰρ ἦν κατηραμένον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, οὐδὲ εὐλαβούμενός τινα ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἡμάρτανον ἄδειαν ἐδίδους. 10 … but judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn and that their way of thinking would never change. 11 For they were an accursed race from the beginning, and it was not through fear of anyone that you granted them pardon for the things in which they sinned. (Wis 12:10-11) 60 This passage is not only an explanation of the evil perpetrated by these nations (as described in 12:4-6), but of the severity of the divine decree against them. Their wickedness was inborn, would never change, and therefore their complete destruction is an example of divine justice. For the composers of Jubilees and of the Wisdom of Solomon, certain Gentiles do not operate under the same paradigm of sin as Jews or the rest of humanity. While Jews may be subject to external demons (as in the Jubilees narrative) or may be free to Solomon, 33) describes the approach reflected in Wisdom as “Stoicizing Platonism,” a characteristic trademark of Middle Platonism. 60 Translation according to M. A. Knibb, “Wisdom of Solomon” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (eds. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 707. 265

turn away from sin through their own intellect (as in the Wisdom of Solomon), these Gentiles are born with an innate sinful nature. However, in neither case is this idea applied to Gentiles in general. Rather, by applying this concept to traditionally hostile Gentiles such as Esau or the seven Canaanite nations, the author allowed Jewish readers to apply a similar understanding to their own “hostile Gentiles”: whichever Gentile nation was contemporarily perceived as persecuting the reader’s group or the Jewish nation as a whole.

Conclusion: The Innate Inclination to Sin in Second Temple Literature As shown in this study, the idea that the source of the desire to sin is a natural (and unavoidable) aspect of the human being is found in the prayer, covenantal, and wisdom genres. It is also found to describe the paradigmatic Gentile in texts that otherwise do not use this paradigm, such as the narrative in the book of Jubilees. Equally evident is a correlation between genre and the attribution of the source of sin. This correlation does not have the same strength for every genre. For example, prayer as a genre has a tremendous influence on the choice to present innate sin as inescapable without divine help. This is true to such an extent that when the prayer form is used, the need for divine assistance appears even in works to whose theological stance it is unsuited, as in Sirach and in the works of Philo. Wisdom literature and texts that share aspects of wisdom literature, on the other hand, reflect a number of different conceptions of the source of sin, although as a rule they emphasize

266

free will, perhaps as the result of a philosophical standpoint that emphasizes human knowledge and decision. The covenantal texts of the Dead Sea community addressed in this section of the study reflect the belief in an innate human tendency toward sin coupled with the absolute freedom to turn away from one’s sinful nature. These texts, originating from the same community as several of the prayers studied here, demonstrate a radically different attitude toward the innate human inclination to sin. The prayers originating in the Dead Sea community studied in this section connect the human inclination to a predestined condition of sin or to predetermination in general, and emphasize the help of God in raising the speaker from this inescapable human condition. In contrast, the covenantal texts emphasize the ability and responsibility of human beings to turn away from their inevitable desire to sin. This contrast demonstrates that different views of sin could be propounded by members of the same community, depending on the goal of the text. Prayers emphasize human inadequacy in the face of the Divine and hence describe sin as inescapable without divine assistance. Covenantal texts, however, expect the new member to take full responsibility for compliance with the rules of the community; they therefore emphasize the human ability to control one’s own inevitable desire to sin. The stance toward sin reflected in the prayers of the Dead Sea community draws on conventions in Second Temple prayer, and combined these with beliefs that appear more particularly sectarian, such as predestination. However, these sectarian

267

beliefs are not emphasized in the covenantal texts studied. The community’s covenantal texts assign primary importance to the member’s and non-member’s choice to join the community or reject it. The community’s belief in predestination did not preclude the awareness that a conscious decision was needed in order to join the community. The wisdom and philosophical literature reviewed also emphasizes free will, while de-emphasizing the inevitability of the inclination to sin. However, in wisdom and philosophical literature a wider variety of stances toward sin is evident. It is possible that the genre of wisdom literature, in its direct confrontation with the problem of human sin, allows a wider range of expression and solutions to this problem. Authors of wisdom works almost by definition did not seek to accept common assumptions regarding sin, but may have frequently questioned these assumptions and put forth their own solutions, or alternatively, argued for a logical basis of common beliefs. It is this wider range of expression that allows the author of 4 Ezra to contrast a conventional view of the human ability to overcome the desire to sin with the human experience of sin’s inevitability elsewhere expressed in prayer. Another important finding is a central belief that crosses the boundaries of genres and paradigms defined in this study: that the law is essential and sufficient in fighting sin. The echoes of this idea are found in prayer and wisdom literature, and reactions to it are found in 4 Ezra as well as in Romans 5 and 7.

268

VIII. 1 Enoch and the Demonic Paradigm

Numerous Second Temple texts attribute human sin to the temptation of demonic forces. In attributing human sin to demons, these texts suggest a motivation significantly different from the one behind texts that reflect the “innate inclination to sin” paradigm. Attributing the principal cause of sin to demons points to individual sin not as part of the human constitution, but as the result of a forceful demonic presence, or even a demonic age. This view provides cosmic significance and drama to the “story” of human sin while freeing the reader from seeing herself as inherently sinful. At the same time, by portraying the “outsider” (whether Jew or Gentile) as completely subject to demonic influence, the author could indicate that the outsider was almost demonic himself, the true enemy of “insiders.” The attribution of sin to demons renders moot the question of why humans were created with sinful desires. Instead, the author must explain the origin and continued existence of a demonic presence that tempts humans, despite a benevolent God. Of course, the portrayal of all evil as demonic in origin is far older than Second Temple texts, 1 and Second Temple texts draw from a variety of traditions and myths

1

On the attribution of evil to demons in Near Eastern texts, see K. van der Toorn, “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, 269

when attributing human sin to demons. Consequently, when investigating the demonic approach to the source of sin, it is necessary to examine specific traditions regarding particular demonic entities alongside more general demonic explanations of sin that do not reflect specific traditions regarding a particular demonic character. For each tradition and text, this study will address the connection between the demonic source of sin and human free will or determinism. The attribution of sin to demonic forces may emphasize human helplessness in the face of these forces or may focus on human resistance to demonic temptation, and hence reflect an approach more in keeping with the idea of human free will. One of the purposes of this section is to explore the connections made between a demonic source of sin and the ability of the human will to resist it. In addition, this study will explore the degree to which the demonic source of sin is part of a dualistic system, in which good and evil spiritual forces are in direct and D. Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 61-83. The attribution of evil to demons in Mesopotamian texts generally does not extend to human sin; it focuses on natural evil, particularly disease; see Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 72. This may be due to the relative unimportance of ethical issues to Mesopotamian religious thought; see J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (trans. Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 228. When demonic influence inside a person is noted, such as in the extispicy texts noting the presence of a mukīl rēš lemutti, an accompanying demon or “evil accomplice” (M. J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations [SAACT 5; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007], 290), it is indicative of disease or bad luck, as in CT 3 2:17: mukīl rēš lemuttim marṣum imât (“[due to] an accompanying evil demon [he is] sick; he shall die”), which may itself be the punishment of the gods; see T. Abusch, “Witchcraft and the Anger of the Personal God,” in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn; Ancient Magic and Divination 1; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1999), 89-91. 270

and relatively equal conflict. The attribution of sin to demonic forces may be an element of a dualistic approach to the universe, in which cosmic forces of good and evil, and those forces’ earthly deputies, the righteous and the wicked, are in direct (and relatively equal) opposition. 2 However, such a dualistic system cannot be assumed whenever demons are mentioned, even when they are subject to a more important demonic or angelic figure. In the chapters that follow the study distinguishes between dualistic approaches and approaches that are not clearly dualistic.

Methodological Approach to Demonic Texts The texts that reflect the demonic paradigm include narratives, apocalypses and apotropaic prayers. The narratives included in this study also display apocalyptic features. These narratives sometimes also include embedded prayers that have been drawn from other sources and can be directly compared with independent apotropaic prayers. A comparison between texts attributed to the Dead Sea community and those that reflect more widespread beliefs shows that these texts reflect different approaches to demonic influence. Therefore, this study explores the texts of the Dead Sea community in a separate chapter.

2

While most texts that discuss sin, by their nature, reflect ethical dualism (in which good and evil are contrasted), the dualism noted here is more specific, corresponding to the cosmic dualism described by Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 283. 271

Finally, attention will be paid to the development of traditions regarding demonic sources of sin given the proven dependence of certain key texts on others (most prominently the dependence of Jubilees on the Enochic Book of the Watchers).

The Watchers Myth and 1 Enoch One prominent tradition in Second Temple texts concerning demons and their interference in human affairs draws on the story of the bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm in Gen 6:1-4. In the Second Temple period this narrative developed into what is commonly known as the “Watchers myth.” 3 Gen 6:1-4 In Genesis, the “sons of God” (bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm) see the “daughters of men” and take them as wives: ‫ ַויּ ִ ְראוּ ְבנֵי ָהאֱ�הִים אֶת בְּנוֹת‬2 :‫ ַויְהִי כִּי ֵהחֵל הָאָדָ ם לָר ֹב עַל ְפּנֵי ָה ֲאדָ מָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ ָלהֶם‬1 ‫ וַיּ ֹאמֶר ה' �א י ָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָ ם‬3 :‫שׁר ָבּחָרוּ‬ ֶ ‫שׁים מִכּ ֹל ֲא‬ ִ ָ‫הָאָדָ ם כִּי ט ֹב ֹת ֵהנָּה ַויּ ִ ְקחוּ ָלהֶם נ‬ ‫ָאָרץ ַבּיּ ָ ִמים ָההֵם ְוגַם‬ ֶ ‫ ַהנְּ ִפלִים הָיוּ ב‬4 :‫שׁנָה‬ ָ ‫שׂ ִרים‬ ְ ‫שׂר ְוהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה ְו ֶע‬ ָ ‫שׁגַּם הוּא ָב‬ ַ ‫לְעֹלָם ְבּ‬ ‫שׁר מֵעוֹלָם‬ ֶ ‫שׁר י ָב ֹאוּ ְבּנֵי ָהאֱ�הִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָ ם ְויָלְדוּ ָלהֶם ֵהמָּה ַהגִּבּ ִֹרים ֲא‬ ֶ ‫אַח ֲֵרי כֵן ֲא‬ :‫שּׁ ם‬ ֵ ‫שׁי ַה‬ ֵ ְ‫אַנ‬ 3

While M. Barker proposed that both Genesis and 1 Enoch draw independently from an older myth, and J. T. Milik concluded that the verses in Gen 6:1-2,4 refer to and quote 1 Enoch 6-11 and not vice versa, these suggestions have not been accepted by most scholars. See M. Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 18-19; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 30-32; and cf. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36; 81-108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 166. 272

1 When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the “sons of God” 4 saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and 637 F

4

NJPS: “divine beings”; “sons of God” is one possible literal translation of bĕnê ’elōhîm. The exact meaning of this phrase in Gen 6:1-4 is a matter of some debate. Some scholars have classified the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm as angels, i.e. immortal beings that are not considered gods but are part of the divine court, as in Job 1:6 and 2:1; see G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 140; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 141; and N. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 45 n. 2. U. Cassuto characterizes the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm as lower than “standard” angels called mal’ākîm, explaining that this is why they are capable of mating with humans; see Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1. From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI 8 (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961), 294. Other scholars understand the bĕnê ’ĕlōhîm to be divine beings “of the class of god,” similar to the bĕnê ha’nĕbî’îm (lit., “sons of the prophets”), who are members of the class of prophets mentioned in 1 Kgs 20:35; see H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle; MLBS; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997), 55; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 44; G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J. H. Marks; OTL 1; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 114; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984), 372; B. S. Childs, “A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI” (Ph.D. diss., Plymouth, Wis.: Basel, 1955), 67-68 and idem, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 1/27; London: SCM, 1960), 49. The Ugaritic cognate bn ’il allows for a range of meanings in the context of extant texts; in KTU 1.65 (RS 4.474), this term is found in conjunction with the divine council (dr and mpḫrt). As noted by M. S. Smith, these expressions may suggest groups centered around a specific divine figure (rather than the pantheon as a whole); see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 42. The coincidence of terms denoting a divine council with the term bn ’il indicates that the divine groupings and councils mentioned in these texts may represent the families of divine patriarchs. The juxtaposition of the phrase bn ’il and the idea of a divine council corresponds to the role of bĕnê hā’elōhîm in the divine council in Job 1:6 and 2:1, and may point to a similar meaning in Gen 6:1-4. In Jewish texts during the Second Temple period, the phrase bĕnê ’êlōhîm is interpreted as angels. This is not a surprising interpretation given these texts’ monotheistic outlook. Such an interpretation may already be found in LXX Gen 6:2, 273

took wives for themselves 5 from among all those that they chose. 6 3 The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide 7 in man forever, in that he too is flesh; 8 let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 It as Cambridge MS A (unlike other witnesses of LXX) reads οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ instead of the expected οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ. While P.S. Alexander considers this to be a later, inconsistent attempt at alteration, given the incidence of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ in all extant manuscripts of LXX Gen 6:4, M. Harl considers the original text to be οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ based on the readings of Philo and early witnesses of Origen; see P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 63; M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie I. La Genèse (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986), 125. The theological difficulty inherent in any divine being mating with human women was a problem that was later dealt with through Jewish and Christian interpretations of bĕnê hā’elōhîm as judges or descendants of Seth, respectively. Ben Sira’s reference to “princes of old, rebellious in their might” not forgiven by God (Sir 16:7; MS B:‫ ) נסיכי קדם המורדים בגבורתם‬may be an early example of this Jewish tradition if referring to the angels themselves, but it was not understood so by Ben Sira’s grandson; in LXX the reference is to “τῶν ἀρχαίων γιγάντων,” “the ancient giants.” Di Lella (Ben Sira, 273-4) explains the Hebrew Sirach verse as an allusion not only to the giants, but also to “princes of old” such as the king of Babylon in Isa 14:4-21 and Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:7-30. 5 “for themselves” has been added to NJPS as a translation of ‫ ָלהֶם‬. 6 NJPS “from among those that pleased them.” The translation above reflects the literal meaning of ‫שׁר ָבּחָרוּ‬ ֶ ‫מִכּ ֹל ֲא‬. 7 The term yādôn here is a difficult one to interpret, and most commentators interpret it as “abide” or “remain” according to context and the translation in LXX (καταμείνῃ) and the Vulgate (permanebit); see Cassuto, Genesis I, 295; Rad, Genesis, 113; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 375; Sarna, Genesis, 46. An exception is Speiser (Genesis, 44), who translates “My spirit shall not shield man forever,” based on the Akkadian cognate danānu. R. S. Hendel similarly translates “My spirit will not be strong in man forever,” based on the Akkadian cognate and following the earlier interpretation of K. Vollers; see R. S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,” JBL 106 (1987): 15 and n. 10 ad loc. and K. Vollers, “Zur Erklärung des ‫ ידון‬Gen 6,3,” ZA 14 (1889): 349-56. 8 NJPS: “since he too is flesh.” The chosen translation follows the approaches of Speiser, Genesis, 144 note, and Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 375-6. The Hebrew term bĕšaggam is understood here as the juxtaposition of the preposition b, the relative še, and gam, “also, too.” For še as a shortened form of the relative ’ăšer, see J. Huehnergard, “Etymology of the Relative še-,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest 274

was then, and later too, that the nĕpīlîm appeared 9 on earth – when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (Gen 6:1-4) This account is immediately followed by God’s decision to visit a flood upon the earth: :‫ָאָרץ ְוכָל יֵצֶר ַמ ְחשְׁב ֹת לִבּוֹ ַרק ַרע כָּל הַיּוֹם‬ ֶ ‫ ַויּ ְַרא ה' כִּי ַרבָּה ָרעַת הָאָדָ ם בּ‬5 ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫ וַיּ ֹאמֶר ה' ֶא ְמחֶה ֶאת הָאָדָ ם ֲא‬7 :‫ָאָרץ ַויּ ִתְ ַעצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ‬ ֶ ‫ ַויִּנָּחֶם ה' כִּי ָעשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָ ם בּ‬6 :‫שׂיתִ ם‬ ִ ‫שּׁ ָמי ִם כִּי נִ ַח ְמ ִתּי כִּי ֲע‬ ָ ‫בּ ָָראתִ י ֵמעַל ְפּנֵי ָה ֲאדָ מָה מֵאָדָ ם עַד ְבּ ֵהמָה עַד ֶרמֶשׂ ְועַד עוֹף ַה‬ 5 The Lord saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created – men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7) Biblical scholars have attempted to determine the original meaning of this story independently of its context in the biblical account. 10 However, for Jews in the 643F

Second Temple period, the episode’s importance lay in its context in Genesis 6, where it serves as an introduction to the account of the flood. As most commentators note, the location of the “sons of God” passage prior to the account of the flood implies that Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006), 103-25. 9 Literally, “were on the earth.” 10 See Childs, “Study of Myth,” 74-75; Myth and Reality, 55-56; Speiser, Genesis, 46; Rad, Genesis, 115; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 376; Skinner, Genesis, 140-1, 150; Gunkel, Genesis, 59. 275

there is a connection between the “sons of God” story and the flood that follows. 11 The mating of divine beings with humans is related in Gen 6:1-4 neutrally and without any indication of moral misdoing, 12 but here the mating becomes an indication of corruption, the illicit crossing of the boundary between human and divine. 13 In this manner the flood that follows this account is justified; it results not only from the unspecified human evil related in Gen 6:5 (and in 6:12-13), but also from a complete breakdown of the boundary between the human and divine spheres. In attempting to identify the nĕpīlîm, ancient readers and modern scholars alike have been informed by other biblical passages. In Gen 6:1-4 the nĕpīlîm appear to be the result of the mating of the “sons of God” with human women (although a literal reading of the verse could imply that they predated the mating). 14 The nĕpīlîm are equated with the “heroes of old” and “men of renown.” But the earliest interpretations of Gen 6:1-4 read the reference to nĕpīlîm in conjuction with Num 13:33, where the

11

See Speiser, Genesis, 46; Skinner, Genesis, 139-40; Sarna, Genesis, 45. It can be argued that Gen 6:3 constitutes a punishment of sorts and hence a negative reaction to the actions of “sons of God”; see Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 376. (According to Westermann, Gen 6:1-4 is the tale of an attempt to raise humanity’s status by union with the divine power of life, parallel to the attempt to transcend the human by means of technology in Gen 11:1-9; ibid., 381-2.) However, this “punishment” is visited not upon the transgressors themselves, but on their offspring, and even the offspring of the “sons of God” only receive their punishment as part of humankind. The offspring of these beings have now been defined as human, and are therefore not immortal but will share in humanity’s shortened lifespan of 120 years. See Sarna, Genesis, 45. 13 Rad, Genesis, 115. 14 Gen 6:4a can be translated literally as “the nĕpīlîm were on earth in those days,” where “those days” could follow or precede the mating. See n. 9 above. 12

276

inhabitants of Canaan are called “nĕpīlîm, giants (descended) from the nĕpīlîm.” (In Num 13:22, 28 and Deut 9:2 the inhabitants of Canaan are likewise called “descendants of the giants” [yĕlîdê/bĕnê hā‘ănāq].) 15 Consequently the LXX translation in Gen 6:1-4 of both nĕpīlîm and “heroes” (gībbōrîm) is γίγαντες, giants. In fact, the understanding that the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and women were giants was widely accepted in Second Temple traditions. 16 The divine response to the illicit mating is somewhat ambiguous. In its immediate context, the divine declaration limiting the human lifespan to 120 years emphasizes human mortality and the far from unlimited human lifespan, a lifespan that will now apply even to the offspring of the “sons of God,” as they are also flesh. This response does not affect the “sons of God” themselves, merely their offspring, and even these offspring are affected only in the context of other humans. (In LXX, the divine response is more specific: these humans [τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις] will have limited lifespans. 17) In its immediate context this statement emphasizes that the

15

This identification is also connected to the tradition of the rĕpā’īm, described as the ancient, giant inhabitants of Moab and Ammon; see Deut 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13. 16 The appearance of the nĕpīlîm in Numbers also implies that the offspring survived the flood. Alternatively, Skinner (Genesis, 147) proposes, based on the phrase “and later too,” that the mating was not a one-time occurrence but continued after the flood. For biblical and later traditions that the giants survived the flood, see Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’”. Nevertheless, most texts that are relevant to the present study portray the giants as perishing, at least in their physical form, before or during the flood. 17 Consequently Harl (Genèse, 125-6 note) interprets LXX as applying the divine decree specifically not to the offspring of the “sons of God” but to the generation that preceded the flood. 277

offspring are not half-divine immortals, but mortals like all “other” humans. Within the passage’s wider context as an introduction to the flood, the 120 years can be read as a grace period before the flood which will ultimately wipe out mankind. This interpretation is also found in Second Temple texts. 18 Second Temple texts develop this short account of the “sons of God” and “daughters of man” into a wide-ranging myth that explains, in various texts, the flood, the origin of natural evil, and the origin of sin. 19 The earliest extant Jewish texts that reflect traditions regarding the “Watchers,” as the “sons of God” are termed in Second Temple texts, are found in 1 Enoch. The Watchers in 1 Enoch: The Book of the Watchers 1 Enoch is a text comprising several Jewish works of the Second Temple period centering on the character of Enoch. 20 While these works were originally 18

For the possibility that the chronological framework in Jubilees reflects this interpretation, see Segal, Book of Jubilees, 91-92. 19 Alternatively, P.S. Alexander has posited that the original purpose of the Watchers myth was to explain the origin of demons; see Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 2:351. 20 A possible exception to this dating is the Similitudes of Enoch, 1 Enoch 37-71, the provenance of which is a matter of dispute. Milik (Books of Enoch, 91-98), has concluded that the Similitudes is a late, third-century Christian composition, based partially on the fact that the Similitudes is the only section of 1 Enoch not represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ibid., 91-92), as well as certain similarities to the second and fifth books of the Sibylline Oracles. However, this conclusion has been strongly contested. J. J. Collins argues that the Dead Sea community may have rejected the Similitudes because it does not give the sun the primacy that sectarian beliefs demanded; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 177-8. G. W. E. Nickelsburg has also argued against a Christian provenance, noting the identification of the Elect One in the 278

composed in Aramaic (evident from the fragments of Enoch that have survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls), they survive in their entirety only in Ethiopic, while approximately 28 percent of 1 Enoch has been preserved in fragmentary texts of a Greek translation of the original Aramaic. 21 Chapters 1-36 of 1 Enoch are commonly called the Book of the Watchers (BW). As a work BW is considered one of the earliest texts contained in 1 Enoch, possibly composed as early as the middle of the third century B.C.E. 22 This work, as could be expected from its modern appellation, focuses in large part on the story of the Watchers. The original Aramaic version has survived in very fragmentary form at Qumran in five copies (4Q201, 4Q202, 4Q204-206), the earliest of which is dated to ca. 200-150 B.C.E. 23 However, BW has been preserved nearly in its entirety in the Akhmim/Gizeh manuscript (henceforth Ga), a Greek manuscript of the fifth or sixth century C.E., while other Greek fragments have been preserved in the Chronography of George Syncellus, composed in a Byzantine monastery at the beginning of the ninth

Similitudes with Enoch himself, and not a Christ-like figure, and has proposed that the Similitudes is a Jewish work produced around the turn of the era; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 254-6. Similarly, M. E. Stone has dated the Similitudes to the first century B.C.E.; see “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.,” CBQ 40 (1978): 492. 21 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 12. 22 See Milik, Books of Enoch, 28; J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 111-3; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Books of,” in EDSS 1:250. 23 Nickelsburg, “Enoch,” 1:251. 279

century (henceforth Gs). 24 It is principally on the Book of the Watchers that the following analysis will focus. 1 Enoch 6-11 The Book of the Watchers itself is not uniform. 1 En. 6-11 appears to be a separate unit, perhaps inserted as a preface to Enoch’s mission to rebuke the Watchers in 12-16. 25 Its explanation of the Watchers’ sin, and especially their sin’s aftermath, differs markedly from 1 En. 12-16, also considered to be an independent unit within BW. 26 The story of the Watchers, as it is told in 1 En. 6-11, is complex. Its beginning closely parallels Gen 6:1-2: 27 24

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 12. Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 23-73 (particularly 72-73); eadem, “Fragment.” Nevertheless, as noted by Collins, “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers,” CBQ 44 (1982): 95, the earliest fragment of BW, 4Q201a frg. 1, seems to extend from 1:1-6 to 12:4-6, indicating that chapters 6-11 were integrated into BW by the time it was read at Qumran. 26 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 229; VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 129; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OtSt 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 183; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 49; C. A. Newsom, “The Development of 1 Enoch 6-19: Cosmology and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 310-29; and Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575-600. 27 The translation of 1 Enoch in this chapter follows the critical translation of Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, except in specific cases where Nickelsburg hypothesizes a reading that has no extant witnesses, in which case I have substituted a translation of the word(s) actually found in the extant texts. These substitutions are noted where they appear. Nickelsburg’s translation is eclectic; he chooses between Ga and Gs as each case warrants, usually preferring whichever Greek text agrees with the Ethiopic. In this section, there are no meaningful differences between the Greek witnesses, with the possible exception of the term “Watchers”; see n. 28 below. 25

280

6:1 And when the sons of men had multiplied, in those days, beautiful and comely daughters were born to them. 2 And the Watchers/the angels sons of heaven, 28 saw them and desired them. And they said to one another, “Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men, and let us beget for ourselves children.” (1 En. 6:1-2) In the Syncellus manuscript the běnê hā’ĕlōhîm of Gen 6:2 are given a name not found in the biblical account: the Watchers. This term (οἱ ἐγρήγοροι) is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic noun ‘îr, a general term for angels that is found in Daniel (4:10, 14, 20) and probably originates from the tradition that angels do not sleep. 29 The term “Watchers” is also found in this neutral sense elsewhere in 1 Enoch (1 En. 12:2, 3) and in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 VI.13), where the term is also used to refer specifically to the angels who sinned with human women (1Q20 II.1,16). The term “Watchers” is found in the latter, negative sense throughout Second Temple literature. 30 In 1 En. 6:2 a motivation beyond the beauty of human women is added as the basis for the angels’ actions: the desire to procreate. While the basic hubris of such an aspiration is elucidated in 1 En. 15:4-7 (discussed below), here it is left to the reader to 28

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 174 reads “the Watchers, the sons of heaven,” combining “the angels, the sons of heaven” found in Ga and Eth. (Ga: οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ οὐρανοῦ, Eth.: malā’ěkt wěluda samāyāt) with “the Watchers” found in Gs and the Syriac (Greek: οἱ ἐγρήγοροι, Syr: ‘yr’). 29 While this noun is usually found in Aramaic, it appears in a Hebrew fragment of a Jubilees-like text in 4Q227 (4QpsJubc) 2 6: ‫“ וגם על העירים‬and also against the Watchers (‘yrym).” 30 See Dimant, “Fragment,” 229-30. 281

understand that the Watchers’ sin did not end in carnal desire but also included a goal that transcended the boundaries of their angelic status. It has long been recognized that the account of the Watchers and their sin in 1 En. 6-11 reflects several traditions regarding the Watchers. D. Dimant, G.W.E. Nickelsburg and most recently M. Segal have all noted at least three separate strands that have been merged in the Book of the Watchers, although their descriptions of the nature of these components differ. 31 Dimant was among the first to describe the three traditions that are merged in BW: 32 1) The tradition in which Šemiḥaza leads a group of angels (the Watchers) to mate with human women and through their sin creates a race of violent giants, found in 1 En. 6-7; 8:3-4; 9:9-10. The violence of these giants causes the humans to cry to God for assistance, the giants are destroyed, and the Watchers are punished. As an exegetical expansion of Gen 6:1-4, this tradition has nothing to do with the flood: the punishment of the Watchers and the giants occurs before the flood.

31

It should be noted that J. J. Collins, “Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch: Reflections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 316, while acknowledging the different Šemiḥaza and ‘Aśā’el traditions, cautions against the attempt to analyze the Šemiḥaza and ‘Aśā’el material as deriving from different source texts. In his words, “the presence of distinct traditions within a text does not necessarily presuppose distinct literary documents.” 32 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels,’” 65; eadem, “Methodological Perspective,” 329. 282

2) At an early stage (previous to its inclusion in BW), the Šemiḥaza tradition merged with one in which the Watchers teach their wives forbidden knowledge, including divine secrets and magic, reflected in 7:1, 9:7-8, and 10:7. Human sin through divination is the consequence. In this tradition, by causing humans to sin, the angels instigate the flooding of the world. 3) Later, the ‘Aśā’el tradition was added, in which ‘Aśā’el teaches forbidden crafts to human beings (8:1-2, 9:6, and 10:1-5, 8). These include the creation of weapons, enabling war, and jewelry and cosmetics, enabling seduction. ‘Aśā’el thereby causes humans to sin, resulting in the flood. According to Dimant’s analysis, certain material is derived from both the Šemiḥaza and Asael traditions, specifically 9:1-5, 11. Nickelsburg analyzes 1 En. 6-11 in a similar manner, but focuses on finding the original Šemiḥaza tradition. 33 In addition, Nickelsburg identifies Dimant’s second tradition not as a unified narrative tradition but as two types of editorial interpolations, one adding forbidden knowledge of magic and herbs, and the other adding forbidden knowledge of astrological and related methods of prognostication. 34 Finally, Segal closely follows Dimant when he distinguishes between the Šemiḥaza tradition, “angels that sinned,” the Asael tradition, “angels who caused others to sin,” and verses added

33

See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 165 and idem, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 386-9. 34 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 171. 283

by the redactor that refer specifically to the mysteries and magic taught by the Watchers (Dimant’s second tradition). 35 The three traditions noted by these scholars are also combined in 1 En. 10:114, in which the punishment of the Watchers and their offspring is commanded by God to be carried out by various angels (specifically, Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel and Michael). In 10:4 ‘Aśā’el receives a punishment first (deriving from tradition 3), separate from that of Šemiḥaza and the Watchers (which derives from traditions 1 and 2). Šemiḥaza and the Watchers, unlike ‘Aśā’el (whose sin was teaching forbidden knowledge) sinned principally by mating with human women. Therefore they are forced to witness the demise of their children, the giants (called “bastards” [10:9]), and are only afterward bound by Michael until the day of judgment (10:11-12), when they will be imprisoned eternally in a fiery abyss. The demise of the giants here is not caused by the flood. Instead, the flood is announced separately by Sariel before any of the punishments are delivered. It will “heal the earth” after the damage done by the Watchers (see 1 En. 10:7), apparently the damage wrought by the forbidden knowledge they have revealed (traditions 2 and 3). The giants, however, are set against each other by Gabriel and kill each other (10:9) prior to the flood (tradition 1). Michael is later commanded, in a repetition of what was supposedly accomplished by Gabriel, to destroy “all the spirits of the half-breeds 36 and the sons of

35

Segal, Book of Jubilees, 114. 284

the Watchers, because they have wronged men” (10:15). 37 Michael is then commanded to destroy all evil, creating a world in which righteousness will flourish (10:16). All humanity will become righteous (10:21) and God will never again visit a flood upon the earth, which will be free of all defilement (10:22). The passage concludes with the promise of blessing sent from heaven to earth, and the continuation of peace and righteousness for eternity (11:1-2). The command to Michael in this passage presents an obvious difficulty in the narrative, as it describes the destruction of all evil and the creation of a new world of eternal righteousness directly after the flood. Consequently, Dimant sees 10:15-16 as a later addition, an idea supported by this passage’s repetition of the commandment already given to Raphael to “heal the earth” (10:7) and the passage’s unusual mention of spirits. 38 (The command to destroy the children of the Watchers also seems to be a repetition of the command to Gabriel to destroy the “sons of the Watchers” in 10:9, although Nickelsburg considers the command to Michael primary. 39) Similarly, Segal views all of 1 En. 10:15-11:2, comprising the destruction of the spirits and the

36

Following the translation of of κιβδήλων in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 215. As noted by Nickelsburg, ibid., 213, in LXX Lev 19:19 and LXX Deut 22:11 κίβδηλον translates MT ša‘aṭnēz (‫)שעטנז‬, denoting cloth woven from a forbidden mixture of two types of thread (linen and wool). 37 Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 215. Ga: ἀπόλεσον πάντα τὰ πνεύματα τῶν κιβδήλων καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἐγρηγόρων διὰ τὸ ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. 38 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 61-62. Dimant may conclude that all of 10:15-11:2 is a later addition, but this is not clear. Both Dimant, ibid., 61 and Segal, Book of Jubilees, 114 n. 29, note that the Syncellus manuscript preserves only 6:1-10:14. 39 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 223. 285

description of a new creation, as a later addition and not part of any of the three traditions. 40 Thus, Dimant and Segal interpret this inserted section as describing the “new creation” at the eschaton, not the period following the flood. 41 Nickelsburg, however, considers 10:15-11:2 to be part of the original Šemiḥaza myth, describing the period following the flood as a prototype of sorts for the end of days. 42 The promise to never again flood the earth in 10:22, parallel to Gen 9:11, indicates that the earth is free from defilement in the period immediately following the flood. As noted by J. J. Collins, the first book of the Sibylline Oracles also describes an initial period of perfection after the flood which later deteriorates. 43 Hence, the cleansing of the earth after the flood is presented as a complete one, a model of the final cleansing that the author expects to conclude his own troubled time. The approach proposed by Nickelsburg and Collins has the advantage of explaining how the narrative as a whole could have been understood by Second Temple readers. While this section may have been a secondary interpolation (as described by Dimant and Segal), read in its context the passage at 10:15-11:22 required the audience of BW to recognize a period of purification immediately following the flood.

40

Segal, Book of Jubilees, 113-4. As proposed by Dimant, “Fragment,” 234. 42 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 165 and idem, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” 388. Nickelsburg calls this an “Urzeit-Endzeit typology.” See also idem, 1 Enoch, 224 and Collins, “Methodological Issues,” 319. 43 Collins, “Methodological Issues,” 319. 41

286

The Role of Sin in the Three Traditions As noted above, in the original Šemiḥaza tradition humans do not sin at all. Only the Watchers and their offspring sin, causing destruction from which humans are later saved by divine intervention. In the additions to the Šemiḥaza tradition and in the ‘Aśā’el tradition, however, humans become part of the chain of sin after partaking of the forbidden knowledge shared with them by the Watchers. 44 As is evident in the above overview, however, even in these latter traditions there is no indication that the sin of the Watchers had any lasting demonic implications for humankind beyond the flood. 45 The forbidden mysteries that have been revealed have apparently been “cleansed” from the earth by the flood (see 1 En. 10:7). In fact, the only possible consequence of the Watchers’ sin for the postdiluvian era is found within the ‘Aśā’el tradition, where humans learn the means of war and seduction. This knowledge presumably survived the flood (although the narrative does 44

See G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Reflections upon Reflections: A Response to John Collins’ ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch’,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 311. 45 The spirits described in 10:15 are a possible exception; they are described as “wronging men,” a possible reference to causing sin. However, in context these spirits are identical to the giants whose destruction precedes the flood (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 225); they have “wronged men” through the violence they have done them, and are consequently destroyed before the flood. Another alternative is that this verse is a later insertion; as noted by E. Eshel and Segal, these “spirits” have not been mentioned earlier in the narrative; see Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 47-48 and Segal, Book of Jubilees, 114. These spirits are mentioned only in the account of the Watchers, 1 En. 15:1-16:4, and in 19:1-2, discussed below. 287

not say so explicitly). Yet while sinful knowledge has apparently survived, there is no continuing demonic presence after the flood. When the flood occurs, the giants have already been completely destroyed and the Watchers have been punished. Even in the antediluvian era, in the story as it is told in 1 En. 6-11 the corrupting influence of the Watchers is confined to their teachings and does not stem from ongoing activity on their part. The Watchers do not continue to actively tempt humans to sin, but have rather given them the tools to do evil. It is this forbidden knowledge that is the ongoing “source” of sin in this account, rather than continuous actions by the Watchers. This knowledge is so terrible, implies the author (or redactor), that it must have originated with evil angels. As this review indicates, a postdiluvian demonic source of iniquity is not to be found in 1 En. 6-11. 46 At the simplest level, the purpose of the Watchers narrative as it is found in this section of 1 Enoch is to explain and justify the flood, not to explain the origin of sin (or even of natural evil) in the postdiluvian period. The Watchers story serves as a paradigm of sin and punishment, both through the punishment of the Watchers and giants and in the explanation of the flood as humans’ punishment for sinning (due to human acquisition of forbidden knowledge). 47 In explaining the flood, the Watchers myth in 1 En 6-11 also serves an exegetical purpose, justifying the flood 46

Nickelsburg has also indicated that the Book of the Watchers is not about the origin of evil; see his response to M. W. Elliott summarized in A. Y. Collins, “The Theology of Early Enoch Literature,” Hen 24 (2002): 108. 47 As noted by Dimant, “Methodological Perspective,” 330. See also C. Molenberg, “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in I Enoch 6-11,” JJS 35 (1984): 145. 288

that follows the story of the “sons of God” in Gen 6:5-8:14. The use of the Watchers story for this purpose is commensurate with Dimant’s demonstration of the strong exegetical motif of 1 En. 6-11 and its possible origin as part of an independent work of the Rewritten Bible genre. 48 While 1 En 6-11 may well have served other purposes for its author(s), 49 the Watchers or giants as an explanation of sin after the flood is not one

48

Dimant, “Fragment,” 234-7. The centrality of this story in 1 En. 6-11 does not necessarily stem from wholly exegetical motivations. Nickelsburg has proposed that in the original Šemiḥaza narrative, the giants are used as a stand-in for rulers of the nations, oppressors of Israel, while the Watchers are the nations’ angelic patrons (Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” 396). Nickelsburg suggests that the Watchers story drew from the Titanomachy and the Gigantomachy. However, J. N. Bremmer notes that the central theme of the Titanomachy and the Gigantomachy is that of the divine succession, a theme completely absent from the Watchers myth; see Bremmer, “Remember the Titans!,” in The Fall of the Angels (ed. C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck; TBN 6; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 58-60. According to Bremmer, the only major element in the Watchers story taken from the Titan myth is the binding of the Watchers. According to Nickelsburg’s reading, the “new world” after the flood promises divine salvation and a similarly blessed eschaton for the nation of Israel. Specifically, Nickelsburg suggests that the giants were modeled on the warring Diadochi, who claimed divine parentage and whose violent battles rocked Palestine and its surroundings; Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” 396-7; idem, 1 Enoch, 170. A similar idea has been proposed by R. Bartelmus, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6, 1-4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur (ATANT 65; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979), 180-1. However, in his conclusion Bartelmus narrows the possible historical context of 1 En. 6-11 to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, dating the story later than paleographic evidence suggests, particularly the fragment found in 4Q201 which is dated to the first half of the second century B.C.E. at the latest; see Milik, Books of Enoch, 140-1. The theme of forbidden knowledge, once added, changes the basic meaning of the story as a whole. While Nickelsburg proposes that the theme of forbidden knowledge is borrowed from the Prometheus myth (Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” 399-404; idem, 1 Enoch, 171), there is no emphasis on an act 49

289

of them. 50 The theme of forbidden knowledge nevertheless begs investigation, and will be revisited in the context of BW as a whole.

The Watchers Myth in 1 Enoch 12-16 The independent character of 1 En. 12-16 has long been recognized. 51 Its relationship to 1 Enoch 6-11, however, remains a matter of dispute. For example, C.

of rebellion against God in 1 En. 6-11 (as opposed to 1 En. 15:1-16:4, discussed below). In fact, no rebellion against God is mentioned. Consequently, D. W. Suter has proposed that this story served as a polemic against the priests in Jerusalem and particularly their practice of intermarriage; Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115-35. According to Suter, the forbidden knowledge refers to the priests’ aristocratic knowledge of the arts and sciences (ibid., 134-5). However, Suter ignores the fact that the knowledge enumerated in 6-11 specifically includes knowledge that leads to seduction, violence, and mantic and magical practices. These were not practices typical of the aristocratic priestly class (with the possible exception of seduction). As noted by others, Suter’s connection of 1 En. 6-16 to an anti-priestly polemic is more appropriate to 1 En. 12-16 than it is to 1 En. 6-11; see Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter” and Tigchelaar’s analysis of 1 En. 12-16 as a polemic against priests who defected to the Samaritan temple in Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 198-203 and idem, “Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208,” Hen 24 (2002): 143-5. (Subsequent to Suter’s and Nickelsburg’s studies, M. Himmelfarb focused entirely on 1 En. 12-16 when she proposed that the “intermarriage” which is the object of polemic is that between priests and those of nonpriestly Jewish families; see “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem,” Hen 24 [2002]: 131-5.) The contention that anti-priestly polemic is mainly to be found in 1 En. 12-16 was at least partially accepted by Suter himself when he later explained that the author of 1 En. 12-16 reworked 1 En. 9-11 in order to include the theme of priestly endogamy; Suter, “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest’,” Hen 24 (2002): 140. 50 Contra Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 167 and Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 52. However, see Nickelsburg’s opinion summarized by A. Y. Collins, noted earlier (n. 46). 290

Newsom has concluded that the author of 1 Enoch 12-16 knew only the Šemiḥaza tradition, and that the tradition regarding illicit knowledge was added later to both sections. 52 J. C. VanderKam and Nickelsburg, in contrast, maintain that the author of chapters 12-16 knew the story of the Watchers as it appears in chapters 6-11. 53 Regardless of how much of 1 En. 6-11 the author of 12-16 knew, this author both expanded and changed the Watchers tradition as it appears in earlier chapters. In particular, in 1 En. 12-16 the result of the Watchers’ sin lasts well beyond the flood, as is evident in 1 En. 15:1-16:1.

1 Enoch 15:1-16:1 This passage is introduced as a message for Enoch to return to the Watchers, who have requested clemency. God first explains that procreation is not meant for immortal angels (15:3, 6-7) and is the exclusive prerogative of humankind (15:5). Despite this divinely dictated division between the angelic and human realms, these immortal holy spirits defiled themselves with the “blood of women” (15:4) thereby begetting giants. 54 These giants, hybrids who reflect the true nature of the Watchers’

51

See R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes, and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged, and Rewritten Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 1-2. 52 Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6-19,” 319. 53 VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 129; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 229. 54 So the Greek: ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν γυναικῶν. (This verse has survived in Ga but not in s G .) For ἐν τῷ αἵματι, the Ethiopic has badiba ’anĕst (upon/onto woman), possibly a corruption of badama ’anĕst “through the blood of woman”; see M. A. Knibb, The 291

sin, will be the agents of the damage that results from it. 55 1 En. 15:8-16:1 is cited below; italics indicate alternate readings. 56 15:8 But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh 57 – they will call them evil spirits upon the earth, for their dwelling will be upon the earth. 9 The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits, for from humans they came into being, and from the Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 2:100. Dimant (“Methodological Perspective,” 325) and Nickelsburg (1 Enoch, 271) posit that the “blood” here refers to the menstrual period, while M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 21, suggests that the reference is to the blood of virginity and that the defilement involves the very fact of marriage. However, blood in the context of 15:4 denotes nothing specifically female, but rather the human (and mortal) sphere with which the Watchers have defiled themselves, as seen by the parallels found within the verse: “With the blood of women you have defiled yourselves and with the blood of flesh you have begotten; and with the blood of men you have lusted…” (Ga: καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε ἅγιοι καὶ πνεύματα ζῶντα αἰώνια ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν γυναικῶν ἐμιάνθητε, καὶ ἐν αἵματι σαρκὸς ἐγεννήσατε καὶ ἐν αἵματι ἀνθρώπων ἐπεθυμήσατε. Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 267, emphasis mine.) 55 Both Newsom (“Development of 1 Enoch 6-19,” 319) and Tigchelaar (Prophets of Old, 189-90) distinguish between the description of the Watchers’ sin in 15:3-7, the description of the giants’ spirits in 15:8-16:1, and the apparent redactional addition regarding the Watchers’ illicit teaching in 16:2-3. But while Newsom considers 15:3-7 and 15:8-16:1 logically linked, as the evil spirits result from a forbidden mixing, Tigchelaar posits that 15:8-16:1 and its sudden introduction of the “evil spirits” is an etiological expansion that shifts the focus from the Watchers’ sin to its consequences. 56 The translation below follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 267, except where Nickelsburg relies not on extant witnesses but on a hypothesized reconstruction, in which case the different witnesses are presented. 57 Evident here is the dichotomy between flesh and spirit, a dichotomy lacking, for example, in the portrayal of the inborn desire to sin in the Hodayot, despite the use of both “flesh” and “spirit” as terms throughout the Hodayot. In the account in 1 Enoch only the giants are a combination of flesh and spirit; humans are wholly flesh, while angels are wholly spirit. It thus may be possible to equate the use of the term “flesh” here with the use of the term “spirit of flesh” in the Hodayot: both denote human beings in their common form. 292

holy Watchers was the origin of their creation. Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called. 10 The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but the spirits begotten in the earth, on the earth is their dwelling. 11 And the spirits of the giants nĕpīlîm, do damage/ lay waste, 58 do violence, make desolate, and attack and wrestle and hurl upon

58

The first of the giants’ sins enumerated in 15:11 has not survived in clear form in two of the principal texts, as indicated in the translation used here. In Ga, the first sin of the giants is νεφέλας ἀδικοῦντα “injuring the clouds.” This clearly corrupted phrase is translated similarly in the Ethiopic: dammanāta…yĕgaf’u. One possible restoration of the original text, followed by M. Black, among others, is to interpret νεφέλας as a corruption of Ναφηλείμ, “Nĕpīlîm,” the biblical name for the offspring of the “sons of God” in Gen 6:4; see M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 34, 153. According to this restoration the text would read “the Nĕpīlîm do wrong/injure,” in keeping with the general destruction described in the giants’ list of wrongdoing. A more attractive alternative is to rely on the version of the verse found in Gs (τὰ πνεύματα τῶν γιγάντων νεμόμενα, ἀδικοῦντα…), as it is not obviously corrupted. However, there is more than one possibility for the Aramaic that may lie behind this version. νεμόμενα has two possible meanings in this context: 1) laying waste, in which case the Aramaic may have been r‘‘yn (‫“ )רעעין‬doing evil/ruining”, or 2) pasturing, in which case the Aramaic would have been r‘yn (‫)רעין‬, itself a possible corruption of r‘‘yn; see R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS. together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906), 44-45 n. 3. However, Nickelsburg (1 Enoch, 267-8, 273) takes this second possibility a step farther, positing that r‘yn was a corruption not of r‘‘yn but of t‘yn (‫)תעין‬, leading astray. According to this reading, the original verse, before its corruption in the original Aramaic, explicitly described the spirits of the giants as leading humans astray, i.e. causing sin. In proposing that this verse did refer to causing sin, Nickelsburg relies on the description of the spirits’ instigation of sin in Jub. 7:27; 10:2, 7-13; 11:5; and 12:20. However, relying on Jubilees to elucidate the original meaning of 1 Enoch is problematic. It is generally accepted that Jubilees is based on 1 Enoch, and not vice versa, and as will be discussed further below, Jubilees adds a layer of meaning to the story of the Watchers. Furthermore, Nickelsburg’s reading presumes two stages of corruption in Aramaic, and is far from probable in light of the more contextually appropriate understanding of νεμόμενα as “laying waste.” This understanding has a clear Aramaic Vorlage (r‘‘yn), does not require the assumption of 293

the earth and cause sorrow. 59 They eat nothing, but abstain from food and are thirsty and smite. 12 These spirits (will) rise up against the sons of men and against the women, for they have come forth from them. 16:1 From the day of the slaughter and destruction and death of the giants (Gs adds “the nĕpīlîm, the mighty of the earth, the great of renown” 60), from the soul of whose flesh the spirits are proceeding, they are making desolate without (incurring) judgment. Thus they will make desolate until the day of the consummation of the great judgment, when the great age will be consummated. It will be consummated all at once. In this short account, the postdiluvian consequences of the sin of the Watchers take center stage. The giants, born of an illicit mix of flesh and spirit, will become spirits that are nevertheless tied to the earth. 61 These are the evil spirits, to blame for a host of earthly ills, and their existence will continue until the final judgment day. As noted by Dimant, in this retelling of the Watchers story, the punishment of the giants

stages of corruption, and corresponds to the description of the wholesale destruction caused by the giants in the remainder of the passage. 59 Nickelsburg hypothesizes “cause illnesses” instead of the Greek δρόμους ποιοῦντα, “make races,” suggesting a corruption of Aram. mrw‘’ “illness” to mrwṣ’ “running.” However, the Ethiopic (waḥazana) indicates “cause sorrow” (see Knibb, Ethiopic Enoch, 2:102 and note there regarding the possibility that δρόμους is a corruption of τρόμους, “tremors”). 60 s G : Ναφηλείμ, οἱ ἰσχυροὶ τῆς γῆς, οἱ μεγάλοι ὀνομαστοί… This is a clear reference to the conclusion of Gen 6:4, which explains the identity of the Nĕpīlîm: ‫ֵהמָּה ַהגִּבּ ִֹרים‬ ‫שׁי הַשֵּׁ ם‬ ֵ ְ‫שׁר מֵע ֹולָם אַנ‬ ֶ ‫“ ֲא‬They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.” 61 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 77, proposes that this account combines two earlier versions: one where the mating of the Watchers with women produced giants, and the other where it directly produced evil spirits. 294

no longer has any force. 62 Despite their evildoing, the giants will continue to exist in spirit form. The Watchers story no longer demonstrates justice. From a cautionary tale of the evils of violence, sexual immorality and mantic/magical practices, the Watchers story has been transformed into an explanation for the origin of natural evil. 63 But while the spirits of the giants are responsible for natural evil, they are not explicitly to blame for human sin. In the extant textual witnesses, the spirits of the giants are responsible for destroying, attacking and “throwing to the earth.” There is nothing to indicate that this “destruction” includes causing human sin, although the possibility is not barred. 64

62

Dimant, op. cit. Dimant’s statement is countered by A. T. Wright, who argues that (1) the killing of the giants’ bodies does, in fact, constitute a punishment, (2) the giants must in any case be stopped from reproducing with humans (an unusual argument given that mating with humans was the Watchers’ sin), and (3) the promised eschatological judgment (1 En. 10:16) will destroy the evil spirits completely; see Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature (WUNT 2/198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 152-3. Wright’s first argument is most to the point, but is not conclusive. Wright takes particular issue with Dimant’s claim that the rebellion theme in BW (namely, the Šemiḥaza tradition) is not tied to the origin of evil (Dimant, “Methodological Perspective,” 330). He counters that regardless of the source, these traditions were read together in the Second Temple period. Wright’s argument regarding how BW was read in the Second Temple period has merit. However, in the book of Jubilees, a work which does draw on BW in its entirety in order to explain evil and sin, the tempting demons are not subject to a rebellious angel; on the contrary, they are made subordinate to a member of the divine court (see Jub. 10:8-9 and the discussion in chapter 9 below). 63 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 193. 64 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 204, raises the possibility that 15:11 refers not to the activity of the giants, but to the appellations of the spirits who have originated from them (assuming that the Aramaic Vorlage represents the substantive and not the participle). Hence, he reconstructs: “The spirits of the giants are Afflicters (or: Lurkers), Smiters, Destroyers, Assailants, Strikers, Earth Demons, and Crushers. They 295

Through this passage the author connects the existence of evil spirits in his own day with the myth of the Watchers. The previous section, 1 En. 6-11, has already established that the giants were destroyed before the flood, but their spirits, separated from their bodies, continue to cause havoc. 65 Yet the havoc that is described encompasses natural evil, and does not include leading humans astray. Forbidden Knowledge in 1 Enoch In contrast, the end of this passage contains a separate admonishment against the Watchers’ disclosure of forbidden knowledge: 2 “And now (say) to the Watchers who sent you to petition on their behalf, who formerly were in heaven, 3 ‘You were in heaven, and no mystery was revealed to you; but a despised (Eth.) 66/divine (Gr.) 67 mystery you learned; do not eat anything, but hunger and thirst, hallucinate, and stumble.” This possible reading highlights the nature of the description cited above. Tigchelaar also notes three demons characterized in an Aramaic amulet dated to the seventh century C.E.: one who is hungry but does not eat, one who is thirsty but does not drink, and one who is sleepy but does not sleep (‫)חדה כפנה ולא אכלה חדה צהיה ולא שתיה וחדה נימה ולא דמכה‬. See Tigchelaar, ibid., 206 and K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten Talmudischen Zitaten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 1:371-3. 65 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 204. 66 Eth. wa-mĕnnuna mĕśṭira. Throughout this chapter and the next, Ethiopic transliteration follows the convention employed by W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez-English, English-Ge’ez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1987), with the exception that the šěwă’ is indicated by ě (and not ə) in the interests of consistency with other Semitic transcriptions in this study. 67 The Greek translates literally as “a mystery that originated from God”: μυστήριον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενημένον. Nickelsburg hypothesizes that the original Aramaic text read “a stolen mystery.” He proposes that there was an initial confusion in the 296

and this you made known to the women in your hardness of heart; and through this mystery the women and men are multiplying evils upon the earth.’ 4 Say to them, ‘You will have no peace.’” (1 En. 16:2-4) The sharing of illicit knowledge that is the focus of these verses is a sin that is absent from the previous passage. It is parallel to 1 En. 13:1-2: 1 “And, Enoch, go and say to Asael, ‘You will have no peace. A great sentence has gone forth against you, to bind you. 2 You will have no relief or petition, because of the unrighteous deeds that you revealed, and because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin that you revealed to men.’” The passage in 13:1-2 appears following a short message with content similar to that of 15:1-16:1. Enoch must inform the Watchers who “defiled themselves with women” and took wives “like the sons of earth” (12:4) 68 that they will be punished and their offspring will be destroyed. Only afterwards is the sin of the illicit revelation mentioned. Similarly, the admonishment in 16:3 cited above is added almost as an afterthought to an account of the Watchers that focuses on the illegitimacy of the

Aramaic between bz’ “despise” and bzz “plunder,” leading to the Greek Vorlage of the Ethiopic proposed by Charles (Ethiopic Enoch, 47 n. 5): ἐξουθενημένον “worthless/despised.” According to Charles, this was subsequently corrupted in the Greek from ἐξουθενημένον to τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενημένον “that originated from God.” However, the idea that the angels stole the secrets they shared is not found elsewhere within the Enochic retelling of the Watchers story, while the idea that these secrets lead directly to sin (and hence are despicable) is found throughout. There is thus no need to hypothesize that the Aramaic Vorlage read bzz rather than bz’. 68 Greek: μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐμιάνθησαν, καὶ ὥσπερ οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς γῆς ποιοῦσιν, οὕτως καὶ αὐτοὶ ποιοῦσιν, καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας. 297

Watchers’ desire to procreate and the damage caused by the bastard consequences of this sin. In 1 En. 15:1-16:4 the Watchers’ sin is initially described not as sharing forbidden knowledge, but as crossing the boundary between heaven and earth in order to engage in (human) lust and beget children (15:4-7). 69 As noted by C. Newsom and supported by E. Tigchelaar, 13:1-2 and 16:2-3 appear to be redactional additions. 70 The incorporation of the theme of forbidden knowledge, a theme that is not mentioned in the preceding passages, demonstrates the redactor’s reluctance to describe the Watchers’ sin without some reference to the Watchers’ illicit revelation. In both of these passages, the disclosure of forbidden knowledge is itself a catalyst for human sin during the period preceding the flood. As noted above, in the initial telling of the Watchers story in 1 En. 6-11, this forbidden knowledge is of two types: crafts of seduction and war attributed to ‘Aśā’el (8:1), and magic and divinatory practices attributed to Šemiḥaza and the Watchers (8:3). These two types are mirrored in 13:1-2 and 16:3. The passage in 13:1-2 and its reference to “unrighteous deeds” 71 may refer to either type of knowledge described in 1 En. 6-11, 72 similar to 1 En. 9:6, where ‘Aśā’el/Azazel is held responsible for teaching both “iniquity” 73 and “eternal

69

As in 1 En. 12:4; see above. Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6-19,” 319; Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 183. 71 a G ἀδικημάτων, Eth. gĕf‘ā. 72 See Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 181. 73 a G ἀδικίας, Gs ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, Eth. ‘āmaḍā. Gs of 9:6 reflects a considerably different version; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 204 n. 6b. 70

298

mysteries/secrets.” 74 The “mystery” 75 in 16:3 seems to refer more particularly to arts of divination and magic, mirroring the sin attributed to Šemiḥaza and the Watchers in 1 En. 8:3. Tigchelaar notes that there is a literary motivation for including Aśā’el’s sin (as described in 8:1) in 1 En. 6-11. The teaching of crafts of seduction mirrors the sin of the Watchers in mating with human women, while the sharing of skills of war reflects the violence caused by the giants, thereby creating a double admonition against sexual and violent sins in the story as a whole. 76 However, the sins related to divination and magic attributed to Šemiḥaza and the Watchers in 8:3 are not related to the giants and the damage they do, and so the inclusion of these sins cannot be explained as easily. Numerous motivations have been proposed for the addition of these sins to the story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, some of which also relate to the inclusion of Aśā’el’s sins of illicit revelation. H. S. Kvanvig has proposed that in the expanded Šemiḥaza tradition the Watchers story draws from the Phoenician, Egyptian and Hittite practices of using magic rituals to call on primeval gods descended to the netherworld for mantic purposes. 77 However, there is no specific evidence that such rituals were practiced by Jews during the Hellenistic period. Stuckenbruck has 74

Ga τὰ μυστήρια Gs τὰ μυστήρια… τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (see n. 73 above), Eth. ḫabu’āta ‘ālam (eternal secrets). 75 Gr. μυστήριον, Eth. mĕšṭira. 76 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 180. 77 H. S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 313. 299

proposed that the insertions regarding illicit knowledge are actually a polemic against an existing tradition whereby Abraham’s (legitimate) knowledge of astrology and similar arts was transferred from Enoch through the giants. 78 However, his proposition does not explain why the illicit knowledge in BW is attributed to the Watchers and not to the giants, as would be expected if it were a polemic against such a tradition. Collins maintains that the redactor of BW, by making illicit knowledge a central feature of the Watchers story, intended to reinterpret the myth of sexual misconduct in terms of inappropriate revelation. This illicit revelation stands in contrast to the appropriate revelation given to Enoch. 79 Collins interprets this retelling of the myth as a comment on the culture shock in Israel during the Hellenistic period, a cultural conflict that led to apocalyptic visions such as are attributed to Enoch in 1 Enoch. 80 Similarly, M. E. Stone posits that the cultivation of sacred speculation during

78

Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’,” 361. Stuckenbruck bases this idea on the account of history from Enoch to Abraham in two fragments of Pseudo-Eupolemus, found in Alexander Polyhistor. Based on the tracing of Abraham’s knowledge to Enoch in the first fragment, combined with the account of the escape of the giants from the flood and their eventual relocation in Babylonia, named as Abraham’s birthplace, Stuckenbruck argues that the knowledge was transferred to Abraham from Enoch through the giants. This argument is supported by the explicit mention of Abraham’s genealogical descent from the giants in the second fragment. For these fragments with translation, see C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. I. Historians (SBLTT 20; Pseudepigrapha 10; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 170-7. 79 Collins, “Apocalyptic Technique,” 101-2 and idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5253. VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 126, also notes the contrast between the “hidden” secrets taught by the Watchers and the legitimately revealed information transmitted by Enoch in the Astronomical Book (1 En 72-82). 80 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 51. 300

the rise of Hellenism, particularly among the educated (and perhaps priestly) classes, is what led to the polemic against such speculation in BW, although he does not offer textual evidence for his theory. 81 Like Collins, VanderKam contrasts the Watchers’ knowledge with Enoch’s. He notes four ways in which the character of Enoch is elevated through comparison with the Watchers in 1 En. 12-16. One of these is the improper knowledge of which the Watchers stand accused in 13:2 and 16:3, which contrasts with the revealed knowledge that Enoch imparts in the succeeding chapters of BW, chapters 17-36. 82 Newsom, too, sees the revelation of the Watchers as a foil for the legitimate revelation of Enoch. 83 Newsom notes that in 1 Enoch 12-16 the concern is not with what the Watchers taught but with the misappropriation of heavenly knowledge. This misappropriated knowledge stands in contrast with the true mysteries available to those who transmit Enoch’s revelation in 1 Enoch 17-19. 84 The focus on the illegitimacy of certain astrological, mantic and magical knowledge in the redacted Watchers story testifies to the fact that the redactor’s world 81

Stone, “Book of Enoch,” 489-90. VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 133. The other three are: (1) Enoch’s ascent to heaven as opposed to the Watchers’ descent to earth; (2) the contamination of the Watchers with humans in contrast to the human Enoch’s association with angels; and (3) the Watchers’ betrayal of their role of intercession for humans (replaced by their instigation of human corruption) countered by Enoch’s own intercession on behalf of the Watchers. 83 Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6-19,” 320-1. Newsom explains the inclusion of the illicit dissemination of astronomical knowledge as stemming from Enochic interest in astronomy, while the forbidden instruction in sorcery is connected to traditions according to which the spirits of the giants caused disease, reflected most specifically in Jub. 10:1-14. 84 Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6-19,” 329. 82

301

was one in which such knowledge was regularly put into practice. The inclusion of this type of knowledge in the Watchers myth achieves a dual purpose: it delegitimizes and demonizes this knowledge while also accounting for its perceived effectiveness. According to the redactor of BW, both the sinfulness and the effectiveness of magical and divinatory practices originate from the same source: the evil Watchers and their sin in transgressing the boundaries between human and divine. These evil otherworldly forces provide the power that enables these illicit practices. The redactor’s apparent need to explain the origin of these practices highlights the theological difficulty that they presented. The theme of illegitimate knowledge as a source of sin was not a popular one in later Jewish texts. One exception is a reference in Jub. 8:3, where Noah’s greatgrandson Cainan discovers a tablet that contains the Watchers’ teachings on astrology, causing him to sin. Cainan is the son of Arpachshad, who is given the Chaldees as part of his inheritance (Jub. 9:4), thereby linking the illicit knowledge of the Chaldeans (cf. Jub. 11:8) with the Watchers. 85 Cainan keeps his discovery from Noah. As elucidated by Stuckenbruck, the line of transmission of illegitimate knowledge from “bad angels” is kept distinct from the line of legitimate knowledge that flows from “good angels” through Enoch and Noah to Abraham. The author of Jubilees thereby successfully distinguishes between two “lines” of knowledge. 86

85 86

Stuckenbruck, “Origins of Evil,” 113. Stuckenbruck, ibid., 113-4 and n. 63 ad loc. 302

It is perhaps the difficulty of this distinction that prevented illicit knowledge from being presented as the cause of sin in other Second Temple texts. After all, what was considered illegitimate by the redactor of Enoch, particularly medicinal knowledge (see 1 En. 7:1, 8:3), was seen in a highly positive light by the author of Jubilees (Jub. 10:10, 13). 87 Similar positive approaches to all types of knowledge, including “magical” knowledge, would have prevented the Enochic approach to illicit knowledge from becoming an accepted explanation of sin in circles that held such a positive view. Consequently, the idea that forbidden knowledge lies behind ongoing human sin was abandoned in these Second Temple texts. 88 1 Enoch 19:1-2 The passage at 1 En. 19:1-2 presents a new view regarding the results of the Watchers’ sin: 89 1 And Uriel said to me, “There stand the angels who mingled with the women. And their spirits, having assumed many forms, bring destruction on men and lead them astray to sacrifice to demons as to gods 90 until the

87

See Stuckenbruck, ibid., 114. While texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls community express the idea that certain “mysteries” should be kept secret within the community (see 1QS IV.6), this secret knowledge is not considered “bad” in any sense of the word, and is never mentioned as a potential cause of sin. 89 Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 276. 90 Here Nickelsburg follows the Ethiopic; “as to gods” is omitted in Ga (this passage is not found in Gs), according to Nickelsburg by homoioteleuton. 88

303

day of 91 the great judgment, in which they will be judged with finality. 2 And the wives of the transgressing angels will become sirens.” Here the spirits of the Watchers 92 are described as continually leading humans astray, in particular causing them to sacrifice to demons. 93 While the Watchers’ bodies are bound until the judgment day, their spirits, equivalent to the spirits of the giants in 15:8-12, roam the earth and tempt humans into idol worship. 94 The particular sin that the spirits cause is fitting: in demonstrating non-divine power, these spirits are responsible for humans worshipping non-divine power. The worshipped demons, however, do not seem to be identical to the spirits. 95 “Sacrificing to demons as to gods” echoes the predicted sin of the Israelites in Deut 32:17 (see also Ps 106:37). These demons are (non-angelic) spiritual beings who are the recipients of worship; they are not directly connected to the Watchers. The demons’ origin is not explained, but their existence is assumed. The “illogical” nature of demon worship may also explain why this sin is attributed to evil spirits. In the context of 1 Enoch, which assumes the centrality of a single omnipotent God, worshipping demons is completely unreasonable from the 91

This is found in the Ethiopic but omitted in Ga, also, according to Nickelsburg, by homoioteleuton. 92 According to Dimant (“‘Fallen Angels,’” 81), these spirits are not those of the Watchers themselves, but rather of their offspring. 93 It is not clear whether the women, as sirens, will fulfill a similar role. 94 Black, The Book of Enoch, 161; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. 95 As noted by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. Nickelsburg identifies these demons with the “spirits” who rule the nations, citing LXX Deut 32:8. However, there is no indication in the text that these demons rule the nations. 304

perspective of the author and his intended audience. This unreasonable sin is hence attributed to the misleading actions of the Watchers’ spirits. It is possible that the author of this section had specific misleading activities in mind, such as the causing of diseases that would lead to apotropaic appeals to demons. However, these activities are not specified. Consequently, it appears that the author’s primary concern was not the exact nature of the spirits’ actions, but simply the explanation of the illogical sin of demon worship via the spirits’ activities. Alternatively, it is possible that it is not the lack of logic, but the extreme nature of this sin that caused the author to attribute it to the spirits of the Watchers. Sacrificing to demons could be seen as the ultimate rebellion against God. The author may therefore have connected this transgression to the ultimate divine rebels, the Watchers. The idea that the Watchers caused the sin of idol worship is later reflected in Jubilees, as will be discussed. The passage at 1 En. 19:1-2 is the only one in BW describing human sin after the flood as the result of the Watchers’ sin. And while the sin of the Watchers is mentioned elsewhere in 1 Enoch, 96 specifically in the Animal Apocalypse, 1 Enoch 86-89, there, too, no earthly consequences result from the Watchers’ sin following the flood; the Watchers are bound prior to the flood while the last of the giants perish

96

The Watchers are also mentioned in passing in 1 En 21:10, when Enoch sees the site of their imprisonment. 305

during the flood, with no apparent spiritual longevity. 97 Sins of humans are not to be attributed to the Watchers, but presumably to humans themselves. The author of the later Epistle of Enoch 98 may well have been continuing this approach to sin when he argued in 1 En. 98:4: “Thus lawlessness was not sent/given 99 upon the earth; but men created it by themselves, and those who do it will come to a great curse.” 100

Summary: Watchers in 1 Enoch While the myth of the Watchers is found in several forms in 1 Enoch, only one of them clearly refers to causing sin after the flood, and then only to the very specific 97

The account of the Watchers and their punishment in the Animal Apocalypse parallels the ‘Aśā’el and Šemiḥaza traditions found in BW, as noted by Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 83. ‘Aśā’el is portrayed as sinning first (86:1-2), separately from the other angels, and is bound first (88:1-2), while the rest of the Watchers are bound only after the giants begin to kill each other (88:3). Unlike the account in BW, some giants remain to perish in the flood with non-Noahide humanity (89:6). 98 The author of the Epistle knew BW (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 422) and therefore the Epistle clearly dates to a later period. However, it is difficult to narrow the dating of the Epistle beyond this terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem of mid-first century C.E. based on the Aramaic manuscripts; see Milik, Books of Enoch, 48, 178. Nickelsburg posits that the Epistle could have been composed either in the Hasmonean period or during the Herodian period, while VanderKam posits a possible early Hasmonean date if the Epistle as a whole is contemporaneous with the Apocalypse of Weeks, an originally independent work included within the Epistle. This would allow the Epistle to share the generally accepted early Hasmonean dating of the Apocalypse of Weeks based on its content; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 427-8 and VanderKam, Growth of Apocalyptic, 142-5. 99 Eth. ’i-tafanawat “not sent,” Gr. οὐδὲ … ἐδόθη “was not given” (following the Chester Beatty-Michigan Papyrus). 100 Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 468. Nickelsburg (ibid., 477) draws the obvious comparison to Sir 15:11-20 (see chapter 5) and suggests that these texts reflect a common tradition. He notes that the overarching interest of both texts is human responsibility. 306

sin of sacrificing to demons. The fact that there is only one short reference to causing sin after the flood demonstrates that the purpose of the Watchers myth as it is found in 1 Enoch was not to explain the origin of sin. In 1 En.6-11 the story expresses divine justice against paradigmatic sinners and justifies the devastation of the flood. In 1 En. 15:1-16:4, the Watchers myth is used to explain the origin of natural evil. The Book of the Watchers does present a causal connection between the possession of forbidden knowledge and sin. While there have been numerous attempts to explain the motivation for attributing sin to forbidden knowledge in BW, it is important to note that this theme was not continued in the majority of Second Temple literature. The focus on illicit knowledge as a source of sin was possibly too difficult to maintain in the face of a more positive outlook on knowledge shared by other Second Temple texts. There are two other important contributions of 1 Enoch to the development of the demonic explanation of sin in Second Temple texts. First, while the description of the havoc that the spirits of the giants wreak on earth in 1 En. 15:1-16:4 does not explicitly include causing sin, the general terms for destruction used in 15:1-16:4 allow the audience to interpret them as including sin (as occurred in later retellings of this narrative, specifically in Jubilees). Second, the reference to the sin-causing spirits of the Watchers in 1 En. 19:1-2 shows that, while the Watchers story was not the explanation of the origin of sin, it could be used to explain the occurrence of specific sins that might seem otherwise unreasonable. The foremost example of such an

307

“unreasonable” sin is the worship of demons despite the existence of a single omnipotent God. These aspects underlie the development of the story of the Watchers to explain the origin of sin in subsequent literature of the Second Temple period, particularly in the book of Jubilees.

308

IX. Jubilees and the Demonic Paradigm

The book of Jubilees develops the Watchers myth as told in BW into a view of sin different from that found in 1 Enoch. Jubilees is an example of the “Rewritten Bible” genre, 1 retelling the narrative of Genesis and the first half of Exodus as narrated by an “angel of the presence” to Moses at Sinai. In most recent scholarship, Jubilees has been dated either to ca. 160-150 B.C.E. (the period following the Hasmonean victory) 2 or to ca. 170 B.C.E. (shortly before the decrees of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C.E.). 3 1

For a review of the history of scholarship on the “Rewritten Bible” genre, see S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 9-15. On Jubilees as an example of the “Rewritten Bible” genre, see Crawford, ibid., 61-62 and Segal, Book of Jubilees, 4-5. 2 See J. C. VanderKam, “Jubilees, Book of,” EDSS 1:434; idem, The Book of Jubilees (GAP 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 1:17-21. VanderKam derives his dating based on two main pieces of evidence: the terminus ad quem derives from the fragments of Jubilees at Qumran, dated paleographically to 100-50 B.C.E., while allusions in Jub. 4:15-26 to 1 En 83-90, the Book of Dreams, dated to no earlier than 164 B.C.E., provide a terminus a quo. VanderKam further limits the possible date of Jubilees by positing that it was written before the Dead Sea community’s relocation to Qumran, approximately 150-140 B.C.E., because this text’s concerns resemble those of the sectarian texts at Qumran but do not include withdrawal from Jewish society. In this respect, D. Dimant has proposed a category of texts appropriate for the book of Jubilees: “intermediate” works that share a number of ideas with those of the Qumran community, while lacking specifically sectarian features; see Dimant, “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group 309

Textual Background The book of Jubilees was composed in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek and possibly Syriac. The Greek translation was used as a basis for translations into Latin and Ethiopic. Jubilees has survived in its entirety only in Ethiopic, and in fourteen very fragmentary copies of the original Hebrew text that have been found at Qumran. 4 Through an in-depth comparison of the Qumran copies and the Ethiopic manuscripts, J. C. VanderKam has shown that the Ethiopic manuscripts, when treated critically, reproduce the Hebrew original with “remarkable, though not complete precision.” 5 VanderKam concludes that it is therefore possible to use the Ethiopic text for detailed textual studies, a methodology that has been adopted for the present study.

on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 106-7, 134. Hence, these texts reflect a wider frame of thought than that evidenced at Qumran. As VanderKam proposes, it is likely that such texts, found at Qumran, predated the community’s separation from the larger group of Jews who held such common concerns. 3 See J. A. Goldstein, “The Date of the Book of Jubilees,” PAAJR 50 (1983): 69-72. Goldstein argues that Jubilees must have been written before Antiochus’ decrees, because the book shows knowledge of events early in Antiochus’ reign (particularly of the religious civil strife in 170 B.C.E., which Goldstein sees reflected in Jub. 23:1621) but not of Antiochus’ decrees forbidding the observance of Torah law (ibid., 712). 4 These fragments were found in Caves 1 (1Q17-18), 2 (2Q19-20), 3 (3Q5), 4 (4Q216224) and 11 (11Q12) and in an unknown cave (XQ5a); ee VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1:435. 5 See VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 18-95; the quote above is found at ibid., 95. 310

In recent scholarship, M. Segal has differentiated between the redactional layer of Jubilees and sections that he attributes to other sources. 6 Accordingly this study does not attempt to artificially harmonize the disparate views of sin presented in the various sections of Jubilees. However, the distinction between “author” and “redactor” is not always clear, and for clarity’s sake I have chosen to use the term “author” in most cases, while noting passages that have clearly been integrated from other sources.

Jubilees 4 and 5: Reflection of Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 10-11 The first mention of the Watchers in Jubilees is found in Jub. 4:15, and lacks any reference to sin or wrongdoing: …He named him Jared because during his lifetime the angels of the Lord who were called Watchers descended to earth to teach mankind and to do what is just and upright upon the earth. 7 The positive depiction of the initial mission of the Watchers appears to be an innovation in Jubilees. The Watchers’ initially positive role is also reflected in Jub. 5:6: “Against his (God’s) angels whom he had sent to the earth he was angry…” as well as in the assertion that in mating with women the Watchers acted “apart from the mandate of their authority” (7:21). It can also be seen in Noah’s reference to the 6

Segal, Book of Jubilees. All Jubilees texts in this chapter follow VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 510; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989), and translations (with minor changes in punctuation) follow idem, Jubilees: Translated. 7

311

Watchers in prayer as “your Watchers” (10:21). 8 The positive depiction of the Watchers’ original undertaking has been explained in different ways. Dimant provides two possible explanations: either this is a polemic against the version of the story found in BW, where the Watchers descended to earth with an evil purpose, 9 or it is part of a trend to soften the motif of sinning angels. 10 VanderKam explains the relocation of the Watchers’ initial sin from heaven to earth as a means of further distancing evil from heaven. 11 Segal, in contrast, maintains that the author/redactor’s motivation was completely chronological: the author wished to maintain a connection between the beginning of the Watchers’ sin and the flood, while maintaining the tradition in 1 En. 6:6 that the Watchers descended to earth more than 700 years before the flood. 12 Regardless of the reason for this positive take on the Watchers, it does not

8

J. C. VanderKam, “The Demons in the ‘Book of Jubilees’,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Allan; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 348. 9 By locating the angel’s initial sin on earth and not in heaven, the author also diverges from the account in Gen 6:1-4, where the angels’ first action is the observation of women from heaven. BW locates the initial sin in heaven in accordance with the biblical account; see Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels,’” 99-100. According to Dimant, the divergence from the biblical text in Jubilees 5:6 indicates that the location of the initial sin on earth is a later development. 10 Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 100. 11 J. C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (ed. E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 155. 12 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 126-32. According to Segal, the chronological framework of Jubilees dates the flood to 120 years after God’s decision to kill the giants (see Jub. 312

significantly affect other accounts of the Watchers in Jubilees. In other passages in Jubilees that refer to the Watchers, the attitude toward the Watchers is resoundingly negative, as in the accounts of 1 Enoch. The next reference to the Watchers is found in Jub. 4:22 within an account of Enoch’s works and life: “He testified to the Watchers who had sinned with the daughters of men because these had begun to mix with earthly women so that they became defiled (Eth. yěrkwasu). Enoch testified against all of them.” This negative description fits the account of the Watchers found in BW. Here the sin of the Watchers is described as “defilement” or “impurity” (Eth. rěkws), and fits the description of the watcher’s sin found in 1 En. 12:4 and 15:4. This short reference, however, does not describe the earthly consequences of this defilement. This connection between the Watchers and impurity is not repeated in the first full account of the Watchers myth in Jub. 5:1-5, an account which closely follows Gen 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch 10-11. Like these sources, Jub. 5:1-5 does not explicitly attribute the cause of sin to the Watchers or to their descendants, although this is implied, as 5:8) in an interpretation of Gen 6:3 (Segal, ibid., 124). This interpretation is contra VanderKam, who reads Jub. 5:8 as referring only to the giants’ lifespan, and consequently disconnects it from the date of the flood (VanderKam, “Angel Story,” 160-1). According to Segal, the author of Jubilees combines the account of the Watchers with the onset of the flood, while still reflecting the Šemiḥaza tradition found in 1 En. 6-11. Because in this tradition the angels descended in the time of Jared (1 En. 6:6) more than 700 years before the flood, the Watchers could not have sinned immediately upon their arrival; their sin could only begin much later. Segal convincingly argues, contra VanderKam, that distancing evil from heaven is not a concern for the author/redactor of Jubilees. If it were, evil would not later be attributed to the heavenly angel Mastema (Segal, ibid., 125-6). 313

will be discussed further below. In addition, as in 1 Enoch 10-11, there is no indication in Jub. 5:1-5 that the Watchers’ offspring survived the flood. 5:1 When mankind began to multiply on the surface of the entire earth and daughters were born to them, the angels of the Lord – in a certain (year) of this jubilee – saw that they were beautiful to look at. So they married of them whomever they chose. They gave birth to children for them and they were giants. 2 Wickedness 13 increased on the earth. All flesh 14 corrupted 15 its way – (everyone of them) from people to cattle, animals, birds, and everything that moves about on the ground. All of them corrupted 16 their way and their established order. 17 They began to devour one another, and wickedness 18 increased on the earth. Every thought 19 of all mankind’s 13

Eth. ‘amaḍā, “wickedness, injustice, violence.” VanderKam translates wickedness here, but ‘amaḍā may specifically indicate violence; see discussion of 7:20-33 below. 14 Eth. wa-kwěllu za-śěgā. VanderKam translates “all animate beings,” but I have chosen to present the literal meaning of śěgā, as the literal translation better reflects the biblical text on which the verse in Jubilees is based: ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫שׂר אֶת דַּ ְרכּ ֹו עַל ה‬ ָ ‫שׁחִית כָּל ָבּ‬ ְ ‫“ כִּי ִה‬for all flesh had corrupted its way/path on the earth” (Genesis 6:12b). 15 Eth. ’amāsanat. 16 Eth. ’amāsanu. 17 Eth. wa-śěr‘atomu. While VanderKam translates “their prescribed course,” the translation chosen fits the semantic range of śar‘a; see Leslau, Dictionary of Geʻez, 532-3. It is also particularly appropriate based on the Vorlage proposed by VanderKam and others: ‫השחיתו דרכם וחקתם‬. This retroversion is based on 11QJub (11Q12) 7 3, ‫ ; ה[שחיתו דרכם וח]קתם‬see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 37 and F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, “12. 11QJubilees,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 215. While García Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woulde translate ‫ חקתם‬as “their ordinance,” ‫ חקתם‬can also imply established order, as in Jer 31:35, where ‫ חֻקּ ֹת‬refers specifically to the divinely mandated course of the sun, moon, and stars. 18 Eth. ‘amaḍā. 19 Eth. ḫěllinā. This may also be translated “inclination”; see n. 20 below and the discussion on Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12:19-21. 314

knowledge 20 was evil 21 like this all the time. 3 The Lord saw that the earth was corrupt, 22 (that) all flesh 23 had corrupted 24 its established order, 25 and (that) all of them – everyone that was on the earth – had acted wickedly 26 before his eyes. 4 He said that he would obliterate people and all flesh 27 that was on the surface of the earth which he had created. 5 He was pleased with Noah alone. This account of the Watchers does not explain how the birth of the giants led to the increase of wickedness among humankind; as in his Genesis source-text, the author simply juxtaposes the giants’ birth with the corruption of “all flesh.” 28 Jub. 5:1 is a close copy of Gen 6:1-2,4. Differences between the Genesis verses and the Jubilees “copy” include the addition of a reference to the jubilee chronology and the

20

Eth.’a’měro. This verse is an interpretation of Gen 6:5, where “every inclination of the thoughts of (man’s) heart” (‫שׁב ֹת לִבּ ֹו‬ ְ ‫ ) ְוכָל יֵצֶר ַמ ְח‬is described as evil “throughout the day.” In Jub.5:2 “inclination of the thoughts” has been collapsed into ḫěllinā, thought or inclination, while “the heart of man” is translated as “mankind’s knowledge,” a reasonable interpretation given the wide semantic range of lēb (lit., “heart”) in the Hebrew Bible. 21 Eth. ’ěkuy. 22 Eth. māsanat. 23 VanderKam translates “all animate beings”; see n. 14 above. 24 Eth. ’amāsanat. 25 Eth. śěr‘ātā. See n. 17 above. 26 Eth. ’a’kayu. 27 VanderKam translates “all animate beings”; see n. 14 above. 28 J. Kugel calls this “corruption spread,” noting that while it is not clear how the Watchers corrupted all living beings, “whatever the case, mankind and the animal kingdom seem to have been directly infected”; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 201. 315

interpretation of bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm as “the angels of the Lord.” 29 Jub. 5:2 paraphrases Gen 6:5 (“The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time”) and draws on Gen 6:12 (“When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth”) as does Jub. 5:3. The juxtaposition of the birth of the giants and the growing wickedness of humankind in Jubilees 5, like the juxtaposition of Gen 6:1-4 and 6:5-7, allows the reader to reach her own conclusions regarding the connection between the giants and the corruption of humankind. There is one significant addition to the biblical account, however. As noted by Segal, the author has added that all flesh has corrupted not only their “ways,” as in Gen 6:12, but in addition their “established order” (Eth. śer‘atomu) 30 a term also used in the context of the flood in Jub. 6:4. Through this addition the author hints that it is the breakdown of the divine order, initiated by the Watchers, that led to the punishment of the flood. 31 A further link between the Watchers and the flood is found in Jub. 5:6-5:10. Here the punishment of the angels and their offspring is inextricably linked to the divine decision to punish humankind through the flood. As shown by Segal, Jub. 5:65:10 closely parallels 1 En. 10:1-11:2, including a repetition of the binding of the

29

As well as the the addition of “entire” (reflecting the Vorlage ‫ )כל‬to “the surface of the earth,” and possibly the change of ‫ אדם‬to ‫ בני אדם‬in the Vorlage to signify humankind; see VanderKam, “Angel Story,” 157-8. 30 See n. 17 above. 31 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 107-8. 316

Watchers in 5:6 and 5:10. 32 The passage concludes with the description of a new creation (Jub. 5:11-12), parallel to 1 En. 10:16-11:2. As in BW, there is no indication in Jubilees 5 that the giants or their spirits have survived the flood, and certainly no indication that this is an explanation of the source of ongoing postdiluvian sin. Nowhere in Jub. 5:1-5 are the acts of the Watchers described as “defiling” or leading to “impurity,” in contrast to Jub. 4:22 and the description in Jubilees 7 (to be discussed below). The decried sin involves transgression of the “established order” or the “way” that has been ordained, and this idea is repeated in the postscript to the new creation that follows the flood: The judgment of them all has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets; there is no injustice. (As for) all who transgress from their way 33 in 32

Segal, ibid., 115-6. Segal describes the parallel sections as follows: 1) God’s decision to destroy the world and save Noah: Jub. 5:4-5, parallel to 1 En. 10:1-3; 2) Judgment against ‘Aśā’el: Jub. 5:6, parallel to 1 En 10:4-8; 3) Judgment against the offspring of the Watchers: Jub. 5:7-9, parallel to 1 En 10.9-10; 4) Judgment against Šemiḥaza: Jub. 5:10, parallel to 1 En. 10.11-12; 5) Day of judgment: Jub. 5:11, parallel to 1 En. 10.13-15; 6) New creation: Jub. 5:12, parallel to 1 En. 10:16-11:2. The key difference in sections 2 and 3 is that in Jubilees the names of the different angels are not mentioned, and so the repeated judgments are not justified as they are in 1 Enoch. While Segal sees Jub. 5:1-3 as a parallel of 1 En. chapters 6-9, the more obvious parallel is to Gen 6:1-5,12, as shown above. The parallel between Jub. 5:1-3 and Gen 6:1-5, 12 is clear enough that no intermediate stage is needed. Nevertheless, as noted by VanderKam (“Angel Story,” 169-70), while the author of Jubilees borrowed heavily from BW, he altered the material to meet his own aims. This is evident from the repurposing of the Watchers story in Jubilees to emphasize the need to keep the commandments (see below). 33 Eth. yět‘adawu ’ěm-fěnotomu. 317

which it was ordained for them to go – if they do not go in it, judgment has been written down for each creature and for each kind. (Jub. 5:13) The repetition of the “moral” of the story shows that in Jubilees 5, the Watchers myth serves as a lesson that all creatures must follow their prescribed paths and keep the commandments of God. The sin of the Watchers has not caused any lasting “impurity,” but instead serves as the prototypical example of creatures who did not follow the path prescribed for them by God and who were punished accordingly.

Jubilees 7: Watchers as a Source of Continuous Postdiluvian Sin The passage at Jub. 7:20-33 presents a different view. Here the Watchers story is clearly transformed into an explanation for ongoing sin. This is not to say that the Watchers are presented as the only origin of sin. As noted by Dimant, in Jubilees evil also exists before the Watchers, who do not appear until chapter 5. 34 The sin of Adam and Eve (Jub. 3:17-25) and the murder of Abel by Cain (Jub. 4:2-4) are both recounted in Jubilees and are clear examples of sin, but neither story is used to explain sin, either as origin or as paradigm. 35 The account of the Watchers in Jub. 7:20-33,

34

Dimant’s statement is transcribed and quoted in Collins, “Theology,” 108-9. Contra J. C. VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources,” SBLSP 13 (1978): 244. VanderKam proposes that sin is of earthly origin in Jubilees because of the serpent’s instigation in the story of Adam and Eve (Jub. 3:1726). However, the role of the serpent in the Jubilees story of Adam and Eve, as well as its lack of an explicit origin, is a straightforward reflection of the biblical text in Gen 3:1-5, and the sin of Adam and Eve is not presented as an “origin of sin” story; see Stuckenbruck, “Book of Jubilees,” 296-7. The purpose of the story of Adam and Eve’s 35

318

however, does tie the Watchers to the ongoing sin of future generations, and also includes an explicit link between the Watchers’ misdeeds and the flood. 7:20 During the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to prescribe for his grandsons the ordinances and the commandments, every statute which he knew. He testified to his sons that they should do what is right, cover the shame of their bodies, bless the one who had created them, honor father and mother, love one another, and keep themselves from fornication, 36 impurity, 37 and from all violence. 38 21 For it was on account of these three things that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse, apart from the mandate of their authority, with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first (acts) of impurity. 39 22 They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. They were all dissimilar (from one another) and would devour one another: the giant killed the Naphil; the Naphil killed the Elyo;

sin is used principally to explain why animals do not speak and why humans must wear clothing (Jub. 3:28-31), while the story of Cain and Abel is used to emphasize the prohibition against beating another human being and the requirement to bear witness if one sees such an act of violence (Jub. 4:5). 36 Eth. zěmmut. 37 Eth. rěkws. VanderKam translates “uncleanness,” but the term rěkws can also specifically indicate defilement or impurity (see Leslau, Dictionary of Geʻez, 470), and this meaning makes the most sense when used to refer to marriages between the Watchers and human women. 38 Eth. ‘amaḍā, “violence, injustice.” While VanderKam, Jubilees: Translated, 47, translates ‘amaḍā here as “injustice,” ‘amaḍā is used consistently in this passage to refer to violence and bloodshed. VanderKam, ibid., 32 n. 5:2, notes the use of ‘amaḍā to translate ḥāmās in the Ethiopic translation of Gen 6:11. “Injustice” may be a better translation of the biblical ḥāmās in the context of Gen 6:11, as reflected in LXX Gen 6:11, καὶ ἐπλήσθη ἡ γῆ ἀδικίας. However, it is clear that in Jub. 7:20-29 the term ḥāmās/‘amaḍā specifically indicates violence, reflecting a translation of ḥāmās other than ἀδικίας in the Ethiopic translation’s Greek Vorlage, despite LXX Genesis. 39 Eth. rěkws. See n. 37. 319

the Elyo, mankind; and people, their fellows. 23 When everyone sold himself to commit violence and to shed innocent blood, the earth was filled with violence. 40 24 After them all the animals, birds, and whatever moves about and whatever walks on the earth. Much blood was shed on the earth. All the thoughts and wishes of mankind were (devoted to) thinking up what was useless and wicked all the time. 25 Then the Lord obliterated all from the surface of the earth because of their actions and because of the blood which they had shed in the earth. (Jub. 7:20-25) An investigation of 7:20-25 reveals that bloodshed in particular is considered an ongoing human consequence of the Watchers’ sin. In this passage the Watchers are held responsible for three major sins: fornication (Eth. zěmmut; likely reflecting zěnût in the Hebrew), impurity (Eth. rěkws, reflecting Hebrew ṭum’ā), and violence (Eth. ‘amaḍā, a translation of the biblical ḥāmās, “injustice, violence”). 41 These three sins,

40

VanderKam translates “to commit injustice…filled with injustice,” translating Eth. ‘amaḍā as “injustice”; see n. 38 above. 41 On ‘amaḍā and ḥāmās see n. 38 above. The Watchers’ sins as described here bear comparison with the three sins of which Levi warns his son in the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) 6:3, namely fornication (zěnût), impurity (ṭum’ā), and wrecklessnes/wantonness (paḥaz, Gr. συνουσιασμοῦ, “intercourse”); see J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 74. ALD 6:3 has been posited as the forerunner of the three “snares of Belial” described in the Damascus Document (CD IV.14-19): fornication (zěnût), wealth (hôn), and defiling (ṭam’ē) the Temple; see H. Eshel, “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets of Belial’: a Reference to the ‘Aramaic Levi Document’?,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 243-55. Two of the three sins or “snares” in these texts (fornication and defilement) resemble the sins committed by the Watchers, which may reflect a wider tradition regarding the primary three sins, or perhaps a tradition 320

Noah indicates, are what led to the flood (7:20-21). However, there is a basic difference in the narrative between fornication and impurity on the one hand and violence on the other. The fornication and impurity were both perpetrated by the Watchers themselves; the first was the result of the Watchers’ intercourse with women, while the second resulted from their illicit marriages with these women (7:21). 42 The violence, however, was caused by the offspring of the Watchers. The birth of the Nephilim engenders a chain of bloodshed that ends with humans killing each other (7:22). In Jub. 7:22 the punishment of the Watchers’ children, namely their slaughter of each other (as described in 1 En. 10:9, 88:2, and Jub. 5:9) is conflated with their sin. By killing each other, the children of the Watchers set off a chain of violence with repercussions for all of humanity. 43

regarding which sins may be caused through demonic influence. The text in the Damascus Document will be discussed at greater length in chapter 11. 42 The distinction between fornication and impurity, with the latter resulting from illicit marriage, may be further evidence of a link between the story of the Watchers and a polemic against intermarriage proposed and explored by Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter”; Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest”; and Himmelfarb, “Book of the Watchers.” See n. 49 in Chapter 8 above. 43 The giants as described by Abraham in Jub. 20:5 are guilty of the sins attributed here to the Watchers. In 20:5, the giants, like the people of Sodom, are guilty of fornication (zěmmut), impurity (rěkws), and corruption (musěnnā). The context of Jub. 20:5 is a description of the death that follows upon such sins. This may be the reason that the Watchers’ sins have been transmitted to the giants, who were immediately destroyed as punishment, unlike the bound Watchers. The transformation of amaḍā into musěnnā in 20:5 is understandable if the Hebrew Vorlage was ḥāmās, as in the passage under discussion above, but was translated as “injustice” rather than “violence” in the Greek Vorlage of 20:5. 321

The Watchers are presented in Jub.7:20-25 in the framework of the laws that Noah has conveyed to his children (7:20). The law that is emphasized in the continuation of the passage (7:26-33) is the prohibition of eating animal blood transmitted to Noah and his descendants in Gen 9:4. In Jub. 7:26-29 the law is given a specific purpose: it is meant to prevent bloodshed of the sort that resulted from the sin of the Watchers. 7:26 We (I and you, my children, and everything that entered the ark with us) were left. But now I am the first to see your actions, that you have not been conducting yourselves properly because you have begun to conduct yourselves in the way of destruction, to separate from one another, to be jealous of one another, and not to be together with one another, my sons. 27 For I myself see that the demons have begun to lead you and your children astray; and now I fear regarding you that after I have died you will shed human blood on the earth and (that) you yourselves will be obliterated from the surface of the earth. 28 For everyone who sheds human blood and everyone who consumes the blood of any flesh 44 will all be obliterated from the earth. 29 No one who consumes blood or who sheds blood on the earth will be left. He will be left with neither descendants nor posterity living beneath heaven because they will go into Sheol and will descend into the place of judgment. All of them will depart into deep darkness through a violent death. (Jub. 7:26-29) The continuation of the passage delineates the prohibition of eating the blood of any slaughtered animal or fowl and the injunction to cover all such blood (7:3044

Eth. za-śěgā. VanderKam translates “animate being”; the literal translation “flesh” is used here for the sake of consistency (see n. 14 above). 322

31). 45 The consequence of ignoring such injunctions is death for the perpetrator (7:3233). The verse at 7:33 (“For the earth will not be purified of the blood which has been shed on it; but by the blood of the one who shed it the earth will be purified in all its generations”) is a clear echo of Num 35:33, a verse which refers to human bloodshed. 46 The biblical background for this injunction is both Noahide and Mosaic. In Genesis, following the flood, Noah and his descendants are permitted to eat animals with the proviso that they not eat “flesh with its life-blood in it” (Gen 9:4). 47 This commandment is echoed in Mosaic law in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23). The author of the passage in Jubilees has combined the Noahide/Mosaic injunction with that given to the Israelites in Lev 17:13 to cover the blood of slaughtered wild animals and fowl, while expanding the Mosaic

45

This injunction “flattens” the distinction made in Lev 17:10-14 between domesticated animals, whose blood is sacrificed, and wild animals and birds, whose blood is covered. (The distinction in Lev 17:10-14 is maintained in later rabbinic halakah, according to which only the blood of wild animals and of birds must be covered; see m. Ḥul. 6:1.) 46 Num 35:33: ‫שׁפַּ� בָּהּ כִּי‬ ֻ ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫ָאָרץ �א י ְ ֻכפַּר לַדָּ ם ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ָאָרץ ְול‬ ֶ ‫שׁר ַאתֶּ ם בָּהּ כִּי הַדָּ ם הוּא י ַ ֲחנִיף אֶת ה‬ ֶ ‫ָאָרץ ֲא‬ ֶ ‫וְ�א תַ ֲחנִיפוּ אֶת ה‬ :‫אִ ם בְּדַ ם שֹׁפְכוֹ‬ “You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.” See VanderKam, “Angel Story,” 167. 47 The Hebrew verse, ‫שׂר ְבּנַפְשׁ ֹו דָ מ ֹו �א ת ֹאכֵלוּ‬ ָ ‫אַ� ָבּ‬, is literally translated “but flesh in its soul (napšô), its blood you shall not eat.” The general sense of the prohibition of eating the blood of animals is clear. 323

injunction to include domesticated animals. Such antedating of Mosaic law is typical of the author of Jubilees. 48 As explained in 7:26, Noah’s admonishment of his children has been prompted by the strife that has begun among them, parallel to the antediluvian violence brought about by the children of the Watchers. Like the violence caused by the Watchers’ offspring, the postdiluvian strife between humans can be traced to the instigation of nonhuman forces (7:27): the “demons” (Eth. ’agāněnt; sg. gānen). 49 The origin of these demons is not elucidated; they may be descended from the Watchers, but they are not identified with any of the Watchers’ descendants named in Jub. 7:22. 50 For the author’s purposes in this passage, the origin of the demons is less important than the method by which they can be repelled. 51 This consists of observing the

48

See VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 100-9, 140. The probable Hebrew Vorlage is ‫( שדים‬Gr. δαίμονες). 50 Although, as noted by Dimant and Eshel, the juxtaposition of Noah’s comment and his retelling of the Watchers story implies that the demons are in fact descended from the Watchers; see Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 101 n. 288; Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 52. Nevertheless, the author does not explicitly identify the demons with the Watchers’ descendants. 51 As Segal notes, the didactic use of the Watchers story in Jubilees 7 limits the Watchers’ importance as an origin of evil; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 154. A careful reading shows that the Watchers’ sin in this passage is paradigmatic. The Watchers’ sin brought evil to the world, as the sin of Noah’s descendants might; the Watchers’ offspring brought violence to the world, as demons threaten to do following the flood. If the origin of these demons were important to the author, they could have easily been identified with one of the stages of the Watchers’ offspring mentioned in 7:22. 49

324

commandments, most specifically the prohibition of eating blood, explained at length in the passage’s conclusion (7:28-33). 52 Noah’s explanation of postdiluvian strife in 7:26-33 combines two intersecting concepts concerning agency: on the one hand, the source of human jealousy and violence is demonic interference; on the other, humans have complete responsibility to resist this interference. 53 In 7:26-27, the presence of strife in itself indicates to Noah that demons must be interfering in human affairs and thereby entrapping his descendants: “But now I …see your actions…For I myself see that the demons have begun to lead you and your children astray…” But Noah’s response is not an appeal to God or any other supernatural force for assistance. 54 Rather, he turns to his children with commandments he enjoins them to fulfill. While the broad commandments introduced in the beginning of the passage will prevent sins such as those of the paradigmatic Watchers (7:20-21), the prohibition of eating blood with which the passage ends has the specific purpose of preventing violence (7:27), like that caused by the Watchers’ descendants before the flood (7:23). Transgressing the prohibition of eating blood is equated with murder (7:28; see Lev 52

It is interesting that the declaration in 1 Enoch that the giants drank blood (1 En. 7:5) is not repeated here, although it may well have influenced this passage. 53 The complexity of the picture presented in Jubilees 7 is reflected by modern interpreters as well. Hence Segal (Book of Jubilees, 149) emphasizes the demonic source of evil in Jubilees 7 (while noting that humans are not absolved of responsibility), while L. Stuckenbruck stresses the human responsibility for sin in this account; see Stuckenbruck “Origins of Evil,” 115. 54 As opposed to his response in Jubilees 10, to be discussed below. See Segal, Book of Jubilees, 149-150 and n. 12 ad loc. 325

17:4) 55 and consequently such a transgression will result in human death, and the end of human descendants (7:29). It is implied that keeping this commandment will ensure the opposite: the continuation of human life (see Deut 12:25). The fornication and impurity from which the children of Noah are warned at the beginning of the passage (7:20) are not mentioned again at its closing. It may be inferred that violence will follow upon such deeds as well, as the giants’ violence followed upon the deeds of their fathers the Watchers. However, it is the prohibition of eating blood that is most closely connected with the prevention of violence. 56

55

Lev 17:4: ‫שׁפָ� ְונִכ ְַרת‬ ָ ‫שׁב ָל ִאישׁ הַהוּא דָּ ם‬ ֵ ‫שׁכַּן ה' דָּ ם י ֵ ָח‬ ְ ‫וְאֶל פֶּתַ ח אֹהֶל מ ֹועֵד �א ֱהבִיא ֹו ְל ַה ְק ִריב ָק ְרבָּן לַה' ִל ְפנֵי ִמ‬ ‫הָאִ ישׁ הַהוּא ִמ ֶקּ ֶרב עַמּ ֹו׃‬ “And (if) he does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord, before the Lord’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt (lit., “blood”) shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people.” Lev 17:4 specifically concerns the prohibition of eating the meat of a domestic animal without bringing its blood and fat as a sacrifice. The equation of this transgression with murder, or more graphically with the spilling of blood, apparently influenced the author of Jub. 7:26-33. 56 The importance that the injunction against eating blood held for the author of Jubilees is evident from the multiple mentions and expansions of it in the course of the book (6:7-8, 12-14, 38; 7:28-33; 21:6, 18). VanderKam notes that this injunction plays a central part in the covenant between God and Noah; VanderKam, “Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” 342. The Noahide covenant is in turn portrayed as the same agreement that will be renewed with Abraham and, later, his descendants. The emphasis on this prohibition in Jubilees has alternatively been explained by M. Kister as a polemic against differing rulings regarding the halakic rules of slaughtering or, by C. Werman, as evidence of different worldviews regarding the sanctity of blood; see M. Kister, “Concerning the History of the Essenes,” Tarbiẓ 56 (1986): 7 n. 26; C. Werman, “Consumption of the Blood and Its Covering in the Priestly and Rabbinic Traditions,” Tarbiẓ 63 (1994): 173-83 esp. 173-4, 181 (Hebrew). It is likely that the frequent repetition of this prohibition in Mosaic law (in Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 326

The power of the law to combat sin is also found in texts reflecting an internal human source of sin such as the Words of the Luminaries 57 and in apotropaic prayers such as Songs of the Sage and 4Q444. 58 In Jubilees 7 there is no explanation of how keeping Noah’s commandments will maintain the unity of his descendants and prevent demons from causing discord among them. At the same time, the delineation of the consequences of eating blood for humankind in 7:28-29 indicates the prophylactic nature of its prohibition. Keeping the commandments that Noah has transmitted is his descendants’ only hope of preventing demonic mischief and ensuring their own continued existence on the earth. This means of combating demons emphasizes rather than detracts from human free will. The ability of the demons to cause human strife (an ability that would seem to belie human choice) is limited by the human fulfillment of specific commandments. These commandments do not compel God to destroy or otherwise limit the demons; rather, keeping the commandments limits the demons’ activities and their success, although the underlying mechanics of how they do so is not explained. This passage does not argue for human free will; free will is assumed as the basis of human action. Human free will interacts with but is not limited by supernatural forces. While the

Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23) served as an additional impetus for the author of Jubilees to assign it special importance. 57 See chapter 2 above. 58 Throughout this and the following chapter, the term “apotropaic” denotes simply that the prayer is directed against demonic forces, and not that it is necessarily magical or excorcistic; see Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 163. 327

existence of demonic forces is assumed in Jub. 7:20-33, humans are fully able to resist demonic influence. They do so by fulfilling God’s commandments.

Jub. 10:1-6: The need for divine assistance A different approach is reflected in Jub. 10. 59 The prologue in Jub. 10:1-2 explains that the demons have generally succeeded in causing Noah’s grandchildren to sin: 10:1 During the third week of this jubilee impure demons 60 began to lead Noah’s grandchildren astray, 61 to make them act foolishly, and to destroy them. 2 Then Noah’s sons came to their father Noah and told him about the demons 62 who were leading astray, misleading, blinding, and killing his grandchildren. The perpetrators are called “impure demons” (Eth. ’agāněnt rěkusān), perhaps a hint that the postdiluvian demons (’agāněnt) mentioned in 7:27 did result from the impurity (rěkws) perpetrated by the Watchers (7:21). The demons cause sin by 59

The different approaches to the Watchers story reflected in chapters 7 and 10, together with the duplication of passages regarding the evil spirits and the incongruous placement of the narrative of Jubilees 10 after Jubilees 7, have led M. Segal to conclude that Jubilees 7 and 10 were copied from different sources. He posits that Jubilees 10 was influenced by Jubilees 7; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 163 and n. 49 ad loc. 60 Eth. ’agāněnt rěkusān. 61 Eth. yāsḥětěwwomu. VanderKam translates “began to mislead Noah’s grandchildren,” but the semantic range of ’asḥata “lead astray, lead into sin, seduce into error, tempt to evil, corrupt, seduce, mislead, deceive, delude” (Leslau, Dictionary of Geʻez, 494) together with the word’s context here supports the stronger “lead astray.” 62 Eth. ’agāněnt. 328

“misleading” humans and “making them act foolishly” (10:1). In 10:2 the act of “blinding” is parallel to and explains “making (humans) act foolishly.” Demons make humans act foolishly (that is, sin) by blinding them to the knowledge of what they should properly do. In sum, the demons injure humankind in three ways: they actively lead humans into sin, they blind humans to knowledge of the correct behavior, and they destroy humans (either directly or through the consequences of sin). In response to this demonic threat, Noah speaks neither to his children nor to his grandchildren, as he does in Jub. 7:20-33. Instead, he prays to God to protect his descendants from the demons. 10:3 He (Noah) prayed before the Lord his God and said: “God of the spirits which are in all flesh, you who have shown kindness to me, saved me and my sons from the flood waters, and did not make me perish as you did to the people (meant for) destruction, 63 because your mercy for me has been large and your kindness to me has been great: may your mercy be lifted over the children of your children; and may the wicked spirits 64 not rule them in order to destroy them 65 from the earth. 4 Now you bless me and my children so that we may increase, become numerous, and fill the earth. 5 You know how your Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, have acted during my lifetime. As for these spirits who have remained alive, Eth. wěluda ḥagwl (=hagwl), lit. “children of destruction.” The probable Hebrew Vorlage is běnê šaḥat (‫)בני שחת‬. 64 Eth. manāfāst ’ěkkuyān. 65 The Ethiopic verb here is ’amāsana, which also has the meaning of corrupting or spoiling (Leslau, Dictionary of Geʻez, 366). However, the sense of destruction is implied in the final phrase “from the earth” (’ěměnna mědr) supporting VanderKam’s translation “to destroy them.” 63

329

imprison them and hold them captive in the place of judgment. May they not cause destruction among your servants’ sons, my God, for they are savage and were created for the purpose of destroying. 6 May they not rule the spirits of the living for you alone know their punishment; and may they not have power over the sons of the righteous from now and forevermore.” (Jub. 10:3-6) The terminology of Noah’s prayer does not mirror that found in the introduction (10:1-2). Within the prayer, Noah does not call the perpetrators “impure demons” but “wicked spirits” (Eth. manāfāst ’ěkuyān). 66 The difference in terminology between the prayer and its introduction is one of the indications that the prayer had an existence independent of Jubilees before being incorporated into the narrative by its author. Its strong links to the Noah story 67 indicate that it may be original to an independent Noah narrative. 68 The depiction of the Watchers’ offspring

66

The term “spirits” is also used in the prayer in reference to “all flesh” (10:3) and “the living” (10:6). 67 See Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 156. Stuckenbruck notes that the prayer in its present form could not be uttered by anyone but Noah. It is a “historicized” prayer, completely adapted to its narrative setting. 68 Several scholars attribute the story found in Jubilees 10 to a hypothetical “Book of Noah,” proposed as a source for both Jubilees and a medieval text, the Book of Asaph (also called The Book of Cures [seper harěpû’ôt]). R. H. Charles attributed both Jub. 10 and Jub. 7:20-39 to this hypothetical work; see Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902), xliv, 61, 7881. In a subsequent study, F. García Martínez proposed an outline of the hypothesized material from the “Book of Noah” that overlaps with sections of Jubilees (García Martínez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran [STDJ 9; Brill, 1992], 36-39), and M. Himmelfarb suggested that both Jubilees and the Book of Asaph drew from a common Noah source 330

as “evil spirits” may reflect a different version of the Watchers myth, in which the mating of the Watchers and human women produced not giants, but spirits. 69 In addition to identifying the wicked spirits as the offspring of the Watchers, Noah’s prayer introduces an action not previously attributed to the Watchers’ descendants. The spirits “rule” humans, thereby causing sin and destruction (10:3, 6). Use of the verb “to rule” (Eth. mabbala) indicates the helplessness of humans in the face of these spirits and explains the need to appeal to God (and his rule) for help. This verb is repeated in both the introduction and the conclusion of the prayer. As will be seen, the idea that spirits cause sin by “ruling” humans is a link between Noah’s prayer and other apotropaic prayers of the Second Temple period, both liturgical and narrative.

(Himmelfarb, “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha [ed. J. C. Reeves; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 127-36). However, C. Werman has shed doubt on the possibility that the author of Jubilees had access to an actual “Book of Noah,” based on the fact that the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Asaph, Jubilees and ALD all attribute different types of material to the “Book of Noah” and her observation that, unlike his treatment of the Enoch material in Jubilees, the author of Jubilees does not attempt to stay faithful to other sources regarding the “Book of Noah”; Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (ed. E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 171-81. 69 Dimant and Segal connect this version of the Watchers myth with a possible variant reading of the defective nplym in Gen 6:4 as něpālîm, denoting spirits (as opposed to MT Gen 6:4 něpīlîm, identified as giants in Num 13:33). See Dimant, “‘Fallen Angels’,” 48-49; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 146-54, 174. 331

The justification for Noah’s request in 10:3 is the previous favor shown him by God, distinguishing him from the “people (meant for) destruction.” His conclusion shows a similar expectation of distinction: the evil spirits should not have power over the “sons of the righteous,” in this case the sons of Noah. The righteous are those who deserve protection from demons, and their children are those who are, apparently, in need of such protection. In the body of the prayer Noah explains what is needed in particular: the evil spirits are descendants of the Watchers, and (like them) should be imprisoned to await final judgment. These spirits were “created,” apparently by the Watchers, for the purpose of destroying, and should therefore be completely restrained. (The incomplete fulfillment of Noah’s request will be discussed separately below.) As noted above, the declaration of demonic rule and power over humans, combined with Noah’s appeal to God, indicates humans’ deep vulnerability. The descendants of the righteous, who are presumably (at least in Noah’s view) predisposed toward righteousness, are susceptible to sinning if beset by demons, just like other “spirits of the living.” Only God can prevent this, by imprisoning the spirits. (As these are spirits, without a physical body, they cannot be killed; they can only be bound or imprisoned, like the Watchers themselves.)

332

Belial and the Nations Noah’s prayer in Jub. 10:3-6 shares several characteristics with another prayer in Jubilees, the prayer of Moses in Jub. 1:19-21: 1:19 “Lord my God, do not allow your people and your heritage to go along in the error of their hearts, 70 and do not deliver them into the control 71 of the nations with the result that they (the nations) rule over them 72 lest they make them sin against you. 73 20 May your mercy, Lord, be lifted over your people. Create for them a just spirit. May the spirit of Belial 74 not rule them 75 so as to bring charges against them before you and to trap them away from every proper path so that they may be destroyed from your presence. 21 They are your people and your heritage whom you have rescued from Egyptian control by your great power. Create for them a pure heart 76 and a holy spirit. 77 May they not be trapped in their sins from now to eternity.” The frame of this prayer is borrowed from Moses’ prayer following the sin of the golden calf in Deut 9:26-29. The body of the prayer, however, differs 70

Eth. basěḥtata lěbbomu. VanderKam translates “in the error of their minds”; I have preferred a slightly more literal translation here, but the sense is the same. 71 Eth. ’ěda, lit. “hand/power.” 72 Eth. yěkwanněněwwomu. 73 Eth. ’i-yěgbarěwwomu kama yěḫṭě’u laka; lit., “that they not cause them to sin against you.” 74 Eth. spelling belěḥor. As noted by VanderKam, the final r reflects LXX βελίαρ; VanderKam, Critical Text, 2:5. 75 Eth. ’i-yěkwanněnomu. 76 Eth. lěbba něṣuḥa; VanderKam translates “a pure mind.” The more literal translation presented here evokes the verse on which this passage is clearly based, Ps 51:12 (see below). 77 Eth. manfasa qědusa. 333

considerably. In Deut 9:26-29, Moses prays that God will ignore Israel’s sin and spare their lives. In contrast, here Moses requests God’s assistance for the prevention of Israel’s sins, sins that have been predicted by God in the previous passage (1:5-18). Consequently, Moses focuses not on the merit of Israel’s forefathers as in Deut 9:27 but on preventing the reign of Belial and the nations. As in the prayer of Noah discussed above, in Moses’ prayer the one who causes sin “rules over” the otherwise innocent human sinner. Both Noah and Moses are concerned with the sinning of a particular group, even though in Noah’s case, the group in question (Noah’s descendants) technically coincides with all of humanity. Nevertheless, there are differences between these two prayers. In Moses’ prayer there are two entities that are blamed for causing sin. The first of these is “the nations.” Moses describes the nations as instigating sin by ruling over Israel. 78 Similarly, Belial is capable of ruling the Israelites and causing them to sin; in this he resembles both the nations in Moses’ prayer and the spirits who have power over the “sons of the righteous” in Noah’s prayer. Unlike the evil spirits, however, Belial also accuses the Israelites of their sin before God (like the biblical śāṭān, the “accuser” of Job 1-3 and Zech 3:1-2) and consequently ensures their destruction. It is apparent that Belial has a role within the divine system. It is God who

78

VanderKam notes the connection between foreign idolatry and demons in Jub. 1:78, 11 and the connection between the nations and demon worship in Jubilees 22:1618; VanderKam, “Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” 340, 347. Here, however, the nations do not worship demons (or Belial); they parallel Belial himself. 334

can prevent Belial’s activity, not by imprisoning Belial (who apparently is not subject to internment due to his status in the heavenly court) but by creating a just/holy spirit and a pure heart (Eth. lěbba něṣuḥa) for his people. This is the lone reference to Belial as a demonic force in Jubilees, 79 an 812F

indication that (like Noah’s prayer) Moses’ prayer existed independently of Jubilees before its incorporation here. 80 In Moses’ prayer it is Belial, and not the Watchers’ 813F

descendants or Mastema (a villainous angel discussed further below), who is the Israelites’ principal demonic threat. This prayer expresses the extent and limit of Belial’s power. Belial interacts with God, not as a counterpart but as part of the divine system; he accuses Israel before God. In fact, the author’s first concern is that Israel not be destroyed as a result of accusations by Belial and as a result of Belial’s other occupation, “entrapping” people so that they do not follow the correct path. Belial’s entrapment signifies continuous future wrongdoing, an ongoing choice “away from every proper path.” In the dynamic described here, one evil deed leads to more, with Belial’s ready assistance (1:20). Nevertheless, the entrapment feared by Moses can be counteracted by God enabling an internal change in Israel, as requested in his repetition in 1:21 of Ps 51:12, ‫“ לֵב טָה ֹור בּ ְָרא לִי אֱ�הִים וְרוּ ַח נָכ ֹון חַדֵּ שׁ ְבּ ִק ְרבִּי‬Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; (re)create in me a steadfast spirit.” This change in the Israelites’

79

The epithet “people of belial,” applied in Jub. 15:33 to Jews who do not circumcise their children will be discussed below. 80 See Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,”152. 335

hearts and spirits will ensure that the Israelites do not become “trapped” in their sins (1:21) by continuing to perpetrate them. The direct reference to Ps 51:12, a logical conclusion to a prayer meant to prevent sin, is apt. The pure heart and upright spirit requested by the psalmist in Ps 51:12 are primarily meant to prevent future sins after his past sins have been forgiven (in 51:11). 81 Similarly, the intent of the conclusion to Moses’ prayer is to prevent the continued “entrapment” of Israel in their current sins “from now to eternity,” so that they do not continue in the wrong path. In the system described in this prayer, an external force causes sin but can be countered with an internal change. Moreover, sin is not caused exclusively by demonic forces. Moses’ initial request does not attribute the Israelites’ sins to the nations or to Belial. Rather, he asks that God not allow “his people” to walk in the error of their hearts (see Jer 11:8). 82 This is a description and not an attribution of sin, but it is notable in its lack of blame of anything besides the human heart. Thus, Moses’ prayer presents three possible sources of sin: the people can sin on their own; they can 81

See Rashi, ad loc.; Radaq and Ibn Ezra, ad loc. explicitly connect this internal change to the struggle with the evil inclination. See also the structural analysis by B. Renaud and his division between 51:9-11 where the speaker asks that he be cleansed of his past sins and 51:12 ff., where the focus is on the re-creation of the speaker; “‘Miserere’,” 204-5. 82 M. Kister interprets 1:20-21 as demonstrating that the control of Belial’s spirits over Israel pertains only when Israel does not follow God’s commandments; Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 167-8. However, this is not stated expressly anywhere in Jub. 1:20-21, while the passage does convey the idea that Belial’s dominion is instrumental in causing Israelites to sin, without presenting any particular precondition. 336

sin because of the rule of the nations; or they can sin and subsequently be accused before God due to the rule of Belial. God is asked to prevent each of these eventualities, and in conclusion, is requested to execute an internal change within the sinning Israelites. The above analysis demonstrates that a prayer (or any text) that attributes sin to demons does not necessarily presume that all sin is from demons. Moses’ prayer presents a complex view of sin. The instigators of sin are many. Humans may sin by themselves, may be led to sin by other humans, or may be misled and trapped into continuing their sins by a demonic force. There is no attempt in this prayer to identify a single source of sin. Nevertheless, within this kaleidoscopic view, Belial, the demonic force that causes sin, has a place in the cosmic design; he accuses sinners from within the divine court.

Jubilees, Apotropaic Prayer and Demonic Rule The idea that a demonic influence “rules over” sinners and causes them to sin is also found in other apotropaic prayers, particularly the Plea for Deliverance (11QPsa XIX) and the Aramaic Levi Document (4Q213a). In the terminology of these apotropaic prayers, demons cause humans to sin by “ruling” over them.

337

In the Plea for Deliverance, the demonic forces who may rule over the human are many, and their result may be both sin and pain (11Q5 [11QPs-a] XIX.15-16): 83 ‫בעווה אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה מכאוב ויצר‬

15

‫ה שבחי ולכה קויתי‬Â‫ה‬È ‫רע אל ירשו בעצמי כי אתה‬

16

15. in transgression. Let not a satan rule (tašlēṭ) over me, nor an unclean spirit; let pain and evil 16. inclination not have control (yiršû) over me.For you Lord are my praise and to you I hope The entities that may rule over the speaker include a satan, 84 an impure spirit, 817F

pain, and an evil inclination. The external mechanism of “ruling” is used here for external forces, internal anguish, and the evil inclination. Consequently, this prayer may, like Moses’ prayer in Jubilees, present a complex view of sin, where internal and external sources of sin combine to cause iniquity. 85 In any case, it is God who can 81F

prevent the rule of these entities, providing the motivation for prayer.

83

Translation of lines 15-16a follows that proposed by J. C. Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 312; repr. in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (2 vols.; ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone and A. Pinnick; Leiden: Brill, 2001). The translation of line 16b (not translated by Greenfield in “Apocryphal Psalms”) is my own. 84 “Satan” here is not a proper name, but a category, as is further demonstrated by the parallel text in ALD discussed below; see Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 310; idem, Aramaic Levi Document, 129-30; and H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 216. 85 This idea is discussed further in chapter 10. 338

The second parallel is found in the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), an Aramaic narrative representing the testament of Levi, the son of Jacob, dating to the third or early second century B.C.E. 86 ALD has survived in Aramaic in fragments found in the Cairo Geniza and in seven fragmentary copies found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in extracts of a Greek translation reproduced in one 11th century Greek copy of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (the Athos manuscript). 87 Levi’s prayer in ALD 3:1-18, found in Dead Sea Scroll fragments (4Q213-214) and in the Greek Athos manuscript, is yet another representation of the “ruling” of demons, mentioned in ALD 3:9: 88 Aramaic (4Q213a 1:17):[‫[אל תשלט בי כל שטן ]לאטעני מן ארחך‬ ֯ ‫]ו‬ Greek: καὶ μὴ κατισχυσάτω με πᾶς σατανᾶς πλανῆσαί με ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ σου. Translation: [And] do not let any satan rule 89 (tašlēṭ) over me, [to 82F

make me stray from your path. Both the Plea for Deliverance and ALD are reflections of Ps 119:133b, ‫שׁלֶט בִּי כָל אָוֶן‬ ְ ַ‫“ וְאַל תּ‬may no sin rule/prevail over me.” 90 When read together, ALD 3:9, 823F

86

Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 19-20. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, ibid., 1-5. 88 Brackets in the Aramaic mark reconstructions based on the Greek by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 62. Translation follows Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, ibid., 63, unless otherwise noted. 89 Here following the literal translation of Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 101, “do not let any satan to rule over me.” Greenfield and Stone translate “have power over me.” 87

339

the Plea for Deliverance, Jub. 1:19-21, and Jub. 10:3-6 demonstrate that the more abstract idea in Ps 119:133b, namely that sin may “rule over” the speaker, was later transformed into a description of the workings of demons who cause sin. Of course, the demons, while clearly a force to be reckoned with, are under divine control. Demons may achieve dominion over human beings, thereby causing sin, but God can prevent this dominion. The nature of the terms šlṭ and yrš in these texts has been investigated by J. C. Greenfield. 91 According to Greenfield, the term yiršû in the Plea for Deliverance is not from the root yrš (to inherit), but rather from ršh, a verb found in Sirach and in Mishnaic Hebrew 92 although not in biblical Hebrew. In its causative form (as found in the Plea for Deliverance) the meaning of ršh is “to empower, permit.” The root ršh is used as a synonym of šlṭ, a more common term, particularly in legal contexts; these terms are found in hendiadys in the standard Jewish divorce document dating from the Gaonic period (7th-11th century C.E.) and in use today. 93 This hendiadys is also found in a far earlier legal document from the Babatha archive in Naḥal Ḥever (dated to the

90

As noted by Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 197. Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 311-2. 92 Also in Akkadian, Aramaic and Phoenician; see Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 311. 93 See Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 311. In the standard divorce decree, the husband declares that his wife is rš’h wšlṭ’h (‫ )רשאה ושלטאה‬over herself (that is, she is under her own jurisdiction) to marry another. 91

340

early second century C.E.) 94 in which Babatha’s father gives his wife full control over 827F

her inheritance upon his death (‫ )רשיה ושליטה באתרי מתנתא‬but stipulates that she does not have the right to bring a new husband into the house ( ‫ולא רשיה ולא שליטה תהוא‬ ‫)למנעלו לביתא הו בעל‬. Another early example of a divorce decree using ršh alone was found at Wadi Murabba‘at (P. Mur. XIX.17-18) and is dated to the 2nd century C.E.: 95 82F

‫דנא די אתי רשי֗ ֗א בנ֯ פשכי למ]ה[ך למהי֗ אנתא לכול גבר יהו֯ די די תצבין‬ “…that you are in charge (ršy’) of yourself (bnpšky) to go be the wife of any Jewish man you desire.” The verb ršh here indicates that the wife is fully in control of her own person, and has full legal rights to dispose of herself as she desires. Such is the meaning of šlṭ used in hendiadys with ršh in Geonic divorce decrees 96 as well as in the texts cited 829F

above; šlṭ and ršh indicate right over and control of a property or person. Consequently, it is possible to understand that the use of both these terms in reference to demons is an expression, on the one hand, of the control and authority which demons may wield over the human self and, on the other, of the idea that this right

94

The Babatha archive was found in 1961during an excavation led by Yigael Yadin in the Cave of Letters on the bank of Naḥal Ḥever, about five kilometers southwest of Ein Gedi. It comprises legal documents ranging in date from 93/94 to 132 C.E; see R. Katzoff, “Babatha,” EDSS 1:173. 95 Text follows J. T. Milik, “19. Acte de répudiation, en araméen,” in Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât (ed. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux; DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 105. 96 See n. 93. 341

must be granted by God (as such a right would be legally granted in the case of property). To nullify the demon’s power, therefore, it is enough to ask God not to allow such control. 97 In both these prayers, the request that the demonic presence not be allowed to “rule” the speaker follows a longer request for God to prevent sin in the speaker and to endow him with good qualities (ALD 3:6-7) 98 or to cleanse him from his past sins (11QPsa XIX 13-14). 99 In other words, the “ruling” of the demon is not necessarily what has caused the speaker’s sin; as in Moses’ prayer in Jubilees, the demon is one possible source of sin, and the demonic act of “ruling” the human encapsulates the demon’s potential to cause sin. In addition, while the evil forces are described as “ruling” the sinner, the sinner is not exclusively under their command, just as Belial does not command the Israelites in Jub. 1:19-21. 97

An interesting twist on this idea is found in a medieval text describing the means of commanding “Bilar, the king of demons,” famously identified as Belial (or βελίαρ) by Gershom Scholem, “Bilar (Bilad, bilid, ΒΕΛΙΑΡ) the King of the Demons,” Mada’ei ha-Yahadut 1 (1926): 112-27 (Hebrew). There the introduction (in ms Munich 214) promises that whomever God loves “he will empower him to rule (ymšylnw wyšlyṭnw) over the knowledge of the words/matters of Bilar” (translation mine, text following Sholem, ibid., 121). 98 Grk. μάκρυνον ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, κύριε, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν καὶ ἰσχύν δός μοι. “Let there be shown to me, O Lord, the holy spirit, and grant me counsel and wisdom and knowledge and strength.” Aram. fragment ‫]ח[כמה ומנדע וגבורה‬ “[w]isdom and knowledge and strength.” Text and translation follow Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 60-61. 99 11QPsa XIX.13-14 ‫לבי ועל חסדיכה אני נסמכתי סלחה יהוה לחטאתי וטהרני מעווני רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל אתקלה‬... “…my heart and and I rely on your kindness. Forgive, Lord, my sin, and purify me from my iniquity. Favor me with a spirit of faith and knowledge and let me not encounter...” Text follows Sanders, Psalms Scroll. 342

Chapters 11 and 12 will discuss texts that describe humans who are under the actual command of demonic forces. As will be seen, these humans are not the struggling righteous or members of the author’s community. 100 Rather, those under the command of demons are the proverbial “wicked.” In contrast, in the prayers discussed above, it is the speaker who strives to be righteous who requests protection from the rule of demons. The implications of the conceptualization of demonic rule in the righteous versus demonic command of the wicked will be further explored in later chapters. The comparison between Jub. 1:19-21, ALD, and the Plea for Deliverance demonstrates that a typical description of demons causing sin involves demonic rule. However, the verb used for Belial’s rule in Jub.1:19-21 shows that the author of this prayer had an additional motivation for using this trope. The verb kwannana, “to rule or govern,” 101 is the same verb used for the nations’ rule. It differs from verbs used for demonic rule elsewhere in Jubilees (śalaṭa, the cognate of the Hebrew/Aramaic šlṭ, and mabbala, found in 10:3,6; 19:28). Thus, in 1:19-22, the ruling of Belial has a purpose other than encapsulating Belial’s demonic ability to instigate sin. The description of Belial “ruling” Israel using a term usually denoting human rule, and not only demonic control of humans, ensures a more complete parallel between Belial and

100

In contrast to Noah’s descendants and Moses’ Israelites, as well as the speakers in ALD and the Prayer for Deliverance, who are depicted as members of the reader’s community and/or righteous people who struggle with the desire to sin. 101 See Leslau, Dictionary of Geʻez, 287. 343

the nations, who may literally rule Israel. 102 By describing Belial as ruling people in the same way that the nations do, the author completes Belial’s parallel to the nations, thereby making a powerful point regarding the inevitable consequences of foreign rule. Like the “rule” of demons, the rule of the nations results in the sinning of Israel. 103 In Jub. 1:19-21, the nations are not explicitly under the rule of demons. 104 They are instead compared with the demons themselves. Essentially, the nations act metaphorically as the demons’ earthly substitute, ruling Israel and causing them to sin. 105 In Moses’ prayer, by paralleling the activities of Belial to the activities of the

102

This best explains why the Ethiopic cognate of šlṭ is not used for Belial here, especially if the term šlṭ (the likely Vorlage of Eth. śalaṭa) was used most frequently to denote control rather than rule, as shown in the legal parallels discussed above. The use of this verb elsewhere in Jubilees is discussed further below. 103 D. Dimant has connected the depiction of the demonic rule of the evil shepherds in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 83-90) and of the “angels of hostility” in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah to references to gentile rule in the Community Rule and the Damascus Document; see D. Dimant, “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” RQ 22 (2006): 373-88, particularly 387-8. However, Dimant does not discuss any passage or text that refers to both demonic and gentile rule. 104 Contra Segal, Book of Jubilees, 256. In Segal’s view, the nations’ attempt to cause Israel to sin stems from the fact that the nations themselves are ruled by evil spirits, as in Jub. 15:31-33. However, this is nowhere stated in Jub. 1:19-21 nor is this idea found anywhere in its immediate context. 105 A similar idea may lie behind the choice of the verb šlṭ in Abram’s prayer in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) XX.15, where Abram asks for Pharaoh to be stopped before consummating his desire for Sarai: “and may he not be empowered (yšlṭ) this night to defile my wife.” Like a demon, Pharaoh is capable of controlling (as denoted by the verb šlṭ) and afterward “defiling” Sarai, and therefore Abram uses typical antidemonic language in asking for God’s prevention of such a deed. (The similarity between Abram’s prayer and prayers requesting protection from demons is noted by 344

gentile nations vis-à-vis Israel, the author emphasizes just how important it is to be free of the control of gentile nations. Belial’s control is overarching and yet personal enough to lead the individual to sin. In the author’s mind, the rule of gentile nations is just as pernicious. Both possible datings of Jubilees noted above, the early Hasmonean period and the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, provide a suitable historical background for this harsh approach to gentile rule. It is likely that this attitude toward non-Jewish authority would also influence those Jewish communities, like the one at Qumran, that continued to read Jubilees until the Great Rebellion, over 200 years later. The parallel between the nations and Belial in 1:19-21 is compatible with the worldview reflected in Jub. 15:28-32, although not identical to it. The passage at 15:28-32 makes an important distinction between the nations and Israel in the course of explaining the importance of circumcision: 15:28 Now you (Moses) command the Israelites to keep the sign of this covenant throughout their history as an eternal ordinance so that they may not be uprooted from the earth. 29 Because the command has been ordained as a covenant so that they should keep it forever on all the L.T. Stuckenbruck, who draws no conclusions other than the irony of God’s dispatch of an evil spirit to Pharaoh in response to Abram’s prayer; see Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 153-4. A. Lange classifies Abram’s prayer in the Genesis Apocryphon as an incantation due to God’s response and posits a link to Abram’s later prayer to remove the spirit; see Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 382. However, as Stuckenbruck notes (ibid., 154), Abram’s prayer in XX.15 is not connected in the narrative to the expulsion of the spirit from Pharaoh. 345

Israelites. 30 For the Lord did not draw near to himself either Ishmael, his sons, his brothers, or Esau. He did not choose them (simply) because they were among Abraham’s children, for he knew them. But he chose Israel to be his people. 31 He sanctified them and gathered (them) from all mankind. For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him. He made spirits rule over 106 all (nations) in order to lead them astray from following him. 32 But over Israel he made no angel or spirit rule because he alone is their ruler. He will guard them and require them for himself from his angels, his spirits, and everyone, and all his powers so that he may guard them and bless them and so that they may be his and he theirs from now and forever. (Jub. 15:28-32) This passage focuses on the chosen status of the people of Israel. Israel’s chosen status is encapsulated in their special position vis-à-vis God. While other nations do not have a direct relationship with God, and are in fact ruled by sin-causing demons, the Israelites are ruled by God himself. 107 The author is aware of the theological challenge that demonic rule of the nations presents to monotheism, and therefore states that “there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him (God)” (15:31). The idea that the nations are ruled directly by evil demons was likely inspired by a reading of Ps 96:5 similar to that of the Septuagint, “because all the gods of the nations are demons (δαιμόνια, as opposed to MT ’elîlîm, “idols”) but the Lord

106

Eth. ’aslaṭa. This idea is found in Exod 33:14-16, LXX Isa 63:9, and LXX Deut 32:8; see further below. It is comparable to the rabbinic dictum ‫“( אין מזל לישראל‬there is no constellation [with astrological power] over Israel”); see b. Ned. 32a; b. Šabb. 156a.

107

346

made the heavens.” 108 It could also have been influenced by a version of Deut 32:8 similar to that found in 4QDeutj (4Q37) XII.14. In this version of the verse, comparable to the Vorlage of LXX Deut 32:8, the nations’ boundaries are fixed according to the number of the bny ’lhym (in contrast to MT bny yśr’l, “children of Israel”). 109 An understanding of the bny ’lhym as demons would be in keeping with what M. Smith proposes is the meaning of this version of Deut 32:8 in its Deuteronomic context. According to Smith, the bny ’lhym of 4QDeutj and LXX Deuteronomy do not constitute gods like YHWH; they are at most minor divinities, and therefore are not at odds with the monotheistic framework of Deuteronomy 32. 110 Moreover, the term bny ’lhym is the same term which describes the heavenly perpetrators in Gen 6:1-4, identified by Second Temple writers as the Watchers. The connection would be apparent to a Second Temple audience: the nations are led by descendants of the evil Watchers, while “the portion of the Lord is his nation” (Deut 32:9). 111 Hence, according to the author of Jubilees, gentiles are not simply tempted to

108

VanderKam, “Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” 354. A similar version of Deut 32:8 may be reflected in a fragmented verse of the Hodayot (1QHa XXIV.33-34) where bĕnê ēl are found in parallel with the “borders of the nations”:‫ ;כ[ו֯ בדתה מבני אל שו֯ ]מעי ג[ ֯בולות עמים‬text following Schuller, Stegemann, and Newsom, 1QHodayota, 283; Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 99. 110 M. S. Smith, “What Is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between Their Biblical Past, Their Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and Their Textual Witnesses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 279. 111 On the early versions of this verse and how they may have been understood in the Second Temple period, see Smith, “Scriptural Text.” 109

347

sin. They are permanently subject to demonic forces; their sinning is inevitable and absolute. In contrast to Israel, the nations are completely divorced from the divine supervision that can curb these forces. The subjection of the nations to demonic forces in 15:30-32 is actually less harsh than the nations’ depiction in Moses’ prayer, where they are parallel to Belial himself. Nevertheless, it is a small leap from considering gentiles completely subject to demons to depicting them as an extension of these demons. The connection between the gentiles and demons in 15:30-32 may have influenced the author in his depiction of those Jews who do not circumcise their children as “people of belial” (15:33). The phrase “people of belial” here does not refer to the character Belial; it is equivalent to the biblical bĕnê bĕlīya‘al (lit., “sons of belial”) used to refer to various sinners, usually of a particularly immoral nature (see Deut 13:14; Jud 19:22, 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12, 10:27; 1 K 21:10, 13; 2 Chr 13:7). The biblical expression does not have any demonic connotation, but simply means “evildoers.” Similarly, the use of the phrase “people of belial” in Jub. 15:33 does not necessarily denote any sort of demonic possession. However, Jub. 15:33 follows a passage that assigns the gentile nations to evil spirits within the context of an explanation of the law of circumcision. Thus the phrase “people of belial” is particularly apt, and carries a secondary connotation. By following the Gentile nations in refraining from circumcision, these non-circumcising Jews have brought themselves that much closer to demonic leadership.

348

Like the prayer in Jub. 1:19-21, the description of the nations in 15:30-32 is not part of a single integrated view of sin in Jubilees. 112 As will be seen, the most prominent demonic figure in Jubilees is Mastema. Despite the claim in Jub. 1:19-21 that only God rules the Israelites, the angel Mastema continues to cause problems for “God’s people” throughout the Jubilees narrative. Furthermore, in the cosmic order described in 15:30-32, God is directly contrasted to the evil spirits who rule over the nations. This heavenly system is not reflected in the remainder of Jubilees. As will be seen, Mastema is not a counterpart of God, but a member of the divine court with a job to perform, similar to the śāṭān in Job. The spirits in 15:30-32, in contrast, function as the direct (evil) counterparts to God’s leadership of Israel. The passage in 15:30-32 is isolated in this respect, reflecting a worldview that is not accepted in the remainder of Jubilees. Throughout Jubilees, as will be seen, the main demonic perpetrators function as part of the divine court. The worldview reflected in 15:30-32 is perhaps the precursor of the dualistic system found in texts discussed in the next chapter of this study.

Mastema As noted above, the central demonic figure in Jubilees is the angel Mastema. The name Mastema is biblical; it appears in Hos 9:7-8 (as maśṭēmā) and means

112

Contra Segal, who concludes, in part on the basis of 15:30-32, that the worldview of Jubilees is basically dualistic; see Segal, Book of Jubilees, 268-9, 323-4. 349

hostility113 or persecution, 114 from śṭm, to be hostile towards. 115 It is likely that, while in the Hebrew version of Jubilees the “Angel Mastema” was originally understood to be the “Angel of Hostility,” later translators of Jubilees did not understand the rare word and rendered it as the angel’s proper name. 116 It is likely that the noun maśṭēmā was chosen to characterize the angel due to the similarity of the word maśṭēmā to śāṭān, the angelic “accuser” active in Job 1-3 and Zech 3:1-2. Mastema first appears in Jubilees following Noah’s prayer in 10:3-6. In response to Noah’s prayer and his request that God imprison the evil spirits, God tells the angels to bind them (10:7). Mastema, however, protests (Jub. 10:8-9): 10:8 When Mastema, the leader of the spirits, came, he said: “Lord creator, leave some of them before me; let them listen to me and do everything that I tell them, because if none of them is left for me I shall not be able to exercise the authority of my will 117 among mankind. For they are meant for (the purposes of) destroying and misleading before my punishment/judgment 118 because the evil of mankind is great. 9 Then he said that a tenth of them should be left before him, while he would make nine parts descend to the place of judgment.

113

See BDB 966a. See HALOT 641. 115 See BDB 966a; HALOT 1316. 116 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 246. 117 Eth. sělṭāna (=śělṭāna) faqāděya. 118 Eth. kwěnnaneya. VanderKam translates “punishment,” but this term could equally indicate judgment; see Leslau, Dictionary of Ge’ez, 287. 114

350

Mastema is characterized as the “leader of the spirits” (Eth. mal’aka manāfāst) 119 and is apparently of sufficient standing within the divine realm to request a boon of God. Mastema’s ability to work his will among humans is part of the divine order, as demonstrated by his right to the assistance of demons in this endeavor. The remainder of the Watchers’ descendants, previously free of divine restraint, are now (indirectly) under the control of the heavenly court via their subjugation to the divinely sanctioned Mastema. 120 Mastema functions as a member of the heavenly court, 121 much as the śāṭān does in Job 1:6 ff. 122 In fact, Mastema is called a satan (Eth. sayṭān) in Jub. 10:11. From this point on, the evil spirits are a functional part of the divine system, and do not represent a force independent of God’s will or control. 123 According to Segal, Mastema’s request demonstrates a clear distinction between the role of Mastema and that of the spirits. 124 While the spirits are intended for “destroying and misleading,” Mastema is responsible for humans’ (eventual)

119

Dimant notes that the Ethiopic can also be translated as “the Angel of Spirits,” classifying Mastema as one of God’s angelic court; Dimant “Belial and Mastema,” 247-8. 120 See Segal, Book of Jubilees, 177. 121 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 249, notes that in both this episode and prior to the binding of Isaac (an episode discussed further below), Mastema is in direct dialogue with God. 122 See Alexander, “Demonology,” 2:342. 123 Dimant states this more strongly, asserting that the fact that God grants Mastema’s request shows that Mastema’s rule over the spirits is part of the overall plan of creation (Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 248). However, the fact that Mastema makes his request only as a response to the divine decree to imprison all the spirits (Jub. 10:7) contradicts this idea. 124 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 176-7. 351

punishment. Mastema cannot reach every individual for the “evil of mankind is great,” but the spirits are numerous enough to cause havoc for all of humankind. 125 This distinction between Mastema and the spirits, however, is specific to the description of Mastema in Jubilees 10, perhaps in order to emphasize the anarchic nature of the spirits as opposed to Mastema’s divinely sanctioned role. The role of Mastema in the remainder of Jubilees goes beyond that of simply judging or punishing evildoers, and resembles the activities of the spirits as described in Jubilees 10. Throughout Jubilees, Mastema is not a reasonable punisher of sinning humans, but an enemy of the righteous and an arbitrary instigator of evil. The key to understanding Mastema’s role lies in the terms used by Mastema to describe his function in 10:8. According to Mastema’s request, he must be able to exercise “the authority of his will” (Eth. sělṭāna [=śělṭāna] faqād) among humans. As noted above, the term salata/śalaṭa in Ethiopic is a cognate of Hebrew/Aramaic šlṭ, the verb employed in other texts in reference to demons controlling humankind. The verb ślṭ is not the only verb used in Jubilees to describe the rule of demons, 126 but it appears in the description of the spirits’ rule of the nations in 15:30-32 and in Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12:20 (“Save me from the power of the evil spirits who rule the

125

Dimant has proposed a different explanation of Mastema’s words. According to Dimant, Mastema’s role is to rule wicked human beings. Hence, if there are many evil people, Mastema will require the spirits’ assistance; see Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 248. 126 The verb kwannana (Jub. 1:19, 1:20) has been discussed above; mabbala appears in 10:3, 6; 19:28. 352

inclination of people’s hearts”), 127 discussed further below. In both these passages, spirits “rule” over humans, a rule that is eventually expressed through human sin. The use of this term in regard to Mastema implies that for Mastema, too, “exercising authority” includes causing sin. At the same time, Mastema’s request confirms that his role is divinely ordained. To exercise this role, argues Mastema, he needs evil spirits to do his bidding (Jub 10:8-9). A variety of activities are attributed to the evil spirits in this passage. They cause both moral evil (by misleading humans) and natural evil (by destroying them). While Mastema requests the spirits’ assistance in both, his justification centers on the natural evil they will cause; by “destroying,” the spirits are able to punish evil humans before Mastema’s final punishment (or judgment, another possible meaning of kwěnnan). This passage provides a complex justification for the continued existence of sin-causing demons. On the one hand, they are part of the divine system, and meant to punish evildoers. Their acts of causing sin, however, are a by-product of their justified role of causing natural evil. These demons cause both natural and moral evil, and being set free to cause one allows them to cause the other. There is also an implied “evil leads to evil” theme in the idea that one tenth of the misleading demons are set free “because the evil of mankind is great.” It seems that through the work of the evil spirits, evil humans will continue to be “entrapped” in their sin, much as Moses fears Belial will entrap Israelites in their sins in Jub. 1:21. 127

Eth: ’ěla yěselaṭu wěsta ḫěllinā lěba sab’ě. 353

The attempt in Jub. 10:8-11 to integrate autonomous, damage-causing demons into a theistic system mirrors developments within Mesopotamian literature explored by K. van der Toorn. 128 Van der Toorn examines the tension in Mesopotamian literature between the status of demons as “cosmological accidents, anomalous births, the misfits of creation,” 129 which exist outside the divine order and the subordination of these demons into the divine order. 130 According to van der Toorn, the “Pashittudemon,” created to prevent over-population in Atraḫasis, is such an attempt. Lamashtu, also called Pashittu, meaning “exterminator,” was created accidentally and then thrown out of heaven for her bad disposition. She is henceforth known for harassing pregnant women, killing young babies and causing illnesses among children. 131 In Atraḫasis this demon is transformed into an element of the deliberate scheme of the gods, part of the author’s efforts to present a harmonized, theistic worldview. The subordination of the evil spirits to Mastema in Jubilees has a similar effect. While acknowledging the descendants of the Watchers as a force of evil and sin, the author of Jubilees subordinates them to Mastema, a functionary of the divine court. For the remainder of the Jubilees narrative, Mastema will function as the 128

Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 73-76. Toorn, ibid., 68. 130 Toorn, ibid., 76. Van der Toorn notes the example of Namtar, who in the early second millenium was depicted as an independent death-dealing demon. By the first millenium Namtar had been turned into a subordinate of Ereshkigal, the queen of the netherworld (ibid., 73). 131 Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 69. 129

354

principal villain. 132 In the historical narrative presented in Jubilees, the Watchers myth as an explanation of sin and evil is integrated into the larger account of evil as part of the divine plan. By subordinating the Watchers’ descendants to a member of the divine court, the author of Jubilees has succeeded in demythologizing evil and sin to the extent that they comprise a controlled part of the monotheistic system. Nevertheless, Mastema’s characterization of the spirits in 10:8 illustrates that, while Mastema is a member of the divine court and so must presumably answer to some form of divine authority, his subordinate demons retain some of their original anarchic nature, sowing disaster that includes both moral and natural evil. This uncontrolled quality is observed by the angels in their immediate response to the new state of events (Jub. 10:10): He (God) told one of us that we should teach Noah all their medicines because he knew that they (the evil spirits) would neither conduct themselves properly nor fight fairly. The angels teach Noah about medicinal plants (10:12-13), and thereby “the evil spirits were precluded from pursuing Noah’s children.” Here the evil prevented is natural evil, specifically disease. There is no reference in 10:10-13 to the demons’ sincausing activities. Noah consequently writes down the cures, and gives the books that contain them to his favorite child Shem (10:14), Abraham’s forefather. Only the line of Shem, from which the Israelites spring, will be free of demonic disease through this 132

In fact, as noted by VanderKam (“Angel Story,” 154), the Watchers story does not play a dominant role in Jubilees as a whole; after 10:1-14 it is “largely forgotten.” 355

special knowledge. 133 According to Jubilees 10:12-14 only gentiles will be completely vulnerable to demons, reflecting a perspective similar to that indicated in 15:30-32. However, the means by which sin can be prevented are not enumerated, perhaps because (as implied in 10:8) demons cause sin as a response to a cycle begun by humans themselves.

Mastema and his Role in the Book of Jubilees Mastema appears several times in Jubilees, as a cause of both “natural” misfortune and as a catalyst for sin. Similar to the satan’s role in Job 1-3, Mastema is involved behind the scenes in a variety of biblical and supra-biblical episodes. In Jub. 11:2-4, Noah’s children begin to sin, in a passage which does not initially mention Mastema. 11:2 During this jubilee Noah’s children began to fight one another, to take captives, and to kill one another; to shed human blood on the earth, to consume blood; to build fortified cities, walls, and towers; men to elevate themselves over peoples, to set up the first kingdoms; to go to war – people against people, nations against nations, city against city; and everyone to do evil, to acquire weapons, and to teach warfare to their sons. 133

See Stuckenbruck, “Origins of Evil,” 113-4. According to Stuckenbruck, the author of Jubilees ensures that “bad” knowledge (the understanding of heavenly bodies which inter alia advocates the wrong calendar) is passed down by bad angels and people while “good” knowledge, such as the medicinal knowledge given to Noah, is passed down by good angels and humans – particularly the line of Shem and Abram/Abraham. Stuckenbruck sees a similar approach in BW, although what constitutes bad knowledge in 1 Enoch overlaps somewhat with the “good knowledge” of Jubilees (particularly in regards to medicine). 356

City began to capture city and to sell male and female slaves. 3 Ur, 134 Kesed’s son, built the city of Ara of the Chaldeans. He named it after himself and his father. 4 They made molten images for themselves. Each one would worship the idol which he had made as his own molten image. They began to make statues, images, and unclean things; the spirits of the savage ones were helping and misleading (them) so that they would commit sins, impurities, and transgressions. (Jub. 11:2-4) This passage portrays the consummation of the fears expressed by Noah in Jub. 7:27 that his descendants will shed human blood, leading to their obliteration. 135 The descent of Noah’s children into warfare accompanies their consumption of animal blood, the transgression of a prohibition meant to protect them from this eventuality. Their transgression is not instigated by demons. In fact, only after Noah’s descendants actually make idols for themselves do the spirits become directly involved. The spirits assist the idol-makers, and mislead them to commit further sins, essentially “entrapping” them in their sin. This depiction of the spirits’ involvement in human idol worship may reflect 1 En. 19:1-2, 136 where the Watchers’ spirits lead humans astray so that they sacrifice to demons (see chapter 8 above). 137 134

Written ’ud in the Ethiopic, likely due to a misreading of the original Hebrew ‫ ר‬as a ‫ ;ד‬see VanderKam, Jubilees: Translated, 65 n. 11:3. 135 M. Segal proposes that Jub.11:1-6 was composed in order to present the realization of Noah’s predictions in ch. 7 (Book of Jubilees, 184-5). 136 As noted by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 287. 137 It may also be connected to Jub.1:11, a verse in which idol worship and sacrificing children to demons are closely related: “They made for themselves high places, (sacred) groves, and carved images; each of them prostrated himself before his own in order to go astray. They will sacrifice their children to demons and to every product 357

After the interference of the evil spirits is described, the author explains (11:5) that it is Mastema who is pulling the reins. Prince Mastema was exerting his power in effecting all these actions and, by means of the spirits, he was sending to those who were placed under his control (the ability) to commit every (kind of) error and sin and every (kind of) transgression; to corrupt, 138 to destroy, and to shed blood on the earth. 6 For this reason Serug was named Serug: because everyone turned to commit every (kind of) sin. (Jub. 11:5) Here the spirits’ activities are clearly defined. They corrupt (cause sin), destroy (cause natural evil), and shed blood, in the direct and foreseen consequence of the bloodshed of Noah’s children (see Jub. 7:27). The first two activities are drawn from Mastema’s description in Jub. 10:8, “they are meant for destroying and misleading,” while the third underlines the underlying cause of the spirits’ interference. The structure of this passage, in which the sins of humankind are enumerated long before the spirits and Mastema are mentioned, lays the lion’s share of the blame on Noah’s children rather than on Mastema or his spirits. Both humans and spirits bear the blame for the bloodshed and sinning with which the world is rife, but the cycle of violence was begun by humans, who not only started wars but also ignored the injunction not to eat blood, an injunction meant to prevent violence among humankind

(conceived by) their erring hearts (Eth. sěḥtata lěbbomu).” In Jub. 1:11, however, the demons are not blamed for human wrongdoing; the “erring hearts” of humans are wholly responsible for their sins. 138 Eth. la-’amasěno. 358

and to thwart demonic interference. As in Jub. 1:19-21 and possibly in Jub. 10:8, in Jub. 11:2-6 demonic influence is not the sole source of sin, but acts alongside or even intensifies the human choice to sin. Mastema’s activities continue throughout the book of Jubilees. In Jub. 11:11 Mastema causes the natural disaster of famine. He commands ravens and other birds to eat the seed and destroy the land. The famine continues until Abram, who realizes the “errors of the earth,” particularly the error of idol worship (11:16-17), uses his wisdom to repel the birds (11:18-21). It is apparent from Mastema’s activity in this passage that the author of Jubilees does not distinguish categorically between the source of natural evil and the source of sin.

Mastema’s Role at Court: the Binding of Isaac In Jub.17:16 Mastema takes on the role of the śāṭān in Job; he urges God to test Abraham’s loyalty through the sacrifice of Isaac. The Prince Mastema came and said before God: “Abraham does indeed love his son Isaac and finds him more pleasing than anyone else. Tell him to offer him as a sacrifice on an altar. Then you will see whether he performs this order and will know whether he is faithful in everything through which you test him.” (Jub. 17:16) God is aware that Abraham has been faithful to him in everything (17:17), and apparently accedes to Mastema’s request in full knowledge that Abraham will pass the test and thereby shame Mastema, a result achieved in Jub. 18:12. In this manner the

359

author of Jubilees solves the theological puzzle presented by Gen 22:1, where God “tests” (nīsā) Abraham for no apparent reason. Mastema’s role in the sacrifice of Isaac depends on his status within the divine court, and in Jub. 18:9 the angel of the presence who is narrating the story describes himself standing in front of God and Mastema when God orders him to stop the sacrifice. Despite the “shaming” of Mastema in this episode (18:12), he continues to be part of the divine system, and a thorn in the sides of Abraham’s descendants. In Pseudo-Jubilees, a text found in fragmentary form at Qumran (4Q225-227), Mastema’s role is somewhat magnified. True to his name, he hopes to cause hostility (wyśṭym), apparently between Abraham and Isaac. 139 Mastema’s spirits form a cheerleading squad opposite the weeping angels, hoping for Isaac’s death (4Q225 2ii 5-7): 140 ‫ מלאכי קודש עומדימ בוכים על] המזבח‬5

[ [

‫ את בני֗ ו֗ מן ֗הארץ ומלאכי המ]שטמה‬6

[

]‫ואומרים עכשו יאבד ו‬ ֯ ‫ שמחים‬7

5. The angels of holiness were standing weeping above [the altar ] 6. his sons from the earth. The angels of the Ma[stemah

]

7. being happy and saying, ‘Now he will perish.’ And [

]

139

4Q225 (4QpsJub-a) 2i:10, ‫ ;וישטים את אברהם בישחק‬see Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine,” 112. 140 Text with reconstruction and translation follow J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “225. 4QpseudoJubileesa,” in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 149-51. 360

Mastema and his angels are contrasted here with the “angels of holiness” in their antipathy towards Isaac. Beyond this passage no further account of these “angels of the Mastema” (or, “angels of hostility”) has survived among the fragments of Pseudo-Jubilees. 141

Mastema and Ongoing Sin While Mastema’s own actions focus on causing natural disaster and divine tests, his spirits’ continued capability of causing sin is illustrated in Abraham’s blessing to his grandson Jacob (Jub. 19:28-29): 19:28 May the spirits of Mastema not rule over you and your descendants to remove you from following the Lord who is your God from now and forever. 29 May the Lord God become your father and you his first-born son and people for all time. Go in peace, my son. The role of Mastema’s spirits in this passage is unmistakable: they cause humans to stop following God. What is less obvious is whether this blessing is successful in freeing the descendants of Jacob from the sin-causing power of Mastema’s spirits. In the continuation of Jubilees, Mastema remains a threatening force, but not because of his ability to lead Israel astray. In fact, such a possibility is 141

Both Mastema and Belial are mentioned shortly thereafter, in a text that is too fragmentary to interpret: 4QpsJuba (4Q225) 2ii 14 ‫המ]ש[טמה וישמע בליעל אל‬ ֯ ‫“ שר‬the prince Mastema and Belial listened to...” For an attempt to interpret this fragment, see Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 247. 361

never mentioned following this passage. This may be a coincidence, but it is possible that the blessing in 19:28 implies that while Mastema may cause natural evil that affects the children of Israel, he has no power to cause moral evil among them. In contrast, Mastema is capable of hardening the Egyptians’ hearts in Jub. 48:12, 16-17. If this interpretation is correct, this passage presents another view of Israel’s immunity to demons in contrast with the vulnerability of Gentiles. Another possibility is that Mastema here is not a proper name at all, and that the phrase “spirits of Mastema” simply signifies “hostile spirits.” If such is the case, 19:28-29 harks back to the anarchic demons of Jubilees 7 that report to nobody and cause general havoc. The blessing that the descendants of Jacob will not be ruled by these spirits is immediately followed by the wish that God be the father of Israel. Similar to the angel’s words in 15:30-32, Abraham’s distinction of Israel as the “firstborn of God” is linked to the idea that Israel is not ruled by spirits. Nevertheless, the dichotomy between the nations and Israel is not expressed here, nor is God contrasted directly with the evil spirits. What this blessing shares with 15:30-32 is an implicit connection between Israel’s freedom from demons and Israel’s special relationship with God. Mastema’s continued ability to cause problems for Abraham, and later for Moses and the Israelites, demonstrates that the children of Israel are nevertheless not completely safe from Mastema and his spirits. 142 In the continuation of the Jubilees

142

Eshel sees a contradiction between the statement in Jub. 15:31-32 that spirits only rule over other nations and Mastema’s interference in the binding of Isaac; see Eshel, 362

narrative, as in the story of the binding of Isaac, Mastema is a device for explaining various texts that are theologically troubling. In Jub. 48:2 it is Mastema who is behind the “bloody bridegroom” incident that threatens Moses’ life in Ex 4:24-26. Similarly, in Jub. 48:9 it is Mastema who enables the Egyptian sorcerers’ magic in Ex 7:11, 22; 8:3. Moreover, as noted above, it is not God but Mastema who hardens the Egyptians’ hearts in 48:12, 16-17. On the other hand, God’s angels can easily defeat Mastema if they are so inclined. Following the exodus, Mastema is alternately bound and released by the angels (48:15-18). This is so that he will not “accuse” the Israelites during and directly after their escape but will afterwards encourage the Egyptians to chase them to the Red Sea and to the Egyptians’ doom. The content of Mastema’s accusation involves the Israelites’ illicit “borrowing” of utensils and clothing from the Egyptians (48:18), but the possible addressee of Mastema’s “accusation” is ambiguous. Mastema may wish to accuse the Israelites to the Egyptians themselves, who would thereby be prevented from lending to the Israelites. However, Mastema’s role as divine accuser makes it more likely that God is the intended audience. In the Jubilees version of the Exodus story, God does not explicitly command the deceitful borrowing. The author thereby avoids the inevitable theological questions that are raised by the divine commandment

“Demonology in Palestine,” 111. Such contradictions are numerous in the book of Jubilees. Nevertheless, as noted above, Jub. 15:31-32 does not refer to Mastema; it reflects proto-LXX Deut 32:8 and may refer to the original Watchers. 363

(or prediction) in Exod 3:22. 143 However, once this act is not divinely mandated, it may be considered a sin. Mastema can thus employ it in an accusation against Israel, resulting in a lack of divine favor when the Israelites need it most. 144 For this reason Mastema must be bound by the “good” angels for the Israelites to effect their escape. Thus, in Jubilees Mastema functions fully within the divine system. He can be stopped by God or his angels at any time, although he continuously seeks to do harm to Israel through both natural and moral evil. While Mastema is presented as an instigator of sin, his activities in Jubilees derive principally from the literary motivation of avoiding theological problems that are raised by the biblical text. Mastema is a divinely sanctioned troublemaker who is easily subdued by the “good” angels and whose power against Israel is limited in scope. The theological difficulty of accepting such a troublemaker as part of the divine court is not addressed in Jubilees. 145

143

Namely, why would God command something that seems morally objectionable? Furthermore, if the Israelites deserve wealth, why does God not bestow it himself? 144 The narrating angel affords a double justification of the Israelites’ “borrowing,” no longer justified by explicit divine mandate. The narrator explains that the Israelites’ plunder of the Egyptians was payment for the Israelites’ forced labor (48:18). He also asserts that “We did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt empty-handed” (48:19), i.e., the angels have fulfilled the divine promise in Exod 3:21. The author thus hints that the borrowing was in accord with the divine will without actually repeating God’s command of the questionable deed. 145 In much the same way, the role of the śāṭān in the divine court of Job 1-2 is not addressed as a problem. The śāṭān’s actions in Job serve to explain the source of Job’s troubles and to distance them from God, while the “fact” of the śāṭān’s divine function is not presented as a theological difficulty. 364

Abram’s Prayer: A Complex Demonic Reference in Jubilees Jubilees contains another apotropaic prayer that combines “external” and “internal” views of sin. In Jub. 12:19-21, Abram prays for guidance following his recognition of God’s supreme power: 12:19 That night he prayed and said: My God, my God, God Most High, You alone are my God. You have created everything; Everything that was and has been is the product of your hands. You and your lordship I have chosen. 20 Save me from the power of the evil spirits who rule the inclination of people’s hearts. 146 May they not mislead me 147 from following you, my God. Do establish me and my posterity forever. May we not go astray 148 from now until eternity. 21 Then he said: “Shall I return to Ur of the Chaldeans who are looking for me to return to them? Or am I to remain here in this place? Make the path that is straight before you prosper through your servant so that he may do (it). May I not proceed in the error of my heart, 149 my God.” (Jub. 12:19-21) As noted by M. Kister, the phrase used in 12:20, Eth. “ḫěllinā lěbba sab’ě,” is the equivalent of the biblical yēṣer lēb hā’ādām “the inclination/thought of the heart of man” (Gen 6:5; 8:21). 150 As in Gen 6:5 and 8:21, the yēṣer appears here in its neutral

VanderKam translates “the thoughts of people’s minds,” but I have chosen a more literal translation of the Ethiopic ḫěllinā lěbba sab’. 147 Eth. ’i-yāsḥětuni. 148 Eth. ’i-něsḥat. 149 Eth. ba-sěḥtata lěbběya. VanderKam translates “in the error of my mind,” but again I have chosen a more literal translation of the Ethiopic. 150 Kister, “Inclination,” 244-5 and n. 5. 146

365

sense; it is not evil in and of itself, but is vulnerable to evil, which in Abram’s prayer is equated with demonic rule. 151 Abram’s prayer presents a situation in which what seems to be an internal evil inclination is actually the work of demonic forces. 152 The urgings of these spirits are actually at the root of the internal experience of an “evil inclination.” 153 By ruling the human inclination, demonic forces can “mislead” even the righteous from following God (12:20). The subsequent references in Abram’s prayer to evil spirits “misleading” or humans “going astray” should be read in light of this initial declaration. Human sin is, at least partially, the result of these interfering demons. As such it can be portrayed as human error following the misleading activities of the spirits. In Ethiopic, this idea is expressed through the repetition of the root sḥt. This verbal root is used to express error and sin three times in this prayer, once regarding the evil spirits (“may they not 151

Kister, ibid., 256-7. On the similarities between the use of yēṣer in Jubilees and in the Hebrew Bible, particularly the use of yēṣer to denote human good or evil contemplation, see Lichtenberger, “Vorkommen und Bedeutung,” 10. 152 Lange, “Essene Position,” 383, notes Abram’s observations regarding the stars at night in 12:17-18 and consequently identifies the demonic forces with the “spirits” of the stars, linked to astrology. However, there is no indication of such an identification in the prayer itself. In fact, Abram’s observations in 12:16-18 do not attribute “spirits” (Eth. maněfāst) to the stars, sun, and moon, but only “signs” (Eth. ta’amměra/ta’amměrāt). 153 Kister, “Inclination,” 258, compares this combination of external demonological and internal psychological views of the human with the use of the term rûăḥ in 4Q230 (4QCatalogue of Spirits) to denote internal qualities as well as (apparently) demonic forces. See also E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “‘These are the names of the spirits of...’ A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a),” RevQ 21 (2004): 529-47. 366

mislead me,” Eth. ’i-yāsḥětuni), once regarding Abram and his posterity (“May we not go astray”; Eth. ’i-něsḥat) and finlly in connection to Abram himself (“in the error of my heart”; Eth. ba-sěḥtata lěbběya). Unlike the other passages of Jubilees that have been explored in this chapter, in this prayer this is the only term used to express sin. If the Ethiopic faithfully represents the Hebrew Vorlage, the repetition of this root creates a link between the sinning caused by evil spirits, the possible sinning of Abram’s descendants, and the potential sin of Abram himself. 154 It is implied that, like the sin caused by evil spirits, Abram’s sin or error is found in his heart/mind (lěbb) but may have its source in demonic “rule.” Therefore, unlike several other prayers that have been discussed here, in this prayer there is no request that God effect an internal change in Abram. The potential subjugation of Abram’s neutral or good inclination to demonic rule is the main force that can lead him astray, not an internal human desire to sin; therefore, Abram only needs protection from evil spirits and the “straightening of his path” in order to do the right thing. The view that even “internal” evil stems from demonic activity anticipates works such as the Treatise of the Two Spirits (discussed in the chapter 13), where forces for good and evil continue their struggle within the human frame, and is similar to aspects of apotropaic prayers that will be explored in chapter 10.

154

Contrast Jub. 1:19-21, where God is implored not to let his people “go along in the error of their hearts” (Eth. laḥawir bāsěḥětata lěbbomu) but where the nations “make them sin” (Eth. yěgbarěwwomu kama yěḫěṭě’u). 367

M. Kister has argued that the prayer in Jub. 12:19-21 is an independent apotropaic prayer that was inserted into Jubilees by the author, who then added Abram’s question in 12:21a. 155 It is likely that this prayer was put into Abram’s mouth to further justify the vulnerability of the righteous to the desire to sin. In the prayer of the righteous Abram, the author has inserted or composed a prayer that expresses the wholly internal experience of the desire to sin. The composer of the prayer does not deny that it feels like the desire to sin comes from one’s own mind or inclination. However, this desire is actually the result of “foreign,” demonic rule. Hence, even the “righteous” reader may experience an internal desire to sin, a desire which is nevertheless the fault of demonic forces.

Conclusion: Jubilees and the Demonic Source of Sin The differences between the approaches to sin presented in different sections of Jubilees cannot be ignored. But while the above investigation of Jubilees texts delineates a variety of depictions of demonic influence on the desire to sin, it is possible to determine certain general tendencies in the book as a whole.

155

Kister, “Inclination,” 245-6. Kister notes that Abram’s question relates to an actual path as opposed to the metaphorical path depicted in 12:21b,c. 368

Jubilees and Free Will

As noted above, the book of Jubilees does not present a single view of sin.

Even in its depiction of the Watchers and their connection to the source of sin, Jubilees reflects different approaches. In Jub. 5 the story of the Watchers is a paradigmatic story of sin and punishment, with no implications for future generations. In contrast, in both Jubilees 7 and Jubilees 10 the Watchers’ sin results in sin-causing demons that plague future generations. While chapters 7 and 10 both reflect the understanding that (some) human sin can be attributed to the Watchers, the approach to free will in these passages is strikingly different. In Jubilees 7, humans have complete free will and can prevent the demons’ influence by fulfilling God’s commandments. In the introduction to Jubilees 10, humans have little chance of overcoming the influence of the evil spirits on their own; Noah must pray for divine help so that his descendants will remain righteous. The Watchers story is only one of several explanations for the desire to sin presented by the author of Jubilees. In 1:19-21, Israel is vulnerable to the possible rule of Belial, who is paralleled to the rule of foreign nations. The sovereignty of either may cause the sinning of the Israelites. In 15:30-32, in an apparent reference to Deut 32:8, the nations are themselves ruled by sin-causing demons. Both these references hint at a lack of free will, the first specific to the Israelites, and the latter referring more strongly to the nations. Jubilees 15:30-32 portrays a somewhat dualistic system, where God leads Israel and leaves the nations to demonic rule. However, the author is

369

careful to tell the reader that “all (nations) belong to him” (15: 31). In contrast, in 1:19-21 Belial is not presented as part of a dualistic worldview. Belial functions as part of the divine court, accusing Israel before God. Israel may be vulnerable to Belial as they are vulnerable to the nations, but God can and will easily counteract either. Segal maintains that the aim of the redactor of Jubilees was to present evil as part of a dualistic system created by God from the dawn of time. 156 According to Segal, the inclusion of Belial in 1:19-21 supports the idea of a dualistic system, while Mastema has clearly existed since the creation of the world. However, in Jub. 1:19-21 Belial is not contrasted to God as part of a dualistic system; he is compared to the nations and, like them, is fully subject to the Deity. 157 Moreover, the author/redactor of Jubilees does not seem to care how or when Mastema came into existence. Mastema is first mentioned only when he is needed to control the Watchers’ descendants, and his creation is never explained. It is unlikely, therefore, that the redactor of Jubilees wished to advocate the view that evil was created at the beginning of existence. It is the angel Mastema who features as the main demonic force in Jubilees. He is put in command of the Watchers’ descendant spirits, but unlike these spirits he is a full member of the divine court. In this way the author integrates the evil spirits into

156

See Segal, Book of Jubilees, 323-4. This is not to say that the sectarian representations of Belial in Qumran texts are not dualistic, but dualism cannot be assumed in Jubilees simply because Belial is mentioned.

157

370

the divine system. At the same time, Mastema’s activity does not seem to impair human free will, with the possible exception of his influence on the Egyptians. Mastema causes famine and tries to destroy Isaac, Moses and the Israelites, but he is easily defeated and rarely causes sin. In the one case where Mastema and his spirits directly cause sin, Noah’s descendants are guilty of beginning the cycle of sin themselves. They have become violent on their own, ignore the commandment to refrain from eating blood, and create idols. It is only once these idols are created that Mastema and his spirits become directly involved. Jubilees 12:19-21, Abram’s prayer, provides the most complex picture of how demons cause sin, by combining the idea of an internal human inclination with the idea of demons’ nefarious rule. This prayer portrays the basic human inclination as neutral; it is the fault of demons if one’s inclination urges one to sin. In sum, Jubilees as a single work is inconsistent regarding the power of human free will, but presents the viewpoint that humans (or at least Israelites) are not completely helpless. Demons are a force to be reckoned with, but the book as a whole provides the reader with a selection of means to combat them, including keeping divine commandments, prayer to God, and a realization that one’s inclination actually reflects a demonic will. This exploration of Jubilees demonstrates that a belief in demonic influence in this period did not require an accompanying belief in determinism nor a denial of other sources of sin.

371

Natural and Moral Evil

In most cases, the author of Jubilees distinguishes little between the cause of

sin and of natural evil. The evil spirits are described as both “destroying” and “misleading” humans (Jub. 10:8) and Mastema can cause famine (Jub. 11:11) as well as urge the Egyptians to pursue Israel (Jub. 48:16-17). However, as noted above, the sin-causing capabilities of Mastema and his spirits appear to be limited following Jacob’s blessing, while Mastema remains able to cause “natural” disaster to Jacob’s descendants. This is consistent with the eschatological description in Jub. 23:26-32, where the end of the demonic forces that cause natural evil is described: “They will complete and live their entire lifetimes peacefully and joyfully. There will be neither a satan nor any evil one who will destroy. For their entire lifetimes will be times of blessing and healing” (Jub. 23:29). In this passage, the “satan” or “evil one” is one who destroys, and thus in a time of peace and joy will no longer exist. There is no reference in this passage to the desire to sin. The generation of the eschaton has, after all, already become righteous on its own (Jub. 23:26).

External and Internal Source of Sin

Two texts explored in this chapter combine external (demonic) and internal

(human inclination) views of sin: Moses’ prayer in Jub. 1:19-21 and Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12:19-21. These texts, not coincidentally, are both apotropaic prayers. As explored in the previous chapters on prayer, petitions to the Divine frequently express

372

an internal experience. This is no less true of apotropaic prayer, ostensibly intended to fight “external” demonic influence. In many apotropaic prayers the petitioner expresses his internal dilemma, a dilemma which happens to involve demons that attack from without. (This phenomenon will be explored further in chapter 10.) Thus it is not surprising to find prayers that present a view of sin that is mixed, expressing an understanding of the cause of sin which contains demonic as well as internal human elements. These texts are further evidence of the complexity of approaches to sin in this period.

Belial

While the author of Jubilees preferred the character of Mastema as the chief

demonic cause of both natural and moral evil, it is clear that there was a wider tradition regarding Belial that is reflected in the embedded prayer found in 1:19-21. Here Belial is depicted ruling over humans, causing them to sin, and accusing them before God. The latter two activities are elsewhere attributed to Mastema by the author of Jubilees. As noted above, the dualistic system found in certain Qumran sectarian texts, in which Belial plays a prominent part, is not reflected in this short passage; rather, Belial seems to fill a divinely mandated function. This is evidence of an earlier

373

tradition regarding Belial prior to this figure’s integration into a more dualistic system. 158

Limitation of Demonic Power

There is no doubt that the author of Jubilees maintained a worldview in which

demons held real power. He is familiar with several stories regarding demonic origins, accounts that include the Watchers, Mastema, Belial, and the anonymous “spirits” who rule the nations. But in the book of Jubilees, demonic power, while acknowledged, is limited, especially as it regards Israel. In 10:8-9, the anarchic spirit descendants of the Watchers are subjugated to Mastema, a member of the divine court, and are consequently made part of the divinely guided system. Mastema himself is easily defeated, whether by a young Abram who knows how to scare ravens or by angels who bind and release Mastema at will. The parallels between the nations and Belial (1:19) and the nations’ total subjugation to sin-causing spirits (15:31-32) serve to demonize the gentile while distancing demonic power further from the “righteous of Israel.” A series of passages including Noah’s prayer, which requests that the righteous be free of demonic influence, Abraham’s blessing to Jacob that his descendants not be subject to Mastema’s spirits, and Moses’ prayer for freedom from Belial further distances demonic power from the “chosen” people. The “righteous” Jewish audience now knows that freedom from and assistance against the demons has 158

See chapters 11 and 12 below. 374

been requested of God by Noah, Abraham and Moses in a chain of prayer and blessing that safeguards the righteous Jew. By using medicine to battle demonic disease and a combination of God’s commandments and prayer to battle demonic sin-causing influence, members of Jubilees’ intended audience can successfully combat the demons of their world.

375

X.

The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Introduction: Demonic Source of Sin at Qumran Demonic characters figure prominently in Qumran texts.1 Consequently it is no surprise that the depiction of demonic forces as a prime cause of sin is frequently found in these texts. Nevertheless, the manner in which these forces operate, their characterizations, and even the theological worldview they seem to represent, are not identical. Accordingly, in the analysis contained in this chapter, Qumran texts will be grouped according to the type of figures and worldviews that they present. First, those Qumran texts which reflect the Watchers myth will be investigated. As will be seen, these texts are chiefly comprised of apotropaic prayers and incantations. Relevant distinctions between sectarian and nonsectarian prayers will be identified and explored. Next, the role of the demonic figure of Belial as it appears in various Qumran texts will be examined. Finally, the approach to sin in the Treatise of the Two Spirits will be explored both in its various sections and in its full redacted form.

1

However, the origins and etiology of these demons were not necessarily important to the Qumran group; see A. M. Reimer, “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran,” DSD 7 (2000): 334-53, responding to Alexander, “Demonology,” 2:331-53. 376

The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls A variety of texts found at Qumran reflect the wider impact of the Watchers myth. Several of these texts also include the association of sin with the Watchers and their descendants. Familiarity with earlier forms of the Watchers myth was presumably widespread at Qumran; five fragments of the Enochic Book of the Watchers 2 and at least fourteen fragments of the book of Jubilees 3 were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jubilees is cited as an authoritative text in CD 16:2-4. 4 Independent texts found at Qumran also reflect the Watchers story. A prominent example is the “Book of Giants,” found in six copies at Qumran. 5 In this text the giants, born of the Watchers, send for Enoch to interpret a dream that one of their number has had. This request results in the prediction of the giants’ demise in the flood. 6 In one passage, the giants mention the “violence” (ḥms) they have done on land.

2

4Q201, 4Q202, 4Q204, 4Q205, 4Q206. Including 1Q17, 1Q18, 2Q19, 2Q20, 3Q5, 4Q176a (fragments 19-21), 4Q216, 4Q218, 4Q219, 4Q220, 4Q221, 4Q222, 4Q223-224, 11Q12, and perhaps 4Q217; see VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1:435. 4 Jubilees may also be cited in 4Q228; see VanderKam, “Jubilees,” 1:437. 5 In 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530-533, and 6Q8. 6 This text has been identified by J. T. Milik as the forerunner of the Manichean Book of Giants, which was long thought to be related to the story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch; see Milik, Books of Enoch, vi; “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumran,” HTR 64 (1971): 366-72 and idem, “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. (ed. Jeremias G., H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117-27. 3

377

4Q531 (4QEnGiantsc) 19 2-5 7 ‫ ע)ו(ב[ ֯די חמס שגיא בי֯ בשתא‬2 ‫[ ֯ל]א[ גרמין אנחנא ו֯ לא בשר‬

3

‫ ב[ ֗שר ונתמחה מן צורתנא‬4 ]‫ ו[ ֯ש ֯ר ֗ק ֗די֗ שיכה לנא‬5 2.

] many [dee]ds of violence on the dry land

3.

] n[ot] bones are we and not flesh

4.

fl]esh and we shall be expunged 8 from our form

5.

] your holy ones to us[

89 F

In another passage, the great destruction that the giants have caused is mentioned, denoted by the term ḥbl. 4Q532 (4QEnGiantsd) 2 9-10 9 90F

‫בא]רעא‬ ֗ ‫ [ ֯חבל רב חנבלו‬9 ‫ [ שפק להן֯ למא]כל‬10 9. 10.

] they caused great ḥbl in the [earth this did not] suffice for them to ea[t

7

Text follows E. Puech, “531. 4QLivre des Géantsc ar,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, premiére partie: 4Q529-549 (ed. E. Puech; DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 71; translation follows E. M. Cook, “4QEnGiantsa-f,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 493 except where noted. 8 Cook translates “wiped out.” 9 Text follows E. Puech, “532. 4QLivre des Géantsd ar,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, premiére partie: 4Q529-549 (ed. E. Puech; DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 100; translation follows E. M. Cook, “4QEnGiantsa-f,” except for the omission of his translation of ḥbl, “corruption”; this term is discussed further below. 378

While ḥbl in line 9 could mean either destruction or corruption, the following line, which as reconstructed explains that the giants did not have enough to eat, relates to the recounting of the giants’ gluttony and ensuing destruction in 1 En. 7:3-5. 10 Consequently, the first translation of ḥabal is preferable; the giants have caused destruction, but not necessarily sin.

“Pesher of the Periods” (4Q180) Another Qumran text explicitly connects the Watchers to human sin. This is 4Q180, the “Pesher of the Periods,” 11 a thematic pesher likely composed within the Qumran community. 12 This text, unsurprisingly, equates the leader of the wayward angels with Azazel, identified in Lev 16:7-10 as the intended recipient or destination of the released sacrificial scapegoat. 13

10

1 En. 7:3-5: 3 They were devouring the labor of all the sons of men, and men were not able to supply them. 4 And the giants began to kill men and to devour them. 5 And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood. (Translation follows Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 182.) 11 D. Dimant suggested this title based on the introduction to the document in 4Q180 1 1; see “Ages of Creation,” EDSS 1:11. 12 D. Dimant has noted the sectarian terminology and predestinarian ideology found throughout 4Q180; see Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” IOS 9 (1979): 91-94, 96. 13 The connection between the Watchers and Azazel is also found in later rabbinic literature. See Pesiqta Rabbati 34, where Azazel is equated with two characters, Aza and Azael: ‫אומרים לפניו רבש"ע לב אבן נתתה לנו והוא התעה אותנו ומה עזא ועזאל שגופן אש כשירדו לארץ חטאו‬ ?‫אנו לא כל שכן‬ 379

4Q180 1 7-10 14 [ [ [

‫]ו[ ֯פשר על עזזאל והמלאכים אש]ר‬

7

]‫]וי[ ֯ל ֯דו להם גברים ועל עזזאל‬

8

]‫[ עולה ולהנחיל רשעה ֯כל ֯ק‬

]

9

]‫סוד ׺׺‬ ֯ ‫[ משפטים ומשפט‬

]

10

7

[And] interpretation 15 concerning Azazel and the angels wh[o

8

[and] they [b]ore to them mighty ones. And concerning Azazel [ ]

9

[

10

[

906F

]

] iniquity and to bequeath 16 wickedness all q[ ] 907F

] precepts and the precept of the assembly of

[

]

It is apparent that the author of the “Pesher of the Periods” links the Watchers to sin, perhaps even holding the Watchers responsible for the existence of sin through the ages, if line 9 is reconstructed as J. J. M. Roberts suggests, [‫ ֯כל ֯ק]צו‬, “all [his] ti[me ].” 17 Due to the fragmentary nature of this text, however, it is not possible to state 908F

definitively that it connects the Watchers to post-diluvian sin. It may only refer to the sinning of the generation that preceded the flood.

“They (the children of Israel) will say before him: ‘Master of the Universe, You gave us a heart of stone, and it led us astray. If Aza and Azael, whose bodies were fire, sinned when they came down to earth, would not we (sin) all the more?’” 14 Text, reconstruction, and translation of the “Pesher of the Periods” follow J. J. M. Roberts, “Wicked and Holy (4Q180-181),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 204-13, except where otherwise noted. 15 Roberts translates “commentary.” “Interpretation” is a closer translation of pšr. 16 Roberts translates “possess.” “Bequeath” better reflects the causative of the hip‘il form. 17 Roberts, “Wicked and Holy,” 206. 380

The Watchers in Apotropaic Prayers at Qumran A definitive connection between the Watchers and the ongoing threat of sin is evident in several apotropaic prayers found at Qumran. References to the Watchers, or more specifically their descendants the “bastards,” 18 are found throughout these prayers (in addition to two fragmentary references in the Hodayot). 19 These prayers provide a glimpse into the understanding of the nature of these spirits.

Songs of the Sage (4Q510-511) Songs of the Sage (4Q510-511) is a set of prayers 20 uttered by the maśkil (see 4Q510 1 4; 4Q511 2 i.1), apparently an official of the community, as a protective

18

The descendants of the Watchers are first called “bastards” in 1 En. 10:9: “And the Lord said to Gabriel: ‘Proceed against the bastards...’” As noted by M. A. Knibb, both the Ethiopic manĕzūrān and the Greek τους μαζηρέους reflect the underlying Aramaic noun ‫ ;ממזרא‬see Ethiopic Enoch, 2:88 n. 10:9. 19 The word “bastards” (‫ )ממזרים‬appears in 1QHa XXIV.16 (according to Schuller’s numbering in DJD 40), and a fragmentary reference to the ability of these “bastards” to cause sin may also be found in 1QHa XXIV.26 ‫רוחות ממזרים להרשיע בבשר‬ ֯ ‫בבסר כי כול‬ “with flesh, for all the spirits of the bastards to act wickedly/condemn/cause sin with/in flesh.” (Text and translation following Schuller and Newsom, 1QHodayota], except for alternatives to “act wickedly” and “with.”) The meaning of ‫להרשיע‬, translated by Newsom as “to act wickedly,” can also be to condemn, i.e. to accuse sinners before God, or to cause sin; both meanings are found in Qumran texts. (For ‫ הרשיע‬as condemning, see 1QS V.7; 4Q424 3:2; 4Q511 [4QShirb] 63-64 iii.4; for ‫ הרשיע‬as causing sin see CD V.19; 1QpHab IX.11.) 20 These prayers have at times been classified as “incantations” depending on one’s definition of the latter. E. Chazon has categorized Songs of the Sage as “magical incantations” on the basis of their function, namely frightening evil spirits, as well as their citation of the apparently apotropaic Ps 91 and their mention of demons related to the Watchers. However, she notes that they differ from most incantations in their direct address of God and in their possible liturgical use; see E. G. Chazon, “Hymns 381

measure against evil forces. By uttering these prayers, the sage means to frighten these forces away (see 4Q510 1 3,4; 4Q511 8 4). It is in the context of the prayer’s function as a means of frightening demons that the “bastard” spirits are mentioned: 21 912F

4Q511 48-49 +51 ii.1-6 [

‫[ ֗ת בינתו נתן ]ב[לב]בי‬

]‫בעצת אל כיא‬

1

[‫[ ֯עה ובפי֯ י֯ פחד ]כול רוחות‬

]‫הודות צדקו ו֯ ׺‬

2

]‫להכני֯ ע‬ ֯ ‫ממזרים‬

3

‫לחמו֯ ֯ת חוקי‬ ֗ ‫֯בשרי יסו֯ ֯ד ֯ד׺] וב[גויתי ֗מ‬

4

‫כיא ֯ב ֯ת ֯כמי‬ ֗ ‫[ ֯טי ֯ט ֯מאה‬

1. in the council of God, for [

‫[ ֯על ֯כו֯ ל מופתי גבר מעשי‬

‫אל בלבבי ואועי֯ ]ל‬

5

‫ הואה‬vacat ‫[אל ׺׺׺ו֯ ֯ת‬

]‫אשמה ארשי֗ ע‬

6

] His knowledge he put [in my] hear[t ]

2. the praises of His righteousness, and [

] and by His mouth he frightens [all

the spirits] 3. of the bastards to subdue [

] impurity. 22 For in the innards 23 of 913F

914F

4. my flesh is the foundation of [ and in] my body are battles. The statutes of and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:263. E. Eshel distinguishes between “apotropaic prayers” and “incantations,” and describes Songs of the Sage as the former because the texts it includes address God and not the demons they mean to frighten and because they share terminology common to apotropaic prayers; see Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 79-80, 87-88. 21 Text of Songs of the Sage follows M. Baillet, “510. Cantiques du Sage (i),” in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 215-9 and idem, “Cantiques du Sage (ii).” Translation is based on Abegg, Wise, and Cook, “4QShira-b,” except where otherwise noted. 22 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “uncleanness”; “impurity” is closer to the full meaning of ‫טמאה‬. 23 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “filth.” On the possible meaning of takmê/tĕkāmê (‫)תכמי‬, a term found only at Qumran, see n. 40 in chapter 3. 382

5. God are in my heart, and I prof[it] for 24 all the wonders of man. The works of 6. guilt I condemn [

] God. vacat He…

This prayer provides a different view of the Watchers’ descendants than has been previously discussed. First, it is clear that the subjugation of these spirits into a divinely mandated system, as devised by the author of Jubilees via the vehicle of the angel Mastema (see chapter 9), was not accepted by the composer of this prayer. God himself is called upon to frighten these spirits; the angel Mastema is not mentioned. The refusal to situate evil spirits within a divine system mirrors the popular rejection of similar developments in Near Eastern epics evidenced by Near Eastern exorcism texts and noted by K. van der Toorn. 25 The disregard of Jubilees 10 and its depiction of the spirits’ divine function is intriguing, given the prominence of Jubilees in the Qumran community; as noted above, Jubilees was found in multiple copies at Qumran and is cited as authoritative in the Damascus Document. However, as noted by D. Flusser, apotropaic prayer in the Second Temple period commonly reflects popular piety and not necessarily the doctrine of religious leaders. 26 Flusser’s observation may also explain the difference between the depiction of the Watchers’ descendants in these prayers and the description of the Watchers and their children in the Damascus Document. As discussed in chapter 4, the Damascus Document (CD II.17-20) compares the Watchers to human heroes and notes the utter 24

Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “from”; “for” is a more literal translation of ‘al. Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 75-76. 26 Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 204. 25

383

destruction of their children, apparently as the result of the flood. According to this passage of the Damascus Document, the Watchers’ descendants have absolutely no influence on postdiluvian humanity. As a legal text, the Damascus Document may reflect an “official” representation of Qumran doctrine, while the prayers explored here reflect the more central role of the Watchers’ children in “popular” Qumran belief and practice. Songs of the Sage also sheds light on another aspect of the Watchers’ descendants. The petitioner describes these spirits as part of his internal experience of the desire to sin. 27 The spirits are connected to the “impurity” within the speaker, which underlies the battles within him. 28 These battles result from the conflict between the laws of God already inside the speaker and the impurity or evil spirits that have reached within him. 27

Nevertheless, these spirits are not described as “possessing” the speaker as such. This stands in contrast to descriptions of demonic possession in the synoptic Gospels; see L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry,” in Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth; JCTCRS 4; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 77-79. As Stuckenbruck notes, there are few sources composed during the Second Temple besides the New Testament that describe demonic possession in the strict sense. He notes three possible candidates among the Qumran texts, the first two tentative and the last, in his view, more certain: (1) the description of a skin disease attributed to a “spirit” that may have entered the body through the head or beard (4Q266 = 4QDa 6 i.5-7); (2) the Treatise of the Two Spirits in 1QS III.13-IV.26 (discussed further in chapter 13); and (3) the extremely fragmentary 4Q560, which refers to male and female poisonous beings that invade the human body and cause fever and chills and (possibly) sin (depending on the text’s reconstruction). 28 On the connection between sin and impurity, see the discussion of 11Q5 col. XXIV in chapter 2 above. 384

The anarchic nature of the Watchers’ spirit descendants is clear in another passage of Songs of the Sage: 4Q510 (4QShira) 1 4-9 [‫ולב]הל‬ ֗ ‫ואני משכיל משמיע הוד תפארתו לפחד‬

vacat ‫ כבוד מלכותו‬4

[ ]‫ כול רוחי מלאכי חבל ורוחות ממזרים שד אים לילית אחים ו‬5 [‫והפוגעים פתע פתאום לתעות רוח בינה ולהשם לבבם ונ֯ ׺׺תם בקץ ממשל]ת‬

6

‫רשעה ותעודות תעניות בני או]ר[ באשמת קצי נגוע]י[ עוונות ולוא לכלת עולם‬

7

‫[ רננו צדיקים באלוהי פלא‬

vacat

]‫ ] [ם לקץ תעניות פשע‬8

4 of His royal glory. vacat And I, the Maśkil, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] 5 all the spirits of the destructive 29 angels, bastard spirits, demons, 30 Lilith, howlers 31 920F

921F

92F

and [ ] 6 and those who strike suddenly 32 to lead a spirit of understanding astray and to make 923F

their heart and their [

] desolate during the present dominion of

7 wickedness and predetermined time of afflictions 33 for the children of lig[ht], 34 by 924F

the guilt of the ages of [those]

smitten

925F

by iniquity—not for eternal destruction,

29

Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “destroying angels,” but the phrase ‫ מלאכי חבל‬is more properly translated as “destructive angels” or “angels of destruction.” 30 “Demons” is written in two words with an extra ’ālep: šd ’ym. As noted by Baillet (“Cantiques du Sage (i),” 216 n. L. 5), this is a representation of the typical Qumran plene spelling. It is possible that this term was copied as two words due to the influence of Isa 34:14 and 13:22, in which ’îyīm (“jackals”) are among the destructive creatures listed. 31 The ’ōḥîm (‫ )א ֹחים‬found in Isa 13:21 apparently denoted howling desert animals, from the verb ’ḥḥ, “howl”; see HALOT 1:29. 32 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding.” 33 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “humiliations.” 34 Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “sons of lig[ht]”. The term bny is translated as gender neutral throughout this study, except in cases where the term clearly refers to males, as it is the standard term denoting children in Second Temple Hebrew. 385

8 [ ]m for an era of affliction of transgression. 35 [ vacat ] Sing for joy, righteous ones, for the wondrous God. 36 In this passage the “bastard spirits” are simply one type of the numerous demonic spirits who “strike suddenly to lead a spirit of understanding astray.” The demons listed are drawn mainly from Isa 13:21and Isa 34:14, where the day of divine wrath includes the abandonment of the dwelling-places of the wicked to the unbridled forces of nature. These forces include wild animals as well as demonic figures, such as the śĕ‘îrīm and lîlīt. 37 The unusual animals in these verses (e.g. ’ōḥîm) 38 were understood by the author of 4Q510 to be demons as well, anarchic forces who, like other evil spirits, cause humans to transgress the divine will. 39 The framework of the prayer is the current “period of the dominion of wickedness,” a recasting of the verses from Isaiah in order to depict the internal troubles faced by the speaker in his own time. The petitioner perceives the present period of difficulty as the promised divine day of wrath (see Isa 13:9, 33:2, 8). Such an identification of the current period of trouble carries within it the comforting thought that its conclusion will bring the total destruction of the wicked, as promised in the Isaiah passages. It also determines that

35

Abegg, Wise, and Cook translate “humiliation for transgression.” Abegg, Wise and Cook translate “God of Wonder.” 37 lilit as a demonic figure is widely attested in ancient Near Eastern magic; see Alexander, “Demonology,” 2:335. 38 See n. 31 above. 39 See Alexander, “Demonology,” 2:334-5. 36

386

these seemingly anarchic forces are, in the final analysis, subject to the divine plan and subordinate to God’s rule. 40 The descendants of the Watchers are listed as one of these forces. They are yet another demonic power that can lead astray a person who is usually righteous: someone endowed with a “spirit of understanding.” Despite the previously explored efforts of the author of Jubilees to reassure the righteous reader that demonic forces of sin are not an uncontrollable threat, 41 Songs of the Sage presents a picture of demonic forces that regularly threaten the righteous and must be frightened away by the direct intervention of God. This intervention is directed specifically toward the Watchers’ descendants in 4Q511 35 6-8. 42 [ [

]‫דבר‬ ֯ ‫ואני מירא אל בקצי דורותי֗ לרומם שם‬

6

‫מירא]תו‬ ֗ ‫בגבורתו כו֯ ]ל [רוחי ממזרים להכניעם‬

7

[

]‫[ ֯קץ ממשלתם‬

]‫]מ[ו֯ עדי‬

8

6 And I practice the fear of God 43 through the periods of my generations, to exalt the 934F

name dbr[ ] 7 by his strength al[l] the spirits of the bastards, to subdue them by [His] fear [ ] 8 [fe]stivals [

]period of their rule

40

I. Fröhlich, “From Pseudepigraphic to Sectarian,” RevQ 21 (2004): 404-5. See chapter 9. 42 Text follows Baillet, “Cantiques du Sage (ii),” translation my own. 43 Abegg, Wise, and Cook propose the puzzling translation, “I am pouring out the fear of God.” If ‫ מירא‬here is a verb form, its meaning is akin to “practicing the fear of”; see Baillet, “Cantiques du Sage (ii),” 238 n. line 6. 41

387

Here one of the righteous, a practicing “God-fearer,” uses the invocation of God’s power (“his strength,” line 7) to frighten the bastard spirits. Yet again there is a connection between these spirits and an apparently predestined “period of rule” (line 8). It is once more apparent that these spirits do not belong to the orderly ongoing system of divine rule described in Jubilees 10; rather, they have been given a “period of rule” during which God checks them. 44

11Q11 In a similar manner, the author of the Qumran text 11Q11 portrays a descendant of the Watchers as a demonic, threatening being (complete with horns). 11Q11 is classified as an incantation, distinguished from apotropaic prayer in that it directly addresses the demon and not God and by the incantation terminology it employs. 45 11Q11 V.4-10 46 ‫ל[ ֯חש בשם יהו]ה קרא בכו[ ֗ל עת‬

‫ לדויד ֗ע]ל‬4

‫שמ]ים כי [י֯ בוא אליך בלי֯ ]לה וא[מרתה אליו‬ ֗ ‫ אל ֯ה‬5 ‫הקד]ושי[ ֗ם פניך פני‬ ֯ ‫מי אתה ]הילוד מ[אדם ומזרע‬

6

‫]שו[ו֗ וקרנ֗ י֯ ֯ך קרני חל]ו[ ֯ם חושך אתה ולוא אור‬

7

44

The periodization of evil will be discussed further below. The incantation terminology employed in 11Q11 includes the use of the hip‘il of šb‘ (‫משביע‬, to adjure) in iii.4 and iv.1 and the employment of the tetragrammaton to address God, as discussed by E. Eshel; see Eshel, “Apotropaic Prayers,” 87-88. 46 Text, reconstruction, and translation follow F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q218, 11Q20-31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181-205. 45

388

‫הצ ֯בה יהוה ]יוריד[ך‬ ֯ ‫[ ֯שר‬

]‫]עו[ל ולוא צדקה‬

8

‫]לשאו[ל תחתית ]ויסגור דל[תי נחושת ֯ב]אלה לו[א‬

9

[‫ ]יעבור[ אור ולוא] יאיר לך ה[שמש אש]ר יזרח‬10 ]‫ו[אמרתה ה‬

]‫ ]על ה[ ֗צדיק לה‬11

4. Of David, a[bout… Inca]ntation 47 in the name of YHW[H. Invoke at an]y time 938F

5. the heav[ens. When ]he comes to you in the nig[ht,] you will [s]ay to him: 6. ‘Who are you, [oh offspring of] man and of the seed of the ho[ly one]s? Your face is a face of 7. [delu]sion and your horns are horns of ill[us]ion, you are darkness and not light, 8. [injust]ice and not justice.[ ]the chief of the army, YHWH [will bring] you [down] 9. [to the] deepest [Sheo]l, [and he will shut the] two bronze [ga]tes th[rough which n]o 10. light [penetrates,] and [the] sun [will] not [shine for you] tha[t rises] 11. [upon the] just man to

[And] you will say…

Here the reader is instructed to address the threatening spirit as a descendant of “man and the holy ones”, i.e. a product of the Watchers’ illicit mating with human women. The speaker defends himself by declaring the demon’s basically false and evil nature, and the fact that the demon is destined to be imprisoned by God in deepest Sheol, in accordance with his dark nature. This incantation differs substantially from the prayers discussed above in that the demon functions completely externally to the human being. This is the result of the

47

Martínez, Tigchelaar, and van der Woude translate “A[gainst incanta]tion. However, the gap between ‫ על‬and ‫ ]ל[חש‬indicates a missing word, probably a completion of the “Of David” heading typical of psalms. 389

difference in function between incantations and apotropaic prayers. The incantation addresses the demonic force directly, not addressing God but employing his name as a numinous formula to subdue it. As such, incantations naturally portray the demon as an external threatening force who is being directly confronted, in contrast to apotropaic prayers, which reflect the internal experiential view usual to prayer. Nevertheless, the incantation 11Q11 is comparable to these apotropaic prayers in its depiction of the Watchers’ descendant as a threatening force that does not exist in an orderly system, but that can be (and is) frightened and easily defeated by God.

4Q444 The internalized aspect of demonic influence found in Songs of the Sage is echoed in 4Q444, an apotropaic prayer 48 that has an affinity to Songs of the Sage that has long been noted. 49 4Q444 refers to the “bastard spirits” in a prayer similar to the excerpts of Songs of the Sage explored above. 4Q444 1-4i + 5:5-11 50 ]‫ואני מיראי ֗אל בדעת אמתו פתח פי ֗ומרוח קודשו ׺‬

1

‫לכ]ו[ ֗ל] אל[ ֯ה ויהיו לרוחי ריב במבניתי חוק]י אל‬ ֯ ‫ ֯א ֯מ ֯ת‬2 ‫בל]בבי‬ ֯ ‫אל‬ ֯ ‫וצדק שם‬ ֗ ‫ב[ ֯תכמי בשר ורוח דעת ובינה ֗א ֯מ ֗ת‬ 48

] 3

This text was dubbed 4QIncantation in its editio princeps, but as E. Eshel has determined, this text is a prayer, and not an incantation; see “Apotropaic Prayers,” 7981, 87-8. 49 See Chazon, “4QIncantation,” 371. 50 Text and translation follow Chazon, “4QIncantation”, except where otherwise noted. 390

]‫[ו֗ ה ותתחזק בחוקי אל ולהלחם ברוחי רשעה ולו֯ א ׺׺‬

] 4

‫ ארור‬vac ‫[ ֯ל] [ ֗ת ֗דיניה‬

] 5

‫הא ֯מת והמשפט‬ ֯ ֗‫[ ֗רו֗ ן‬

] 6

‫ממשלתה‬

‫תום‬ ֗ ‫[ ֯ה עד‬

] 7

‫מ[ ֯מז֗ רים ו֗ ֗רוח הטמאה‬

] 8

‫[׺׺ ֗ק ֗ל והגנ֗ ֗ב]ים‬

] 9

] ֯‫ארו‬ ֯ ‫צ[דיקים‬

] 10

‫תועב]ה‬ ֗ ‫[׺ ֯דת‬

] 11

1. And as for me, because of my fearing God, with his true knowledge he opened my mouth; and from his holy spirit [

]

2. truth to a[l]l[ the]se. They became spirits of controversy in my (bodily) structure; law[s of God] 3. [

in ]innards 51 of flesh. And a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and 942F

righteousness, God put in [my] he[art ] 4. [

] And strengthen yourself by the laws of God, and in order to fight against the

spirits of wickedness, and not [

]

5. [

] its judgements. vacat Cursed be

6. [

] of the truth and of the judgement.

7. [

] until the completion of its dominion

8. [

ba]stards and the spirit of impurity

9. [

] and the thieve[s

10. [

ri]ghteous ones [

]

11. [

] abominati[on

]

]

As in the Songs of the Sage, here, too, the speaker is a righteous “God-fearer.” Yet he must contend with sparring spirits within him who combat the good qualities 51

Chazon translates “blood vessels”; see n. 40 in chapter 3 above. 391

implanted in him by God. 52 As in Jubilees and Songs of the Sage, the laws of God are invoked as a means of fighting these “spirits of wickedness.” 53 In the continuation of the prayer, the “bastards” are mentioned alongside the “spirit of impurity,” apparently as demonic forces that distress the God-fearing speaker. The prayers 4Q444 and Songs of the Sage and the incantation in 11Q11 portray the Watchers’ spirit descendants as anarchic forces that directly afflict the righteous, and not as part of the divine system set forth in the book of Jubilees. These prayers also provide evidence that another idea in Jubilees was not assimilated, namely the limitation or even abnegation of spirits’ power to cause sin among the righteous. The limitation set forth in the book of Jubilees was not translated into the daily experience of those petitioners who recited the apotropaic prayers discussed here. In the worldview that informs these prayers, evil spirits are a constant threat to the righteous. Fearing God does not preclude one’s vulnerability to demonic influence. The prayers of 4Q444 and Songs of the Sage also depict an aspect of the Watchers’ descendants not found in the Jubilees narrative, namely an internal view of 52

A. Hogeterp, “The Eschatology of the Two Spirits Treatise Revisited,” RevQ 23 (2007): 255-6, notes the parallels between this outlook and the stance found in the “Two Ways” section of the Treatise of the Two Spirits (discussed below). These similarities will be discussed further below in the analysis of the Treatise in chapter 13. 53 As mentioned earlier, M. Kister has noted the apotropaic nature of the laws of God in Second Temple texts, specifically against demonic influence; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 169. However, this study has shown that the power of the law in preventing sin as presented in Second Temple texts was not restricted to demonic influence, but was considered a means of preventing sin from any source; see chapters 5 and 7 above. 392

these demonic forces. In these prayers, the spirits have entered the petitioner’s insides and battle with the laws of God and the positive qualities that God has planted within him. 54 In these prayers it is the speaker’s own internal experience of the spirits that troubles him. Unlike the incantation 11Q11, these spirits are described not as fearsome from without, but as threatening from within. Thus, these prayers integrate the external demonic view of sin into the internal experience of prayer. The integration of internal and external views of sin is by no means atypical of apotropaic prayer. In fact, while this integration does not reflect the Watchers narrative in Jubilees, it does echo another section of Jubilees: Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12:19-21. As discussed in the previous chapter, Abram’s prayer indicates that demons may rule the human inclination. Abram’s prayer thereby integrates the belief that the human inclination causes sin with a belief in the ability of demonic forces to cause sin. Songs of the Sage and 4Q444 integrate internal and external views of sin in a different way: the external becomes internal when demonic forces enter the human bodily frame and do battle within it.

54

A similar view may be reflected in 1Q36 (1QHymns) which mentions “spirits of rebellion” (fragment 2, ‫)רוחות פשע‬, “in innards of flesh” (fragment 14, ‫)בתכמי בשר‬, and seems to refer to the nĕpīlīm (fragment 16, ‫)ונפילי בש׺׺׺ל׺יכה‬. However, due to the fragmentary nature of this text, this is impossible to determine with any certainty. 393

The Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s Prayer in the Aramaic Levi Document Another variation of the integrated view of demonic and human sources of sin can be found in the Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer in ALD. These nonsectarian prayers were discussed in the previous chapter due to their description of demonic rule and their terminological parallels in Jubilees. Here they will be investigated in their entirety in order to explore their approach to sin.

The Plea for Deliverance

As already noted, the Plea for Deliverance is a prayer that has survived as part

of the Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. It includes biblical terminology while lacking the terminology typical of the Qumran community, although it addresses themes similar to those in sectarian texts. 55 It is therefore safe to conclude that this is a prayer that was composed outside the community, or before its existence. The prayer (11Q5 [11QPs-a] XIX.1-18) is cited in its entirety below. 56 ‫כי לוא רמה תודה לכה ולוא תספר חסדכה תולעה‬

1

‫חי חי יודה לכה יודו לכה כול מוטטי רגל בהודיעכה‬

2

‫חסדכה להמה וצדקתכה תשכילם כי בידכה נפש כול‬

3

‫ה‬Â‫ה‬È ‫חי נשמת כול בשר אתה נתתה עשה עמנו‬

4

‫כטובכה כרוב רחמיכה וכרוב צדקותיכה שמע‬

5

55

As noted by Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 76. Text follows Sanders, Psalms Scroll, translation my own except where otherwise noted. (Translation of lines 15-16a loosely follows that proposed by Greenfield, “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms,” 312.) 56

394

‫ה בקול אוהבי שמו ולוא עזב חסדו מהםה‬Â‫ה‬È

6

‫ה עושה צדקות מעטר חסידיו‬Â‫ה‬È ‫ברוך‬

7

‫חסד ורחמים שאגה נפשי להלל את שמכה להודות ברנה‬

8

‫חסדיכה להגיד אמונתכה לתהלתכה אין חקר למות‬

9

‫הייתי בחטאי ועוונותי לשאול מכרוני ותצילני‬

10

‫ה כרוב רחמיכה וכרוב צדקותיכה גם אני את‬Â‫ה‬È

11

‫שמכה אהבתי ובצלכה חסיתי בזוכרי עוזכה יתקף‬

12

‫ה לחטאתי‬Â‫ה‬È ‫לבי ועל חסדיכה אני נסמכתי סלחה‬

13

‫וטהרני מעווני רוח אמונה ודעת חונני אל אתקלה‬

14

‫בעווה אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה מכאוב ויצר‬

15

‫ה שבחי ולכה קויתי‬Â‫ה‬È ‫רע אל ירשו בעצמי כי אתה‬

16

‫ישמחו אחי עמי ובית אבי השוממים בחונכה‬ ֯ ‫כול היום‬

17

‫׺׺׺] [׺ לם אשמחה בכה‬

18

1. For a maggot cannot thank you and a worm cannot tell your kindness 2. “the living, the living can give thanks to you” (Isa 38:19). All those who totter will praise you when you make known 3. your kindness to them and you enlighten them with your righteousness. For in your hand is the soul of all 4. life, the breath of all flesh you have given. Do with us, Lord, 5. according to your goodness, the greatness of your mercy and the multitude of your righteous deeds. 57 The Lord 948F

6. has heard the voice of those who love his name, and he has not removed his kindness from them. 7. Blessed is the Lord who does righteous deeds, who crowns his faithful ones

57

Loosely following Sanders. 395

8. with kindness and mercy. My soul cries out 58 to praise your name, to acclaim with joy 9. your kindnesses, to tell of your faithfulness. Your praise has no limit. To death 10. I was (destined) for my sins, and my transgressions sold me to Sheol, but you saved me, 11. Lord, according to the greatness of your mercy and the multitude of your righteous deeds. I too 12. loved your name and have sought shelter in your shadow. 59 When I remember your strength, my heart 13. is fortified, and I rely on your kindnesses. Forgive, Lord, my sin 14. and purify me from my sin. Grant me a spirit of faithfulness and knowledge. May I not stumble 15. in transgression. Let not a satan rule over me, nor a spirit of impurity; let pain and evil 16. inclination not have control over me. For you Lord are my praise and for you I have hoped 17. throughout the day. My brothers will rejoice with me, as well as my father’s house, who are amazed at your favour 18. [

] I shall be glad in you.

The Plea for Deliverance draws heavily on biblical verses. The opening declaration that the dead do not praise God (and its accompanying implication that God should be merciful to his subjects) is drawn from Isa 38:17-18, and its terminology draws from Job 24:20. The description of God’s power over all life in lines 3-4 similarly reflects Job 12:10. 58 59

Following Sanders. Following Wise, Abegg, and Cook, “11QPsa (11Q5) (non-canonical segments).” 396

In lines 9-11 the speaker declares that he would have died due to his sins if not for the tremendous mercy and kindness of God. Consequently he asks God to forgive him for these sins and to purify him, and to grant him a “spirit of faithfulness and knowledge” (lines 13-14). Until this point the Plea for Deliverance does not diverge greatly from the approach to sin found in biblical psalms and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Sins are actions that have consequences, above all death. 60 In order to avoid death one must be forgiven for one’s sins by God. The purification of the speaker, presented in line 14, is part of this forgiveness. 61 Purification of past sins is found prominently in Ps 51 (see 51:4, 9). In fact, the structure of this section of the Plea is apparently based on Ps 51. As noted in the previous chapter, Ps 51 begins with an appeal for purification from past sins, and in v. 12 follows this with a request for a “renewed” creation, including a pure heart and an upright spirit. 62 In the Plea for Deliverance, the request to be purified of past sins (lines 13b-14a) is similarly followed by a request for internal positive change (line 14b).

60

See Exod 28:43; Lev 22:9; Num 18:22,32; 1 Sam 2:25; Jer 31:2; and especially Ezek 3:17-21, 18:5-20 ff., 33:7-20. 61 For an overview of the connection between impurity and sin in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple texts, see ch. 2 and notes 18 and 22 ad loc. 62 See A. Klein, “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 and 1QS,” in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (ed. D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz; FAT 2. Reihe 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 173, and Pfeiffer, “‘Ein reines Herz’”. 397

The psalmist in Ps 51 is certain that following the requested internal change, he will be fully equipped to bring sinners back to the correct path (51:15). However, for the author of the Plea, an internal change executed by God is not enough. Even after the granting of a “spirit of faithfulness and knowledge” (comparable to the “upright spirit” of Ps 51:12), there are evil forces that must be kept at bay. “Let not a satan rule over me, nor a spirit of impurity; let pain and inclination to evil not have control over me” (lines 15-16). These “powers” are in fact an assortment of evil. They include a “satan,” 63 a “spirit of impurity,” physical pain/illness and an “evil inclination.” It is most likely that the “spirit of impurity” is the expression of an internal quality, akin to the positive and negative spirits in the Barkhi Nafshi text (discussed in chapter 2). 64 This

63

As noted in the previous chapter, “satan” in this passage is a category of demons rather than a proper name; see n. 84 in chapter 9 above. 64 The use of the term rûaḥ to denote an abstract quality in Second Temple texts may have developed from biblical use, as seen in Is 4:4 and 28:6 (‫רוח משפט‬, “spirit of justice”), while the use of rûaḥ to denote a quality of the individual may have developed from rûaḥ in phrases denoting specific dispositions such as jealousy (‫ )רוח קנאה‬in Num 5:14, 30 or from the idiomatic use of rûaḥ to denote specific human qualities (e.g. ‫רוח‬-‫ ארך‬,‫רוח‬-‫)קצר‬. The development evident in Second Temple texts may also have been influenced by that of the Persian term mēnōg. S. Shaked notes that in late Pahlavi (Middle Persian) writings, the term mēnōg (commonly translated “spirit”) represents at least three distinct notions: (a) an abstract quality, such as truth or lack of truth; (b) a quality or psychological urge operating within the individual person, such as a person’s truthfulness, falsehood, etc.; (c) a personified entity (i.e., a divine or demonic power) active on the individual level and on a cosmic scale; see Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; 4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1:317. While it is difficult to know for certain whether the Persian use of mēnōg influenced the parallel use of rûaḥ in 398

identification is supported by the appearance of the term “spirit of faithfulness and knowledge” to denote a desired internal quality in line 14. 65 Nevertheless, in the Plea for Deliverance all of these evil forces may “rule” the speaker. As noted in the previous chapter, the language of line 15 draws from Ps 119:133b, “may no sin rule over me.” However, the author of the Plea for Deliverance has interpreted “sin” to include all the forces that may be considered evil or may lead

Jewish circles, especially as the written evidence in Pahlavi post-dates Second Temple writings significantly, the parallels are intriguing. Certainly the use of rûaḥ in Jewish writings of this period shows the variation described above, as noted by Shaked. However, there are additional uses of rûaḥ found in Second Temple texts, particularly in the texts of the Qumran community. These include (a) the use of rûaḥ to denote human beings themselves (rûaḥ bāśār “spirit of flesh” in the Hodayot, rûaḥ in Hodayot VII.26, and rûaḥ tô‘â “an erring spirit” in Hodayot IX.24 ); (b) a continuation of the biblical use of rûaḥ to denote life or breath (as in 4Q272 [4QDg] 1ii 1, 4Q418 126ii 8, and 4Q385 [4QpsEzeka] 2 7 in a paraphrase of Ezek 37:9); and (c) the use of rûaḥ to represent a quantifiable attribute that allows for the categorization of the group member (as in CD XX.24, 1QS IV.26, and 4Q279 [4QFour Lots] 5 5). It is perhaps a combination of this third Qumran use and the second meaning of mēnōg noted by Shaked that is behind the intriguing reference in the fragmentary 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer (4Q477 2 ii 4): [‫“ העון עמו וגם רוח פארה עמ̇]ו‬the offence is with him and also haughty spirit (is) with [him]”; text and translation follow E. Eshel, “477. 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer,” in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part I (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 480-1. 65 Contra Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 205 and A. Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. H. Lichtenberger, D. Römheld, and A. Lange; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 260-1. Flusser argues that the “spirit of impurity” here is an actual spirit, citing the “impure demons” of Jubilees, and the impure spirits of Mark, Luke, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, without noting the parallels in the text under discussion. Lange focuses on the parallel between the “spirit of impurity” and “satan,” concluding that the spirit of impurity designates a demonic being and not a “state of mind.” 399

to sin. 66 The petitioner asks to be saved from all evil that may afflict his person, physical and mental, 67 external “satan” and internal “inclination.” 68 Levi’s Prayer Levi’s prayer in the third chapter of the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) bears some similarity to the Plea for Deliverance, and scholars have posited that it is dependent on the Plea 69 or draws from analogous prayer traditions. 70 However, as

66

Such an interpretation may lie behind the the possible citation of Exod 34:7,

‫[“ ]הנ[שא ﬠואן ופשﬠ‬He who rem]oves sin and iniquity,” in the adjuration of illness-

causing demons found in line 4 of 4Q560, an incantation text. Alternatively, this text may refer to sin-causing demons, as assumed by Stuckenbruck, “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview,” 79. 67 D. Flusser explains the inclusion of physical pain here as part of a gradual expansion of apotropaic prayers to non-spiritual dangers, which would reach its full form in rabbinic apotropaic prayer; see Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers,” 204. What is most unusual in this prayer, however, is not the inclusion of disease, but the inclusion of disease in a list that focuses on sin-causing forces. 68 Contra Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262. Lange interprets this verse as saying that the satan and spirit of impurity rule through pain and an evil inclination. However, the parallel between the two parts of the verse is highlighted by the parallel verbs šlṭ and ršh (found in hendiadys in later texts; see the discussion in chapter 9). Both verbs, while differing in their exact connotation, indicate that the subject may have some form of control over the speaker. Hence there is no substantial differentiation in this prayer between a satan and spirit of impurity on the one hand and pain and an evil inclination on the other. C. Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (WUNT 2/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 43, has proposed that the spirit of impurity and the satan are external forces, while pain and the evil inclination are internal pressures. However, as noted above, “spirit” is used in this prayer to denote an internal quality, while pain is fundamentally different from an evil inclination, and not only because it is not generally portrayed as a cause of sin. M. Kister has suggested that the inclusion of pain/illness in these lines of Plea for Deliverance may be due to a combination of the beliefs that illness is the result of sin and that illness is caused by demons; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 170. 69 Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262. 400

noted by L. T. Stuckenbruck, despite this common ground, the Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer take different approaches. 71 Like the Plea for Deliverance, ALD is a text produced outside the Qumran community. It belongs to the “testament” genre; it is a narrative retelling of part of Genesis in the framework of a testament given by Levi to his sons before his death. As noted in the previous chapter, the prayer included in the third chapter of ALD was found in an Aramaic fragment at Qumran (4Q213a fragment 1) and in an 11th century Greek copy. The prayer in ALD 3:1-18 is uttered by the priestly forefather Levi, and therefore it is not surprising that, unlike the Plea, the prayer in ALD mentions no past sins. Also unlike the Plea for Deliverance, this prayer makes a distinction between an internal inclination to sin and external forces, even though both are the subject of the prayer. The relevant section of the prayer in its Aramaic reconstruction (completed by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, based on the Qumran texts and the Greek copy) 72 is as follows; Aramaic reconstructed from the Greek is indicated by brackets.

70

Stuckenbruck, “Prayers of Deliverance,” 152. Stuckenbruck, op. cit. 72 Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document. The verses are numbered according to the Greek text. The Greek text and the Aramaic fragment as found at Qumran (4Q213a [4QLevib] 1 1-18) read as follows: 5. μάκρυνον ἀπ’ἐμοῦ, κύριε, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄδικον καὶ διαλογισμὸν τὸν πονηρὸν καὶ πορνείαν καὶ ὕβριν ἀπόστρεψον ἀπ’ἐμοῦ 6. δειχθήτω μοι, δέσποτα, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ βουλὴν καὶ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν καὶ ἰσχύν δόσ μοι. 7. ποιῆσαι <τὰ> ἀπέσκοντά σοι καὶ εὑρεῖν χάριν ἐνώπιόν σου 71

401

‫ ארחק ]מני מרי רוח עויה ורעיונא ב[אישא וזנותא דחא ]מני‬5 ‫ אחזיני מרי רוח קודשא ועטה וח[כמה ומנדע וגבורה ]הב לי‬6 ‫ למעבד די שפיר קדמך ולא[שכחה רחמי>ן< קדמיך‬7 ‫֯דשפיר ודטב קדמיך‬

[‫ ]לשבחה מלליך עמי מרי‬8

[‫ ]ו[ ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן ]לאטעני מן ארחך‬9 ‫ ]ורחם ע[לי מרי וקרבני למהוא לכה ]עבד‬10 Translation of reconstructed text: 73 964F

5

Make far from me, my Lord, the unrighteous spirit and evil thought, and fornication turn away74 from me. 965F

6

Let there be shown to me, 75 O Lord, the holy spirit, and grant me counsel and 96F

wisdom and knowledge and strength, 7

in order to do that which is pleasing to you and ﬁnd mercy76 before you, 967F

8. καὶ αἰνεῖν τοὺς λόγους σου μετ’ἐμοῦ, κύριε. [8b is missing in the Greek] 9. Καὶ μὴ κατισχυσάτω με πᾶσ σατανᾶσ πλανῆσαί με ἀπὸ τῆς ὀδοῦ σου. 10. καὶ ἐλέησόν με καὶ προσάγαγέ με εἶναί σου δοῦλος καὶ λατρεῦσαί σοι καλῶς. 4Q213a [4QLevib] 1 1-18 ‫[ ֯ארחת קשט ארחק‬ 12 ‫א‬ ‫ב[איש וזנותא דחא‬ 13 ‫ח[כמה ומנדע וגבורה‬ 14 ‫לא[שכחה רחמיך קדמיך‬ 15 ‫[ ֯דשפיר ודטב קדמיך‬ 16 ‫ו[ ֯אל תשלט בי כל שטן‬ 17 ‫ע[ל̇י̇ מ̇ר̇י וקרבני למהוא לכה‬ 18 bottom margin 73 Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 61, 63, except where otherwise noted. 74 Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel add the Greek here as follows: “Make far from me, my Lord, the unrighteous spirit, and evil thought and fornication, and turn pride away from me.” 75 The translation in the passive proposed by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel is closer to the Greek (δειχθήτω μοι) than to the Aramaic; nevertheless, the Greek is preferred, given that the Aramaic is merely an attempted reconstruction. 402

8

and to praise your words with me, 77 O Lord. . . . that which is pleasant and good before you.

9

And let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path.

10 And have mercy upon me, my Lord, and bring me forward, to be your servant and to minister 78 to you. In this prayer the request for the removal of negative, sin-causing qualities precedes the request for positive qualities, unlike the structure of Plea for Deliverance but similar to that of the Barkhi Nafshi prayer explored in chapter 2. 79 The negative qualities that must be removed include a spirit of unrighteousness, fornication (here denoting straying from God), 80 and evil thought. 81 Like the “spirit of impurity” in the Plea, the “spirit of unrighteousness” is not a separate entity, but an internal tendency of the human being. So, too, are the evil thought and “fornication” with which it is grouped. These negative internal tendencies must be removed before the granting of 76

Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel translate “favour,” but I have chosen to translate “mercy” in order to maintain a consistent translation of ‫ רחם‬in this study. 77 This peculiar phrase reflects the Greek, καὶ αἰνεῖν τοὺς λόγους σου μετ’ἐμοῦ. 78 Again, Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel translate with the Greek “to minister well.” 79 Contra A. Lange, who sees the request for good qualities in 3:6 paralleled in the plea in 3:9 for freedom from a satan’s rule; see Lange, “‘Spirit of Impurity’,” 262. Lange notes that this satan causes unethical behavior, and is therefore paralleled by the positive qualities requested in 3:6. However, the juxtaposition of the negative traits in 3:5 with the positive traits listed in 3:6 indicates that it is these two verses that describe the precisely opposing forces. 80 As in almost all appearances of the noun in the Hebrew Bible; see Num 14:33; Jer 3:2, 3:9, 13:27; Ezek 23:27. 81 The Greek text includes ἥβριν in this list, but there is no corresponding term in the Aramaic manuscript; see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 127. H. Eshel notes the similarity between this list and the three “nets of Belial” in CD IV.15, discussed further below; see “‘Three Nets of Belial’,” 254-5. 403

“the holy spirit” 82 and of counsel, wisdom, knowledge, and strength. 83 The structure of this prayer may be an interpretation of Ps 51, translating the purification from sin (51:4, 9) which precedes the granting of an upright spirit (51:12) as the removal of all sin-causing tendencies which must precede the granting of positive qualities. Only after Levi requests the rectification of his internal constitution does he ask for help against external forces, in an echo of Ps 119:133b that is almost identical to line 15 of the Plea for Deliverance: “And let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path”(ALD 3:9). 84 The author of this prayer was not concerned with only a single source of sin. Like the author of the Plea for Deliverance, he was troubled both by sin-causing human qualities and by demons that can lead even the correctly-spirited human astray. The Plea and Levi’s prayer address this dual concern in different ways. The Plea portrays internal and external forces as equivalent, included in the same list of evil forces, while the prayer in ALD is principally concerned with internal qualities,

82

M. Kister notes that in Qumran texts, as in Christian texts, it is the “holy spirit” that drives away evil spirits, and that there is a close connection between this “holy spirit” and knowledge; see Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 178. 83 As noted by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 128, the terms “wisdom and knowledge and strength” are derived from Isa 11:2, where the future Davidic king is described as bestowed with “a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion and reverence for God.” It is because of these internal changes requested of God that the prayer begins with noting God’s knowledge of the human heart; see Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 212-3. 84 This request, apparently not included in Levi’s previous entreaty, further confirms that the “spirit of unrighteousness” mentioned previously is not a separate entity, but a human quality. 404

addressed at length, and only later refers to the possible effect of an external and demonic sin-causing force. The fact that the deterrence of the demonic force must be addressed separately indicates that, in the view of the prayer’s composer, demonic forces can affect even a human who enjoys a righteous constitution.

Comparison of Sectarian and Nonsectarian Prayers The Plea and Levi’s prayer, like “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444, reflect a complex view of sin that includes both internal and external/demonic components. However, the two pairs of prayers differ from each other in the way they portray sincausing forces, partly as the result of the sectarian nature of “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444. Most notably, the Plea and Levi’s prayer lack the periodization of evil found in the sectarian prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444. Both “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444 mention demonic forces in the context of a period of rule (see above, 4Q510 1 7,8; 4Q511 35 6, 8; 4Q444 1-4i+5 7). This framework implies that, during the present period, that is, the period before the eschaton, there has been some kind of divine ceding of power to these forces. However, no such periodization is found in the ALD prayer or in the Plea for Deliverance. Both of these nonsectarian prayers put demonic forces on a par with negative internal qualities, as forces that may lead to sin but are not connected to any particular time period.

405

The “rule” of evil forces during the present period as depicted in “Songs” and 4Q444 may reflect cosmic dualism, as defined broadly by J. Frey: the division of the world and of humanity into two opposing forces of good and evil. 85 However, no hint of cosmic dualism is found in the ALD prayer and the Plea. 86 According to the taxonomy of dualism presented by J. Frey, 87 all four prayers that have been discussed in this chapter display psychological dualism, in which the contrast between good and evil is internalized and seen to be comprised of impulses within the human being. 88 This psychological dualism is evident in the contrast of good and bad qualities within the petitioner described in each of these prayers. However, there is no hint in Levi’s prayer or in the Plea for Deliverance that evil forces have cosmic standing or that they command human forces. Even in the sectarian prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444, this cosmic standing can only be deduced from the periodization of evil that is presented. The sectarian prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444 also differ from the nonsectarian prayers in the degree of psychological dualism that they describe. The 85

Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 283. Contra Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 216-7. Drawnel asserts that the dualism in ALD is similar to the dualistic perspective found in the Testament of Amram, discussed below. However, the angelic characters who divide humanity between them in the Testament of Amram are nowhere found in ALD. (In fact, these characters are never explicitly called “spirits” in the Testament of Amram.) The contrasting positive and negative characteristics called “spirits” in ALD have more in common with the contrasting characteristics of the Barkhi Nafshi text than with angels; see n. 64 above. 87 Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 282-5. 88 Of course, like every other text in the present study, they also display ethical dualism, that is, the basic contrast between good and evil. 86

406

negative qualities mentioned in the nonsectarian prayers do not actually cause “battles” within the speaker, in contrast to “Songs” and 4Q444. It seems likely that the more extreme form of psychological dualism portrayed via these “battles” is a sectarian development. 89 The comparison with Plea for Deliverance and Levi’s prayer here demonstrates that the periodization and limited cosmic dualism found specifically in the sectarian apotropaic prayers “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444 are not a customary aspect of apotropaic prayer. In spite of this, these ideas form an important part of the Qumran worldview, particularly regarding sin, as will become clearer in the course of this analysis. The contrasting positive and negative “spirits” in ALD and the Plea have sometimes been seen as the precursors of those in the Treatise of the Two Spirits, found in the Community Rule (1QS III.13-IV.26). 90 While the psychological dualism reflected in ALD and the Plea may well have influenced the Treatise, the vague dualism of these texts is a far cry from the consistent dualistic system presented within the Treatise of the Two Spirits, discussed at length in chapter 13. In the Treatise, the “Prince of Light” and the “Angel of Darkness” are the sources of the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of falsehood” respectively, and each of these spirits engenders in turn a host of other qualities. The connection between cosmological, ethical and 89

M. Kister has connected these “battles” with the war-like experience of the Qumran community; see Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 522. 90 See Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 33-34, 125-6. 407

psychological dualism, so central to the Treatise, 91 is completely absent from ALD and the Plea. Also absent from these prayers is the idea, fundamental to the Treatise, that the righteous are under the authority of the “Prince of Light” while the wicked are under the authority of the “Angel of Darkness.” The determinism inherent in this idea is not to be found in any of the prayers analyzed above, whether sectarian or nonsectarian. In ALD, the Plea, “Songs of the Sage” and 4Q444, it is the righteous petitioner who fears that he will be affected by evil demons. It is surprising that the sectarian prayers analyzed above lack both a connection between cosmic and psychological dualism and the determinism central to the “Treatise.” This absence will be explored further below in the context of an analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in chapter 13.

91

See Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 166. 408

XI. Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll

The demonic figure of Belial is prominent in Qumran texts. 1 In the Hebrew Bible, the term bĕlīya‘al indicates wickedness, without any particularly demonic overtones. The word bĕlīya‘al appears in the Bible as a modifier, usually as the nomen rectum in construct phrases indicating evil people or things. 2 Only rarely does bĕlīya‘al appear in purely nominal form (cf. 2 Sam 23:6, Nah 1:11, 2:1), 3 and only in Nah 2:1 is the term bĕlīya‘al used to denote personified evil (most likely a reference to the king of Assyria). 4 The use of the term bĕlīya‘al to denote general wickedness is also evident in Second Temple period and Qumran texts, such as the Hodayot, where 1

See Steudel, “God and Belial,” 332-3 and D. Dimant, “Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy,” RevQ 24 (2009): 17. Dimant identifies the depiction of Belial as the supreme leader of evil as a sectarian marker. See also Dimant, “Belial and Mastema.” 2 See chapter 9 regarding bĕnê bĕlīya‘al (“sons/children of belial”) and Dimant’s overview in Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 237-9. 3 Contra Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 76, who argues that bĕlīya‘al in Ps 18:5 is a proper name. His argument is based on the appearance of the identical phrase naḥălê bĕlīya‘al in the Hodayot (1QHa) XI.30, 33, in a passage that Osten-Sacken interprets as referring to the character Belial. However, as noted by Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 238 n. 12, even if Osten-Sacken’s interpretation of the passage in the Hodayot is correct, the composer of the Hodayot wrote in a different period than the composer of the psalms. By the time the composer of the Hodayot wrote, Belial was already in common use as a proper name, as witnessed by the texts discussed here and by Jubilees (1:19-21). It does not follow that such was the case when the psalms were composed. 4 Its meaning in Nah 2:1 is dependent on the appearance of the term “counselor of bĕlīya‘al” in Nah 1:11; D. L. Christensen, Nahum (AB 24F; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 234-5, 261. 409

the connotation of bĕlīya‘al generally conforms to its biblical meaning (see chapter 3). 5 However, by the Second Temple period Belial was also understood as the name of a demon, as seen in Jub. 1:19-21. Evidently the meaning of the term bĕlīya‘al had developed to signify a demonic, reified form of wickedness. 6 It is not possible to definitively determine the source of this idea, although in all probability it grew from a development of the personified meaning of bĕlīya‘al as it appears in Nah 2:1 combined with the wider biblical use of bĕlīya‘al to indicate evil and wickedness. The impetus for this development could have been the heightened interest in demonic forces during the Second Temple period, an interest which probably stemmed from the Jewish encounter with Persian thought. As explored in the previous chapter, in Jub. 1:19-21 Belial appears in parallel to the nations; his rule causes Israel to sin. In addition, Belial performs a satan-like function in the heavenly court and is consequently capable of “bringing charges” against Israel before God. However, in comparison to the appearance of Mastema in the book of Jubilees as a whole, the demon Belial appears only in Jubilees 1. The description of Belial in Jubilees may be seen as a precursor to the view at Qumran, but 5

See also Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 239. The appearance of bĕlīya‘al in (1QHa) XI.29 refers to reified evil, but not to the demon Belial, as attested by the phrase in which it appears: ‫“ וקץ חרון לכול בליעל‬and a period of wrath for all bĕlīya‘al,” i.e., for all evil; Davies, “War Texts,” 8-9. 6 It can thus be assumed with some certainty that Nah 2:1 was read by Qumran community members as referring to the demonic Belial, although this segment of the text is unfortunately missing from the community’s pesher of Nahum (4Q169). 410

as will be seen, the Qumran portrayal of Belial is far from identical to that found in Jubilees. There is no single “Qumran approach” to the role of Belial; Belial’s depiction differs in the various texts. 7 The analysis of Belial as he appears in Qumran texts is further complicated by the complex redactional history of certain central texts. In a pivotal study, P. von der Osten-Sacken investigated the presentation of Belial in the War Scroll in the context of the development of dualism evidenced in Qumran texts. 8 Osten-Sacken identified Belial as a critical component of the cosmic dualism that he proposed lay at the base of the War Scroll’s earliest layer. In contrast, J. Duhaime and P. Davies have concluded that Belial was added to the War Scroll at least in some measure as part of a secondary redactional layer. 9 Duhaime has also identified other texts where, he argues, the figure of Belial was added in secondary redactions. 10 The interpretation of Belial’s role is also a matter of debate. For example, in recent studies, some scholars have recognized that the appearance of Belial in

7

See Steudel, “God and Belial,” 338. Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 73-87. 9 Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking”; Davies, “War Texts,” 12-13. Duhaime proposes that Qumran dualism was originally ethical, and only later cosmological. Davies finds little original dualism in a broad survey of major Qumran texts, and reads the War Scroll as a reflection of traditions portraying a non-dualistic, nationalistic war. See also J. Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân,” RB 84 (1977): 210-38; idem, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III, 13-IV, 26),” RB 84 (1977): 566-94; and P. R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). 10 See Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII” and idem, “Dualistic Reworking.” 8

411

sectarian texts does not necessarily denote dualism. 11 The survey conducted over the following two chapters will include a careful investigation of the functions that Belial performs in different Qumran texts and the implications for the views of sin presented in each text, as well as any connections between them. Belial appears in several prominent Qumran texts, the most well-known being the Damascus Document (CD), the War Scroll, and the Community Rule. Belial’s appearance in the Community Rule as a demonic figure 12 is confined to a liturgical ceremonial text that is likely an interpolation from an independent text. 13 Therefore the appearance of Belial in the Damascus Document and the War Scroll will be explored in this chapter, while Belial’s function in the Community Rule will be studied in the next chapter together with the appearance of Belial in similar ceremonial texts found at Qumran.

11

See P. R. Davies, “Eschatology at Qumran,” JBL 104 (1985): 50-51. The passage in 1QS X.21 “and bĕlīya‘al I will not keep in my heart” ( ‫ובליעל לא‬ ‫ )אשמור בלבבי‬reflects the biblical meaning, as is evident from the following statement (X.21-22) that the speaker will also not speak “lewdness and deceit” (‫)נבלות וכחש‬. 13 Metso, Textual Development, 113. 12

412

Belial in the Damascus Document The name Belial appears five times in the Damascus Document. The first two of these are found in the passage at IV.12-19, 14 where Belial is described as free to act against Israel in the present age. 15 ‫ מצודו נבנתה הגדר רחק החוק ובכל השנים האלה יהיה‬12 ‫ בליעל משולח בישראל כאשר דבר אל ביד ישעיה ֗הנ֗ ביא בן‬13 ‫ פשרו‬vacat ‫ אמוץ לאמר פחד ופחת ופח עליך יושב הארץ‬14 ‫ שלושת מצודות בליעל אשר אמר עליהם לוי בן יעקב‬15 ‫ אשר הוא תפש בהם בישראל ויתנם פניהם לשלושת מיני‬16 ‫ השלישית‬16 <‫ הצדק הראשונה היא הזנות השנית ההין >ההון‬17 F98

‫ טמא המקדש העולה מזה יתפש בזה והניצל מזה יתפש‬18 ‫בוני החי֗ ץ אשר הלכו אחרי צו הצו הוא מטיף‬

‫ בזה‬19

12 his watchtower: “the fence is built, the boundary extends far”(Mic 7:11). But during all those years, 13 Belial will be set free 17 amidst Israel, as God spoke through the hand of the 9F

prophet Isaiah, son of 14 Amoz, saying, “Fear and a pit and a snare are upon you, O inhabitant(s) of the land” (Isa 24:17). vacat Its interpretation concerns 18 10F

14

Text and translation of all sections of the Damascus Document in this chapter follow Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD)” unless otherwise noted. 15 The term “the present age” used here and elsewhere in this study refers specifically to the age before the eschaton, typified by the existence of evil. 16 Editorial correction to ‫ ההון‬is generally accepted; see Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 10, n. 107 and Abegg, “CD,” n.p. 17 Schwartz translates “run unbridled”; the chosen translation is a more literal translation of the pu‘al of šlḥ represented here. 413

15 the three nets of Belial, of which Levi, the son of Jacob, said 16 that he (Belial) entrapped Israel with them, and he made (lit., placed) them (the nets) before them (Israel) (as if) 19 they were three types of 17 righteousness. The first is unchastity, the second wealth, 20 and the third 18 defilement of the sanctuary. He who escapes from this is caught by that and he who is saved from that is caught 19 by this. (…) “The builders of the barrier,” who walked after ṣw – the ṣw is the spitter… This passage describes the meaning behind the term “Belial’s dominion,” mmšlt bly‘l, a term found several times in Qumran texts to describe the imperfect age preceding the eschaton. 21 According to CD IV.12-13, this is the period in which Belial

18

Schwartz translates “This refers to.” The term pšr in the Dead Sea Scrolls generally refers to the interpretation of a biblical verse. 19 Reading ‫ פניהם‬as ‫ ;לפניהם‬it is difficult to understand the syntax of the phrase otherwise. Schwartz translates “making them seem as if.” The ultimate meaning is similar, as shown by a comparable statement in 4QBarkhi Nafshi (4Q434 1 i.9) ‫“ ויתן לפניהם מחשכים לאור‬and he made (lit. “put”) darkness into light before them.” 20 Schwartz (“Damascus Document (CD),” 19) translates “arrogance,” reading the original ‫( ההין‬hîn), and does not correct the word to ‫( ההון‬hôn), wealth, as do other editors; see n. 16 above. This reading is apparently an attempt by Schwartz to solve the problem of the gap between Belial’s nets and their referents in the following passage; see discussion below. Schwartz’s unusual choice is based on a hypothesized derivation from the word tāhînû (from thh) in Deut 1:41, referring to the decision of the Israelites to ascend the mountain following the episode of the spies (Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 19 n. 38, 21 n. 45). However, there is no evidence that Second Temple readers derived such a verb; the hypothesized verbal root hyn appears nowhere else in the Scrolls. 21 Particularly in the Community Rule (I.18; II.19) and the War Scroll (1QM XIV.9, 1QM XVIII.1; 4QMa [4Q491] 8-10 i.6). It is also found in 4QBerakhote (4Q290) 2, 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390) 2 i.4, and restored in 4QCatena A 1-4 8. 414

is set free among the children of Israel. 22 The “traps” he sets, meant to cause sin, seem impossible to escape. In the examples given for two of these traps in the continuation of the passage (CD IV. 19-V.11), they are explained as halakic disputes that exist between the community and its detractors. 23 They ensnare the unwitting who mistake these nets for “righteousness,” that is, they think that the “wrong” side of the halakic dispute is actually correct. The author explains that “fornication” refers to the practice of taking more than one wife practiced outside the community (IV.19-V.1), 24 and “defiling the sanctuary” is connected to not separating “clean and unclean” properly,

22

As noted by H. Kosmala, this line echoes Prov 17:11: ‫אַ� ְמ ִרי י ְ ַבקֶּשׁ ָרע וּ ַמ ְלאָ� אַ ְכז ִָרי‬ ‫שׁלַּח בּ ֹו‬ ֻ ְ ‫“ י‬A rebellious (man) seeks only evil, and a cruel messenger/angel will be sent against him” (translation my own); see Kosmala, “The Three Nets of Belial: A Study in the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament,” ASTI 4 (1965): 92; repr. in vol. 2 of Kosmala, Studies, Essays and Reviews (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978). 23 This passage functions as a critique of Judaism outside the community, as noted by Davies, Damascus Covenant, 108-9. Davies proposes that this dispute refers specifically to the “revealed” law, i.e. the interpretation of the Torah, as biblical prooftexts are subsequently provided as support for the community’s halakic position. 24 CD IV.19-V.1 ‫ בוני החי̇ץ אשר הלכו אחרי צו הצו הוא מטיף‬vacat ‫בזה‬ 19 ‫אשר אמר הטף יטיפון הם ניתפשים בשתים בזנות לקחת‬ 20 ‫שתי נשים בחייהם ויסוד הבריאה זכר ונקבה ברא אותם‬ 21 vacat ‫ובאי התבה שנים שנים באו אל התבה‬ 1 19 by this. (…) “The builders of the barrier,” who walked after ṣw – the ṣw is the spitter, 20 of who it is said, “they shall surely spit” (Mic 2:6) – are caught by two (snares). By unchastity, (namely,) taking 21 two wives in their lives, while the foundation of creation is “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). 1 And those who entered (Noah’s) ark went two by two into the ark… 415

to having relations with a woman during her menstrual period (V.6-7); 25 and to a marriage between a man and his niece (V.7-11a). 26

25

CD V.6-7

‫ויעזבם לו אל וגם מטמאים הם את המקדש אשר אין הם‬ 6 ‫מבדיל כתורה ושוכבים עם הרואה את דם זובה ולוקחים‬ 7 6 and God forgave him for them. And they also continuously polluted the sanctuary by not 7 separating according to the Torah, and they habitually lay with a woman who sees blood of flowing; and they marry… The apparent discrepancy between the community and popular practice may result from a different calculation of the days required for purity. 26 Resulting from what is explained by the composer as an overly-literal reading of Lev 18:13 to forbid only relations between a woman and her nephew: CD V.7-11a ‫מבדיל כתורה ושוכבים עם הרואה את דם זובה ולוקחים‬ 7 ‫ ומשה אמר אל‬vacat ‫איש את בת אחיהו ואת בת אחותו‬ 8 ‫אחות אמך לא תקרב שאר אמך היא ומשפט העריות לזכרים‬ 9 ‫הוא כתוב וכהם הנשים ואם תגלה בת האח את ערות אחי‬ 10 vacat ‫אביה והיא שאר‬ 11 7 separating according to the Torah, and they habitually lay with a woman who sees blood of flowing; and they marry 8 each one his brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter. But Moses said, “To your mother’s sister 9 you mother’s sister you may not draw near, for she is your mother’s near relation” (Lev 18:13). Now the precept of incest is written 10 from the point of view of males, but the same (law) applies to women, so if a brother’s daughter uncovers the nakedness of a brother of 11 her father, she is a (forbidden) close relationship. … The practice of a woman marrying her uncle derided here is identical to that later encouraged in rabbinic law, apparently as a means of polemic against a Zadokite or sectarian approach; see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (10 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 3:915 (Hebrew). For an overview of this dispute and the possible history of its development, see A. Shemesh, “The Laws of Incest in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Halakhah,” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy (JAJSup 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 85-91. 416

Recent scholarship has argued both for the importance of the “three nets” in the Qumran community and for the possibility that these were a more widely accepted allusion. The composer of this passage in CD “cites” the three nets of Belial as if from a version of the Testament of Levi (IV.15). H. Eshel has connected this citation to ALD 6:3, “First of all, be[wa]re my son of all fornication/recklessness (Ar. paḥaz; Gr. συνουσιασμοῦ) and impurity (Ar. ṭūm’ā; Gr. ἀκαθαρσίας) and of all harlotry (Ar. zĕnût; Gr. πορνείας),” 27 interpreting “recklessness” as avarice based on Jer 23:32 and Zeph 3:4 (and influenced by Mic 3:9-11). 28 Eshel follows M. Kister in drawing a parallel between the three nets of Belial and the three sections of Miqṣat Ma‘aśe HaTorah (MMT), a text recovered in several copies at Qumran (4Q394-399) that lists the reasons that the community separated from the majority (see 4Q397 IV.7-8). 29 According to Kister and Eshel, both CD and MMT show that the Qumran community 27

Eshel, “‘Three Nets of Belial.’” The text has survived in Aramaic in the Bodleian b manuscript from the Cairo Geniza, and in Greek in the Athos manuscript. The translation above follows Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 75; the Aramaic and Greek versions of 6:3 are transcribed at ibid., 74, as follows: ‫לקדמין הי>ז<דהר לך ברי מן כל פחז וטמאה ומן כל זנות‬ πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ ἀπὸ παντὸς συνουσιασμοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης πορνείας. 28 Eshel, “‘Three Nets of Belial’,” 249. Eshel also suggests that the link with paḥaz was suggested by the triple combination of paḥad, paḥat, and paḥ in Isa 24:17 and Jer 48:43. 29 Eshel, “‘Three Nets of Belial’,” 252-3; M. Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‘aśe haTorah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiẓ 68 (1999): 348. Kister parallels the sections of MMT with the three traps of Belial as follows: impurity of the Temple is parallel to most of MMT; fornication is parallel to MMT B.75-82; financial corruption is parallel to MMT C.5-7. (Line numbers follow the composite text proposed by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah [DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 44-63.) 417

attributed the schism to three difficulties with the leadership in Jerusalem, here exemplified in the “nets of Belial”: the financial corruption of the priestly establishment; differing purity and temple laws; and different laws regarding fornication. Nevertheless, texts outside of Qumran reflect similar triads, indicating a wider tradition. It is possible to find similar but not identical lists of three major sins in the Psalms of Solomon (8:9 ff; illicit sex, plundering of the sanctuary, and pollution of the sanctuary) and in Jub. 7:20 (fornication, uncleanness, and injustice/iniquity). 30 There are two basic implications of this passage in the Damascus Document. First, Belial’s nets cause sin. Second, they do so by causing a misunderstanding of the “correct” law, i.e. the law of the community, which is extrapolated from the biblical prooftexts cited in CD IV.19-V.11. 31 The “nets of Belial” thereby divide between members of the Qumran community and nonmembers, who are easily misled by

30

Davies, Damascus Covenant, 110. In explaining the imperfect match between the “nets” that are enumerated and the examples of them that are provided, Davies proposes that the “three traps” were a well-known allusion in this period, and that the examples and prooftexts in this passage are drawn from a second source, not related to the traps, that focused on sexual transgressions; ibid., 115-6. Explanations proposed by other scholars include the justification that the “two” in which people are caught in CD IV.20 (cited in n. 24) refer to two types of fornication (suggested by C. Rabin, A. Dupont-Sommer, J. Maier, E. Cothenet, and J. Murphy O’Connor; cited in Davies, ibid., 114 and n. 10 ad loc.) and that fornication is the first of two nets in which people are caught (proposed by M. Burrows, O. Schwarz, G. Jeremias, and H. Stegemann; cited in Davies, op. cit., 114 and notes 11, 12 ad loc.). 31 Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 243-4; Davies, Damascus Covenant, 109. See also Kosmala, “Three Nets of Belial”. Davies, op. cit., notes that the dependence on biblical prooftexts to prove the author’s point indicates that the mistakes are connected to the “revealed” law and not to laws that have only been revealed to members of the group. 418

Belial. The description of Belial’s nets corresponds to the declaration in 4Qpesher of the Psalms (4Q171) 1-10 ii.9-12 that the members of the community, “the community of the poor” (‘dt h’bywnym) will be saved from “all the traps of Belial.” 32 The nature of Belial’s activity is further explicated in the following passages. The first of these, CD V.11b-17a, describes the sins of Israel as a rejection of the correct law: the law of the community. ‫ וגם את רוח קדשיהם טמאו ובלשון‬vacat ...

11

‫ותוע ֗בה‬ ֗ ‫גדופים פתחו פה על חוקי ברית אל לאמר לא נכונו‬

12

‫הם מדברים בם כלם קדחי אש ומבערי זי֗ קות קורי‬

13

‫עכביש קוריהם וביצי צפעונים ביציהם הקרוב אליהם‬

14

‫לא ינקה כהר ביתו >כהרבותו< יאשם כי אם נלחץ כי אם למילפנים פקד‬

15

‫מעשיהם ויחר אפו בעלילותיהם כי לא עם בינות הוא‬ ֯ ‫אל את‬

16

... ‫הם גוי אבד עצות מאשר אין בהם בינה‬

17

11. … vacat They also polluted their holy spirits, and with a tongue of 32

This assertion in 4Q171 1-10 ii.9-12 is a pesher of Ps 37:11. ‫]ר[שע וענוים ירשו ארץ והתענגו על רוב שלום פשרו על‬ 9 ‫עדת האביונים אשר יקבלו את מועד התענית ונצלו מכול פח̇י‬ 10 [ ]‫בליעל ואחר יתענגו ]ב[כ̇ו̇ל ׺] [׺י הארץ והתד̇שנו ב̇כ̇ול תע׺׺‬ 11 va[cat ‫בשר‬ 12 9. wic]ked man. ‘And the afflicted will take possession of (the) land and will delight in abundant peace’ (37:11). Its interpretation concerns 10. the congregation of the Poor Ones, who will accept the appointed time of affliction, and they will be delivered from all the traps of 11. Belial. But afterwards they will delight [in] all [ ]y of the land and will grow fat in all tʿ[ ] 12. flesh. va[cat ] Text and translation follow M. P. Horgan, “Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 10-11. 419

12. blasphemies they opened (their) mouth against the statutes of God’s covenant, saying, “They are not right,” and abomination 13. they are speaking against them. All of them are 33 lighters of fire and burners of brands, webs of 14. a spider (are) their webs and eggs of vipers (are) their eggs. One who comes close to them 15. will not be exculpated. According to his increase (of sin) 34 he will be held guilty, unless he is 35 under duress. For in former days God took note 16. of their w[o]rks and his wrath was kindled against their perverse deeds. For it is not a people of discernment (Isa 27:11). 17. They are a nation void of counsel, 36 for they have not discernment. 37 … The passage cited above describes nonmembers’ public denigration of the community’s law. This incitement of the community and the rejection of the community’s law earn them God’s ire. The prooftexts brought in lines 16-17 indicate that nonmembers’ rejection of the correct law results from simple foolishness. The explanation of sin as foolishness is similar to the explanation for sin found throughout

33

Schwartz translates “They are all.” Schwartz translates the text without the modern editorial correction, ‫“ כהר ביתו‬As (at) the mountain, his house...” However, it is probable that the text originally read ‫כהרבותו‬, as acknowledged by Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls, 11 n. 126, and as translated above. 35 Schwartz translates “was.” 36 Schwartz translates “without counsel,” but the connotation of the Hebrew is stronger. 37 This is a paraphrase of Deut 32:28: ‫“ כִּי ג ֹוי אֹבַד עֵצ ֹות ֵהמָּה ְו ֵאין ָבּהֶם תּבוּנָה‬For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no discernment in them.” (Translation my own.) 34

. 420

wisdom literature as well as in Hellenistic thought. 38 However, when the passage continues this discussion in CD V.17b-VI.5, it contradicts this explanation of sin. ‫כי מלפנים עמד‬

...

17

‫משה ואהרן ביד שר האורים ויקם בליעל את יחנה ואת‬

18

vacat ‫אחיהו במזמתו בהושע ישראל את הראשונה‬

19

‫ ובקץ חרבן הארץ עמדו מסיגי הגבול ויתעו את ישראל‬vacat

20

‫ותישם הארץ כי דברו סרה על מצות אל ביד משה וגם‬

21

‫מאחר‬ ֗ ‫֗במשיחו֗ הקודש וינבאו שקר להשיב את ישראל‬

1

‫ ויקם מאהרן נבונים ומישראל‬vacat ‫אל ויזכר אל ברית ראשנים‬

2

‫חכמים וישמיעם ויחפורו את הבאר באר חפרוה שרים כרוה‬

3

‫נדיבי העם במחוקק הבאר היא התורה וחופריה הם‬

4

‫שבי ישראל היוצאים מארץ יהודה ויגורו בארץ דמשק‬

5

Col. VI

17.

For formerly

18. Moses and Aaron stood by the hand of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Yaḥne and 19. his brother in his plotting, when Israel was first saved vacat

38

For this approach in wisdom literature, see the description of sinning in Wisdom of Solomon 4:10-14, 12:23-25 and the contrast of wisdom with iniquity in Parables of Enoch 42:1-3. These texts continue in the path of biblical wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs. This understanding may also be reflected in certain Qumran sapiential texts such as the description of sinning as mistaken action in 4Q306 1 1, 2 4. In Hellenistic texts this explanation for sin can be found in Orphic fragments (Orphic frg. 233 Kern=337 Bernabé and frg. 49.95-97 Kern=396.14-15 Bernabé), the Pythagorean Golden Verses, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (256-57), and in Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus” (πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέραισιν ἀνοίαις). Plato later provides a similar explanation for evildoing, explaining that wickedness stems from a misunderstanding of the good (Leg. 716a-b). 421

20. vacat And at the time of the destruction of the land, the trespassers arose and led Israel astray; 21. and the land became desolate, for they spoke deviantly against the ordinances of God (given) through Moses, and also 1. against the anointed holy ones. And they prophesied falsely, so as to cause Israel to turn away from 2. God. And God recalled the covenant with the first ones, vacat and he raised up from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel 3. wise men; and he allowed them to hear. And they dug the well (of which it is written,) “princes dug the well; the nobles of the people 4. excavated it, 39 with a ruler” (Num 21:18). The “well” is the Torah and those who “dig” it are 5. the penitents of Israel who depart from the land of Judah and dwell in the land of Damascus. The passage at CD V.17-VI.4 compares the current sinning of Israel to an occurrence in the past, when Moses and Aaron, supported by the “prince of lights” were opposed by Belial’s emissaries, “Yaḥne and his brother,” a designation for the unnamed Egyptian magicians who oppose Moses and Aaron in Exod 7:8-13. 40 102F

Duhaime has proposed that the passage in lines 17c-19 is a secondary insertion. He notes that the text is continuous without this passage and that the passage adds new 39

Schwartz translates both the verbs in this verse (krwh, ḥprwh) as passive, apparently in order to maintain equivalence of syntax and lines between the Hebrew and its English translation. I have chosen to forego line equivalence in favor of translating the verbs as they appear. 40 These figures are later referred to as Jannes and Jambres in the eponymous pseudepigraphic work Jannes and Jambres and as Yoḥana and Mamra in b. Menaḥ. 85a. 422

vocabulary (such as the “prince of lights”) and new theological ideas. 41 Even if this passage was inserted as a secondary addition, however, in its present form it creates a framework for understanding the following passage, which bemoans the manner in which the “trespassers” led Israel astray. In CD V.20-VI.2, these false leaders are depicted as the reason for the rejection of the community’s laws by Israel as a whole. 42 The possibly inserted passage regarding Yaḥne and his brother establishes a parallel between Belial’s emissaries, who opposed the true Israelite leaders Moses and Aaron, and the false leadership of the “trespassers,” who oppose those raised up by God in VI.2-4. 43 Without the passage in 17c-19, these false leaders could be presumed to operate through mere foolishness. With the inclusion of the passage in 17c-19, it is clear that these false leaders are actually demonic emissaries. The picture is completed by the contrasting parallel between Moses and Aaron in 17c-19 and the trespassers’ denunciation of the commandments given through both Moses (V.21) and the anointed priests (VI.1) in the following passage. While the dualism reflected in V.17c-19, particularly the contrast between Belial and the prince of light, seems foreign to this section of the Damascus Document, it does provide a transition from the “traps of

41

Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 52-55. Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 212-6, identifies the “trespassers” here as Pharisees. While this is the most likely identification, this passage may in theory refer to the leaders of any group who have refused to accept the stringencies of the Qumran community. 43 See Davies, Damascus Covenant, 121, who draws a similar comparison. 42

423

Belial,” equated with the people’s foolishness in rejecting the “true” law, and the success of false leaders in fooling Israel with false prophecy (vi.1-2). Hence, Belial’s function in the larger passage shifts from justifying nonmembers’ foolishness in not accepting the community’s laws to explaining the success of evil leaders in misleading Israel. This shift is significant. In both cases the member has escaped the influence of Belial. However, in the second instance, any leader who opposes the community is not just misled by Belial, but is actually his emissary. The leaders of other groups have literally been “demonized.” No “lot” of Belial is mentioned here. The figure of Belial serves not to accuse nonmembers of belonging to the demonic leader, but rather to mitigate the guilt of nonmembers while exacerbating the guilt of their leaders. Unlike the role of the Watchers’ descendants in apotropaic prayers at Qumran described in the previous chapter, Belial serves not as a psychological explanation of sin for the member, but as a social explanation of why nonmembers do not join the community and why their “evil” leaders prosper. Belial thereby serves to demarcate the community from other social groups who have not chosen to join the community. Belial has caused nonmembers’ foolishness and their leaders’ evil instigation, but does not affect the community member. Belial’s role is not merely confined to causing sin, as is apparent in CD VIII.13. In CD VIII.1-3 Belial himself destroys evildoers: ‫והנסוגים הסגירו לחרב וכן משפט כל באי֗ בריתו אשר‬

424

1

‫לא יחזיקו באלה לפוקדם לכלה ביד בליעל הוא היום‬

2

‫ שרי יהודה אשר תשפוך עליהם העברה‬44 ‫אשר יפקד אל היו‬

3

F1026

1 But the backsliders they handed over 45 to the sword. And such is the judgment of all 1027 F

who entered his covenant, who 2 will not hold firmly to these (statutes): they will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial. That will be the day 3 when God will visit (upon them) “the princes of Judah were…” for you “will pour out upon them rage” (Hosea 5:10) 46 1028F

Those who suffer punishment at the hand of Belial seem to include two groups: nonmembers (the “backsliders”) and those who have joined the community (“all who entered his covenant”) but have broken its laws. In the continuation of the passage (CD VIII.5) these sinners are explicitly guilty of two of the three “nets of Belial” that 44

Schwartz reads ‫ היו‬as ‫ ;הין‬see n. 46 below. Schwartz translates “were handed over,” but ‫ הסגירו‬is in the active hip‘il form. 46 Schwartz reads ‫ היו‬as ‫ הין‬and translates “the arrogance of the princes of Judah”; however, besides the fact that ‫ הין‬as a noun for “arrogance” is not attested (see n. 20 above), CD VIII.3b-c is a paraphrase of Hos 5:10: ‫שׂ ֵרי י ְהוּדָ ה ְכּ ַמסִּיגֵי גְּבוּל ֲעלֵיהֶם ֶאשְׁפּ ֹו� ַכּ ַמּי ִם ֶעב ְָרתִ י‬ ָ ‫“ הָיוּ‬The officers/princes of Judah have acted like shifters of (field) boundaries; on them I will pour out my wrath like water.” The paraphrase therefore begins with the initial word of the verse, ‫היו‬. Further evidence for this explanation of ‫ היו‬is found in the more complete parallel text in CD XIX.14-16 (text and translation follow Schwartz): ‫בריתו אשר לא יחזיקו באלה החקים לפקדם לכלה ביד בליעל‬ 14 ‫הוא היום אשר יפקד אל כאשר דבר היו שרי יהודה כמשיגי‬ 15 ‫גבול עליהם אשפך כמים עברה כי באו }באו{ בברית תשובה‬ 16 14 his covenant who will not hold firmly to these statutes: They will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial. 15 That is the day when God will visit, as he said, “The princes of Judah were like those who move 16 border(s). I will pour out rage upon them like water.” For although they entered into a covenant of repentance… 45

425

have been enumerated: fornication (znwt) and wealth (hwn). 47 Moreover, these evildoers are identified in the continuation of the passage as those who did not separate from the people (VIII.8) and are further connected to the “builders of the barrier” (VIII.12) 48 who have been taken in by the lies of an evil leader (VIII.12-13). In this manner members who do not keep the law are equated with sinning nonmembers. This equation forms an effective warning to new and existing members appropriate to a covenantal text. The eschatological destruction of all nonmembers and straying members by Belial is an inevitable consequence of their rejection of community law. The depiction of Belial as punisher of evildoers reflects his description in Jub. 1:19-21, where Belial causes sin and also holds the role of accuser. Belial’s depiction may also be the result of a harmonistic reading of Jubilees that combines the figures of Belial and Mastema into one. If Mastema were considered identical to Belial, the depiction of a final punishment executed by Belial could reflect a reading of Jubilees 10:8, where Mastema describes himself as eventually punishing evildoers and requiring the spirits’ assistance before that time: “For they are meant for (the purposes

47

CD VIII.5

‫בוגדים ויתגוללו בדרכי זונות ובהון רשעה ונקום וניטור‬ 5 5 traitors, but rather wallowed in the ways of prostitutes (zwnwt) and wicked wealth (hwn), avenging and bearing grudges… 48 These “builders of the barrier” are likely the Pharisees; see Wacholder, New Damascus Document, 243. 426

of) destroying and misleading before my punishment because the evil of mankind is great.” Read as a whole, the passages of the Damascus Document cited above lead to the following understanding: Belial roams freely throughout a particular period, namely the present one. He causes sin by “trapping” Israel, perhaps through foolishness, into following the incorrect law. Belial is therefore behind the opposition to the “true” leaders of Israel, the leaders of the community, and is particularly represented by leaders outside the community. Surprisingly, Belial will destroy the evildoers himself in the eschaton. While members seem to be free of Belial, this is not the case for those members who do not follow community law. Belial’s role here is evidently not personal. He acts on the nation of Israel or on entire groups within it, serving to divide between the Qumran community and the rest of Israel, whom he has misled. He is behind the major mistakes of Israel. As noted above, the explanatory power of Belial as a force of evil is not psychological, but social. His activity explains the existence of misleading leaders as well as their success in leading Israel astray by convincing those outside the community not to follow the community’s law. Belial acts as a social divider within Israel, and the community’s members can understand that anyone outside of the community has somehow been influenced by Belial’s nefarious activities. 49 A member who fails to observe

49

M. Kister has reached the more extreme conclusion that in the thought of the community, all those outside the community are actively possessed by evil spirits 427

community law will find himself in the same predicament as the nonmember, and subject to Belial’s punishment in the eschaton. There is one final reference to Belial in the Damascus Document, CD XII.26. 50 ‫ כל איש אשר ימשלו בו רוחות בליעל‬vacat ‫את עיר המקדש בנדתם‬

2

‫ודבר סרה כמשפט האוב והידעוני ישפט וכל אשר יתעה‬

3

‫לחלל את השבת ואת המועדות לא יומת כי על בני האדם‬

4

‫משמרו ואם ירפא ממנה ושמרוהו עד שבע שנים ואחר‬

5

‫ אל ישלח את ידו לשפוך דם לאיש מן הג֗ ו֗ י֗ ֗ם‬vacat ‫י֗ בו֗ א אל הקהל‬

6

2 the city of the sanctuary with their pollution. vacat Each man whom the spirits of Belial rule 51 103 F

3 and speaks apostasy, in accordance with the judgment of (one who communicates with) a ghost or a familiar spirit shall he be judged. And 52 each man who errs and 1034F

4 profanes the Sabbath or the holy days shall not be put to death, for he is to be 5 guarded by the sons of man, and if he is healed of it, he shall be guarded for seven years; then 6 he may enter the assembly. Let no one stretch forth his hand to shed the blood of a man from the gentiles while those inside the community are immune to them; Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 172. However, this conclusion is belied by the prayers found at Qumran asking for deliverance from these spirits (see chapter 10), the language of the Damascus Document in CD IV-V, where Belial misleads rather than possesses, and the passage in the Damascus Document discussed below, CD XII.2-6, where the straying member is described as ruled by “spirits of Belial.” 50 Translation follows Baumgarten in Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” 51. 51 Baumgarten translates “Each man who is ruled by the spirits of Belial”; the translation above maintains the Hebrew word order. 52 Baumgarten translates “But.” 428

These lines are not easily reconciled with the other references to Belial in the Damascus Document, which depict Belial’s influence on a social level, not a personal one. C. Hempel argues that this passage is an interpolation seeking to promote the message of Jubilees, in her opinion reflecting both the reference to Belial in Jub. 1:20 and the remedies that counteract evil spirits in Jub. 10:12-14 as a source of the idea that one can be “healed” of Belial’s spirits. 53 However, a careful reading of the transgressions mentioned in this passage shows connections to other sections of CD, particularly the passage concerning Belial’s influence in IV.12-19 and the passage regarding evil leadership in V.20-VI.2 discussed above. The passage at CD XII.2-6 mentions two transgressions, which result in two different punishments: (1) dbr srh, “speaking apostasy”; (2) a “straying” (’šr yt‘) that results in the desecration of the Sabbath and holidays. The punishment for the first is death, while the perpetrator of the second is kept in supervised custody54 until such time as the transgressor is “cured,” a period which may last up to seven years. As noted above, in CD iv.12 ff., Belial is behind the mistaken following of incorrect halakah. In XII.2-6, the conflict between the community member and the laws of the community is similarly attributed to the influence of “spirits of Belial.” However, the two transgressions that may result from this demon-induced foolishness are interpreted as basically different. The first transgression is punishable by death and 53

Hempel, Laws, 158-9. Hempel notes that a belief in spirits is largely absent from the laws of the Damascus Document. 54 See Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 189 n. 185. 429

compared to the decree against the necromancer in Lev 20:27a. This transgression, “speaking apostasy,” most likely refers to publicly speaking against the community’s laws or leadership, as evidenced by the use of the identical phrase dbr srh “speaking apostasy” in CD V.21-VI.1 regarding the “trespassers” who speak against the “commandments of God through Moses and through his anointed one.” This phrase is also found in a probable reconstruction of 4QDe (4Q270) 2 ii 13-14 in reference to one who betrays the group, curses them, and “[speaks] apostasy” against “those who are anointed with the holy spirit” (‫) ]אשר ידבר[ סרה על משיחי רוח הקדש‬. 55 C. Hempel relates 1037F

CD xii. 2b-3a not just to Lev 20:27a but also to Deut 13:6, which prescribes death for the prophet and “dreamer of dreams” who speak rebellion (dîbēr sārā) against God. 56 1038F

Hempel’s parallel further supports the interpretation proposed here, whereby dbr srh indicates public speech against the community’s laws or in favor of different laws or leadership. In such a circumstance a harsh punishment is not surprising. 57 Speaking 1039F

against the community and its laws confirms that the member is firmly in the camp of the community’s enemies, those accused of misleading Israel like the emissaries of Belial in CD V.20-VI.2. The member is thereby complicit in their demonic activity, and consequently shares the fate of the necromancers of Lev 20:27a. 58 104F

55

As reconstructed by Baumgarten, “4QDamascus Documente.” Hempel, Laws, 157-8. 57 Albeit harsher than the law in the Community Rule 1QS VII.16-17 which dictates the expulsion of a member who slanders the community. 58 Baumgarten explains the death penalty here as an extension of Lev 20:27 regarding the punishment of necromancers to those possessed by evil spirits; see Baumgarten, 56

430

In contrast, straying from the rules of Sabbath and the holidays, while opposed to a basic set of community precepts and therefore the result of Belial’s spirits, does not remove a member from the righteous community for good. If he is “cured,” i.e. realizes the error of his ways, he may be forgiven, perhaps just as a new member is forgiven for similar “straying” in the past. The leniency of this punishment is unusual, particularly compared to the punishment for Sabbath desecration described in Exod 31:14-15, 35:2 and Num 15:3236. Several commentators have explained that this leniency is due to the possibly unintentional nature of the violation (on the basis of the verb yt‘h, from t‘h, to stray or err, in line 3b). 59 However, the verb t‘h also appears in reference to the “trespassers” who lead Israel astray in V.20, indicating that the transgression is not only mistaken, but the result of misleading activity on the part of outside leaders. This transgression likewise reflects the role of Belial in IV.14-19, where Belial is the cause of the mistaken understanding of the Torah by those outside the community. “Damascus Document (CD),” 51 n. 181. However, this does not explain the more lenient punishment given to the member who desecrates the Sabbath and festivals. 59 See Maier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer, 2:56 n. 314 and Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 78. Others have interpreted the influence of “spirits” as mental illness, which would explain the leniency of this ruling; see T. H. Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect in English Translation (London: Secker & Warburg, 1957), 88 and H. Bietenhard, “Sabbatvorschriften von Qumran im Lichte des rabbinischen Rechts und der Evangelien,” in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9 bis 14 Oktober 1961 (ed. H. Bardtke; Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 42; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963), 56-57. (Bietenhard’s approach also integrates the first of these two views, by interpreting these lines as indicating that “irrtümlicher Sabbatbruch” was understood to be the result of mental illness.) 431

Thus the straying caused in XII.3-4 by Belial’s spirits seems to be connected to a differing calculation of the calendar proposed by someone outside the community, which resulted in the “straying” of the community member. This different calendar would lead to Sabbath desecration avoided by the community’s calendar, which precluded any festival coinciding with the Sabbath. 60 The lenient punishment may be a recognition of the difficulty of standing firm against the temptation of a convincing alternative calculation, particularly when it is enabled by “spirits of Belial.” The analysis above demonstrates how CD XII.2-6 can be read together with the passages from the introduction to the Damascus Document as a realization of Belial’s power in dividing between the community and others. 61 The first transgressor is an actual worker of Belial’s will who speaks against the community’s leadership or laws, and is therefore condemned to death. The second has been the victim of Belial’s misleading activity (although perhaps through human agents), and is therefore treated

60

Hempel, Laws, 158; Baumgarten, “Damascus Document (CD),” 51 n. 182. Baumgarten sees a similar approach to the offering of the Omer on the Sabbath in 4Q513 4 based on a somewhat speculative reading; see J. M. Baumgarten, “Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 395-6. 61 Hempel (Laws, 158-9) sees this passage as an interpolation seeking to promote the message of Jubilees. She bases this conclusion not only on the reference to Belial himself but also on the idea that he has spirits like Mastema in Jubilees 10 and that these spirits can be “cured” as in 10:12-13. (Note, however, that the cures in 10:12-13 refer specifically to diseases caused by Mastema’s spirits, and do not seem to affect the desire to sin.) 432

with more compassion, as long as he is able to be “cured” and fully accept the community’s laws.

The Damascus Document and Mastema Belial is not the only demonic force of sin mentioned in CD. The Damascus Document is nearly unique among Qumran texts in that it mentions the Angel Mastema (or “Angel of Hostility”) of Jubilees as a force for evil. The only other Qumran text that mentions this angel, apart from copies of Jubilees itself and the Pseudo-Jubilees texts discussed in chapter 9, is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (discussed below). 62 The Damascus Document cites Jubilees as a historical source text for its account of Israel’s blindness (CD XVI.2-6). It is in this context that Mastema is mentioned. As in the book of Jubilees itself, there is no attempt to assimilate the figures of Mastema and Belial. ‫ ופרוש קציהם לעורון‬vacat ‫֗תורת משה כי בה הכל מדוקדק‬

2

‫ישראל מכל אלה הנה הוא מדוקדק על ספר מחלקות העתים‬ ֗

3

‫ליובליהם ובשבועותיהם וביום אשר יקום האיש על נפשו לשוב‬

4

‫אל תורת משה יסור מלאך המשטמה מאחריו אם יקים את דבריו‬

5

‫ ואשר אמר מוצא שפתיך‬vacat ‫על כן נימול ב אברהם ביום דעתו‬

6

62

Belial is also called an “angel of hostility (maśṭēmā)” in the War Scroll (1QM XIII.11). This juxtaposition is discussed below in the course of the analysis of Belial in the War Scroll. 433

2… the Torah of Moses, for in it everything is specified. vacat And the explication of their times, when 3 Israel was blind to all these; behold, it is specified in the Book of the Divisions of the Times 4 in their Jubilees and in their Weeks. And on the day when a man takes upon himself (an oath) to return 5 to the Torah of Moses, (the) angel Mastema shall turn aside from after him, if he fulfills his words. 6 Therefore, Abraham was circumcised on the day of his knowing. vacat And concerning what he said, “The utterance of your lips...” The composer of this passage declares that as soon as one returns to the “Torah of Moses,” the Angel of Hostility/Mastema will leave him. This declaration suits the view reflected in Jubilees, noted in chapter 9 above, that the righteous are free from the demonic power to cause sin. The reference to circumcision in CD XVI.6 may also be an interpretation of Jub. 15:33, in which those who do not circumcise their sons are referred to as “children of Belial.” 63 However, the author of this text does not make a deliberate effort to reconcile the two figures of Mastema and Belial. Rather, the author’s choice of Mastema as the demonic figure featured in this passage reflects the fact that he is citing Jubilees, where Mastema is the chief demonic figure.

63

Kister (“Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant,” 181) proposes an interesting alternative, whereby the circumcision of Abraham is not related to Mastema at all, but is an example of proper behavior for the member of the community: when a new commandment is revealed, one should follow it promptly. 434

“Angels of Hostility” and Belial in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah As noted earlier, another reference to “angels of maśṭēmôt/hostility” (ml’ky hmśṭmwt) is found in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385, 4Q387-390), 64 in two fragments cited below: 65 1. Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb (4Q387 2 iii.1-7; par. 4Q388a 7 ii.4-7 [underline]) ‫]את ישרא[ל מעם בי֗ ֯מו֗ אשבר את ממלכת ]מצרים‬

1

‫]את מצרי[ ֯ם ואת ישראל אשבר ונ֗ ]תתו לחרב‬

2

[‫האד ֯ם] ועזבתי‬ ֯ ‫]והש[מותי א]ת [ ֯ה]א[ ֯רץ ורחקתי את‬

3

[ ] ‫מלאכי המשטמות והסתרתי‬ ֯ ‫] [את ֗ה ֗ארץ ביד‬

4

[‫]מיש[ ֗ראל וזה להם האות ביום עזבי את הארץ] בהשמה‬

5

[‫]ושב[ו֯ כהני ירושלים לעבוד אלהים אחרים] ולעשות‬

6

[ [

[

]‫[ל‬

]‫[ל‬

]‫]כתע[בות ֯ה‬

1 [Israe]l from (being) a people. In his days I shall break the kingdom of[ Egypt

7 ]

2 [Egyp]t, and I shall break Israel and de[liver her up to the sword ] 3 [And ]I[ shall lay wa]ste the [l]and and I shall drive man away[ and I shall abandon] 4 [ ]the land in the hand of the angels of mśṭmt, and I shall hide [ 64

]

This is the commonly accepted identification of these texts. However, C. Werman has proposed that 4Q390 is in fact a different text, which she identifies as “pseudoMoses”; see Werman, “Eschaton,” 46-57. While the following analysis does include a segment of 4Q387, the bulk of the analysis focuses on 4Q390, and is not affected by its possible identification as a separate text. 65 Texts and translation of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah in this chapter follow D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). Dimant’s reconstruction of entire words has been omitted when not based on parallel texts. 435

5 [from Is]rael. And this shall be the sign for them: in the day when I abandon the land[ in desolation] 6 the priests of Jerusalem [will retur]n to worship other gods[ and to act] 7 [according to the abo]minations of the[ ]l[ ]l[ ] 2. 4Q390 (4QapocrJer C-e) 1:10—12 [‫לחרב והשארתי מהם ֗פליטים למע]ן[ אשר לא י֯ ]כ[ל]ו [בחמתי ]ו[ ֯ב ֗הסתר ֯פ]ני‬ [‫ישוב]ו‬ ֗ [‫ו‬ [

10

‫המש]ט[מות ֯ומ]אסתים‬ ֗ ‫מלאכי‬ ֗ ‫מהם ומשלו בהמה‬

11

‫בשר]ירות‬ ֯ ‫הר ֯ע ֯בעינ֗ ]י[ ויתהלכו‬ ֯ [ ] ‫ו֯ י֯ עשו‬

12

[

]‫[׺׺‬

]‫] [ת‬

13

10 to the sword. But I shall leave among them refugees, s[o] that [t]he[y] should not be an[nihi]lated in my wrath[ and] when [my ]fa[ce ]is hidden 11 from them, and the Angels of mś[ṭ]mt will rule over them, and[ I shall ]sp[urn them

and they] will return

12 to do [wh]at is evil in[ my ]eyes, and they will walk in the will[fulness

]

The plural form ml’ky hmśṭmt (literally, “the angels of hostilities”) is unusual; maśṭēmā as “hostility” is an abstract noun, and does not appear in the plural in biblical use. While the plural form indicates that maśṭēmā is not used in its simple biblical meaning, it also indicates that maśṭēmā does not connote a proper name in this passage. The simplest interpretation of this term is that these are angels who perpetrate acts of hostility. Alternatively, the phrase “angel of hostility/Mastema angel” (ml’k mśṭmh) may reflect a known entity, and in the plural indicates many such “Mastema angels.” Hence D. Dimant has identified these angels as members of Mastema’s

436

camp. 66 However, the “angels of hostilities” in this passage behave less like the Jubilees description of Mastema and more in a manner suited to a “dominion of Belial” when Belial is free to affect humankind, as in CD IV.13. In fact, the “dominion of Belial” (mmšlt bly‘l) is mentioned in 4Q390 2 i 4 as a time when these “angels of hostility” will rule (4Q390 2 i 3-7), with the result that the apostate Jews “will not know and will not understand that I (God) was angry with them.” 67 These angels of hostility act here in the role elsewhere assigned to Belial, misleading Israel and ruling them during the dominion of Belial. The appearance of the dominion of Belial indicates either that these spirits have now been assigned to Belial, or that the dominion of Belial is better interpreted here as a “dominion of evil,” with bĕlīya‘al

66

Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 253. 4Q390 2 i.3-7 ‫[ן̇ ו֯ ]ת[הי‬ ]‫נעשה כן ׺] [׺ כי אלה יבואו עליהם‬ 3 ‫ו[ ֯בי֯ ובל ההוא יהיו‬ ]̇‫שבוע שנים‬ ֯ ‫ממשלת בליעל בהם להסגירם לחרב‬ 4 ‫מפרים את כול חקותי ואת כל מצותי אשר אצוה ֯א]ותם בי[ד̇ עבדי הנביאים‬ 5 ‫וי]ח[ל]ו[ להריב אלה באלה שנים שבעים מיום הפר ה]אלה וה[ברית אשר יפרו ונתתים‬ 6 ‫] מל[א̇כי המשטמות ומשלו בהם ולא ידעו ולא יבינו כי קצפתי עליהם במועלם‬ 7 3. so it was done [ ] for these things will befall them[ ] and[ there ]will be 4. the reign of Belial (Dimant: rule of Belial) over them so as to deliver them to the sword for a week of years[ and ]in that jubilee they will be 5. violating all my statues and all my commandments which I shall have commanded th[em in the ha]nd of my servants, the prophets. 6. And[ t]he[y ]will be[gi]n to quarrel among themselves for seventy years, from the day of the violation of the[ oath and the ]covenant which they will have violated. So I shall deliver them 7. [ the an]gels of mśṭmt, and they will rule over them. And they will not know and they will not understand that I was angry with them because of their trespass… 67

437

appearing in its abstract meaning, much as it does in the Hodayot (1QHa XI.28): 68 ‫וקץ‬ 105F

‫“ חרון לכול בליעל‬and a period of wrath for all bĕlīya‘al.” 69 105F

The provenance of these Apocryphon of Jeremiah texts is a matter of debate. According to Dimant, these texts are not sectarian (due to their lack of sectarian terminology), but reflect an intermediate category of texts that share certain broad ideas with sectarian works. 70 C. Werman, however, distinguishes between the 1052F

Apocryphon of Jeremiah texts 4Q385a, 387-388 texts and 4Q390, which she identifies as a sectarian “pseudo-Moses” text. 71 If C. Werman’s proposal is accepted, the 1053F

passage in 4Q390 discussed above may be another example of the selective integration of Belial and Jubilees traditions in Qumran texts. However, if 4Q390 is in fact not sectarian, as argued by Dimant, it may reflect a tradition whereby the “dominion of Belial” was not connected to an archdemonic figure, but rather to a period of general evil. This “period of evil” (reflecting the biblical meaning of bĕlīya‘al) was considered a time when demonic figures, of the sort described in Jubilees 7 and 10, are free to do

68

See n. 5 above. Contra Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 253-4. Dimant concludes from this text that Belial and the mal’akē hamaśṭēmôt, although bound to each other, had different realms of activity, as the “rule of Belial” belongs to the sphere of humans who are under the yoke of the “angels of hostility.” However, the juxtaposition of the “angels of hostility/ies” and the “rule of Belial” seems to point to the opposite conclusion. 70 D. Dimant, “A New Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Qumran: A Presentation,” Hen 22 (2000): 185-7. Dimant identifies common approaches to the history of Israel, the nature of its sins, and the eschaton, as well as a shared use of a year-weeks chronology. 71 Werman, “Eschaton,” 46-57. 69

438

their will. Such a description suits the period of evil indicated in the apotropaic prayers described in the previous chapter, when evil spirits are free to threaten the speaker. The preceding analysis has shown that in the Damascus Document, Belial functions as an explanation of nonmembers’ sinning and of the existence of their leaders, his emissaries. Belial and his spirits also serve as a justification for how a member could “mistakenly” take a stance not accepted by the community, particularly regarding the calendar. Unlike the Damascus Document, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah seems to reflect an earlier stage when the “dominion of Belial” was not connected to a figure Belial but to an age of evil when “angels of hostility” are set free. This age of evil is comparable to the period in which the Watchers’ descendants do their will in the apotropaic prayers analyzed in the previous chapter. As noted above, Belial in the Damascus Document does not command a “lot” and does not form half of a dualistic system. The War Scroll, as discussed below, reflects a different understanding of Belial.

Belial in the War Scroll Belial plays a prominent role in the War Scroll, a text that is found in its most complete version in 1QM (1Q33) and is also represented in four copies found in Cave

439

4 (4Q492, 494, 495, 496). 72 In the War Scroll, it is Belial who leads the forces of evil, called the “children of darkness,” against the “children of light.” A long-standing debate exists regarding which passages containing Belial are original to the War Scroll. P. von Osten-Sacken identified the “eschatological war-dualism” of the War Scroll as reflecting an earlier, “cosmological” dualistic doctrine inspired by the book of Daniel and the “day of YHWH” in the Bible. 73 However, since OstenSacken’s study, both J. Duhaime and P. R. Davies have noted the redactional layers apparent in the War Scroll, identifying certain key passages that mention Belial in a dualistic framework as separate redactional additions or as the result of separately composed texts. 74 Davies has argued that the War Scroll reflects a dualistic development of an earlier nationalistic war tradition. 75 In his view 1QM I is “largely redactional” 76 and ties together the nationalistic war, depicted in 1QM II-IX, and the cosmic war against the army of Belial, depicted in 1QM XV-XIX. 77 He particularly draws attention to a “dualizing” process in 1QM which puts the nationalistic war into a framework that is

72

J. Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 20-23. According to Davies, 4Q471, 4Q491 B and C, 4Q493 and 4Q497 are evidence of addition War Scroll material and recensions (Davies, “War Texts,” 16). These latter texts, however, do not contain any material relevant to the discussion of Belial in the War Scroll. 73 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 28-41. 74 See Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll, 113-23; Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII” 75 Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll; idem, “War Texts,” 12-15. 76 Davies, ibid., 21. 77 Davies, ibid., 113-21. 440

cosmically and ethically dualistic. 78 Duhaime does not divide 1QM as extensively as does Davies, but he has identified specific redactional additions, particularly additions that deepen the cosmic dualism of the text as a whole. 79 Duhaime has also compared the Cave 1 War Scroll (1QM) explored here and the comparable copies of the War Scroll found in Cave 4. He notes that the similarities and differences between these texts suggest that a common source was reworked more extensively in 1QM than in its Cave 4 parallels, and that this is compatible with his proposal that 1QM belongs to a later stage in the interpretive process of war traditions. 80 Notwithstanding the recognition that Belial’s depiction as it appears in 1QM may not be original to the “core” of the War Scroll, however, it is possible to analyze the final redaction as it was transmitted to the Qumran reader and the understanding of Belial and his actions that it conveys to the community. The War Scroll begins by introducing the eschatological battle between the “children of light” and the “lot of the children of darkness in the army of Belial” (1QM I.1). This army is immediately described as consisting not of spirits but of the nations, particularly those portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible: “Edom and Moab, and the sons of Ammon and ḥ[ ] Philistia and the troops of the

78

Davies, “War Texts,” 12-15. See Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII” and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 4351. The relevant interpolations proposed by Duhaime will be explored below. 80 Duhaime, War Texts, 50-52. 79

441

Kittim of Ashur” (1QM I.1-2). 81 As noted by Davies, the original nationalistic description of a war between Israel and the nations is evident in this introduction. 82 The insertion of Belial and the “children of darkness” transforms this national battle into an eschatological confrontation between good and evil. Henceforth, Belial functions as the leader of military forces composed particularly of the nations (1QM I.1, 13; IV.8-9, XV.2-3). He also commands a “lot” including evil humans (1QM I.5, IV.1-2), sometimes called the “lot of darkness” (1QM I.1, 11; XIII.5). In a hymn included in the War Scroll (analyzed below), Belial’s lot also includes spirits (1QM XIII.2, 4, 11-12). Belial is also responsible for a period of rule (1QM XIV.9, and see XVIII.1), which he shares with the Kittim (1QM I.5-6). 83 As in other Qumran texts, this rule will be ended by God at the eschaton (1QM XVII.5-6; XVIII.1). The War Scroll includes two passages in particular that focus on Belial and his role. The first and chief of these is the hymn found at 1QM XIII.1-16: 84 ‫ואחיו ֯ה]כו[ ֯הנים והלויים וכול זקני הסרך עמו וברכו על עומדם את אל ישראל ואת כול מעשי‬

1

‫וזעמו‬ ֯ ‫אמתו‬ 81

For the biblical reference underlying “Kittim of Ashur,” see Ezek 27:6. On the Kittim as Romans in Qumran texts, see T. H. Lim, “Kittim,” EDSS 1:469-71. 82 Davies, “War Texts,” 12-13. 83 The reference in 1QM XVII.5-6 to ‫“ שר ממשלת רשעה‬prince of the reign of wickedness” also seems to be a reference to Belial. 84 All citations and translations of the War Scroll in this chapter follow J. Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 80-203, unless otherwise noted. Reconstructions of entire words have been omitted. 442

‫‪2‬‬

‫שם ֗א ֗ת ֯ב]לי[על ואת כול רוחי גורלו וענו ואמרו ברוך אל ישראל בכול מחשבת קודשו ומעשי‬ ‫אמתו וב]ר[ו֯ כים‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫כול ֯מ ֯ש ֯רתיו בצדק יודעיו באמונה ‪vacat‬‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫וא ֯רו֯ ֯ר בליעל במחשבת משטמה וזעום הואה במשרת אשמתו וארורים כול רוחי גורלו במחשבת‬ ‫֗‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫‪vacat‬רשעם וזעומים המה בכול עבודת נדת טמאתם כיא המה גורל חושך וגורל אל לאור‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫]עולמ[י֯ ם ‪vacat‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫וא]ת[ ֯ה אל אבותינו שמכה נברכה לעולמים ואנו עם ]‬ ‫֯‬

‫[ל] [׺ וברית ]כ[רתה לאבותינו ותקימה‬

‫לזרעם‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫למוע]ד[י עולמים ובכול תעודות כבודכה היה זכר ] [כה בקרבנו לעזר שארית ומחיה לבריתכה‬ ‫אתה]‬ ‫ולס]פר [מעשי אמתכה ומשפטי גבורות פלאכה ֯‬ ‫֗‬

‫[׺יתנו לכה עם עולמים ובגורל אור‬

‫הפלתנו‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫לאמתכה ושר מאור מאז פקדתה לעוזרנו וב׺]‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫ובחוש]ך‬ ‫֗‬ ‫עשיתה בליעל לשחת מלאך משטמה‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫גורלו מלאכי חבל בחוקי חושך יתהלכו ואליו ]תש[ו֯ קתמה יחד ואנו ֯בגורל אמתכה נשמ חה ביד‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫עזר]תכה וב[ ֯ש ֗לומכה מיא כמוכה בכוח אל ישראל ועם‬ ‫גבורתכה ונשישה בישועתכה ונגילה ב ֯‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫אביונים יד גבורתכה ומיא מלאך ושר כעזרת פ׺] כי[ ֗א מאז יעדתה לכה יום קרב ר׺׺] [׺ ֗ה‬ ‫֗‬

‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫[ ֗ק וכול רוחי אמת בממשלתו ואתה‬ ‫[תו ובעצתו להרשיע ולהאשים וכול רוחי‬

‫[ ֗ל] [׺ר באמת ולהשמיד באשמה להשפיל חושך ולהגביר אור ול]‬ ‫[ל למעמד עולמים לכלות כול בני חושך ושמחה ֗ל]‬

‫]‬

‫[‬

‫[ ֗ל‬

‫‪1 his brothers the [pri]ests, the Levites, and all the elders of the rule with him. They‬‬ ‫‪shall bless, at 85 their position, the God of Israel and all his truthful works. They‬‬ ‫‪1067F‬‬

‫‪shall denounce‬‬ ‫‪2 there Be[li]al and all the spirits of his lot. They shall speak up, saying, “Blessed be‬‬ ‫‪the God of Israel for all his holy plan and his truthful works. Bl[es]sed be 86‬‬ ‫‪1068F‬‬

‫‪3 all (who) serve him righteously (and) know him faithfully.” vacat‬‬

‫‪Duhaime translates “from,” but this is not the usual meaning of ‘l.‬‬ ‫”‪Duhaime adds “they.‬‬ ‫‪443‬‬

‫‪85‬‬ ‫‪86‬‬

4 “And 87 cursed be Belial for the hostile plan and may he be denounced for his guilty authority. And cursed be all the spirits of his lot for their 5 wicked vacat plan and may they be denounced for all their service of impure uncleanliness. For they are the lot of darkness, but the lot of God is for 6 [everlast]ing light.” vacat 7 “And y[o]u, oh God of our fathers, we bless your name forever. We are a people [ ]l[ ]°. You have [est]ablished a covenant with our fathers and you have fulfilled it 88 with their descendants 8 through the appointed ti[me]s of eternity. In all your glorious fixed times there was a memorial of your [ ] in our midst for the help of the remnant and the preservation of your covenant, 9 and to re[count] your truthful works and the judgments of your wonderful might ’t °[ ]° they will give to you, 89 (as) an everlasting people. You have cast us in the lot of light 10 according to your truth. The prince of light, 90 long ago, you appointed to assist us 91 wb°[ ]q; all the spirits of truth are under his dominion. You 11 have made Belial to corrupt, a hostile angel. In the darkne[ss ]tw, by his counsel to cause wickedness and to cause guilt. 92 All the spirits of 12 his lot, angels of destruction, go about 93 according to the statutes of darkness; towards it is their one [de]sire. As for us, in your truthful lot, we shall 94 rejoice for

87

Duhaime omits “And” twice in this line and once in line 7. Duhaime translates “confirmed it.” 89 Duhaime does not translate ytnw here. 90 Duhaime translates “commander of light.” 91 Duhaime “entrusted to our rescue.” 92 Duhaime translates “his counsel is aimed towards wickedness and guiltiness.” 93 Duaime translates “are behaving”; the translation chosen reflects the literal meaning of ‫יתהלכו‬. 94 Instead of Duhaime, “let us.” 88

444

13 your mighty hand, exult in 95 your deliverance, and be glad for [your] hel[p and for] your peace. Who is like you in power, 96 O God of Israel! With 14 the poor ones (is) your mighty hand. Who, be he an angel or a commander, is like the help of p°[ Fo]r long ago you appointed for yourself a day of battle r°°[ ]°h 15 [ ]l[ ]°r among truth, to exterminate among guiltiness, to bring low darkness, and to make light powerful wl[ ] 16[ ]l to an everlasting place, for the destruction of all children of darkness, and the joy of l[ ]l [ ] Lines 1-6 of this hymn parallel the liturgical curses of Belial and Melki-reša found in the Community Rule, 4QBerakhot , and 4Q280 explored in the following chapter, in both function and content. 97 The curse of Belial is contrasted to the blessing of the God of Israel, a blessing which in the War Scroll is extended to those who serve and truly “know” him (XIII.3). The initial curse (XIII.4-6) addresses Belial and his spirit minions, as does the curse in 4QBerakhot. Belial and his minions are cursed for their evil plans and intentions, just as Belial is in 4QBerakhot and Melkireša is in 4Q280. There is a marked difference between the curse of Belial in lines 1-6, which is similar to other curse texts explored below, and the declaration in lines 10-12 that it is God who created Belial. The declaration that God is behind the existence of Belial 95

Duhaime translates “exult for.” Duhaime translates “according to power.” 97 See M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 84; Metso, Textual Development, 113 n. 18; Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 214-16; and Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 222. 96

445

addresses the difficulty of acknowledging a powerful demonic leader of evil in a monotheistic system. The statement that God created Belial for a specific function clearly subordinates the demon to God; Belial is transformed into a tool of God’s will. 98 The influence of Jubilees is apparent throughout this section. The description of Belial’s designated function as causing evil and “accusing” bears a striking resemblance to the description of Belial in Jub. 1:19-21. There, too, Belial is described as a functionary of God, whose job it is to lead astray and to “accuse.” In addition, Belial’s spirits in 1QM XIII.11-12, like Mastema’s spirits in Jubilees 10, destroy seemingly indiscriminately. It is probable that this passage, like CD VIII.1-10 and perhaps the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390 2 i 3-7), results from a harmonistic reading of Jubilees identifying Mastema with Belial. The declaration that Belial is God’s creation, however, is incongruous within a hymn that contrasts the curse of Belial with the blessing of God. This incongruity is an indication that lines 10-12 may be a later addition to the text. In fact, Duhaime has identified 9b-12a as an interpolation. 99 He notes that this section adds new vocabulary and concepts, particularly the dualistic framework in which the Prince of Light

98

Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 221. Duhaime, “La rédaction de 1QM XIII,” 218-27 and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44-46. 99

446

opposes Belial. 100 If Duhaime’s proposal is accepted, it would appear that the author of this passage wished to present a dualistic system that would in its entirety be subordinate to God. Belial is God’s tool, and opposes only the “prince of light” directly, not God himself. A closer investigation of this passage also reveals an interesting biblical allusion that highlights the focus of the Qumran view of sin. This is an allusion to the divine oracle in Gen 4:7b: ‫“ ַלפֶּתַ ח ַחטָּאת ר ֹ ֵבץ ְו ֵא ֶלי� תְּ שׁוּקָת ֹו ְואַתָּ ה תִּ ְמשָׁל בּ ֹו‬Sin crouches at the door; its desire is toward you, yet you can rule it.” 101 Although this verse directly 1083F

describes sin and its machinations, it is strikingly absent as a prooftext from other Qumran texts that address or describe sin, 102 despite the verse’s survival at Qumran. 103 1084F

1085F

The verse’s absence is particularly intriguing given the prominence of Gen 4:7b in discussions of the “evil inclination” in rabbinic literature. 104 1086F

100

Duhaime also notes that the hymn reads more coherently without the addition of these lines, and that lines 9b-10a and 12b form an inclusio via the repetition of gwrl and ’mt. According to Duhaime, the hymn in lines 1-6 (as well as lines 13b-16) was then added by a redactor who did not accept the idea of an intermediary between Israel and God; Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44-46. 101 Translation my own. 102 Although a possible allusion may be found in the description of human lowliness in 1QS XI.21b-22a “and he is from spit (and) pinched-off clay, and to dirt is his desire” ‫והואה מצירוק חמר קורצ ולעפר תשוקתו‬. 103 Specifically in 4Q2 (4QGenb). 104 See Sifre 45; Gen. Rab. 20, 22; Song Rab. 7, ’Ag. Ber. 4:7, Pesiq. Zut. 4:7; b. Qidd. 30b. 447

Yet the War Scroll includes three allusions to this verse, referring to evil spirits (1QM XIII.12b) or to the opposing army composed of both evil spirits and people (1QM XV.9b-10a, XVII.4b): (1) 1QM XIII.12b ‫בחוקי חושך יתהלכו ואליו ]תש[ו֯ קתמה‬ …they walk according to the rule of darkness and toward it is their desire. (2) 1QM XV.9b-10a [‫כיא ֯המה עדת רשעה ובחושך כול̇ מעשיהם ואליו תשוק]תמה‬ …for they are a wicked congregation. In darkness (are) all their works, and towards it is [their] desi[re ]… (3) 1QM XVII.4b ‫המה לתהו ולבהו תשוקתם‬ Their own desire (aims) towards nothingness and voidness… The allusions to Genesis 4:7b in the War Scroll describe the inevitable desire for sin among evil spirits and wicked people. These allusions are particularly appropriate given that the biblical oracle is addressed to the angry Cain, the world’s first murderer. The allusions to Gen 4:7 in connection to the wicked may also explain the absence of this verse in other Qumran texts that explain the desire to sin. If humans are to be divided between the righteous and the wicked, then Cain, according to the biblical account, is undoubtedly to be counted among the world’s wicked. Consequently, the oracle addressed to him in Gen 4:7 explains only the desire to sin among the wicked. But Qumran texts are not particularly concerned with explaining the desire to sin among the wicked; it is understood that the wicked desire to do evil. Rather, it is the desire to sin among the righteous that posed a theological problem for

448

the Qumran community and other groups in the Second Temple period. An oracle to a future murderer was probably considered of little use in solving this problem. 105 The second passage that illuminates the role of Belial in the redacted War Scroll, the description of the predestination of the children of light and the children of darkness (XIV.8-11), shows a marked correspondence to certain ideas in Jubilees. ‫[ שמכה אל החסדים השומר ברית לאבותינו ועם‬

‫ ולכול גבוריהם אין מעמד ואנו שא]רית‬8

[‫[ בממשלת בליעל ובכול רזי שטמתו ֗לוא הדיחונ֯ ]ו‬

‫לשאר]ית‬ ֯ ‫ כול דורותינו הפלתה חסדיכה‬9

‫אנ[שי ממשלתו שמרתה נפש פדותכה ואתה הקימותה‬

‫ממ]נו‬ ֯ ‫ מבריתכה ורוחי ]ח[ ֗בלו גערתה‬10

‫[לכול גבוריהם אין מציל ולקליהם אין מנוס ולנכבדיהם‬

‫קומה תגד]ע‬ ֯ ‫ נופלים בעוזכה ורמי‬11

8 and all their mighty men (will) have no stand. 106 And we are the remna[nt

]

108F

your name, O merciful God, you who keep the covenant for our fathers and with 9 all our generations. You have shown through wonders your mercy for the remna[nt ] during the dominion 107 of Belial. With all the mysteries of his hatred, he has not 1089F

repelled [us] 108 109F

10 from your covenant; you have driven his spirits of [des]truction from u[s. me]n of his dominion [

the

] you preserved 109 the soul of those you have 109F

redeemed. You have raised up 105

The view of Cain in many rabbinic texts is a sympathetic one, particularly in those that consider him the first human to experience repentance; see Gen. Rab. 97, Lev. Rab. 96, Deut. Rab. 8, Tanḥ. (Warsaw) Bereishit 9, Pesiq. Rab. 47, Pesiq. Zut. Bereishit 4, Pirqe R. El. 21. (For a more cynical view of Cain’s “repentance,” see Tanh. [Buber] Bereishit 25.) Rabbinic texts consequently present the oracle in Gen 4:7 as a statement directed toward all humans who struggle with the desire to sin, not just to the unrepentant wicked. 106 Duhaime translates “none of their mighty men shall stand.” I have chosen a more literal translation. 107 Duhaime translates “reign.” I have chosen to translate mmšlt bly‘l as “dominion of Belial” throughout this study. 108 Duhaime translates “drawn [us] away.” 449

11 the fallen by your vigor, but the (men) of high stature you have hew[n down

]

for all their mighty men there is no deliverer, for their swift there is no refuge. To their nobles… The idea that the righteous are free of demonic influence, developed throughout the book of Jubilees, is prominent in this passage. In 1QM XIV.8-11, the truly righteous have been determined and are safe from the temptations of evil spirits led by Belial. As the passage states, God has saved “us,” the chosen ones, and is apparently behind the inability of Belial to lead the children of light astray from God’s covenant. The parallels to the approach in Jubilees towards demonic sin, including the characterization of Belial in 1QM XIII.10-11 and the immunity of the righteous to demonic sin in 1QM XIV.8-11, indicate that the War Scroll, or more precisely the sections in which Belial features prominently, was significantly influenced by Jubilees. This dependence is further borne out by the description of Belial as an “angel of hostility,” ml’k mśṭmh, in 1 QM XIII.11. By describing Belial as ml’k mśṭmh, the composer of this section clarifies that Belial is, in fact, the angel Mastema of Jubilees. 110 The role of Belial as the head of evil nations in eschatological battle is also a natural development of Jub. 1:19-21, where Belial is parallel to the nations in his ability to lead Israel astray, and of Jub. 15:31, where spirits rule the nations in order to lead them astray. 109

Duhaime translates “kept.” Contra Dimant, “Belial and Mastema,” 243. Dimant considers this passage a straightforward description of Belial as “an angel full of animosity”; she concludes that Belial is a subordinate of Mastema in Qumran texts.

110

450

The redactional layer of the War Scroll is thus a window into how Jubilees may have been understood by certain members of the Qumran community. In its reflection of Jubilees, the War Scroll bears certain similarities to CD VIII.1-3 and to 4Q390, but the extent to which it reflects ideas in Jubilees remains unusual compared to most other Qumran texts. In sum, the redacted War Scroll depicts a single demonic leader, Belial, an “angel of hostility,” who leads evil spirits, the nations, and evildoers. Belial functions within a dualistic system, completely subordinate to God while countered by God’s emissary. While Belial leads troops into physical battle against the “children of light,” he and his spirits are unable to lead them spiritually astray due to God’s protection. A comparison of the Damascus Document and the War Scroll demonstrates different depictions of Belial with a common thread. In both texts Belial serves to divide between members and nonmembers, and in both he defines a period of evil before the eschaton. However, in the Damascus Document, Belial functions within a system of assumed free will. He is used to justify the continued existence of evil leaders and to explain the mistaken sinning of their followers. According to CD XII.26, even members may be misled by Belial and his spirits. In the War Scroll, on the other hand, Belial is part of a cosmically dualistic system, commanding a lot of apparently predetermined evildoers and opposed by an angelic figure, the “prince of light” or Michael. It is important to note that the cosmic dualism of the redacted War Scroll is explicitly subordinate to the Deity; God has created Belial and is not directly

451

opposed by him. The “children of light” may need to fight Belial and his forces physically, but with God’s help they are not led astray by them.

452

XII. Belial in the Community Rule and Liturgical Curse Texts

As noted in the previous chapter, Belial appears within a liturgical blessing and curse text in the Community Rule (1QS I.16-II.18). This text has been considered an interpolation, 1 partially based on the appearance of a similar ceremonial text found in Cave 4, 4QBerakhot (4Q286-290). 4QBerakhot will be analyzed first for purposes of comparison, followed by the liturgical text in the Community Rule and then the comparable curse text 4Q280.

4QBerakhot (4Q286-290) 4QBerakhot (4Q286-290) is a sectarian text comprising a communal liturgy 2 that includes a recitation of blessings and curses. This text is fragmentary, particularly in the second half of the list of curses.

1

S. Metso, Textual Development, 113. 4Q286-290 contains prolonged praise of God and his heavenly and earthly works, with “Amen Amen” serving as a responding refrain for the community. The only curses that have survived in the text are included in the passage below. While Nitzan interprets this text as having a covenantal nature due to similarities with the passage in the Community Rule discussed below (1QS i.16-ii.23), there is nothing in the text itself to indicate covenantal renewal; cf. Nitzan, “4QBerakhota-e (4Q286-290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,” RevQ 16 (1995): 487-506. 2

453

4Q286 7a ii 1-12, parallel 4Q287 6 (underline) 3 ‫ואח ֯ר יזעמ]ו[ את בליעל‬ ֯ vacat ‫עצת היחד יומרו כולמה ביחד אמן אמן‬

1

‫משטמתו‬ ֯ ‫ואת כול גורל אשמתו וענו ואמרו אר̇ו֯ ֯ר ]ב[ליעל ֯ב]מ[ ֯ח ֯שבת‬

2

‫וזעום הוא במשרת אשמתו וארורים כול̇ ֯רו֯ ]חי גו[ ֯רלו במחשבת רשעמה‬

3

‫וזעומים המה במחשבות נדת ]ט[מאתמה כי ֯א] המה גור[ל̇ חושך ופקודתמה‬

4

‫ וארור הרש]ע‬vacat ‫לשחת עולמים אמן אמן‬

5

vacat [‫כול בני בלי]על[ בכול עונות מעמדמה עד תוממה ] אמן אמן‬

6

‫[ ממשלותיו וזעומים‬

‫מלא[ך̇ השחת ורו̇]ח האב[ד̇ון בכ̇ו̇]ל[ מחשב̇ו̇ת יצר‬ [‫במ]מש[ל̇]ת‬ ֯ ‫תוע[ ֯בה̇ ועצת רשע]תכה וז[ע̇ום אתה‬ ̇‫[ת‬

‫[ל ֯וע]ם‬

[‫[ם אמן א̇]מן‬

]̇‫[ה עם כול ג‬

‫א]שמתכה‬

8

]

9

]

10

]

11

]

12

]‫כל[ ֯מות כלה ֯ל‬

] ‫רשע[ ֯תמה ומקימי מזמתמ̇ה‬ [

7

‫ובמשרת‬

] ‫סלי[ח̇ות באף עב̇ר ֯̇ת] א[ל‬

[

]‫ו‬

‫כ[ו֯ ל עוש]י‬

‫אמ[תו ולהמ̇י̇ר את מש̇פ̇]טי‬

]‫א[ל ו̇ל‬

1. of the council of the community, all of them will say together: ‘Amen. Amen.’ vacat And then [they] will denounce 4 Belial 1096F

2. and all his guilty lot. And they will respond and say: 5 ‘Cursed be [B]elial in his 1097F

hostile [p]lan, 6 1098F

3. and denounced 7 is he in his guilty authority. And cursed are all the spir[its] of his 109F

[lo]t in their wicked plan, 8 10F

3

Text and reconstruction follow B. Nitzan, “286. 4QBerakhotª,” in Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (ed. J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 27-28. Reconstructions of words and phrases that are completely absent in the surviving text have been removed. Translation follows Nitzan, “286. 4QBerakhotª,” 28-29 except where otherwise noted. 4 Nitzan translates “curse”; I have chosen to translate the root z‘m as denounce for the sake of consistency and to maintain the literal meaning. 5 Nitzan translates “will speak up.” 6 Nitzan translates “his hostile scheme,” but I have chosen to translate ‫ מחשבה‬as “plan” throughout this chapter for the sake of consistency. 454

4. and they are denounced 9 in the plans 10 of their [un]clean impurity; for[ they are the lo]t of darkness, and their designation 11 5. is to eternal destruction. 12 Amen. Amen. vacat And cursed is the wick[ed

] of

his dominions; and denounced 13 are 6. all the children of Beli[al] in all the periods of their presence 14 until their Amen. Amen.] vacat

consummation [ 7. And [

Ange]l of Ruin and Spir[it of De]struction 15 in al[l] the plans 16

of [your] g[uilty] inclination 8. [

abomin]ation 17 and [your] wicked counsel; [and de]nounced 18 are you in

[the] d[omi]n[ion of] 9. [ 10. [

and in yo]ur [

authority] with all the g[

humi]liations of destruction with [

the anger of [G]od’s wrath [ 11. [

]l and wit[h ]t forgi]veness, with

]m. Amen. A[men].

a]ll who execute their [wicked

7

] and commit their intrigue 19 [ ]

Nitzan translates “damned”; see n. 4 above. I have chosen to translate the root z‘m as denounce for the sake of consistency and to maintain the literal meaning. 8 Nitzan translates “scheme”; I have translated “plan” for the sake of consistency with other texts. 9 Nitzan translates “damned”; see n. 4 above. 10 Nitzan translates “schemes”; see n. 8 above. 11 Nitzan translates “punishment,” but “designation” more exactly reflects the semantic range of ‫פקודתמה‬. 12 Nitzan translates “is in the eternal pit.” 13 Nitzan translates “damned”; see n. 4 above. 14 Or, “existence.” Nitzan translates “their periods of service.” For an explanation of the meaning of ‫מעמדמה‬, see the discussion of the passage below. 15 Nitzan translates “Angel of the Pit and Spirit of Abaddon,” but there is no reason not to translate ‫ שחת‬and ‫ אבדון‬in their standard biblical meaning. This meaning would be familiar to Second Temple readers, as is evident from the parallel made here between these two nouns, which are similar in their biblical meaning but not as Nitzan has translated them. 16 See n. 10 above. 17 Nitzan proposes “[abom]inable [purposes]” ‫]מזמות תוע[בה‬. 18 Nitzan translates “[da]mned”; see n. 4 above. 455

12. [

]l and by[

] His [tru]th and by exchanging the judgm[ents of

]

The full extent of Belial’s perceived power is evident in the more complete first half of the fragment. Belial has a “lot” (gwrl; lines 2, 3, 4), which apparently consists of spirits under his command (line 3). Belial and his spirits are considered the “lot of darkness” (line 4). There are also “children of Belial” (line 6, in a partial reconstruction), a phrase borrowed from biblical use. 20 While the phrase in its biblical context indicates evil human beings without any demonic overtones, in its current context it clearly reflects the understanding of Belial as a demonic figure. The phrase is a reframing of the original term; as in biblical use, the phrase indicates wicked people, but now signifies that these wicked humans belong to the “lot” of the demon Belial. 21 It is not clear from this text alone whether these evil humans are born into Belial’s lot or have earned their place through their wicked actions. (This will be discussed further below.) Regardless of their origin, these wicked people are currently under Belial’s command and share his curse. In addition, as in the sectarian apotropaic prayers explored above, this ceremony connects demonic figures to a specific era: the current one (line 6). This is 19

Nitzan translates “evil intrigue.” See Deut 13:14, 15:9; Jud 19:22, 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12, 10:27, 25:17; 1 Kgs 21:10,13; and 2 Chron 13:7. 21 See Kister, “On Good and Evil,” 504, contra Lyons and Reimer, “Demonic Virus,” 28. Lyons and Reimer propose that the term bny bly‘l could include spirits, based on the reconstruction of bny bly‘l in 11Q11 vi.3 (mistakenly cited ad loc. as v.3). However, even if the reconstruction of 11Q11 vi.3 is correct, there is nothing in its immediate context to indicate that it refers to spirits. (In fact, there is little in its immediate context that has survived in the fragment.) 20

456

the “period of their presence” (‘wnwt m‘mdmh, lit., “periods of their ‘stand’”), i.e., the period when Belial and his spirits are allowed to exist. 22 It is only during the current era that Belial, his spirits, and the wicked humans under his command exist and are able to carry out their desires. They are therefore cursed by the community until such time as their existence is ended by God. This text, short as it is, displays a comprehensive explanation of evil and evildoing. According to this passage, evil can be blamed on Belial. He commands spirits (who are therefore neither anarchic nor, apparently, part of the divine court) as well as evil humans. He is apparently a threat to community members, who curse him, but he is not portrayed as an internal threat. Belial does not here enter the “innards” of the community member, as do the spirits of 4Q444 and “Songs of the Sage.” Rather, the humans who belong to Belial’s “lot” are defined as evildoers. Their purpose is to carry out evil schemes and, like Belial’s spirits, to threaten the community member from without. (It is unclear whether Belial and his “lot” are capable of actually causing righteous community members to sin.) This depiction of Belial achieves several ends. First, it distances evil and evildoing from God. By depicting Belial as the ultimate evil power, who nonetheless holds no divinely mandated role, this text clears God of responsibility for evil, particularly evil perpetrated against the community. At the same time, Belial’s forces

22

Compare 1QM IV.3-4, ‫“ חדל מעמד רשעים ]ב[גבורת אל‬the ‘stand’ (m‘md) of the wicked is ended [through] the strength of God.” 457

are not completely anarchic. They are under Belial’s command. In addition, like the more disorderly spirits described in 4Q444 and “Songs of the Sage,” they will only have free rein for a fixed period of time. Belial’s spirits also pose no threat to members’ internal equanimity. This liturgical segment provides no explanation for a righteous member’s conflicted feelings, an experience that is expressed in 4Q444 and “Songs of the Sage.” It does, however, explain the evildoing of the non-member, the “child of Belial” who persecutes the community. This evildoer functions like a demon himself, attempting to harm the righteous in any way possible. The human evildoer is allowed to exist for the same reason demons are allowed to exist: as part of a fixed period of evil that will end dramatically at the eschaton. How is the depiction of powerful evil forces, both spirit and human, reconciled with the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent Deity? Evil spirits and evil people are allowed to exist for a given, finite period of time, which will end at God’s determination. 23 The context of these curses is a prolonged blessing text where God’s praises are enumerated, involving flora, fauna, the heavenly lights, angels, the “chosen” (bḥyryhmh, 4Q286 7 i, b-d 2), and the nations. 24 Consequently the text as a whole

23

A. Steudel, “God and Belial,” 339. Steudel proposes that in the view of Qumran authors, a temporary period of testing was tolerable, and therefore periodization provided an acceptable explanation for evil at Qumran. 24 Nitzan, “4QBerakhota-e,” 492. 458

contrasts the works of Belial and God. As noted by Nitzan, the angels and the “chosen ones” in this text express their solidarity with divine authority by blessing God and cursing Belial. 25 A somewhat similar pairing of communal blessings and curses is found in the Community Rule (1QS I.16-II.19).

Belial in the Community Rule (1QS I.16-II.19) Unlike 4QBerakhot, the text in the Community Rule appears within a textual framework that explains when it is recited. It is part of the annual ceremony renewing the covenant, including both new and current members of the community. 1QS I.16-II.19 26 ‫וכול הבאים בסרכ היחד יעבורו בברית } ׅ ׄא{לפני אל לעשות‬

16

‫ככול אשר צוה ולוא לשוב מאחרו מכול פחד ואימה ומצרפ‬

17

‫נס̇וימ בממשלת בליעל ובעוברם בברית יהיו הכוהנים‬

18

‫והלויים מברכים את אל ישועות ואת כול מעשי אמתו וכול‬

19

vacat ‫העוברים בברית אומרים אחריהם אמן אמן‬

20

‫ והכוהנים מ̇ספרים את צדקות אל במעשי גבורתום‬vacat

21

‫ומשמיעים כול חסדי רחמים על ישראל והלויים מספרים‬

22

‫את עוונות בני ישראל וכול פשעי אשמתם וחטאתם בממשלת‬

23

‫בליעל ]וכו[ ֯ל העוברים בברית מודים אחריהם לאמור נעוינו‬

24

‫]פ[ ֯ש ֯ענ֯ ו֯ ]חט[א̇נו הרשענו אנו ]וא[ ֯בותינו מלפנינו בל} ֯ה{כתנו‬

25

[‫ו[משפטו בנו ובאבותי֯ ]נ֯ ו‬ 25

]‫וצדיק ]א[ ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫] [ אמת‬

Nitzan, ibid., 495. All citations and translations of 1QS in this chapter follow J. H. Charlesworth and E. Qimron, “Rule of the Community,” unless otherwise noted. Reconstructions of entire words have been omitted. 26

459

26

‫‪bottom margin‬‬ ‫‪Column II‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ורחמי חסדו ג֯ מל עלינו מעולם ועד עולם והכוהנים מברכים את כול‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫אנשי גורל אל ההולכים תמים בכול דרכיו ואומרים יברככה בכול‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫טוב וישמורכה מכול רע ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונכה בדעת עולמים‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫וישא פני חסדיו לכה לשלום עולמים והלויים מקללים את כול אנשי‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫גורל בליעל וענו ואמרו ארור אתה בכול מעשי רשע אשמתכה יתנכה‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫אל זעוה ביד כול נוקמי נקם ויפקוד אחריכה כלה ביד כול משלמי‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫גמולים ארור אתה לאין רחמימ כחושך מעשיכה וזעום אתה‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫באפלת אש עולמים לוא יחונכה אל בקוראכה ולוא יסלח לכפר עווניך‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫ישא פני אפו לנקמתכה ולוא יהיה לכה שלום בפי כול אוחזי אבות‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחר המברכים והמקללים אמן אמן‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪ vacat‬והוסיפו הכוהנים והלויים ואמרו ארור בגלולי לבו לעבור‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫הבא בברית הזות ומכשול עוונו ישים לפניו להסוג בו והיה‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫בשומעו את דברי הברית הזות יתברכ בלבבו לאמור שלום יהי לי‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫כיא בשרירות לבי אלכ̇ ונספתה רוחו הצמאה עם הרווה לאין‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫סליחה אפ אל וקנאת משפטיו יבערו בו לכלת עולמים ודבקו בו כול‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫אלות הברית הזות ויבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת מתוכ כול בני אור בהסוגו‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫מאחרי אל בגלוליו ומכשול עוונו יתן גורלו בתוך ארורי עולמים‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫וכול באי הברית יענו ואמרו אחריהם אמן אמן ‪vacat‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪ vacat‬ככה יעשו שנה בשנה כול יומי ממשלת בליעל הכוהנים יעבורו‬ ‫‪16. thus all those who are entering into the Rule of the Community shall cross over‬‬ ‫‪into the covenant before God, 27 in order to act‬‬ ‫‪19F‬‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫‪Charlesworth translates “all those who are entering shall cross over into the‬‬ ‫‪covenant before God by the Rule of the Community”; the translation chosen follows‬‬ ‫‪the order of the Hebrew more closely.‬‬ ‫‪460‬‬

17. according to everything which he has commanded. They must not turn back from following after him because of any terror, dread, or 18. persecution 28 during the dominion of Belial. 29 When they cross over into the covenant the priests 19. and the Levites shall bless 30 the God of salvation and all his true works, and all 20. those who cross over into the covenant shall say after them: “Amen, amen.” 21. Then the priests shall report the righteousness of God along with his wondrous works, 22. and recount all (his) merciful acts of kindness 31 towards Israel. Then the Levites shall enumerate 23. the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their guilty transgressions and their sins during the dominion of 24. Belial. [And al]l those who cross over into the covenant shall confess after them (by) saying: “We have perverted ourselves, 25. we have rebel[led], we [have sin]ned, we have acted impiously, we [and] our [fath]ers before us, by our walking 26. […] True and righte[ous] is the [Go]d of [Israel and] his judgment against us and [our] fathers; Col. 2

28

Charlesworth translates ‫ מצרפ‬and ‫ נסוימ‬separately, as “affliction, or agony.” However, ‫ מצרפ נסוימ‬is a construct phrase reflecting the meaning found in Ps 26:2 ‫צ ְָרפָה( ִכלְיוֹתַ י ְו ִלבִּי‬:‫ ְבּ ָחנֵנִי ה' ְונַ ֵסּנִי צרופה )קרי‬. “Probe me, Lord, and try me, refine (NJPS: test) my kidneys and heart.” There are numerous biblical references to God “refining” Israel in this way; see Isa 1:25, 48:10; Jer 9:6; Zech 13:9; Ps 66:10. 29 Charlesworth translates “reign”; the translation has been changed for the sake of consistency. 30 Charlesworth translates “praise.” 31 Charlesworth translates “of love”; this has been changed to maintain consistency regarding the translation of ‫חסד‬. 461

1. But the mercy of his kindness 32 he has [bes]towed upon us from eternity to eternity.” Then the priests shall bless all 2. the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in all his ways, and say: “May he bless you with all 3. good and keep you from all evil; may he enlighten your heart with insight for living, may he favor you with eternal knowledge. 4. May he lift up his merciful countenance toward you for eternal peace.” Then the Levites shall curse all the men of 5. Belial’s lot; they shall respond and say: “Cursed be you in all the acts of your guilty wickedness. 33 May God give you up 6. (to) terror through all the avengers (lit. “avengers of vengeance”). May he visit upon you destruction through all those who take 7. revenge. Cursed be you without compassion in accordance with the darkness of your deeds. 34 Damned be you 8. in everlasting murky fire. May God not favor you 35 when you call out 36 and may he not forgive (you) 37 in order to cover over 38 your iniquity. 9. May he lift up his angry countenance to wreak vengeance 39 upon you. And may you not have peace 40 according to all who hold fast to the fathers.” 10. And all those who cross over into the covenant shall say after those who bless and those who curse: “Amen, amen.” 32

Charlesworth translates “loving mercy.” Charlesworth translates “your guilty (and) wicked works.” 34 Charlesworth translates “works.” 35 Charlesworth translates “not be compassionate unto you”; the meaning chosen here maintains the parallel with 1QS II.3. 36 Charlesworth translates “cry out.” 37 Charlesworth sees this clause as the beginning of a new sentence (and not as a continuation of the expansion on ‫“ לוא יחונכה‬May he not favor you”). 38 Charlesworth translates “by covering over.” 39 Charlesworth translates “his vengeance.” 40 Charlesworth translates “May there be no peace for you.” 33

462

11. And the priests and the Levites shall continue and say: “Because of the idols of his heart which he worships cursed be 12. he who enters into this covenant and puts the stumbling-block of his iniquity before him so that he backslides, (stumbling) over it. And 13. when he hears the words of this covenant, he blesses himself in his heart, 41 saying: “Peace be with me, 14. for I shall walk 42 in the stubbornness of my heart.” May his spirit be destroyed, “the thirsty with the saturated” 43 without 15. forgiveness. May God’s wrath and his angry judgments burn him 44 flare up against him for everlasting destruction, and may all 16. the curses of this covenant stick to him. May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the children of light because of his backsliding 17. from God through his idols and the stumbling-block of his iniquity. He shall put his lot 45 among those who are cursed forever.” 18. And all those who enter the covenant shall respond and say after them: “Amen, amen.” 19. Thus they shall do year after year, all the days of Belial’s dominion. 46 The priests shall cross over… S. Metso concludes that the liturgical material in this passage had an independent existence before its insertion in the Community Rule, and that I.16-18a 47 41

Charlesworth translates “blesses himself erroneously.” Charlesworth translates “for I walk.” 43 Deut 29:18. Charlesworth translates “(suffering) thirst along with saturation” but the quote likely denotes the total destruction of all such people, rather than a particular type of suffering. 44 Charlesworth translates “flare up against him.” 45 Charlesworth translates “May he put his lot.” For the difference between this clause and previous requests of God, see discussion below. 46 Charlesworth translates “the reign of Belial”; see n.29 above. 42

463

and II.19a were created secondarily by the compiler. 48 Her conclusion is supported by the similar structure of 4QBerakhot examined above. The liturgical text in 1QS contains many biblical references. The renewal of the covenant through a string of blessings and curses draws from the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27-28. The blessings in 1QS II.2-4 are an expansion of the priestly blessing in Num 6:24-26, while II.8-9 is a reversal of this blessing. The final warning against the hypocritical member of the community in lines 11-17 draws directly from Deut 29:18-20, which similarly warns any Israelite who listens to the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy 27-28 without taking them to heart. While the curse in 4QBerakhot addressed Belial and his demon followers directly, in 1QS I-II Belial is never referred to as a separate being. It is evident that the audience is expected to know what the “lot of Belial” and “the days of Belial’s dominion” are, but if all that had survived of Qumran were this text, there would be no way to know whether Belial here denotes a demonic figure or general evil. 49 The neglect of the demonic Belial goes hand in hand with the exclusively human focus of

47

Following M. Weise, Kultzeiten und kultischer Bundesschluss in der “Ordensregel” vom Toten Meer (StPB 3; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 68. 48 S. Metso, Textual Development, 112, 141. 49 Hence H.W. Huppenbauer read Belial here not as a proper name but as an abstract principle of ungodliness; Huppenbauer, Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten 35-36. Huppenbauer was limited in his analysis by the paucity of published texts, and based his reading of 1QS partly on the fact that among the scrolls of Cave 1, only the War Scroll portrayed Belial as a personified character. 464

the passage. 50 The human “people of the lot of Belial” and the hypocritical community member are the sole objects of the curse and the “lot of Belial” here includes only human evildoers (no spirits of Belial’s lot are mentioned). The “days of Belial’s dominion” signify two different periods in history where “righteous” humans confront evil: the long history of a sinning Israel (I.23-24) and the present period, when the community suffers the trials of persecution (I.17-18). This persecution is presumably conducted by the “children of Belial.” It is likely that the curse originally did address Belial. This would explain the consistent use of the second person singular in II.5-9 in a curse ostensibly directed toward “all the people of Belial’s lot.” If so, the object of the curse has been intentionally changed from a demonic figure to the humans who are within his “lot,” further indicating a conscious decision on the part of the redactor to focus on humans in this passage. Belial and his spirits are not actors in this passage; they do not instigate human sin. The editor of this passage does not change the Deuteronomic prooftext in explaining the motivation of the hypocritical member; as in Deuteronomy, the hypocrite’s thoughts result only from her own “stubbornness.” Since the language of the hypocritical member’s thought is drawn directly from Deut 29:18, it is impossible

50

Contra Nitzan (“4QBerakhota-e,” 495), who sees this text as depicting two opposing authorities. Nitzan’s identification of the dualistic framework of this passage is accurate, but the framework in this text nevertheless lacks any direct address of Belial, indicating that cosmic authorities are not the focus of its dualistic outlook. 465

to draw conclusions regarding free will from the choice of the term šryrwt lb (“stubbornness of heart”) to indicate the decision to sin. This phrase is borrowed directly from the parallel text in Deut 29:18. However, immediately following this section, a passage that describes the nature of the yaḥad similarly portrays the rejection of the community as resulting from a choice made freely by the nonmember. 51 1QS II.24-III.4 ‫כיא הכול יהיו ביחד אמת וענות טוב ו֯ אהבת חסד ומחשבת צדק‬

24

‫֯אי֯ ש לרעהו בעצת קודש ובני סוד עולמים וכול המואס לבוא‬

25

‫א[ל ללכת בשרירות לבו לוא ] י[חד אמתו כיא געלה‬

]

26

‫נפשו ביסורי דעת משפטי צדק לוא חזק למשוב חיו ועם ישרים לוא יתחשב‬

1

‫ודעתו וכוחו והונו לוא יבואו בעצת יחד כיא בס̇און רשע מחרשו וגואלים‬

2

‫בשובתו ולוא יצדק במתור שרירות לבו וחושכ יביט לדרכי אור בעין תמימים‬

3

‫לוא יתחשב לוא יזכה בכפורים ולוא יטהר במי נדה ולוא יתקדש בימים‬

4

Col. III

24 For they shall all be in the Community of truth, of virtuous humility, of kindly love, 52 and of righteous intention 14F

25 [towa]rds one another, in a holy council, and members of an eternal assembly. And every one who refuses to enter

51

Metso, Textual Development, 141-2, notes that the passage at II.25b-III.12 belongs to a different genre from that of the previous two sections, as it sets forth the basic principles of the community. It is thus doubly significant that even here the nonmember’s free choice is emphasized. 52 Charlesworth translates “merciful love”; the translation has been changed to maintain consistency. 466

26 [

G]od (so as) to walk in the stubbornness of his heart, [shall] not […] his

true [Com]munity, for 1 his soul detests instructions about knowledge of righteous precepts. He is unable to repent, (so that) he might live, and he is not to be accounted with the upright ones. 2 His knowledge, strength, and property shall not come into the Council of the Community, for in the filth of wickedness (is) his plowing, and (there is) contamination 3 in his repentance. He is not righteous when he walks in the stubbornness of his heart. And darkness he considers the ways of light; in the fount of the perfect ones 4 he cannot be accounted. He cannot be purified by atonement, nor be cleansed by waters of purification, nor sanctify himself in streams The decision of someone who chooses not to join the community is not attributed to demonic influence or even to the “lot” to which the nonmember belongs. 53 The nonmember has made this sinful decision based solely on his own willful heart (II.26, III.3). As in CD II.14-III.12a (discussed in chapter 4), the will of the human heart may naturally act against God’s commandments, and lead one astray in the choice not to join the community. 54 The opposing choice to join the community

53

Contra Baumgarten and Schwartz (“Damascus Document [CD],” 6-7), who see the Community Rule as reflecting the belief that humans have no role in determining to what lot they belong. In their opinion, this is opposed to the view reflected in the Damascus Document that evildoers can repent while members may backslide. As is clear from the earlier analysis of 1QS, the theological basis of the Community Rule in 1QS and the theological stance of the admonition in the Damascus Document are not diametrically opposed. Both note the freedom of nonmembers to turn away from their evildoing and join the community, while members remain capable of sin. 54 Chapter 4 explored the apparent insertion in 1QS of phrases supporting free will, in contrast to the version of the Community Rule preserved in 4QSb,d. While for most of 467

and to abide by its precepts is similarly described as an act of will which depends only on the member himself: 1QS III.9b-12 ‫ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים‬

...

9

‫בכול דרכי אל כאשר צוה למועדי תעודתיו ולוא לסור ימין ושמאול ואין‬

10

‫לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו אז ירצה בכפורי ניחוח לפני אל והיתה לו לברית‬

11

vacat ‫יחד עולמים‬

12

9 … May he establish his steps for walking perfectly 10 in all God’s ways, as he commanded at the appointed times of his fixed times, and not turn aside, to the right or to the left, and not 11 transgress a single one of all his commands. Then he will be accepted by an agreeable atonement before God, and it shall be unto him 12 a covenant of the everlasting Community. vacat As in the covenantal texts investigated in chapter 4, the aims of this text determine its portrayal of the decision to sin or not to sin. The new or existing member must be prepared to “set his feet to walk perfectly in all the ways of God.” He must be ready to make this choice, and take full responsibility. In chapter 4 of this study, the analysis of the introductions to the Community Rule and the Damascus Document demonstrated that the approach to sin in these texts emphasized the members’ free will in turning away from their own inclination to sin. This emphasis served the purposes of these texts, as they are aimed at members the text investigated above there is no cave 4 parallel, the parallel to III.2-3 is found in 4QpapSc (4Q257) III.3-5. 468

undertaking the responsibility to fulfill the commandments as interpreted by the group. The avoidance of the figure of Belial in 1QS I.16-II.19 and the emphasis on the member’s independent decisions in this section of 1QS stem from a similar goal. Unlike 4QBerakhot, where the text deals with a broad view of both God and Belial, the purpose of the passage in the Community Rule is to firmly draw the line between member and non-member and to emphasize the path that the member must take. Members must assert their complete allegiance to the group by cursing those who do not follow its precepts, including hypocritical members who seem to have accepted the responsibilities of membership but who plan to ignore the rules (like the sinner of Deut 29:18). In order to underline the choice the member has made, and the absolute responsibility he will bear if he chooses not to follow the precepts of the community, the ceremony does not address the demon Belial. Evildoing is in the hands of humans, although they may belong to the “lot” of Belial if they neglect to join the community or to obey its precepts. This emphasis on human responsibility seems to be at odds with the idea of a “lot” of Belial and a “lot” of God. In the 1QS passage the “lot” of Belial is part of a dualistic division of humanity: there is a “lot” of God (ΙΙ.2) who follow God’s ways and are consequently blessed, and a “lot” of Belial (II.4-5) consisting of evildoers (II.4-5). In contrast, in 4QBerakhot only Belial has a “lot,” which includes both spirits and humans.

469

The use of the term gwrl (“lot”) differs among Qumran texts, and bears further investigation. The passage in 1QS does not seem to reflect the idea of predetermined lots. The lot of the community member who turns his back on the sect is placed with the cursed (II.17) through his own unfortunate choice and actions. Unlike the previous clauses in which actions of God are delineated with a waw consecutive, here “he shall place” lacks any prefix. It is possible that the verb is related to the preceding “stumbling block of his iniquity,” that is, his sin will place him in the lot of the wicked. Alternatively, it is possible that the subject of the clause is the sinner himself, who will place himself in the lot of the wicked through his own actions. Whether the subject is God, sin, or the sinner himself is significant for determining the degree of free will reflected in this passage, but any one of these subjects shows that one’s lot is flexible, and can be changed by one’s decision to sin. The sinner’s “lot” is in some sense in his own hands, at least as it pertains to his rejection of the community. Usually the term gwrl in 1QS refers to the actual casting of lots by leaders of the community (as is evident in 1QS VI.16-22). 55 An exception is 1QS IV.26, which probably refers to the metaphorical casting of lots by God, which God uses to determine his creatures’ fate. 56 The term gwrl differs in its actual and metaphorical

55

See Lange, “Essene Position,” 148-9. This is the most likely reading of the text there, and is supported by the study of F. Schmidt, “Gôral versus Payîs: Casting Lots at Qumran and in the Rabbinic Tradition,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Popović; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175-85. Schmidt distinguishes between human lot 56

470

meanings. The actual, literal meaning of gwrl is a lot cast by leaders of the community. The gwrl served as an oracle for the administration of the community, as is evident in 1QS VI.16-22 and CD XIII.4 (see also 1QS V.3, IX.7, and 1QSa I.16), 57 and signified God’s continuous revelation. 58 In its metaphorical use, gwrl denotes the casting of lots by God at creation, and hence the predetermination of specific humans’ role and their place among the righteous or wicked (see 1QS iv.26; 4Q176 16-18.2223.53 3; 4Q181 1 ii.4-5; 4Q418 81 5). 59 However, neither of these meanings easily explains the appearance of the term in 1QS II.17. In both the actual (1QS VI.16-22) and metaphorical (1QS IV.26) meanings of gwrl, the person affected by the lots has no casting, depicted with the phrase ‫יצא הגורל‬, “the lot ‘came out’” (as in Josh 16:1, 19:1, 17, 24, 32, 40, 21:4; 1 Chron 24:7) and divine lot casting, described with the more active phrase ‫“ הפיל גורל‬he cast lots” (a phrase found particularly in late biblical Hebrew; see Jonah 7:7; Ps 22:19; Prov 1:14; Esth 3:7; Neh 10:35, 11:1; 1 Chron 24:31; 2 Chron 25:8; 26:13-14). As the phrase in 1QS IV.26 is ‫ ]ו[ל̇]ה[פיל גורלות‬, F. Schmidt concludes that divine lots are the subject of discussion there; ibid., 180. If Schmidt’s distinction is not accepted, IV.26 may refer to the casting of lots within the community, a power bestowed by God so that community leaders may cast lots “according to the spirit” (1QS IV.26) of the member, as described in 1QS VI.16-22. A. Lange connects the idea of God casting lots at the creation with the Sumero-Akkadian poem Wisdom Text from Emar and Sippar. This poem contains the refrain “With Enki the rules were formulated; by command of the (same) God the lots have been cast; since early times it happened in this way.” As Lange notes, the idea of God casting lots can also be found in Isa 34:17 and Ps 16:5. See Lange, “The Determination of Fate by the Oracle of Lot in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Mesopotamian Literature,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 44-48. 57 Lange, “Essene Position,” 408-10. 58 Schmidt, “Gôral versus Payîs,” 180, 185. 59 See Lange, “Essene Position,” 423. Lange notes this use of the gwrl in 4Q176 16 3 and 4Q181 1 ii 5. 471

control over them. He does not cast them himself; they are cast either by leaders of the community (VI.16-22) or by God (1QS IV.26). In 1QS II.17, however, the rejecting member has somehow managed to place himself in a particular “lot.” 60 In other words, the gwrl here is directly affected by conscious human behavior. Through the member’s actions, he determines how his lot will fall. The manner in which gwrl is used in II.17, and in fact in the entire passage of 1QS I.16-II.19, is drawn from the appearance of the term gwrl in the ceremony described in Lev 16:7-10: .‫ִירם ְו ֶה ֱע ִמיד א ֹתָ ם ִל ְפנֵי ה' פֶּתַ ח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד‬ ִ ‫שּׂע‬ ְ ‫שׁנֵי ַה‬ ְ ‫ ְו ָל ַקח אֶת‬7 .‫ְגוֹרל ֶאחָד ַל ֲעז ָאז ֵל‬ ָ ‫גּוֹרל ֶאחָד ַלה' ו‬ ָ ‫וֹרלוֹת‬ ָ ‫ִירם גּ‬ ִ ‫שׁנֵי הַשְּׂ ע‬ ְ ‫ ְונָתַ ן אַהֲר ֹן עַל‬8 .‫ַגּוֹרל ַלה' ְו ָעשָׂהוּ ַחטָּאת‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָעלָה ָעלָיו ה‬ ֶ ‫שּׂעִיר ֲא‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִה ְק ִריב אַהֲר ֹן אֶת ַה‬9 .‫שׁלַּח א ֹתוֹ ַל ֲעז ָאז ֵל ַה ִמּדְ בּ ָָרה‬ ַ ‫ַגּוֹרל ַל ֲעזָאז ֵל י ָ ֳע ַמד חַי ִל ְפנֵי ה' ְל ַכפֵּר ָעלָיו ְל‬ ָ ‫ ְוהַשָּׂ עִיר אֲ שֶׁ ר ָעלָה ָעלָיו ה‬10 7 He shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; 8 and Aaron shall place lots (gwrlwt) upon the two goats, one “lot” (gwrl ’ḥd) for the Lord and one “lot” (gwrl ’ḥd) for Azazel. 61 9 Aaron shall 153F

bring forward the goat designated by lot for the Lord, which he is to offer as a sin offering; 10 while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel. The use of the term gwrl in the biblical verse reflects the lot that had been cast in order to determine which goat would be sacrificed to the Lord and which would be 60

As noted above, whether the action belongs to God, the “stumbling block of his sin,” or the member himself, it is a result of the member’s actions, and has apparently not been determined from his birth. 61 NJPS translates “one marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel.” 472

designated “for Azazel.” But the important “bottom line” would not be lost on a Qumran reader: there is a “lot” which belongs to God, and another that belongs to Azazel. It is this lot which 1QS II.17 depicts as at least somewhat fluid, in the sense that one can remove oneself from the lot of God and put oneself into the “other” lot, which in 1QS II.17 is the lot of Belial, of those “cursed forever.” 62 The idea of two lots, one belonging to God and one to a demonic figure, clearly informs the Qumran use of the term gwrl in its metaphorical meaning. 63 The passage in 1QS I.16-II.19 goes slightly further, demonstrating how this term could be used in a way far from its literal meaning but still reflecting biblical use. There are, indeed, two lots, one belonging to God and one to the demon Belial. These lots express whether a person belongs to the righteous or to the wicked, but in 1QS I-II they reflect neither metaphorical nor literal lots that have been cast. They only determine whether one will belong to God, as one of the righteous community members, or to Belial, as one of the evildoing nonmembers. They are therefore subject 62

In an early study, J. Licht reviewed the use of the term gwrl in the extant Dead Sea Scrolls (Licht, “The Term GWRL in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Beit Mikra 1 [1955-1956]: 90-99 [Hebrew]). He noted that the idea of “casting one’s lot (gwrl) with” a group can be found in Prov 1:14 regarding enlisting in a group of evildoers and in 1QSb IV.26, where the blessed joins the angels (‫)מפיל גורל עם מלאכי פנים‬. The latter source reflects a use of gwrl that appears nowhere else in the Scrolls. Based on the use of gwrl in other Dead Sea texts, Licht ultimately concluded that gwrl at Qumran indicated divinely predetermined membership in a band of wicked or righteous people. However, it is significant that in both Prov 1:14 and 1QSb IV.26 one’s gwrl is influenced by independent human decision. 63 J. Amir was the first to note the possible influence of Lev 16:7-10 on the Qumran concept of Belial, in a brief (three-paragraph) response to Licht’s article on gwrl; see J. Amir, “The Term ‘Goral’,” Beit Mikra 2 (1957): 102 (Hebrew). 473

to one’s actions, which similarly determine one’s righteousness or wickedness. In this text, while one may in essence determine to which lot one belongs, it is an all-ornothing proposition; one cannot be “a little righteous.” One is a righteous member or a wicked nonmember. The comparison between the two curse texts in 4QBerakhot and 1QS I-II accentuates different uses of Belial as a concept even when there is a shared assumption that Belial is a demonic figure. The Belial of 4QBerakhot is an active demonic figure, commanding spirits and humans. He is directly opposed to God, but nevertheless in the present period he, his spirits, and his human subjects are allowed to exist. Evildoers are “children of Belial,” implying both complete belonging to Belial and, possibly, a connection with Belial from birth. There is no reference in 4QBerakhot to the sinning of the righteous, and so it is impossible to know whether the composer considered Belial responsible for causing such sin. For the purposes of 4QBerakhot, however, the line is clearly drawn: evildoers are wholly evil, while community members do not sin. The passage in the Community Rule shares this stark division of humanity, but differs in its concept of Belial. Here, too, there are evildoers who belong to the “lot” of Belial. But Belial himself and his spirit minions are nowhere to be found. Furthermore, these evildoers are in a certain sense the masters of their fate. They have chosen to reject the community and have placed themselves in their evil lot. As discussed above, this “Belial-less Belial passage” conforms to the nature of covenantal

474

texts. Because the focus is on members and their agreement to abide by the rules of the community, this text focuses on human evildoers and does not allow any shift in responsibility to a demonic presence. Even a member’s “lot” is the result of his own actions.

4QCurses (4Q280) An integration of the ideas found in the passages of the Community Rule and 4QBerakhot discussed above may be found in the Qumran text 4QCurses (4Q280). 64 4Q280 2 1-7 [

‫[ל̇רעה מתוך בני הא̇]ור‬

2[

1

[

‫אר[ור אתה מלכי רשע בכול מח]שבות‬

2

[

] ‫̇וראכה‬ ֯ ‫א̇ל לזעוה ביד נוקמי נקם לוא יחונכה אל ]ב[ק‬

3

[

‫לכה לזעמה ולוא יהיה לכה שלו]ם[ בפי כול אוחזי אבו֯ ]ת‬

4

[

‫עוש]י‬ ֯ ‫לאין שרית וזעום אתה לאין פליטה וארורים‬

5

[

]̇‫]ומ[ ֯קימי ֯מז֯ מתכה בלבב̇מה לזום על ברית א̇ל‬

6

] ̇‫המואס ל ֯̇בו̇א‬ ֯ ‫] [י̇ כול ח̇ו̇ז̇י̇ אמ̇]תו וכ[ו֯ ל‬

7

[ 1[

]

]for evil from among the children of li[ght Cur]sed are you, Melki-reša‘, in all the pl[ans

] ]

3 God to terror through all the avengers (lit. “avengers of vengeance”). May God not favor you [when] you call. [

]

64

Text follows B. Nitzan, “280. 4QCurses,” in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 1-8; translation my own. 475

4 upon you for a denouncing. 65 And you will have no pea[ce] according to all those who hold fast to the fathe[rs.

]

5 without remnant and denounced 66 are you without escape. And cursed are those who perf[orm 6[

]

and those who f]ulfill your scheme in their hearts, by plotting against the

covenant of God[

]

7 [ ]y all the seers of [his] tru[th. And any]one who refuses to enter [

]

As noted by B. Nitzan, the different sections that may be discerned in this fragment exhibits parallels to 1QS II and to 4QBerakhot. 67 The line fragment at line 1 seems to conclude a curse against one who rejects the community, parallel to 1QS II.16. 68 The final line fragment at line 7b similarly seems to refer to one who refuses to join the community, as in 1QS II.25-26. 69 Nitzan has described the middle section, lines 2-7a, as parallel to the curse in 4QBerakhot discussed above. 70 However, what remains of this middle section actually begins with elements of the curse in 4QBerakhot (4Q286) 7a ii.2, continues with words that parallel 1QS ii.8-9, and concludes with a parallel of 4QBerakhot 7a ii.11-12, as will be discussed further below. 65

Nitzan translates “curse.” See n. 4 above. Nitzan translates “damned.” See n. 4 above. 67 Nitzan, “4QBerakhota-e,” 489-90. 68 Compare 4Q280 2 1: [‫ ] [ל̇רעה מתוך בני הא̇]ור‬, “for evil from among the children of light” and 1QS II.16b: ‫ ויבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת מתוכ כול בני אור בהסוגו‬, “May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the children of light because of his backsliding.” 69 Compare 4Q280 2 7b: ̇‫המואס ל ֯̇בו̇א‬ ֯ ‫ ]וכ[ו֯ ל‬and 1QS II.25b-26a: ‫ וכול המואס לבוא ] א[ל ללכת בשרירות לבו‬. 70 Nitzan, “4QBerakhota-e,” 489-90. 66

476

The curse focuses on the demonic figure Melki-reša, the apparent counterpart to Melki-ṣedeq, who is depicted as Belial’s adversary in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). 71 Here Melki-reša has taken over the role of Belial as the demonic leader of evil. It is therefore likely that this text does not contrast the leader of evil to God himself, but rather to the angelic Melki-ṣedeq. If this is so, such a “downgrading” of the cosmic dualism reflected in this text compared to 4QBerakhot avoids the depiction of a demonic figure who may seem to directly challenge God himself. On the other hand, this type of dualism creates a separate problem involving the elevation of an angel to the level of God, in particular regarding his role of guarding and guiding the children 71

So Davies, “Eschatology,” 51-52. (Davies notes the development of Melki-reša as a counterpart of Melki-ṣedeq as proof that dualism was a development of earlier Qumran doctrine and not original to it.) The other source in which Melki-reša is found, 4QVision of Amram (4Q544 2=iii.13), likely also included Melki-ṣedeq as his counterpart. (4QVision of Amram will be explored further below in connection with the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the Community Rule.) While Melki-ṣedeq is a human king and priest in Gen 14:18 (also referred to in Ps 110:4), it is apparent that by the Second Temple period some conceived of him as an angelic figure, as is apparent in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) and in possible references to Melki-ṣedeq in “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” 4Q401 11 3 and 22 3; see A. Steudel, “Melchizedek,” EDSS 2:535-6. In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon unsurprisingly refers to Melki-ṣedeq as the human king-priest of Gen 14:18; see the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) xxii.14. Melchisedek (Μελχισέδεκ) is a central figure in Hebrews 4-10, where his character combines the characters of Gen 14:18 and Ps 110:4; in fact, one of the differences between the figure in Hebrews and in Qumran texts noted by Steudel (see Steudel, ibid., 536), the eternal nature of Melchisedek and his priesthood, is drawn directly from Ps 110:4. (Another difference, noted by L. Schiffman, is that while Hebrews dissociates Melchisedek from the now obsolete Temple priesthood, in the Dead Sea Scrolls the eschatological role of Melki-ṣedeq represents the fulfillment of the priestly role as described in the Hebrew Bible; see Schiffman, “Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. F. García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 173. 477

of Israel. 72 The tradition that Israel is the only nation to benefit from the direct guidance of God can be found in Exod 33:14-16, LXX (and perhaps MT kĕtîb) Isa 63:9, LXX Deut 32:8 (and 4QDeutj), and Jub. 15:30-32. 73 The problem of attributing Israel’s leadership to an angel rather than to God, which apparently bothered other writers at Qumran, evidently did not present a difficulty for the composer of 4QCurses. 74 The beginning of the curse against the demonic Melki-reša in line 2, “[Cur]sed are you, Melki-reša‘, in all the pl[ans]” echoes the beginning of the curse of Belial in 4QBerakhot (4Q286) 7a ii.2, “Cursed be [B]elial in his hostile [p]lan.” However, the following lines in 4Q280 seem to borrow ideas and terminology from 1QS II.6-9 against evildoers. They promise vengeance (see 1QS II.6) and state that God will not favor Melki-reša by accepting his plea (1QS II.8), nor will Melki-reša have peace among those who “hold fast to the fathers” (see 1QS II.9). These phrases are more appropriate for human evildoers; it seems unlikely that an archdemon would expect either favor from God or peace among law-observing Jews. Like the text in 1QS, the

72

Or the lesser but still significant difficulty of delegating this role to a lower being; see J. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 44-46. 73 On the prominence of this tradition, see Duhaime, op. cit. For a refinement of Duhaime’s statement that Isa 63:9 supports this idea, see n. 74 below. 74 The different approaches as to whether the existence of an angelic intermediary is positive or negative may also be reflected in the readings of Isa 63:9 in MT Qere, whereby God’s love is expressed through Israel’s rescue by an angel of the presence, as opposed to the reading of LXX Isa 63:9 and possibly MT Kethib, where God’s love is expressed in the assurance that only God, and no angel, will save Israel. (The verse as found in the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) supports either reading.) 478

curse of Melki-reša begins with an apparent reversal of the priestly blessing in Num 6:24-26. Nitzan sees 4Q280 as the earlier text and, therefore, as a source of the curse in the Community Rule. 75 However, as Nitzan herself notes, while lines 1 and 7b in 4Q280 reflect the order of the last part of the curses in the Community Rule (1QS II.15-17, 25-26), 76 this order is interrupted in lines 2-7a with the curses directed at Melki-reša and his followers. 77 The interruption of the flow of 4Q280 indicates that the curse against Melki-reša was itself modeled on that found in 1QS column ii or a similar text, and redirected to a demon as opposed to human evildoers. It was then inserted into a text condemning those who reject the community similar to 1QS II.1517, 25-26. Paleographic evidence supports the idea that this text, dated to the middle of the first century B.C.E., 78 borrowed from the earlier 1QS, paleographically dated to the beginning of the first century (100-75) B.C.E. 79

75

Nitzan concludes that 4Q280 is earlier, due to its “undeveloped liturgical form” compared to the ceremony in 1QS I-II, which includes repeating refrains that are written systematically throughout the ceremony; see B. Nitzan, “Blessings and Curses,” in EDSS 1:98. Her explanation for the transition from the liturgy in 4Q280 to that found in 1QS II is that the editor of the Community Rule did not want to include the curse against Melki-reša in a covenantal ceremony concerned only with human beings. While this is a reasonable explanation, especially given the analysis of 1QS III above, the textual evidence that results from the comparison of 4Q280 with 1QS II overwhelmingly supports a development from 1QS to 4Q280, as explained above. 76 See notes 68 and 69 above. 77 Nitzan, “Blessings and Curses,” 1:97. 78 J. T. Milik, “Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 129. 79 Cross, Ancient Library of Qumran, 119. 479

In 4Q280 the insertion of a curse against Melki-reša into a text condemning human evildoers results in an expression which is the opposite of what was observed in the curses of 1QS. In 1QS II the actions of the individual cause him to be in Belial’s lot. In contrast, here it is Melki-reša who lies at the root of the actions of those who reject the group. Those who have rejected the community are thereby explained as (perhaps predetermined) active followers of demonic forces, bent only on carrying out Melki-reša’s schemes. The author of 4Q280 apparently shared the demonistic and dualistic worldview of the composer of 4QBerakhot. In both texts, evil people are explained to be following a supreme demonic presence. However, while the curse in 4QBerakhot ignores the possibility that members of the group may “cross over” to the other side, the composer of 4Q280 is responding to 1QS II or a similar text, which discusses the decision to reject the sect. In 1QS II this decision will place the ex-community member’s lot among the cursed, the lot of Belial, while Belial has no role in the decision itself. In 4Q280, in contrast, the inserted curse of Melki-reša provides the community member with an explanation of why the ex-member has left the group and draws a firm line between members and nonmembers, including nonmembers who once belonged to the “children of light.” It also appears that the redactor responsible for inserting the curse against Melki-reša was bothered by the possibility that the extreme transgression of rejection of the community could result from human decision. According to the author of 4Q280, those who refuse to enter the covenant are

480

not simply nonmembers who have chosen to do wrong. Rather, they are manifestations of the ultimate demonic presence, fulfilling Melki-reša’s evil scheme.

4QFlorilegium Demonic influence, attributed to Belial, can also be found in 4QFlorilegium, a sectarian, 80 thematic pesher of a variety of biblical passages. 4QFlorilegium describes an eschatological period when the nation will be led by both a Davidic and a priestly messiah, and a Temple will be constructed that will never be destroyed. Until then, a “temple of man/humans” 81 will suffice. In contrasting the present age to the eschaton, the author of 4QFlorilegium describes Belial’s human accomplices engaging in typically demonic activity by attempting to lead the “children of light” into sin. 82 4Q174 (4QFlor) 1-2i 21 7—9 [‫מכ]ול‬ ֯ ‫לפניו מ ֯̇עש̇י תורה ואשר אמר לדויד ו]הניחו[ ֯תי לכה מכול אויביכה אשר יניח להמה‬ 80

7

In particular because of its sectarian terminology; see J. Milgrom, “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1-2 (4Q174=4QFlor),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 248-63, at 248; see also G. J. Brooke, “Florilegium,” EDSS, 1:297-8. 81 For discussions regarding what the “temple of man” (‫ )מקדש אדם‬in 4QFlor (4Q174) could represent, see M. O. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991): 103-32 and D. Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky (ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud; Collection de la Revue des études juives 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 165-89. 82 Text and translation follow Milgrom, “Florilegium,” 250-1. 481

[‫להכשיל ֯ב]ני‬ ֯ ‫[מה כאשר באו במחשבת] ב[ ֯ל]י[על‬ vacat

‫לכלותמ]ה‬ ֯ ‫בני בליעל ה̇מכשילים אותמה‬

8

‫למ]ען ית[פשו לבליעל במשגת א̇]ו[נ֯ מה‬ ֯ ‫א̇ו֯ ]ר[ ו֯ לחשוב עליהמה מחשבות און‬

9

7 before him, works of Torah. And (that) which he said to David, “And I [shall give] you [rest] from all your enemies” (2 Sam 7:11), that (is) he will give them rest from a[ll] 8 the children of Belial who cause them to stumble in order to destroy th[em

]mh

just as they came with a plan of [Be]lial to cause to stumble the c[hildren of] 9 ligh[t] and to devise against them evil plans so t[hat th]ey might be cau[ght] by Belial through their ini[quit]ous error. vacat These references to Belial and to the “children of Belial” 83 portray a firm 175F

division between humans belonging to Belial and those belonging to the “children of light,” presumably community members, similar to the divisions implied in 4Q280. The categories of “children of Belial” and “children of light” are mutually exclusive; one is the enemy of the other. While the covenantal ceremony in 1QS focused on the decision to join the community and the need for such a decision to be wholehearted, in 4QFlorilegium decision is irrelevant. As in 4QBerakhot, in 4QFlorilegium the lines have already been drawn. For the author of this passage, it is clear that David’s “enemies” in 2 Sam 7:11 refers to the enemies of the community, who would serve

83

As noted by G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 194, this is the only place in the Qumran texts where the phrase “sons of Belial” appears in its entirety. This phrase has also been restored with a fair amount of certainty in 4QBerakhot (4Q286 7a ii, b-d 6; see above) and in 11Q11 vi.3, and with lesser certainty in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LV.3) and 4QBeatitudes (4Q525 25 2). 482

Belial’s purposes in the future. The verse in 2 Sam 7:11, which refers to peace from David’s enemies and the future building of God’s temple, is now understood to refer to the enemies of the community, who will only desist from the “children of light” at the eschaton, when God’s true temple shall be built. It is the eschatological framework of Florilegium as a whole 84 that determines a lack of fluidity between human categories. In the eschatological future described in Florilegium, there will be no “potential” members; all people will have already made their choice for good or evil, whether that choice was predetermined or not, and will have consequently been established for life or death. The promised “peace” from the children of Belial contrasts with the present age, when the (human) “children of Belial” cause the “children of light” to stumble in order to destroy them. The “children of Belial” take on the demonic function of both leading the righteous to sin and subsequently “destroying” them, just as the demons of Jub. 10:8 both “destroy” and “mislead.” This text may be a development of Belial’s depiction in Jub. 1:19-21. As noted in the previous chapter, Belial in Jub. 1:19-21 is parallel to the nations, and like them, his rule may cause Israel to sin. However, in Jubilees, unlike the nations, Belial is capable of accusing Israel before God following their sin, thereby causing Israel’s destruction. It seems that this understanding of Belial has informed 4QFlorilegium. Belial’s human minions cause sin among the “children of light” in

84

As expressed through the repeated references to ‫אחרית הימים‬, “the latter days,” in 4Q174 1-2 i.2, 12, 15, 19. 483

order to destroy them; this destruction will apparently be their fate if they are “caught” in their transgression by Belial. The humans under Belial’s dominion seem to have taken over the role of the evil spirits and are, quite literally, demonized. Their activity is thereby understandable as a byproduct of the present “dominion of Belial.” 85 Another pesher text, 4QCatena A, demonstrates certain features similar to what is found in 4QFlorilegium. The name Belial appears numerous times in 4QCatena A, but the text is often too fragmentary to understand Belial’s role. What can be discerned is that the “lot of light” suffers during the dominion of Belial (fragments 1-4, lines 7-8). The “people of Belial” and the “rabble” mentioned in line 4 of fragments 10-11 are perhaps those who cause the “children of light” to sin in line 7 of the same fragments. Finally, in 4Q177 12-13i line 7, Belial is opposed by an angel of God who comes to the aid of the children of light. Again, it appears that the line is 85

Belial is mentioned twice more in other fragments of 4QFlorilegium, once in a particularly fragmentary reference in the context of a remnant of Israel who will keep the Torah (frgs. 1 col. ii + 3 lines 1-2), and again in a slightly more complete context in fragment 4 lines 3-5. (Text and translation follow Milgrom, “Florilegium” except where otherwise noted.) ‫] [היאה העת אשר יפתח בליעל‬ 3 ‫] ע[לבית יהודה קשות לשוטמם‬ 4 ‫] [ו֯ ב̇קש בכול כוחו לבזרמה‬ 5 3.[ ]this (is) the time when Belial will open 4.[ aga]inst the house of Judah severe things to be hostile toward (Milgrom: hate) them 5.[ ]and shall seek with all his strength to scatter them This fragmentary text speaks of a time when Belial will act against the “house of Judah,” apparently an appellation of the sect; see Brooke, “Florilegium,” 1:298. It seems to describe the same periodization of evil that elsewhere was expressed by qṣ and mmšlt bly‘l. 484

firmly drawn between the “people of Belial” and the “children of light.” The aid of an angel, not God, against Belial hints at a modified cosmic dualism that avoids the opposition of Belial to God himself. A similarly modified cosmic dualism may be found in the 4Q280 curse of Melki-reša. 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), an eschatological pesher text, similarly presents a dualistic system in which Belial is opposed by the angelic Melki-ṣedeq, who like Belial, has his own lot (ii.8). There is also a future “dominion of justice” (ii.9) which presumably contrasts with the present “dominion of Belial.” However, in what has survived of this text there is nothing regarding humans that Belial commands or misleads. Melki-ṣedeq’s lot consists of spirits (ii.12).

Conclusion: Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls The figure of Belial served a wide range of purposes for the Qumran community. While there is virtually no statement that can be made about Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls without qualification, there are broad lines that may be drawn. Belial is generally not portrayed as an internal threat to those who are already members. Rather, he is responsible for the existence of evildoers outside the group and for their success in persecuting the community. Belial’s role stands in contrast to the part played by the watchers’ descendants in the apotropaic prayers previously explored; in these prayers the watchers’ descendants are portrayed as an ongoing threat to the righteous speaker.

485

Belial’s explanatory function as a cause of sin outside the Qumran community is clearest in the Damascus Document, where the mistaken straying of those outside the community is blamed on the “traps of Belial” and on Belial’s emissaries, the evil human leaders who speak against the community’s law and leadership. Belial as a cause of sin for those outside the group solves two basic theological problems: the existence of evil leaders and their success on the one hand, and the persistence of outsiders that do not accept the obviously correct interpretations of the community regarding the laws of the Torah on the other. In certain texts, particularly in 4Q280 (albeit through his stand-in Malkireša), the existence of Belial explains the rejection of the community by one who is already a member. An extension of this idea, and an exception to the portrayal of Belial’s power as centered on those outside the community, is found in CD XII.4-6, where a member’s transgression is blamed on the rule of “spirits of Belial.” While this may be the result of the influence of Jubilees, as proposed by C. Hempel, 86 and is almost certainly an interpolation, it can still be read as referring to transgressions involving the boundaries between the Qumran community and those outside it. Nevertheless, in this passage the community member remains vulnerable to the influence of Belial. The time period of “the dominion of Belial” is found throughout these texts, sometimes referred to by name (as in the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah/Moses [4Q390], 4QBerakhot and 4QCatena A), and 86

C. Hempel, Laws, 159. 486

sometimes referred to as a period in which Belial is allowed to run free or exist. The existence of this period of evil also serves an explanatory function. While Belial’s power explains the persistence and success of evildoers, why is Belial himself allowed to exist? Through the period of the “dominion of Belial,” Belial’s existence becomes part of an inscrutable divine plan that is somehow more palatable to the writer, and presumably to his audience. The idea of a time period of evil is not restricted to texts focused on the figure of Belial. As noted in the previous chapter, references to a period of evil before the eschaton are found in sectarian texts featuring other demonic figures as well, perhaps for a similar explanatory purpose. The depiction of a time period of evil suits an eschatological worldview according to which all evil will be destroyed at the eschaton. The depiction of the present time as a period in which demonic evil is at large both explains the present persecution of the community and contrasts it with the beautiful, evil-free, eschatological future. (The periodization of evil also bears a certain resemblance to Persian thought, which will be explored in the next chapter.) To what extent is Belial part of a dualistic system? The survey above shows that while Belial is frequently contrasted to God in a dualistic framework, particularly in blessing-curse liturgical texts, this is not always the case. In the Damascus Document, Belial operates without a clear counterpart (except for the “Prince of Light” in the case of Moses and Aaron). In the liturgical texts that mention Belial, however, there is a clear dualistic framework, albeit one which is not consistent across

487

texts. In the Community Rule, the actual demon Belial is not addressed. His human subjects, however, are contrasted to the faithful community members, creating a social dualistic framework while avoiding direct cosmic dualism. In 4QBerakhot Belial and God are contrasted, while in 4Q280 Belial’s substitute Melki-reša is presumably contrasted with an angelic counterpart, Melki-ṣedeq, thereby avoiding including God directly in a dualistic system. Finally, the War Scroll presents a completely dualistic social system whereby “children of darkness” and “children of light” battle in the eschatological future. However, any cosmic dualism that might be expected seems nullified by the explanation that God himself has created Belial in 1QM XIII.10-11, without any description of the creation of a counterpart. Nevertheless, the description of the angel Michael as the leader of the Israelite troops in 1QM XVII.6-7 may be the result of a cosmic dualistic worldview that still avoided equating Belial’s power with divine might. In the final analysis, social dualism is far more prominent than cosmic dualism in the different textual presentations of dualism that use the figure of Belial. Belial’s connection to a doctrine of predetermination is equally unclear. The “lot” of Belial, as demonstrated in the analysis of the Community Rule above, does not necessarily denote a lack of free will. In fact, the covenantal texts explored above in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule maintain the same approach to free will and determinism when they address the figure of Belial as when they describe an internal desire to sin (see chapter 4 above). In these texts, any member or potential member who sins bears the responsibility for his sin, regardless of whether this was

488

caused by internal desire or external demonic activity. 87 A member’s sin can instigate his metaphysical relocation from the realm of the good to the doomed domain of the wicked. Among the texts explored above, the redacted War Scroll stands out as unusual in its depiction of Belial as both the leader of the gentile nations and as performing the divinely sanctioned function of “accusing.” Both these aspects of Belial are drawn from Jubilees. More than any other text explored above, the War Scroll reflects a reading of Jubilees which conflates the figures of Belial and Mastema, as evidenced in the description of Belial as an “angel of hostility” in 1QM XIII.11. As in Jubilees, Belial in the War Scroll is not consistently portrayed in a cosmic dualistic context. However, social dualism is particularly pronounced in the War Scroll, and forms the basis of the eschatological war it describes. The manner of addressing the “Jubilean” depiction of demonic sin also differs in Qumran texts. The infrequency of Mastema’s mention in the Scrolls and the relative scarcity of Qumran texts that reflect the influence of Jubilees in their portrayal of demonic sin underscore those passages which do reflect “Jubilean” influence, such as the Mastema passage in CD XVI.2-6 and the redactional additions to the War Scroll. While the additions in the War Scroll show evidence of an attempt to harmonize the figures of Belial and Mastema, in the Damascus Document and other texts these

87

The exception, of course, is the puzzling escape of the Sabbath desecrator from death in CD XII.4-6. See analysis above. 489

remain two separate figures. While Belial is central to texts of the Qumran community, Mastema remains principally confined to texts that reflect the direct influence of the book of Jubilees. It is impossible to determine with certainty how Belial came to play such a central role; however, it may be that a connection in earlier Jewish thought between Belial and the nations, evident in both Jub. 1:19-21 and the War Scroll, developed into the role of Belial as a leader of evildoers. Belial remained less relevant for explaining the internal psychological struggle of the “righteous” member.

490

XIII. Sin and Its Source in the Treatise of the Two Spirits

The Treatise of the Two Spirits is a self-contained exposition on the origin of sin and the nature of divine omniscience found in the Community Rule, 1QS III.13IV.26 (par. 4QSc [4Q257] V-VI). While this text was once considered to represent the theological basis of the Qumran community’s outlook due to its location in the Community Rule, 1 recent scholarship has recognized that this text is unusual and should be studied independently. 2 Nevertheless, the placement of the Treatise indicates that it was significant to the Qumran community or, at the very least, to the redactor of the Community Rule. Whether the Treatise was a unity or the product of stages of redaction has long been a subject of debate, with prominent scholars on both sides. 3 Accordingly, the

1

Among others, see Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” 533-6; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 149-50; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 139-40. Typical is Nickelsburg’s statement (Jewish Literature, 139), “This section spells out systematically the religious worldview that undergirds the lifestyle and rituals of the community.” 2 See the treatments of the Treatise in Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 121-43, particularly 127-8; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 194-203; and Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 161-7. 3 Those who treat the Treatise as a literary unity include J. Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 88-100; H. Stegemann, “Zu 491

following analysis will address the Treatise both in its discernible sections and as a whole.

Introduction of the Treatise: 1QS III.13-18a This section begins with an introductory passage, 1QS III.13-15a. S. Metso proposes that this passage is a late addition by the redactor who integrated the Treatise into the Community Rule, as indicated by its heading “for the Maskil.” 4 In this introduction to the Treatise, the Maskil is told to understand and to teach all the “children of light” the history of humans, with an emphasis on God’s omniscience: “From the God of knowledge comes all that is occurring and shall occur. Before they came into being he established all their designs; and when they come into existence in their fixed times they carry through their task according to his glorious design.

textbestand und grundgedanken von 1QS III,13-IV,26,” RevQ 13 (1988): 95-131; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 126-70; and Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 289-300. Arguing for stages of growth are Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 541-3; Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 16589; Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 40-43; and idem, “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III 13 - IV 26),” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 103-131. For a recent overview of these approaches, see C. Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 110-3. 4 Metso, Textual Development, 139 n. 106. C. Hempel (“Treatise,” 116) notes that “Maskil” headings like this one seem to be part of the redactional processes evidenced in both 1QS and 4QSd in different sections. (Hempel bases this observation partially on the addition of a Maskil heading at the beginning of 4QSd that is not found in 1QS.) 492

Nothing can be changed.” (III.15b-16). 5 The divine designation “the God of knowledge” indicates that God’s omniscience lies behind the predetermination of all human thought and action. 6 Nevertheless, the passage also states that humans have been created in order to establish their dominion over earth (III.17c-18a), signifying that humans do have power over their environment.

5

All citations and translations of 1QS in this chapter follow Charlesworth and Qimron, “Rule of the Community”, unless otherwise noted. The passage 1QS III.13-18 reads as follows: ‫ למשכיל להבין וללמד את כול בני אור בתולדות כול בני איש‬vacat 13 ‫לכול מיני רוחותם באותותם למעשיהם בדורותם ולפקודת נגועיהם עם‬ 14 ‫קצי שלומם מאל הדעות כול הויה ונהייה ולפני היותם הכין כול מחשבתם‬ 15 ‫ובהיותם לתעודותם כמחשבת כבודו ימלאו פעולתם ואין להשנות בידו‬ 16 ‫משפטי כול והואה יכלכלם בכול חפציהם והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת‬ 17 ‫תבל וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלכ בם עד מועד פקודתו הנה רוחות‬ 18 13 It is for the Maskil (Charlesworth [JHC]: “the Master”) to understand (JHC: “to instruct”) and teach all the children of light (JHC: “Sons of Light”) concerning the nature of all the children of man (JHC: “sons of man”), 14 with respect to all the kinds of their spirits with their distinctions for their works in their generations, and with respect to the visitation of their afflictions together with 15 their times of peace. From the God of knowledge comes all that is occurring and shall occur. Before they came into being he established all their designs; 16 and when they come into existence in their fixed times they carry through their task according to his glorious design. Nothing can be changed. In his hand (are) 17 the judgments of all things; he being the one who sustains them in all their affairs. He created the human for the dominion of 18 the world. And he placed two spirits for him (JHC: “designing for him two spirits”) in which to walk until the appointed time for his visitation, namely the spirits of… 6 The assumed equivalence of divine omniscience and predestination continued to present a theological conundrum for Jewish proponents of free will, as shown by Maimonides’ non-attempt to solve the problem in his Mishne Torah (Laws of Repentance 5:5), countered by the strongly worded response of R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (in his critique ad loc.), in which he succeeds in logically disconnecting divine omniscience from predestination. 493

A Secondary Crux: 1QS III.18b-25a The next section, lines 18b-25a, is in many ways central to the redacted Treatise as a whole. However, it has been identified as a secondary addition by Duhaime. 7 ‫תבל וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלכ בם עד מועד פקודתו הנה רוחות‬

18

‫האמת והעול במעון אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬

19

‫ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו וביד מלאך‬

20

‫חושכ כול ממשלת בני עול ובדרכי חושכ יתהלכו ובמלאך חושך תעות‬

21

‫כול בני צדק וכול חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו‬

22

‫לפי רזי אל עד קצו וכול נגועיהם ומועדי צרותם בממשלת משטמתו‬

23

‫וכול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור ואל ישראל ומלאכ אמתו עזר לכול‬

24

‫בני אור והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושכ ועליהון יסד כול מעשה‬

25

18 the world. And he placed two spirits for him 8 in which to walk until the appointed 187F

time of his appointment, 9 namely the spirits of 18F

19 truth and deceit. In a spring of light is the begetting of truth 10 and from a well of 189F

darkness is the begetting of deceit. 11 190F

20 In the hand of the Prince of Lights (is) the dominion of all the children of righteousness; 12 in the ways of light they walk. And 13 in the hand of the Angel of 19F

192 F

21 Darkness (is) the dominion of the children of deceit; 14 and in the ways of darkness 193F

they walk. Due to the Angel of Darkness is the straying of 15 194 F

7

Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits,” 568-71 and idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 41-42. 8 Charlesworth translates “designing for him two spirits.” 9 Charlesworth translates “for his visitation.” 10 Charlesworth translates “emanates the nature of truth.” 11 Charlesworth translates “emerges the nature of deceit.” 12 Charlesworth translates “Sons of Righteousness.” See n. 34 in chapter 10 above. 13 Charlesworth translates “But.” 494

22 all the children of righteousness; and all their sins, their iniquities, their guilt, and their iniquitous works (are caused) by his dominion, 23 according to God’s mysteries, until his period. 16 And all their afflictions and the appointed times of their suffering (are caused) by the dominion of his hostility. 24 and all the spirits of his lot cause to stumble the children of light; but the God of Israel and his angel of truth help all 25 the children of light. He created the spirits of light and darkness, and upon them he founded every work… Duhaime notes that the text of 1QS III.13-IV.14 reads more smoothly if the entire section from 18b through 25a is removed. 17 He notes the introduction of new vocabulary compared to the rest of the Treatise, as well as the introduction of the figures of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness, who only appear in this section. Duhaime also notes thematic changes, such as the dominion of two spirits contrasted with the dominion of human beings in III.17b. 18 The differences between III.18b-23a and III.23b-25a, particularly in the terminology used for the spirits and

14

Charlesworth translates “Sons of Deceit.” See n. 12. Charlesworth translates “By the Angel of Darkness comes the aberration of…” 16 Charlesworth translates “his end.” 17 Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking,” 42. C. Hempel implies that the secondary addition may actually extend from 17b to 26a, thereby relegating all light versus darkness terminology to a redactional addition; see Hempel, “The Community and Its Rivals according to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4,” RevQ 21 (2003): 79. However, extending the secondary addition removes the smooth reading of the hypothesized primary version, and consequently requires further explanation of how the text could be read without the insertion. 18 Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120. 15

495

their human subjects, 19 led Duhaime to conclude that III.18b-25a is actually a double interpolation. 20 The passage at III.18b-23a portrays a dualistic worldview in which cosmic dualism, the realms or dominion of the Angel of Darkness and the Prince of Light, is responsible for social dualism, the division between the “children of righteousness” and the “children of deceit.” The connection between cosmic and social dualism is similar to that seen in the liturgical curse texts against Belial and Melki-reša explored in the previous chapter. The passage portrays the separation between these two groups as a function of the basically dualistic nature of the ethical underpinnings of creation. The spirits of truth and deceit that determine human actions until the eschatological age (mw‘d pqwdtw) reside in the areas of light and darkness, respectively. These areas are ruled by the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness. Each of these is given a share of humanity to lead. The dominion of the Angel of Darkness includes the “children of deceit” while the Prince of Light reigns over the “children of righteousness.” This explains why the wicked walk “in the ways of darkness” and the righteous walk in the “ways of light.” As noted above, Duhaime observes that the dominion of these cosmic forces seems to contradict the dominion of the world by humanity in the

19

“Two spirits” in 3:18b and “spirits of their lot” in 3:24a; “children of righteousness” in 3:20a-22a and “children of light” in 3:24b-25a. 20 Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120. 496

introduction. 21 In the redacted text as it stands, this passage serves to limit the freedom of human will. Despite this division between the wicked and the righteous, the righteous can and do sin according to III.21b-22a. When they do, it is as a result of the machinations of the Angel of Darkness, whose power is apparently not confined to his own subjects. Furthermore, the composer or redactor of this passage has taken a step not evident in other Qumran texts, explicitly attributing all sinning of the righteous to the influence of the Prince of Darkness. In order to explain the sinning of the righteous, the redactor has introduced an explicit contradiction. The “children of righteousness” are earlier described as residing under the dominion of the Prince of Light (III.20), but are now described as contending with the dominion of the Angel of Darkness. The dominion of the Angel of Darkness during this period is also to blame for the (physical) troubles afflicting the righteous (III.23b). This conflict occurs “according to the mysteries of God (rzy ’l) during his period” (III.23a), a reference to the apparent inexplicability of God’s abandonment of the righteous to the mercy of the Angel of Darkness. As in other Qumran texts where evil is “set free” in the present period, the author of this passage has chosen an explanation of evil that is puzzling on a theological level. However, in other texts the “dominion of Belial” is a frozen concept; it is presented without any justification as a simple reflection of reality. In contrast, the author of this passage does not take the justification of a period of evil for granted; he acknowledges 21

Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120. 497

the need for an explanation of the “dominion of Belial” by noting the “mysteries of God” that are the only possible justification for Belial’s power. If the conclusions of Stegemann, Lange and Metso that this text predates the Qumran community are correct, 22 it is possible that the idea of a “dominion of Belial” had not yet gained widespread acceptance when this section of the Treatise was composed. In the absence of the unquestioning acceptance of this idea, the author must refer to the divine mystery as an explanation for the existence of this period of evil. At the end of the passage (III.24) the “spirits of his lot” are introduced. Like the Prince of Darkness, these spirits are responsible for attempting to cause sin among the “children of light,” who are assisted by God and his angel. 23 As noted above, this passage displays terminology and ideas that are different from the Qumran texts discussed so far. Of the other texts that have been explored, these ideas and terminology are closest to what appears in the War Scroll, although the Treatise remains unique in many respects. The “children of light” and “children of darkness” are prominent in the division of humanity found in both the War Scroll and the Community Rule 1QS I-II. The idea that there are two areas, light and dark, in which humanity walk, is also found in the War Scroll. The “Angel of Darkness,” 22

See H. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 155-6; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 1278; and Metso, Textual Development, 137-8 and n. 99 ad loc. 23 The passage III.23b-25a introduces new terminology, such as “lot” and “sons of light,” as well as the idea that the Angel of Darkness has subservient spirits. It may thus be an addition to this passage in order to bring it in line with sectarian thought and terminology. See Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle,” 120. 498

however, is found nowhere in the Scrolls outside of the Treatise, while the “Prince of Light” is found only in the vignette regarding Belial’s opposition to Moses and Aaron in CD V.17-19 24 and, with a slightly different moniker (śr m’wr), in 1QM XIII.10. Finally, while the contrast between truth (’mt) and deceit (‘wlh) is found widely in 1QS V-IX and its 4QS parallels, 25 the use of the term twldwt to denote those that emerge from light and from darkness is unparalleled in the Scrolls. 26 More significantly, the division of all humanity into two realms, each of which is ruled by an angelic figure, is rare in the Dead Sea Scrolls; it is found in only one other instance, the Visions of Amram, discussed below. As previously discussed, other texts, even those that present a framework of social dualism whereby humanity is divided into the righteous and the wicked, place the righteous under the rule of God. 27 Even the redacted War Scroll, where Michael plays an important role against Belial, depicts the children of light as directly subservient to God, while the Prince of Light has been created “to help us” (1Q33 XIII.10).

24

And in its Cave 4 parallels, 4QDa (4Q266) 3 ii 5-6, 4QDb (4Q267) 2 1-2. 25 Hempel, “Treatise,” 116-7. 26 The word twldwt is rare in the scrolls, and its most similar appearance (while still far removed from its use in the Treatise), is in the War Scroll, 1QM III.14, “and the names of the twelve tribes according to their birth (ktwldwtm).” 27 Although this may differ in the 4Q280 text, where Melkireša is probably contrasted to Melkiṣedeq, the fragmentary nature of 4Q280 makes further analysis impossible. 499

The Visions of Amram The exception to this observation, the Visions of Amram (4Q543-549) presents cosmic and human dualism in a similar manner to the Treatise of the Two Spirits, although it lacks the connection of this dualistic framework to God’s creation. The Aramaic Visions of Amram (4Q543-549) has been identified as a pre-sectarian text, mainly due to the fact that Jubilees seems to draw on the Visions as a source. 28 In the Visions of Amram, parallel texts in 4Q543, 4Q544, and 4Q547 describe the meeting of Amram with two angels who rule all of humanity. 4QVisions of Amramb 4Q544 1 9-15 (par. 4Q543 [underline], 4Q547 [dotted underline]) 29 [‫חזית‬

‫בשלם ואחזה אנפי אנתתי‬ ֗ ‫כולא די אתוב למצרין‬

9

]‫וא ֗מרין‬ ֗ ‫ והא תרין דאנין עלי‬vacat ‫בחזו֗ י֗ חזוה די חלמא‬

10

[‫ואמרין לי אנחנה‬

‫ואחדין ֗עלי תגר רב ושאלת אנון אנתון מן די כדן מש]לטין עלי‬

11

[‫נטלת עיני וחזית‬

‫מננא ֗אנ֯ ֗ת]ה בעה‬ ֗ ‫] ש[ ֗לי֯ טין ושליטין על ֗כו֗ ל בני֗ אדם ואמרו לי במן‬

12

]‫חשוך‬ ֯ ‫] וחד[ מנהון חזוה ֗ח ֗ש ֗ל] כפ[תן ]וכול [ל]ב[ו֯ שה צבענין וחשיך‬

13

[‫דילוהי‬

[

‫[ בחזוה ו֗ אנפיוה העכן ו֯ ]מכסה בלבוש‬ ‫ל‬ 28

]‫]ואחרנא חזית [ו֯ ֯ה ֯א ׺] [ ֗ל‬

14

‫לחדה ומעל עינוהי‬

15

E. Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529-549 (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 285-7 and R. R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543-547) (Studies in Biblical Literature 135; New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 89-103. See also J.T. Milik’s categorization of this text in “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: D’Hénoch à Amram,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978), 91-106. 29 Text follows Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXII and translation follows E. M. Cook, “Visions of ‘Amram,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 412-43, unless otherwise noted. Reconstructions of entire words with no basis in parallel texts have been omitted. 500

4QVisions of Amramb 4Q544 2 11-16 ]‫מ[ ֗ש ֯לט עליך‬

11

]‫[ ֗דן מן הוא ואמר לי הדן ֯מ‬

12

‫של]טן‬ ֯ ‫ ואמרת מראי מא‬vacat ‫[ו֗ מלכי רשע‬

13

‫חש[י֯ כה וכל עבדה ח]ש[י֗ ך ובחשוכה הוא ֗ד]בר‬

14

]‫אנ[ ֯תה חזה והוא משלט על כול חשוכה ואנה‬

15

‫מן מ[ ֯צליא עד ארעיא אנה שליט על כול נהורא וכו֯ ]ל‬

16

4Q544 1 9-15 9 everything, for I would return to Egypt safely and see my wife’s face [

I saw]

10 in my vision, the vision of the dream, vacat and there were two figures arguing over me, and saying [ his] 11 and holding a great dispute over me. So I asked them, ‘How is it that you have[ authority over me?’ They said, ‘We] 12 [

r]ule, and (we) rule over all humans. 30 And they said to me, which of us do you

[seek

1209F

I lifted my eyes and saw]

13 [one] of them, whose appearance [was moulting (?) [like a ser]pent [and all] his clothing was multicoloured and very dark; [ 14 [and I saw another and

]l[

]

] in his appearance, and his face was laughing [and

he was covered with a garment ] 15 very much, and above his eyes 4Q544 2 11-16 11 r]ules over you[ 12 ] who is this He said to me, ‘This one is m 13 ]and Melki-Resha (ruler of wickedness).’ vacat And I said, ‘My lord, what is the domi[nion 30

The first part of this line has somehow been omitted from Cook’s translation; the translation is my own. 501

14 dark]ness, all his work is 31 darkness, and he l[eads] into darkness[ 15 yo]u see, and he rules over all darkness, while I [ 16 from] the [h]eight to the earth, 32 I am ruler over all light and a[ll

The Visions of Amram contains several significant parallels to the Treatise, including the language of light and darkness so central to the first section of the Treatise (4Q544 2 13-16). As in the Treatise, the dark and light angels, here called Melki-Reša and (presumably) Melki-ṣedeq, rule over all of humankind; a human belongs to one or to the other (4Q544 1 12; 2 15-16). However, in contrast to the Treatise, in the Visions of Amram, Amram is given the choice of who will rule him (4Q543 5-9 3-4 par. 4Q547 1-2 12, 4Q544 1 12). Whether this is a choice given to every human or only to the righteous Amram is unclear. The choice presented to Amram stands in contrast to the redacted Treatise, where the divine predetermination of all actions includes the establishment of two angels who will rule humanity. If 1QS III.18b-25a is viewed independently, the contrast is not as clear. It is possible that according to 1QS III.18b-25a, whether one is to be counted as a “child of righteousness” or a “child of deceit” is dependent on a choice, and that this choice determines whether one will be ruled by the Angel of Darkness or by the Prince of Light. This stands in contrast to the approach of the redacted Treatise: a person’s

31 32

Cook translates “all his deeds are.” Cook translates “depths.” 502

identification with righteous or wicked is one of the many matters determined by God at creation. The Visions of Amram demonstrates how the assumption of cosmic and social dualism need not signify predetermination. Amram’s choice in the Visions of Amram may be compared to the reverse choice of the wayward member in the Community Rule 1QS II.11-18, who causes his own placement in the “lot of those cursed forever.” However, while 1QS I.16-II.19 avoids addressing a demonic figure entirely, the Visions of Amram assumes a system similar to that of the Treatise, where two angels oppose each other and rule defined groups of human beings. The Visions of Amram provides evidence that the Treatise does, in fact, reflect a worldview of the workings of evil and sin that was held by a group wider than the Qumran community, one that is barely evident in the writings of the community itself.

1QS III.25b-IV.14 The passage at III.18b-25a colors how the entire Treatise is read, as is evident from an exploration of the next section, III.25b-IV.14. This section is understood differently in its hypothetical original form (posited by Duhaime) than in its present context. 1QS III.25-IV.14 ‫ בני אור והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושכ ועליהון יסד כול מעשה‬25 ‫ ֯ל] [׺הן כול עבודה ועל דרכיהן ]כו[ ֗ל ] [׺ ֗דה אחת אהב אל לכול‬26 bottom margin 503

‫‪top margin‬‬ ‫‪] 1‬מו[עדי עולמים ובכול עלילותיה ירצה לעד אחת תעב סודה וכול דרכיה שנא לנצח ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪Col. IV‬‬

‫‪vacat‬ואלה דרכיהן בתבל להאיר בלבב איש ולישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק אמת ולפחד לבבו במשפטי‬

‫‪ 3‬אל ורוח ענוה ואורך אפים ורוב רחמים וטוב עולמים ושכל ובינה וחכמת גבורה מאמנת בכול‬ ‫‪ 4‬מעשי אל ונשענת ברוב חסדו ורוח דעת בכול מחשבת מעשה וקנאת משפטי צדק ומחשבת‬ ‫‪ 5‬קודש ביצר סמוכ ורוב חסדים על כול בני אמת וטהרת כבוד מתעב כול גלולי נדה והצנע לכת‬ ‫אמת תבל ופקודת כול הולכי בה למרפא‬ ‫‪ 6‬בערמת כול וחבא לאמת רזי דעת ‪ vacat‬אלה סודי רוח לבני ֯‬ ‫‪ 7‬ורוב שלום באורכ ימים ופרות זרע עם כול ברכות עד ושמחת עולמים בחיי נצח וכליל כבוד‬ ‫‪ 8‬עם מדת הדר באור עולמים ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪ vacat 9‬ולרוח עולה רחוב נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר גוה ורום לבב כחש ורמיה אכזרי‬ ‫‪ 10‬ורוב חנפ קצור אפים ורוב אולת וקנאת זדון מעשי תועבה ברוח זנות ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה‬ ‫‪ 11‬ולשון גדופים עורון עינים וכבוד אוזן קושי עורפ וכיבוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושכ וערמת רוע‬ ‫ופקודת‬ ‫‪ 12‬כול הולכי בה לרוב נגועים ביד כול מלאכי חבל לשחת עולמים באפ עברת אל נקמ}ות{>ה< לזעות‬ ‫נצח וחרפת‬ ‫‪ 13‬עד עמ כלמת כלה באש מחשכים וכול קציהם לדורותם באבל יגון ורעת מרורים בהויות חושכ עד‬ ‫‪ 14‬כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪25 …the children of light. 33 He created the spirits of light and darkness, and upon them‬‬ ‫‪12F‬‬

‫‪he founded every work,‬‬ ‫‪26 l[…]hn every action, and upon their ways (are) [al]l […]dh….one God 34 loves for‬‬ ‫‪123F‬‬

‫‪all‬‬ ‫‪Col. IV‬‬ ‫)‪1 [app]ointed times of eternity, taking pleasure in all its doings forever; (concerning‬‬ ‫‪the other he loathes its assembly, and all its ways he hates forever.‬‬

‫‪Charlesworth translates “Sons of Light”; see n. 12.‬‬ ‫”‪Charlesworth, “the one God.‬‬ ‫‪504‬‬

‫‪33‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬

2 And these are their ways in the world: to illuminate the heart of man and to level before him all the ways of true righteousness; and to make his heart fear in the laws of 35 3 God; and a spirit of humility and patience, of great compassion and constant goodness, and of prudence, insight, and wonderful wisdom, which is firmly established in all 4 the works of God, leaning on his great mercy; and a spirit of knowledge in every plan of action, 36 zeal for righteous precepts, a holy intention 5 with a steadfast purpose; and great affection towards all the children of truth; and a glorious purity, loathing all unclean idols, and walking with reservation 6 by discernment about everything, concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge. These 37 are the principles of the spirit for the children of truth (in) the world. The visitation of all those who walk in it (will be) healing 7 and great peace in a long life, multiplication of progeny together with all everlasting blessings, endless joy in everlasting life, and a crown of glory 8 together with a resplendent attire in eternal light. 9 But concerning the spirit of deceit: 38 greed and slackness in righteous activity, wickedness and falsehood, pride and haughtiness, atrocious disguise and falsehood, 10 great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable works in a spirit of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship, 11 a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart (that results in) 39 walking in all the ways of the darkness, and evil craftiness. The visitation of

35

Charlesworth, “the judgments of.” Charlesworth, “in all work upon which he is intent.” 37 Charlesworth, “The (preceding).” 38 Charlesworth adds “(these are the principles).” 39 Addition my own. 36

505

12 all those who walk in it (will be) many afflictions by all the angels of punishment, eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath, everlasting terror 13 and endless shame, together with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of the dark region. And all their times for their generations (will be expended) in dreadful suffering and bitter misery in dark abysses until 14 they are destroyed. (There will be) no remnant nor rescue for them. In lines III.25-IV.1, it is declared that God created these spirits of light and darkness, loving one and hating the other. All action is based on these spirits. This reiterates the ethical dualism which Duhaime identifies as the basis of the Treatise and connects this dualism to the idea of predestination. If the preceding lines III.18b-25a are removed, the passage at III.25-IV.1 describes ethical qualities which are divided according to their guiding “spirits,” i.e. prototypical qualities, determined by God at creation. But when this section is read together with III.18b-25a, the guiding spirits signify the rule of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness. In either case, the ethical dualism presented in III.25b-IV.14 is starkly defined. All good characteristics are the result of “enlightenment” by the spirit of light/truth, while all wicked characteristics are outgrowths of the spirit of darkness/deceit. Social dualism is presented hand-in-hand with this ethical dualism; the “children of truth” walk in the ways of the spirit of light, while unnamed others walk according to the ways of darkness (IV.11). Each group receives its just desserts, the righteous

506

benefiting from the blessings of God while the wicked are destroyed by malevolent angels (IV.12). The relationship of this passage to the preceding one has been the subject of much discussion, particularly as it relates to the development of Qumran theology. Murphy-O’Connor has noted the many terminological differences between this section and those that precede it. 40 Osten-Sacken analyzed III.13-IV.14 as a single piece, albeit one that drew from several different traditions (specifically those contained in the War Scroll and Hodayot). 41 As noted above, Duhaime proposed that 1QS III.18b25a was added to III.13-IV.14 at a later stage. The focus of III.25b-IV.14 is completely different from that of the previous passage. The section III.18b-25a describes the cosmic pattern of the world, one that extends to the division of humanity between wicked and righteous. This passage, however, delves into the anthropological aspect of ethical dualism. The “spirits” described are all human qualities. The passage thereby explains not only what awaits the righteous and the wicked (IV.6-8, IV.11-12) but also where inimical qualities originate. In its aim this passage is the counterpart of the previous one. The passage at III.18b-25a explains the existence of evil people and the temptations of the righteous to sin through an external, cosmic dualistic system. The passage at III.25b-IV.14

40 41

Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 541-2 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 116-69, particularly 165-9. 507

provides an internal view of the wicked, describing good and evil characteristics in a similarly dualistic system. The internal view of good and evil “spirits” is reminiscent of the nonsectarian Barkhi Nafshi prayer, analyzed above in chapter 2. In the Barkhi Nafshi prayer analyzed above, a “spirit of long-suffering” is granted while a “spirit of deceit” is removed (4Q436 1 ii.2-4 par. 4Q435 2 I 4-5). However, in this passage of the Treatise, unlike the Barkhi Nafshi prayer, ethical dualism is linked to social dualism. All the “children of truth” walk in the way of the spirit of light, and presumably benefit from the righteous qualities attendant upon it, while those who walk in the way of the spirit of darkness presumably suffer from the full range of bad qualities listed in lines 9-11. Thus the actions and the subsequent punishment of the wicked have been determined by God from creation, as implied in V.25-26. In the next section the ethical dualism of the previous passage is linked with predestination. 1QS IV.15-23 ‫ באלה תולדות כול בני איש ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כול צבאותם לדורותם ובדרכיהן יתהלכו וכול‬vacat 15 ‫פעולת‬ ‫ מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קצי עולמים כיא אל שמן בד בבד עד קצ‬16 ‫תועבת אמת עלילות עולה ותועבת עולה כול דרכי אמת וקנאת‬

‫ם‬

‫ אחרון ויתן איבת עולם בין מפלגות‬17

‫ ריב על כול משפטיהן כיא לוא יחד יתהלכו ואל ברזי שכלו ובחכמת כבודו נתן קצ להיות עולה ובמועד‬18 ‫ פקודה ישמידנה לעד ואז תצא לנצח אמת תבל כיא התגוללה בדרכי רשע בממשלת עולה עד‬19 ‫ מועד משפט נחרצה ואז יברר אל באמתו כול מעשי גבר יזקק לו מבני איש להתם כול רוח עולה‬20 ‫מתכמי‬

508

‫ בשרו ולטהרו ברוח קודש מכול עלילות רשעה ויז עליו רוח אמת כמי נדה מכול תועבות שקר‬21 ‫והתגולל‬ ‫ ברוח נדה להבין ישרים בדעת עליון וחכמת בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרכ כיא בם בחר אל לברית‬22 ‫עולמים‬ ‫ ולהם כול כבוד אדם ואין עולה יהיה לבושת כול מעשי רמיה עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬23 15 In these 42 are the begetting/generations 43 of all the children of man, and in their 44 12F

12F

123F

divisions all their hosts of their generations have a share; in their ways they walk, and the entire task of 16 their works (falls) within their divisions according to a person’s 45 share, much or 124F

little, in all the times of eternity. For God has set them as equals 46 until the 125F

Endtime; 17 and put eternal enmity between their divisions. 47 An abomination to truth (are) the 126F

doings of deceit, and an abomination to deceit (are) all the ways of truth. (There is) a fierce 18 struggle between all their judgments, for they do not walk together. But God, in his mysterious understanding and his glorious wisdom, has set a period 48 for the 127F

existence of deceit. At the appointed time 19 for visitation he will destroy it forever. Then truth will emerge 49 forever (in) the 128F

world, which has polluted itself by the ways of evil 50 during the dominion of deceit 129F

until 42

Charlesworth adds “(two spirits are).” Charlesworth’s translation “of the natures” has been replaced with “are the begetting/generations.” 44 Charlesworth adds “(two).” 45 A gender neutral translation instead of Charlesworth’s translation “man’s.” 46 Instead of Charlesworth’s translation “apart”; see Exod 30:34. 47 Charlesworth translates “(two) classes.” 48 Charlesworth translates “an end.” 49 Charlesworth translates “appear.” 43

509

20 the appointed time for judgment which has been decided. Then God will purify by his truth all the works of man and purge for himself the children of man in order to 51 utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from the innards 52 of 21 his flesh and to 53 purify him with a holy spirit 54 from all evil 55 acts and sprinkle upon him a spirit of truth 56 like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of falsehood and from being polluted 22 by a spirit of impurity, so that upright ones may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the children of heaven, so that 57 the perfect in the way may receive understanding, for God has chosen them 58 for an eternal covenant, 23 and all the glory of man 59 shall be theirs, and there will be no deceit. 60 All false works will be put to shame. Until now the spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of humans… This passage has been identified by Duhaime and by Osten-Sacken as the second stage of the Treatise’s literary development 61 and as part of the final stage of development (together with III.13-18) by E. Tigchelaar. 62 It is possible to divide the

50

Charlesworth translates “ungodliness.” Instead of Charlesworth “He will.” 52 Charlesworth translates “veins.” See discussion of tkmy bśr in chapter 3 and n. 40 ad loc. 53 Instead of Charlesworth “He will.” 54 Instead of Charlesworth “by the Holy Spirit.” 55 Charlesworth translates “ungodly.” 56 Instead of Charlesworth “the Spirit of Truth.” 57 Instead of Charlesworth “and.” 58 Instead of Charlesworth “For those God has chosen for.” 59 Instead of Charlesworth “Adam.” 60 Charlesworth “without deceit.” 61 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 170-84; Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits,” 589-92. 62 Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 203. 51

510

passage into two sections. The first, 15-17a, describes the determination of the “portion of each person” (nḥlt ’yš) in one of the two “spirits” of truth and deceit that exist side by side until the eschaton. The second explains that despite the hate that each bears the other, God “in the mysteries of his wisdom” (line 18) set a time period in which deceit is allowed to exist, but “at the appointed time” (wbmw‘d pqwdh) it will be destroyed. Unlike the description of the eschaton in IV.11-12, the “appointed time” in IV.18-19 does not include the destruction of wicked, but rather the elimination of wickedness. 63 Despite the declaration in IV.18 that these spirits will not “walk together,” it is apparent that humans who are not irredeemably wicked are nevertheless infected with the “spirit of deceit,” even if the degree to which they suffer from this spirit is predetermined (1QS IV.16). This spirit will be removed from each human’s “innards of flesh” in the eschaton and a “spirit of holiness” will purify them from past wicked deeds (IV.20-21). The parallels between this passage and the prayers previously explored are significant. As in the Barkhi Nafshi prayer (4Q436 1 ii.2-4 par. 4Q435 2 i 4-5), in this passage an evil spirit is removed and a “holy spirit” is granted, with the result being complete human righteousness. As in the apotropaic prayer 4Q444 (see chapter 2)

63

A similar difference is apparent between the well-known reinterpretation of Ps 104:35 in b. Ber. 10a (par. Midrash Tehillim Buber Ps 104) and its original meaning. 511

there is a battle between good “spirits” and bad 64 within the human’s “innards of flesh” (tkmy bśr; IV.20-21). 65 As in prayer, the people referred to in this passage of the Treatise wish to be righteous, but must deal with forces that propel them toward sin. When read independently of the Treatise as a whole, the passage at IV.15-23 seems to describe an internal inclination to sin, but in the context of the redacted Treatise this internal inclination is transformed into the external and demonic Angel of Darkness. However, even if the Qumran reader interpreted the initial “spirits” of this passage as external, the purification promised at the eschaton is an internal one, and indicates that even the righteous and those “chosen” by God (IV.22) must struggle with a “spirit of deceit” in their “innards” (IV.20-21). In the present age, the spirits of truth and deceit struggle within every human (IV.23). This passage provides a background for the view reflected in the prayers explored above, specifically those that express the experience of an internal desire to sin even in the righteous speaker, whether this desire originates from demonic forces or from a human inclination. Unlike the curses against Belial’s lot in 1QS II.4-18, this passage acknowledges that even law-abiding members of the community must struggle with the desire to sin, and promises them relief at the end of days. Like the Hodayot and Barkhi Nafshi, this passage of the Treatise describes the purification and 64

In the fragments that have survived of 4Q444, the good “spirits” (4Q444 1-4 i 3) include spirits of knowledge, understanding, truth, and justice; the bad (in line 4) are simply called “spirits of evil.” 65 The term tkmy bśr, as previously noted, is particular to Qumran; see n. 40 in chapter 3. 512

elevation of the chosen despite past impurity and wickedness. However, unlike these prayers, in this text the elevation of the chosen is postponed until the eschaton. As in the apotropaic prayers explored in chapter 10, in 1QS IV.15-23 the member of the “chosen” is involved in a constant struggle with the desire to sin, at least in the present age.

1QS IV.23-26 The relationship between the spirits of truth and deceit is elucidated in the next section of the Treatise, 1QS IV.23-26. ‫ ולהם כול כבוד אדם ואין עולה יהיה לבושת כול מעשי רמיה עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר‬23 ‫ יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת וכפי נחלת איש באמת יצדק וכן ישנא עולה וכירשתו בגורל עול ירשע בו וכן‬24 ‫ יתעב אמת כיא בד בבד שמן אל עד קצ נחרצה ועשות חדשה והואה ידע פעולת מעשיהן לכול קצי‬25 ‫[ ֯הפקודה‬

]‫ ]מועד[ן וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ] ו[ ֗ל]ה[פיל גורלות לכול חי לפי רוחו ב׺‬26

23 and all the glory of man 66 shall be theirs, and there will be no deceit. 67 All false 1245F

1246F

works will be put to shame. Until now the spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of humans, 24 and (so) they walk in wisdom or vileness. According to a man’s share in truth shall he be righteous and thus hate deceit, and according to his inheritance in the lot of deceit he shall be evil through it, and thus 25 loathe truth. For God has set them as equals 68 until the time of that which has been 1247F

decided, and the making of the new. He knows the reward of their works for all the end of 66 67

Charlesworth “Adam.” Charlesworth “without deceit.” 513

26 their [appointed tim]es, and he allots them to the children of man for knowledge of good […and thus] dec[id]ing the lots for every living being, according to his spirit b°[…] the visitation. This passage, identified as the third stage of the Treatise’s development by Duhaime 69 and Osten-Sacken 70 (and as part of the second stage of development by E. Tigchelaar), 71 explains the current human condition in a way that seems to contradict, or at least to reinterpret, what was previously described in III.18b-25a as the completely opposed realms of truth and deceit. According to this concluding passage, all humans must contend with the spirits of truth and deceit inside themselves, causing them to walk in both wisdom and foolishness, that is, in both righteousness and sinfulness. But this passage also attempts to unite the universal sharing of the two spirits with the concept of predetermination by means of the concluding statement (lines 25-26), which reiterates God’s omniscience and his determination of the “lots of every being.” 72 In this manner the section reconciles the previous passages. According to IV.23-26, while all humans must contend with both spirits, a person who is destined for truth will nevertheless be righteous, and the member of the “lot” of deceit will be evil (IV.24-25). This is the first time that the term gwrl, “lot,” is used in the Treatise to refer to human beings. 68

Charlesworth “apart”; see n. 46 above. Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits,” 589-94. 70 Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 185-9. 71 Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 201-3. 72 See Murphy-O’Connor, “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” 542. Murphy O’Connor sees IV.23b-26 as a reinterpretation of IV.15-18a. 69

514

This passage combines the internal struggle of humans with social dualism and predetermination. Community members need not worry that their experience of both righteousness and wickedness within themselves will exclude them from the lot of the righteous. Rather, their inclusion within the lot of the righteous, determined by God, dictates how they will eventually behave. Implied is that, if one acts with a preponderance of righteousness, this will demonstrate that one belongs to the predestined lot of the righteous, while the reverse is true of the wicked. These actions themselves have been determined by God.

The Redacted Treatise While a central section of the redacted Treatise, III.18b-25a, focuses on external and cosmic causes of sin and evil, an overview of the Treatise as a whole shows that the focus of most of the text is on the internal human landscape. Apart from the passage at III.18b-25a identified by Duhaime as a secondary addition, 73 the Treatise focuses on dualistic ethical qualities caused by “spirits” that are internal, not external, to the human being. The spirit that causes evil exists within the chosen, and will be purified at the eschaton. The final passage provides the struggling righteous with both an explanation of the forces they feel within themselves and the (albeit somewhat contradictory) reassurance that they are still destined for righteousness and for membership in the correct “lot.” 73

Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits,” 579-89. 515

The redacted Treatise presents a combination of themes found in different Qumran texts in a single work; while displaying unique terminology. The cosmic dualism described in III.18-25 is similar to the contrast between Melki-reša and Melkiṣedeq in 4Q280 and the description of Belial and his conflict with the Prince of Light in CD V.17-19 and with the Prince of Light and the angel Michael in 1QM XIII.1-16 and XVII.5-6. The description of negative and positive internal qualities, their conflict within the human, and the need of the chosen to be purified of negative qualities before receiving positive ones matches the description of the sinful condition of the petitioner in such prayers as 4QBarkhi Nafshi and even, to a certain extent, the Hodayot. 74 Earlier chapters of this study have emphasized the differences between views of sin in different Qumran texts. As has been discussed at length, some of these texts present an internal inclination to sin; others present a dualistic cosmic system in which an archdemon leads humans to sin; and still others present anarchic demons who threaten even the righteous with evildoing. In essence, the Treatise provides a multifaceted but still unified picture that serves to explain the connection between these popular, originally unconnected views to a sectarian Qumran audience. 75 Community members who wished to understand the connection between Belial, the 74

See the discussion of these prayers in chapters 2 and 3 above. As described from another perspective by Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 166, “the great contribution of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in the Community Rule consists in its explicit merging of cosmic, psychological, and ethical dualities, allowing them to modify the one-sided force of the other.” 75

516

spirits at war within themselves, and the evil human inclination, receive an answer. The Treatise describes two spirits or cosmic forces who are responsible for internal human qualities. The evil spirit in this dualistic system could easily be understood as a stand-in for Belial. This “Angel of Darkness” is responsible for people who are destined to be evil, but is also to blame for the desire to sin within people who are not necessarily evil, particularly the righteous. This interference will only end at the eschaton. While the source of this text was probably extra- or pre-sectarian, 76 the Treatise’s explanatory power for a wide range of views regarding sin was certainly a factor that justified its inclusion in the Community Rule.

Sources of the Treatise The question of the source of this text remains. The two spirits of truth and deceit, their subordination to the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness, and their role as the source of all positive and negative qualities, are not typical of Qumran texts. The differences between the Treatise and other Qumran texts, as noted by A. Lange, include the lack of sectarian terminology, the use of terminology that appears nowhere else in the Scrolls (including unique terminology for the forces of evil), 77 and

76

See above and n. 22 ad loc. C. Hempel (“Treatise”) and Hogeterp, “Eschatology of the Two Spirits”, have proposed that the Treatise was further edited following its inclusion in the Community Rule. 77 Nevertheless, Hempel, “Treatise,” has noted that certain terminology and themes found in the Treatise are particular to the Community Rule. She notes the opposition of truth (’ĕmet) and deceit (‘āwel, ‘awlā), found in 1QS V-IX and its Cave 4 parallels but 517

the absence of prominent Qumran themes. 78 The considerable differences between the Treatise and other Qumran texts indicate that outside influences have played a significant role in its composition. The possibility that this text was influenced by Persian thought has long been a focus of discussion. As many scholars have noted, the “Two Spirits” described in the Treatise indicate Persian, and specifically Zoroastrian, influence. Most prominent is the parallel between the Treatise and Yasna (liturgical text) 30, in one of the Gathas 79 found in the Old Avesta, a work whose latest possible date 80 is earlier than 500 B.C.E.: (1) Truly for seekers I shall speak of those things to be pondered, even by one who already knows, with praise and worship for the Lord of Good Purpose, the excellently Wise One, and for Truth….(2) Hear with your ears the best things. Reflect with clear purpose, each man for himself, on the two choices for decision, being alert indeed to declare yourselves for Him before the great requital. (3) Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word,

notes that the phrase “people of deceit” is not attested in the Treatise, where the term used is “sons of truth/deceit” (Hempel, “Treatise,” 116-8). S. Metso has already noted that both the Treatise and 1QS IV.12-26 include the terms “chosen ones,” “children of righteousness,” and “people of the pit” (Metso, Textual Development, 137). Hempel has also noted the common allusions to Mic 6:8 and Isa 26:3 in 1QS IV.5, 1QS V.3-4, and 1QS VIII.2 (and their Cave 4 parallels). She concludes that such links led to the perceived suitability of the Treatise to the Community Rule, and consequently to its inclusion in the Rule, while other links were introduced after the Treatise was already incorporated into the Rule; Hempel, ibid., 118. 78 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127-8. 79 The Gathas are the seventeen hymns in Sanskrit attributed to Zarathustra, the founder of the Zoroastrian religion. 80 See P. O. Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (ed. A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 2. 518

in act they are two: the better and the bad. And those who act well have chosen rightly between these two, not so the evildoers. (4) And when these two Spirits first came together they created life and not-life, and how at the end Worst Existence shall be for the wicked but (the House of) Best Purpose for the just man. (5) Of these two Spirits the Wicked One chose achieving the worst things. The Most Holy Spirit, who is clad in hardest stone, chose right, and (so do those) who shall satisfy Lord Mazda continually with rightful acts. …. (8) Then when retribution comes for these sinners, then, Mazda, Power shall be present for Thee with Good Purpose, to declare himself for those, Lord, who shall deliver the Lie into the hands of Truth. (9) And then may we be those who shall transfigure this world. O Mazda (and you other) Lords (Ahuras), be present to me with support and truth, so that thoughts may be concentrated where understanding falters…. (11) O men! When you learn the commands which Mazda has given, and both thriving and not-thriving, and what long torment (is) for the wicked and salvation for the just – then will it be as is wished with these things. 81 This passage contains elements that are also found in the Treatise, such as the enduring conflict between two primal spirits and the eventual end of this conflict when “lie” is given into the hands of “truth.” A further example of this conflict is found in Yasna 45 (2): “Then shall I speak of the two primal Spirits of existence, of whom the Very Holy thus spoke to the Evil One: ‘Neither our thoughts nor teachings nor wills, neither our choices nor words nor acts, not our inner selves nor our souls agree.’” The parallels between these Gathas and the Treatise, as well as other parallels in Qumran texts, have led scholars to speculate on the Persian influence on Qumran 81

Translation follows M. Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism (Textual Sources for the Study of Religion; University of Chicago Press, 1990), 35. 519

thought. 82 However, as noted by S. Shaked, Y. Elman, and S. Secunda, these parallels must not be overstated. 83 Any direct influence of Zoroastrian texts on Jewish texts, even during the Persian period, is unlikely. The original language of the Gathas was already not understood in the late Achaemenid period, so influence of Zoroastrianism on other religions could only take place as a result of the observation of actual practices or from discussions with Zoroastrians or others familiar with Zoroastrian beliefs. 84 In addition, contact in Judea with Zoroastrian thought any time after 300 B.C.E. would be minimal at best. 85 It is intriguing that the spirits of good and evil that reside in humans are reminiscent of a number of passages in Zoroastrian literature, as the description of the eschaton is evocative of late Pahlavi works (which may reflect authentic Avestan

82

See D. Winston, “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence,” HR 5 (1966): 200-210; S. Shaked, “Qumran and Iran: Further Considerations,” IOS 2 (1972): 433-46; and M. Philonenko, “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux Esprits: ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique,” in Apocalyptique Iranienne et dualisme Qoumrânien (ed. G. Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko; Recherches intertestamentaires 2; Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1995), 163-211. 83 S. Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.”; Y. Elman, “Zoroastrianism and Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 91-98; and Y. Elman and S. Secunda, “Intersections: Zoroastrianism and Judaism,” in The Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), forthcoming. 84 Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” 89. 85 See Elman and Secunda, “Intersections.” Elman, “Zoroastrianism and Qumran,” 9598, has further proposed that many parallels between Zoroastrian thought and Qumran ideas are the result of a shared fundamentalist mindset as defined by R. J. Frey, Global Issues: Fundamentalism (New York: Facts On File, 2007). 520

material). 86 In addition, Shaked notes that the use of rwḥ to indicate both abstract qualities and spirits mirrors the use of mēnōg in Zoroastrian texts. 87 However, a close comparison between these Gathas and the Treatise reveals many essential differences pointing to a lack of direct influence, such as the emphasis on choice rather than predestination in Yasna 30, and the central role assigned to the two Spirits in the creation of “life and not-life” (30 [3]). In fact, human choice between the two spirits, whereby one establishes one’s eventual fate, is central to Zoroastrian dualism. In this respect the Testament of Amram bears a closer affinity to the Gathas than does the Treatise. 88 The broad parallels between Persian thought and Qumran attitudes toward sin and evil point to indirect Persian influence. As Shaked has proposed, it is possible that new ideas in Jewish thought, stimulated by internal factors and drawing from Jewish precedents, took their direction based on an already well-known Persian pattern. 89 This seems to be particularly true of the periodization of evil in Qumran texts. The idea that there is a period in which Belial is free to work his evil will among humankind, as in CD IV.12-13, can be compared to the characterization of the present 86

On the spirits of good and evil see Shaked, “Qumran and Iran,” 437-40; on the eschaton, see idem, “Eschatology i. In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica (ed. E. Yarshater; 15 vols. to date; Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1998), 8:568. 87 Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.,” 1:317. See also n. 64 in chapter 10 above. 88 Skjaervo, “Zoroastrian Dualism,” 22-24. 89 Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.,” 1:309. 521

period in Zoroastrian thought, which describes the “middle” period between creation and the eschaton as one in which both Ahura Mazda, the “Lord Wisdom,” and Angra Mainyu, the “Evil Spirit,” do battle on earth. The attitude in Qumran texts is nevertheless far more pessimistic than extant Zoroastrian texts that describe the present age. In most Qumran texts the present age is not one in which Belial is merely free, but one in which he actually rules: a period of the “dominion of Belial.” This contrasts with the characterization of the present period in Zoroastrian thought, which describes the existence of evil alongside good in the present age. In fact, in Zoroastrian thought this period is characterized not as evil, but as a “mixture” (gumēzišn) of good and evil. 90 Nevertheless, the idea of a preordained period of evil in Qumran texts seems to be a development of Persian periodization. Thus the Persian influence evident in the Treatise is indirect in nature, and is only one example of indirect Persian influence in Qumran texts.

Connection to Wisdom Thought Both A. Lange and E. Tigchelaar have noted the similarities between the Treatise and 4QInstruction, particularly their use of common terminology. 91 Lange

90

See P. G. Kreyenbroek, “Cosmogony and Cosmology i. In Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica (ed. E. Yarshater; 15 vols. to date; Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1993), 6:303. 91 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 121-70; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 194-201. Similar terminology includes mḥšbt for God’s predetermined plan, twldwt, nḥlh, ’l hd‘wt, qṣ šlwm/qṣy šlwmm, and bny ‘wl/‘wlh. 522

has construed these similarities as indicating that the Treatise is an outgrowth of wisdom literature. However, Tigchelaar has concluded that there is a specific connection between 4QInstruction and the Treatise, as opposed to a general connection between the Treatise and wisdom literature, and that one text drew on the other, although the direction of this influence is not easily determined. From the current study it seems more likely that Tigchelaar is correct; the approach to sin evidenced in general wisdom literature (explored in chapter five above) differs significantly from what is found in the Treatise. Moreover, the analysis of the Treatise above demonstrates that this text shares ideas not only with 4QInstruction, but also with ideas in Qumran prayer and in the Community Rule. It was apparently composed outside the community and was then adopted and integrated into the Community Rule precisely because it shared affinities with different approaches to sin in different texts. A. Hogeterp and C. Hempel have both interpreted affinities between the Treatise and the Community Rule as resulting from the final stage of redaction following integration into the Community Rule. 92

“Purpose” of the Treatise The value of the Treatise for the Qumran reader was most likely its integration of different concepts of sin popular within the community. 93 Readers of the Treatise

92 93

Hogeterp, “Eschatology of the Two Spirits” and Hempel, “Treatise.” See Stuckenbruck, “Interiorization of Dualism,” 161-2. 523

would be able to reconcile the community belief in the archdemonic Belial as part of a dualistic system with their own experience of internal urges to sin. These urges to sin are presented in the Treatise as the result of a demonic presence as well as the result of internal qualities. Moreover, like texts that reflect such an internal desire to sin, the Treatise promises the ultimate eradication of those internal qualities that lead to sin. It is appropriate, then, that this study ends with an analysis of the Treatise. Rather than forming a quintessential part of the Qumran community’s theology, the redacted Treatise represents an attempt to resolve a variety of views popular at Qumran – views of sin, determinism and free will, and the nature of a dualistic universe – through the redaction of an outside text. In its multifaceted presentation of sin and sinning, the Treatise highlights the diversity of Qumran views on sin, and the degree to which these views were presented differently based on the aims and focus of the text’s author.

524

XIV. Summary and Conclusions

The genre or purpose of a text is frequently a determining factor in the representation of sin in Second Temple literature. The text’s purpose influences its description of sin as the result of human inclination or of demonic manipulation, and more particularly its portrayal of sin as a free choice or as predetermined fact. This discovery demonstrates that ancient theology should not be made to fit modern expectations of consistency. Second Temple authors and redactors chose representations of sin in accordance with their aims, in addition to following traditional modes of expression already common to their respective genre. Genre, however, is not the only determining factor regarding how sin is presented in these texts, as has been demonstrated in this study.

Influence of the Prayer Genre This study has explored a wide range of prayers, including prayers that describe an innate human inclination to sin as well as apotropaic prayers that reflect the belief in a demonic source of sin. The majority of the prayers investigated in this study (in chapters 2 and 3) reflect a belief in an innate human inclination to sin. Even those prayers that address a demonic source of sin, such as the prayers in 4Q444 and Songs of the Sage (chapter 10) present an ultimately internal view of the desire to sin.

525

In those prayers that reflect a human inclination to sin (both sectarian and nonsectarian), such as 4QBarkhi Nafshi, Psalm 155, the Hodayot, and the “Hymn of Praise” in the Community Rule, humans are generally described as subject to an innate inclination to sin or even to a condition of sinfulness, sometimes described as a disease. Humans are unable to extricate themselves from this condition without divine assistance. It is for this reason that the supplicants turn to God in prayer, expressing their helplessness and God’s goodness. The idea of an innate evil inclination that cannot be fought without the help of the Deity, common in Second Temple literature, is expanded and developed in sectarian prayer, specifically the Hodayot and the “Hymn of Praise.” First, sectarian prayers add a connection between sinfulness and human physicality: it is because humans are creatures of clay that they are sinful. Despite this connection, these prayers do not divide between “body” and “spirit”; humans suffer from a “spirit of flesh” that is part and parcel of the human condition. Second, these prayers present divine election as the means of purification from sinfulness. Petitioners thank God for lifting them from their physical, and therefore sinful, beginnings to the pure council of angels. The prayers that reflect a belief in demonic influence decry the pernicious manipulation executed by the Watchers’ descendants (among other demonic forces). These prayers nevertheless present an internal view of these demonic forces. They describe demonic forces that have entered the petitioner’s insides and now battle with the laws of God and the positive qualities that God has planted within the supplicant.

526

Abram’s prayer in Jub. 12:19-21 internalizes demonic sin in a different way. As discussed in chapter 9, Abram’s prayer indicates that demons may rule the human inclination. In this way the prayer integrates the assumption that the human inclination causes sin with a belief in the ability of demonic forces to cause sin. Regardless of whether prayers attribute sin to the human inclination or to demonic forces, they all reflect the understanding that the desire to sin cannot be fought without divine intervention. In those prayers that express the conviction that humans have a natural inclination toward sin, the necessity of divine assistance stems from the need for intervention to change the speaker’s basic human nature. Prayers that assume demonic influence request divine help in order to turn the tides of the petitioners’ internal battle with the fearsome demons that beset them. In these prayers, too, divine help is required in order for the speaker to be righteous. These two elements, the internal experience of sin and the need for divine intervention, are in many ways a function of the purpose and experience of prayer. Through prayer the human engages with the Divine, but by expressing her sin emphasizes her own distance from God, resulting in her expressions of inferiority and helplessness. 1 The composer of the prayer, overwhelmed by God’s exaltedness and his own humbleness and sinfulness, attributes all power over his own will to God. Petitioners also use prayer to express their own experience of their desire to sin,

1

See Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space, 220. 527

consequently composing a prayer that reflects their internal landscape. This is true even when this landscape includes the influence of “external” demons. In contrast, as noted in chapter 3, many prayers that are embedded in narratives do not ask God for assistance against the desire to sin. Aside from the apotropaic prayers found in Jubilees, these prayers frequently assume righteousness on the part of the speaker (as in Josephus, A.J. 2.211) or do not acknowledge any justification of past sinning at all, as in the Prayer of Manasseh. Due to the narrative purpose of these prayers, they do not reflect the internal experience of prayer. Near Eastern and Hellenistic models of prayer also differ from the prayers explored in this study (see chapter 3). It is intriguing, however, that Xenophanes, the first pre-Socratic philosopher to propose that the gods must of necessity be moral, also prescribed prayer to the god for “the strength to act righteously.” This juxtaposition points to a logical connection between the belief in a moral and powerful Deity and the human request from the Deity for some degree of moral strength.

The Covenantal Genre “Covenantal texts” have been defined in this study as texts that explain the nature of the community that members have joined and the covenant they are accepting. This category is comprised of covenantal introductions to legal works, specifically the Damascus Document and the Community Rule; of necessity, the covenantal texts included in this study are those that have survived from the Qumran

528

community. Passages in the Cave 1 version of the Community Rule (1QS V-VI) and in the Damascus Document (CD III.2-12a) reflect a belief in human free will concerning the decision to sin, while still assuming that humans possess an innate inclination to sin. The passages in the Community Rule presume that humans are fully capable of resisting the urge to sin. The passage in the Damascus Document goes even further, emphasizing human free will and particularly choice through the repetition of the keyword bḥr, although still assuming that the human will (rṣwn) naturally and inevitably tends toward sin. Consequently the audience is exhorted to consistently turn away from their own will in order to follow God’s commandments. The assumption of freedom of choice is also present when covenantal texts describe demonic influence. The Damascus Document’s description of Belial in CD IV-VI places this demonic figure in the role of a deceiver of Israel regarding the correct law. Belial is also the force behind the success of “evil” leaders in convincing their followers that the laws of the community are not the correct law. Other people may be misled, but community members must avoid being caught in Belial’s “traps.” In this passage Belial appears more as an explanation of why the correct interpretation of the law is not obvious to all than as an explanation of sin. In the Community Rule, Belial is present only in name. The curses included in the Community Rule address only humans in the “lot of Belial,” not Belial himself or even Belial’s spirits. Humans have apparently placed themselves in Belial’s lot through their own sinning, as does a member who hypocritically intends to break the

529

community’s laws. As explained in chapter 12, the curse text in the Community Rule alters both Belial’s role and the meaning of his “lot” to suit a human-centered worldview in which humans can decide for themselves whether they will be righteous community members or evildoing nonmembers. Membership in Belial’s “lot” is not completely predetermined; it can result from a member’s actions. It is not surprising that the authors and redactors of covenantal texts focus on human free will rather than on the idea that all human actions have been predetermined by God. Whether the covenantal text reflects the concept of an innate human desire to sin or indicates a belief in demonic influence, it aims to place the responsibility for keeping the community’s rules firmly on the shoulders of the member. While prayer can emphasize the need for divine help, covenantal texts must assume that humans have the ability to choose the right path on their own.

Wisdom Literature Of the genres explored in this study, only wisdom and philosophical literature directly address the source of sin. In investigating this question, these texts frequently focus on the problem of theodicy: justifying a God who has created humans with the desire to sin and who allows evildoers to exist in his world. These texts propose a wide variety of approaches to the problem of sin. There are a number of factors that may explain this range of solutions. First, the texts included in this group reflect a wide geographic range, ranging from Judea to

530

Alexandria. Second, the chronological distribution of these texts is also wide, from 200 B.C.E. (Sirach) to the period following the Temple’s destruction in 70 C.E. (4 Ezra and 2 Baruch). Finally, it is highly likely that wisdom works are influenced less by generic expectations and literary conventions than by the philosophical or theological approach of the author, due to their direct grappling with theological questions. The author of a wisdom work almost by definition did not seek to accept common assumptions regarding sin, but may have frequently questioned these assumptions and put forth his own solution, or alternatively argued for a logical basis for common beliefs. It is therefore not surprising that each of the wisdom works reviewed in this study presents a different treatment of sin. The book of Sirach contains one passage that directly addresses the problem of sin (15:11-20) and several passages that contain within them different assumptions regarding the source of sin. Ben Sira makes no attempt to reconcile these passages. According to the passage at 15:11-20, sin is wholly dependent on human character and the free choices that humans make. Ben Sira thereby describes sin and sinful acts as distant from God. Sin is the complete responsibility of the sinner, as explained at length in this passage. The passage at 15:11-20 reflects a use of the term yēṣer in its neutral sense to denote human character without a particular impulse to evil. The appearance of this term, however, led to a medieval gloss in the Hebrew manuscripts based on the later negative and reified understanding of the yēṣer. This medieval gloss subverted Ben Sira’s original message into a description of God’s subjection of the

531

human to her evil inclination, a direct contradiction of Ben Sira’s central idea in this passage. The idea that sin is not from God and depends on human character seems to conflict with the description of divine election in Sirach 33. This passage explains that sinners exist due to the universe’s “harmony of opposites,” possibly reflecting Pythagorean influence. Sirach demonstrates the strong influence of the prayer genre in his prayer at 23:2-6, where he requests divine help against the desire to sin. Other incongruous references to sin in Sirach include a possible allusion to the idea that sin originated with Eve (25:24), a statement regarding the inevitability of sin (17:31), a declaration that one may control one’s inclination by keeping the law (21:11), and a likely corrupted passage describing the “evil notion” as covering the earth with deceit (37:3). The wide variety of statements regarding sin demonstrates Ben Sira’s tendency toward contextual rather than overarching solutions, as noted by von Rad. 2 Philo’s philosophical works are not strictly part of the wisdom genre. However, like wisdom texts, Philo’s works directly address the problem of sin, and a comparison between Philo’s works and wisdom texts is illuminating. As opposed to the neutral view of human character espoused in Sir 15:11-20, Philo’s works demonstrate a distinctively negative view of the human inclination; it is inevitably evil. Nevertheless, Philo emphasizes not only human responsibility for sin, but also 2

Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 247-51. 532

the human capability to prevent it by describing the control of the inclination through the rational soul. Philo deemphasizes the existence of a separate “irrational soul” that is responsible for sin, in contrast to Plato’s approach. Philo thereby presents the inclination toward sin as inseparable from the human condition, even the “rational” one. A rational human, according to Philo, must inevitably face (and control) her inclination toward sin. For both Ben Sira and Philo, the human capacity to sin must be distanced from God, and both these thinkers describe this capacity as a part of the human condition. They solve the problem of theodicy in regard to sin by emphasizing human free will. For both Ben Sira and Philo, however, God’s help may be requested in prayer, showing just how strong the prayer genre’s conventions are. Philo more frequently describes humans as having an inevitable tendency toward sin, while Ben Sira’s central passage on the source of sin presents human character as neutral. The emphasis on free will found in both Philo and Ben Sira may be a result of a much wider philosophical/wisdom perspective they share that emphasizes human knowledge and decision. 4 Maccabees does not discuss a natural human inclination to sin, but reflects the common idea that the law is a means of fighting the desire to sin; the author declares that God has given humans both reason and the law as a means of controlling their passions. This idea forms an important part of the argument between Ezra and the angel in 4 Ezra, a work which addresses the problem of theodicy following the

533

destruction of the temple. The author of 4 Ezra accepts the inevitability of sin as presented in prayers of this period, but denies prayer’s assumption that divine assistance is forthcoming. The pessimistic view of Ezra as presented in 4 Ezra is opposed by Ezra’s angelic interlocutor; however, Ezra’s view is discounted rather than disproved. The angel asserts that the only people who matter to God are those few righteous who do succeed in fighting their desire to sin. While it may be incredibly difficult to fight the desire to sin, the angel states that humans are capable of doing just that; it is this capability that lies behind the human responsibility for sin. Nevertheless, the inevitability of sin and the fiery punishment that will follow remain a reality for the majority of humankind. Through this dialogue between Ezra and the angel, the author of 4 Ezra responds to the widespread paradigm of sin according to which the innate evil inclination is subject to free will, as found in Sirach, Philo’s works, and 4 Maccabees. While the protagonist of 4 Ezra initially rejects this idea vociferously, he seems to accept it following his personal revelation that is meant to convey the “answer” of the book.

The Law versus Sin An idea that is surprisingly strong across nearly all genres explored in this study is that the desire to sin, whether innately human or the result of demonic influence, can be fought with the law. The means by which the law can overcome sin differ in the various texts. In the Words of the Luminaries the Torah is “planted” in the

534

heart of the speaker as a means of “curing” him from the desire to sin. In the apotropaic prayers Songs of the Sage and 4Q444, the law battles the demonic spirits that have invaded the speaker’s “innards.” In Jubilees 7, Noah gives laws to his descendants in order to prevent demonic influence upon them. In the wisdom literature reviewed in this study, Ben Sira proclaims that “He who keeps the law gains mastery over the object of his thought/inclination” (Sir 21:11), while 4 Macc 2:21-3:5 explains that while God has implanted passions in humans, their mind and the law have been given to them in order to control these passions. The author of 4 Ezra struggles with this idea; his protagonist rejects it, at least initially (see chapter 7). Ezra protests that the “evil heart” results in inevitable sin, and notes that this evil heart was not removed even when Israel was given the law; the law was therefore insufficient in preventing sin (4 Ezra 3:20-22). However, Ezra’s angelic interlocutor echoes common wisdom and claims that it is enough that God has given people understanding and the law (7:71-72) for them to avoid sin. It seems that this opinion has been adopted by Ezra by the end of the book. The strength of the belief during the Second Temple period that the law combats sin may explain Paul’s declarations in Rom 5:20 and 7:7-13 regarding the increase of sin following the revelation of the law at Sinai. The strength of the popular belief in the law as an antidote to sin necessitated an equally strong contradictory statement by Paul in order to advocate the abrogation of the law. Statements in later rabbinic literature that assert that the cure for the “evil inclination” is found in the

535

Torah and that one of the means of fighting the evil inclination is to drag “him” to the house of study may also stem from the popular idea that the law actively combats the desire to sin. 3

Adam and Original Sin The idea that humans are sinful because Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit (“original sin”) is rarely found in surviving Second Temple literature. The earliest reference to this idea may be found in Sir 25:24, which, while referring to a wicked wife, reflects a familiarity with an “original sin” tradition whereby death and sin both originated from the eating of the forbidden fruit, at Eve’s instigation. However, only the two works written in the aftermath of the temple’s destruction, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, explicitly present the idea that the desire to sin originated with the transgression of Adam and Eve. Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch lament Adam’s sin, blaming Adam for the subsequent sins of his descendants. 4 Ezra describes the desire to sin as an inheritance from Adam; it is thus both innate and inevitable. However, 4 Ezra is not consistent regarding the manner in which Adam received his “evil heart.” This evil heart is alternately described as originating either with Adam’s creation or as a result of his sin. It is apparent that the manner in which the evil heart was obtained is of little import to the protagonist Ezra and his contemporaries, who must deal with its consequences regardless. 3

Sifre Deut. 45, b. B. Bat. 16a, b. Qidd. 30b. 536

2 Baruch presents two seemingly incompatible views that nevertheless point to the prominence of the idea of “original sin,” at least in the period following the temple’s destruction. Within a lament similar to that found in 4 Ezra (2 Bar. 48:4243), Baruch grieves that Adam and Eve, through their sin, caused the corruption of their descendants. Later, acknowledging God’s wisdom and justice, he argues against exactly this position (2 Bar. 54:15-19), stating that while Adam’s sin brought death to the world, sinners are responsible for their own sins and, consequently, for the punishment they are soon to receive. Baruch concludes with the statement that “each one of us is his own Adam.” This final statement seems to reflect the “bottom line” of the author’s stance. The similarities between the beginning of the lament in 4 Ezra 7:118-126 and the introduction to the lament in 2 Bar. 48:42-43 indicate that there may be a narrative and literary motivation for including Adam’s sin in a lament: by addressing the progenitor of humankind and lamenting his tremendous error and its consequences, the protagonist emphasizes the truly tragic position of “contemporary” sinners. Despite the ultimate rejection of the idea in 2 Baruch (54:15-19) and the idea’s nonexclusivity as the reason for the “evil heart” in 4 Ezra, it is clear that the idea of “original sin” as indicated in Rom 5:12-13 (and perhaps 1 Cor 15:20-22) was not exclusive to Paul, but was a widely known (if not commonly accepted) idea in the Jewish tradition by the time of the destruction. The advantage of such an explanation is the distancing of the responsibility for the human inclination to sin from God as well

537

as the implication that humanity as a whole, in the figure of Adam, is responsible for this negative aspect of the human condition. The disadvantage is the possibility that individuals will blame their own sins on Adam’s initial action, a possibility that leads to Baruch’s argument in 2 Bar. 54:15-19. Why is the idea of “original sin” prominent only in works written in the aftermath of the temple’s destruction? Perhaps the incomprehensible tragedy of the destruction required a justification that was both distant from God but also out of the hands of contemporary Jews, who could not see any parity between their actions and the extreme “punishment” they had been forced to suffer. By attributing human sinfulness to an “original sin,” authors could explain the destruction as the consequence of a prehistoric sinful act without expecting it to correspond to particular contemporary behavior.

Gentiles and Sin The different texts that explore sin and its source sometimes describe hostile Gentiles. In Jubilees, where sin is usually not described as resulting from an innate human inclination, Esau suffers from an inclination (yēṣer) that is “evil from his youth” (Jub. 35:9). In the Wisdom of Solomon, the seven Canaanite nations, an “accursed race,” share an evil origin and inborn wickedness (Wis 12:10-11). Similar and more literal demonization of Gentile nations can be found in texts that reflect a belief in a demonic source of sin. In Jubilees the nations, like Belial, can cause Israel

538

to sin by ruling them (1:19-21) and are themselves ruled by sin-causing spirits (15:31). In the War Scroll, Belial’s army is first described as consisting not of spirits but of the nations, particularly those portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. These texts reflect the belief that the gentile nations are basically sinful and possible emissaries of powerful demons; moreover, their rule will cause Israel to sin. Such a belief could conceivably make Roman rule intolerable for the readers of these texts.

Development of Demonic Figures The attribution of sin to demonic influences was a popular approach to sin in the Second Temple period. This approach distanced the desire to sin completely from God’s creation while often maintaining a degree of human responsibility. The idea that demons cause sin relied on traditions regarding specific demonic characters. The authors and redactors of the texts explored in this study developed these traditions to serve their own message and purposes.

The Watchers The Watchers myth in early Jewish literature is based on an interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 as a story of angels who sinned with women and subsequently begot evil giants. The violence of these evil giants led to the flood. The story of the Watchers is first found in 1 Enoch, in the section known as the Book of the Watchers (BW), 1 Enoch 1-36. While several traditions regarding the Watchers are interwoven in BW, 539

only one of these strands clearly refers to causing sin after the flood, and even then only the specific sin of sacrificing to demons. The inclusion of only one short reference to causing sin after the flood demonstrates that the purpose of the Watchers myth as it is found in 1 Enoch was not to explain the origin of sin. In 1 En.6-11 the story expresses divine justice against paradigmatic sinners and justifies the devastation of the flood. In 1 En. 15:1-16:4, the Watchers myth is used to explain the origin of natural evil. However, the subsequent development of the myth to encompass the origin of sin was a reasonable progression based on the story in 1 Enoch. The terms used to describe the destruction caused by the spirits of the Watchers’ giant children in 1 En. 15:1-16:4 allow the reader to interpret the destruction as including sin. In addition, the reference to the sin-causing spirits of the Watchers in 1 En. 19:1-2 indicates that while the Watchers story was not the explanation of the origin of sin, it could be used to explain the occurrence of specific sins that might seem otherwise unreasonable, such as the worship of demons. These aspects of the Watchers story as told in 1 Enoch supported the later development of the myth to explain the origin of sin. The book of Jubilees develops the story of the Watchers and merges the different strands found in 1 Enoch while transforming the Watchers story into an explanation of human sin. The author of Jubilees is not concerned with providing an integrated description of a single origin of sin; he refers to both Belial and the Angel Mastema, each of whom causes sin, without assimilating them or troubling to explain

540

their origins. There is also no statement that sins are only the result of demonic influence. Consequently, the Watchers are not the only origin of sin in Jubilees, but their spirits are certainly a primary force in the cause of sin following the flood. The degree to which sin caused by demonic influence is subject to human free will is portrayed differently in different sections of Jubilees. In Jubilees 7, demons’ ability or inability to influence Noah’s descendants is subject only to human actions, in particular to their adherence to the law, specifically the law against consuming blood. In Jubilees 10, however, instigation by these demonic spirits is met not by direct human resistance, but by Noah’s appeal to God, an appeal made from a state of deep vulnerability in the face of demonic influence. The author/redactor of Jubilees also makes a bold move in order to “fix” the problem of the Watchers’ nature and origin. The Watchers’ descendants result from an act of rebellion and sin on the part of the Watchers, and consequently they act without supervision from the divine sphere. While the author of Jubilees does not deny the Watchers’ existence or origin, he subordinates the Watchers’ descendants to Mastema, who functions within the divine court and has the job of punishing the wicked. While the nature of the Watchers’ spirits is still described as anarchic, the fact that they are now Mastema’s spirits limits their freedom and makes it clear that they are controlled from within the divine court. Following the subordination of these spirits to Mastema, this central figure is the only ongoing threat to Israelites for the remainder of the narrative. The nations

541

may be led by sin-causing demons (15:30-32), but God’s direct rule of Israel saves them from this danger. Mastema appears less as an explanation for the cause of sin, however, than as a means of deflecting theologically challenging passages of Genesis and Exodus, such as the “bloody bridegroom” passage in Exod 4:24-26. In the course of the narrative, Jubilees presents a chain of prayers and blessings that ostensibly limit the demonic ability to cause Israel to sin. This series includes Noah’s prayer that the children of the righteous not be bothered by the Watchers’ descendants (10:3-6), Abram’s blessing of Jacob that Mastema not rule over him and his descendants, and Moses’ prayer for God to prevent the rule of Belial over Israel (1:19-21). This series of prayers and blessings reassures the intended audience that they are, in fact, not helpless in the face of demonic forces, and that just as the demonic forces are subordinate to the divine court, these forces are limited in their ability to cause the descendants of the righteous forefathers to sin. In sum, the author/redactor of Jubilees clearly accepts that demons can, in fact, cause sin. However, he wishes to emphasize that these demons function within a divine system and cannot compel “Israelites” to sin. While acknowledging the “fact” of demonic existence and influence, the author effectively removes the threat of this influence from his intended audience. The Damascus Document similarly represents an acknowledgement of the Watchers myth while ignoring any possible influence the Watchers may have after the flood. Its historical survey of sinners (CD II.14-III.12a) begins with the Watchers story

542

but does not present it as an explanation for human sin. Rather, the Watchers are paradigmatic, the first in a long line of characters who sin because they walk according to the stubbornness of their own hearts rather than listening to God’s commandments. The Watchers are equated with humans who stumble due to their own “guilty inclination and lecherous eyes.” As opposed to the survival of the giants’ spirits in Jubilees, the Watchers’ giant children are completely destroyed in the flood, and leave no remnant. However, apotropaic prayers found at Qumran as well as an incantation found in 11QApocryphal Psalms (11Q11 V.4-VI.3) give a different impression of the Watchers. In these texts, the Watchers’ descendants continue to threaten the petitioner, and are likely to lead him to sin. In order to prevent this, the speaker appeals to God for help (or in the incantation, summons God’s strength) against these spirits. The composers of these prayers make no mention of the subjugation of these evil spirits to Mastema. It seems that the efforts of the author of Jubilees to situate the evil spirits within a divine system were not generally accepted. This disregard of Jubilees’ approach to the Watchers mirrors the popular response to similar efforts in Near Eastern epics documented by K. van der Toorn. 4

4

Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 73-76. 543

Belial The earliest mention of the demonic figure of Belial is in Moses’ prayer in the book of Jubilees, Jub. 1:19-21. The prayer in Jub. 1:19-21 depicts Israel as vulnerable to the possible rule of Belial and to the rule of foreign nations. The rule of either, Belial or the nations, leads to the sinning of Israel; the similar language used to refer to Belial and the foreign nations indicates the “demonization” of foreign rule. Belial’s activities in this passage include ruling over humans, causing them to sin, and accusing them before God. Through the latter two functions, Belial seems to fill the divinely mandated role elsewhere attributed to the śāṭān, or in Jubilees to the angel Mastema. In the Jubilees passage Belial is not in direct conflict with God, nor is he contrasted with a good angel. The inclusion of a prayer centering on Belial, despite the prominence of Mastema in Jubilees as a whole, points to a wider tradition regarding Belial, one that apparently lacked a dualistic element. The Dead Sea Scrolls, in contrast, frequently present Belial as part of a dualistic system. This is particularly evident in liturgical curse-blessing texts, such as 4QBerakhot. In 4QBerakhot, the curse of Belial and his “lot,” including both spirits and evil human beings, is contrasted to the blessing of God. 4QBerakhot presents a comprehensive explanation of evil that is in some ways very different from that seen in texts that do not mention Belial. It includes the understanding that the current time period is the “dominion of Belial,” the period of evil signifying that Belial, his spirits and the wicked humans under his control are free to cause havoc among the faithful

544

until the eschaton. In contrast to Jub. 1:19-21, in Qumran curse texts Belial is not part of the heavenly court. However, neither are Belial’s spirits completely anarchic, as they follow his design. Belial’s “lot” is a threat completely external to the community member; unlike the spirits in apotropaic prayers, Belial and his minions do not enter into members in order to influence them. In essence, in these texts Belial serves to define the boundary between the wicked and the righteous: those who belong to Belial’s lot are defined as evildoers. The responsibility for the existence of these evildoers and for their sinning ways has thereby been distanced from God, and the promised eschaton will bring an end to the “dominion of Belial” as well as relief for the righteous. The Community Rule relates to Belial in a manner that is noticeably different from his appearance in 4QBerakhot. The liturgical blessing and curse text in the Community Rule (1QS I.16-II.19) does not address the demonic aspect of Belial’s lot; it is directed solely to human evildoers. The inconsistency of the verb forms used in this text indicates that Belial himself was the original subject of these curses, but was removed and replaced with “all the people of Belial’s lot.” It is likely that the covenantal nature of this text is what determined this change. As noted above, covenantal texts tend to emphasize human free will, and the ability of humans to be evil or good depending on their own choice. By cursing human evildoers in Belial’s lot, as opposed to Belial and his spirits themselves, the editor maintains a human focus and avoids blaming human evil directly on demonic influence. Moreover, in this text

545

Belial’s lot is not completely predetermined; a wayward member has changed his lot and entered the lot of Belial by hypocritically answering the oath while intending to break the community’s rules. While this distances the term gwrl from its usual meaning (see chapter 12 above) it effectively places responsibility for keeping the law onto the shoulders of the member. Members cannot rely on predestination to safeguard their place among the righteous. This twist on the approach of Belial curse texts is in keeping with the tendency of covenantal texts mentioned above. Belial remains, however, a means of dividing the member from the sinful nonmember, who belongs to Belial’s “lot.” As in 4QBerakhot, Belial’s lot is an external, and not an internal, threat to the righteous member. The author of the curse text in 4Q280 clearly held a different view from the editor of the curse text in the Community Rule. In 4Q280, a curse against Belial’s stand-in Melki-reša is inserted within a text condemning human evildoers. Here it is Melki-reša who lies at the root of the actions of those who reject the group. Those who have rejected the community are thereby explained as (perhaps predetermined) active followers of demonic forces, bent only on carrying out Melki-reša’s schemes. In 4Q280, the inserted curse of Melki-reša provides the community member with an explanation of why the ex-member has left the group and, like the Belial texts discussed, draws a firm line between members and nonmembers. This firm division, facilitated by attributing evildoers to Belial’s influence, is also found in the pesher texts 4QFlorilegium and 4QCatena A.

546

Belial fills an important function in the Damascus Document that bears comparison with the other sectarian texts described above, although it also reflects significant differences. As in other texts, Belial functions as a dividing line between the group and others, and functions only in the present age of evil. However, in the Damascus Document (IV.12-VI.4) Belial leads non-members astray through the incorrect interpretation of the law: the three “traps” of Belial. Furthermore, he accomplishes this misleading through his emissaries, evil human leaders. The character Belial thus functions as an explanation of the existence and prosperity of leaders outside the group, and explains how nonmembers can be convinced by their “clearly” erroneous interpretation of the law. As in other covenantal texts, the focus is ultimately human, and sinning is both far from inevitable and ultimately in the hands of the human being. However, within the legal section of the Damascus Document, in CD XII.2-6, the miscalculation of the calendar by a member and, worse, the member’s derogatory speech regarding the group’s leadership or laws are attributed to the influence of Belial and his spirits. While the type of sinning caused by Belial corresponds to that described at the beginning of the Damascus Document, the degree of influence that Belial and his spirits have over the member in this passage is unusual. This incongruous passage may be a description of the realization of Belial’s power to create a division between the community and others, by either creating an evil leader (the member who “speaks out” and must be executed; XII.2-3) or misleading the

547

innocent into following the wrong law (the member who miscalculates the calendar and is “cured”; XII.3-6). A striking difference between these passages in the Damascus Document and in other Qumran texts that depict Belial is the almost complete lack of dualism in the Damascus Document, with the exception of the one-time activity of the Prince of Lights, who assists Moses and Aaron when opposed by Belial’s emissaries. Beyond this instance, Belial has no consistent counterpart in the Damascus Document. Certain passages in the Damascus Document regarding demonic influence reflect the influence of the book of Jubilees. In CD VIII.1-3, Belial is destined to destroy evildoers, in what is apparently a divinely sanctioned role. This may reflect Belial’s depiction as a court functionary in Jub. 1:19-21. Alternatively, it may result from identifying Belial with Mastema, who describes himself as eventually punishing evildoers in Jub. 10:8. The Damascus Document is also unusual among sectarian texts in that it mentions the angel Mastema. In a passage that explicitly refers to the book of Jubilees (CD XVI.2-6), the author declares that as soon as one returns to the “Torah of Moses,” the Angel of Hostility/Mastema will leave him. This declaration suits the view reflected in Jubilees (noted in chapter 9) that the righteous are free from demonic sincausing influence. Nevertheless, no attempt is made here to identify Mastema with Belial.

548

A more extensive reflection of Jubilee’s influence can be seen in the redactional layer of the War Scroll. It is likely that the figure of Belial is an addition to the nucleus of the War Scroll, which originally described a nationalistic war. 5 Nevertheless, in the War Scroll’s redacted form Belial is a prominent part of the dualistic division of the world into forces of good and evil. These forces combat each other in the final eschatological battle, and Belial stands at the head of an army consisting of evil spirits and humans. The Belial of the War Scroll is closer to Belial’s depiction in the liturgical curse texts and the pesharim than to Belial’s description in the Damascus Document. As in the curse texts and the pesharim, Belial is part of a dualistic system, and commands evildoers. Unlike the case in the Damascus Document, here social dualism (the righteous and the evildoer) and cosmic dualism (Belial and Michael/the Prince of Light) are aligned. Certain key aspects of Belial’s role in the War Scroll echo the stance of Jubilees. Belial leads the nations, in an echo of Jub. 1:19-21 and 15:31, but is incapable of leading the children of light astray. This may reflect the trend of Jubilees to limit the influence of demonic forces among the righteous and their descendants. The description of Belial as an “angel of hostility,” ml’k mśṭmh (1QM XIII.11), also points to the influence of Jubilees and may indicate that, in the view of the author of this passage, Belial and Mastema are one and the same.

5

Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll. 549

While the Dead Sea Scrolls present a range of views of the character of Belial, it is important to note that these texts employ the figure of Belial for similar ends: to divide between the community member (i.e., the righteous) and the nonmember (the evildoer). As such, Belial may appear within a cosmic dualistic system, as in the War Scroll and the curse-blessing texts, or without any reference to such a system. He does, however, consistently signify the social dualism between the righteous group member and the sinning outsider. Unlike the Watchers in Qumran apotropaic prayer, the existence of Belial explains evil from without, not from within. Even in the exception to this statement, CD XII.4-6, Belial and his spirits are not a continuing presence; they are either “cured,” thus allowing the member’s return to the community, or they indicate the member’s complete sinfulness and require his execution. This stands in contrast to prayers from Qumran which express an experience of continuous battling with the desire to sin even among the righteous, due either to an innate evil inclination or to the pernicious influence of anarchic spirits.

Mastema The role of Mastema as an instigator of evil is almost wholly confined to Jubilees. As noted above, the attempt of the author of Jubilees to integrate the Watchers’ descendants into the divine system via the character of Mastema is not reflected in Qumran texts. In addition, at Qumran Mastema is almost exclusively

550

mentioned in texts that refer in some way to the Jubilees narrative, such as the reference to Mastema in the Damascus Document and the pseudo-Jubilees texts found at Qumran. An important exception to this statement is the War Scroll’s description of Belial as an “angel of hostility,” ml’k mśṭmh, noted above, which strongly suggest the direct influence of Jubilees on the War Scroll. The references to “angels of hostility/ies,” ml’ky hmśṭmwt, in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q387 2 iii.4, 4Q390 1 11) may also be evidence of the influence of the character of Mastema. However, the angels described in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah act less like the Mastema figure in Jubilees than like the more anarchic spirits of Belial or the Watchers’ descendants, who are free to cause evil during the “dominion of Belial,” also referred to in the Apocryphon (4Q390 2 i.3-7).

The Periodization of Evil An idea that is particularly prominent in sectarian texts, particularly those that reflect a belief in a demonic source of sin, is the idea that evil is given free rein in the present period. The dominion of evil forces will end at the eschaton, when God will destroy all the evil spirits along with the human evildoers who carry out their will, thereby demonstrating divine omnipotence once and for all. The current period of evil is frequently called the “dominion of Belial,” even when Belial himself is not mentioned, as in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390). However, the periodization of evil does not rely on Belial per se; apotropaic prayers

551

that focus on demonic forces other than Belial also note that the influence of these forces is limited to the current period. The restriction of evil to a particular period may be a theological response to the difficulties of blaming sin on the influence of demonic forces. As noted above, by attributing the desire to sin to demons, the authors of these texts absolved God from all blame for sin. According to this view of sin, God has not fashioned humans with the desire to sin, so the question of why he would do so need not be addressed. However, this solution created what could be seen as a greater difficulty: how does God allow these demons to roam free among God’s chosen? The limitation of the power of evil forces to a given time period may not solve this problem to the modern mind, but it seems to have provided a solution for Jews of the Second Temple period. The promise of the future destruction of evil forces apparently solves the difficulty of demons’ “current” influence. 6 Why would the divine plan include a period of evil? The answer implied by the Treatise of the Two Spirits is that this is a divine “mystery” (1QS III.23). The periodization of evil goes hand in hand with an eschatological worldview. It is the belief in a dramatic eschaton ending all evil that enables the portrayal of a dramatically evil present. The eschatological periodization reflected in many Qumran texts is likely the result of familiarity with Persian patterns of thought. However, the Qumran “dominion of Belial” is a more pessimistic development; it is a far worse state 6

See Steudel, “God and Belial,” 339. 552

of existence than the Persian “mixture” of evil and good that precedes the eschaton according to Zoroastrian thought.

The Treatise and Views of Sin at Qumran Second Temple texts reveal a wide range of approaches to sin that were popular in the Second Temple period in general and at Qumran in particular. Various texts imply a human inclination to sin or demonic influence from without or within; the need for divine assistance against sin or human capability and freedom of choice; one’s guaranteed position as one of the righteous or an ongoing struggle with the desire to sin. The review of genres in this study has demonstrated that a range of views of sin could flourish simultaneously within a single community and that the presentation of sin frequently differs according to the aim of the particular text. The assortment of approaches that can be found in the highly redacted Treatise possibly reflects an attempt to integrate several of these views into a single theology. This would explain why the Treatise appealed to the redactor of the Community Rule, despite the Treatise’s unique terminology and theology, and consequently why it was integrated into this central sectarian text.

Directions for Future Research The findings of the current study lend themselves to a wide range of directions for further exploration. As noted in the introduction, a chronology of worldviews of

553

sin at Qumran lies outside the scope of the current study. However, in the continued attempt to explore the theological development of the Qumran community, these findings will be a useful addition in discerning how the community’s development impacted its view of sin. Particularly intriguing are the clear redactional trends in specific texts, such as the Community Rule (see chapter 4). In addition, the views of the source of sin explored in this study may shed light on Second Temple views of other aspects of sin, such as the extent to which sin was thought to cause impurity. Finally, the exclusive focus on Second Temple texts in the current study will provide a background for comparison with other contemporary religious movements and their approaches to sin, as well as for tracing subsequent developments in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity and the extent to which these drew from similar ideas regarding sin and its origins.

554

Bibliography

Abegg, M. G. “1 QS V 1-XI 22.” Pages 20-42 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Translated by M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ---. “1QHa.” Pages 3-77 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Translated by M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ---. “CD (Damascus Document, Cairo Geniza).” No pages. Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library. Edited by E. Tov. Version 7.0.24. Provo: Brigham Young University, 2006. Abegg, M. G., M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. “4QShira-b (4Q510-511).” Pages 168-211 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 6: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Abusch, T. “Witchcraft and the Anger of the Personal God.” Pages 83-121 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Edited by T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1999. Ackerman, S. “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437-58.

555

Aitken, J. K. “Divine Will and Providence.” Pages 282-301 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Aḳademyah la-Lashon ha-ʻIvrit. Sefer Ben Sira: Ha-Maḳor, Ḳonḳordantsyah ṾeNituaḥ Otsar Ha-Milim. Jerusalem: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-ʻIvrit, 1973. Alexander, E. S. “Art, Argument, and Ambiguity in the Talmud: Conﬂicting Conceptions of the Evil Impulse in b. Sukkah 51b-52a.” HUCA 73 (2002): 97132. Alexander, P. S. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331-53 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ---. “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 2749 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by J. M. G. Barclay and S. J. Gathercole. LNTS 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. ---. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal.” RevQ 17 (1996): 43756. ---. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” JJS 23 (1972): 60-71. Alexander, P. S., and G. Vermes. “256. 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadb.” Pages 39-64 in Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts. DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

556

---. “258. 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥadd.” Pages 83-128 in Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Serekh haYaḥad and Two Related Texts. DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Allan, D. J. “The Practical Syllogism.” Pages 325-40 in Autour d’Aristote: recueil d’études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion. Edited by A. Mansion. Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain 16. Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1955. Amir, J. “The Term ‘Goral’.” Beit Mikra 2 (1957): 102 (Hebrew). Anderson, G. A. “From Israel’s Burden to Israel’s Debt: towards a Theology of Sin in Biblical and Early Second Temple Sources.” Pages 1-30 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ---. “Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 49-64 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by J. Milgrom, D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ---. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Atkinson, K. “Psalms of Salomon.” Pages 763-76 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

557

---. “Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 546-75 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Baars, Willem. “Apocryphal Psalms.” Pages i-x, 1-12 in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version. Part 4 fasc. 6. Edited by The Peshiṭta Institute Leiden. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Baillet, M. “504. Paroles des Luminaires (i).” Pages 137-68 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. ---. “510. Cantiques du Sage (i).” Pages 215-19 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q4824Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. ---. “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii).” Pages 219-62 in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q4824Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Baillet, M., and E. G. Chazon. “4Q504 (4QDibHama).” Pages 240-61 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Translated by M. G. Abegg, M. O. Wise, and E. M. Cook. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Bardtke, Hans. “Considérations sur les cantiques de Qumrân.” RB 63 (1956): 220-33. Barker, M. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1987. Bartelmus, R. Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6, 1-4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur. ATANT 65. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979.

558

Baudry, G-H. “Le péché originel chez Philo d’Alexandrie.” MScRel 50 (1993): 99115. ---. “La théorie du penchant mauvais et la doctrine du péché originel.” BLE 95 (1994): 271-301. Bauer, J. B. “Der priesterliche Schöpfungshymnus in Gen. 1.” TZ 20 (1964): 1-9. ---. “Sir 15,14 et Gen 1,1.” VD 41 (1963): 243-4. Baumgarten, A. I. “Who Cares and Why Does It Matter? Qumran and the Essenes, Once Again!” DSD 11 (2004): 174-90. ---. “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration.” DSD 4 (1997): 137-56. Baumgarten, J. M. “266. 4QDamascus Documenta.” Pages 23-93 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ---. “269. 4QDamascus Documentd.” Pages 123-36 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ---. “270. 4QDamascus Documente.” Pages 137-68 in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ---. “Damascus Document 4Q266-273 (4QDa-h).” Pages 1-185 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 3, Damascus Document II Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

559

---. “Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 390-9 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. ---. “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7.” Pages 199-209 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ---. “‘Zab’ Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law.” JJS 45 (1994): 273-7. Baumgarten, J. M., and D. R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4-57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Beall, T. S. “Essenes.” Pages 262-9 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Becker, J. Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Beentjes, P. C. “Sirach 22:27-23:6, in zijn context.” Bijdr 39 (1978): 144-51. ---. “Some Major Topics in Ben Sira Research.” Pages 3-16 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Repr. from Bijdragen 66 (2005): 131-144. ---. “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 509-24 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

560

Berger, P. L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1969. Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten Talmudischen Zitaten. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Bickerman, E. J. “The Date of Fourth Maccabees.” Pages 266-71 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by A. Tropper. AJEC 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bietenhard, H. “Sabbatvorschriften von Qumran im Lichte des rabbinischen Rechts und der Evangelien.” Pages 75-108 in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9 bis 14 Oktober 1961. Edited by H. Bardtke. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 42. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Birenboim, H. “‘For He is Impure among All Those who Transgress His Words’: Sin and Ritual Defilement in the Qumran Scrolls.” Zion 68 (2003): 359-66 (Hebrew). Black, M. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Boccaccini, G. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: the Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Bockmuehl, M. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS).” RevQ 18 (1998): 541-60.

561

Bottéro, J. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Box, G. H. “IV Ezra.” Pages 561-624 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. ---. The Ezra-Apocalypse. London: Pitman, 1912. Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” Pages 268-517 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Boyarin, D. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Boyce, M. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Textual Sources for the Study of Religion. University of Chicago Press, 1990. Brandenburger, E. Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5, 12-21 (1. Kor 15). WMANT 7. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962. ---. Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches. ATANT 68. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Braude, W. G. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts and Special Sabbaths. YJS 18. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.

562

Breech, E. “These Fragments I Have Shored against my Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra.” JBL 92 (1973): 267-74. Breitenstein, U. Beobachtungen zu Sprache: Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuchs. Basel: Schwabe, 1978. Bremmer, J. N. “Remember the Titans!” Pages 35-61 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Brockington, L. H., and R. H. Charles. “The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Pages 835-95 in The Apocryphal Old Testament. Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Brooke, G. J. “Body Parts in ‘Barkhi Nafshi’ and the Qualifications for Membership of the Worshipping Community.” Pages 79-94 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ---. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. ---. “Florilegium.” Pages 297-8 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Hendrickson, 1907.

563

Büchler, A. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. London: Oxford University, 1928. Calduch-Benages, N., J. Ferrer, and J. Liesen. La sabiduría del escriba: edición diplomática de la versión siriaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella, Navarre: Verbo Divino, 2003. Cassidy, W. “Cleanthes - Hymn to Zeus.” Pages 133-38 in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. Edited by M. C. Kiley. London: Routledge, 1997. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1. From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI 8. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961. Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes, and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged, and Rewritten Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. ---. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902. ---. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS. together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.

564

Charlesworth, J. H., and E. Qimron. “Cave IV Fragments Related to the Rule of the Community (4Q255-264 = 4QS MSS A-J).” Pages 53-103 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ---. “Rule of the Community (1QS).” Pages 6-51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Charlesworth, J. H., and B. A. Strawn. “Reflections on the Text of ‘Serek ha-Yaḥad’ Found in Cave IV.” RevQ 17 (1996): 403-35. Charlesworth, J.H. “Rule of the Community: Introduction.” Pages 1-5 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Chazon, E. G. “444. 4QIncantation.” Pages 367-78 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 244-70 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ---. “Is ‘Divrei ha-me’orot’ a Sectarian Prayer?” Pages 3-17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

565

---. “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam)”. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991 (Hebrew). ---. “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications.” DSD 1 (1994): 265-84. Childs, B. S. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. SBT 1/27. London: SCM, 1960. ---. “A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI”. Ph.D. diss., Plymouth, Wis.: Basel, 1955. Chilton, B. Review of J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. RRJ 4 (2001): 350-5. Christensen, D. L. Nahum. AB 24F. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Cohen Stuart, G. H. The Struggle in Man Between Good and Evil: an Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Haraʼ. Kampen: Kok, 1984. Collins, A. Y. “The Theology of Early Enoch Literature.” Hen 24 (2002): 107-12. Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. ---. “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers.” CBQ 44 (1982): 91-111. ---. “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve.” Pages 293-308 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by H. Najman and J. H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

566

---. “Forms of Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 97-111 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ---. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. ---. “Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch: Reflections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg.” Pages 315-22 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. ---. “Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 177-92 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ---. Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Boston: Brill, 2001. Cook, E. M. “4QEnGiantsa-f.” Pages 478-511 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ---. “A Thanksgiving for God’s Help (4Q434 II-III).” Pages 14-17 in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. Edited by M. C. Kiley. London: Routledge, 1997. ---. “Visions of ‘Amram.” Pages 412-43 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 3: Parabiblical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

567

Cook, J. E. “Creation in 4 Ezra: The Biblical Theme in Support of Theodicy.” Pages 129-39 in Creation in the Biblical Traditions. Edited by R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins. CBQMS 24. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992. Cook, J. “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‘‫ ’יצר הטוב‬and ‘‫’יצר הרע‬.” JSJ 38 (2007): 80-91. Crawford, S. W. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Crenshaw, J. L. “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: on Human Bondage.” JBL 94 (1975): 49-64. Cross, F. M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961. ---. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pages 133-202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G. E. Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961. ---. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” JBL 74 (1955): 147-72. ---. “The Palaeographical Dates of the Manuscripts.” Page 57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. D’Alario, V. “‘Non dire: “Da Dio proviene il mio peccato”’ (Sir 15,11 ebr): Dio all’origine del male.” RStB 29 (2007): 101-33.

568

Davidson, R. “Some Aspects of the Theological Significance of Doubt in the Old Testament.” ASTI 7 (September 1968): 41-52. Davies, P. R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. BibOr 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. ---. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” JSOT 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. ---. “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts.” Pages 8-19 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. ---. “Eschatology at Qumran.” JBL 104 (1985): 39-55. ---. “Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 152-63 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne. VTSup 49. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. ---. “Who Can Join the ‘Damascus Covenant’?” JJS 46 (1995): 134-42. Davies, W. D. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit.” Pages 145-78 in Christian Origins and Judaism. The Jewish People: History Religion Literature. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Repr. from pages 157-82 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by K. Stendahl. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957. Davila, J. R. “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?” Pages 75-85 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

569

Le Déaut, R. “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur (Dt. 30:6, Jer 4:4) dans les versions anciennes (LXX et Targum) et à Qumran.” Pages 178-205 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Delcor, M. Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): texte hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962. deSilva, D. A. 4 Maccabees. GAP 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Di Lella, A. A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: a Text-Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. London: Mouton, 1966. Dimant, D. “1 Enoch 6-11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work.” JJS 53 (2002): 22337. ---. “1 Enoch 6-11: A Methodological Perspective.” Pages 323-39 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. ---. “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple.” Pages 165-89 in Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud. Collection de la Revue des études juives 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. ---. “Ages of Creation.” Pages 11-13 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

570

---. “Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema.” Pages 235-56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6-8, 2008). Edited by A. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ---. “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’.” Pages 105-134 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran; Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ---. “‘The Fallen Angels’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them”. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974. ---. “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature.” RevQ 22 (2006): 373-88. ---. “A New Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Qumran: A Presentation.” Hen 22 (2000): 169-96. ---. “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181.” IOS 9 (1979): 77-102. ---. Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

571

---. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23-58 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ---. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483-550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. ---. “Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy.” RevQ 24 (2009): 7-18. Dombrowski Hopkins, D. “The Qumran Community and 1Q Hodayot: a Reassessment.” RevQ 10 (1981): 323-364. Douglas, M. C. “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux.” DSD 6 (1999): 239-66. Drawnel, H. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Drummond, J. Philo Judaeus, or The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1888. Repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press 1969. Duhaime, J. “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les deux esprits (1QS III 13 - IV 26).” Pages 103-131 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by F. García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. ---. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32-56.

572

---. “L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III, 13-IV,26).” RB 84 (1977): 566-94. ---. “La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân.” RB 84 (1977): 210-38. ---. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. CQS 6. London: T&T Clark, 2006. ---. “War Scroll.” Pages 80-203 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Duke, R. R. The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543-547). Studies in Biblical Literature 135. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Dupont-Sommer, A. Le Quatrième Livre des Machabées. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1939. Eberharter, A. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. HSAT 6. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925. Elgvin, T. “An Analysis of 4QInstruction.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. Elizur, S. “A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus).” Tarbiẓ 76 (2007): 17-28 (Hebrew). Elman, Y. “Zoroastrianism and Qumran.” Pages 91-98 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. 573

Elman, Y., and S. Secunda. “Intersections: Zoroastrianism and Judaism.” The Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, forthcoming. Eshel, E. “477. 4QRebukes Reported by the Overseer.” Pages 474-83 in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part I. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. ---. “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 69-88 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ---. “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew). ---. “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 395-415 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Eshel, H. “The Damascus Document’s ‘Three Nets of Belial’: a Reference to the ‘Aramaic Levi Document’?” Pages 243-55 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

574

Falk, D. K. “393. 4QCommunal Confession.” Pages 45-61 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “4Q393: A Communal Confession.” JJS 45 (1994): 184-207. ---. “Biblical Adaptation in 4Q392 ‘Works of God’ and 4Q393 ‘Communal Confession’.” Pages 126-146 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ---. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ---. “Psalms and Prayers.” Pages 7-56 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid. WUNT 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Flusser, D. “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers.” IEJ 16 (1966): 194-205. Frey, J. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History.” Pages 275-335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

575

---. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: an Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 367-404 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002. Frey, R. J. Global Issues: Fundamentalism. New York: Facts On File, 2007. Frick, P. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Fröhlich, I. “‘Narrative Exegesis’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 81-99 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ---. “From Pseudepigraphic to Sectarian.” RevQ 21 (2004): 395-406. Frymer-Kensky, T. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399-414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Furley, D. J. Two Studies in the Greek Atomists: Study I Indivisible magnitudes. Study II Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Gammie, J. G. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature.” JBL 93 (1974): 356-85.

576

García Martínez, F. “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah.” Pages 1-44 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Brill, 1992. ---. “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 153-67 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. Edited by E. J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Repr. and transl. of “Traditions communes dans le IVe Esdras et dans les MSS de Qumrân.” RQ 15 (1991): 287-301. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Eerdmans, 2000. García Martínez, F., E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude. “11. 11Qapocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181-205 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. ---. “12. 11QJubilees.” Pages 207-20 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Garnet, P. “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5.1-7: Towards a Serek Text History.” JSP 15 (1997): 67-78. Gaster, T. H. The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect in English Translation. London: Secker & Warburg, 1957. Geller, M. J. Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations. SAACT 5. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007.

577

Gilbert, M. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11-18:14.” Pages 118-35 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. ---. “Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 1-20 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. DCLS 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. ---. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance.” Pages 117-35 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Ginsbursky, M. “The Idea of Sin-Impurity: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Light of Leviticus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2008. Goering, G. S. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Goldstein, J. A. “The Date of the Book of Jubilees.” PAAJR 50 (1983): 63-86. Greenfield, J. C. “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms.” Pages 309-14 in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane and E. Tov. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Repr. pages 640-5 in vol. 2 of ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone and A. Pinnick. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

578

Greenfield, J. C., M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Grossman, M. “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document.” DSD 11 (2004): 212-39. Grundmann, W. “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul.” Pages 85-114 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. MurphyO’Connor. Chicago: Priory Press, 1968. Gunkel, H. Genesis. Translated by M. E. Biddle. MLBS. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. ---. “Das vierte Buch Esra.” Pages 331-402 in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testaments. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900. Hackforth, R. Plato’s “Philebus.” London: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Hadot, J. Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (l’Ecclésiastique). Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1970. Hager, F-H. Gott und das Böse im antiken Platonismus. Elementa 43. Amsterdam: Würzburg, 1987. Hallbäck, G. “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra.” SJOT 6 (1992): 263-92. Harl, M. La Bible d’Alexandrie I. La Genèse. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986. Harnisch, W. “Die Ironie der Offenbarung. Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Esra.” ZAW 95 (1983): 75-95.

579

---. Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse. FRLANT 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Harrington, D. J. “Wisdom and Apocalyptic in 4QInstruction and 4 Ezra.” Pages 34355 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by F. García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Harris, J. R., ed. Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: University Press, 1886. Hayman, A. P. “The Problem of Pseudonymity in the Ezra Apocalypse.” JSJ 6 (1975): 47-56. Hempel, C. “Comments on the Translation of 4QSd I, 1.” JJS 44 (1993): 127-8. ---. “The Community and Its Rivals according to the Community Rule from Caves 1 and 4.” RevQ 21 (2003): 47-81. ---. The Damascus Texts. CQS 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ---. “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa.” DSD 3 (1996): 253-69. ---. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction. STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ---. “Review: Esther Eshel et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts Part 2 (DJD 29).” JSS 47 (2002): 336-8. ---. “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community.” Pages 102-20 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G. G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

580

Hendel, R. S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:14.” JBL 106 (1987): 13-26. Hillel, V. “Structure, Source and Composition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. ---. “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem.” Hen 24 (2002): 131-5. ---. “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512.” DSD 8 (2001): 9-37. ---. “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature.” Pages 115-41 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. C. Reeves. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Hoffmann, D. Z. Das Buch Leviticus. 2 vols. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905. Hogan, K. M. “The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 38 (2007): 530-52. Hogeterp, A. “The Eschatology of the Two Spirits Treatise Revisited.” RevQ 23 (2007): 247-59. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. I. Historians. SBLTT 20. Pseudepigrapha 10. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATDan 2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960.

581

Horgan, M. P. “Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab).” Pages 157-85 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ---. “Pesharim.” Pages 1-193 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ---. Review of Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. CBQ 54 (1992): 544-6. Horst, P. W. van der “A Note on the Evil Inclination and Sexual Desire in Talmudic Literature.” Pages 59-65 in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. WUNT 1/196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Huehnergard, J. “Etymology of the Relative še-.” Pages 103-25 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. Hultgren, S. “A New Literary Analysis of CD XIX-XX, Part 1: CD XIX:1-32a (with CD VII:4b-VIII:18b): The Midrashim and the ‘Princes of Judah’.” RevQ 21 (2004): 549-78. Huppenbauer, H. W. Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten: der Dualismus der Texte von Qumran (Höhle I) und der Damaskusfragmente, ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Evangelismus. ATANT 34. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959.

582

Hyatt, J. P. “The View of Man in the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” NTS 2 (1955-1956): 27684. Jacobson, H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jeremias, G. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. SUNT 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Jonge, M. de. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193-246 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. Edited by M. de Jonge. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ---. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin. Van Gorcum’s theologische Bibliotheek 25. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. Jonquière, T. M. Prayer in Josephus. AJEC 70. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Josephus. 1926–1965. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kabisch, R. Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889. Kahl, W. “The Structure of Salvation in 2Thess and 4Q434.” QC 5 (1995): 103-22. Katzoff, R. “Babatha.” Pages 73-75 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

583

Kearns, C. “The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin”. Ph.D. diss., Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome, 1951. Kieweler, H. V. Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp. BEATAJ 30. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. Kister, M. “Concerning the History of the Essenes.” Tarbiẓ 56 (1986): 1-18 (Hebrew). ---. “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16:4-6 and Related Texts).” Pages 167-84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings. Edited by R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ---. “‘Inclination of the Heart of Man,’ the Body and Purification from Evil.” Pages 243-84 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VIII. Edited by M. BarAsher and D. Dimant. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2010 (Hebrew). ---. “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundations of the Qumran Community.” Pages 497-528 in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World. Between Bible and Mishna. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2009 (Hebrew). ---. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar.” Tarbiẓ 68 (1999): 317-71 (Hebrew). Kittel, B. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. SBLDS 50. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Klawans, J. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

584

---. “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism.” JJS 48 (1997): 1-16. ---. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56 (2009): 44-90. Klein, A. “From the ‘Right Spirit’ to the ‘Spirit of Truth’: Observations on Psalm 51 and 1QS.” Pages 171-91 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz. FAT 2/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Knibb, M. A. “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 13 (1982): 56-74. ---. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. ---. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ---. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793-7 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ---. “Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 697-714 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Knibb, M. A., and R. J. Coggins. The First and Second Books of Esdras. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

585

Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Kosmala, H. “The Three Nets of Belial: A Study in the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament.” ASTI 4 (1965): 91-113. Repr. in pages 115-37 in vol. 2 of Kosmala, H. Studies, Essays and Reviews. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Kreyenbroek, P. G. “Cosmogony and Cosmology i. In Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism.” Pages 303-7 in vol. 6 of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Edited by E. Yarshater. 15 vols. to date. Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1993. Kugel, J. L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kugler, R. A. “Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the.” Pages 952-3 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kugler, R. “Priesthood at Qumran.” Pages 93-116 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kuhn, H.-W. Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Kvalvaag, R. W. “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts.” Pages 159-80 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

586

Kvanvig, H. S. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Lange, A. “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2.” Pages 254-68 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by H. Lichtenberger, D. Römheld, and A. Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ---. “The Determination of Fate by the Oracle of Lot in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Mesopotamian Literature.” Pages 39-48 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ---. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination.” Pages 377-435 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ---. Weisheit und Prädestination: weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lapsley, J. E. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350-69. Leaman, O. Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy. CSRT 6. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

587

Lehmann, M. R. “A Re-Interpretation of 4Q Dibrê Ham-me’oroth.” RevQ 5 (1964): 106-10. Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez-English, English-Ge’ez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1987. Levison, J. “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24.” CBQ 47 (1985): 617-23. Levison, J. R. “Adam and Eve, Life of.” Pages 64-6 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. ---. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch. JSPSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Licht, J. “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in DSD.” Pages 88-100 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. ScrHier 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958. ---. “The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll.” IEJ 6 (1956): 1-13, 89-101. ---. Megillat ha-Hodayot mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: ‘im Mavo, Perush u-Milon beTseruf Qeta‘im mi-Sefer ha-Razim umi-Pesher Tehilim. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957. ---. Megillat ha-Serakhim mi-Megillot Midbar Yehudah: Serekh ha-Yaḥad, Serekh ha‘Edah, Serekh ha-Berakhot. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965. ---. “The Term GWRL in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Beit Mikra 1 (1956 1955): 90-99 (Hebrew).

588

Lichtenberger, H. Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde. SUNT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung von ‫ יצר‬im Jubiläenbuch.” JSJ 14 (1983): 1-10. Lichtheim, M. Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions. OBO 52. Fribourg, Switzerland: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lieberman, S. Tosefta Kifeshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta. 10 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973 (Hebrew). Lim, T. H. “Kittim.” Pages 469-71 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lloyd, G. E. R. Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1992. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. Lyons, W. J., and A. M. Reimer. “The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Preventative Measures.” DSD 5 (1998): 16-32. Maier, G. Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus. WUNT 1/12. Tübingen: Mohr, 1971.

589

Maier, J. Die Texte vom Toten Meer. 2 vols. München: Reinhardt, 1960. Mansoor, M. The Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 3. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Martone, C. “Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada.” Pages 81-94 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Mattila, S. L. “Ben Sira and the Stoics: A Reexamination of the Evidence.” JBL 119 (2000): 473-501. Mazzanti, A. M. “L’aggetivo μεθόριος e la doppia creazione dell’uomo in Filone de Alessandria.” Pages 25-42 in La “doppia creazione” dell’uomo negli Alessandrini, nei Cappadoci e nella Gnosi. Edited by U. Bianchi. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1978. ---. “Antropologia e radici del male in Filone di Alessandria: due possibile opzioni.” Aug 28 (1988): 187-201. Meijer, P. A. “Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas.” Pages 216-63 in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S Versnel. SGRR 2. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Merrill, E. H. Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Metso, S. “In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule.” Pages 306-15 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

590

---. “The Redaction of the Community Rule.” Pages 377-84 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947-1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ---. “The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.” Pages 85-93 in The Damascus Document - A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4-8 February, 1998. Edited by J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ---. The Serekh Texts. CQS 9. London: T&T Clark, 2007. ---. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ---. “The Textual Traditions of the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 141-7 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ---. “The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 217-31 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

591

Michael, T. S. “Barouch.” Pages 925-31 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Middendorp, Th. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Milgrom, J. “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1-2 (4Q174=4QFlor).” Pages 248-63 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ---. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Milik, J. T. “17-18. Livre des Jubilés.” Pages 82-4 in Qumran Cave I. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. ---. “19. Acte de répudiation, en araméen.” Pages 104-9 in Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât. Edited by P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. ---. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ---. “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: D’Hénoch à Amram.” Pages 91-106 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978.

592

---. “Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 97-144. ---. “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumran.” HTR 64 (1971): 333-78. ---. “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen.” Pages 117-27 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jeremias G., H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Molenberg, C. “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in I Enoch 6-11.” JJS 35 (1984): 136-46. Moran, W. L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77-87. Morawe, G. Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân: Studien zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Hodajôth. Theologische Arbeiten 16. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters, 1993. Murphy, R. E. “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature.” Bib 39 (1958): 334-44. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II,14-VI,1.” RB 77 (1970): 201-29. ---. “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76 (1969): 528-49. Myers, J. I and II Esdras. AB 42. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974.

593

Newman, J. H. Praying by the Book: the Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Newsom, C. A. “The Development of 1 Enoch 6-19: Cosmology and Judgment.” CBQ 42 (1980): 310-29. ---. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167-87 in The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters. Edited by W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. ---. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81-108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ---. “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11.” JBL 96 (1977): 383-405. ---. “Enoch, Books of.” Pages 249-53 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ---. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee.” JBL 100 (1981): 575-600. ---. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. ---. “Reflections upon Reflections: A Response to John Collins’ ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch’.” Pages 311-4 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1978. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978.

594

Nitzan, B. “280. 4QCurses.” Pages 1-8 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “286. 4QBerakhota.” Pages 7-48 in Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Edited by J. C. VanderKam and M. Brady. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. ---. “4QBerakhota-e (4Q286-290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts.” RevQ 16 (1995): 487-506. ---. “Blessings and Curses.” Pages 95-100 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ---. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chapman. STDJ 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Olson, D. T. “Words of the Lights (4Q504-506 = 4QDibHama-c).” Pages 107-53 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Olyan, S. M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261-86. Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969.

595

Pearson, B. A. “Philo and Gnosticism.” ANRW 21.1:295-342. Part 2, Principat, 21.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1984. Peters, N. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913. Peursen, W. van. “The Alleged Retroversions from Syriac in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira Revisited: Linguistic Perspectives.” KUSATU 2 (2001): 47-95. Pfeiffer, H. “‘Ein reines Herz schaffe mir, Gott!’ Zum Verständnis des Menschen nach Ps 51.” ZTK 102 (2005): 293-311. Philo. 1929–1962. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Philonenko, M. “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux Esprits: ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique.” Pages 163-211 in Apocalyptique Iranienne et dualisme Qoumrânien. Edited by G. Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko. Recherches intertestamentaires 2. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1995. Porter, F. C. “The Yeçer HaRa: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin.” Pages 93-156 in Biblical and Semitic Studies: Critical and Historical Essays by the Members of the Semitic and Biblical Faculty of Yale University. Yale Bicentennial Publications. New York: Scribner’s, 1901. Prato, G. L. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975.

596

Puech, E. “525. 4QBéatitudes.” Pages 115-78 in Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579). Edited by E. Puech. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. ---. “531. 4QLivre des Géantsc ar.” Pages 49-94 in Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, premiére partie: 4Q529-549. Edited by E. Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ---. “532. 4QLivre des Géantsd ar.” Pages 95-104 in Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, premiére partie: 4Q529-549. Edited by E. Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ---. Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529-549. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Qimron, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Vol. 1. Between Bible and Mishnah. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010 (Hebrew). ---. “Improving the Editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4): Benedictions.” Pages 191200 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls IV. Edited by M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2006 (Hebrew). ---. “Notes on the 4Q Zadokite Fragment on Skin Disease.” JJS 42 (1991): 256-9. ---. “A Preliminary Publication of 4QSd VII-VIII.” Tarbiẓ 60 (1991): 435-7 (Hebrew).

Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

597

Rad, G. von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by J. H. Marks. OTL 1. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. ---. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by J. D. Martin. London: SCM Press, 1972. Radice, R. “Commentario a La creazione del mondo.” Pages 231-313 in La filosofia mosaica. Edited by R. Radice and G. Reale. Milan: Rusconi, 1987. Rahlfs, A., R. Hanhart, W. Kappler, J. W. Wevers, and J. Ziegler, eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. Rankin, O. S. Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. Repr. New York: Schocken, 1969. Regev, E. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. RelSoc 45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. ---. “The Yaḥad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, Organization and Relationship.” RevQ 21 (2003): 233-62. Reike, B. “Remarques sur l’histoire de la form (Formgeschichte) des texts de Qumran.” Pages 38-44 in Les manuscripts de la mer Morte: Colloque de Strasbourg 25-27 Mai 1955. Edited by J. Daniélou. Paris: Paris University Press, 1957. Reimer, A. M. “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.” DSD 7 (2000): 334-53. Reiterer, F. V. “Bibelübersetzung: Wiedergabe oder Deutung?” Pages 151-8 in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn...” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.

598

---. “Gott, Vater und Herr meines Lebens: Eine poetisch-stilistische Analyse von Sir 22,27-23,6 als Verständnisgrundlage des Gebetes.” Pages 137-70 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. ---. “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” Pages 91-127 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Repr. in pages 185-228 in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn...” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Renaud, B. “Purification et recréation: le ‘Miserere’ (Ps 51).” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 62 (1988): 201-17. Ringgren, H. The Faith of Qumran. Translated by E. T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963. Roberts, J. J. M. “Wicked and Holy (4Q180-181).” Pages 204-13 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Rosen-Zvi, I. Demonic Desires: “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2011.

599

---. “Sexualising the Evil Inclination: Rabbinic ‘Yetzer’ and Modern Scholarship.” JJS 60 (2009): 264-81. ---. “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma.” JSJ 39 (2008): 513539. Roure, D. “L’obtenció del perdó en Ben Sira i en Filó d’Alexandria.” Pages 209-21 in Perdó i reconciliació en la tradició jueva. Edited by A. P. i Tàrrech. Barcelona: Associació Biblical de Catalunya, 2002. Royse, J. R. The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria. ALGHJ 22. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Rüger, H. P. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970. Runia, D. T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ---. Philo On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ---. “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 576-604 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Sacchi, P. “The Book of the Watchers and Apocalyptic.” Pages 32-71 in Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Translated by W. J. Short. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Repr. and transl. from “Il Libro dei Vigilanti e l'apocalittica,” Hen 1 (1979): 42-98.

600

---. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Translated by W. J. Short. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. ---. “The Theology of Early Enochism and Apocalyptic: the Problem of the Relation between Form and Content of the Apocalypses; the Worldview of Apocalypses.” Hen 24 (2002): 77-85. Sandbach, F. H. The Stoics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1975. Sanders, J. A. “Non-Masoretic Psalms (4Q88=4QPsf, 11Q5=11QPsa, 11Q6=11QPsb).” Pages 155-215 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ---. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Sanders, J. T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. SBLMS 28. Chico Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Sarna, N. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Schiffman, L. H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy.” Pages 33-48 in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine. Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987. ---. “From Temple to Torah: Rabbinic Judaism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Shofar 10 (1992): 2-15. ---. The Halakhah at Qumran. SJLA 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 601

---. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. ---. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. BJS 33. Chico Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. ---. “Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 165-76 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by F. García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schmidt, F. “Gôral versus Payîs: Casting Lots at Qumran and in the Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 175-85 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by F. García Martínez and M. Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schofer, J. “The Redaction of Desire: Structure and Editing of Rabbinic Teachings Concerning Yeṣer (‘Inclination’).” JJTP 12 (2003): 19-53. Scholem, G. “Bilar (Bilad, bilid, ΒΕΛΙΑΡ) the King of the Demons.” Mada’ei haYahadut 1 (1926): 112-27 (Hebrew). Schürer, E. Geschichte des jüdischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3 vols. 4th ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909. Schuller, E. M. “427-432. 4QHodayota-e and 4QpapHodayotf: Introduction.” Pages 6975 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

602

---. “428. 4QHodayotb.” Pages 125-75 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: A Research Survey.” Pages 1-15 in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by M. J. Boda, D. K. Falk, and R. A. Werline. SBLEJL 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. ---. “Prayer, Hymnic and Liturgical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 153-71 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam. CJAS 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. ---. “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173-189 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by E. G. Chazon, R. Clements, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Schuller, E. M., H. Stegemann, and C. A. Newsom. 1QHodayota: With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Seely, D. R. “The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434-439).” Pages 194-214 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert. Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

603

---. “Implanting Pious Qualities as a Theme in the Barki Nafshi Hymns.” Pages 32231 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947-1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Seely, D. R., and M. Weinfeld. “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia.” Pages 267-86 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “434-438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e: Introduction.” Pages 255-65 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. ---. “436. 4QBarkhi Nafshic.” Pages 295-305 in Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Edited by E. G. Chazon, T. Elgvin, E. Eshel, D. K. Falk, B. Nitzan, and E. Qimron. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Segal, M. H. Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Seitz, O. J. F. “Two Spirits in Man: an Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” NTS 6 (19591960): 82-95. Sekki, A. E. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

604

Shaked, S. “Eschatology i. In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence.” Pages 565-9 in vol. 8 of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Edited by E. Yarshater. 15 vols. to date. Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda, 1998. ---. “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.” Pages 308-25 in vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. ---. “Qumran and Iran: Further Considerations.” IOS 2 (1972): 433-46. Shemesh, A. “The Laws of Incest in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Halakhah.” Pages 81-99 in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy. JAJSup 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Shemesh, A., and C. Werman. “Hidden Things and their Revelation.” RevQ 18 (1998): 409-27. Singer, I. “Sin and Punishment in Hittite Prayers.” Pages 557-67 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Skehan, P. W., and A. A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

605

Skjaervo, P. O. “Zoroastrian Dualism.” Pages 55-91 in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds, and R. G. Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Smend, R. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. 3 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906. Smith, M. S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. ---. “What Is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? Texts between Their Biblical Past, Their Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Their Reception in Second Temple Literature, and Their Textual Witnesses.” Pages 271-98 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Stegemann, H. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. ---. “Zu textbestand und grundgedanken von 1QS III,13-IV,26.” RevQ 13 (1988): 95131. Steudel, A. “God and Belial.” Pages 332-40 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery 1947-1997; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 2025, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.

606

---. “Melchizedek.” Pages 535-7 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Stone, M. E. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.” CBQ 40 (1978): 479-92.

---. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Edited by F. M. Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. ---. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion.” JSJ 12: 195-204. Strugnell, J., and D. J. Harrington. “General Introduction.” Pages 1-40 in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 and 4QInstruction (Musar LeMevin): 4Q415 ff. with a re-edition of 1Q26. Edited by J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” DSD 7 (2000): 354-77. ---. “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism.” Pages 45-70 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North. JSNTSup 263. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. ---. The Book of Giants from Qumran. TSAJ 63. Tübingen, 1997.

607

---. “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil.” Pages 294-308 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. ---. “Genesis 6:1-4 as the Basis for Divergent Readings during the Second Temple Period.” Hen 24 (2002): 99-106. ---. “Giant Mythology and Demonology: from the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 318-38 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitischjüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ---. “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III:13-IV:26) in its TraditionHistorical Context.” Pages 145-68 in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Edited by A. Lange, E. M. Meyers, B. H. Reynolds, and R. G. Styers. JAJSup 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ---. “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry.” Pages 68-84 in Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Edited by Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth. JCTCRS 4. New York: T&T Clark International, 2008. ---. “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in the Second and Third Centuries BCE.” Pages 87-118 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

608

---. “Prayers of Deliverance from the Demonic in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 146-165 in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity. Edited by I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema. JSHRZ-St 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006. Suter, D. W. “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch.” HUCA 50 (1979): 115-35. ---. “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest’.” Hen 24 (2002): 136-42. Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Temporini, H., and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat, 21.1. New York: de Gruyter, 1984. Tennant, F. R. “The Teaching of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom on the Introduction of Sin and Death.” JTS 2 (1900-1901): 207-23. Thom, J. C. Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus”: Text, Translation and Commentary. STAC 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Thompson, A. L. Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra. SBLDS 29. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.

609

Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?).” Pages 347-57 in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-van de Weg. AJEC 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ---. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ---. “Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208.” Hen 24 (2002): 143-5. ---. “‘These are the names of the spirits of...’ A Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a).” RevQ 21 (2004): 529-47. ---. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Tobin, T. H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. Toorn, K. van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: a Comparative Study. SSN 22. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. ---. “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation.” Pages 61-83 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

610

Tov, E. The Book of Baruch: Also Called I Baruch (Greek and Hebrew). SBLTT 8. Pseudepigrapha 6. Missoula: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1975. ---. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8. HSM 8. Missoula: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976. Trafton, J. L. “Solomon, Psalms of.” Pages 115-7 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Tromp, J. The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. PVTG 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Urbach, E. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. VanderKam, J. C. “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 151-70 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997. Edited by E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ---. The Book of Jubilees. GAP 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ---. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510. Lovanii: Peeters, 1989. ---. The Book of Jubilees: Translated. CSCO 511. Lovanii: Peeters, 1989.

611

---. “The Demons in the ‘Book of Jubilees’.” Pages 339-364 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Allan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ---. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. ---. “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources.” SBLSP 13 (1978): 229-251. ---. “Jubilees, Book of.” Pages 434-8 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ---. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977. VanderKam, J. C., and J. T. Milik. “223-224. 4QpapJubileesh.” Pages 95-140 in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. ---. “225. 4QpseudoJubileesa.” Pages 141-55 in Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Vermes, G. “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok - Priests Congregation.” Pages 375-84 in Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996.

612

---. “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 42 (1991): 250-5. Vollers, K. “Zur Erklärung des ‫ ידון‬Gen 6,3.” ZA 14 (1889): 349-56. Wacholder, B. Z. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. STDJ 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT 2/185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Weber, F. Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. Edited by D. Schnedermann. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1897. Weise, M. Kultzeiten und kultischer Bundesschluss in der “Ordensregel” vom Toten Meer. StPB 3. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1-15. WBC 1. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987. Werman, C. “Consumption of the Blood and Its Covering in the Priestly and Rabbinic Traditions.” Tarbiẓ 63 (1994): 173-83 (Hebrew). ---. “The Eschaton in Second Temple Literature.” Tarbiẓ 72 (2003 2002): 37-57 (Hebrew). ---. “Qumran and the Book of Noah.” Pages 171-81 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997. Edited by E. Chazon, M. Stone, and A. Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

613

Westerholm, S. “4 Makkabees.” Pages 530-41 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Westermann, C. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984. Wicke-Reuter, U. “Ben Sira und die Frühe Stoa: Zum Zusammenhang von Ethik und dem Glauben an eine göttliche Providenz.” Pages 268-81 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Winston, D. “Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy and Jewish Hellenistic Wisdom.” SPhilo 2 (75 1974): 40-50. ---. “Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria.” SPhilo 3 (1975 1974): 47-70. ---. “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence.” HR 5 (1966): 183-216. ---. “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body.” Poetics Today 19 (1998): 41-62. ---. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1981. ---. “Theodicy and Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 105-11 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud. CREJ 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1986.

614

---. “Theodicy in Ben Sira and Stoic Philosophy.” Pages 239-49 in Of Scholars, Savants, and Their Texts; Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman. Edited by R. Link-Salinger. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. ---. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979. Wischmeyer, O. “Gut und Böse: antithetisches Denken im Neuen Testament und bei Jesus Sirach.” Pages 129-36 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Wise, M. O. “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam.” RevQ 15 (1991): 103-32. Wise, M. O., M. G. Abegg, and E. M. Cook. “11QPsa (11Q5) (non-canonical segments).” Pages 190-9 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 5: Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ---. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948. ---. “Philo on Free Will.” HTR 35 (1942): 131-69. Wright, A. T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ---. “Some Observations of Philo’s ‘De gigantibus’ and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism.” JSJ 36 (2005): 471-88. 615

Wright, B. G. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 189-222 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P. C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. ---. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ---. “Wisdom of Iesous son of Sirach.” Pages 715-62 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Wright, D. P. “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity.” Pages 150-81 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Ziegler, J., ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. ---. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XV: Jeremias Baruch Threni Epistula Jeremiae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957.

616

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

The Second Sin

Sexy As Sin

Guilty as Sin

Handsome as Sin

Sweet As Sin

Handsome as Sin

Innocent as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Guilty As Sin

Rich as Sin

Innocent As Sin

Hot as Sin

Hot as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Dangerous As Sin

Innocent as Sin

Innocent As Sin

Innocent As Sin

Innocent As Sin

Guilty As Sin

Rich as Sin

Guilty As Sin

Gorgeous As Sin

Hot as Sin

Sexy As Sin

Innocent as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Innocent as Sin

Sin

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

The Second Sin

Sexy As Sin

Guilty as Sin

Handsome as Sin

Sweet As Sin

Handsome as Sin

Innocent as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Guilty As Sin

Rich as Sin

Innocent As Sin

Hot as Sin

Hot as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Dangerous As Sin

Innocent as Sin

Innocent As Sin

Innocent As Sin

Innocent As Sin

Guilty As Sin

Rich as Sin

Guilty As Sin

Gorgeous As Sin

Hot as Sin

Sexy As Sin

Innocent as Sin

Guilty as Sin

Innocent as Sin

Sin

Recommend Documents