A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Jewish Culture and Contexts)

A Kingdom of Priests

JEWISH CULTURE AND

CONTEXTS

Published in association with the Center for A d v a n c e d Judaic Studies o f the University o f Pennsylvania David B. R u d e r m a n , Series Editor Advisory Board Richard I. C o h e n M o s h e Idel Alan Mintz D e b o r a h Dash M o o r e A d a Rapoport-Albert Michael Swartz

A c o m p l e t e list o f b o o k s in the series is available from the publisher.

A Kingdom of Priests Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism

MARTHA HIMMELFARB

PENN University o f Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia

Copyright © 2006 University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Himmelfarb, Martha, 1952A kingdom of priests : ancestry and merit in ancient Judaism / Martha Himmelfarb. p. cm. — (Jewish culture and contexts) ISBN-13: 978-0-8122-3950-8 ISBN-10: 0-8122-3950-4 (alk. paper) 1. Priests, Jewish—History. 2. Holiness—Judaism. 3. Judaism—History— Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D. 4. Dead Sea scrolls. 5. Apocryphal books— Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BM651.H56 2006 296.4'95—dc22

2006046151

In memory of Milton Himmelfarb (1918-2006) My father, my teacher

Contents

Introduction

1

1. Priest and Scribe: Ancestry and Professional Skill in the Book of the Watchers, the W i s d o m o f Ben Sira, and Aramaic Levi 2. Jubilees' K i n g d o m o f Priests

11

53

3. Priesthood and Purity Laws: T h e Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document 85 4. Priesthood and Sectarianism: T h e Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, and the B o o k o f Revelation 115 5. Priesthood and Allegory: Philo and Alexandrian Judaism 6. "The Children o f A b r a h a m Your Friend": T h e End o f Priesthood, the Rise o f Christianity, and the Neutralization o f Jewish Sectarianism 160

Notes

187

Bibliography Index

237

255

Acknowledgments

269

143

Introduction

This b o o k takes its title f r o m G o d ' s promise to the children o f Israel as they stand b e f o r e Mt. Sinai: "If y o u will o b e y my voice and k e e p my covenant, y o u shall b e my o w n possession a m o n g all p e o p l e . . . y o u shall b e to m e a k i n g d o m o f priests and a holy nation" ( E x o d 19:5-6). W h i l e the phrase itself d o e s n o t receive a great deal o f attention in the litera­ ture o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e , I h o p e to show that the idea it expresses and the tensions it hints at are o f central importance to Jews during that period. T h e p r o m i s e that Israel will b e "a k i n g d o m o f priests" reflects a milieu in which priests h o l d an h o n o r e d position. T h e Israelites, like other p e o p l e s o f the ancient Near East, entrusted priests with the delicate task o f mediating between humanity and the divine through the sacrifices they offered in the temple. T h e rituals priests p e r f o r m e d were under­ s t o o d to k e e p the c o s m o s functioning properly; if the priests failed at their duties, the c o n s e q u e n c e s w o u l d b e dire. Priests are by definition a minority; i n d e e d the Torah limits priesthood to a single family o r tribe. Clearly "a k i n g d o m o f priests" was n o t meant to advocate that all Is­ raelites serve as priests in the temple, sacrificing and eating consecrated f o o d . Rather, as the c o n t e x t suggests, the phrase serves to emphasize the holiness o f all Israelites. 1

T h e idea o f Israel as a holy p e o p l e is o f course a central biblical theme. But the n o t i o n that all Israelites are equally holy, as "a k i n g d o m o f priests" implies, is m o r e problematic. After all, if all Israelites are equally holy, why b o t h e r with priests in the first place? T h e tension between the holiness o f the w h o l e p e o p l e and the existence o f priests receives dra­ matic expression in the story o f the rebellion o f Korah during the Is­ raelites' wandering in the wilderness (Numbers 1 6 - 1 7 ) . Korah is a Levite, a m e m b e r o f the tribe that had b e e n singled o u t for a special role in the cult. His rebellion grows o u t o f his unwillingness to accept the m o r e ex­ alted priestly status that o n e particular family o f Levites, A a r o n and his sons, has claimed. Korah rejects n o t the institution o f priesthood but par­ ticular arrangements for it that e x c l u d e h i m and most o f the rest o f the tribe o f Levi. Thus, as the narrative n o w stands, its main p o i n t is to

counter an assault by other Levites o n the prerogatives o f the sons o f Aaron. But o n e argument the rebels bring against Moses and A a r o n hints at an earlier story in which the rebels d e m a n d e d an e n d to any form o f hierarchy a m o n g the p e o p l e o f Israel: "All the congregation are holy, every o n e o f them, and the L o r d is a m o n g them; why then d o y o u exalt yourselves above the assembly o f the L o r d ? " ( N u m 16:3). T h e Torah rejects b o t h types o f criticism in n o uncertain terms: the earth swallows u p all o f the protestors together with their families. A n d it is n o t only the Torah, a d o c u m e n t written in part by priests, that be­ lieves in priests and their prerogatives. T h e prophets d e n o u n c e their lis­ teners' belief that enthusiasm for the cult will make u p for lack o f kindness to o n e ' s fellows (e.g., A m o s 5:21-26), but they d o n o t reject the institution o f the cult itself. I n d e e d , Isaiah o f Jerusalem, w h o c o n d e m n s the sacrifices o f the wicked in the first chapter o f his b o o k (Isa 1:11-15), understands G o d to b e present in the temple, as his vision o f the L o r d e n t h r o n e d a m o n g the seraphim (Isaiah 6) indicates. Two o f the great prophets w h o c a m e after h i m in the k i n g d o m o f Judah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were themselves priests (Jer 1:1; Ezek 1:3). Yet despite the e m ­ brace o f the institution o f p r i e s t h o o d by all strands o f biblical thought, the tension inherent in the idea o f a " k i n g d o m o f priests" r e m a i n e d unresolved. 2

A different way to read "a k i n g d o m o f priests" that at first appears to offer a solution to the p r o b l e m formulated by Korah's c o m p a n i o n s is to emphasize the role o f Israel in relation to other nations: "You shall b e my own possession among all people... a k i n g d o m o f priests and a holy nation." Thus a p r o p h e t active in Jerusalem after the return from Baby­ lonia imagines Israel fulfilling its destiny as a nation that serves the other nations as priest:

Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord, men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory. (Isa 61:5-6)

H e r e the w h o l e p e o p l e is to enjoy the benefits that Israelite society c o n f e r r e d o n priests. R e c o g n i z i n g the special status o f the p e o p l e o f Is­ rael, other nations will provide its needs in e x c h a n g e for its role o f me­ diating between G o d and humanity. Yet the emphasis o n Israel's special status in relation to o t h e r nations can also u n d e r c u t the status o f Is­ raelite priests: the m o r e Israel is differentiated from other nations, the less place there is for hierarchical distinctions within the holy p e o p l e . 3

4

Further, the idea o f a holy nation is inherently unstable. W h e t h e r o n e c h o o s e s to emphasize the inner-directed o r the outer-directed aspects o f the phrase, the desire that G o d ' s special p e o p l e b e holy inevitably runs u p against a less elevated reality, as the prophets tell us in considerable detail. T h e nature o f that reality should c o m e as n o surprise since the criterion for m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel is ancestry, a criterion that d o e s little to p r o m o t e holiness. Yet the Torah imagines b o t h the re­ wards and the punishments o f the covenant in collective terms: the Is­ raelites will together suffer exile for their sins, and they will together b e restored to their land after they r e p e n t (Leviticus 26; D e u t e r o n o m y 28-30). T h e tension inherent in collective responsibility for the covenant was intolerable for the great p r o p h e t Isaiah, w h o has G o d warn Jerusalem, "I will turn my hand against y o u / A n d will smelt away your dross as with lye, / and r e m o v e all your alloy" (Isa 1:25); after this purification, "you shall b e called the city o f righteousness, / the faithful city" (Isa 1:26). T h u s only a small p o r t i o n o f the p e o p l e w o u l d enjoy restoration, as Isa­ iah indicates with the n a m e h e gives his son, Se'dr yasub, "a remnant shall return" (Isa 7 : 3 ) . Implicit in Isaiah's vision o f the purified remnant is a new criterion for m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel: piety rather than birth. Yet be­ fore the exile, it d i d n o t o c c u r to anyone to apply that criterion to the present. As l o n g as the land o f Judah was ruled by a king from the h o u s e o f David, the p e o p l e o f Israel was m o r e o r less co-extensive with those living in the land. After the return from the Babylonian exile, however, with the land n o l o n g e r u n d e r Israelite rule, the extent o f the p e o p l e be­ c a m e a subject o f c o n c e r n and controversy. In the face o f widespread intermarriage with n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s , b o t h Ezra and N e h e m i a h de­ m a n d that the m e m b e r s o f their c o m m u n i t y divorce their foreign wives and send away their offspring (Ezra 9-10; N e h e m i a h 1 3 ) . But despite their zeal for endogamy, the authors o f Ezra and N e h e m i a h , living after the exile, c o u l d n o t h e l p but b e aware o f the p r o b l e m s o f defining Israel o n the basis o f ancestry alone. Their remarkable term for the c o m m u ­ nity o f the return, zera' haqqddes, "the holy race" or, m o r e literally, "the holy seed" (Ezra 9 : 2 ) , offers a striking, if troubling, conflation o f ances­ try and merit. 5

6

7

T h e c o n c e r n for merit is evident also in the B o o k o f Ruth, which re­ jects Ezra and Nehemiah's definition o f the boundaries o f the c o m m u ­ nity. It tells the story o f a marriage that n o t only Ezra and N e h e m i a h but even the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y (23:4) w o u l d have c o n d e m n e d : the marriage o f an Israelite man to a Moabite w o m a n . T h e B o o k o f Ruth, however, suggests that this marriage is n o t only acceptable but praise­ worthy, because ancestry is n o t as important as merit. Its heroine's sacri­ fices for her b e l o v e d mother-in-law win her the admiration o f all w h o

e n c o u n t e r her and finally the benefits o f marriage to a wealthy man. T h e c o n n e c t i o n to King David (Ruth 4:17) may b e a later addition to the w o r k , but even without it the birth o f Ruth's son removes any ques­ tion a b o u t her place in the community. Still, t h o u g h it was written in the Persian p e r i o d , the B o o k o f Ruth is set in the days o f the j u d g e s a n d presents its case in pre-exilic terms: the willing non-Israelite spouse is as­ similated into the p e o p l e o f Israel without fuss o r c e r e m o n y . O n l y later in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d d o e s a n o t i o n o f conversion e m e r g e , and even then there is n o unanimity a b o u t the rituals required for it. T h e possibility o f conversion develops o u t o f the Jews' e n c o u n t e r with the Greeks, which marks a n e w stage in thinking a b o u t the definition o f the p e o p l e o f Israel. T h e Greeks u n d e r s t o o d their culture to b e avail­ able without regard to ancestry; even a barbarian c o u l d b e c o m e "Greek in soul." This phrase c o m e s f r o m Clearchus o f Soli's r e p o r t o f Aristotle's a c c o u n t o f his e n c o u n t e r in Asia M i n o r with a learned Jew. A l t h o u g h the passage d o e s n o t say so explicitly, it is possible for a barbarian to be­ c o m e G r e e k in soul because Greek culture is acquired through educa­ tion; thus it is potentially available n o t only to Greeks but to others as well. In the aftermath o f the M a c c a b e a n Revolt s o m e Jews c o m e to un­ derstand their culture in similar terms, as the very term 'Judaism" sug­ gests, m o d e l e d as it is o n "Hellenism." Like Hellenism, Judaism c o u l d b e learned, and thus gentiles c o u l d n o w b e c o m e Jewish in soul. T h e aftermath o f the M a c c a b e a n Revolt also sees the e m e r g e n c e o f sectarian definitions o f the p e o p l e o f Israel that d e v e l o p Isaiah's idea o f the righteous remnant, leaving the rest o f the p e o p l e irrevocably be­ hind. T h e Q u m r a n sectarians understand themselves as children o f light, fighting o n the side o f the angels in the eschatological battle, while the rest o f the Jewish p e o p l e b e l o n g s to the o t h e r side, the chil­ d r e n o f darkness. For these sectarians, Jewish ancestry is necessary, but far f r o m sufficient, for m e m b e r s h i p in the holy community. 8

9

10

11

12

Both b e f o r e and after the revolt it did n o t escape the n o t i c e o f s o m e Jews that the p r i e s t h o o d was subject to the same p r o b l e m as was the p e o ­ ple o f Israel as a w h o l e . T h e fact that priestly status was inherited m e a n t that Jewish priests often fell short o f serving as the m o d e l s o f holiness enshrined in the phrase "a k i n g d o m o f priests." I n d e e d , the difficulties p o s e d by the hereditary p r i e s t h o o d are even m o r e acute since priests should constitute an elite o f holiness within the holy p e o p l e , enjoying certain privileges even as they are h e l d to higher standards than ordi­ nary Jews. T h u s it was m o r e than a little troubling w h e n priests failed to live u p to the standards and d i d n o t h i n g to deserve the privileges. R e c o g n i t i o n o f this p r o b l e m g o e s b a c k as far as the Torah itself, which attempts to defuse it by telling two stories about h o w early occupants o f the priestly office earned the right to it through their zeal for the L o r d .

A l t h o u g h the stories c o m e f r o m different strands o f the Torah and re­ flect different views o f w h o is qualified to serve as priest, b o t h r e c o u n t their h e r o e s ' killing o f idolatrous Israelites. T h e e p i c strand o f E x o d u s reports that the Levites "ordained [themselves] for the service o f the L o r d " by rallying in response to Moses' cry and slaughtering worshipers o f the g o l d e n calf a m o n g their fellow Israelites ( E x o d 32:25-29). T h e language o f ordination, used by the P source only a few chapters earlier ( E x o d u s 29) o f A a r o n and his sons, suggests that through this slaughter the Levites b e c a m e priests. A c c o r d i n g to the priesdy s o u r c e , as the Is­ raelites m i n g l e d with the Midianite w o m e n at Baal P e o r ( N u m 25:1-9), Phinehas, the grandson o f A a r o n , killed an Israelite man caught in fla­ grante delicto with a Midianite w o m a n . This act wins its perpetrator and his descendants a "covenant o f perpetual p r i e s t h o o d " ( N u m 25:13), a n d the story provides o n e priesdy line with an origin in pious zeal like that the e p i c sources gave the Levites. Still, even if these stories claim that the priestly line was originally c h o ­ sen o n the basis o f merit, n o w h e r e d o e s the Bible suggest merit as an o n g o i n g criterion for priesthood. T h r o u g h o u t the Bible there is wide­ spread a g r e e m e n t that p r i e s t h o o d is hereditary a n d that it is c o n n e c t e d to the tribe o f Levi, although there is disagreement a b o u t the identity o f the ancestor required for priestly status and a b o u t the types o f person­ nel n e e d e d to staff the temple. Outside o f the priestly sources, the Torah suggests a system in which all male descendants o f Levi were priests. This understanding is implicit in the J and E narratives o f the Torah; it b e c o m e s explicit in the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y with its expres­ sions "the Levitical priests" ( D e u t 17:9, 18; 24:8; 27:9) and "the priests, the sons o f Levi" ( D e u t 21:5; 3 1 : 9 ) . O n the other hand, P and H , the priestly sources, grant the p r i e s t h o o d only to descendants o f A a r o n , Levi's great-grandson. T h r o u g h the Books o f E x o d u s and Leviticus these sources are silent o n the subject o f the nonpriestly descendants o f Levi, referring to priests as sons o f A a r o n and ignoring their m o r e distant an­ cestor. T h u s a first-time reader o f the Torah w o u l d b e somewhat sur­ prised o n reaching the B o o k o f N u m b e r s to discover the existence o f the Levites as a g r o u p with a role to play in the Israelite cult ( N u m b e r s 3 - 1 8 ) . Like the priestly sources in E x o d u s and Leviticus, the priestly ma­ terial in N u m b e r s understands priests as descendants o f A a r o n , but it departs f r o m E x o d u s and Leviticus in treating the other descendants o f Levi as a distinct g r o u p with cultic responsibilities o f its own: the prepa­ ration o f the tabernacle for breaking c a m p and its transportation ( N u m ­ bers 4 ) . 13

14

15

T h e historical d e v e l o p m e n t s reflected in the B o o k o f N u m b e r s ' view o f the Levites are unfortunately lost to us, but its picture o f Levites as a distinct g r o u p standing in a subordinate relationship to priests b e c a m e

standard during the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . N e h e m i a h ' s efforts at re­ f o r m o n the Levites' behalf reflect N u m b e r s ' picture ( N e h 13:10-13), as does, somewhat later, the B o o k o f Chronicles' depiction o f a well-defined priestly hierarchy with a high priest at the head, priests d e s c e n d e d from A a r o n officiating at the altar, and Levites serving as musicians, singers, and gatekeepers (1 Chronicles 23-26). T h e preference in post-exilic sources for the picture o f the B o o k o f N u m b e r s is perhaps n o t surpris­ ing. A reader w h o wished to r e c o n c i l e the conflicting points o f view h e f o u n d in the Torah might understand the Levitical priests o f Deuteron­ o m y as d e s c e n d e d n o t only f r o m Levi but also, as P a n d H require, f r o m A a r o n , while the existence o f the Levites as a distinct g r o u p w o u l d satisfy the expectations raised by the p r o m i n e n c e o f the Levites in the other strands o f the Torah. It is striking, however, that N u m b e r s ' picture o f priests as a s u b g r o u p o f Levites is at o d d s with the e v i d e n c e for the ac­ tual situation during the p e r i o d o f the return. A c c o r d i n g to the picture in Numbers, o n e w o u l d e x p e c t the n u m b e r o f nonpriestly Levites to b e considerably larger than the n u m b e r o f priests, yet the census o f those w h o returned to J u d e a with Z e r u b b a b e l lists m o r e than twelve times as many priests as Levites (Ezra 2 : 3 6 - 4 2 ) . T h e Torah says rather little explicitly a b o u t the apex o f the priestly hi­ erarchy, the high priest (Lev 21:10-15); most o f what we learn a b o u t this figure e m e r g e s f r o m the description o f the activities o f A a r o n , the first o c c u p a n t o f the office. A t his death, Moses strips A a r o n o f his special garments and dresses A a r o n ' s son Eleazar in them to indicate that h e has taken o n his father's role ( N u m 20:23-28), but despite this story the Torah provides n o guidelines for determining the high priestly succes­ sion. I n d e e d , while in the post-exilic p e r i o d the office seems to have passed f r o m father to son, there is s o m e evidence in the D e u t e r o n o m i c history to suggest that the high priest o f the m o n a r c h i c p e r i o d was a royal a p p o i n t e e . Further, it is n o t until the B o o k o f Chronicles that Z a d o k , o n e o f the two high priests o f David's c o u r t and the s u p p o s e d an­ cestor o f all high priests until the hellenistic reform in the early s e c o n d century B.C.E., is explicitly p l a c e d in a line o f descent f r o m A a r o n , Eleazar, and Phinehas (1 C h r o n 6:34-38). T h e silence o f earlier sources o n this p o i n t and the Canaanite associations o f the n a m e Z a d o k have led s o m e scholars to suggest that h e b e g a n his career as a priest in the Canaanite shrine in Jerusalem b e f o r e David's c o n q u e s t o f the city, t h o u g h important voices have also argued in favor o f Zadok's A a r o n i d e d e s c e n t . Fortunately, what is important for my purposes in this b o o k is n o t the actual d e v e l o p m e n t o f the offices o f priests, Levites, and high priests, n o w largely lost to us, but rather the way ancient Jews under­ s t o o d that history based o n their reading o f the Bible. 16

17

18

T h e prestige o f the priesthood inevitably increased during the S e c o n d

T e m p l e p e r i o d . U n d e r the monarchy, the temple was u n d o u b t e d l y a central institution, yet as l o n g as there was an Israelite king in power, it was u n d e r royal c o n t r o l . T h e priests w h o staffed it were royal retainers; the high priest exercised whatever p o w e r h e h e l d within the royal orbit. With the loss o f kingship, the high priest b e c a m e an important political figure in his o w n right, the r e c o g n i z e d h e a d o f the p e o p l e in the eyes o f foreign rulers. Further, with the loss o f the monarchy, the temple b e ­ c a m e by default Israel's p r e e m i n e n t institution. T h e status o f priests in general, the anointed officials o f the central institution, also rose. But as priests b e c a m e m o r e important, s o m e o f their c o u n t r y m e n b e g a n to w o n d e r a b o u t their fitness for their office. While an observer o f the p r i e s t h o o d c o u l d surely have n o t e d s o m e tension between ancestry and merit at any time in its history, the increased i m p o r t a n c e o f priests m a d e the tension m o r e acute. By the time o f Ezra and N e h e m i a h , the temple was n o l o n g e r the only institution at the center o f the life o f the p e o p l e o f Israel. U n d e r Persian rule, the Torah b e c a m e the law o f the land in the p r o v i n c e o f Yehud. T h e authority o f the Torah also served to support the existence o f the p r i e s t h o o d and its hereditary character, which its laws ordained. But the Torah also constituted a new source o f authority, and N e h e m i a h invokes it against priests w h o fail to operate a c c o r d i n g to its dictates. T h e insti­ tutionalization o f the Torah required a new class o f religious officials: scribes, skilled interpreters o f the Torah. Many o f these scribes were themselves priests, but their allegiance to the Torah sometimes m a d e t h e m critics o f priests w h o failed to exemplify the holiness the Torah de­ mands. Scholars have often u n d e r s t o o d the relationship between priest and scribe, like the earlier o n e between priest and p r o p h e t , as o n e o f antagonism. I have already suggested that such a reading is a misunder­ standing o f the p r o p h e t s ' attitude toward the cult and its ministers. It is equally a misunderstanding o f the scribes' attitude. T h e r e was consider­ able tension in the relationship, as Nehemiah's behavior demonstrates, but N e h e m i a h ' s criticism o f individual priests was in the service o f an ideal o f priestly behavior against which they o f f e n d e d . I n d e e d , as selfc o n s c i o u s guardians o f the Torah, scribes c o u l d n o t but support the p r i e s t h o o d as an institution. 19

It is a reasonable assumption that most Jews in the ancient world lost little sleep over the fact that neither the p e o p l e o f Israel n o r its priests regularly achieved the holiness the Torah d e m a n d s o f them. T h e subject o f this b o o k is the minority that f o u n d this reality intolerable. I argue that in Palestine in the three centuries p r e c e d i n g the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e m e m b e r s o f this minority with quite different points o f view used the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests to criticize their c o n ­ temporaries and to imagine the p e o p l e o f Israel as a holy nation in a

wide variety o f literature, including apocalypses, w i s d o m texts, and legal texts. T h e s e texts take a variety o f positions, f r o m insistence that Is­ raelite ancestry marks an almost angelic status o n o n e extreme to radi­ cal redefinition o f the boundaries o f Israel to include only the pious within them o n the other, but all had to c o n t e n d with the inevitable ten­ sion between ancestry and merit. N o r was c o n c e r n for these questions limited to Jews in Palestine; the writings o f Philo o f Alexandria show the relevance o f these questions in a m o r e c o s m o p o l i t a n milieu. I b e g i n in the first chapter by considering the attitude toward priests and p r i e s t h o o d in the Book of the Watchers from the last part o f the third century B.C.E. and the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira from the beginning o f the sec­ o n d century. As I have noted, the S e c o n d Temple p e r i o d saw the emer­ g e n c e o f a new kind o f religious functionary, the scribe. T h e scribe's qualifications for his task had to d o with skill and learning rather than ancestry. T h e Book of the Watchers offers criticism o f c o n t e m p o r a r y priests and depicts its h e r o , a scribe, in priestly terms, implying that merit can earn priest-like status. O n the other hand, Joshua b e n Sira appears to b e a supporter o f the p r i e s t h o o d o f his time, t h o u g h I suggest that h e is by n o means uncritical o f his contemporaries. But h e is clearly an admirer o f the high priest o f his youth, S i m o n , w h o m h e depicts as W i s d o m ' s twin, thus conferring s o m e o f the earned prestige o f scribes o n the hereditary o c c u p a n t o f the high priestly office. Finally I consider briefly Aramaic Levi, which appears to c o m e from circles close to those o f the author o f the Book of the Watchers, yet embraces the status c o n f e r r e d by priestly ancestry without any evident anxiety about merit. T h e s e c o n d chapter treats the Book ofJubilees, which draws o n the Book of the Watchers and other E n o c h i c traditions. T h r o u g h b o t h narrative and legal means, Jubilees depicts the p e o p l e o f Israel as a true k i n g d o m o f priests and insists that it is i n d e e d a holy nation. It emphasizes the priestly status o f a series o f ancestors o f the p e o p l e o f Israel, and s o m e o f its laws claim that through their sexual behavior Israelites have a direct effect o n the sanctuary, just as priests d o . Israel's holiness is built into creation since G o d c o n c e i v e d o f Israel as the h u m a n counterpart to the angels. This holiness is transmitted by heredity; thus n o o n e b o r n out­ side Israel can b e c o m e part o f the p e o p l e . In other words, Jubilees claims that merit and ancestry are o n e and the same. Jubilees was regarded as an authoritative work at Q u m r a n , yet I suggest that its emphasis o n ancestry is a response to sectarian attempts to redefine the p e o p l e o f Israel o n the basis o f merit. T h e third chapter considers the way two halakhic works f o u n d a m o n g the D e a d Sea Scrolls, the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document, use the purity laws o f Leviticus to make all Jews m o r e like priests. While the biblical laws apply to all Israelites, they have a far greater impact o n

priests, w h o must b e in a state o f purity in o r d e r to serve in the temple, and o n their families, w h o must b e in a state o f purity to eat the conse­ crated f o o d that b e l o n g s to priests. By making the biblical laws m o r e elaborate and m o r e restrictive, these legal works make all Jews share at least to s o m e extent the limitations i m p o s e d o n priests. T h e fourth chapter turns to sectarian attitudes toward priesthood, ex­ ploring the tension between sectarian use o f merit to define membership in the p e o p l e o f Israel and the hereditary status o f priests. A comparison o f the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community shows that priests have b e c o m e less important in the Rule of the Community because its m o r e radically sectarian o u t l o o k makes hierarchy within the sect less palatable. So t o o the B o o k o f Revelation, a Jewish sectarian work from a quite dif­ ferent milieu, takes the idea o f a k i n g d o m o f priests with great serious­ ness. John's solution to the p r o b l e m faced by the Rule of the Community is n o t to r e d u c e the importance o f priesthood but to make priests o f all the pious, Jews and gentiles, m e n and w o m e n , alike. T h e fifth chapter moves from Palestine to Alexandria to examine the tension between ancestry and merit in the picture o f the Jewish p e o p l e in the work o f the p h i l o s o p h e r Philo. For Philo, the Torah contains the true philosophy, and thus those w h o adhere to it are g e n u i n e philoso­ phers. T h e hereditary priesthood d e c r e e d by the Torah and the cult in which it ministers are, unfortunately, anything but philosophical. Given his allegorical a p p r o a c h to the Torah and his preference for the soul over the body, Philo c o u l d have c h o s e n to allegorize b o t h priests and cult virtually o u t o f existence. Yet, remarkably, despite his Platonism, Philo is deeply attached to the temple and its rituals, and while h e often pursues allegorical interpretations o f the cult, h e refuses to let g o o f real-life priests and sacrifice. Thus h e t o o must struggle to make sense o f the significance o f a priestly class for a k i n g d o m o f priests. His solution to the p r o b l e m they p o s e is to suggest that the nation is the archetype for the priesthood rather than the priesthood for the nation. In the final chapter I sketch the fate o f the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests after the destruction o f the temple prevents priests f r o m per­ f o r m i n g the tasks the Torah mandates for them. Rabbinic Judaism rep­ resents itself as a temporary substitute for the temple, and it prays for the restoration o f the temple, its cult, and its personnel. Still, the ab­ sence o f working priests serves to r e d u c e anxiety a b o u t the tension be­ tween ancestry and merit. T h e status o f the new elite class, the rabbis, is based at least in principle o n merit rather than ancestry. A n d as Jews c o m e to realize that loss o f the temple is m o r e than a temporary i n c o n ­ venience, the rise o f Christianity, culminating in its a d o p t i o n as the offi­ cial religion o f the empire, changes the nature o f Jewish minority status, and n o t for the better. N o l o n g e r are Jews o n e a m o n g many ethnic

groups in a pluralistic society, distinctive perhaps for their m o n o t h e i s m , but in many ways m u c h like their neighbors. Rather, in the eyes o f the authorities they have b e c o m e the minority par excellence, and their mi­ nority status has theological significance. While rabbinic society recog­ nizes the possibility o f conversion, its d o m i n a n t way o f speaking about Jewish identity is as a function o f birth, perhaps in response to the strong sense o f distance from the surrounding society. I n d e e d , Jewish ancestry c o m e s to b e u n d e r s t o o d as carrying with it the presumption o f salvation. Thus after discussing crimes to b e punished by death, the Mishnah insists, "All Israel has a p o r t i o n in the world to c o m e " (m. Sank. 10.1). So t o o the 'Amidah, the central prayer recited three times a day, assures Jews that the G o d o f A b r a h a m , Isaac, and J a c o b will r e m e m b e r the g o o d d e e d s o f the ancestors and bring a r e d e e m e r to their descen­ dants. T h e c o n n e c t i o n to the ancestors, whose merit is b e y o n d dispute, r e d u c e s the pressure o n the c o n d u c t o f ordinary Jews since the merit o f the ancestors guarantees the salvation o f the Jewish p e o p l e , if n o t o f individuals. Experience taught ancient Jews h o w difficult it was to fulfill the Torah's d e m a n d that Israel b e a holy p e o p l e . It was certainly n o t m a d e any eas­ ier by the fact that the usual m o d e o f entrance into the p e o p l e o f Israel was birth. So t o o when priests fell short o f the holiness required o f them, their failure was perhaps n o t surprising since they attained their office o n the basis o f birth alone, but it was even m o r e distressing than that o f ordinary Jews given their status and responsibilities. Thus, while the phrase "a k i n g d o m o f priests" may have b e e n little q u o t e d in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d and virtually i g n o r e d by the rabbis, the tensions it ex­ presses are central to understanding ancient Judaism.

Chapter 1

Priest and Scribe Ancestry and Professional Skill in the Book of the Watchers, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and Aramaic Levi

O f all the institutions o f the p e r i o d o f the monarchy, the temple p r o v e d the longest lived. T h e First T e m p l e was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., but by 515 a new temple had replaced it, and the Judean p r i e s t h o o d was restored, m o r e o r less, to its o l d tasks. M o n a r c h y and prophecy, o r at least p r o p h e c y in the style o f the prophets w h o gave their names to biblical b o o k s , did n o t prove as resilient. N o Davidic king ever again reigned in Jerusalem. While p r o p h e c y flourished during the p e r i o d o f the exile (Ezekiel; 2 Isaiah), the b e g i n n i n g o f the return (Zechariah 1-8; Haggai; 3 Isaiah), and even b e y o n d (Zechariah 9-14; Malachi), it had m o r e o r less disappeared by the e n d o f the Persian pe­ riod. T h e p r o p h e t s we glimpse later in Josephus's c o n t e m p t u o u s de­ scriptions are wonder-workers o r leaders o f penitential m o v e m e n t s preparing for the i m m i n e n t e n d . T h e crucial factor in this c h a n g e was probably n o t the demise o f the monarchy—after all, as I have just n o t e d , p r o p h e c y c o n t i n u e d to flourish through the exile and into the p e r i o d o f the return—but the e m e r g e n c e u n d e r the Persians o f a new institution, the Torah. This written constitution had b e e n anticipated by the publi­ cation o f D e u t e r o n o m y in the reign o f Josiah toward the e n d o f the monarchy, but with the demise o f the monarchy, the text achieved a n e w type o f authority. A n d because o f the support o f the Persian rulers, this authority was practical as well as theoretical. 1

2

3

T h e authority o f a written text required a new type o f religious func­ tionary: the skilled interpreter o f the text. Ezra is the first such "scribe [soper] skilled in the Torah o f Moses" (Ezra 7:6) known to us, but h e was certainly n o t the last. "Scribe" is a profession; to b e c o m e a scribe skilled in the Torah o f Moses required intelligence and education, and, as b e n Sira indicates centuries later, education required wealth (Sir 38:24). Still, to b e a scribe did n o t require particular ancestry. T h e profession was o p e n to any Jewish man o f requisite intelligence and sufficient means to undertake the education. 4

T h e potential for tension between priests, the hereditary guardians o f tradition, and such learned custodians o f the Torah was quickly realized. In his memoir, Nehemiah recounts a series o f reforms h e enacted that trod o n the toes o f the high priest Eliashib and his family (Nehemiah 1 3 ) . N e h e m i a h is never called "scribe," and his profile is rather different from what o n e w o u l d e x p e c t o f a scribe: h e is a high official o f the Persian court w h o uses his access to the king to b e c o m e g o v e r n o r o f Judah. Yet to justify his reforms N e h e m i a h invokes n o t his authority as Persian gov­ e r n o r but the authority o f the " b o o k o f Moses" ( N e h 13:1). It is n o t clear whether N e h e m i a h has in m i n d here the Torah m o r e o r less as we k n o w it o r the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y alone, the only p o r t i o n o f the Torah that claims to b e a b o o k written by Moses ( D e u t e r o n o m y 3 1 ) , since the pas­ sage f r o m the b o o k o f Moses o n which N e h e m i a h relies appears in D e u t e r o n o m y (Deut 23:4-6). In either case, the written text allowed Ne­ hemiah to trump the claim o f the traditions passed o n f r o m priestly fa­ ther to priestly son that Eliashib and his grandson surely w o u l d have flung back at h i m , a layman m e d d l i n g in a sphere that f r o m their p o i n t o f view b e l o n g e d to descendants o f A a r o n alone. H a d N e h e m i a h n o t b e e n the representative o f the Persian crown as well as a careful reader o f Deuteronomy, the dispute w o u l d surely have b e e n resolved in Eliashib's favor, n o matter what the text said. Yet the existence o f the text allows N e h e m i a h to refer to a source o f authority that might per­ suade his contemporaries even as the p o w e r o f his office c o m p e l l e d them to a c c e p t his decision. T h e o c c u p a t i o n o f scribe is n o t an innovation o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . T h e royal court o f Judah e m p l o y e d officials called "scribe" (e.g., 2 Sam 8:17; 20:25; 2 Kings 12:11; 18:18, 37; 19:2) and "recorder" (mazkir) (e.g., 2 Sam 8:16; 20:24; 1 Kings 4:3; 2 Kings 18:18, 3 7 ) ; in Judah as else­ where the skills o f reading and writing were essential for running the state. But the rather technical skills o f these officials t o o k o n n e w signifi­ cance in the era o f D e u t e r o n o m y . T h e promulgation o f D e u t e r o n o m y naturally elevated the status o f reading and writing, the skills o f the scribe. Furthermore, the scribe's role t o o k o n political dimensions, for society was n o w to b e g o v e r n e d , at least ideally, o n the basis o f a text, which inevitably required interpretation. T h e practical w i s d o m o f state­ craft had b e e n the sphere o f the hakam, the wise advisor, w h o was appar­ ently a standard figure in the courts o f the ancient Near East. Joseph, for e x a m p l e , b e c o m e s s e c o n d in c o m m a n d to Pharaoh by demonstrat­ ing that h e is even wiser than the resident advisors, "all the magicians o f Egypt and its wise m e n " ( G e n 41:8). T h e demonstration consists o f dream interpretation, a type o f w i s d o m that biblical tradition under­ stands as granted by G o d ( G e n 40:8; 41:25, 3 9 ) . But u p o n his appoint­ m e n t J o s e p h immediately takes action to soften the dire effects o f the

c o m i n g famine revealed by his interpretation o f Pharaoh's dreams, giv­ ing e v i d e n c e o f a practical w i s d o m that the narrative o f Genesis presents as his o w n , n o t as divinely inspired. Elsewhere we read o f the wise m e n o f Pharaoh (Isa 19:11), the wise m e n o f Babylonia (Jer 50:35, 51:57), and the wise m e n o f the Persian c o u r t (Esth 1:13). Haman, a vizier like J o s e p h rather than a king, has his o w n wise m e n (Esth 6:13). T h e tales o f Daniel assume a class o f royal advisors w h o serve to interpret dreams and o t h e r portents for their king, as J o s e p h did for Pharaoh, although they are n o t called wise m e n . T h e B o o k o f Proverbs suggests the pres­ e n c e o f such wise m e n in the Judean royal court: "These also are sayings o f the wise" (Prov 24:23), and "These also are proverbs o f S o l o m o n which the m e n o f Hezekiah king o f Judah c o p i e d " (Prov 25:1). With the Babylonian conquest, Israelite wise m e n were o u t o f work, at least o n their h o m e territory, for there was n o l o n g e r a royal c o u r t in Jerusalem. T h e story o f Joseph, it is true, p r o v i d e d a m o d e l for Jewish wise m e n serving foreign kings, a m o d e l d e v e l o p e d in the B o o k o f Daniel, but the fall o f the m o n a r c h y was a severe b l o w to the profession o f the wise man. Further, with the rise o f the written text the under­ standing o f w i s d o m inevitably underwent a certain redefinition. Daniel is n o t only, like Joseph, an interpreter o f dreams (Daniel 2, 4 ) ; h e also interprets the writing o n the wall (Daniel 5) and is the recipient o f an interpretation o f a biblical text, the p r o p h e c y o f Jeremiah that Israel's exile w o u l d e n d u r e for seventy years (Daniel 9 ) . Dreams are a m e d i u m o f divine revelation, just as is the writing o n the wall o r i n d e e d the Torah. But it is surely n o t accidental that the B o o k o f Daniel includes the interpretation o f written texts as the story o f J o s e p h d o e s not. It is n o t surprising, then, that in the p e r i o d o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e s o m e o f the functions o n c e p e r f o r m e d by wise m e n were taken over by scribes. Ezra the scribe serves as an official o f the Persian crown. N e h e m i a h be­ gins his career as the c u p bearer o f the Persian king, a position that sug­ gests the role o f c o u r t wise man, and while h e is never called a scribe, as we have seen, h e justified his reforms by reference to a b o o k . T h u s b o t h Ezra and N e h e m i a h can b e seen as examples o f the scribe w h o n o t only studies the text but also serves rulers. 5

I have already n o t e d that the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y laid the g r o u n d ­ work for N e h e m i a h ' s appeal to the written text in the last half-century b e f o r e the Babylonian conquest. By placing a text at the center o f Is­ rael's c o m m u n a l life, D e u t e r o n o m y inevitably c h a n g e d the nature o f the p r i e s t h o o d b o t h internally and externally. Priests had traditionally derived their authority f r o m their role in the sacrificial cult, the purity laws associated with it, and certain m a n tic functions o f the office. T h e centralization o f the cult that D e u t e r o n o m y d e m a n d e d b r o u g h t with it radical changes for priests a c c u s t o m e d to serving the L o r d outside

Jerusalem. But another aspect o f the reform had implications even m o r e revolutionary. N o l o n g e r c o u l d priests c o u n t o n an appeal to the traditional k n o w l e d g e passed o n by father to son t h r o u g h the genera­ tions to silence o p p o s i t i o n to the way they c o n d u c t e d the affairs o f the temple. T h e significance o f this d e v e l o p m e n t may n o t have b e e n i m m e ­ diately obvious. First o f all, until the Babylonian c o n q u e s t the temple r e m a i n e d u n d e r the c o n t r o l o f the king. It is the p o w e r o f the king that accounts b o t h for idolatrous worship in the temple at the time o f Manasseh a n d for the implementation o f the D e u t e r o n o m i c r e f o r m u n d e r Josiah. O n l y with the disappearance o f the king in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d d o the full implications o f the authority o f the text b e c o m e clear. Still, t h o u g h they may n o t have b e e n able to foresee the ultimate re­ sults o f their innovations, it hardly escaped the notice o f D e u t e r o n o m y ' s authors that they had u n d e r c u t the traditional basis o f priestly authority. T h e evidence for their realization lies in their effort to redefine the role o f priests. O n e aspect o f the redefinition o f the priesthood associates priests with the b o o k o f the Torah; the other makes them judicial offi­ cials. As part o f its p r o g r a m to establish itself as the constitution o f the p e o p l e o f Israel, D e u t e r o n o m y prescribes that the king himself write a c o p y o f the Torah, that is, Deuteronomy, with all the limitations o n his p o w e r that it specifies, milipne hakdhanim halexviyim ( D e u t 17:18). T h e meaning o f this phrase is n o t entirely clear; what is clear is that D e u t e r o n o m y uses the phrase to associate the b o o k o f the Torah with the priests. T h e association o f priests and text is also expressed in the teaching role D e u t e r o n o m y attributes to priests. Moses' blessing o f the tribe o f Levi juxtaposes teaching and sacrifice: ' T h e y shall teach [yoru] J a c o b thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense b e f o r e thee, and w h o l e burnt offerings u p o n thy altar" (Deut 33:10). It even transforms the role o f priests in dealing with skin eruptions into teach­ ing: 'Take h e e d , in an attack o f leprosy, to b e very careful to d o accord­ ing to all that the Levitical priests shall teach [yoru] y o u " (Deut 24:8) . 6

7

While D e u t e r o n o m y c o n n e c t s priests with the b o o k o f the Torah, it never calls them scribes. T h e office D e u t e r o n o m y adds to the priestly repertoire is the office o f j u d g e . As part o f its constitution for the Is­ raelite polity, D e u t e r o n o m y calls for a judicial system in which cases t o o difficult to b e resolved at the local level can b e referred to a central court o f appeal (Deut 17:8-13). Priests participate in the u p p e r level o f the judicial system together with j u d g e s w h o are n o t priests, presumably lending s o m e o f the prestige o f their traditional status to their n e w roles (Deut 17:9, 1 2 ) . So t o o cases involving a malicious witness (Deut 19:16) are to b e referred to "the priests and the j u d g e s " (Deut 19:17). Deuteron­ o m y even makes a parenthetical reference to the judicial function o f

priests in the course o f delineating their quite different role in the cere­ m o n y for ridding a city o f guilt for a m u r d e r victim f o u n d outside the city (Deut 2 1 : 5 ) . D e u t e r o n o m y never directly associates priests with wisdom, but it d o e s treat w i s d o m as a qualification for j u d g e s . In the o p e n i n g chapter o f D e u t e r o n o m y , Moses recalls h o w the p e o p l e a c c e p t e d his plan to relieve h i m o f s o m e o f the b u r d e n o f their affairs by c h o o s i n g officials to serve as j u d g e s . T h e s e officials are described as "wise, understanding, and ex­ p e r i e n c e d m e n " (Deut 1:13) and "wise and e x p e r i e n c e d m e n " (Deut 1:15); in contrast, w h e n Moses takes a similar step at the suggestion o f his father-in-law in the B o o k o f Exodus, the m e n are described n o t as wise but as "able m e n " ( E x o d 18:21, 2 5 ) . D e u t e r o n o m y ' s c o n d e m n a t i o n o f bribery also associates wisdom with j u d g e s : "You shall n o t take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes o f the wise and subverts the cause o f the righ­ teous" (Deut 16:19). A somewhat different set o f associations for w i s d o m emerges in M o s e s ' exhortation to Israel to observe the "statutes and or­ dinances" (Deut 4:5) that h e has taught them, "for that will b e your wis­ d o m and your understanding in the sight o f the p e o p l e s , w h o , w h e n they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding p e o p l e ' " (Deut 4 : 6 ) . A l t h o u g h D e u t e r o n o m y here refers to "statutes and ordinances" rather than the " b o o k o f the Torah," the as­ sociation o f w i s d o m with ordinances d o e s suggest a c o n n e c t i o n between w i s d o m and text. This is a c o n n e c t i o n that we take for granted, but it is important to r e m e m b e r that the c o n n e c t i o n is possible only with the e m e r g e n c e o f a text at the center o f Israel's life. T h e association o f priests with the Torah and wisdom d o e s n o t m e a n a m e r g i n g o f professions. N o t all priests were trained as scribes, and n o t all priests c o u l d offer wise advice. Furthermore, n o matter h o w skilled the scribe o r h o w wise the sage, h e c o u l d n o t serve as a priest unless h e was a descendant o f A a r o n . But it is worth dwelling o n the fact that the roles o f priest and scribe are by n o means diametrically o p p o s e d . In­ d e e d , as the figure o f Ezra himself shows, any theoretical contradiction c o u l d b e resolved t h r o u g h the c o m b i n a t i o n o f priestly heredity and scribal training in a single person: even before identifying Ezra by his profession, as scribe, the B o o k o f Ezra introduces its h e r o with a lengthy genealogy tracing his line back to A a r o n (Ezra 7:1-5). In the hellenistic p e r i o d Joshua b . Eleazar b . Sira perhaps offers another e x a m p l e o f this c o m b i n a t i o n . His b o o k makes it clear that h e was a scribe by profession, while his n a m e makes it plausible that h e was a priest by ancestry. Just as in the p e r i o d o f the First T e m p l e , then, w h e n at least two o f the most im­ portant prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were o f priestly ancestry, there was significant overlap in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d between the priestly elite and the scribal elite. 8

In this chapter I wish to examine two important works o f the p e r i o d before the Maccabean Revolt that depict their heroes as b o t h priest and scribe: the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36), which probably dates to the late third century B.C.E, and the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira, c o m p o s e d around 180 B.C.E. T h e Book of the Watchers offers as its exemplar o f true priest­ h o o d a virtuous scribe w h o performs priestly functions, while the Wis­ d o m o f b e n Sira c o n c l u d e s with an o d e to a high priest w h o has all the attributes o f wisdom. Both works attribute prophetic status to scribes. But there are also s o m e striking differences o f o u t l o o k between the works; for example, b e n Sira famously discourages speculation about matters b e y o n d h u m a n understanding, while the Book of the Watchers depicts E n o c h as the recipient o f revelations about a variety o f h i d d e n matters. Recent scholarship has puzzled over the meaning o f the similarities and differences, and s o m e have detected in b e n Sira's work a defense o f the Jerusalem p r i e s t h o o d against the sort o f criticism implicit in the Book of the Watchers. I shall e x p l o r e the possible relation between the two works after discussing each individually. Finally I shall briefly c o n s i d e r Ara­ maic Levi, a text in which the ideal priest remains primarily a cultic functionary; if h e has b e e n granted s o m e royal prerogatives, they are m o r e limited than those o f b e n Sira's high priest, and it is quite clear that h e is n o t u n d e r s t o o d as a scribe o r wise man. I am inclined to date Aramaic Levi early, perhaps even earlier than the Book of the Watchers, but others place it as late as the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d . Either way, its picture o f the ideal priest is strikingly o u t o f tune with the developments observed in the Book of the Watchers and b e n Sira, and this difference requires consideration.

Enoch as Scribe and Priest After the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72-82), the Book of the Watchers is the earliest extant apocalypse; the Aramaic fragments from Q u m r a n can b e dated o n paleographical g r o u n d s to the early part o f the s e c o n d century B.C.E., making it likely that the work was c o m p o s e d in the third century. I use the term " c o m p o s e d " because the Book of the Watchers is n o t an au­ thored work in the usual sense. It was c o m p o s e d in layers by authors who attached their work to the previous layers that inspired it. Thus it is perhaps n o t surprising that the Book of the Watchers is a particularly diffi­ cult text to interpret. Despite this, it was extremely influential in the centuries immediately following its c o m p o s i t i o n and even into the early Christian era. It is the first Jewish work to describe the ascent o f a vision­ ary to heaven; such ascents b e c a m e an important f o r m o f expression for ancient Jews and Christians. It was also the fountainhead o f a flourish­ ing literature attributed to E n o c h . While the status o f first E n o c h i c work 9

b e l o n g s to the Astronomical Book rather than the Book of the Watchers, it is the narrative o f the Book of the Watchers and its d e p i c t i o n o f E n o c h that serve as the p o i n t o f departure for the Epistle of Enoch (2 Enoch 92-105), the Book of Dreams (2 Enoch 83-90), the Similitudes of Enoch (2 Enoch 377 1 ) , and 2 Enoch; its influence is felt as late as Sefer Hekhalot, the hekhalot text sometimes called 3 Enoch. T h e Book of the Watchers tells the story o f the descent o f a g r o u p o f an­ gels, the sons o f G o d o f G e n 6:1-4, w h o take h u m a n wives (1 Enoch 6-11). This violation o f cosmic o r d e r has disastrous results. First, the giant off­ spring o f the intermarriages between angels and w o m e n are s o o n rav­ aging the earth (2 Enoch 7 ) . Further, the angels reveal f o r b i d d e n k n o w l e d g e to humanity, including the making o f implements o f war, jewelry, and cosmetics, which lead h u m a n beings to fornication and war­ fare (2 Enoch 8 ) . This unhappy state o f affairs is resolved only through di­ vine intervention, with archangels punishing the angelic criminals and their sons as the flood cleanses the earth o f h u m a n w r o n g d o i n g . E n o c h enters this story as a messenger (2 Enoch 12-16). H e is enlisted first by the Watchers w h o have remained in heaven to carry their words o f c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n to their fallen brothers (2 Enoch 12:1-13:3). T h e n the fallen Watchers ask E n o c h to write a petition for mercy and deliver it to the L o r d ( 2 Enoch 13:4-7). E n o c h ascends to heaven, where the L o r d rejects the petition and gives E n o c h further words o f c o n d e m n a t i o n for the fallen Watchers (2 Enoch 13:8-16:4). Following his ascent, E n o c h travels to the ends o f the earth in the c o m p a n y o f angels (2 Enoch 17-36). T h e places h e visits in the course o f the tour allow h i m to learn about the w o n d e r s o f creation and the future j u d g m e n t . E n o c h makes a brief appearance in a genealogy in the B o o k o f Gene­ sis that manages to raise a host o f questions in a m e r e four verses ( G e n 5:21-24). His life span o f 365 years, strikingly short in this genealogy, is fraught with calendrical significance. Furthermore, rather than simply living, begetting children, and dying like the other patriarchs, E n o c h "walked with G o d and was not, for G o d t o o k h i m " ( G e n 5 : 2 4 ) . This passage hints at traditions about the figure similar to the o n e s that ap­ pear in the Book of the Watchers, traditions the authors o f this passage o r editors o f the Torah preferred to play down, just as the a c c o u n t in G e n 6:1-4 suggests acquaintance with a m o r e elaborate version o f its p r o b ­ lematic story. 10

T h e section o f the Book of the Watchers o f most interest for the treat­ m e n t o f E n o c h as scribe and priest is chapters 12-16, which G e o r g e Nickelsburg dates to the first half o f the third century B.C.E. It is here that E n o c h makes his first appearance in the narrative o f the Book of the Watchers; i n d e e d this is probably the first place where E n o c h is c o n ­ n e c t e d to the story o f the descent o f the Watchers. E n o c h ' s professional 11

identity is implicit in the earlier Astronomical Book, where E n o c h writes d o w n the revelations o f Uriel (1 Enoch 7 4 : 2 ) . In chapters 1 2 - 1 6 , it is immediately obvious that E n o c h is a scribe: the Watchers w h o remain in heaven address h i m as "Enoch, righteous scribe" (1 Enoch 12:4), and later G o d calls h i m a scribe (1 Enoch 1 5 : 1 ) . N o t only is E n o c h called scribe; h e also acts as scribe. H e writes d o w n the petition o f the fallen Watchers (1 Enoch 13:6) and reads it (1 Enoch 13:7) b e f o r e his ascent. T h e act o f writing the petition involves m o r e than taking dictation. T h e petition is a quasi-legal d o c u m e n t , and it requires training to draw u p such a d o c u m e n t . Since the Watchers o f heaven and the L o r d address E n o c h as scribe b e f o r e they give E n o c h the messages h e is to take to the fallen Watchers, we should probably understand that E n o c h wrote d o w n these messages also. In other words, it is his ability to write and his knowledge o f the p r o p e r forms that make E n o c h a desirable messenger. E n o c h ' s scribal activity is o f great importance to chapters 1 2 - 1 6 , but it is also rather limited in its s c o p e ; it consists entirely o f drawing u p and reading petitions and messages. Thus at first glance E n o c h appears to b e at something o f a disadvantage w h e n c o m p a r e d to the ideal scribe o f the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira o r even to the E n o c h o f the Astronomical Book. Ben Sira's scribe is n o m e r e paralegal but a learned interpreter o f the Torah and other ancient w i s d o m (Sir 39:1-11), while the Astronomical Book, as just n o t e d , shows E n o c h e n g a g e d in the learned task o f copying d o w n calendrical information to transmit to humanity. But, as Annette R e e d has recently argued, o n e o f the central c o n c e r n s o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 is to d e p i c t E n o c h as the positive counterpart to the fallen Watchers: while they wrongly reveal to humanity secrets best left in heaven, E n o c h shows himself to b e a worthy recipient o f the heavenly k n o w l e d g e h e is granted, including his e x p e r i e n c e o f the heavenly temple and his vision o f G o d . T h e continuation o f the Book of the Watchers offers other forms o f k n o w l e d g e revealed to E n o c h . Following his ascent to heaven, E n o c h tours the ends o f the earth in the c o m p a n y o f the archangels, viewing the w o n d e r s o f the c o s m o s (1 Enoch 17-36); the natural world's testi­ m o n y to the greatness o f its creator is an important t h e m e o f the classi­ cal wisdom tradition. Thus the Book of the Watchers d o e s c o m p l e m e n t E n o c h ' s rather technical skills as a scribe with a higher wisdom, t h o u g h it d o e s n o t clearly link either the vision o f the heavenly temple o r the sights E n o c h sees in the course o f the j o u r n e y to the ends o f the earth to E n o c h ' s role as scribe. Apparently it understands the skills o f the scribe and the knowledge o f heavenly secrets as two separate aspects o f E n o c h ' s wisdom. 12

13

1 4

15

T h e depiction o f E n o c h as priest in chapters 1 2 - 1 6 is n o t explicit, but it is nonetheless clear. But while E n o c h ' s association with writing pre­ dates the Book of the Watchers, as far as I k n o w there is n o evidence that

the picture o f E n o c h as priest draws o n earlier traditions. In contrast to the a c c o u n t o f N o a h ' s career in Genesis, which reports that h e offered sacrifices ( G e n 8:20), the very spare biblical a c c o u n t o f E n o c h ' s life c o n ­ tains n o t h i n g that points to a priestly role. As we shall see, Jubilees places considerable emphasis o n E n o c h ' s priestly role, making h i m the found­ er o f the incense offering (Jub. 4:25), but Jubilees is clearly i n d e b t e d to the Book of the Watchers, a m o n g other E n o c h i c works, for its picture o f Enoch. E n o c h ' s priestly status b e c o m e s evident in the course o f his ascent to heaven, w h i c h the Book of the Watchers describes as a temple (1 Enoch 141 6 ) . In the ancient Near East, the temple was often u n d e r s t o o d as the earthly a b o d e o f the g o d , the counterpart to the g o d ' s actual dwelling place in heaven o r o n s o m e far mountain. In ancient Israel during the m o n a r c h y G o d ' s p r e s e n c e was widely u n d e r s t o o d to b e available in the temple. It is in the temple that Isaiah o f Jerusalem sees the L o r d en­ t h r o n e d a m o n g his angelic entourage (Isaiah 6 ) , and the p o p u l a r cer­ tainty that Jerusalem w o u l d never b e c o n q u e r e d derived f r o m the belief that the L o r d was truly present in his house. T h e r e were always critics o f this view, to b e sure. Thus Jeremiah d e n i e d that the temple c o u l d protect a sinful p e o p l e f r o m harm (Jer 7:4), and when h e p r o p h ­ esied its destruction (Jer 25:1-6), s o m e o f his listeners are said to have recalled a similar p r o p h e c y o f Micah o f Moreshet, a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Isaiah a century earlier (Jer 26:1-18; Mic 3:12). T h e B o o k o f Deuteron­ o m y also distances itself f r o m the popular view. T h e temple is a holy place n o t because its location is inherently holy but because G o d has c h o s e n it as the place to put his n a m e (Deut 12:5 and elsewhere)—his "name," n o t his glory o r his presence. Yet before the destruction o f the temple, the d o m i n a n t view is u n d o u b t e d l y that G o d is truly available in his t e m p l e . 16

1 7

18

T h e destruction, however, m a d e necessary a new way o f thinking about G o d ' s presence. T o begin with, those w h o understood G o d to dwell in the temple n e e d e d a way to make sense o f the destruction. T h e p r o p h e t Ezekiel's vision o f idolatry in the temple (Ezekiel 8) is surely a figment o f his imagination; Ezekiel had already b e e n exiled to Babylonia, but Jere­ miah, w h o lived in Jerusalem and w e l c o m e d any evidence o f his p e o p l e ' s sinfulness, never mentions this striking instance. Ezekiel's vision is meant to explain h o w the destruction was possible: the glory o f G o d is unwilling to remain in the temple thus defiled and departs o n a throne o f cheru­ b i m (Ezekiel 10-11). O n c e the L o r d is n o l o n g e r present, the temple and the city can b e destroyed. Ezekiel also sees the glory return to the eschatological temple in his vision at the e n d o f the b o o k (Ezek 43:1-3). In the meantime, the m o b i l e throne o n which the glory sits makes it clear that the Lord's presence is n o t restricted to any single location.

Roughly seventy years after the destruction o f the First T e m p l e , the S e c o n d T e m p l e was dedicated. But the new temple never enjoyed the unquestioned status o f its predecessor. T h e ark and the c h e r u b i m were g o n e , although their disappearance may have p r e c e d e d the destruction by several generations. T h e appearance o f the new temple, at least at the beginning, was n o match for that o f the First T e m p l e (Hag 2:3). Fur­ thermore, those w h o b r o u g h t sacrifice in the new structure were all t o o aware o f what c o u l d h a p p e n to a temple if its p e o p l e and priests were sinful. Disappointment and anxiety c o m b i n e d to call into question the holiness o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . For the author o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 o f the Book of the Watchers, the L o r d ' s presence is better sought in heaven than o n earth. H e is the first to imagine his hero's ascent to heaven and the first to describe heaven as the true temple, o f which the Jerusalem tem­ ple is merely a copy. Later apocalypses follow the Book of the Watchers by narrating ascents and picturing heaven as a temple. But while later apocalyptic authors claim that the S e c o n d T e m p l e was defiled from the very start, the Book of the Watchers is m o r e moderate in its criticism. T h e preference for the heavenly temple over the earthly in 1 Enoch 12-16 suggests that the affairs o f the temple were n o t b e i n g c o n d u c t e d in a m a n n e r that lived u p to the author's standards, but, as I shall try to show, h e had n o reservations about the temple as an institution, n o r d i d h e claim that the S e c o n d T e m p l e was irreversibly defiled. T h e Book of the Watchers never a n n o u n c e s that its heaven is a temple, but it describes it in terms that make this clear. T h e various biblical de­ pictions o f temple and sanctuary differ o n many points, but all agree o n an arrangement o f three areas o f increasing holiness. T h e first is acces­ sible to ordinary Israelites, the s e c o n d to priests alone, while the third, the holy o f holies, is entered only o n c e a year, o n the Day o f A t o n e m e n t , by the high priest (Leviticus 1 6 ) . T h e series o f heavenly structures that E n o c h encounters in heaven—a wall (1 Enoch 14:9), an outer building (1 Enoch 14:10-14), and an inner building (1 Enoch 14:15-24)—reflects this structure. T h e c h e r u b i m o n the ceiling o f the outer r o o m o f the heavenly temple (1 Enoch 14:11) e c h o the cherubim o n the walls o f the earthly t e m p l e , while the c h e r u b i m throne o n which the L o r d sits (1 Enoch 14:18) is the heavenly version o f the cherubim in the holy o f holies in the t e m p l e . T h e priests o f this heavenly temple are the crowd o f angels w h o stand before the throne day and night (1 Enoch 14:21-23). 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

If heaven is a temple, E n o c h ' s safe passage through the c o u r t and the outer c h a m b e r to the entrance o f the holy o f holies, u n h i n d e r e d by any angelic objection, is a clear indication o f priestly status. T h e words o f the L o r d to E n o c h as h e stands before him also point to an understand­ ing o f E n o c h as priest: " G o and say to the watchers o f heaven w h o have sent y o u to intercede o n their behalf: Tt is y o u w h o should b e petitioning

o n behalf o f m e n , and n o t m e n o n your b e h a l f " (1 Enoch 15:2). Inter­ cession is a priesdy task. G o d ' s objection is to the unsuitability o f E n o c h ' s clients, n o t to his undertaking the task. T h e understanding o f the Watchers as priests in the heavenly temple is the contribution o f chapters 12-16; it d o e s n o t appear in the story o f the descent o f the Watchers in chapters 6 - 1 1 . 1 suggested above that in­ terest in the heavenly temple reflects lack o f c o n f i d e n c e in the earthly. But chapters 1 2 - 1 6 report that all is n o t well in the heavenly temple ei­ ther. S o m e o f the priests o f the heavenly temple have a b a n d o n e d their posts; they have d e s c e n d e d to earth, undertaken marriages unsuitable to them, a n d revealed secrets that s h o u l d n o t have b e e n m a d e k n o w n , to devastating effect. W h y imagine troubles in the heavenly temple? Or, to b e m o r e precise, why imagine priests o f the heavenly temple w h o break the rules o f priesthood? Perhaps as a way o f criticizing the behav­ ior o f priests in the earthly temple. But it is important to notice that the a c c o r d i n g to the Book of the Watchers many Watchers remain in heaven p e r f o r m i n g their duties. Thus the criticism o f earthly priests that chap­ ters 1 2 - 1 6 read in the story o f the descent o f the Watchers is n o t di­ rected at all priests, and thus it appears that in the view o f the author o f these chapters, the earthly temple, despite its p r o b l e m s , remains a vi­ able temple—just like the heavenly temple. 26

Priestly Marriage and the Watchers' Wives Presumably the author o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 d e v e l o p e d the picture o f heaven as temple and treated the Watchers as priests because there was something about the story o f their descent that r e m i n d e d h i m o f his c o n c e r n s a b o u t the priests o f his own day. T h e sins o f the Watchers, ac­ c o r d i n g to the ancient story o n which chapters 1 2 - 1 6 drew, consist o f marriage to w o m e n and revelation o f heavenly secrets to humanity. W e have seen that the contrast between the Watchers' revelation o f heav­ enly secrets to humanity and G o d ' s revelation o f secrets to E n o c h is a central t h e m e o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 . But it is difficult to imagine any c o n ­ temporary analogue for the revelation o f secrets, and it seems to m e m o r e likely that the author o f c h a p t e r s l 2 - 1 6 is upset about the wives priests in his o w n day have c h o s e n . Priestly marriages are o f great im­ portance for the future o f the priesthood, and they are a subject o f p o l e m i c in other texts o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . 27

But b e f o r e we turn to s o m e o f those texts, it is worth r e m e m b e r i n g that there is a certain lack o f symmetry between Watchers and priests in regard to marriage. While the Torah decrees that priests are m o r e limited in their c h o i c e o f wives than other Israelite m e n (Lev 21:7, 14; cf. Ezek 44:22), n o ancient Jewish text suggests that priests should n o t

marry. T h e Watchers' marriages to w o m e n , o n the other hand, are w r o n g n o t because the Watchers should have married s o m e o n e else, but because as immortal angels they should n o t have married at all: Why have you forsaken the high heaven, the eternal sanctuary; and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; and taken for yourselves wives, and done as the sons of earth; and begotten for yourselves sons, giants? You were holy ones and spirits, living forever. 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, and you have done as they d o — flesh and blood, who die and perish, (1 Enoch 15:3-4)

This lack o f symmetry makes it particularly difficult to d e c i d e what chapters 1 2 - 1 6 view as w r o n g in the marriages o f the priests o f Jerusalem sometime in the third century B.C.E. In his early work o n the subject, Nickelsburg emphasized the parallels between E n o c h ' s rebuke o f the Watchers a n d Ezra's rebuke o f the m e n o f the c o m m u n i t y o f the return in the m i d d l e o f the fifth century B.C.E. w h o h a d taken foreign wives — or at least wives Ezra c o n s i d e r e d foreign. Like E n o c h , Ezra, as we have seen, was b o t h priest a n d scribe. But Nickelsburg suggested another di­ rection as well. H e also c o n n e c t e d the Book of the Watchers' language about the Watchers' defilement with w o m e n an d the b l o o d o f w o m e n (1 Enoch 15:3-4) to texts that c o n d e m n the defilement o f the temple by m e n w h o contracted impurity f r o m sexual relations with w o m e n in a state o f menstrual impurity. In his commentary, however, Nickelsburg n o l o n g e r makes reference to Ezra but concentrates instead o n the de­ filement the Watchers incur through sexual relations with w o m e n (1 Enoch 15:3) a n d the even m o r e severe defilement o f sexual relations with w o m e n in a state o f menstrual impurity (1 Enoch 1 5 : 4 ) . H e d o e s n o t c o m m e n t o n the c h a n g e in his position, but I presume it reflects his desire to make the sins h e d e d u c e s f o r the priests reflect as m u c h as pos­ sible the language o f the Book of the Watchers. 28

29

30

Yet I a m n o t sure that Nickelsburg's current position solves the p r o b ­ lem. A c c o r d i n g to Lev 15:18, the defilement caused by sexual relations is so short-lived that it is hardly an i m p e d i m e n t to service in the temple: b o t h m a n a n d w o m a n must bathe, a n d at evening they b e c o m e clean. True, a priest c o u l d fail to bathe, o r h e c o u l d fail to wait until evening to enter the temple. It is possible that such neglect o f the requirements o f Leviticus is what the Psalms of Solomon intends: ' T h e y trampled the altar o f the Lord, coming straight from all kinds of uncleanness" (Pss. Sol. 8:12). But this possibility d o e s n o t seem to have caused great anxiety in the literature

o f the p e r i o d . Closer to the turn o f the era, as we shall see, the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D e x t e n d the p e r i o d o f impurity and make m o r e elaborate the process o f purification required after sexual relations for all Jews. As far as I know, however, the defilement caused by sexual relations is n o w h e r e else the subject o f p o l e m i c against priests. T h e defilement incurred through sexual relations with a w o m a n in a state o f menstrual impurity is m o r e severe than that incurred through ordinary sexual relations. It lasts for seven days, and it can b e conveyed to others (Lev 15:24). Unlike many other ways o f incurring impurity, such as ordinary sexual relations, it is also f o r b i d d e n (Lev 18:19, 20:18). Nickelsburg points to instances o f p o l e m i c against priests w h o pollute the temple through sexual relations with w o m e n in a state o f menstrual impurity in the continuation o f the passage from the Psalms of Solomon just q u o t e d , "And with menstrual b l o o d they defiled the sacrifices as though they were common flesh" (Pss. Sol. 8:12), and in the Damascus Doc­ ument ( C D 5.6-7). While the trampling o f the altar, where only priests a p p r o a c h , in the first part o f the verse from the Psalms of Solomon sug­ gests that this work has priests in particular in m i n d , the Damascus Doc­ ument explicitly designates the pollution o f the temple in this way a snare in which "Israel" is caught ( C D 4.15-16). O n e d i d n o t n e e d to b e a priest to pollute the temple through menstrual impurity, for any Jew en­ tering the temple for any p u r p o s e in a state o f impurity w o u l d have caused pollution. It is also worth paying careful attention to the language o f the Book of the Watchers. T h e Watchers have "lain with w o m e n and defiled [them­ selves] with the daughters o f m e n " (7 Enoch 15:3). Leviticus, o n the other hand, emphasizes the seminal emission as the source o f defile­ ment: 31

32

A n d if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. A n d every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening. (Lev 15:16-18)

Perhaps the language o f the Book of the Watchers is i n t e n d e d to make the p o i n t that unlike m e n , the Watchers incur defilement n o t only through seminal emission but by the very fact o f taking wives. Furthermore, while the Damascus Document and the Psalms of Solomon leave n o d o u b t that the m e n they are c o n d e m n i n g are defiled by men­ strual b l o o d , the Book of the Watchers is m u c h less clear: With the blood of women you have defiled yourselves, and with the blood of flesh you have begotten; A n d with the blood of men you have lusted 33

and you have done as they d o — flesh and blood, who die and perish. (1 Enoch 15:4)

It is certainly possible that the " b l o o d o f w o m e n " means menstrual b l o o d , but what d o e s " b l o o d o f flesh" mean? Perhaps the key to this pas­ sage is the phrase "flesh and b l o o d , " since all the appearances o f " b l o o d " in the passage c o u l d b e read as if part o f that pair. Thus, rather than in­ dicating menstrual defilement, "with the b l o o d o f w o m e n y o u have de­ filed yourselves" c o u l d m e a n that the very fact o f marriage is defiling for the Watchers. But perhaps the most important reason to reject the view that the Book of the Watchers c o n d e m n s violations o f the purity laws that c o u l d lead to defilement o f the temple is that the Watchers w h o are the objects o f the c o n d e m n a t i o n s have in fact a b a n d o n e d the heavenly temple. T h e y are d o i n g just what priests ( o r anyone else) in a state o f impurity should d o : staying away from the temple. I n d e e d , a c c o r d i n g to the Torah, there is nothing w r o n g with b e c o m i n g i m p u r e through sexual relations. O n e must take care n o t to enter the temple o r have contact with holy things while in a state o f impurity (Lev 12:4), and o n e must take p r o p e r steps to bring an e n d to the state o f impurity. But for h u m a n beings, w h o have b e e n c o m m a n d e d to b e fruitful and multiply, sexual relations are n o t only permissible but desirable. Thus it seems to m e that whatever is at stake in the Watchers' mar­ riages, it is n o t purity. T o my m i n d , Nickelsburg's c o m p a r i s o n o f E n o c h to Ezra is a m o r e promising d i r e c t i o n . Priests are p r o m i n e n t a m o n g those c o n d e m n e d by Ezra and N e h e m i a h for marriage to foreign w o m e n , o r rather to w o m e n Ezra and N e h e m i a h c o n s i d e r e d foreign (Ezra 9:1; 10:5, 18-22; N e h 13:28). A c c o r d i n g to Josephus, the same sort o f marriages c o n t i n u e d to b e a significant social p r o b l e m a century later. Josephus accounts for the building o f the Samaritan temple o n Mt. Gerizim, which h e places at the beginning o f the conquests o f Alexan­ der, with a story about Manasseh, the brother o f the high priest Jaddua (Jewish Antiquities 11.303-12). Manasseh married Nikaso, the daughter o f Sanballat, the g o v e r n o r o f Samaria. W h e n Jaddua and the elders o f Jerusalem pressured Manasseh to divorce Nikaso, Sanballat built the temple. Manasseh then left Jerusalem for Samaria, where h e served as high priest in the temple, a c c o m p a n i e d by many other Israelites, includ­ ing priests, w h o were married to Samaritan w o m e n . 34

35

This explanation for the building o f the Samaritan temple certainly d o e s n o t inspire c o n f i d e n c e , but the assumption that marriage with Samaritan w o m e n was c o m m o n in fourth-century Jerusalem is n o t im­ plausible. Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar suggests that this incident, in which an i m p r o p e r marriage led to a b a n d o n i n g the Jerusalem temple just as the

Watchers' marriages led to a b a n d o n i n g the heavenly temple, provides the c o n t e x t for understanding the criticism o f priestly marriages in chap­ ters 1 2 - 1 6 . While marriage to Samaritan w o m e n and other w o m e n o f the land seems to have r e c e d e d as an issue in the third and s e c o n d centuries, Nickelsburg's dating o f chapters 12-16 to the first half o f the third century puts them n o t t o o far from the b a c k g r o u n d Tigchelaar pro­ p o s e s . Yet Josephus's a c c o u n t reports widespread opposition to Manasseh's marriage; without such opposition, there would have b e e n n o n e e d for the building o f the Samaritan temple and Manasseh's departure from Jerusalem. I n d e e d , a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, b o t h the high priest and the elders were o p p o s e d to Manasseh's behavior. It seems unlikely that the author o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 w o u l d have f o u n d behavior that was widely c o n d e m n e d so threatening. 36

37

38

Priests and Marriage in Second Temple Times 39

I w o u l d prefer to read the Book of the Watchers in light o f Aramaic Levi, a roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y text that appears to c o m e f r o m the same mi­ l i e u . Unfortunately, the text is fragmentary, but it is clear that Aramaic Levi is deeply c o n c e r n e d with questions o f acceptable marriage part­ ners. It begins with S i m e o n and Levi's attack o n the Shechemites {Ar. Levi 1-3), which it views as entirely praiseworthy. I n d e e d , it is this act o f zeal that earns Levi the priesthood. T h e motive for Levi's attack o n S h e c h e m is the desire to prevent any possibility o f intermarriage between Jacob's family and the p e o p l e o f S h e c h e m (Ar. Levi supp. 22-supp. 26) . O n c e Levi has earned the priesthood, his grandfather Isaac teaches h i m the "law o f the priesthood," a rather lengthy set o f instructions that have to d o primarily with p r o c e d u r e s for sacrifice (Ar. Levi 13-61). T h e in­ structions b e g i n , however, with an exhortation a b o u t c h o o s i n g an ap­ propriate wife: 40

41

4 2

A n d now, my son, the true law I will show you, and I will not hide from you any word, so as to teach you the law of the priesthood. First, keep yourself pure of all fornication and uncleanness, and of all harlotry. And you, take for yourself a wife from my family so that you will not defile your seed with harlots. For you are holy seed, and holy is your seed, like the holy place. For you are a holy priest called for all the seed of Abraham. (Ar. Levi 15-17)

In insisting that Levi must marry a w o m a n from "my family," Isaac must m e a n m o r e than that Levi should n o t marry outsiders like the She­ chemites, a prohibition that applies to all o f Jacob's family. T h e e m ­ phasis o n Levi's priestly status—"For y o u are a holy priest called for all the seed o f A b r a h a m " (Ar. Levi 17)—suggests that as a priest Levi is sub­ j e c t to different rules from the rest o f his family. I n d e e d Isaac's words 43

contain an e c h o o f the Torah's rule for the high priest: "A widow, o r o n e divorced, o r a w o m a n w h o has b e e n defiled, o r a harlot, these h e shall n o t marry; but h e shall take to wife a virgin o f his o w n p e o p l e ['ammayw]" (Lev 21:14). Like Philo (Special Laws 1.110) a n d Josephus (Antiquities 3.277) , w h o claim that the high priest must marry a w o m a n o f priesdy ancestry, Aramaic Levi appears to intend Isaac's "my family" in the sense o f priests. T h u s it interprets Lev 21:14's " p e o p l e " in a re­ stricted sense, n o t as Israelites generally but as o t h e r priests. T h e c o n ­ trast between p r o p e r wives a n d harlots involves an expansion o f the m e a n i n g o f "harlot," zona, to i n c l u d e any w o m a n f o r b i d d e n to Levi. Surely Isaac c o u l d n o t m e a n that all w o m e n outside his family are har­ lots in the usual sense. Elsewhere in the literature o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , t o o , "harlotry" c o m e s to m e a n any sexual practices to which the writer objects. Levi in Aramaic Levi o c c u p i e s an a m b i g u o u s place in the priestly hier­ archy. As the only priest in his generation, h e is at o n c e the high priest (by default) a n d the ancestor o f all priests. So it is n o t entirely clear whether Isaac's limits o n marriage partners are i n t e n d e d to apply to the high priest a l o n e o r to all priests. Since the instructions as a w h o l e are relevant to all priests, n o t merely the high priest, I a m inclined to think that Aramaic Levi intends the restrictions to apply to all priests. Further, the exegesis o f "harlot" implicit in Aramaic Levi's understanding o f Lev 21:14 might well have led in this direction. A c c o r d i n g to the Torah, or­ dinary priests are m o r e limited in their c h o i c e o f wives than ordinary Is­ raelites, but less limited than the high priest: ' T h e y shall n o t marry a harlot o r a w o m a n w h o has b e e n defiled; neither shall they marry a w o m a n divorced f r o m her husband; for the priest is holy to his G o d " (Lev 21:7). Thus, unlike the high priest, an ordinary priest is permitted to marry a widow, and there is n o m e n t i o n o f a requirement that the bride b e " o f his o w n p e o p l e . " But o n c e Aramaic Levi defined w o m e n from nonpriestly families as "harlots," that is, f o r b i d d e n , to the high priest, the appearance o f the term "harlot" a m o n g the w o m e n forbid­ d e n to ordinary priests might have suggested that all priests should re­ strict themselves to wives from priestly families. 44

4 5

46

T h e advice a b o u t marriage is the only part o f the law o f the priest­ h o o d that is p o l e m i c a l in t o n e . T h e fact that it is polemical strongly suggests that the author r e c o g n i z e d that his was a minority o p i n i o n — a fact c o n f i r m e d by what we k n o w from other sources. Ezekiel never m e n ­ tions the high priest, but requires that all priests' wives b e " o f the seed [zera'] o f the h o u s e o f Israel" (Ezek 44:22). Perhaps this limitation c o u l d n o t b e taken for granted at the e n d o f the p e r i o d o f the First Tem­ ple. Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h show that it was by n o means observed during the Persian p e r i o d . Neither Ezekiel n o r Ezra and N e h e m i a h insist that 47

48

priests marry within the priesthood. In the first century neither Philo (Special Laws 1.111) n o r Josephus (Antiquities 3,276) extends to ordinary priests the requirement that the high priest marry a w o m a n o f priesdy family. It is possible that Aramaic Levi's restrictive o p i n i o n appears also in 4 Q M M T B 7 5 - 8 2 . T h e passage in question is unfortunately quite frag­ mentary, and its reconstruction and interpretation have b e e n the sub­ j e c t o f considerable discussion. It begins by referring to "harlotry" taking place a m o n g the p e o p l e (B 7 5 ) , quotes the laws against the mixing o f kinds (B 7 6 - 7 8 ) , designates Israel as holy and the sons o f A a r o n as most holy (B 76, 7 9 ) , and then c o n d e m n s the defilement o f holy s e e d with "harlots" (B 8 0 - 8 2 ) . While the editors o f the text read the passage as a prohibition o f marriage between priests and w o m e n f r o m nonpriestly families, others have read it as a prohibition o n marriage with gentile w o m e n . A prohibition o n intermarriage in 4 Q M M T seems to m e un­ likely. T h e r e was little n e e d for p o l e m i c o n this subject since the prohi­ bition was widely a c c e p t e d at least in theory and there is n o reason to believe that intermarriage was a significant social reality in the s e c o n d century B . C . E . Christine Hayes has recently suggested that 4 Q M M T , like Ezra and Jubilees, rejects the possibility o f conversion and is e n g a g e d in a p o l e m i c against marriage to w o m e n o f gentile origin w h o have c o n ­ verted to Judaism. T h e fact that Hayes assumes a clearer c o n c e p t o f conversion than is likely to have existed in the s e c o n d century is n o t an insurmountable objection; i n d e e d , I believe Hayes is correct in her reading o f Jubilees, which I discuss in the next chapter. What is m o r e , whether o r n o t there was m u c h "conversion" to Judaism, there was cer­ tainly considerable assimilation by gentiles o f Semitic b a c k g r o u n d such as the Idumeans during the p e r i o d o f H a s m o n e a n e x p a n s i o n . But Hayes's suggestion d o e s n o t explain the passage's exclusive focus o n men. Jubilees, in contrast, is very clear in rejecting the marriage o f Jews o f either g e n d e r to those it continues to regard as gentiles—of either g e n d e r (Jub. 30:11). 49

50

51

5 2

53

54

55

If, o n the other hand, we understand 4 Q M M T ' s quotation o f the p r o ­ hibition o n mixing kinds to b e directed against mixing the holy Israelites and the most holy priests, the exclusively male frame o f reference makes sense: priests are exclusively male. T h e harlots o f the passage w o u l d then reflect the tradition o f interpretation f o u n d in Aramaic Levi: a har­ lot is any w o m a n prohibited to a priest, including a Jewish w o m a n w h o is n o t from a priestly family. If 4 Q M M T stands in the same tradition as Aramaic Levi, it helps resolve another difficulty as well. Hayes argues that it is impossible for the Israelites' holy seed to b e defiled by contact with the priests' seed; the only seed that w o u l d b e negatively affected in this situation is the priests' most holy seed, which w o u l d n o t b e defiled but 56

57

only "reduced in status." Yet Aramaic Levi (Ar. Levi 17) refers to Levi and his descendants as "holy seed." Perhaps, then, the holy seed 4 Q M M T has in m i n d is that o f priests, n o t o f Israelites. However we read 4 Q M M T , Aramaic Levi provides evidence for the view that priests should marry only w o m e n from priesdy families in the circles in which the Book of the Watchers was written although it must b e c o n ­ fessed that the exegetical moves o f Aramaic Levi are n o t evident in the Book of the Watchers. Its polemical tone indicates that the position Aramaic Levi advocates is a minority position. This fact helps make sense o f the behavior o f the priests in Jerusalem: most o f them did n o t think they were d o i n g anything wrong, n o r did most o f their contemporaries. T o return to the Book of the Watchers, any conclusions a b o u t the mar­ riage practices criticized in chapters 1 2 - 1 6 o f the Book of the Watchers must b e tentative. W e k n o w little a b o u t the setting in which these chap­ ters were written, and their c h o s e n m o d e o f expression, the reworking o f an ancient myth, makes interpretation particularly difficult. With these cautions in m i n d , I offer my conclusions in d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r o f conviction: these chapters are surely intended to criticize s o m e m e m ­ bers o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y Jerusalem priesthood; the criticism very likely has something to d o with their marriage practices; and the most plausi­ ble possibility for the practice in question is marriage to w o m e n f r o m lay families.

Enoch as Priest, Scribe, and Prophet What is clear in chapters 1 2 - 1 6 is that the figure o f E n o c h stands in c o n ­ trast to the delinquent Watchers and the c o n t e m p o r a r y priests they rep­ resent. E n o c h ' s virtue is called to o u r attention as h e enters the story: the Watchers address h i m as "Enoch, righteous scribe" (1 Enoch 12:4). E n o c h willingly undertakes the mission to the fallen Watchers (1 Enoch 12:3-13:2), and just as willingly h e agrees to intercede o n behalf o f the fallen Watchers, a task that, as we have seen, c o m b i n e s priesdy and scribal elements (1 Enoch 13:4-7). O n l y after these acts o f intercession, which have a priestly aspect, d o e s E n o c h ascend to heaven and enter the heavenly temple. If, as I have just suggested, the Book of the Watchers criti­ cizes priests w h o marry w o m e n w h o are n o t f r o m the right line, this is strong evidence that it d o e s n o t consider priestly ancestry unimportant. Yet it presents E n o c h is a m o d e l o f priesthood because o f his righ­ teousness, n o t because o f his ancestry. This righteousness, even the work o f intercession, is related to his profession as scribe. Thus E n o c h earns his right to priesthood. It is almost tautological to say that the author o f chapters 1 2 - 1 6 , in­ d e e d the authors o f all the layers o f the Book of the Watchers, were scribes.

I will have m o r e to say a b o u t what this means after discussing b e n Sira's picture o f the profession. It is possible that s o m e o f the authors were also priests, perhaps even likely since there appears to have b e e n consid­ erable overlap between priests and scribes in the S e c o n d T e m p l e pe­ riod. But I w o u l d argue strongly that interest in priests and temples o n heaven and earth d o e s n o t necessarily p o i n t to priesdy identity, just as criticism o f priests points neither toward n o r away f r o m priests. Pious Jews believed that the temple and the priesthood were central to the well-being o f the w h o l e Jewish p e o p l e , perhaps even o f the c o s m o s . Thus they c o u l d hardly avoid h o l d i n g priests to a high standard and finding their inevitable failings deeply disturbing. Before turning to b e n Sira, I want to p o i n t o u t that for the Book of the Watchers E n o c h is n o t only priest and scribe, but also p r o p h e t . In o n e sense this is obvious; delivering messages f r o m the L o r d serves to define the role o f p r o p h e t in ancient Israel. But it is also important to n o t e that the various layers o f the b o o k draw o n p r o p h e t i c m o d e l s to d e p i c t E n o c h . T h e language o f chapters 1-5 implicidy c o m p a r e s E n o c h to Moses and Balaam, the greatest prophets o f Israel and the gentiles. Elsewhere in the Book of the Watchers it is the B o o k o f Ezekiel that is the d o m i n a n t p r o p h e t i c m o d e l . T h e influence o f Ezekiel is apparent in b o t h f o r m and content. In chapters 1 2 - 1 6 the throne f r o m which the L o r d addresses E n o c h has wheels although it is stationary, a clear indica­ tion that it is m o d e l e d o n the m o b i l e chariot throne o f Ezekiel. T h e fire, lightning, and ice o f the picture o f the heavenly temple also e c h o Ezekiel's vision. S o m e o f the sights E n o c h sees in the course o f the tour to the ends o f the earth (1 Enoch 17-36) are i n d e b t e d to Ezekiel's picture o f Jerusalem and the banks o f the river flowing f r o m it (Ezek 47:1-12) in his tour o f the future temple and its surroundings (Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 ) . E n o c h ' s ability to j o i n the angel-priests in the heavenly temple and his tour to the ends o f the earth in the c o m p a n y o f the angels are a transformation o f the prophet's claim to have participated in the delib­ erations o f the divine c o u n c i l where the L o r d sits e n t h r o n e d a m o n g his angelic courtiers. Ezekiel's tour o f the future temple, the only a c c o u n t in p r o p h e t i c literature o f a j o u r n e y through a temple, is the m o d e l n o t only for the tour to the ends o f the earth, like it a horizontal tour, but also for E n o c h ' s ascent to the heavenly temple, the first in ancient Jew­ ish literature. 58

59

60

61

62

T h e Book of the Watchers marks E n o c h ' s e x p e r i e n c e as unique: "I, E n o c h , alone saw the visions, the extremities o f all things. A n d n o o n e a m o n g humans has seen as I saw" (1 Enoch 19:3). Yet it also uses E n o c h ' s story to e n c o u r a g e its a u d i e n c e n o t to despair o f the ability o f an ex­ ceptional h u m a n b e i n g to participate in the divine sphere. In the fig­ ure o f E n o c h , scribe o f righteousness, priest in the heavenly temple,

and p r o p h e t , priests w o u l d surely have heard a message: piety is a re­ quirement for p r o p e r p e r f o r m a n c e o f the j o b . Perhaps scribes w o u l d have heard another message as well, although this o n e is only hinted at: a pious scribe has earned something o f the privileges o f a priest. N o o n e w o u l d have u n d e r s t o o d the Book of the Watchers to suggest that Israelites n o t o f priestly stock should officiate in the Jerusalem temple. But the pi­ ous might have b e e n forgiven for feeling that E n o c h ' s success implied that in the heavenly temple they might c o u n t themselves priests.

Scribe, Prophet, and Priest in the Wisdom of Ben Sira C o m p a r e d to other Jewish literature o f the S e c o n d Temple period, cer­ tainly to the Book of the Watchers, the W i s d o m o f Joshua b e n Sira is gener­ ous with information about its author. W e know his n a m e , and we can date his activity with s o m e precision to the beginning o f the s e c o n d cen­ tury B.C.E. o n the basis o f his m e n t i o n o f the high priest S i m o n . At the e n d o f the b o o k a p o e m (Sir 51:13-30), an acrostic in the original, describes the speaker's pursuit o f wisdom and invites students to his s c h o o l . T h e p o e m is sometimes read as autobiographical, but there are grounds for skepticism about such a reading. T h e language o f the p o e m reflects the conventions o f w i s d o m literature, and part o f the p o e m was preserved in the Psalms Scroll f r o m Q u m r a n ( l l Q P s = 1 1 Q 5 , c o l . 2 1 ) . Further, there is little evidence that institutionalized schools existed in Jerusalem in b e n Sira's day. Still, even if h e did n o t run a school, b e n Sira may well have taught the w i s d o m h e wrote d o w n for his b o o k to a circle o f students in a m o r e informal setting. S o m e scholars have sug­ gested o n the basis o f his sympathies that b e n Sira was n o t only a scribe but also a priest. In my view h o l d i n g the priesthood in high regard is n o t e n o u g h to indicate priestly heredity. But whether o r n o t h e was a priest himself, b e n Sira surely spent time with priests. As h e points out, the opportunity to b e c o m e wise requires the leisure that only wealth can buy (Sir 38:24), and a m o n g the Jews o f b e n Sira's day, priests were lead­ ing candidates for leisure. T h e y m a d e u p a significant segment o f the Jerusalem aristocracy at the turn o f the third to the s e c o n d century, and at least in theory their n e e d s were p r o v i d e d for by the contributions o f the p e o p l e . 63

64

65

66

a

67

68

In his a c c o u n t o f the various o c c u p a t i o n s that make the world run, b e n Sira makes n o secret o f his view that the most exalted o f all is that o f the scribe: He who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients,

and will be concerned with prophecies; he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables; he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs and be at home with the obscurities of parables. H e will serve among great men and appear before rulers; he will travel through the lands of foreign nations, for he tests the good and the evil among men. (Sir 39:1-4)

69

T h e scribe b e n Sira describes h e r e is clearly b o t h scribe and wise m a n , a student o f the Torah a n d o f o b s c u r e texts o n the o n e hand, an advisor to rulers o n the other. I n d e e d , the b o o k h e wrote shows b e n Sira to have b e e n the kind o f scribe h e holds u p as an ideal in chapter 39, devoting himself to the study o f the law o f the Most H i g h , seeking o u t the w i s d o m o f the ancients (Sir 39:1). T h e great hymn to w i s d o m at the center o f the b o o k offers a n o t h e r glimpse o f b e n Sira's understanding o f his profession. Earlier biblical w i s d o m literature sees wisdom as a way o f life based o n observing the workings o f nature a n d humanity, available to all p e o p l e s . In this p o e m , m o d e l e d o n W i s d o m ' s praise o f herself in Proverbs 8, b e n Sira d e ­ scribes W i s d o m , also personified as a w o m a n , taking u p residence in the Jerusalem temple, thus claiming h e r as the special heritage o f Israel. N o r is w i s d o m any l o n g e r a way o f life to b e discovered by h u m a n c o n ­ templation; rather, after W i s d o m finishes praising herself with c o m p a r ­ isons to a variety o f flourishing trees, b e n Sira explains that W i s d o m is the Torah: "All this is the b o o k o f the covenant o f the Most H i g h G o d , the law which Moses c o m m a n d e d us" (Sir 24:23). 70

After i n t r o d u c i n g a n e w set o f similes c o m p a r i n g W i s d o m / T o r a h to a river o r sea (Sir 24:25-29), b e n Sira turns to his o w n relationship to W i s d o m / T o r a h , carrying forward the water imagery: I went forth like a canal from a river and like a water channel into a garden. I said, "I will water my orchard and drench my garden plot"; and lo, my canal became a river, and my river became a sea. I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar; I will again pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. Observe that I have not labored for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction. (Sir 24:30-33)

T h e s e are extraordinary claims b e n Sira makes f o r himself a n d his c h o s e n profession. H e has already c o m p a r e d W i s d o m / T o r a h to a river o r sea. H e himself b e g i n s as a c h a n n e l , a narrow, m a n - m a d e waterway,

but h e e n d s as a sea. His teaching is n o t merely teaching; it is "like prophecy." T h e association o f the scribe's teaching with p r o p h e c y is remarkable, but it is n o t as surprising as it w o u l d have b e e n in an earlier period. Dur­ ing the First Temple period, p r o p h e c y was primarily auditory: the p r o p h e t heard G o d ' s word, which h e then transmitted to the p e o p l e . Zechariah at the beginning o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d d o e s i n d e e d hear the w o r d o f the L o r d ( Z e c h 1:1-6, 2:10-17, 6:9-15, 7:1-8:23), but the d o m i n a n t f o r m o f divine c o m m u n i c a t i o n in his p r o p h e c y is the vision ( Z e c h 1:717, 2:1-4, 2:5-9, 3:1-6:8). Most o f these visions require interpretation, which is p r o v i d e d by an a n g e l . Visions in p r o p h e c y are n o t a new de­ parture. A m o s , the first o f the classical prophets, sees visions ( A m o s 7:19, 8:1-3), as d o e s Jeremiah at the e n d o f the p e r i o d o f the First T e m p l e ( J e r 1:13-19, 24:1-10); G o d himself interprets the visions for b o t h prophets. Despite the divine interpreters, the m o d e o f interpretation in the symbolic visions o f all three prophets recalls Joseph's interpretation o f Pharaoh's dreams (Genesis 4 1 ) . 71

7 2

In contrast to Zechariah, however, symbolic visions make u p only a very small p o r t i o n o f the p r o p h e c y o f A m o s and Jeremiah. Further, Zechariah's visions are considerably m o r e c o m p l e x than those o f the earlier prophets o r o f Pharaoh in the J o s e p h story. Zechariah's clearest heir is the a u t h o r / e d i t o r o f the B o o k o f Daniel, w h o never calls his h e r o a p r o p h e t but has h i m c o m m u n i c a t e predictions o f the i m m i n e n t e n d by means o f the interpretation o f visions and texts. T h e influence o f vi­ sions to b e d e c i p h e r e d can b e felt even in E n o c h ' s tour to the ends o f the earth. T h e r e the sights E n o c h sees are explained rather than deci­ p h e r e d , but the formal features o f the explanations recall the language o f vision interpretation in Zechariah and his p r e d e c e s s o r s . T h e n e w p r o m i n e n c e o f symbolic visions in the p r o p h e c y o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d reflects the growing i m p o r t a n c e o f interpretation in c o m m u n i ­ cating the divine will as Jews c o m e to r e c o g n i z e the authority o f the Torah. 73

In the Praise o f the Fathers, his poetic a c c o u n t o f Israel's history in the c o n c l u d i n g section o f his work, b e n Sira treats p r o p h e c y as a thing o f the past, a p h e n o m e n o n o f the p e r i o d o f the First T e m p l e and earlier. T h e last p r o p h e t h e mentions by n a m e is Ezekiel (Sir 49:8-9). Immedi­ ately after Ezekiel, but before Zerubbabel, the leader o f the c o m m u n i t y o f the return (Sir 49:11-12), h e praises "the twelve prophets" as a g r o u p (Sir 49:10). This placement is significant because two o f the twelve, Zechariah and Haggai, explicidy locate themselves in the c o m m u n i t y o f the return during the Persian p e r i o d . In other words, b e n Sira c o u l d have placed the twelve o r at least s o m e o f their n u m b e r later in his ac­ c o u n t . Instead h e prefers to leave the impression that prophets were n o 74

l o n g e r active in the p e r i o d o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . In his o w n day, h e suggests, the m a n d e o f divine inspiration has c o m e to rest o n the scribe. I n d e e d , b e n Sira's d e p i c t i o n o f the prophets i n c l u d e d in the Praise o f the Fathers plays d o w n their role in mediating G o d ' s will. T h e d o m i n a n t characteristic o f the p r o p h e t is instead great deeds, ranging f r o m the standard p r o p h e t i c task o f anointing o f kings (Sir 46:13, 48:8) to the less obviously p r o p h e t i c role o f leadership in batde (Sir 4 6 : 1 - 6 ) . T h e e m ­ phasis o n d e e d s is somewhat less surprising w h e n o n e considers the fig­ ures b e n Sira treats as prophets: Joshua (Sir 46:1-8), Samuel (Sir 46: 13-20), Nathan (Sir 4 7 : 1 ) , Elijah (Sir 48:1-12), and Elisha (Sir 48:12-14), as well as Isaiah (Sir 48:22-25), Jeremiah (Sir 49:6-7), Ezekiel (Sir 49:8-9), and the twelve (Sir 49:10). T h e s e c o n d g r o u p o f prophets, those from Isaiah o n , w h o s e primary achievement was verbal, are given somewhat less space than their m o r e active predecessors. Furthermore, Isaiah and Jeremiah are described as d o e r s o f d e e d s in addition to speakers o f p r o p h e t i c words. T h u s Jerusalem was saved from Sennacherib "by the h a n d o f Isaiah" (Sir 48:20), while its destruction takes place "by the h a n d " o f Jeremiah (Sir 4 9 : 7 ) . O f all the prophets b e n Sira includes in the Praise o f the Fathers, only Ezekiel and the twelve lack d e e d s o f power. This lack o f emphasis o n p r o p h e t i c words has the effect o f play­ ing d o w n the link between p r o p h e t and scribe. 75

76

T h e figure in the Praise o f the Fathers w h o s e career provides the best m o d e l f o r the office o f the scribe is Moses (Sir 45:1-5). Despite the brief treatment, there can b e n o d o u b t that Moses is the m o s t exalted figure in b e n Sira's history: h e is the equal o f the angels (Sir 4 5 : 2 ) , G o d s h o w e d h i m part o f his glory (Sir 4 5 : 3 ) , and h e spoke to h i m face-toface (Sir 4 5 : 5 ) . It is noteworthy that b e n Sira never calls Moses a p r o p h e t , although h e describes the p o w e r o f M o s e s ' words (Sir 45:3) and G o d ' s direct c o m m u n i c a t i o n to h i m (Sir 4 5 : 5 ) . Still, it is o t h e r as­ pects o f M o s e s ' r o l e that b e n Sira emphasizes. T h e a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' career culminates in the giving o f the Torah and M o s e s ' mission to teach it: "He m a d e h i m hear his v o i c e , and led h i m into the thick dark­ ness, and gave h i m the c o m m a n d m e n t face to face, the law o f life and k n o w l e d g e , to teach J a c o b the covenant, and Israel his j u d g m e n t s " (Sir 4 5 : 5 ) . 77

F r o m o n e p o i n t o f view, the one-time-only nature o f Moses' most im­ portant task, the mediation o f G o d ' s revelation to Israel, ensures that Moses, unlike A a r o n o r David, has n o successors. His is n o t a role that can b e institutionalized—nor n e e d it b e , since the Torah that h e has b r o u g h t to Israel survives him. But from another p o i n t o f view, Moses d o e s have successors, and b e n Sira surely c o u n t e d himself a m o n g t h e m . T h e successors are the scribes whose study o f ancient texts b e n Sira praises in chapter 39. Yet where b e n Sira is straightforward in his a c c o u n t 78

79

o f Moses' glory and proximity to the divine, h e relies o n metaphors to claim glory for his o w n teaching activity at the e n d o f the p o e m in praise o f W i s d o m (Sir 24:30-33). Presumably the metaphors betray an anxiety about the claims for himself that h e did n o t feel for Moses. Yet despite the anxiety it is clear that b e n Sira understands himself and his fellow learned teachers as following in the footsteps o f Moses, just at the rabbis w o u l d later. It is worth n o t i n g that b e n Sira also assigns A a r o n a teaching role in language similar to that h e applies to Moses: "In his c o m m a n d m e n t s h e gave h i m authority in statutes and j u d g m e n t s , to teach J a c o b the testi­ m o n i e s , and to enlighten Israel with his law" (Sir 4 5 : 1 7 ) . B o t h passages e c h o Moses' blessing o f Levi: his offspring "shall teach J a c o b thy ordi­ nances, and Israel thy law" ( D e u t 3 3 : 1 0 ) . Making teaching a function o f priests provides continuity for this important task. But it also looks for­ ward to b e n Sira's presentation o f S i m o n , the high priest o f b e n Sira's youth, as the e m b o d i m e n t o f wisdom. 80

Priest and King in the Wisdom of Ben Sira T h o u g h a s e c o n d temple was built roughly seventy years after the de­ struction o f the first o n e , the Davidic m o n a r c h y that fell with the First Temple was never restored. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f the Perisan p e r i o d the p r o p h e t Zechariah describes his vision o f two olive trees o n either side o f a lampstand (Zechariah 4 ) . As the interpreting angel explains, the olive trees represent the "two sons o f oil" ( Z e c h 4 : 1 4 ) w h o h e a d e d the c o m ­ munity o f the return, Z e r u b b a b e l the g o v e r n o r and Joshua the high priest. Zerubbabel's claim to anointing though h e was n o t a king must b e i n t e n d e d to call attention to his descent from the a n o i n t e d kings o f the line o f David. Joshua's claim to anointing is clear; the office o f high priest required it. Zechariah's pairing o f high priest with g o v e r n o r sug­ gests that in the n e w situation the high priest's p o w e r extends b e y o n d the cult into the realm o f politics. W h i l e the e v i d e n c e is spotty, it ap­ pears that this arrangement, rule by g o v e r n o r and high priest, contin­ u e d t h r o u g h o u t the Persian p e r i o d . But the Persians must have d e c i d e d that the a p p o i n t m e n t o f Davidides was n o t g o o d policy, probably be­ cause it raised h o p e s for restoration o f a Davidic king. Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, the first two governors o f Yehud, were descendants o f David, but n o n e o f their successors was, t h o u g h all w h o are k n o w n by n a m e were Jews. T h e office o f high priest was a different matter. T h e very source o f his authority, which gave h i m legitimacy in the eyes o f his p e o p l e , prevented h i m from claiming kingship. With the e n d o f Persian rule, the status o f the high priest rose even higher and his political 81

82

83

p o w e r increased since the hellenistic k i n g d o m s n o l o n g e r p l a c e d a gov­ e r n o r alongside h i m . Ben Sira's description o f the glory o f the high priest S i m o n at the c o n ­ clusion o f his work should b e u n d e r s t o o d as a defense o f this situation, in which, f r o m o n e angle o f vision, the high priest had c o m e to replace the Davidic king o f the p e r i o d o f the First T e m p l e . This angle o f vision, it is true, required a certain a m o u n t o f squinting to avoid the obvious and u n c o m f o r t a b l e reality that the high priest was subservient to foreign kings. Still, while s o m e Jews may have yearned for the restoration o f a Davidic k i n g , b e n Sira shows that the biblical tradition is n o t without resources for making the best o f rule by high priest. T h e p r o m i n e n c e o f priests in b e n Sira's Praise o f the Fathers has often b e e n n o t e d . B e n Sira devotes m o r e lines (Sir 45:6-22) to A a r o n than to any other figure from Israel's past; only Simon, w h o served as high priest while b e n Sira was a y o u n g m a n , is d e s c r i b e d at greater length (Sir 50: 1-21). T h e most striking aspect o f the passage about A a r o n is the detailed description o f his priesdy garments, including a g o l d e n crown (Sir 45:12). T h e priesdy d o c u m e n t o f the Torah provides the high priest with a turban with a g o l d plate inscribed "Holy to the L o r d " ( E x o d 28:37-38), but the crown is b e n Sira's own contribution. T h e phrase "golden c r o w n " is drawn from Ps 21:4; there it describes the crown G o d has placed o n the head o f the king. Further, b e n Sira notes that A a r o n and his descendants are parties to a covenant that will e n d u r e "as the days o f heaven" (Sir 4 5 : 1 ) . T h e source o f the phrase is Psalm 89, a p o e m m o u r n i n g the loss o f the Davidic king: "I will establish his line for ever / and his throne as the days o f heaven" (Ps 8 9 : 3 0 [ 2 9 ] ) . Thus the phrase is drawn from a royal context, but o f a peculiar kind: the psalm laments the failure o f the promise o f an eternal dynasty. This c o n t e x t makes b e n Sira's use o f the phrase for Aaron's descendants all the m o r e pointed. 84

85

86

87

88

After Aaron, b e n Sira turns to Phinehas and his zealous violence against idolatry at Baal Peor ( N u m 25:12-13). Ben Sira's focus is the covenant Phinehas receives as a reward for his zeal rather than the nature o f the d e e d h e performs (Sir 45:23-24). H e notes the eternity o f this covenant t o o and compares it to the covenant with David (Sir 45:24-25). T h e details o f the c o m p a r i s o n , which differ significantly in Greek a n d Hebrew, are n o t clear, but there can b e n o d o u b t a b o u t the point, the superiority o f the priestly c o v e n a n t to the Davidic c o v e n a n t . T h e c o m ­ parison c o n c l u d e s with an a p o s t r o p h e to the descendants o f Phinehas, praying that G o d grant them w i s d o m (Sir 45:25-26). T h e H e b r e w speaks also o f G o d "who crowns y o u with glory"; n o t e that the verb "crown" has the same r o o t as the g o l d e n crown b e n Sira has already given A a r o n (Sir 4 5 : 1 2 ) . A t the c o n c l u s i o n o f the H e b r e w version o f the 89

90

91

passage about S i m o n , which is also the c o n c l u s i o n o f the Praise o f the Fathers as a whole, the royal language applied earlier to Aaron's covenant appears again a b o u t the covenant with Phinehas: "May his love abide u p o n S i m o n and may h e k e e p in h i m the covenant o f Phinehas; may o n e never b e cut o f f f r o m him; and as for his offspring, (may it b e ) as the days o f heaven" (Sir 50:24) . Simon, t o o , is represented n o t only as the high priest but also as a royal figure. His works projects (Sir 50:1-4) recall those o f Hezekiah (Sir 4 8 : 1 7 - 2 2 ) . His glorious appearance as h e emerges f r o m the temple evokes the glorious garments o f his ancestor A a r o n with their sugges­ tion o f a royal d i m e n s i o n to the high priest's role (Sir 45:7-13). T h e cli­ m a x o f the passage describes the p e o p l e b o w i n g b e f o r e S i m o n to receive the blessing h e mediates (Sir 50:20-21). As b e n Sira emphasizes the eternal covenants o f p r i e s t h o o d m a d e with A a r o n and Phinehas, h e downplays the covenant with David. T h e H e b r e w d o e s n o t even m e n t i o n a covenant with David, and certainly n o t an eternal o n e ; rather, G o d gave David "the law o f kingship." T h e Greek alludes to the covenant only in the c o n c l u d i n g verse o f its ac­ c o u n t o f David's career: ' T h e L o r d t o o k away his sins, and exalted his p o w e r for ever; h e gave h i m the covenant o f kings and a throne o f glory in Israel" (Sir 4 7 : 1 1 ) . It is noteworthy that it is the p o w e r rather than the covenant that is called eternal. N o t only d o e s b e n Sira try to play d o w n the Davidic covenant; h e also insists that the institution o f kingship was flawed. In the course o f its entire history it p r o d u c e d only three pious kings: "Except David and Hezekiah and Josiah they all sinned greatly, for they forsook the law o f the Most High; the kings o f Judah c a m e to an e n d " (Sir 4 9 : 4 ) . 9 2

93

94

95

But it is S o l o m o n , the only o t h e r king m e n t i o n e d by n a m e in the praise o f the fathers, w h o poses the most difficult p r o b l e m for b e n Sira. S o l o m o n is surely the most e m i n e n t o f biblical wise m e n . If w i s d o m is in­ timately associated with kingship, it calls into question b e n Sira's claim that rule by high priest is preferable to rule by king. T h u s b e n Sira at­ tempts to undercut S o l o m o n ' s claim to wisdom, but only after c o n ­ fronting it head-on: "How wise y o u b e c a m e in your youth! You overflowed like a river with u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . . For your songs and proverbs and para­ bles, and for your interpretations, the countries marveled at y o u " (Sir 47: 14, 1 7 ) . T h e river simile recalls the description o f W i s d o m / T o r a h (Sir 24:25-27); the works S o l o m o n wrote recall the subjects o f the scribe's re­ search (Sir 39:2-3). But fortunately for b e n Sira, S o l o m o n was also a famous sinner: You gathered gold like tin and amassed silver like lead.

. . . You laid your loins beside women, and through your body you were brought into subjection. You put a stain upon your honor, and defiled your posterity, so that you brought wrath upon your children and they were grieved at your folly, so that the sovereignty was divided. (Sir 47:18-21)

A b o v e I have slightiy m o d i f i e d the translation o f the RSV following the suggestion o f Pancratius C. Beentjes. T h e RSV takes the e n d o f verse 18, the accumulation o f silver and g o l d , as the last element o f the praise o f S o l o m o n ; it provides "but" to c o n n e c t the praise to the criticism: "But y o u laid your loins beside w o m e n . " Against this view, Beentjes argues that b e n Sira measures S o l o m o n by the standards o f D e u t e r o n o m y ' s law o f the king: "And h e shall n o t multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; n o r shall h e gready multiply for himself silver and g o l d " (Deut 1 7 : 1 7 ) . Thus the negative side o f the picture begins in the m i d d l e o f Sir 47:18, with the amassing o f g o l d and silver. By appealing to the law o f the king, b e n Sira suggests that S o l o m o n ' s betrayal o f his wisdom was n o ac­ cident. T h e stipulations o f the law o f the king reflect an understanding o f kingship as inherendy corrupting even as they attempt to c h e c k the potential for corruption. Ben Sira exploits this understanding: if even the wisest king in Israel's past fell victim to the temptations o f his office, what h o p e was there for the institution? Further, the invocation o f the law o f the king suggests that b e n Sira did n o t understand his rejection o f kingship as a radical break with the traditions o f Israel's past but rather as a working o u t o f the implications o f the D e u t e r o n o m i c constitution and the centrality o f wisdom for the life o f the Jewish p e o p l e . Thus S o l o m o n is the crucial figure for b e n Sira's argument. 96

97

98

At the c o n c l u s i o n o f the passage a b o u t S o l o m o n , b e n Sira proclaims the continuation o f David's line (Sir 4 7 : 2 2 ) , but the p r o m i s e o f "a r o o t o f [David's] stock" is apparently seen as fulfilled in the past, for b e n Sira notes the c o n t i n u e d existence o f Judah u n d e r a Davidic king after the fall o f the northern k i n g d o m (Sir 4 8 : 1 6 ) . Ben Sira even manages to play d o w n the royal status o f the two pious kings w h o follow David, Hezekiah and Josiah. T h e career o f Hezekiah (Sir 48:17-23) is inter­ twined with and largely subordinated to that o f the p r o p h e t Isaiah (Sir 48:20-25), w h o , as we have seen, gets credit for the failure o f the Assyr­ ian siege. Josiah is praised highly, if briefly, for leading the p e o p l e to re­ p e n t a n c e (Sir 49:1-3), but it is striking that s o m e o f the language o f praise recalls the cult: ' T h e m e m o r y o f Josiah is like a blending o f incense / prepared by the art o f the perfumer" (Sir 49:1). This use o f cultic lan­ guage for Josiah is the mirror image o f the praise o f A a r o n and S i m o n in royal language. 99

100

Unfortunately for b e n Sira's effort to validate rule by high priest, the biblical resources for associating priests with w i s d o m are limited, al­ t h o u g h , as we have seen, D e u t e r o n o m y contains such elements, even if they are n o t fully d e v e l o p e d . W e have seen that b e n Sira's a c c o u n t o f the career o f A a r o n m e n t i o n s the teaching role o f priests in language that e c h o e s D e u t 33:10; otherwise, however, w i s d o m plays n o role in b e n Sira's characterization o f A a r o n . Rather, it is with the figure o f S i m o n that b e n Sira takes his stand. T h e climax o f the Praise o f the Fathers is the description o f S i m o n officiating in the temple (Sir 50:5-22). This de­ scription is clearly i n t e n d e d to recall the picture o f W i s d o m officiating in the t e m p l e (Sirach 2 4 ) ; the similes c o m p a r i n g the m a g n i f i c e n c e o f Simon's appearance to a series o f natural p h e n o m e n a including trees and o t h e r vegetation (Sir 50:5-11) e c h o the tree similes W i s d o m applies to herself there (Sir 24:13-17). S i m o n appears, if n o t as a scribe o r teacher, then almost as W i s d o m ' s d o u b l e . Yet even a reader persuaded by b e n Sira's presentation o f the claims o f the high priest to rule over the p e o p l e o f Israel might b e forgiven for r e m e m b e r i n g that the high priest must report to a foreign ruler. T h e Greek version o f the c o n c l u s i o n o f the Praise o f the Fathers hints at the imperfections o f the current situation, w h e n it follows its description o f S i m o n with a prayer: "May h e entrust to us his mercy! / A n d let h i m de­ liver us in o u r days" (Sir 5 0 : 2 4 ) . T h e Hebrew, which was q u o t e d above, makes n o m e n t i o n at all o f deliverance, thus avoiding any dissonant n o t e in its retelling o f Israel's history. Outside the Praise o f the Fathers, b e n Sira calls explicitly and in detail for the punishment o f the nations (Sir 36:1-17), although the authenticity o f this passage has b e e n ques­ tioned. Still, whether h e c o m m i t t e d his doubts to writing o r not, b e n Sira c o u l d hardly have b e e n u n t r o u b l e d by the c o n d i t i o n o f foreign rule in his o w n time. 101

102

It is different for the circumstance o f rule by high priest, however. H e r e , it seems to m e , b e n Sira is quite c o n v i n c e d , contrary to the d o m i ­ nant biblical view, that Israel has n o n e e d o f a king. H e has persuasively retold Israel's history so that there is n o reason for nostalgia for king­ ship and h e has shown w i s d o m e m b o d i e d n o t in the king, whose p o w e r corrupts, but in the p e r s o n o f the high priest, heir to the eternal covenants o f A a r o n and Phinehas. Further, despite the inherent tension between his royal c o n c e p t i o n o f the high priesthood and the ideal o f the priest as scribe, b e n Sira succeeds in integrating the two in the fig­ ure o f S i m o n . By depicting the recent high priest in terms that recall W i s d o m as she officiates in the temple in chapter 24, b e n Sira implies that S i m o n bears n o t only the authority o f the royal high priesthood but also the authority o f the Torah.

Ben Sira, Enoch, and the Torah of Moses If b e n Sira's scribe is a student o f the law o f the Most H i g h a n d the wis­ d o m o f the ancients, a c o n d u i t for the great sea o f W i s d o m , E n o c h in the Book of the Watchers is a scribe in a rather technical a n d limited sense, an expert in drawing u p legal d o c u m e n t s . H e c o u l d n o t b e a student o f the Torah since the Book of the Watchers is set in a time l o n g before its revelation—nor has the world in E n o c h ' s day b e e n in existence l o n g e n o u g h to provide m u c h ancient wisdom. Yet t h o u g h E n o c h d o e s n o t measure u p to b e n Sira's ideal o f the scribe, the authors o f the Book of the Watchers certainly d o . T h e y carefully studied the Torah: the narrative o f 1 Enoch 6-11 reworks extrabiblical traditions in light o f the story o f G e n 6:1-4, while the criticism o f priests for i m p r o p e r marriage may re­ flect a particular exegesis o f Leviticus 2 1 . A n d they c o n c e r n e d them­ selves with the difficult writings o f the ancients: 1 Enoch 12-16 interprets the descent o f the Watchers by means o f a close reading o f 1 Enoch 6-11. But many scholars w o u l d reject what I have just claimed about the im­ p o r t a n c e o f the Torah, especially its laws, f o r the Book of the Watchers a n d 1 Enoch as a w h o l e . T h e s e scholars understand the E n o c h i c literature to e x p o u n d a type o f wisdom that stands if n o t in o p p o s i t i o n to then at least apart from the T o r a h . T h u s Nickelsburg: 103

To judge from what the authors of 1 Enoch have written, the Sinaitic covenant and Torah were not of central importance for them. . . . 1 Enoch employs a dif­ ferent paradigm or set of categories as the primary means of embodying the double notion that G o d has revealed the divine will to humanity and will reward and punish right and wrong conduct. Law and its interpretation are embodied in the notion of revealed "wisdom." . . . By using the epistemological term "wis­ dom" and emphasizing its receipt and transmission, the Enochic authors explic­ itly tie their soteriology to the possession of right knowledge. Actions are, of course, important, but they are possible only if one is rightly informed. 104

If this formulation seems to contain e c h o e s o f faith versus works, a lit­ tle later it emerges that Nickelsburg d o e s have Paul in mind: 1 Enoch and the Wisdom of Solomon marginalize or ignore the Mosaic Torah, appealing more to revealed wisdom than to laws as the authority and criterion for human conduct. In all of these respects, one perceives a continuity from 1 Enoch and the Wisdom of Solomon back to the prophetic tradition and a dis­ junction with the Mosaic tradition. . . . The marginalizing of the Mosaic Torah in 1 Enoch, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Musar leMevin [a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls] offers a precedent for the similar tendency expressed by Paul and attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in most strata of the gospel tradition. 105

T h e r e is n o t h i n g inappropriate about using early Christian texts to il­ lumine ancient Jewish texts. But in my view 1 Enoch takes a stance very

different f r o m the o n e Nickelsburg attributes to it with Paul in m i n d . I will limit my quarrel with Nickelsburg to the Book of the Watchers, al­ t h o u g h I w o u l d b e prepared to make the case about the centrality o f the Torah for the entire c o r p u s o f 1 Enoch. While there can b e n o denying that the understanding o f the origins o f evil in the Book of the Watchers stands in conflict with the Torah's understanding, I d o u b t very m u c h that the authors o f the Book of the Watchers u n d e r s t o o d their work to b e in conflict with the Torah. T h e authors o f s o m e o f the strands o f 1 Enoch 6-11 and 12-16 struggled to make sense o f the relationship o f divine w r o n g d o i n g to h u m a n culpability. T h e author o f the s e c o n d tour to the ends o f the earth (1 Enoch 20-36) felt c o m p e l l e d to include the Gar­ d e n o f E d e n o n the tour (1 Enoch 32:3-6) and, with it, the Torah's story o f A d a m and Eve; h e works hard to cut d o w n o n conflict by ignoring the elements o f the story that make it an etiology o f evil in the world. In other words, the authors o f the Book of the Watchers i n t e n d e d their work to clarify what the Torah really meant rather than to reject it o r even ig­ n o r e it. Nickelsburg is certainly right that the language o f covenant, the figure o f Moses, and the c o n t e n t o f the Torah d o n o t figure prominently in the Book of the Watchers o r elsewhere in 1 Enoch, but this absence is to a considerable extent a result o f the Active setting o f the work, which places Moses many centuries in the future. Nickelsburg's view that the Book of the Watchers stands apart from the Torah is related to his understanding o f it and o f the larger corpus o f 1 Enoch as sectarian. If the E n o c h i c works are anti-establishment voices, it is easier to read the absence o f a clear statement o f loyalty to the central d o c u m e n t o f the establishment, the Torah o f Moses, as an indication o f less than wholehearted allegiance to that Torah. But as Annette R e e d has p o i n t e d out, Nickelsburg arrives at his view o f the Book of the Watchers as sectarian by reading it through the lens o f the Book of Dreams and the Epistle ofEnoch and assuming that it shares their rejection o f the Jerusalem temple and sectarian o r at least proto-sectarian attitude toward other Jews. Yet, as we have seen, the Book of the Watchers' attitude toward the Jerusalem temple is n o t entirely negative, and there is litde indication o f sectarian identity anywhere in the work. T h e solar calendar o f the Astro­ nomical Book is at most hinted at in the Book of the Watchers, but even em­ brace o f the calendar is n o t necessarily an indication o f sectarian affiliation in the third century. It is n o t clear, after all, what the calendar o f the temple was in the p e r i o d b e f o r e the Maccabean Revolt, and the absence o f a p o l e m i c against the lunar o r lunisolar calendar in the Astro­ nomical Book is striking. Finally, I w o u l d point out, the evidence o f the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y certainly suggests that it is possible to b e b o t h disaf­ fected with the Jerusalem establishment and deeply loyal to the Torah. 106

107

108

T h e earliest readers o f the Book of the Watchers certainly did n o t under­ stand it as in any way a l o o f f r o m Mosaic themes. T h e first n o n - E n o c h i c work that reflects k n o w l e d g e o f the Book of the Watchers is the Book of Jubilees, a work that presents itself as the Torah-Testimony o f Moses in contrast to the standard Torah, the T o r a h - C o m m a n d m e n t in Jubilees' terminology. Jubilees depicts E n o c h as an important link in its chain o f priests and as the first author. Jubilees calls the text E n o c h writes a "testi­ m o n y " (Jub. 4:16-26), the same term it uses for itself, thus clearly a term o f approbation. Altogether the Moses-centered Jubilees places a high value o n the E n o c h o f the Book of the Watchers. While Jubilees represents the response o f a single reader, the D e a d Sea Scrolls offer us the response o f a community—a c o m m u n i t y well known for its c o m m i t m e n t to a particularly strict reading o f the laws o f Moses. Yet the manuscript evidence shows that this c o m m u n i t y valued highly several E n o c h i c works, including the Book of the Watchers. But they were certainly n o t the only texts it read—nor were they intended to b e . T o understand h o w evil c a m e into the world, h o w k n o w l e d g e is righdy and wrongly revealed, the authors o f the Book of the Watchers might have said, read what we have written. T o learn the details o f the laws o f impurity o r Sabbath observance, l o o k at texts that c o n c e r n themselves with just these sorts o f questions. In other words, the Book of the Watchers'—1 Enoch's—reticence about the laws o f the Torah is a function o f genre, n o t o f distance o r discomfort. T o reinforce this point, let m e offer an e x a m p l e f r o m another era. N o t h i n g is m o r e central to rabbinic Judaism and the tradition to which it gave rise than the Torah o f Moses and its laws, yet m e m b e r s in g o o d standing o f this tradition wrote a variety o f works—apocalyptic, ethical, liturgical—that say little a b o u t the Torah. Read in isolation, they might lead o n e to c o n c l u s i o n s like Nickelsburg's for 1 Enoch. In Sefer Zerubba­ bel, for e x a m p l e , the b o o k s o f the prophets and traditions a b o u t David figure far m o r e prominently than d o the Torah and traditions a b o u t Moses. Yet it w o u l d n o t o c c u r to anyone to suggest that the author o f Sefer Zerubbabel d i d n o t see Moses and the covenant at Sinai as o f central i m p o r t a n c e . It is true that for rabbinic culture the Torah is authorita­ tive in a far m o r e literal way than it was during the precanonical era in which the Book of the Watchers was written. Yet although the c a n o n had n o t yet taken final shape and the contents o f many works that w o u l d later b e regarded as canonical still had a certain fluidity, the Torah was already widely a c c e p t e d as the central d o c u m e n t o f Judaism in the third century BCE. If there ever was such a thing as an E n o c h i c c o m m u ­ nity, it surely read the Torah and many other works alongside E n o c h i c texts.

The Book of the Watchers and Ben Sira in Conflict? Several scholars have recently p o i n t e d o u t that despite their different genres, the Book of the Watchers and the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira address simi­ lar issues. Benjamin Wright has suggested n o t only that b e n Sira is re­ s p o n d i n g to the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book, but also that b e n Sira u n d e r s t o o d these works as the teachings o f a rival s c h o o l o f w i s d o m . T h e central p o i n t o f dispute between b e n Sira and the early E n o c h i c literature a c c o r d i n g to Wright is the Jerusalem priesthood, which b e n Sira is d e f e n d i n g against the critique o f the Book of the Watch­ ers and other like-minded works such as Aramaic Levi. Against those w h o c a n n o t imagine that a writer in the wisdom tradition is genuinely enthu­ siastic a b o u t the cult, Wright insists quite rightly that b e n Sira believes fully in its i m p o r t a n c e . For Wright, b e n Sira's advocacy o f the priestly establishment is part o f a conservative ideology that rejects many o f the m o r e radical ideas o f the E n o c h i c s c h o o l . H e identifies four themes in b e n Sira's b o o k that h e reads as p o l e m i c s against the E n o c h i c school: in­ sistence o n the role o f the m o o n for the calendar, rejection o f specula­ tion a b o u t h i d d e n matters, criticism o f the use o f dreams and o m e n s , and praise o f the figure o f E n o c h . Wright is admirably straightforward about "the inevitably circumstantial character o f the argument." He also d o e s an excellent j o b o f sketching a social setting that makes sense o f the p o l e m i c h e detects in b e n Sira's work, suggesting that Jerusalem was the scene o f intellectual e x c h a n g e a m o n g different g r o u p s in which priests w o u l d have b e e n p r o m i n e n t and that p e o p l e might even have m o v e d f r o m g r o u p to g r o u p . It seems to m e that there is m o r e agreement between b e n Sira and the Book of the Watchers o n these points than Wright allows. I would like to fo­ cus o n two o f the themes Wright considers—ben Sira's rejection o f specu­ lation about h i d d e n matters and his criticism o f reliance o n dreams—but let m e note in passing that it is also less than clear that b e n Sira is en­ gaged in p o l e m i c in relation to the other themes Wright points to. For the calendar, the p o l e m i c , if there is o n e , is quite muted. It consists o f two brief passages noting the m o o n ' s role in determining festivals (Sir 43:6-8, 5 0 : 6 ) . While adherents o f the calendar o f the Astronomical Book would have rejected b e n Sira's c o m m e n t s about the role o f the m o o n , the tone o f the passages hardly suggests that b e n Sira is trying to make his case against those h o l d i n g an o p p o s i n g view. For the figure o f E n o c h , Wright understands b e n Sira's high o p i n i o n o f E n o c h (Sir 44:16, 49:14) as an effort to "domesticate" the figure his o p p o n e n t s had c h o s e n as their standard-bearer. But anyone n o t already persuaded that b e n Sira is e n g a g e d in a p o l e m i c might b e inclined to the m o r e obvious read­ ing: that b e n Sira was an admirer o f his ancient scribal predecessor. 109

110

111

112

113

1 1 4

115

116

117

It also seems to m e difficult to read b e n Sira's dismissal o f dreams (Sir 34:1-8) as directed against E n o c h i c writings. It is true that E n o c h ' s as­ cent to heaven in the Book of the Watchers takes place in a dream, but the other revelations o f the early E n o c h i c literature—the conversation with Uriel in the Astronomical Book and the tour to the ends o f the earth in the Book of the Watchers—do not. A n d only s o m e o n e already persuaded that b e n Sira has the Book of the Watchers in m i n d w o u l d find a reference to E n o c h ' s ascent in his dismissal o f fools to w h o m "dreams give wings" (Sir 3 4 : 1 ) . M o r e important, the authors o f the Book of the Watchers did n o t e n c o u r a g e their readers to seek revelations o n their own by means o f dreams, ascents, o r any other visionary technique. T h e revelations granted E n o c h are clearly meant to satisfy the revelatory needs o f read­ ers rather than to lead them to take u p p r o p h e c y o n their o w n . Ben Sira's attitude toward dreams fits well with his understanding o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f prophecy. In his Praise o f the Fathers, as we have seen, b e n Sira firmly places p r o p h e c y in the past. T h e heir to the prophets, a c c o r d i n g to b e n Sira, is the scribe, the interpreter o f Torah— like b e n Sira himself, w h o claims to p o u r o u t teaching "like p r o p h e c y " (Sir 24:33). Still it is surely significant that b e n Sira's teaching is only "&&# p r o p h e c y " ; full identification with the prophets w o u l d b e g o i n g t o o far. E n o c h in the Book of the Watchers, o n the other hand, looks very m u c h like a p r o p h e t as h e speaks with G o d face-to-face and c o m m u n i ­ cates G o d ' s words to others. But their depiction o f an ancient figure in p r o p h e t i c terms d o e s n o t m e a n the authors o f the Book of the Watchers were claiming to b e prophets. If they had truly u n d e r s t o o d p r o p h e c y as a living p h e n o m e n o n , they w o u l d n o t have n e e d e d to invoke the au­ thority o f E n o c h but c o u l d have spoken in their o w n voices. Their ap­ p r o a c h to c o m p o s i n g their work, as we have seen, suggests that they u n d e r s t o o d themselves as interpreters rather than recipients o f revela­ tion. F r o m o n e angle, the authors o f the Book of the Watchers are m o r e conservative than b e n Sira; they claim p r o p h e c y only for a h e r o o f the past, while b e n Sira claims prophecy, o r at least something like prophecy, for himself and other contemporaries. This claim is perhaps related to another difference between b e n Sira and the authors o f the Book of the Watchers', b e n Sira's willingness to write in his own name. Here, t o o , b e n Sira is the radical, while the authors o f the Book of the Watchers are the conservatives. 118

1 1 9

T h e passage in which b e n Sira cautions against inquiring into matters t o o great for h u m a n beings is well-known:

Seek not what is too difficult for you, nor investigate what is beyond your power. Reflect on what has been assigned to you,

for you do not need what is hidden. Do not meddle in what is beyond your tasks, For matters too great for human understanding have been shown you. For their hasty judgment has led many astray, and wrong opinion has caused their thoughts to slip. (Sir 3:21-24)

Wright reads this passage as suggesting that b e n Sira was o f f e n d e d by the c o s m o l o g i c a l c o n t e n t o f the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book as well as their interest in eschatology. But this latter interest is n o t very p r o m i n e n t in either o f the earliest E n o c h i c works, n o r is it clear that b e n Sira is c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t eschatological speculation. I n d e e d it is far f r o m clear what h e means by h i d d e n matters; cosmology, a subject i g n o r e d by the b o o k s that b e c a m e part o f the H e b r e w Bible, presumably purposefully, is a reasonable possibility but hardly a certainty. Further, the attitude toward k n o w l e d g e in the Book of the Watchers is quite compli­ cated. I n d e e d , the story o f the descent o f the Watchers in 1 Enoch 6-11 views the angels' revelation o f heavenly secrets to humanity as an unmit­ igated disaster. Annette R e e d has argued persuasively that o n e o f the primary c o n c e r n s o f 1 Enoch 12-16 is to clarify the relationship between the f o r b i d d e n k n o w l e d g e the angels reveal to humanity and the knowl­ e d g e properly revealed to E n o c h . In other words, b e n Sira and the Book of the Watchers are hardly polar opposites o n this important point. R e e d imagines them rather as two voices in "a lively debate a b o u t the nature and s c o p e o f religious k n o w l e d g e a m o n g scribes in the preMaccabean p e r i o d . " Wright d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r b e n Sira's allusions to the story o f the fall o f the Watchers in his discussion o f the relationship between the two works. T h e s e allusions are probably the strongest evidence that b e n Sira had actually read the Book of the Watchers. Yet, R e e d points out, b e n Sira manages to use the material h e f o u n d in the Book of the Watchers to serve his o w n purposes: h e focuses o n the giants, w h o serve as an exam­ ple o f sinners w h o are justly punished, and ignores the descent o f the Watchers as the cause o f evil in the world, an idea h e must have f o u n d unpalatable. H e r e , t o o , Reed's "debate" seems to m e a better way than " p o l e m i c " to characterize the relationship between b e n Sira and the Book of the Watchers. 120

121

122

123

124

This characterization seems to m e applicable to the attitudes o f b e n Sira and the Book of the Watchers toward the Jerusalem p r i e s t h o o d as well. If the criticism o f the Book of the Watchers is directed at priests w h o marry w o m e n f r o m nonpriesdy families, it clearly represents a minority opin­ ion; the priests it criticizes w o u l d surely have argued that their critics misread the laws o f Leviticus, and b e n Sira might have agreed with them. But n o t h i n g in b e n Sira's b o o k responds to the specifics o f the

Book of the Watchers' criticism. T h o u g h w o m e n and the dangers they p o s e are a subject o f s o m e interest to b e n Sira, nowhere d o e s h e consider the problems w o m e n p o s e for priests in particular in o r d e r to defend them. N o r d o e s h e praise the pious observance o f all the laws o f wedlock by Aaron's heirs as the Third Sibylline Oracle in a different polemical context praises the Jews' piety in marriage in contrast to the nations' practice o f pederasty (Sib. Or. 3:594-600). Perhaps it did n o t o c c u r to b e n Sira that his wisdom b o o k was the appropriate place to address such an issue—or per­ haps h e was n o t offended by the rigorist ethic o f the Book of the Watchers. M u c h o f b e n Sira's attention to the priesthood is focused o n the high priest. For b e n Sira, the high priest is also Israel's head o f state, and b e n Sira g o e s b e y o n d any other work I k n o w in d e v e l o p i n g a theology o f royal p r i e s t h o o d based o n a careful if tendentious reading o f biblical sources. Ben Sira is often pictured as a conservative advocate o f priestly authority. H e r e is a clear instance where advocacy o f priestly authority is anything but conservative. But it is noteworthy that Simon, the high priest w h o s e appearance in the temple is depicted in such flattering terms in the final e p i s o d e in the Praise o f the Fathers, is the high priest o f b e n Sira's youth, n o l o n g e r alive at the time b e n Sira wrote. T h e fact that this idealized portrait is o f the previous high priest may suggest a certain reticence toward the n e w high priest. Certainly a writer o f m e r e p r o p a g a n d a w o u l d have m a d e the current high priest the h e r o o f his story o r w o u l d at least have m a d e explicit the transfer o f glory from fa­ ther to son. Further, by identifying Simon, the m o d e l high priest, with W i s d o m , b e n Sira suggests that the true high priest is defined n o t merely by ancestry but by merit as well. This definition n e e d n o t b e a re­ buke to the o c c u p a n t o f the office, though it might b e if the o c c u p a n t were obviously n o t wise in b e n Sira's sense. In any case, it holds the high priest to a standard that has n o t h i n g to d o with ancestry.

Priest and Scribe in Aramaic Levi T h e W i s d o m o f b e n Sira and the Book of the Watchers show clearly that by the b e g i n n i n g o f the s e c o n d century B.C.E. s o m e learned scribes had c o m e to understand their profession in priestly terms and, conversely, to make wisdom a central aspect o f the ideal priest's character. But the fragments o f Aramaic Levi show that the association was by n o means universal. Because o f its extremely fragmentary nature, Aramaic Levi is n o t an easy text to interpret. It survives in fragments from Q u m r a n and the Cairo Geniza as well as in Greek translation in several passages in MS e, the Mt. Athos manuscript, o f the Testament of Levi. It was an i m p o r ­ tant source for the Testament of Levi, but the Testament of Levi can b e used to reconstruct Aramaic Levi only with great c a u t i o n . 125

Aramaic Levi tells the story o f Levi's selection as priest as a reward for his pious zeal in destroying the city o f S h e c h e m to avenge the disgrace o f his sister Dinah at the hands o f its prince. T h e original a c c o u n t o f the raid o n S h e c h e m in Genesis 34 is n o t terribly enthusiastic a b o u t the be­ havior o f Levi and S i m e o n , the brother w h o shares the violent d e e d with him, o r the brothers as a g r o u p . T h e brothers "deceitfully" ( G e n 34:13) negotiate marriage arrangements with S h e c h e m and H a m o r that in­ clude the Shechemites' circumcision ( G e n 34:8-17); S i m e o n and Levi then take advantage o f Shechemites' weakness while they are recuperat­ ing f r o m circumcision to m u r d e r them and to permit the other brothers to p l u n d e r the town ( G e n 34:26-29). J a c o b , w h o apparendy t o o k the ne­ gotiations at face value and was prepared to marry his daughter to her attacker, is furious at S i m e o n and Levi, n o t because h e disapproves o f the m u r d e r o f the Shechemites but because h e is afraid that they have j e o p a r d i z e d his position in the land ( G e n 34:30). I n d e e d , Jacob's deathbed blessing c o n d e m n s these two sons for their violent trickery ( G e n 49:5-7). Yet the a c c o u n t o f the incident in Genesis allows S i m e o n and Levi the last w o r d w h e n they reply to their angry father: "Should h e treat o u r sister as a harlot?" ( G e n 34:31). If Genesis 34 is ambivalent about the brothers' d e e d , Aramaic Levi is not. It transforms the attack into an act o f pious zeal o n the m o d e l o f the zealous violence that wins Phinehas the covenant o f priesthood when the Israelites g o astray after Baal Peor (Numbers 25; Ar. Levi 1-3). After the at­ tack o n Shechem, Levi sees a vision in which he is anointed as priest by seven angels (Ar. Levi supp. 20-supp. 27, 4-7). Following the vision, his fa­ ther J a c o b ordains him as a priest, h e offers sacrifices, and they g o to visit Levi's grandfather Isaac (Ar. Levi 8-12). N o w that Levi has b e e n singled o u t to serve as priest, Isaac teaches him "the law o f the p r i e s t h o o d " (Ar. Levi 13-61). T h e s e detailed instruc­ tions, primarily c o n c e r n e d with p r o c e d u r e for sacrifice, make u p a b o u t a third o f the surviving text o f Aramaic Levi. T h e law o f the priesthood begins with the warning about p r o p e r marriage partners discussed above (Ar. Levi 16-18) but turns quickly to sacrifice: washing b e f o r e and during sacrifice (Ar. Levi 19-21, 26, 53-55); the types o f w o o d to b e used for sacri­ fice (Ar. Levi 22-24); the o r d e r o f sprinkling b l o o d and laying the parts o f the sacrificial animal o n the altar, and the requirement to salt the parts (Ar. Levi 25-29); the sacrifice o f flour, oil, wine, and incense that accompanies the animal sacrifice (Ar. Levi 3 0 ) ; the a m o u n t o f w o o d nec­ essary for different types o f offerings (Ar. Levi 31-36); the weights o f the salt, fine flour, oil, and frankincense that a c c o m p a n y different kinds o f offerings (Ar. Levi 37-46); the relationships a m o n g the different weights ( 4 6 - 4 7 ) ; keeping the priest's garments free o f b l o o d (Ar. Levi 5 3 ) ; and covering and avoiding the c o n s u m p t i o n o f b l o o d o f animals slaughtered 126

1 2 7

for f o o d (Ar. Levi 5 6 ) . R o b e r t Kugler reads these instructions as a p o l e m i c against the c o n t e m p o r a r y priesthood. In his view, s o m e o f the details o f the sacrificial practices Isaac enjoins purposefully contradict the laws o f Leviticus. In particular Kugler points to the m o r e elaborate washing, which h e sees as intended to p r o m o t e a higher level o f purity. Thus, h e claims, the instructions implicidy criticize the behavior o f the priestly establishment d e s c e n d e d f r o m A a r o n by describing an even m o r e ancient figure as the ideal priest. While Kugler is certainly correct that Isaac's instructions differ at cer­ tain points f r o m the laws o f Leviticus, I have argued in detail elsewhere that the differences d o n o t represent purposeful c o n t r a d i c t i o n . Rather, what the various topics o f Isaac's teaching have in c o m m o n is that all serve to supplement the rather sparse instructions the Torah provides for priests. T o offer a single example, Leviticus decrees salting sacrifices (Lev 2:13) but neglects to tell us h o w m u c h salt each sacrifice requires. Isaac's instructions fill in this gap (Ar. Levi 37-40). I n d e e d , Isaac's instructions l o o k very m u c h like the sort o f instructions priests w o u l d pass o n f r o m father to son. T h e only item the rhetoric o f the speech marks as p o l e m i c a l is the o p e n i n g c o m m a n d to avoid harlotry by marrying a w o m a n from Isaac's family (Ar. Levi 16-17). H e r e , as I sug­ gested above, we find the same sort o f criticism oof priests' marriages to nonpriestly w o m e n that we find in the Book of the Watchers. Otherwise the presentation o f the instructions is straightforward, without any implied contrast to the practices o f others. If I am correct, Aramaic Levi holds a minority view o n the issue o f priests' marriages, an issue that was clearly the subject o f controversy during a certain p e r i o d o f time. But I see n o justification for calling the law o f the priesthood sectarian. Finally, it is worth noting that n o w h e r e d o e s this central portion o f Aramaic Levi hint at a scribal role for priests. In a speech at the e n d o f Aramaic Levi (Ar. Levi 82-105), Levi urges his sons to learn the scribal skills o f reading and writing and praises w i s d o m as a treasure that will protect its possessor in foreign lands. Yet it is re­ markable that the wisdom Levi praises is quite secular; the identification o f w i s d o m with Torah is notably absent: 128

129

A man who learns wisdom, all [of his days will be long and his reputatio]n [will be great]. For every foreign land and country to which he goes [there he will have a brother. . . .] in it. And he will not be like a traveler there. . . . His friend [s] are many, and those wishing him well are numerous. And people seat him on the seat of honor, so as to hear the words of his wisdom. Great abun­ dance of glory is wisdom, and it is a good treaure to all who acquire it. Strong kings and a great people, and an army, and horsemen, and many chariots with them may come, and they may seize the possessions of the lands and countries and plunder everything that is in them, (but) the storehouses of wisdom they will not plunder. (Ar. Levi 91-95)

W i s d o m as it is described in this passage sounds m o r e like the wisdom o f the B o o k o f Proverbs than the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira. In its reworking o f this passage, the Testament of Levi supplies the association missing in Ara­ maic Levi. Its version o f the speech has Levi urge his sons to teach their children to read so that they can study Torah: "And d o y o u , t o o , teach your children letters that they may have understanding all their life, reading unceasingly the law o f G o d . For everyone w h o knows the law o f G o d will b e h o n o u r e d , and h e will n o t b e a stranger wherever h e g o e s " (T. Levi 13:2-3). It is also noteworthy that Aramaic Levi d o e s n o t assume that wisdom, reading, and writing have a particular c o n n e c t i o n to the office o f priest. T h e exemplar o f wisdom Levi offers his sons is Joseph: "Observe, my children, my brother J o s e p h [ w h o ] taught reading and writing and the instruction o f w i s d o m " (Ar. Levi 9 0 ) . It is apparendy Joseph's success in the Egyptian royal c o u r t to which Levi's praise o f wisdom's powers o f protection in a foreign locale alludes. T h e wisdom that g o t J o s e p h his start in Egypt is the wisdom o f d r e a m interpretation, a f o r m o f wisdom the Genesis story attributes to G o d , if only in passing ( G e n 40:8, 41:16). But the wisdom J o s e p h displayed to k e e p his j o b is clearly a secular wis­ d o m that has n o t h i n g to d o with the Torah and even rather little to d o with reading and writing, despite the claims o f Levi's speech. Aramaic Levi dates Levi's speech about wisdom to the o n e h u n d r e d eighteenth year o f Levi's life, the year o f Joseph's death (Ar. Levi 8 2 ) . T h e speech follows Levi's a c c o u n t o f the events o f his life, an a c c o u n t that c o n ­ cludes, "And all the days o f my life were o n e hundred [thirty]-seven years; and I saw my th[ird] generation before I died" (Ar. Levi 8 1 ) . This place­ m e n t is n o t the result o f reconstruction; it is attested by the Cambridge Geniza manuscript. But the fact that the speech follows o n a notice o f the length o f Levi's life that c o u l d well serve as the conclusion to the work suggests that the speech was a d d e d to Aramaic Levi after the work was c o m p l e t e . Kugler is surely correct, however, that there is n o reason to exclude the author o f Aramaic Levi as the source o f the addition. 130

131

Kugler sees Aramaic Levi's praise o f Joseph, together with what h e takes as criticism o f the cultic practices o f the Jerusalem priesthood in Isaac's instructions, as evidence for Samaritan authorship o f Aramaic Levi. If my reading o f the law o f the priesthood is correct, it provides n o g r o u n d s for this claim, and the praise o f Joseph just q u o t e d is hardly sufficient g r o u n d s in itself. Yet the presentation o f J o s e p h as the m o d e l wise man in a speech addressed to priests certainly requires explana­ tion. H e r e Aramaic Levi turns back the clock. Its affinities with E n o c h i c traditions suggest that Aramaic Levi was aware o f the E n o c h i c under­ standing o f the relationship between priest and scribe. Aramaic Levi likely predates the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira, but even if b e n Sira was the first 132

to make explicit the association o f wisdom with the Torah, h e drew o n ear­ lier developments in the understanding o f wisdom, including Deuteron­ omy's view o f G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s as wisdom. N o r is the association o f priests with this type o f wisdom b e n Sira's innovation; it belongs to a tradi­ tion that goes back to D e u t e r o n o m y and the figure o f Ezra. Yet Aramaic Levi appears u n t o u c h e d by these developments. T h e author o f Aramaic Levi is surely n o t e n g a g e d in a p o l e m i c against a blurring o f boundaries between priest and wise man since h e has Levi urge his sons to acquire the skills o f the wise man. Yet the c h o i c e o f J o s e p h as the m o d e l o f the wise man reflects an attitude toward the priestly relation to w i s d o m quite different from the o n e f o u n d in the other works discussed here. For Aramaic Levi, the relationship between priests and w i s d o m is n o t a natural association, but o n e that requires priests to make the effort to follow the e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h . Certainly it would n o t b e surprising if a work devoted to the founder o f the priesdy line envisioned priesdy rule as the most desirable o f states, just as the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira does. But there is n o clear evidence for such a position in Aramaic Levi, though there are several suggestive passages. O n e is a fragment o f an angelic speech to Levi during his anointment vi­ sion that contrasts the evils o f "the k i n g d o m o f the sword" to the benefits o f s o m e other state. T h e k i n g d o m o f the sword "has fighting, the batde, the chase, exertion, conflict, and killing and hunger" (Ar. Levi 4-5), while the other state offers "peace, and all c h o i c e first fruits o f the earth to eat" (Ar. Levi 4 ) . T h e fragmentary condition o f the text unfortunately leaves the identity o f the positive state uncertain, but the description appears to allude to the "covenant o f p e a c e " Phinehas earned for his zeal ( N u m 25:12) and the first fruits priests receive as their due ( N u m 1 8 : 1 3 ) . Still, there is n o clear indication that this state involves priesdy rule. Rather than praising rule by priests, the passage may instead b e claiming that it is a greater privilege to h o l d the office o f priest than the office o f king. 133

134

135

Jonas Greenfield and Michael Stone read the passage in the section o f Aramaic Levi that recounts the birth o f Levi's son Kohath, w h o b e c a m e the grandfather o f A a r o n and thus the ancestor o f the priestly line, as fa­ voring priestly political rule: " [ A n d I call]ed his n a m e [Kohath. A n d I saw] that h e w o u l d h a [ v e ] an assembly o f all [the p e o p l e , that] h e w o u l d h a v [ e ] the high priesthood, [for all Is]rael" (Ar. Levi 66-67). T h e y sug­ gest that the phrase "he w o u l d have an assembly o f all the p e o p l e " is in­ t e n d e d to recall a phrase f r o m Jacob's blessing o f Judah, "and to h i m shall b e the o b e d i e n c e [yiqhd] o f the p e o p l e s " ( G e n 49:10) and, by implicidy p u n n i n g o n the n a m e Kohath (Qehat), to transfer the role Ja­ c o b promises Judah's descendants to L e v i ' s . This is an appealing sug­ gestion. Yet here t o o it is unclear whether this allusion is part o f a larger effort to transfer political p o w e r f r o m king to priest o r whether it simply 136

137

represents, as Kugler puts it, "the author's desire to elevate the sacerdo­ tal office to p r e e m i n e n c e in Jewish life." Finally, another passage, part o f Levi's address to his descendants, makes m e n t i o n o f "your [pi.] k i n g d o m " (Ar. Levi 1 0 0 ) . T h e immediate context is t o o b r o k e n to b e helpful, but the exhortation to wisdom that makes u p most o f the address is difficult to r e c o n c i l e with support for political leadership for priests. T h e wisdom o f Aramaic Levi is the wis­ d o m o f the highly p l a c e d retainer, n o t o f the ruler himself. It earns favor in foreign lands, something o f use only to an advisor, n o t to a sovereign. Indeed, in the course o f the wisdom speech Levi tells his sons that they will b e "chiefs and j u d g e s " (Ar. Levi 9 9 ) , perhaps e c h o i n g Deuteron­ omy's association o f priests and j u d g e s . Altogether, Aramaic Levi's view o f the priesthood is b o t h patriotically priesdy and remarkably conservative. It insists that it is better to b e a priest than anything else: political p o w e r is inferior to priestly privilege; the skills o f the scribe are a nice addition to o n e ' s resume, but they are n o t an essential part o f the priesdy office. For Aramaic Levi p r i e s t h o o d is defined primarily by ritual activity, as prescribed by the priestly d o c u ­ m e n t o f the Torah. It praises the f o u n d e r o f the priestly line for his zeal­ ous piety, claiming that h e w o n the office o n the basis o f merit. But its warning that Levi's descendants will eventually g o astray (Ar. Levi 102-6) is u n a c c o m p a n i e d by any effort to describe p r i e s t h o o d in a way that w o u l d inject merit into the o n g o i n g life o f the institution. It d o e s n o t seem implausible that the sort o f priesdy pride Aramaic Levi demonstrates was m o r e widespread than the surviving literature indicates. Several centuries after Aramaic Levi, the historian Josephus demonstrates a somewhat similar attitude. H e begins his a c c o u n t o f his life by expressing his pride in priestly ancestry: "My family is n o i g n o b l e o n e , tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. Different races base their claim to nobility o n various grounds; with us a c o n n e x i o n with the p r i e s t h o o d is the hallmark o f an illustrious line" (Life 1 ) . Jose­ phus g o e s o n to claim royal lineage as well; his m o t h e r was d e s c e n d e d from the H a s m o n e a n s (Life 2 ) . T h e Hasmoneans were priests w h o even­ tually claimed kingship for themselves so that by Josephus's time s o m e c o u l d claim royal and priestly descent through a single ancestor. It is surely noteworthy that Josephus c h o o s e s to b e g i n his a c c o u n t with his priestly ancestry rather than his H a s m o n e a n c o n n e c t i o n . 138

139

1 4 0

Josephus is n o t shy about claiming great learning for himself, yet h e d o e s n o t appear to c o n n e c t his learning to his priestly ancestry. While still a mere boy, about fourteen years old, I won universal applause for my love of letters; insomuch that the chief priests and the leading men of the city used constantly to come to me for precise information on some particular in

our ordinances. (Life 9)

Later, in his a c c o u n t J o h n o f Gischala's plot, h e reports that the hos­ tile embassy was instructed to determine why the Galileans were d e v o t e d to Josephus. If they attributed it to my being a native of Jerusalem, they were to reply that so were all four of them; if to my expert knowledge of their laws, they should retort that neither were they ignorant of the customs of their fathers; if, again, they as­ serted that their affection was due to my priesdy office, they should answer that two of them were likewise priests. (Life 198)

Again it is striking that Josephus d o e s n o t suggest a c o n n e c t i o n between learning and priesthood. Josephus's pride in his priesdy ancestry g o e s together with c o n c e r n for the integrity o f the priestly line. In Against Apion, his case for the va­ lidity o f the r e c o r d s o f the Jews hinges in part o n the unadulterated line­ age o f the priests: "Not only d i d o u r ancestors in the first instance set over this business [keeping the r e c o r d s ] m e n o f the highest character, d e v o t e d to the service o f G o d , but they t o o k precautions to ensure that the priests' lineage should b e kept unadulterated and p u r e " (Against Apion 1.30). Josephus differs with Aramaic Levi o n the particulars; h e worries a b o u t the lineage o f the brides o f priests, but h e d o e s n o t insist that they c o m e f r o m priestly families (Against Apion 1.31-36). Altogether Josephus's understanding o f the glory o f priesthood at the m o m e n t w h e n it had ceased to b e a functioning institution seems to m e very m u c h like Aramaic Levi's: priesdy ancestry is inherendy desirable. Josephus lived to see priests deprived o f the possibility o f offering sacri­ fice, yet his pride in his ancestry remained. It is difficult to detect any anxiety a b o u t merit in his account. In Jerusalem and its environs in the century before the Maccabean Re­ volt, there must have b e e n considerable overlap between those w h o served as priests in the temple and those w h o received the education necessary to p e r f o r m the tasks o f the scribe. As b e n Sira reminds us, that education required leisure. Leisure o f course required financial re­ sources, and many m e m b e r s o f the small elite likely to have had those re­ sources were f r o m priesdy families, p r e c l u d e d a c c o r d i n g to custom from farming, supported a c c o r d i n g to custom by the donations o f the p e o p l e . But despite the social proximity o f priests and scribes, the two profes­ sions are in s o m e ways quite o p p o s e d . T h e only necessary qualification for the priesthood is ancestry; the only necessary qualifications for the profession o f scribe at least in principle are ability and education. T h e fact that so many scribes were also priests must have m a d e the tension between the nature o f the two professions evident, n o t only to those w h o served in b o t h capacities but to their friends, neighbors, and

relatives. T h e authors o f the Book of the Watchers and b e n Sira were surely scribes, and whether o r n o t they were priests, they were u n d o u b t e d l y in­ terested observers o f the priesthood. As we have seen, despite s o m e im­ portant differences, they share n o t only a range o f c o n c e r n s but even, to a considerable extent, specific o p i n i o n s . For all o f them the proximity o f the two professions shed new light o n the failings o f priests. It was all t o o clear that ancestry a l o n e was n o t e n o u g h ; the ideal priest was o n e w h o shared the pious ethos o f the learned scribe. T h e emphases are o f course somewhat different. T h e Book of the Watchers depicts its h e r o explicitly as scribe, implicidy as priest. Ben Sira takes a rather different a p p r o a c h in his quest to demonstrate the desirability o f rule by high priest. H e praises the profession o f scribe and makes the scribe a channel for wis­ d o m , but h e makes the high priest S i m o n W i s d o m ' s twin.

Chapter 2

Jubilees' Kingdom of Priests

T h e Book ofJubilees draws o n the Book of the Watchers and Aramaic Levi, and like the Book of the Watchers and the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira, it is c o n ­ c e r n e d with the tension between ancestry and merit. But unlike those earlier works, its anxieties focus n o t o n the p r i e s t h o o d but o n the p e o ­ ple o f Israel as a w h o l e . O f all the works o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , Jubilees tries hardest to show that the p e o p l e o f Israel is i n d e e d a king­ d o m o f priests, a phrase it e c h o e s twice (Jub. 16:18, 33:20). Its effort has b o t h a narrative and a legal aspect. Its retelling o f the stories o f the pa­ triarchs grants a priestly role n o t just to Levi but to all o f the most im­ portant ancestors o f the Jewish p e o p l e , particularly its favorite, J a c o b . Thus it manages to imply priestly ancestry for the entire Jewish p e o p l e . In addition, it offers an understanding o f the Torah's laws regarding sex­ ual relations and the shedding and c o n s u m p t i o n o f b l o o d that gives or­ dinary Jews almost priestly status. In s o m e quarters, at least, Jubilees was highly regarded. T h e Damascus Document refers to it by n a m e ( C D 16.3-4), claiming that the explication o f the times o f Israel's blindness are "specified" in it; in the previous line, it claimed that "everything" is "specified" in the "Torah o f Moses" ( C D 1 6 . 2 ) . A very fragmentary text perhaps describing eschatological de­ struction also appears to cite Jubilees and introduces the citation with ter­ minology elsewhere used for quotations from scripture, "thus it is written" ( 4 Q 2 2 8 1 i 9 ) , while the existence o f a work o r works labeled PseudoJubilees (4Q225-27) indicates that Jubilees was o f sufficient stature to war­ rant imitation. T h e n u m b e r o f manuscripts f o u n d at Q u m r a n suggests that Jubilees had s o m e kind o f authoritative status there. T h e r e are m o r e copies o f Jubilees—fourteen o r fifteen—than o f any other work except the most p o p u l a r biblical b o o k s : Psalms (thirty-six), D e u t e r o n o m y (twentyn i n e ) , Isaiah (twenty-one), Exodus (seventeen), and Genesis (fifteen); to j u d g e by the n u m b e r o f surviving manuscripts, then, Jubilees was hardly less p o p u l a r than the biblical b o o k s whose stories it retells. 1

2

3

Jubilees achieved this authoritative status despite what most m o d e r n readers c a n n o t h e l p but see as striking points o f conflict with the Torah. T o b e g i n with, Jubilees takes its m o d e r n title from the c h r o n o l o g i c a l

framework it imposes o n its narrative o f Israel's history from the cre­ ation o f the world to the entrance into the land. T h e Holiness C o d e o f the Torah decrees jubilees o f forty-nine years o f business as usual culmi­ nating in a fiftieth year in which slaves are set free and the land returns to its original owners (Leviticus 2 5 ) . Jubilees transforms this schema by taking jubilees to b e forty-nine-year periods, m a d e u p o f seven "weeks" o r seven-year periods, t h o u g h its p l a c e m e n t o f the E x o d u s and the en­ trance o f the Israelites into the land in the fiftieth j u b i l e e e c h o e s the Holiness C o d e ' s vision for the fiftieth year. Still, the j u b i l e e framework for the stories o f Genesis and E x o d u s is foreign to the biblical account, and sometimes Jubilees' dating o f events contradicts that o f Genesis and Exodus. C o u n t i n g by jubilees is related to Jubilees' advocacy o f a 364-day calen­ dar in which the m o o n plays n o part (Jub. 6:23-32). This calendar im­ poses o n the year the regularity that the j u b i l e e system imposes o n history. But "advocacy" is perhaps t o o mild a term; Jubilees attacks Israel for failure to follow the 364-day calendar and insists o n the dire conse­ q u e n c e s o f that failure (Jub. 6:32-38). Again, Jubilees' calendar c a n n o t b e said to stand in actual conflict with the Torah since the passages o f the Torah d e v o t e d to the calendar never address the n u m b e r o f days in the year o r the role o f the sun and m o o n . But at the very least, Jubilees intro­ duces into the stories o f Israel's past a calendrical p o l e m i c entirely ab­ sent in the Torah. Jubilees also retells the events described in Genesis and Exodus in a way that sheds quite a different light o n them. Its version o f events often improves o n the Torah's, eliminating problematic behavior and empha­ sizing the virtues o f its h e r o e s and the failings o f its villains, m u c h as Chronicles improves o n Samuel and Kings. A n d to ensure that readers are n o t left in any d o u b t a b o u t the conclusions to b e drawn from the narrative, the angel o f the presence periodically intervenes with little sermons. O n e particular c o n c e r n o f Jubilees is to demonstrate that many o f the laws o f the Torah were observed by the Israelites even b e f o r e they were revealed at Mt. Sinai. This insistence o n the eternal status o f m u c h o f the Torah may b e a response to a hellenistic critique o f Judaism that admired m o n o t h e i s m but viewed the ritual laws, which they saw as su­ perstitious and misanthropic, as a later addition. T h e laws in question, a c c o r d i n g to Jubilees, c o u l d b e f o u n d o n the heavenly tablets. T h e s e heavenly tablets are central to Jubilees' thought. 4

5

6

7

T h e r e can b e n o d o u b t that the Torah had achieved authoritative sta­ tus a m o n g Jews by the s e c o n d century B.C.E. w h e n Jubilees was written. Thus Jubilees had to work very hard to present itself in a way that w o u l d make acceptance possible despite the tension between its a c c o u n t o f Is­ rael's early days and that o f the Torah. Jubilees d o e s n o t attempt to n u d g e

the Torah o u t o f its n i c h e and replace it, but rather embraces the au­ thority o f the Torah even as it seeks to place itself alongside it. T h e heav­ enly tablets are a crucial e l e m e n t in this effort. Jubilees transforms the ancient c o n c e p t i o n o f heavenly b o o k s containing the d e e d s o f mankind and their fate into a veritable library o f heavenly b o o k s . T h e Torah, in Jubilees' terminology the T o r a h - C o m m a n d m e n t , and Jubilees itself, the Torah-Testimony, each contain s o m e o f the material in this heavenly li­ brary, and Jubilees also invents b o o k s o f the patriarchs that contain a small share o f the archive. This a p p r o a c h n o t only exalts Jubilees but also, perhaps less obviously, d e m o t e s the Torah, which must share its authori­ tative status with another text even as b o t h are subordinated to the heav­ enly tablets. As I have just n o t e d , scholars have often u n d e r s t o o d Jubilees as react­ ing against the hellenization o f the p e r i o d a r o u n d the Maccabean Re­ volt, and most have p l a c e d it in the p e r i o d after the revolt, s o m e shordy after, others as late as the reign o f J o h n Hyrcanus. T h e Maccabean Re­ volt also suggests a way to make sense o f Jubilees' p o l e m i c about the calen­ dar, t h o u g h we k n o w so litde about the calendar in use in the Jerusalem temple during the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d in general and during the years b e f o r e and after the Maccabean Revolt in particular that we must p r o c e e d with great caution. It makes a difference to o u r reading o f Ju­ bilees whether it is fighting o n behalf o f the o n c e reigning calendar, which has b e e n displaced, o r has invented a calendar that c o n f o r m s to ideals o f o r d e r and the primacy o f the n u m b e r seven. T h e r e are s o m e g r o u n d s for detecting a c h a n g e in the calendar at the time o f the hellenistic r e f o r m . If a c h a n g e t o o k place at that time, Jubilees' p o l e m i c c o u l d reflect disappointment that the calendar it favors, set aside by the hellenizers, had n o t b e e n restored after the revolt. T h e Q u m r a n evi­ d e n c e is c o m p a t i b l e with a post-revolt date, but d o e s little to narrow the range o f possibilities. T h e earliest manuscript evidence is the earlier h a n d in 4 Q 2 1 6 , which dates to the last quarter o f the s e c o n d century. T h e Damascus Document's citation o f Jubilees is certainly compatible with a second-century date but d o e s litde to limit the range, since the earliest manuscript evidence for the Damascus Document is dated to 7 5 - 5 0 B.C.E. Below I present new arguments in favor o f a date in the s e c o n d half or, even better, the last third o f the s e c o n d century. 8

9

10

11

Priests before Levi A c c o r d i n g to the Torah the first Israelite priest was A a r o n , Moses' brother; the office c a m e into b e i n g w h e n G o d o r d a i n e d the sacrificial cult and o t h e r priestly responsibilities (Exodus 28-29). As just n o t e d , o n e striking feature o f Jubilees' rewriting o f the narrative o f the Torah is

its claim that many o f the laws revealed to Israel in the wilderness were practiced by the patriarchs. I n d e e d it claims that the sacrificial cult be­ gan with A d a m ; the first man was also the first priest. It also depicts E n o c h and N o a h as priests and then describes the transmission o f the priestly office f r o m A b r a h a m through Isaac and J a c o b to Levi, the ances­ tor o f the priestly family d e s c e n d e d from A a r o n . T h e Torah provides Jubilees with useful raw material for depicting N o a h , A b r a h a m , Isaac, and J a c o b as priests. N o a h offers a sacrifice u p o n e m e r g i n g f r o m the ark ( G e n 8:20; Jub. 6:1-4), while A b r a h a m per­ forms a ritual that m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d a sacrifice in the covenant b e ­ tween the pieces (Genesis 15; Jub. 14:11-20), and J a c o b offers sacrifices at Beer Sheba o n his way to Egypt to b e reunited with J o s e p h ( G e n 46:1; Jub. 4 4 : 1 ) . Further, A b r a h a m ( G e n 12:7, 13:18), Isaac ( G e n 26:25), and J a c o b ( G e n 35:1-7) are all said to have built altars. But Jubilees' d e p i c ­ tion o f these patriarchs as priests g o e s far b e y o n d what the Torah sug­ gests. All e x c e p t Isaac are given credit for f o u n d i n g a festival: N o a h establishes the Feast o f Weeks (Jub. 6:1-22); Abraham, the Feast o f Taber­ nacles (Jub. 16:20-31); and J a c o b , the A d d i t i o n to the Feast o f Taberna­ cles (Jub. 32:27-29). For A d a m and E n o c h , the Torah offers less for Jubilees to work with. Jubilees certainly knew the Book of the Watchers, but there the picture o f E n o c h as priest is implicit rather than explicit. Jubilees depicts E n o c h as priest in a m o r e decisive way by making h i m the f o u n d e r n o t o f a festival but o f a ritual it valued highly, the evening r o u n d o f the twice-daily of­ fering o f incense (Jub. 4 : 2 5 ) . It makes A d a m the originator o f the m o r n i n g incense offering (Jub. 3:27). Both A d a m and E n o c h are conve­ niently located in Eden, where spices are readily available. T h e picture o f the patriarchs as priests is n o t c o n f i n e d to Jubilees. Ara­ maic Levi, which Jubilees used as a s o u r c e , clearly u n d e r s t o o d Isaac as a priest; it gives h i m the h o n o r o f teaching Levi the "law o f the priest­ h o o d " (Ar. Levi 13-61). In the course o f these instructions, Isaac refers to what A b r a h a m taught him, matters that A b r a h a m himself learned from "the b o o k o f N o a h c o n c e r n i n g the b l o o d " (Ar. Levi 5 7 ) . T h u s Aramaic Levi seems to have u n d e r s t o o d A b r a h a m and N o a h t o o as priests. T h e fact that it has Isaac rather than J a c o b instruct Levi may m e a n that it d i d n o t view J a c o b as a priest. T h e Genesis Apocryphon describes Noah's sacri­ fice ( l Q a p G e n 10.13-17), for which, o f course, there is a strong founda­ tion in Genesis, and it also depicts A b r a h a m offering sacrifices at Bethel ( l Q a p G e n 21.1-2) where the Torah mentions only invoking the L o r d at an altar ( G e n 13:3-4). Unfortunately the p o o r preservation o f the Gene­ sis Apocryphon makes it impossible to k n o w whether it treated other pa­ triarchs as priests. 12

13

14

Even if the idea o f a succession o f priests in patriarchal times is n o t

original to Jubilees, it takes considerable pain to delineate it. T h e succes­ sion is not, however, u n b r o k e n . A c c o r d i n g to Jubilees' chronology, E n o c h c o u l d have learned priestly lore f r o m A d a m , a n d N o a h c o u l d have learned f r o m E n o c h , t h o u g h h e w o u l d have had to visit h i m in the Gar­ d e n o f Eden. But there is a gap between N o a h and Abraham. Jubilees hints at a solution to this p r o b l e m : the gap was b r i d g e d by writing. In the course o f instructing Isaac in the p r o p e r p e r f o r m a n c e o f the cult, A b r a h a m cites authorities: ' T h i s is the way I f o u n d (it) written in the b o o k o f m y ancestors, the words o f E n o c h and the words o f N o a h " {Jub. 2 1 : 1 0 ) . Aramaic Levi, as we have just seen, refers to a b o o k o f N o a h o n b l o o d (Ar.Levi 5 7 ) . Jubilees offers several reasons why Levi alone o f all his father's sons was to s u c c e e d h i m as priest. J a c o b ordains Levi as part o f his tithing o f everything h e has b r o u g h t with h i m to Bethel; Levi is the tithe f r o m a m o n g Jacob's sons because h e is the tenth counting upward from Ben­ j a m i n , then still in his mother's w o m b (Jub. 32:3). But Jubilees gives far m o r e attention to Levi's role in the episode o f the rape o f Dinah (Ju­ bilees 3 0 ) , which earns h i m the priesthood and his descendants the right to b e priests and Levites (Jub. 30:18). I shall have m o r e to say about this incident below. H e r e let m e n o t e that while Jubilees reports that Levi himself "has b e e n r e c o r d e d o n the heavenly tablets as a friend and a just m a n " (Jub. 30:20), it also insists that this exalted status is n o t reserved for Levi alone; all Israelites w h o k e e p the covenant are to b e r e c o r d e d as "friends" (Jub. 30:21). Thus any Jew w h o obeys G o d ' s c o m m a n d s follows in Levi's footsteps. Finally, it is worth noting that the o n e priest Jubilees never depicts in the act o f sacrifice is Levi. U p o n ordaining Levi, J a c o b continues to offer sacrifice (Jub. 3 2 : 4 - 7 ) . W h i l e Jubilees reports that Levi served as priest, the notice lacks any detail: "Levi rather than his ten brothers served as priest in Bethel b e f o r e his father J a c o b " (Jub. 32:9). J a c o b continues his priestly service after Levi's ordination as h e establishes the Feast o f Addi­ tion (Jub. 32:27-29). Jubilees' unwillingness to show Levi acting as priest is particularly striking in c o m p a r i s o n to Aramaic Levi. T h e r e , u p o n his ordination, Levi learns the law o f the priesthood f r o m Isaac. Jubilees' ver­ sion o f the law o f the priesthood is taught by A b r a h a m to Isaac (Jubilees 2 1 ) . Thus, while Jubilees glorifies Levi as the ancestor o f the priestly line, it plays d o w n his p e r f o r m a n c e o f priestly duties. I suspect this is because Jubilees is n o t entirely happy that with Levi priesthood came to b e re­ stricted to a single family within Israel. Before Levi, the p e o p l e o f Israel— a very small p e o p l e , to b e sure—was truly a k i n g d o m o f priests. 15

1 6

17

18

It is also noteworthy that Jubilees never mentions A a r o n , the ancestor o f the c h o s e n family within the tribe o f Levi, although its a c c o u n t o f the e x o d u s f r o m Egypt covers g r o u n d in which h e plays a significant

role a c c o r d i n g to the B o o k o f Exodus. This remarkable omission may reflect Jubilees' displeasure with s o m e o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y descendants o f A a r o n and particularly with the high priest, the heir to Aaron's singu­ lar position. If Jubilees' calendar is a protest against the c o n t e m p o r a r y temple establishment, this displeasure is hardly surprising. Still, like the silence a b o u t Levi's priesdy activities after his ordination, Aaron's ab­ sence in Jubilees also contributes to picture o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests by r e d u c i n g the dissonance caused by the c h o i c e o f a single family as priests.

Priests a n d B o o k s W e have seen that Jubilees takes pains to depict its priests e n g a g e d in the most characteristic o f priestly activities: sacrifice. Yet it also suggests an intimate association between priests and b o o k s . T o b e g i n with, the in­ ventor o f writing and first author, a c c o r d i n g to Jubilees, is E n o c h {Jub. 4:17), w h o , as we have already seen, also serves as priest. E n o c h writes a testimony about calendrical matters and the course o f h u m a n history {Jub. 4:18-19). Jubilees also attributes b o o k s to N o a h , E n o c h ' s successor as priest. O n e o f the b o o k s is a r e c o r d o f the division o f the earth a m o n g his descendants {Jub. 8:11); another is a b o o k o f remedies revealed to h i m w h e n his descendants were u n d e r attack by evil spirits {Jub. 10:13). A b r a h a m copies and studies H e b r e w b o o k s o f unspecified c o n t e n t that h e receives f r o m his father; h e is able to use them because the angelic narrator o f Jubilees makes h i m understand H e b r e w {Jub. 12:25-27). In the course o f his instructions to Isaac about priestly matters, A b r a h a m refers to "the b o o k o f my ancestors, . . . the words o f E n o c h and the words o f N o a h " {Jub. 21:10), suggesting that priestly lore c o u l d b e trans­ mitted by way o f b o o k s . A b r a h a m was also the author o f a b o o k accord­ ing to Jubilees:, J o s e p h resists the advances o f Potiphar's wife, r e m e m b e r i n g what J a c o b had read to h i m "from the words o f A b r a h a m " {Jub. 39:6). In a night vision an angel shows J a c o b seven heavenly tablets o n which the future o f his descendants is r e c o r d e d ; J a c o b awakens and writes d o w n everything h e has read {Jub. 32:21-26). Before his death, Ja­ c o b passes o n "all his b o o k s and the b o o k s o f his fathers" to Levi "so that h e c o u l d preserve them and renew them for his sons until today" (Jub. 45:16). Isaac's blessing o f Levi glorifies first the cultic role o f priests and then, paraphrasing Moses' blessing at the e n d o f Deuteronomy, their role as teachers and j u d g e s : May he make you and your descendants (alone) out of all humanity approach him

to serve in his temple like the angels of the presence and like the holy ones. . . . They will be princes, judges, and leaders of all the descendants of Jacob's sons. They will declare the word of the Lord justiy and will jusdy judge all his verdicts. They will tell my ways to Jacob and my paths to Israel. (Jub. 31:14-15)

For Jubilees, then, the roles o f priest and scribe are intimately related. T h e discoverer o f writing, the first author, is also a priest w h o establishes an important cultic act. T h e priests o f future generations are also au­ thors, and their assembled works ultimately b e c o m e the property o f Levi, the f o u n d e r o f the priestly line that continues to serve in the author's own day, sacrificing in the temple and teaching the Lord's w o r d and j u d g i n g a c c o r d i n g to it. Thus Jubilees follows the Book of the Watchers, which it obviously knew and drew o n , rather than Aramaic Levi, which it also used, in its understanding o f the relationship between priest and scribe. Yet there are important differences between the Book of the Watch­ ers and Jubilees. In the Book of the Watchers the association o f priest and scribe reflects c o n c e r n for the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests and anxiety a b o u t actual priests: if the learned man is a sort o f priest and the priest is the ideal learned man, then the limits o f ancestry are tran­ s c e n d e d , and priesthood is defined in s o m e sense by merit. Jubilees, o n the other hand, as we shall see, for all its desire to depict the entire p e o ­ ple o f Israel as priests, is deeply c o m m i t t e d to a view o f genealogy as the criterion for m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e ; it implicidy rejects a definition o f p e o p l e o r priests based o n merit.

Priests a n d K i n g s Despite the reference in Isaac's blessing to the descendants o f Levi as "princes, j u d g e s , and leaders," and a curse o n Levi's enemies including foreign nations (Jub. 31:17), Jubilees d o e s n o t claim that priests should b e the rulers o f the p e o p l e o f Israel. In a scene reminiscent o f Israel's blessing o f Joseph's sons in Genesis 48, J a c o b brings b o t h Levi and Ju­ dah to Isaac to b e blessed. Isaac takes Levi by his right h a n d (Jub. 31:12) and blesses h i m first. T h o u g h Isaac takes Judah by his left h a n d (Jub. 31:12), the blessing o f Judah leaves n o d o u b t that political p o w e r be­ longs in the hands o f his descendants:

Be a prince—you and one of your sons—for Jacob's sons. May your name and the name of your sons be one that goes and travels around in the entire earth and the regions.

Then the nations will be frightened before you. . . . May Jacob's help be in you; May Israel's safety be found in you. At the time when you sit on the honorable throne that is righdy yours, there will be great peace for all the descendants of the beloved's sons. (Jub. 31:18-20)

After this blessing, Jubilees gives the figure o f Judah litde m o r e atten­ tion than the narrative o f Genesis requires. T h e only addition to the Genesis narrative is Judah's participation in the wars against the A m o r ite kings (Jub. 34:1-9) and Esau and his sons (Jub. 37:1-38:14), where h e plays a m o r e p r o m i n e n t r o l e than most o f the brothers, although J a c o b , the h e r o o f b o t h wars, dominates the accounts. Jubilees omits Judah's role in persuading his brothers to sell J o s e p h into slavery rather than to kill him, perhaps to preserve his reputation (Jub. 34:10-12), but it d o e s n o t o v e r l o o k Judah's embarrassing e n c o u n t e r with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Genesis 38; Jubilees 4 1 ) . As in Genesis, Judah responds h o n o r ­ ably w h e n c o n f r o n t e d with the evidence that h e is the father o f the ba­ bies Tamar is carrying, and as in Genesis (44:18-34) it is Judah w h o is the h e r o o f Joseph's effort to test his brothers (Jub. 43:11-13). But Jubilees d o e s n o t h i n g to d e v e l o p the claim to leadership that Judah's behavior in these stories might suggest. Further, although Isaac promises Judah and his descendants an "hon­ orable t h r o n e " (Jub. 31:20), h e d o e s n o t refer to them as kings but as " p r i n c e [ s ] " (Jub. 31:18). T h e Ethiopic is a term for a high official, n o t necessarily royal, and it is worth noting that Isaac's blessing promises Levi's descendants the same office (Jub. 31:15, q u o t e d above). Jubilees' avoidance o f the term "king" for Judah's descendants is surely signifi­ cant. Jubilees prefers a pair o f leaders, o n e royal, the o t h e r priesdy, to the d o m i n a n t biblical understanding o f kingship exemplified in David and his descendants during the p e r i o d o f the First T e m p l e . 19

As we have seen, this type o f dual leadership was a reality only briefly, during the early days o f the return. T h r o u g h most o f the Persian p e r i o d , the lay partner in the dual leadership o f the c o m m u n i t y was n o t a de­ scendant o f David, probably because the Persians were unwilling to tol­ erate the expectations attached to a p r o m i n e n t descendant o f David. In the century and a half o f rule by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids lead­ ing u p to the Maccabean Revolt, the high priest stood alone as hereditary leader o f the Jewish p e o p l e . This situation was the result o f necessity, im­ p o s e d by foreign rulers. Yet b e n Sira represents rule by high priest as the ideal regime since, h e suggests, priests make better rulers than kings. S o o n after b e n Sira wrote, o f course, the political arrangements u n d e r which the Jews lived c h a n g e d dramatically. W h e n their victory b r o u g h t an e n d to foreign rule, the Hasmoneans did n o t restore the traditional

high priestly family to office but quickly claimed the high priesthood f o r themselves. Later they called themselves kings as well, but even at the beginning, without a foreign overlord, they freely exercised political power. Given the exalted status Jubilees grants to the office o f priest, o n e m i g h t have e x p e c t e d its ideal polity to b e h e a d e d by a priest a l o n e as for b e n Sira. B e l o w I argue f o r dating Jubilees to the reign o f J o h n Hyrcanus. If my dating is correct, Jubilees offered an a c c o u n t o f Isaac's bless­ ings o f Levi a n d J u d a h that requires dual leadership, royal a n d priestly, at just the time the H a s m o n e a n s were consolidating two kinds o f p o w e r that h a d traditionally b e e n distinct f r o m e a c h other. Jubilees' insistence that the t h r o n e b e l o n g s to J u d a h s h o u l d then b e read as criticism o f the H a s m o n e a n s . This is surely the motive f o r the e x p e c t a t i o n o f two messiahs that is the d o m i n a n t f o r m o f messianism in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, t h o u g h there is n o reason to view it as a peculiarly sectarian expectation. 20

21

22

Jubilees a n d t h e H o l i n e s s C o d e In addition to emphasizing the priestly ancestry o f the entire p e o p l e o f Israel, Jubilees makes the remarkable claim that all Jews, n o t only priests, have the p o w e r to affect the p r o p e r functioning o f the temple through their behavior outside the temple. If they fail to avoid eating b l o o d , the sacrifices offered twice daily in the temple will n o t effect a t o n e m e n t f o r them (Jub. 6:14). So t o o if they permit marriage to foreigners, they de­ file the temple a n d render the sacrifices offered there unacceptable (Jub. 30:11-16). Jubilees arrives at its understanding o f the implications for the temple o f the behavior o f laypeople through its innovative read­ ing o f the Holiness C o d e (Leviticus 17-26) and other H material in the T o r a h . A c c o r d i n g to the Holiness school, the sins o f idolatry, forbid­ d e n sexual relations, and b l o o d s h e d defile the land. 23

This view stands in contrast to that o f the priestly source, which un­ derstands defilement as a purely ritual category, without any moral va­ l e n c e . In the next chapter I discuss P's understanding o f impurity in m o r e detail. H e r e let m e offer a brief sketch. A c c o r d i n g to P, h u m a n b e ­ ings b e c o m e impure through contact with h u m a n a n d animal corpses (Leviticus 11, N u m b e r s 1 9 ) , certain bodily fluids a n d skin conditions (Leviticus 12-15), a n d contact with implements used by p e o p l e in cer­ tain relatively severe states o f impurity as well as the p e o p l e themselves (Lev 15:4-11, 20-27). It is n o t w r o n g to b e c o m e impure; i n d e e d it is nat­ ural a n d even desirable, since sexual relations (Lev 15:18) a n d child­ birth (Lev 12:1-5), which P values highly, are causes o f impurity. N o r are the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f impurity very o n e r o u s . P e o p l e in a state o f impurity 24

must avoid entering the temple o r touching the holy things associated with it so as to avoid defiling them (Lev 12:4). Unlike H , P d o e s n o t un­ derstand the land as subject to defilement. Thus, while nonpriests are just as likely as priests to incur impurity in P's system, b e i n g in a state o f impurity has a m u c h greater impact o n priests. L a y p e o p l e in a state o f impurity can easily avoid entering the temple, and they are unlikely to have contact with holy things e x c e p t in the course o f bringing a sacri­ fice. Priests, o n the other hand, enter the temple o n a regular basis and rely o n consecrated f o o d for part o f their diet, as d o their families. T h e Holiness s c h o o l delineates a different type o f impurity caused by three types o f sins: M o l e c h worship (Lev 20:1-5), f o r b i d d e n sexual rela­ tions (Leviticus 18, 2 0 ) , and b l o o d s h e d ( N u m 35:33-34). As the paren­ thetical references to biblical passages suggest, however, it d o e s n o t give equal attention to the three types o f sins. F o r b i d d e n sexual relations o c ­ cupy m o r e space and are treated with considerable rhetorical flourish in two chapters o f the Holiness C o d e . M o l e c h worship is given m u c h less space, t h o u g h it appears in o n e o f the chapters c o n c e r n e d primarily with f o r b i d d e n sexual relations. M u r d e r d o e s n o t figure in the Holiness C o d e itself, although the o p e n i n g chapter o f the Holiness C o d e (Leviti­ cus 17) is d e v o t e d to laws c o n c e r n i n g the shedding o f animal b l o o d in the course o f sacrifice and slaughter. Rather, the defiling c o n s e q u e n c e s o f b l o o d s h e d in the sense o f m u r d e r are n o t e d in a brief H passage out­ side the Holiness C o d e that employs a somewhat different vocabulary o f impurity. T h e Holiness C o d e gives a central role to P's term for ritual impurity, tm\ which means to make impure o r to b e i m p u r e d e p e n d i n g o n the conjugation. H's use o f the term c o n n e c t s its category o f impu­ rity to P's even as it expands the range o f the t e r m . T h e passage from N u m b e r s about m u r d e r also uses trrC ( N u m 35:34), but it uses another verb as well, to defile, hnp, in the causative ( N u m 3 5 : 3 3 ) . T h e differ­ e n c e in the terminology o f impurity and the appearance o f this Holiness passage outside the Holiness C o d e suggest that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this Holiness material and its absorption into the T o r a h have a c o m p l e x history. 25

26

27

While H's c o n c e p t i o n o f a type o f impurity caused by sinful actions is quite different from P's c o n c e p t i o n o f impurity as a ritual state caused by contact with physical substances, it is important to n o t e that the sins H describes as causing impurity have a ritual o r cultic c o m p o n e n t . Mol­ e c h worship is idolatry. W h i l e s o m e instances o f f o r b i d d e n sexual rela­ tions such as adultery are clearly moral sins, other instances enumerated by the Holiness C o d e such as the prohibition o f marriage with the wid­ ows o f various relatives can b e u n d e r s t o o d only in ritual terms. M u r d e r is certainly a violation o f moral law, but if it is c o n s i d e r e d a f o r m o f shed­ ding b l o o d , the terminology the Holiness s c h o o l uses ( N u m 35:33), it

also has a ritual aspect. What is m o r e , H surely u n d e r s t o o d itself to b e adding to P rather than replacing it. That is, it accepted P's view that contact with various physical substances caused ritual impurity. Thus, in P's system impurity is a ritual p h e n o m e n o n ; in H's system, impurity has b o t h ritual and moral aspects. T h e other crucial difference between P and H o n impurity is that P believes that the p e o p l e o f Israel, the sanctuary, and holy things can b e ­ c o m e impure, while H claims that, d e p e n d i n g o n the sin, the p e o p l e o f Israel, the sanctuary, and the land o f Israel are susceptible to impurity. H's understanding makes impurity m o r e o f a c o n c e r n for nonpriesdy Is­ raelites. If the sanctuary is the only place subject to defilement, then priests must worry about impurity; other Jews can b e rather relaxed. But if the entire land is subject to defilement, then impurity is a pressing c o n c e r n for all Jews, n o t priests alone. T h o u g h the author o f Jubilees surely did n o t distinguish between the Holiness source and the rest o f the Torah, he was clearly particularly drawn to H . T h e sins Jubilees singles out for special attention are two o f the three sins H views as defiling the land. But Jubilees' treatment o f these sins, t h o u g h clearly indebted to H , is by n o means identical. In contrast to the Holiness school, Jubilees understands the land defiled by b l o o d ­ shed to b e the whole earth rather than the holy land alone, for it c o n ­ nects H's warning about the defilement caused by b l o o d s h e d to the prohibition o f b l o o d s h e d to N o a h , the ancestor o f all humanity. Yet while Jubilees devotes considerable attention to c o n d e m n i n g forbidden sexual relations, it d o e s n o t e c h o the Holiness C o d e ' s warning that forbidden sexual relations defile the land, m u c h less the earth as a whole. It does, however, single out sexual relations with foreigners as defiling the sanc­ tuary. O n the face o f it, the Holiness C o d e has nothing to say about sex­ ual relations with foreigners, but as we shall see, Jubilees finds the prohibition and the warning about its c o n s e q u e n c e s in the passages in the Holiness C o d e prohibiting M o l e c h worship (Lev 18:21, 20:2-5).

Bloodshed and Defiling the Earth T h e sin o f b l o o d s h e d appears most prominently in Jubilees in the story o f N o a h . B l o o d s h e d , b o t h m u r d e r and the slaughter o f animals for f o o d , is the main subject o f G o d ' s instructions to N o a h o n his e m e r g e n c e from the ark (Jub. 6:5-14) and a central theme o f N o a h ' s a c c o u n t o f the sins that caused the f l o o d and his exhortation to his descendants to avoid G o d ' s wrath (Jub. 7:20-33). T h e association o f laws about b l o o d ­ shed with N o a h reflects the narrative o f the Torah in which G o d c o m ­ mands N o a h and his sons u p o n their e m e r g e n c e f r o m the ark to avoid eating the b l o o d o f animals and to avoid shedding h u m a n b l o o d : 28

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man. W h o ­ ever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for G o d made man in his own image. (Gen 9:3-6)

T h e biblical story o f N o a h , then, juxtaposes the two forms o f avoid­ ance o f b l o o d . Jubilees e c h o e s this association o f the prohibition o f mur­ der and the prohibition o f eating animal b l o o d (Jub. 6:7-8), b u t it g o e s b e y o n d Genesis by linking these prohibitions o f b l o o d with the positive use o f b l o o d in sacrifice (Jub. 6:10-14). H e r e Jubilees is indebted to the Holiness C o d e , which c o n n e c t s the avoidance o f eating b l o o d with the atoning b l o o d o f sacrifices: If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. (Lev 17:10-11) 29

Jubilees manages to integrate the c o n c e r n f o r the b l o o d o f sacrifices into the story o f Noah: because N o a h a n d his sons swore to avoid eating b l o o d in the third m o n t h , G o d has c o m m a n d e d Moses to sprinkle b l o o d o n the children o f Israel in the same m o n t h so many years later o n Mt. Sinai (Jub. 6:10-12). Further, Jubilees turns the negative formulation o f the Holiness C o d e into a positive o n e : Now you command the Israelites not to eat any blood so that their name and their descendants may continue to exist before the Lord our G o d for all time. This law has no temporal limits because it is forever. They are to keep it throughout history so that they may continue supplicating for themselves with blood in front of the altar each and every day. (Jub. 6:13-14)

T h e effect o f this formulation is to emphasize the priesdy powers o f ordi­ nary Jews. Even if they c a n n o t offer sacrifices, they can avoid c o n s u m i n g b l o o d , thus assuring that the b l o o d o f sacrifices is efficacious. Conversely, unless ordinary Jews avoid b l o o d , priests cannot properly p e r f o r m their duties. Finally, by introducing the Holiness C o d e ' s c o n n e c t i o n between the avoidance o f b l o o d in f o o d and the efficacy o f sacrificial b l o o d into the story o f N o a h , Jubilees links sacrificial b l o o d to the avoidance o f b l o o d ­ shed in murder, which, as we have just seen, is the other side o f the avoid­ ance o f b l o o d in f o o d a c c o r d i n g to G o d ' s c o m m a n d to N o a h as h e leaves the ark in Genesis. Thus Jubilees brings together all three aspects o f b l o o d behavior c o m m a n d e d in the Torah: avoiding the shedding o f b l o o d , avoiding the eating o f b l o o d , and offering b l o o d to G o d in sacrifices.

T h e appearance o f the laws regarding b l o o d in the N o a h story in Genesis a n d in Jubilees directs t h e m n o t only to the p e o p l e o f Israel, b u t to all humanity. Jubilees, as we have just seen, immediately c o n n e c t s the avoidance o f b l o o d in f o o d to sacrifice and thus appears to narrow the i n t e n d e d audience o f G o d ' s words to the Jewish p e o p l e . But N o a h ' s ex­ hortation to his descendants in the following chapter suggests that the laws o f b l o o d s h e d are relevant for others as well. H e r e t o o we see that the author o f Jubilees had n o t forgotten H's claim that b l o o d s h e d defiles the land despite its absence in G o d ' s address to N o a h . W h e n N o a h sees that the d e m o n s are leading his descendants astray {Jub. 7:27), h e exhorts them to behave righteously and to follow the c o m m a n d m e n t s h e lays d o w n for them {Jub. 7:20). H e reminds them o f the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f sin by reviewing the events leading u p to the flood (Jub. 7:20-25). Alongside the fornication and uncleanness o f the Watch­ ers' relations with w o m e n , h e points to the injustice caused by the Nephilim, the sons b o r n from these relations. Injustice in N o a h ' s ac­ c o u n t is m o r e o r less interchangeable with the shedding o f b l o o d : W h e n everyone sold himself to commit injustice and to shed innocent blood, the earth was filled with injustice . . . . Much blood was shed on the earth. . . . 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. 7:23-25)

T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s with which N o a h threatens his offspring if they shed o r c o n s u m e b l o o d are dire indeed: Everyone who sheds human blood and everyone who consumes the blood of any animate being will all be obliterated from the earth. . . . N o blood of all the blood which there may be at any time when you sacrifice any animal, catde, or (creature) that flies above the earth is to be seen on you. Do a good deed for yourselves by covering what is poured out on the surface of the earth. Do not be one who eats (meat) with the blood; exert yourselves so that blood is not con­ sumed in your presence. Cover the blood because so was I ordered to testify to you and your children together with all humanity. Do not eat the life with the meat so that your blood, your life, may not be required from every person who sheds (blood) on the earth. 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 pu­ rified in all its generations. (Jub. 7:28-33)

H e r e f o r the first time we see Jubilees explicitly invoke the view o f the Holiness s c h o o l that b l o o d s h e d defiles the land. T h e d e b t is particularly clear in the c o n c l u d i n g clause o f the passage just q u o t e d , which e c h o e s N u m b e r s (35:33): " N o expiation can b e m a d e for the land, f o r that b l o o d that is shed in it, e x c e p t by the b l o o d o f h i m w h o shed it." Yet Ju­ bilees has transformed H's understanding in several significant ways. First o f all, where for H the b l o o d s h e d that defiles the land is murder, Jubilees

follows P in Genesis (9:3-6) in understanding the shedding o f b l o o d in animal slaughter to have c o n s e q u e n c e s almost as p r o f o u n d as the conse­ q u e n c e s o f murder, and it claims that n o t only m u r d e r but also the c o n ­ sumption o f b l o o d defiles the earth. T h e s e c o n d transformation Jubilees effects is the expansion o f the space defiled by b l o o d s h e d . T h e prohibition o f b l o o d s h e d in Genesis is addressed to N o a h and his sons, and thus to all humanity ( G e n 9 : 1 ) , but the prohibition o f m u r d e r in N u m b e r s is addressed to the Israelites alone: "You shall n o t defile the land in which y o u live, in the midst o f which I dwell; for I the L o r d dwell in the midst o f the p e o p l e o f Israel" ( N u m 35:34). T h u s Jubilees g o e s b e y o n d the Torah by making gentiles as well as Jews responsible for k e e p i n g the earth free f r o m the defiling af­ fects o f b l o o d s h e d . T o d o this, Jubilees exploits the fact that H's term for the holy land is, simply, 'ares, land o r earth d e p e n d i n g o n context, as Betsy Halpern-Amaru notes in her study o f Jubilees' view o f the holy land. Halpern-Amaru suggests that this transformation is a result o f Ju­ bilees' de-emphasis o f the promise o f the land in its retelling o f the sto­ ries o f the Patriarchs and the Exodus. For Jubilees, Israel's chosenness goes back to the creation o f the world, and it claims that the land was al­ lotted to Israel at the time o f N o a h . Thus the link between the land and the election o f Israel is suppressed. With the origins o f the relationship between G o d and Israel p l a c e d in the c o n t e x t o f creation, Jubilees' eschatology looks forward to the restoration o f the c o n d i t i o n s o f primeval times rather than to the restoration o f the land. Halpern-Amaru sees this perspective as reflecting the conditions o f the later S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , w h e n the restoration to the land had b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d but without the h o p e d - f o r eschatological effects. 30

31

Forbidden Sexual Relations In the same address in which h e warns against b l o o d s h e d , N o a h also urges his descendants to avoid "fornication" and "uncleanness" (Jub. 7:20-21), which, he claims, led to the b l o o d s h e d that caused the flood. Abraham t o o warns his assembled descendants, n o t only Isaac and his sons but also Ishmael and his children and the sons o f Keturah and their children, against "sexual impurity" and "uncleanness" (Jub. 20:3-6), threatening that sexual sin will lead them to destruction: Now you keep yourselves from all sexual impurity and uncleanness and from all the contamination of sin so that you do not make our name into a curse, your entire lives into a (reason for) hissing and all your children into something that is destroyed by the sword. Then you will be accursed like Sodom, and all who re­ main of you like the people of Gomorrah. (Jub. 20:6)

A c c o r d i n g to Abraham, the dire c o n s e q u e n c e s o f f o r b i d d e n sexual re­ lations fall n o t only o n those w h o e n g a g e in them but also o n the p e o p l e a m o n g w h o m they take place. So t o o the Holiness C o d e threatens those w h o e n g a g e in f o r b i d d e n sexual relations with b e i n g cut o f f f r o m a m o n g their p e o p l e (Lev 18:29), and also warns that the w h o l e p e o p l e may suffer as a result (Lev 18:28). T h e suffering in question consists o f expulsion f r o m the land as a result o f its defilement o n which the Holi­ ness C o d e places great emphasis (Lev 18:24-30). A b r a h a m in his s p e e c h in Jubilees, however, makes n o m e n t i o n o f defilement o f the earth. Per­ haps we can a c c o u n t for Jubilees' reluctance to treat f o r b i d d e n sexual re­ lations as it treated b l o o d s h e d by r e m e m b e r i n g that the Torah provides a way to u n d o the effects o f b l o o d s h e d , shedding the b l o o d o f the party responsible for it ( G e n 9:5-6; N u m 35:33), but implies that there is n o way to u n d o the defilement caused by f o r b i d d e n sexual relations; even the punishments d e c r e e d in Leviticus 20 d o n o t prevent the land's v o m ­ iting o u t the p e o p l e a m o n g w h o m the defilers live (Lev 20:22). Like the Holiness C o d e , which explains the expulsion o f the nations that pre­ c e d e d the Israelites in the land as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f their sexual wrong­ d o i n g (Lev 18:24-28), Jubilees worries n o t just about Israel's sexual morality but a b o u t that o f other p e o p l e s as well, as the inclusion o f all o f Abraham's descendants in the audience demonstrates. If the entire earth were to b e susceptible to defilement, in light o f Jubilees' low o p i n ­ i o n o f other p e o p l e s , it w o u l d b e catastrophic to attribute the p o w e r to defile the earth to sexual w r o n g d o i n g . Several stories in Genesis provide Jubilees with an opportunity to treat the laws o f forbidden sexual relations for the p e o p l e o f Israel. I shall concentrate o n the two stories it uses to develop its view o f Israel as a king­ d o m o f priests: Reuben's relations with Bilhah ( G e n 35:22; Jub 33:1-20) and the rape o f Dinah (Genesis 34; Jubilees 3 0 ) . It is perhaps an exaggeration to call Genesis' m e n t i o n o f the en­ c o u n t e r o f R e u b e n and Bilhah a story. But like so m u c h o f the narrative o f Genesis, the brief m e n t i o n o f the violation o f Jacob's c o n c u b i n e by his firstborn son manages to hint at a c o m p l e x b a c k g r o u n d and to raise a host o f questions. W h i l e the narrative reports that "Israel h e a r d " a b o u t the incident, there is n o clear indication o f the c o n s e q u e n c e s un­ til the aged J a c o b gives his sons their final blessing: 32

33

Reuben, you are my first-born, my might, and the first fruits of my strength, pre-eminent in pride and pre-eminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have pre-eminence because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch! (Gen 49:3-4) 34

Yet clearly there were c o n s e q u e n c e s even b e f o r e Jacob's equivocal blessing. It has b e e n suggested that R e u b e n ' s violation o f Bilhah, which takes place while his father is m o u r n i n g the death o f Leah, is intended to assert his claim to lead the clan as the o l d leader begins to fail, just as A b s a l o m publicly takes possession o f his father's h a r e m after David has fled Jerusalem (2 Sam 17:21-22). If so, the effort was an utter failure. Following his sin, R e u b e n plays an important but negative role in the drama o f the sale o f Joseph; h e serves as the foil to the h e r o o f the story, his y o u n g e r brother Judah. R e u b e n ' s plan for saving J o s e p h ( G e n 37:212 2 ) , perhaps an effort to get himself back in his w r o n g e d father's g o o d graces, is thwarted w h e n the brothers follow Judah's advice to sell Joseph to a caravan o f merchants heading to Egypt ( G e n 37:25-28). Later R e u b e n fails to persuade his father to permit the brothers to re­ turn to Egypt with Benjamin ( G e n 42:37-38); it is Judah w h o succeeds ( G e n 43:8-10). In the critical confrontation with Joseph ( G e n 44:18-34), R e u b e n is n o w h e r e to b e f o u n d . Judah has e m e r g e d as the leader o f the brothers; the firstborn, as usual, has b e e n displaced. But the author o f Jubilees worried about a p r o b l e m that did n o t o c c u r to the authors o f the narrative in Genesis. A c c o r d i n g to the Holiness C o d e , as Jubilees well knew, b o t h R e u b e n and Bilhah deserved to die (Lev 20:11). Jubilees supplies the unequivocal c o n d e m n a t i o n o f Reuben's behavior lacking in Genesis and offers an explanation for R e u b e n ' s es­ cape from the p u n i s h m e n t d u e h i m a c c o r d i n g to biblical law: the law against sleeping with o n e ' s father's wife had n o t yet b e e n "completely revealed" (Jub. 33:9-17). Presumably this is also the reason for Bilhah's escape although Jubilees d o e s n o t say so. While Jubilees reiterates that, as the Holiness C o d e demands, b o t h man and w o m a n must die (Jub. 33:17), the angelic tirade against incest (Jub. 33:9-20) is otherwise di­ rected exclusively at the man w h o commits the sin. T h e brief a c c o u n t in Genesis gives little indication o f Bilhah's attitude toward the event in which she is so central a figure, but Jubilees' retelling emphasizes Bil­ hah's i n n o c e n c e : she is asleep w h e n R e u b e n takes advantage o f her, she is deeply distressed by the rape, and J a c o b learns o f the o c c u r r e n c e only when she warns h i m n o t to sleep with her because she has b e e n defiled (Jub. 33:1-9). Thus it is n o t surprising that Jubilees prefers to play d o w n the Holiness C o d e ' s call for equal punishment for b o t h participants in the crime. 35

36

For Jubilees, the dire c o n s e q u e n c e s o f Reuben's sin are expressed in terms o f impurity: 37

For all who commit it on the earth before the Lord are impure, something de­ testable, a blemish, and something contaminated. N o sin is greater than the sexual impurity which they commit on the earth because Israel is a holy people for the Lord its God. It is the nation which he possesses; it is a priestly nation; it

is what he owns. N o such impurity will be seen among the holy people. 33:19-20)

(Jub.

T h e Ethiopic o f Jubilees is a translation o f a translation o f the H e b r e w original, but it seems safe to assume that the repeated use o f the lan­ guage o f impurity reflects the influence o f the Holiness C o d e and par­ ticularly o f the exhortation at the e n d o f Leviticus 18's list o f f o r b i d d e n relations, which repeats the verb trrC six times (Lev 18:24-30). Yet for Ju­ bilees the defilement caused by sexual immorality affects neither the holy land, as the Holiness C o d e claims, n o r the earth as a w h o l e , as Jubilees it­ self claims for b l o o d s h e d . Rather, as A b r a h a m warned his descendants, the defilement falls o n the parties to the relations and the p e o p l e a m o n g w h o m they live. Such defilement, Jubilees insists, is particularly grave w h e n the p e o p l e in question is Israel, the priesdy p e o p l e . In the society the narratives o f the Bible depict, in which polygamy was the rule for m e n o f high status, the sons o f an o l d e r wife might well b e as o l d as o r o l d e r than a y o u n g e r wife. Thus, as those narratives in­ dicate, the prohibition o f sexual relations between sons and their fa­ ther's wives was o f m o r e than theoretical interest. It is hard to imagine, however, that such relations were a major social p r o b l e m for the society in which Jubilees was written, in which polygamy had b e e n relegated to the past. T h e intensity o f the angelic tirade must reflect n o t the impor­ tance o f this particular sin but rather Jubilees attitude toward the violation o f any o f the incest laws o f Leviticus 18 and 20, o f which Reuben's sin with Bilhah is a readily available instance. Thus, while the angel's s p e e c h as a w h o l e emphasizes the f o r b i d d e n nature o f R e u b e n ' s sin, sleeping with his father's wife, the c o n c l u d i n g lines, q u o t e d above, speak o f sexual sin in general, thus e x t e n d i n g the relevance o f the association with impu­ rity. Judah's relations with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Jub. 41:8-28), an­ o t h e r violation o f the incest laws (Lev 18:15; 20:12), is a m u c h less attractive opportunity for the author o f Jubilees. N o t only d o e s that story have a notably happy e n d i n g , but, as we have just seen, J u d a h eventu­ ally e m e r g e d as the leader o f the brothers and ultimately was r e m e m ­ b e r e d as the ancestor o f King David by way o f o n e o f the sons Tamar bore him. 38

39

40

Intermarriage and the Defilement of the Sanctuary T h e influence o f the Holiness C o d e o n Jubilees' treatment o f the rape o f Dinah is even m o r e striking. T h e a c c o u n t o f this incident in Jubilees draws o n traditions f o u n d in Aramaic Levi, but Jubilees reworks the inci­ dent with its o w n c o n c e r n s in m i n d . Like Aramaic Levi, Jubilees under­ stands the m u r d e r o f the Shechemites by Levi and S i m e o n as a highly 41

praiseworthy defense o f endogamy. I n d e e d , b o t h works understand Levi to have w o n the p r i e s t h o o d by his leadership in this incident. A c c o r d i n g to Genesis (34:8-17), J a c o b ' s sons "deceitfully" (34:13) negotiated terms for the marriage with the rapist and his father. Jubilees alludes to these negotiations, which are an embarrassment f r o m its p o i n t o f view, e m ­ phasizing the deceit: J a c o b and his sons "spoke deceptively with them, acted in a crafty way toward them, and deceived t h e m " (Jub. 30:3). But Jubilees never m e n t i o n s t h e m explicitiy. For Jubilees it w o u l d b e a terrible outrage to permit the marriage u n d e r any conditions, since Jubilees un­ derstands this marriage to fall u n d e r the prohibition o f offering a child to M o l e c h (Lev 18:21): If there is a man in Israel who wishes to give his eigner, he is to die. H e is to be stoned.. . . The man who has defiled his daughter within all of he has given one of his descendants to Molech.

daughter or his sister to any for­ woman is to be burned.. . . The Israel is to be eradicted because (Jub. 30:7, 10)

T h e prohibition o f such marriages, a c c o r d i n g to Jubilees, is to b e f o u n d o n the heavenly tablets (Jub. 30:9). T h e Holiness C o d e ' s law that forbids giving a child to M o l e c h follows the l o n g list o f f o r b i d d e n sexual relationships in Leviticus 18. Its place­ m e n t in this c o n t e x t and the peculiar language o f the prohibition, liter­ ally, "You shall n o t give o f your seed to cause to pass to M o l e c h , " led s o m e rabbis and targumim to read the verse as a prohibition o f sexual intercourse ("give o f your seed") with pagan w o m e n . W h i l e the pas­ sage from Leviticus is best suited to c o n d e m n i n g the marriage o f a Jew­ ish m a n and a gentile w o m a n o r his sexual relationship with her, the speech o f the angel o f the presence following Jubilees' a c c o u n t o f the rape o f Dinah and its aftermath (Jub. 30:5-23) claims this verse to c o n ­ d e m n the marriage o f a Jewish w o m a n to a gentile m a n . T h e Torah has rather litde to say about intermarriage o r sexual rela­ tions with gentiles, but it places somewhat m o r e emphasis o n the dangers p o s e d by foreign w o m e n than by foreign m e n . O f course, the c o n c e p t o f intermarriage d o e s n o t apply very well to the narratives o f Genesis; until the generation o f Jacob's grandchildren, it would have b e e n impossible for Israelites to marry other Israelites. But Jubilees works hard to provide the wives o f even pre-Abrahamic patriarchs with what it views as desirable genealogical credentials, descent from Shem and then from Terah. It sees Canaanite w o m e n as particularly distasteful, and Abraham warns all o f his descendants, n o t only Isaac and his sons, against marriage with them (Jub. 20:4J. Thus Jubilees is able to give meaning to the avoidance o f marriage to foreigners even in the c o n t e x t o f the patriarchal narratives. 4 2

43

44

45

T h e angelic narrator's speech after the incident at S h e c h e m expresses Jubilees' understanding o f the implications o f the observance o f the law

it has just invented forbidding sexual relations with foreigners: unlike the sin o f R e u b e n with Bilhah, violation o f this law has an impact o n the p e o p l e as a w h o l e and defiles the sanctuary. If one does this [marries a foreigner] or shuts his eyes to those who do impure things and who defile the Lord's sanctuary and to those who profane his holy name, then the entire nation will be condemned together because of all this im­ purity and contamination. There will be no favoritism nor partiality; there will be no receiving from him of fruit, sacrifices, offerings, fat, or the aroma of a pleasing fragrance so that he should accept it. (So) is any man or woman in Is­ rael to be who defiles his sanctuary. {Jub. 30:15-16)

Jubilees' warning that marriage to a foreigner defiles the temple re­ flects its interpretation o f the Holiness C o d e ' s threat about M o l e c h wor­ ship: "And I will set My face against that man and will cut h i m o f f f r o m a m o n g his p e o p l e , because h e gave o f his offspring to M o l e c h and so de­ filed My sanctuary and profaned My holy n a m e " (Lev 20:3). T h e lan­ guage o f the angel o f the presence's c o n d e m n a t i o n o f intermarriage e c h o e s the language o f the passage f r o m the Holiness C o d e : "those . . . w h o defile the L o r d ' s sanctuary," "those w h o profane his holy n a m e " ( > & 30:15). In the passages u n d e r discussion, b o t h the Holiness C o d e and Jubilees c o n f e r a sort o f priestly responsibility o n ordinary Jews, w h o must avoid idolatry o r intermarriage in o r d e r to k e e p the temple f r o m b e c o m i n g i m p u r e . But Jubilees makes ordinary Jews even m o r e priest-like. Only if they observe G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t regarding sexual relations with for­ eigners will sacrifices, the priesdy work par e x c e l l e n c e , b e acceptable. W e have already seen Jubilees' appeal to the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests in the exhortation to sexual purity after the a c c o u n t o f R e u b e n ' s rape o f Bilhah (Jub. 33:20). T h e speech o f the angel o f the presence in the aftermath o f the rape o f Dinah takes this idea further by giving the idea practical implications: failure to observe the ban o n in­ termarriage results in defilement o f the temple. 46

It is particularly striking that Jubilees confers these priestly responsibili­ ties o n all Jews in its reflection o n the implications o f the episode that earned Levi the priesthood. Clearly Jubilees wants to emphasize that the e m e r g e n c e o f the Levitical priesthood d o e s n o t mark the e n d o f a sort o f priesthood for all Israel. In Aramaic Levi, Isaac instructs his grandson Levi in the "law o f the priesthood." T h e instructions c o n c l u d e with a blessing: You will be more beloved than all your brothers. And blessing will be pro­ nounced by your seed upon the earth and your seed will be entered in a book of a memorial of life for all eternity. And your name and the name of your seed will not be blotted out for eternity. And now, (my) child Levi, your seed will be blessed upon the earth for all generations of eternity. (Ar. Levi 58-61)

Jubilees transfers the themes o f this blessing to the c o m m e n t s o f the angel o f the presence o n the incident o f S h e c h e m . T h e language e c h o e s the passage f r o m Aramaic Levi, but Jubilees has m a d e s o m e signifi­ cant changes: Levi's descendants were chosen for the priesthood and as levites to serve before the Lord as we (do) for all time. Levi and his sons will be blessed forever be­ cause he was eager to carry out justice, punishment, and revenge on all who rise against Israel. . . . H e has been recorded on the heavenly tablets as a friend and a just man. . . . Tell the Israelites not to sin or transgress the statutes or violate the covenant which was established for them so that they should perform it and be recorded as friends. (Jub. 30:18-21)

T h e r e can b e n o d o u b t that Jubilees shares the view o f Aramaic Levi that Levi's zealous d e e d at S h e c h e m w o n the priesthood n o t only for h i m but also for his descendants. But where Aramaic Levi insists that the names o f Levi's offspring are to b e entered in a heavenly b o o k , Jubilees restricts the entry to Levi himself while promising all Israelites that their names t o o can b e entered if they observe the laws o f the covenant. What Aramaic Levi reserves for priests, Jubilees promises to all Israel.

Jubilees a n d I n t e r m a r r i a g e Jubilees places great emphasis o n the avoidance o f intermarriage n o t only in its interpretation o f the rape o f Dinah but also, as n o t e d above, in its efforts to provide genealogies for the wives o f the patriarchs that make them descendants o f S h e m and Terah. S o m e scholars have sug­ gested that Jubilees was r e s p o n d i n g to a practice c o m m o n a m o n g the hellenizing Jews in the p e r i o d leading u p to the Maccabean R e v o l t . Yet there is very little evidence to support this c l a i m . ' T h e y j o i n e d with the gentiles" (1 Mace 1:15) may p o i n t to intermarriage, but it is hardly un­ ambiguous; it c o u l d also refer to other types o f interaction with n o n Jews. T h e silence o f texts such as the W i s d o m o f b e n Sira and 2 Maccabees, from which o n e w o u l d e x p e c t clear and u n a m b i g u o u s c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n o f such behavior if it existed, is particularly striking. 47

48

49

50

T h e lack o f c o n c e r n a b o u t intermarriage in texts f r o m either side o f the revolt makes the task o f explaining why intermarriage l o o m e d so large for the author o f Jubilees m o r e difficult. H e r e I w o u l d like to shift the discussion forward in time to the s e c o n d half o f the s e c o n d century, when H a s m o n e a n rule was already established, and to l o o k b e y o n d the evidence for intermarriage as such and consider the evidence for the absorption o f gentiles into the Jewish p e o p l e during this p e r i o d . I be­ lieve that this shift permits us to explain b o t h the intense c o n c e r n about

intermarriage o f the author o f Jubilees and the lack o f c o n c e r n o f most o t h e r observers, w h o w o u l d n o t have seen the p r o b l e m Jubilees saw for reasons I will suggest b e l o w . T h e p o p u l a t i o n o f Palestine o n the eve o f the M a c c a b e a n Revolt was m i x e d . In addition to Jews, it i n c l u d e d n o t only Greeks but also longestablished g r o u p s such as the Idumeans, the descendants o f the an­ cient Edomites. T h e inhabitants o f the hellenistic cities were primarily non-Jews, s o m e o f Greek descent, others drawn f r o m the local gentile p o p u l a t i o n . T h e r e was also a considerable p o p u l a t i o n o f non-Jewish peasants in the villages outside J u d e a p r o p e r . T h e events o f the 160s c h a n g e d the balance o f p o w e r between Jews and gentiles in J u d e a in a significant way. During the revolt the M a c c a b e e s f o u g h t against the inhabitants o f s o m e o f the hellenistic cities (1 M a c c a b e e s 5 ) , and al­ t h o u g h they never m a d e a systematic effort to eradicate paganism in the biblical land o f Israel, they are occasionally r e p o r t e d to have de­ stroyed a pagan cult site. Nor, having achieved sovereignty in Judea, were the M a c c a b e e brothers c o n t e n t to rest; they b e g a n a p r o g r a m o f annexation o f n e i g h b o r i n g areas. Uriel R a p p a p o r t has suggested that as a result o f the M a c c a b e e s ' success s o m e o f their gentile n e i g h b o r s might have d e c i d e d to throw their lot in with the Jews. O n e n e e d n o t a c c e p t his claims a b o u t Jewish "religious p r o p a g a n d a " to b e persuaded by o t h e r aspects o f the scenario h e p r o p o s e s , such as his suggestion that Idumeans still attached to their traditional way o f life might have felt that they had m o r e in c o m m o n with their ancient neighbors, the Jews, than with the Greeks. T h e Edomites, the ancestors o f the Idumeans, appear to have practiced c i r c u m c i s i o n , and it seems likely that many o f their descendants c o n t i n u e d to d o so in the M a c c a b e a n era. For such gentiles m o v i n g toward the religious practices o f the newly d o m i ­ nant Jewish p o p u l a t i o n might have s e e m e d a sensible and even c o n g e n ­ ial path. 51

52

53

54

55

O n the other hand, Josephus reports two instances o f the Hasmoneans' imposition o f Judaism o n a gentile population by force. T h e first is the conquest and conversion o f the Idumeans by J o h n Hyrcanus, which Jose­ phus places shordy after 130. T h e s e c o n d is the conquest and conversion o f the Itureans by Aristobolus in 104-103 (Antiquities 13.318). I shall focus o n the Idumeans because o f their particular relevance for Jubilees. After subduing all the Idumeans, [Hyrcanus] permitted them to remain in their country so long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the laws of the Jews. A n d so, out of attachment to the land of their fathers, they submitted to circumcision and to making their manner of life conform in all other respects to that of the Jews. A n d from that time on they have continued to be Jews. (Antiquities 13.257-58)

Josephus's a c c o u n t receives s o m e support f r o m a certain Ptolemy, a writer o f u n k n o w n date, w h o also claims that the Jews c o n q u e r e d the Idumeans and f o r c e d them to b e c i r c u m c i s e d . T h e c o n c e p t o f conversion implicit in Jubilees' a c c o u n t d e v e l o p e d grad­ ually during the S e c o n d Temple period. During the monarchy, outsiders w h o married Israelites and c a m e to live a m o n g them were absorbed into the p e o p l e . T h e idea o f 'Judaism" as a set o f beliefs and practices theo­ retically available to those w h o were n o t b o r n into it e m e r g e d o u t o f the e n c o u n t e r with Greek culture. If Greek culture was available even to barbarians, why c o u l d n o t Judaism b e available to gentiles? T h o u g h there was n o t yet a well-developed ritual marking conversion, m e n c o m ­ m o n l y underwent circumcision as part o f their e m b r a c e o f Judaism. But if circumcision was standard practice for the ancient Edomites, why did Hyrcanus n e e d to require the Idumeans to u n d e r g o circumcision? In contrast to Josephus and Ptolemy, Strabo reports that the Idumeans ' j o i n e d " the Jews and t o o k o n their customs {Geography 16.2.34); his terse account mentions neither conquest n o r circumcision. Rappaport suggests that Idumeans w h o had held o n to the traditional practice o f circumci­ sion were well o n the way to b e c o m i n g Jews even without Hyrcanus's c o n ­ quest. Perhaps Hyrcanus's threat o f exile was directed at the m o r e fiellenized Idumeans resident in the cities o f A d o r a and Marisa, w h o n o longer maintained the ancestral practice. T h e evidence for an increased Idumean presence in Egypt in the early part o f the first century B.C.E. sug­ gests that s o m e o f them preferred exile to conversion. 56

57

58

59

Jubilees a n d C o n v e r s i o n W h e t h e r o f their o w n free will o r u n d e r threat o f exile, whether through conscious conversion o r less c o n s c i o u s assimilation, it is clear that a sig­ nificant n u m b e r o f gentiles j o i n e d the Jewish p e o p l e during the Hasm o n e a n period. This must have caused the author o f Jubilees considerable distress for, although h e never says so explicitly, h e makes it quite clear that he d o e s n o t recognize the possibility o f conversion. For Jubilees, it was simply impossible for a gentile to b e c o m e a Jew. Thus Jubilees sees in­ termarriage where others d o not. F r o m the p o i n t o f view o f most o n l o o k ­ ers, including the partners to them, marriages between the new Jews o f the Hasmonean p e r i o d and the "native" Jewish population were mar­ riages between two Jews. For Jubilees, however, they were marriages be­ tween a Jew and a foreigner. As already noted, Jubilees takes great care to provide the patriarchs with wives d e s c e n d e d first from S h e m and then from Terah; Halpern-Amaru points o u t that the implication o f Jubilees' attention to maternal ances­ tors is that "the only legitimate m o d e o f entry into the c o m m u n i t y . . .

60

[is] birth." Rejection o f the possibility o f conversion can also b e seen in Jubilees' reworking o f the story o f the rape o f D i n a h . In the biblical account, circumcision plays a crucial role. T h e brothers tell S h e c h e m and H a m o r that they will agree to Dinah's marriage to S h e c h e m only if the m e n o f S h e c h e m circumcise themselves ( G e n 34:13). T h e narrative informs us that the brothers spoke "with guile because [ S h e c h e m ] had defiled their sister Dinah"; their real intentions e m e r g e w h e n S i m e o n and Levi take advantage o f the c o m m u n a l convalescence that follows the acceptance o f their terms to slaughter the population o f the city. T h e narrative o f Genesis d o e s n o t k n o w a c o n c e p t o f conversion, and n o t h i n g in the story suggests that the circumcised Shechemites w o u l d have b e e n regarded as Israelites. Yet Jacob's silence during the negotia­ tions and his angry reaction to the violent d e e d s o f his sons indicate that, all other things b e i n g equal, circumcision w o u l d have served to make the Shechemites appropriate marriage partners. Jubilees is troubled by Jacob's apparent willingness to accept S h e c h e m as a son-in-law. It insists that father and sons were o f o n e m i n d in reject­ ing the possibility: ' T h e y spoke deceptively with them, acted in a crafty way toward them, and deceived them" (Jub. 30:3). Yet s o m e o n e w h o did n o t k n o w the story in Genesis w o u l d n o t k n o w o f what the deceptive be­ havior consisted since Jubilees makes n o m e n t i o n o f the negotiations o r o f the g r o u p circumcision to which the negotiations led. T h e elimina­ tion o f any hint o f circumcision f r o m its version o f the story suggests that Jubilees wanted to avoid a reading o f the Genesis narrative that un­ d e r s t o o d the circumcision o f the Shechemites in S e c o n d T e m p l e terms, as conversion. I n d e e d , the emphasis o n deceit, which is rather surpris­ ing given Jubilees' usual tendency to gloss over any questionable behavior by its heroes, is perhaps intended to imply that the brothers' claim (in Genesis, never m e n t i o n e d in Jubilees) that circumcision w o u l d have m a d e the Shechemites acceptable marriage partners was itself an act o f deception. 61

It is worth r e m e m b e r i n g that many o f the gentiles w h o were b e c o m ­ ing Jews in the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d were Idumeans, and f r o m the p o i n t o f view o f Jubilees, the Idumeans were n o t just any gentiles. T h e c o n ­ n e c t i o n between the Idumeans and the biblical Edomites had certainly n o t b e e n lost in Jubilees' time; 1 Maccabees refers to the Idumeans as the sons o f Esau ( 5 : 3 ) . For Jubilees, Esau represents all that is evil in gentiles. J a c o b as the first patriarch to e n g e n d e r only Israelite offspring is per­ haps the most important h e r o ofJubilees. Just as Jubilees represented J a c o b as altogether p i o u s and virtuous, n o easy task in light o f the narrative in Genesis, it shows Esau as w i c k e d despite the n o t unsympathetic treatment o f Genesis. T h e contrast between the brothers is evident from their youth: J a c o b learns to write, while Esau learns to make war 62

63

{Jub. 19:14). In Genesis Esau marries Hittite w o m e n w h o are a source o f distress to R e b e c c a ( G e n 27:46). In Jubilees Esau's wives are Canaanites, f o r b i d d e n by A b r a h a m to his descendants {Jub. 20:4) and, a c c o r d i n g to their mother-in-law, a source o f "sexual impurity and lewdness" {Jub. 2 5 : 1 ) . Genesis's a c c o u n t o f Esau's gracious behavior toward J a c o b o n his return from his sojourn with Laban ( G e n 33:4-16) is c o n d e n s e d into the bland report, ' T h e y were r e c o n c i l e d with o n e another" {Jub. 19:13). Esau abandons his parents for Mt. Seir, taking their flocks with him, while J a c o b sends his parents anything they n e e d , thus earning their blessings {Jub. 29:19-20). Ultimately J a c o b must kill Esau in self-defense {Jub. 38:2) in the course o f the war Esau started {Jubilees 37-38); his death is a richly deserved punishment for violating the oath h e swore to his m o t h e r {Jub. 35:18-24). This picture o f the ancestor o f the Idumeans is better read as a result o f the internal logic o f Jubilees' delin­ eation o f the holy p e o p l e than as a response to c o n t e m p o r a r y condi­ tions, but with such a picture o f Esau, a large influx o f Idumeans into the Jewish p e o p l e w o u l d surely have gotten the attention o f the author o fJubilees. A c o n n e c t i o n between Jubilees and the conversion o f the Idumeans is n o t a n e w idea. A century a g o R. H . Charles suggested that Jubilees' war between J a c o b and his sons and Esau and his sons (chaps. 3 7 - 3 8 ) , an e p i s o d e without parallel in the biblical narrative, reflects Judah Maccabee's c o n q u e s t o f Idumea, but h e t o o k the reference to the c o n t i n u e d subjugation o f the sons o f E d o m {Jub. 38:14) as an allusion to Hyr­ canus's c o n q u e s t o f the I d u m e a n s . M o r e recendy, Rapapport has ar­ g u e d that the war o f J a c o b and Esau reflects n o t Judah's campaign, but that o f Hyrcanus. H e even finds evidence in Jubilees' story for the divi­ sion h e sees between the I d u m e a n city dwellers and their rural relatives. It is Esau's sons w h o take the initiative against J a c o b a c c o r d i n g to Jubilees (37:1-13); in Rappaport's view, Esau's sons represent the inhabitants o f the cities o f A d o r a and Marisa, deeply hostile to the H a s m o n e a n state. T h e y must persuade their initially reluctant father, w h o represents the rural Idumeans, m o r e kindly disposed toward the Jews, to violate the oath he swore to his m o t h e r to live in p e a c e with his brother. 64

65

66

67

T h o u g h I have b e c o m e persuaded that Jubilees was written against the b a c k g r o u n d o f the H a s m o n e a n expansion o f the Judean state, it seems most unlikely that Jubilees w o u l d have b e e n willing to use the figure o f J a c o b , its favorite patriarch, to represent J o h n Hyrcanus, a high priest w h o followed the calendar against which m u c h o f Jubilees' ire is directed. I n d e e d o n e might argue that Jubilees intends the story o f the defeat o f Esau and his sons at the hands o f J a c o b and his sons as a critique o f Hyr­ canus's actions. Rather than subduing the sons o f Esau and misguidedly attempting to turn them into Jews, J a c o b and his sons s u b d u e d them

and kept t h e m in an inferior position—"until today" {Jub. 38:14). But there is g o o d reason to b e cautious about any attempt to take the war between Esau and J a c o b and their sons as a direct reflection o f historical events since the wars fill a n e e d o f the narrative itself. Furthermore, any attempt to c o n n e c t Jubilees to Hyrcanus's conquest o f the Idumeans runs u p against the p r o b l e m o f dating. Until quite rec e n d y Hyrcanus's conquest was usually dated o n the basis o f its place­ m e n t in Josephus's a c c o u n t to shortiy after 130. T h e earliest manuscript o f Jubilees is dated o n paleographic grounds to 125-100 B.C.E. Thus it w o u l d have b e e n possible to understand Jubilees' anxiety about intermar­ riage as a response to a mass conversion o f the Idumeans after Hyracanus's conquest. But recent numismatic evidence taken together with the evidence o f the t o m b inscriptions, which was already known, suggests that the date d e d u c e d from Josephus is w r o n g and that the conquest o f I d u m e a t o o k place in 1 1 2 / 1 1 , perhaps t o o late to have influenced a work that was certainly in existence by 1 0 0 . O n the other hand, as we have seen, it seems likely that the conver­ sion o f the Idumeans was n o t so m u c h an event as an o n g o i n g process that dates back to the b e g i n n i n g o f H a s m o n e a n rule. T h e conversion o f the Idumeans u n d e r Hyrcanus is only the most dramatic instance o f a process that had b e e n g o i n g o n quietly for decades. Thus even ifJubilees was written b e f o r e the c o n q u e s t o f Idumea, it might still b e r e s p o n d i n g to the Judaization o f the Idumeans. Its rejection o f conversion and c o n ­ sequent anxiety a b o u t intermarriage make sense in a p e r i o d in which gentiles are b e i n g absorbed into the Jewish population in significant numbers. These considerations p o i n t to a date for Jubilees somewhat later than the o n e James VanderKam suggests, probably in the last third o f the s e c o n d century, a date that fits well the paleographic evidence. 68

69

70

It is perhaps worth noting here that several texts from Qumran d e m o n ­ strate a rather hesitant attitude toward converts. S o m e scholars have sug­ gested that they reflect priesdy discomfort with conversion. But there is a significant difference between the hesitance o f most o f these texts and Jubilees' opposition. T h e Temple Scroll, for example, appears to d e c r e e , t h o u g h the text is quite broken, that gerim are n o t to pass b e y o n d the outer court o f the temple until the fourth generation {TS 39.5, 40.5-6), an attitude that is cautious, but ultimately accepting. So t o o the Damascus Document's provision for gerim as o n e o f the categories into which the m e m b e r s h i p o f the sect is divided ( C D 14.3-6) keeps gerim separate from native Jews while accepting them as m e m b e r s o f the sect. T h e text that stands closest to Jubilees is 4QFlorilegium, which insists that n o g^rwill en­ ter the eschatological temple ( 4 Q 1 7 4 1 i 3-4). Here, it seems, the very possibility o f conversion is d e n i e d . 71

72

O n e passage that has n o t b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in this c o n t e x t as far as I

k n o w c o m e s f r o m an eschatological timetable in 4 Q 3 9 0 , part o f the frag­ mentary Apocryphon ofJeremiah. A m o n g the evils that will take place in the p e r i o d shordy b e f o r e the dawn o f the eschaton, it appears, is inter­ marriage: ubebne [nekar] yehalel[u] et zar['a]m, "and with f o [ r e i g n ] e r s [ t ] h e [ y ] will profane their o f f s p r i n g ] " ( 4 Q 3 9 0 2 i 1 0 ) . "Foreigners" is literally, "sons o f a foreign place." "Sons" is preserved, but "foreign place" is a restoration; nothing is preserved o f the w o r d . T h e use o f the term "Angels o f Mastemot" ( 4 Q 3 9 0 1 11, 2 i 7) suggests sectarian p r o v e n a n c e o r at least c o n n e c t i o n s for the work. If the restoration is correct, the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f intermarriage in this passage is perhaps best read as I have suggested reading the c o n d e m n a t i o n in Jubilees, that is, as directed against marriages between native Jews and f o r m e r gentiles w h o n o w view themselves and are viewed by most others as Jews. As we saw in the last chapter, Hayes reads 4 Q M M T as another e x a m p l e o f o p p o s i t i o n to marriage between native Jews and converts; as I indicated there, I be­ lieve that 4 Q M M T should b e read as o p p o s i n g marriage between priests and w o m e n f r o m lay families. 73

74

J e w s a n d G e n t i l e s i n Jubilees Jubilees' rejection o f conversion needs to b e u n d e r s t o o d against the b a c k g r o u n d o f its picture o f the differences between Jews and gentiles. T h e reason Jubilees believes it is impossible for a gentile to b e c o m e a Jew, as Cana W e r m a n points out, is that Israel and the nations are essentially different. For Jubilees the nations o f the world live in subjugation to the d e m o n s . Only Israel is free o f their rule: "For there are many nations and many p e o p l e s and all b e l o n g to [the L o r d ] . H e m a d e spirits rule over all in o r d e r to lead them astray from following him. But over Israel h e m a d e n o angel o r spirit rule because h e alone is their ruler" {Jub. 15:31-32). 75

T h e only exceptions to Jubilees' division o f humanity into two o p p o s ­ ing camps are the descendants o f Ishmael and the sons o f Keturah, that is, Abraham's descendants through sons other than Isaac. In his farewell address to all his offspring, A b r a h a m exhorts them to act kindly to each other, to circumcise their sons, to avoid sexual impurity, and to worship G o d rather than idols {Jub. 20:10). But it is n o t clear h o w to r e c o n c i l e the m o r e positive picture o f the status o f the descendants o f A b r a h a m in this passage with their apparent c o n s i g n m e n t to the fate o f all the other nations, subjugation to the evil spirits, in the speech o f the angel o f the presence q u o t e d above. I n d e e d , that speech, which c o m e s after Abra­ h a m receives the c o m m a n d o f circumcision, takes care to e x c l u d e the other descendants o f A b r a h a m f r o m the covenant: "For the L o r d did n o t draw near to himself either Ishmael, his sons, his brothers o r Esau.

H e d i d n o t c h o o s e them (simply) because they were a m o n g Abraham's children, for h e knew them. But h e c h o s e Israel to b e his p e o p l e " (Jub. 15:30). Thus, although Jubilees shows a certain consideration for the de­ scendants o f A b r a h a m through Ishmael and the sons o f Keturah, it d o e s n o t appear to b e willing to adjust its binary view o f humanity to allow for a third status. W e r m a n suggests that Jubilees understands Ishmael as a ger, n o t as a convert, but rather in the sense the Torah uses the term: as a gentile liv­ ing a m o n g the p e o p l e o f Israel. Such gentiles are obligated to observe s o m e o f the laws o f the Torah, and they enjoy certain protections legis­ lated t h e r e . Still, as Werman points out, the status o f the ger is by defi­ nition marginal. This is perhaps most clearly seen in D e u t e r o n o m y ' s juxtaposition o f the ger with the widow and the o r p h a n (e.g., Deut 24: 17, 1 9 ) . But if Ishmael is treated gently by Jubilees, Esau and his descen­ dants, as we have seen, are not. O n e source for the radical divide between Jews and gentiles in Jubilees is the B o o k o f Ezra's idea o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as "holy seed" (Ezra 9:2), as Halpern-Amaru and Hayes have p o i n t e d o u t . Hayes notes that Jubilees' rejection o f intermarriage is based n o t o n the fear that the for­ eign spouse will b e a bad influence o n the Jewish partner but rather o n genealogical unsuitablity. She also notes the priesdy dimension o f holy seed ideology: it transfers to all Israel the holiness that s o m e strands o f the Bible reserve for priests. Halpern-Amaru suggests that Jubilees' ge­ nealogical definition o f m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel reflects its view o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests; priestly status is after all defined by ancestry a l o n e . Finally, because it views differences be­ tween Jews and gentiles as i n b o r n , the holy seed i d e o l o g y d o e s n o t rec­ o g n i z e the possibility o f c o n v e r s i o n . But while it may e m b r a c e Ezra's c o n c e p t i o n o f Israel as holy seed, Ju­ bilees g o e s b e y o n d Ezra in differentiating Israel from the nations. For a c c o r d i n g to Jubilees the p e o p l e o f Israel is the earthly counterpart o f the angels. As G o d and the angels prepare to keep the first Sabbath, h e tells the angels, 76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

I will now separate a people for myself from among my nations. They, too, will keep the sabbath. I will sanctify the people for myself and will bless them as I sanctified the sabbath day. . . . I have chosen the descendants of Jacob among all of those whom I have seen. (Jub. 2:19-20)

For Jubilees, then, the p e o p l e o f Israel was part o f G o d ' s plan from the very beginning. Its existence d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n particular contingent historical developments, n o r d o e s its relationship to G o d . Both Israel and its covenant with G o d were written into creation. Later, when Jubilees recounts h o w G o d o r d a i n e d the covenant o f circumcision with Abra-

ham, we learn that the angels were created circumcised, further strength­ ening the link between Israel and the angels (Jub. 15:25-27): "For this is what the nature o f all the angels o f holiness was like f r o m the day o f their creation. In front o f the angels o f the presence and the angels o f holiness h e sanctified Israel to b e with h i m and his holy angels" (Jub. 15:27). Like so many other works f r o m the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , Jubilees as­ sumes that heaven is a temple. Thus w h e n Isaac blesses his grandson Levi, h e c o m p a r e s the role o f priests to that o f the angels: "May h e make y o u and your descendants ( a l o n e ) o u t o f all humanity a p p r o a c h h i m / to serve in his temple like the angels o f the presence and like the holy o n e s " (Jub. 31:14). In this blessing the tension between Jubilees' enthusi­ asm for the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests and its acceptance of, i n d e e d its admiration for, the Levitical priesthood surfaces again. It is Levi and his descendants "out o f all humanity" w h o m Isaac blesses as serving like angels and yet Jubilees asserts elsewhere, quite emphatically, that all Israel are like the angels, and thus, o n e must c o n c l u d e , like priests.

Jubilees a n d S e c t a r i a n i s m T h e d o m i n a n t reading o f Jubilees in recent scholarship sees it as a re­ sponse to hellenizing Jews. A c c o r d i n g to 1 Maccabees, s o m e Jews c o m ­ plained that things had g o n e better b e f o r e Israel separated itself f r o m the nations (1 Mace 1:11). Jubilees insists that there never was such a time: G o d c h o s e Israel and set it apart f r o m other p e o p l e s during the very process o f creation. Against the critique o f Judaism current in the hellenistic world, Jubilees claims that the ritual laws are n o t a later devel­ o p m e n t but date back to deepest antiquity. Before the p e o p l e o f Israel c a m e into existence, the angels practiced circumcision, the Sabbath, and the festivals in heaven. O n the basis o f these considerations and other indications, this reading places the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the b o o k in the p e r i o d shortly after the Maccabean Revolt. 84

I argued above that Jubilees' view o f an irreducible difference between Jews and gentiles responds to a different c o n c e r n — t h e influx o f gentiles to Judaism in the s e c o n d half o f the s e c o n d century—when Jewish as­ c e n d a n c y e n c o u r a g e d the Idumeans and perhaps other gentiles living u n d e r H a s m o n e a n rule o r at the edges o f their k i n g d o m to identify as Jews. This somewhat later date is by n o means incompatible with the claim that Jubilees is r e s p o n d i n g to the hellenistic critique o f Judaism; Jews living u n d e r H a s m o n e a n rule, after all, were hardly u n t o u c h e d by the larger culture in which they lived, and the debate about the p r o p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Judaism was n o t resolved by the triumph o f the Maccabees. 85

H e r e I w o u l d like to suggest that Jubilees' view o f the gulf between Jews and gentiles hints at another aspect o f the context in which it was writ­ ten. T h e p e r i o d after the Maccabean Revolt saw the "flourishing" o f sects, as Albert Baumgarten has p u t it. N o t all o f the groups Josephus calls sects fit the m o d e r n sociological definition o f a sect, which includes the belief that the sect alone is in possession o f the truth and that the rest o f the world is irredeemably lost. But there can b e n o d o u b t that the definition applies to the literature o f Q u m r a n yahad, whose emer­ g e n c e is usually c o n n e c t e d to the events o f the revolt a n d its aftermath, and associated texts such as the Damascus Document. T h e Damascus Doc­ ument makes it clear that the true Israel consists o f the m e m b e r s o f its c o m m u n i t y alone: "The first o n e s w h o entered the covenant b e c a m e guilty through it. . . . But o u t o f those w h o held fast to G o d ' s ordinances, w h o remained o f them, G o d established his covenant with Israel for­ ever" ( C D 3.10-13) . T h e Rule of the Community is even m o r e radical than the Damascus Document, it abandons Israel altogether as a defining cate­ gory a n d divides humanity into children o f light a n d darkness. True, all children o f light are also Jews, but most Jews are children o f darkness. Because o f the shared solar calendar and its evident status at Q u m r a n , Jubilees has often b e e n read as a proto-sectarian text. I w o u l d like to suggest that Jubilees should b e read instead as an antisectarian work. I d o n o t m e a n by this that it o p p o s e s particular aspects o f the Q u m r a n sect's p r o g r a m o r practice; i n d e e d the links between the calendar o f Jubilees and the calendars f o u n d at Q u m r a n are indisputable. Yet in striking contrast to the sectarians Jubilees insists that all Jews were singled o u t by G o d f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the world, a n d they continue to b e his holy p e o p l e f o r all time. My claim is that Jubilees' understanding o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as a g r o u p defined by heredity should b e u n d e r s t o o d as devel­ o p i n g in o p p o s i t i o n to the sectarian definition that excludes most Jews f r o m the p e o p l e o f Israel. 86

87

9,9,

8 9

90

91

T h e insistence o n including all Israel a m o n g the elect is particularly evident in the two passages in which Jubilees describes the course o f his­ tory to the e s c h a t o n . In Jubilees 1, the L o r d predicts to Moses the exile o f the p e o p l e a n d the return to the land in language that e c h o e s D e u t e r o n o m y . T h e a c c o u n t o f the events leading u p to the exile sug­ gests that n o t all Israelites were equally implicated in the sins that caused it: "I will send witnesses to t h e m so that I may testify to them, b u t they will n o t listen a n d will kill the witnesses. T h e y will persecute those t o o w h o study the law diligently" {Jub. 1:12). It is perhaps n o t surprising that even those w h o study the law diligendy are n o t spared the fate o f the p e o p l e (the witnesses are n o l o n g e r alive to suffer o r to b e spared); it is typical o f D e u t e r o n o m i c thought that the w h o l e p e o p l e suffers to­ gether. But it is m o r e surprising that Jubilees d o e s n o t reserve the reward 92

o f return for the deserving. Rather, all will turn back to G o d , return to the land, and u n d e r g o transformation into "a righteous plant" {Jub. 1:15-16) so that G o d will build his temple and live a m o n g them {Jub. 1:17). While the D e u t e r o n o m i c picture is o f restoration for the w h o l e p e o p l e , there is a m p l e p r e c e d e n t for restricting restoration to the pious. Centuries before Jubilees was written, i n d e e d as far back as Isaiah o f Jerusalem (Isa 1:25-27, 10:21-22), s o m e o f the prophets had given u p o n an inclusive definition o f Israel; it s e e m e d m o r e reasonable to suggest that a pious remnant w o u l d carry o n the destiny o f Israel. T h e eschatological scenario o f the Apocalypse o f Weeks from the Epis­ tle of Enoch {1 Enoch 92-105), roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y with Jubilees, offers a particularly striking contrast to Jubilees 1: After this, in the seventh week, there will arise a perverse generation, and many will be its deeds, and all its deeds will be perverse. A n d at its conclusion, the chosen will be chosen, as witnesses of righteousness from the eternal plant of righteousness to whom will be given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge. {1 Enoch 93:9-10)

As in Jubilees, a w h o l e generation is h e l d responsible for b a d behavior. But in Jubilees the entire p e o p l e b e c o m e s a righteous plant, while in the Apocalypse o f Weeks, the righteous plant consists only o f the c h o s e n . T h e s e c o n d relevant passage is the Jubilees apocalypse {Jub. 23:11-32), which predicts the events leading u p to the e s c h a t o n . T h e passage fol­ lows Jubilees' a c c o u n t o f the death o f A b r a h a m {Jub. 23:1-7), and it re­ sponds in part to Abraham's life span, which is quite short c o m p a r e d to those o f the antediluvian patriarchs {Jub. 23:8-15). O n e central theme o f the passage is that the diminution o f the h u m a n life span, the result o f sinfulness, will b e c o r r e c t e d at the eschaton. Leading u p to the escha­ tological turning p o i n t is a p e r i o d o f devastation and warfare {Jub. 23:18-20). T h e antagonists in the eschatological war are clearly Jews, for they are accused o f having forgotten "covenant, festival, m o n t h , sab­ bath, j u b i l e e " {Jub. 23:19). But the antagonists divide n o t into g o o d and evil, but in the first instance into y o u n g and o l d : " O n e g r o u p will strug­ gle with another—the y o u n g with the o l d , the o l d with the y o u n g ; the p o o r with the rich, the lowly with the great; and the n e e d y with the ruler—regarding the law and the covenant" {Jub. 23:19). It is n o t clear whether the o t h e r categories, p o o r / r i c h , lowly/great, needy/ruler, are distinct from y o u n g / o l d , o r whether they e c h o that distinction in some­ what different terms. 93

94

T h e y o u n g make war against the o l d because o f the sinfulness o f the o l d e r generation {Jub. 23:16-17), yet the y o u n g are n o t clearly described

as g o o d . I n d e e d the war is n o t d e p i c t e d as a war o f g o o d against evil but as a chaotic reflection o f a society lacking true morality. T h o s e w h o sur­ vive the war c o n t i n u e their evil ways, even defiling the holy o f holies (Jub. 23:21). G o d then turns the sinful p e o p l e over to the nations for punishment {Jub. 23:22-23). In this time o f trouble, all Israel suffers 23:23). 95

Finally the m o m e n t o f r e d e m p t i o n arrives: At that time they will cry out and call and pray to be rescued from the power of the sinful nations, but there will be no one who rescues (them). . . . In those days the children will begin to study the laws, to seek out the commands, and to return to the right way. . .until their lifetimes approach 1000 years. (Jub. 23:24-27)

T h e use o f generational language to describe the plan o f salvation serves to u n d e r s c o r e the unity o f the p e o p l e . Disaster is the result o f the actions o f an entire generation, as is salvation. N o w h e r e in this a c c o u n t o r in Jubilees 1 is Israel divided into a d o o m e d majority a n d a righteous remnant. Rather, Jubilees c h o o s e s language that includes the entire p e o p l e o f Israel in the restoration it envisions. This can hardly b e accidental. I w o u l d like to suggest that this position represents a reaction to the e m e r g e n c e o f the strongly sectarian o u t l o o k we find in s o m e o f the D e a d Sea Scrolls. T h e author o f Jubilees was deeply distressed by the many transgressions o f his c o n ­ temporaries. T h e most pressing was the calendar in use in the temple, which institutionalized violation o f the sacred o r d e r for the vast majority o f Jews. But h e was also distressed by the tone o f those h e might other­ wise have c o n s i d e r e d allies. T h e y shared his rejection o f the calendar o f the temple establishment and his disappointment with the lack o f piety o f their contemporaries, but they were willing to follow their criticism to what they must have viewed as its logical conclusion: they simply wrote the sinners o u t o f Israel. For the author o f Jubilees, this m o d e o f securing the piety o f Israel at the e x p e n s e o f most o f its p e o p l e was unacceptable. Jubilees' view that all Jews are part o f a p e o p l e singled o u t before creation d o e s n o t m e a n that it hesitates to criticize them. O n the contrary, the b o o k is full o f denun­ ciations o f Israel's failings. Yet Jubilees insists that Jews c a n n o t so easily b e deprived o f m e m b e r s h i p in the angelic p e o p l e — s o m e t h i n g like the way the rabbis w o u l d later claim that all Israel had a portion in the world to come. W e have seen that s o m e o f Jubilees' predecessors were troubled by the lack o f c o n n e c t i o n between the status o f priest and the virtues they val­ u e d , such as w i s d o m and piety. In response they conflated categories.

T h e i r heroes were wise priests o r priestly scribes. Jubilees' p r o b l e m is somewhat different. It accepts the association o f scribal virtues with priests and attributes these qualities to its priestly heroes. But Jubilees is worried n o t a b o u t the Israelite priesthood, a g r o u p it skillfully maneu­ vers into the b a c k g r o u n d , but a b o u t the w h o l e p e o p l e o f Israel. O n e im­ portant aspect o f Jubilees'' claim that the w h o l e p e o p l e o f Israel is a k i n g d o m o f priests is that m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e is defined strictly by ancestry, just as the Torah defines m e m b e r s h i p in the priesthood. But just as definition by ancestry stands in tension with the requirement o f holiness for the priesthood, so t o o there is considerable tension be­ tween Jubilees' use o f ancestry as the criterion o f m e m b e r s h i p in the priesdy p e o p l e and the exalted status it confers o n this p e o p l e . Jubilees itself is hardly unaware o f this tension. It is far f r o m c o n t e n t with the state o f the Jewish p e o p l e o f its own day. T h r o u g h the tirades o f the angel o f the presence, it c o n d e m n s Israel for eating b l o o d (Jub 6:13-14, 3 8 ) , failing to follow the true calendar (Jub. 6:32-38), neglect­ ing circumcision o r p e r f o r m i n g it improperly (Jub. 15:33-34), and en­ gaging in f o r b i d d e n sexual relations (Jub. 30:5-23, 33:13-20). Perhaps it is n o t surprising that Jubilees d o e s n o t indicate h o w to r e c o n c i l e the the­ ory o f Israel's exalted status with the reality o f Israel's sinfulness. It is possible that Jubilees' emphasis o n avoiding b l o o d and f o r b i d d e n sexual relations is at least in part an effort to make it relatively easy to b e a pi­ ous Jews by singling o u t laws it was safe to assume most Jews o b e y e d — i n contrast to its calendar. Yet despite the tension, Jubilees' a c c o u n t pre­ cludes a sectarian understanding o f the Jewish p e o p l e . While it excludes converts, it emphatically includes all b o r n Jews.

Chapter 3

Priesthood and Purity Laws The Temple Scroll and the Damascus D o c u m e n t

In this chapter I focus o n two legal works f o u n d at Q u m r a n , the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D , the material f r o m the Damascus Document discovered in Cave 4, that d e v e l o p the purity laws o f the Torah to make them m o r e in­ tricate and m o r e d e m a n d i n g . Unlike the Book of Jubilees, neither text ever calls the p e o p l e o f Israel a k i n g d o m o f priests, but I shall argue here that b o t h o f these texts constitute evidence for an understanding o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as a priestly p e o p l e o r at least for the h o p e that all Jews c o u l d b e m a d e m o r e like priests. T h e central aspect o f their effort to make the h o p e a reality is their elaboration o f the Torah's laws o f pu­ rity. A l t h o u g h they take different approaches, b o t h works lengthen the periods o f impurity d e c r e e d by the Torah, make rituals o f purification m o r e elaborate, and otherwise i m p o s e m o r e severe restrictions o n those in a state o f impurity. Yigael Yadin, the first editor o f the Temple Scroll, claimed that it e x t e n d e d the laws o f purity for priests to all Jews. De­ spite my sympathy for the thrust o f his argument, I c a n n o t entirely agree with him, for while he was certainly right to p o i n t to the elaboration o f purity laws in the Temple Scroll, his characterization o f its p r o g r a m is n o t quite accurate. T o b e g i n with, as the Torah formulates them, the laws o f purity apply to all Israelites, t h o u g h for reasons I shall explain in a m o ­ m e n t they have a greater impact o n priests and their families than o n other Israelites. Further, as we shall see, the Temple Scroll by n o means ig­ nores the differences between priests and other Jews, n o r d o e s 4 Q D . Rather, b o t h make the purity laws m o r e relevant to nonpriests. T h e i r in­ tensified purity laws affect all families with greater stringency than the laws o f the Torah, but far m o r e than those o f the Torah, their laws have a major impact o n lay as well as priestly families. T h e result is, inevitably, to make all Jews a litde m o r e like priests. 1

2

3

For m o s t m o d e r n readers, the laws o f purity as the Torah formulates t h e m appear formidably c o m p l i c a t e d and strict. Yet the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D are by n o means the only e v i d e n c e that s o m e ancient Jews be­ lieved that taken at face value the Torah was insufficiently worried

a b o u t impurity. I have c h o s e n to discuss the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D be­ cause b o t h are relatively well preserved and because b o t h treat the laws o f genital discharge o f Leviticus 12 and 15, o f particular interest for o u r purposes for reasons explained below. T h e r e are several other halakhic texts f r o m Q u m r a n that treat these laws, such as 4 Q T o h o r o t A ( 4 Q 2 7 4 ) and 4 Q O r d i n a n c e s ( 4 Q 5 1 4 ) ; they are unfortunately so fragmentary that it is difficult to draw any conclusions f r o m them, t h o u g h it is clear that they share the tendency to intensify the laws o f the Torah. A n o t h e r text from Q u m r a n very m u c h c o n c e r n e d with questions o f purity is 4 Q M M T , the "halakhic letter" that contrasts the o p i n i o n s o f the author and his c o m m u n i t y with those o f another g r o u p . Like virtually all the texts f o u n d at Q u m r a n , it is i n c o m p l e t e , but it is considerably better pre­ served than the texts just listed. It t o o exhibits a tendency toward inten­ sification. It d o e s not, however, include a treatment o f the laws o f genital discharge in the extant text, although it d o e s include a rule for skin eruptions (B 64-72). Finally, it should b e n o t e d that texts preserved at Q u m r a n are n o t the only place where the Torah's laws o f purity are in­ tensified. T h e Pharisees d i d n o t leave us any texts o f their own, but the picture that emerges f r o m the gospels o f the N e w Testament and the references in rabbinic literature suggest that they t o o went b e y o n d a straightforward reading o f the Torah's purity laws. For the Priestly D o c u m e n t o f the Torah, impurity is an objective phys­ ical state caused by contact with the corpses o f animals, childbirth, skin eruptions, eruptions in houses and fabrics, genital discharge, and c o n ­ tact with h u m a n corpses (Leviticus 11-15; N u m b e r s 1 9 ) . P provides rules to determine w h e n s o m e o n e is impure, whether the impurity can b e transmitted to others and if so, how, and, finally, h o w to p e r f o r m the rit­ uals necessary to restore the affected person to a state o f purity. T h e s e laws are "priestly" in the sense that they are f o u n d in the P source and that many o f the conditions they define require priestly participation for the process o f purification. Priests must j u d g e the status o f those af­ flicted with skin eruptions, priests must offer the sacrifices b r o u g h t by those c o n c l u d i n g the process o f purification f r o m childbirth, skin erup­ tions, o r abnormal genital discharge, and priests must p r o d u c e the ashes o f the red heifer to b e m i x e d with the water required for purifica­ tion f r o m corpse impurity. But the purity laws apply to laypeople as m u c h as to priests. Still, they u n d o u b t e d l y had m o r e o f an impact o n priests and their families than o n laypeople for an i m p u r e person is for­ b i d d e n to enter the sanctuary o r to have contact with consecrated things, most important, consecrated f o o d . For a priest, then, b e i n g in a state o f purity was a professional necessity during the weeks in which his watch served in the temple: an i m p u r e priest c o u l d n o t offer sacrifices n o r eat o f the sacrificial meat. But for a priest's family as well as for the 4

c

5

6

7

8

priest himself, b e i n g in a state o f purity was economically desirable at all times, for it permitted the eating o f the consecrated f o o d d u e the priest from the contributions o f laypeople. Laypeople, o n the other hand, en­ tered the temple and ate consecrated f o o d only o n special occasions; be­ ing i m p u r e usually did n o t matter for them. Thus the purity laws apply to all Israel, laypeople as well as priests, but they are m o r e important in the everyday lives o f priests and their families than o f laypeople. I have c h o s e n to concentrate o n the laws o f the impurity o f genital discharge because they regulate the most c o m m o n types o f impurity and they are preserved in b o t h the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D . In the course o f a lifetime everyone e x p e r i e n c e d the impurity o f at least o n e type o f normal genital discharge. While almost everyone w o u l d also have expe­ r i e n c e d c o r p s e impurity, the surviving material in 4 Q D d o e s n o t treat this subject. Further, as just n o t e d , while priests play a role at s o m e p o i n t in the process o f purification from c o r p s e impurity, childbirth, abnor­ mal genital discharge, and skin eruptions, purification after normal gen­ ital discharge d o e s n o t require the participation o f a priest. It is thus a relatively private matter. Observance o f regulations governing normal discharge, then, is hardly subject to priesdy control o r social pressure. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the elaborate regulations c o n s i d e r e d in this c h a p ter means that the authors o f the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D imagined that other Jews w o u l d b e willing to observe m o r e stringent regulations for their o w n sake.

Purity A c c o r d i n g t o P a n d H P understands impurity as a natural and unavoidable state, often the re­ sult o f desirable c o n d i t i o n s o r actions such as menstruation and sexual relations, which make childbearing possible, and childbirth itself. N o r are the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f most types o f impurity dire: as just n o t e d , the i m p u r e p e r s o n is barred from the sanctuary and from contact with holy things (Lev 1 2 : 4 ) . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f skin eruptions are somewhat m o r e severe: the afflicted person must b e quarantined away from h o m e during his p e r i o d o f impurity (Lev 13:46). T h e rituals o f purification and the duration o f the process o f purification appear to b e related to the severity o f the impurity. Thus, for e x a m p l e , the impurities caused by childbirth, skin eruptions, and abnormal genital discharge require sacri­ fice in addition to the bathing and laundering required for the impurity o f n o r m a l genital discharge (Lev 12:6-7; 14:1-32; 15:14-15, 29-30). 9

10

For all their complexities and difficulties, the purity laws constitute a c o h e r e n t system, reflecting P's distinctive understanding o f the nature o f G o d and the cult. Like others in the ancient Near East, the authors o f P u n d e r s t o o d the temple as the h o m e o f the g o d ; the sacrificial cult P

delineates has its origins in the practice o f propitiating and currying fa­ vor with the g o d s by feeding them. But by the time o f P, M e n a h e m Haran points out, n o o n e in the ancient Near East any l o n g e r u n d e r s t o o d the g o d s and their cult in "crudely a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c terms." T h e m o n o t h e i s m o f the biblical writers had drastically r e d u c e d anthropo­ m o r p h i s m by r e m o v i n g G o d f r o m the interactions characteristic o f myth. Still, P's rejection o f a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m is striking even in c o m ­ parison to other strands o f biblical literature. P takes considerable care to transform the practice o f sacrifice to reflect its understanding o f G o d as b e y o n d bribing by h u m a n beings. Elsewhere in the Bible the sweet aroma, reah nihoah, o f the sacrifices soothes G o d ' s anger toward h u m a n beings. But, as K n o h l points out, P uses the phrase in relation to burnt offerings and w h o l e offerings, avoiding it entirely for guilt offerings and using it only o n c e for sin offerings (Lev 4:31). Further, P orders that in­ cense b e a d d e d to the freestanding meal offering (Lev 2:2, 9; 6:8, 1 4 ) , but avoids incense for the meal offering that a c c o m p a n i e s the sin offer­ ing (Lev 5:11-12; N u m 5:15). T h e s e variations in practice, K n o h l argues, are i n t e n d e d to avoid the suggestion that the sinner c o u l d c o o l G o d ' s anger by offering h i m a sacrifice with a smell h e enjoyed, a view o f G o d that P finds unacceptably a n t h r o p o p a t h i c . P's purity rules are distinctive in relation to b o t h o t h e r ancient near eastern cultures and o t h e r strands o f the Bible. For P the d e m o n i c realm that plays so large a part in o t h e r cultures o f the ancient Near Eastern is simply n o n e x i s t e n t . P d o e s n o t see skin eruptions o r abnor­ mal genital flows as afflictions caused by d e m o n s , requiring a cure. T h e priest's role in dealing with these states d o e s n o t involve healing. In the case o f skin eruptions the priest is required to diagnose the c o n d i t i o n , o r perhaps m o r e accurately, to identify it officially, and for b o t h types o f impurity a priest participates in the process o f purification. But this process d o e s n o t cause the c o n d i t i o n to disappear, but rather follows o n its d i s a p p e a r a n c e . Yet despite P's rejection o f the realm o f the de­ m o n i c , it incorporates into its regulations certain rituals that reflect the assumption that impurity is a d e m o n i c force. T h e s e rituals must have b e e n so firmly e n t r e n c h e d in practice that P had n o c h o i c e but to inte­ grate t h e m into its system. T h e ritual o f the Day o f A t o n e m e n t , in which o n e g o a t is slaughtered and another is sent into the wilderness to the d e m o n Azazel, is perhaps the most spectacular e x a m p l e ; the begin­ ning o f the c e r e m o n y o f purification f r o m skin eruptions in w h i c h o n e bird is set free and another killed offers an e x a m p l e relevant to the pu­ rity laws. 11

12

13

14

15

16

O n e striking indication o f P's distance from the world o f d e m o n i c forces is the nominalist view o f impurity that emerges in its instructions for the h o u s e that develops the equivalent o f skin eruptions. W h e n the

h o m e o w n e r suspects that the h o u s e is thus afflicted, h e calls a priest for a diagnosis. But before the priest enters the house, h e orders that every­ thing in the h o u s e b e r e m o v e d so that the contents o f the h o u s e will n o t b e affected if the priest d o e s find the h o u s e impure (Lev 14:35-36). In other words, the h o u s e is incapable o f conveying impurity to its contents until the priest actually declares it i m p u r e . A n o t h e r distinctive aspect o f P's view o f impurity is that P sees it as an objective, ritual state, n o t a moral o n e . Impurity is w r o n g only if o n e neglects purification (Lev 5:1-13). This understanding was clearly n o t the p o p u l a r view in ancient Israel. Elsewhere in the Bible, for e x a m p l e , skin eruptions are associated with sin. G o d punishes Miriam's slander o f Moses with skin eruptions ( N u m 12:10), and h e similarly afflicts King Uzziah just in time to prevent h i m from offering incense, a usurpation o f the role o f the priests (2 Chr 26:16-21). S o m e biblical writers apply the term nidda, which P uses for the state o f menstrual impurity, to idol­ atry and other types o f sin (e.g., Ezek 36:17; 2 Chr 29:5). T h e B o o k o f Lamentations claims a causal relationship between sin and impurity: "Jerusalem sinned grievously, / therefore she b e c a m e a nidda" (Lam 1:8). Lamentations also uses the terminology o f impurity to describe Jerusalem's humiliation at the hands o f her enemies (Lam 1:17: niddd; L a m 4:15: the person with skin eruptions warning others away [Lev 1 3 : 4 5 ] ) . While s o m e o f these examples are drawn from texts that post­ date P, their association o f impurity with sin and humiliation surely re­ flects a view with a l o n g history. P's understanding o f impurity in purely objective terms is a rejection o f this m o r e widespread view. If the purity laws o f the Torah constitute a system, it seems reasonable to assume that they have implications for each other. It is striking, for example, that the text o f the Torah fails to spell o u t the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f impurity e x c e p t in the case o f the w o m a n after childbirth: she is n o t to have contact with consecrated things o r to enter the sanctuary (Lev 12:4). Most readers, ancient and m o d e r n , assume that these restrictions apply to other types o f impurity as well: the high priest Jehoiada is re­ p o r t e d to have placed guards at the gates o f the temple to k e e p o u t any­ o n e i m p u r e for any reason (2 Chr 23:19). So t o o Leviticus 15 decrees laundering and bathing for the m a n with abnormal genital discharge at the e n d o f the p e r i o d o f purification (Lev 15:13) and bathing for a m a n w h o has had a seminal emission and for a w o m a n w h o has had contact with semen in sexual relations (Lev 15:16, 1 8 ) . Yet it mentions neither bathing n o r laundering for the menstruant and the w o m a n with abnor­ mal discharge. Its failure to specify surely reflects its c o n f i d e n c e that the analogy with the m a n with a flow and the man with a seminal emission w o u l d b e o b v i o u s . T h e narrative o f 2 Samuel appears to imply that the bath that brings Bathsheba to David's attention was for purification after 17

18

19

20

21

menstruation ( 2 Sam 11:4), suggesting that the practice o f bathing after menstruation was an a c c e p t e d o n e in biblical times. But the assumption that P's laws f o r m a system d o e s n o t explain all as­ pects o f their literary expression. If the silence o f Leviticus 15 o n bathing and laundering f o r w o m e n with genital discharge is d u e to its already having laid o u t the rules in relation to m e n in the first p o r t i o n o f the chapter, why d o e s its discussion o f the w o m a n with abnormal flow repeat the requirement o f sacrifice (Lev 15:29-30) in language virtually identical to that it uses f o r the m a n with a flow (Lev 15:14-15)? O n c e the text has b e c o m e authoritative, the peculiarities o f its m o d e o f expression invite exegesis, as we shall see. Clearly, as these difficulties o f the text indicate, the priesdy d o c u m e n t reflects a l o n g and c o m p l e x process o f compila­ tion and editing. T h e complexity is also evident in the appearance o f the laws o f corpse impurity in the B o o k o f Numbers at s o m e distance f r o m the larger b o d y o f purity laws f o u n d in Leviticus. P's idea o f impurity is transformed in the s e c o n d c o r p u s o f priestly law, the Holiness C o d e (Leviticus 17-26 a n d elsewhere in the T o r a h ) . T o b e g i n with, H uses P's terminology o f impurity to claim that certain smsare defiling: idolatry (Lev 20:1-8), f o r b i d d e n sexual relations (Leviti­ cus 18 a n d 2 0 ) , an d b l o o d s h e d ( N u m 35:33-34). P insists that the bearer o f impurity b e e x c l u d e d f r o m the sanctuary to avoid defiling it. As we saw in the previous chapter, H worries that idolatry will defile the sanc­ tuary (Lev 20:3) b u t that f o r b i d d e n sexual relations a n d b l o o d s h e d will defile the land. P provides rituals o f purification f o r all the impurities it delineates. H provides a r e m e d y f o r the defilement caused by b l o o d ­ shed: shedding the b l o o d o f the murderers ( N u m 35:33). But H d o e s n o t suggest any means to u n d o the defilement o f the land by f o r b i d d e n sexual relations. T h e p u n i s h m e n t Leviticus 18 threatens f o r prohibited sexual relations is directed n o t only at the sinners—"For w h o e v e r shall d o any o f these abominations, the persons that d o t h e m shall b e cut o f f from a m o n g their p e o p l e " (Lev 18:29)—but at the c o m m u n i t y as a whole—"lest the land v o m i t y o u out, w h e n y o u defile it, as it v o m i t e d o u t the nation that was b e f o r e y o u " (Lev 18:28). Unlike Leviticus 18, Leviti­ cus 20 includes punishments with each o f the f o r b i d d e n sexual relations it lists, but it appears that even the p r o p e r punishments will n o t prevent the land f r o m b e c o m i n g defiled, with the same dire effects f o r the w h o l e p e o p l e : ' Y o u shall therefore k e e p all my statutes a n d all my ordi­ nances, a n d d o them; that the land where I a m bringing y o u to dwell may n o t vomit y o u o u t " (Lev 20:22). 22

H d o e s n o t claim that all sins bring impurity in their wake, but only the three particularly severe sins it singles out. Sexual sin, the variety to which H devotes the most attention, spans the categories o f morality and ritual. W h i l e adultery a n d s o m e o f the forms o f incest f o r b i d d e n 23

by H are moral offenses, sexual relations with a w o m a n and her daugh­ ter o r granddaughter (Lev 18:17), for example, are n o t so m u c h moral offenses, offenses against other h u m a n beings, as offenses against a c o n ­ c e p t o f right order. Further, given the p r o m i n e n t place o f genital dis­ charge in the purity system o f P, it is perhaps n o t surprising that H understands immoral actions involving the genitals to have conse­ q u e n c e s for purity even w h e n they d o n o t violate the purity laws. T h e conflation o f ritual and morality is well illustrated in Lev 20:21, which terms relations between a man and his brother's wife niddd, menstrual impurity (RSV: "impurity"). In this passage niddd is used as a parallel to the terms tebel (Lev 20:12; RSV: "incest") for sexual relations with a daughter-in-law, td'ebd (Lev 20:13; RSV: "abomination") for sexual rela­ tions between m e n , zimmd (Lev 20:14; RSV: "wickedness") for sexual re­ lations with a w o m a n and her mother, and hesed (Lev 20:17; RSV: "shameful thing") for sexual relations with a sister. In the course o f branding a moral transgression ritually impure, this passage also implies that the ritual impurity o f the menstruant is morally problematic. Fur­ thermore, through this use o f the term, H , unlike P, singles o u t men­ strual impurity f r o m a m o n g other types o f impurity. I have already n o t e d the use o f niddd for idolatry and immorality generally elsewhere in the Bible. But the use by the Holiness C o d e in the laws o f sexual morality is m o r e pointed, reflecting the close relationship o f P and H , and it is particularly striking to the reader because the Holiness C o d e ap­ pears in Leviticus almost immediately following P's purity laws. I n d e e d , H's understanding o f menstrual impurity as the impurity par e x c e l l e n c e highlights the distinctiveness o f P's position in which g e n d e r plays a remarkably small role. P d o e s n o t single o u t menstruation as qualitatively different f r o m the other types o f impurity; i n d e e d , as a nor­ mal discharge, it is o n e o f the less severe types o f impurity. It is true that the impurity o f menstruation lasts l o n g e r than the impurity o f seminal emission, but menstruation itself lasts l o n g e r than seminal emission. It is also true that the menstruant conveys impurity in a way that a man w h o has had a seminal emission d o e s not, but given the difference in the du­ ration o f the two types o f impurity, this difference may n o t b e a result o f gender. G e n d e r d o e s play a role in determining the length o f impurity after childbirth, twice as l o n g for a w o m a n w h o has given birth to a daughter as for o n e w h o has given birth to a son (Lev 12: 2-4), but it d o e s n o t make the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f abnormal genital flow m o r e severe for w o m e n than for m e n . Further, the process o f purification from menstru­ ation is like that o f purification from seminal emission, simple in c o m ­ parison to the process o f purification from abnormal genital flow in m e n o r w o m e n o r from skin eruptions, b o t h o f which involve sacrifice. N o t only d o e s P reject the association o f menstrual impurity and immorality 24

f o u n d in other biblical sources, it also treats menstrual impurity as o n e a m o n g several varieties o f impurity, and n o t o n e o f the most severe vari­ eties at that, rather than as the most noteworthy impurity. T h e legacy o f P, then, is a radical separation between the realms o f pu­ rity and morality. It is w r o n g to try to enter the sanctuary o r have contact with holy things in a state o f impurity, and it is w r o n g n o t to u n d e r g o pu­ rification. But b e i n g impure is n o t a sign o f any moral lack. For H , o n the other hand, s o m e sins that span the categories o f morality and ritual have ritual c o n s e q u e n c e s : they render the sinner i m p u r e (Lev 18:24, 30) and the land as well (Lev 18:25-28), thus threatening the safety o f the c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e especially since in s o m e cases there is n o means to repair the damage. Conversely, H's use o f the term niddd for f o r b i d d e n sexual relations suggests that impurity is morally suspect. T h e two texts c o n s i d e r e d in this chapter agree that P did n o t take im­ purity seriously e n o u g h , but they d e v e l o p their laws o f impurity very m u c h in the spirit o f P. T h e i r laws, different though they are, share P's view o f impurity as an objective, ritual state without moral implications. In this they are close to the Mishnah, though the rabbis o f the Mishnah are perhaps less inclined to e x c e e d the d e m a n d s o f P than are the Tem­ ple Scroll and 4 Q D . T h e absence o f any association o f impurity with sin in the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D will b e evident in the discussion that follows. It bears emphasizing since several scholars have argued recently that such an association is characteristic o f the Q u m r a n sect; I shall return to this p o i n t at the e n d o f my discussion o f 4 Q D .

T h e Temple Scroll T h e Temple Scroll is a legal d o c u m e n t that goes the Torah o n e better by speaking in G o d ' s o w n v o i c e , u n m e d i a t e d by Moses. T h e most c o m ­ plete o f the three manuscripts ( 1 1 Q 1 9 ) is sixty-six c o l u m n s l o n g , mak­ ing it the longest work f o u n d at Q u m r a n . T h e Temple Scroll gets its m o d e r n n a m e f r o m its focus o n the temple and its workings, but it cov­ ers a range o f related topics including purity laws and the festivals and their sacrifices, as well as subjects less closely related to the temple, such as laws o f k i n g s h i p . S o m e portions o f the work appear to reflect preexisting s o u r c e s , but Lawrence Schiffman seems to m e c o r r e c t that the " a u t h o r / r e d a c t o r " selected only sources c o m p a t i b l e with his o w n views. Often the Temple Scroll reworks passages f r o m the Torah, leaving m u c h o f the Torah's language intact while introducing small but signif­ icant changes. Sometimes the changes reflect the Temple Scroll's effort to integrate material that appears in different places in the Torah. Be­ cause o f their subject matter, s o m e portions o f the Temple Scroll are m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f the text o f the Torah, but they, t o o , are written in 25

26

27

28

29

a style i n t e n d e d to e c h o the T o r a h . T h e r e is n o consensus about the date o f the Temple Scroll, but 4 Q 5 2 4 , a very fragmentary manuscript o f the Temple Scroll, provides paleographic g r o u n d s for a dating n o later than 1 5 0 - 1 2 5 B . C . E . M u c h o f the scholarship o n sectarian halakhah assumes that the Temple Scroll is a sectarian d o c u m e n t , but this assumption is n o t u n p r o b l e m atic. T h e Temple Scroll's purity laws, as we shall see, are significandy m o r e stringent than those o f the Torah, but its rhetoric is neither sectar­ ian n o r polemical: there is n o suggestion that it addresses a c o m m u n i t y o f the faithful set apart from a faithless majority. T h e date o f 4 Q 5 2 4 , which places it b e f o r e the earliest sectarian d o c u m e n t s , offers support for the view that the Temple Scroll is n o t a sectarian c o m p o s i t i o n but a work the sect inherited. Still, the c o m m u n i t y at Q u m r a n clearly contin­ u e d to find it o f interest, as the copies m a d e a r o u n d the turn o f the era show. In keeping with its m o d e l , the Torah, the Temple Scroll treats the laws o f genital discharge as part o f a larger category o f laws o f impurity, in­ cluding, as in the Torah, the laws o f skin eruptions and contact with corpses. T h e s e purity laws appear in c o l u m n s 4 5 - 5 1 a m o n g other laws i n t e n d e d to maintain the purity o f the city o f the sanctuary and the other cities o f the holy l a n d . T h e y are phrased as prohibitions o f entry into the city o f the sanctuary (TS 46.16-18) and ordinary cities (TS 48.14-17) for those in particular states o f impurity and as mandates for them to remain outside those cities in places specially set aside for them. T h e idea for such places is i n d e b t e d to several passages in the Torah. T h e purity laws o f Leviticus d e c r e e banishment for those with skin erup­ tions (Lev 13:46), t h o u g h n o t for any other bearers o f impurity. A pas­ sage in the B o o k o f N u m b e r s orders the exile from the c a m p o f Israel in the wilderness n o t only o f those with skin eruptions, but also o f two fur­ ther g r o u p s o f the impure, those with abnormal genital flow and those with corpse impurity ( N u m 5:2). Finally, D e u t e r o n o m y ' s law o f the war c a m p requires m e n w h o have had a nocturnal emission to remain out­ side the c a m p (Deut 23:11). 30

31

32

33

34

O f the three places the Temple Scroll decrees to the east o f the city o f the sanctuary (TS46.16-18), two are intended for those with skin erup­ tions and those with abnormal genital flow, the first two categories o f those e x c l u d e d from the wilderness c a m p o f Numbers. In place o f bear­ ers o f c o r p s e impurity, the third category in the passage from Numbers, the Temple Scroll places D e u t e r o n o m y ' s m e n w h o have e x p e r i e n c e d a nocturnal emission. T h e places are presumably intended for p e o p l e w h o contract their impurities while already inside the city o f the sanctu­ ary; if the impurity had b e e n contracted elsewhere, the bearer o f impu­ rity w o u l d n o t have entered the city o f the sanctuary in the first place.

T h e Temple Scroll sets aside places for the first two categories o f N u m 5:2, those with skin eruptions and those with abnormal genital flow, outside ordinary cities t o o , but the third g r o u p to b e c o n f i n e d outside ordinary cities consists n o t o f m e n with nocturnal emissions but o f w o m e n after childbirth and menstruants (TS48.14-17). It is noteworthy that there is n o place for such w o m e n outside the city o f the sanctuary t h o u g h w o m e n are permitted limited access to the city ( T 5 3 9 . 7 ) . In contrast to the Temple Scroll, the laws o f the Torah assume that men­ struants live at h o m e with their families. Leviticus 15 describes in s o m e detail h o w contact with the menstruant herself, her b e d d i n g , and other implements causes impurity to those a r o u n d her (Lev 15:19-24). T h e case o f the w o m a n after childbirth is n o t as clear, but the c o m p a r i s o n o f the first stage o f her impurity to the impurity o f the menstruant (Lev 12:2) perhaps confirms what o n e w o u l d in any case assume o n other grounds: that a new m o t h e r was e x p e c t e d to remain at h o m e . N o r d o e s the passage f r o m N u m b e r s a b o u t the wilderness c a m p include these w o m e n a m o n g those exiled f r o m the c a m p . D e u t e r o n o m y ' s c a m p is ir­ relevant to the discussion because the fact that it is a war c a m p means that there are n o w o m e n in it. For those with abnormal genital dis­ charge, o n the other hand, the Torah contains two different rules. As we have seen, the Temple Scroll follows N u m 5:2, which exiles them f r o m the c a m p o f Israel, but Leviticus 15 clearly assumes that they remain at h o m e because, as for menstruants, it devotes considerable space to the impurity others may incur by contact with them o r things they have t o u c h e d (Lev 15:4-12 for a male; Lev 15:26-27 for a f e m a l e ) . Thus the Temple Scroll n o t only prefers the m o r e stringent o f the possibilities the Torah offers for those with abnormal genital discharge, but also ex­ pands the purview o f the stringency to include menstruants and w o m e n after childbirth. 35

T h e Temple Scroll's intensification o f laws governing impurity is n o t re­ stricted to exiling the impure f r o m cities. It also lengthens the duration o f s o m e types o f impurity and requires m o r e elaborate rituals o f purifi­ cation. T h e Torah treats the impurity o f seminal emission as easy to rem­ edy and o f short duration: a man w h o has e x p e r i e n c e d a seminal emission n e e d only bathe and wait for the sun to set (Lev 15:16). A c c o r d i n g to Deuteronomy, a m a n w h o has e x p e r i e n c e d a nocturnal emission is e x c l u d e d f r o m the war c a m p because o f its special holiness: G o d himself is present in it (Deut 23:15). Yet even for the war c a m p the p e r i o d o f impurity and the p r o c e d u r e for purification o f Leviticus 15 are d e e m e d adequate (Deut 23:12). T h e Temple Scroll n o t only excludes the man w h o has had a nocturnal emission f r o m the city o f the sanctu­ ary, but also requires that h e u n d e r g o a three-day process o f purification involving bathing and washing his clothes o n the first and third days.

Only after the sun has set o n the third day d o e s it consider the man pure (TS45.7-10). A man w h o has had a seminal emission as a result o f sexual relations is also e x c l u d e d f r o m the city o f the sanctuary for three days ( T S 4 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . N o ritual o f purification is specified, but since the Torah requires the same process o f purification after nocturnal emis­ sion and sexual relations (Lev 15:16-18), it seems likely that the Temple Scroll assumes that the process o f purification required o f the man w h o has had a nocturnal emission also applies to the man w h o has had sex­ ual relations. T h e r e is n o place set aside outside the city o f the sanctuary for m e n i m p u r e as a result o f sexual relations because the Temple Scroll c a n n o t imagine sexual relations taking place in the city o f the sanctuary. It is worth noting here that the Damascus Document contains an explicit prohibition o f sexual intercourse in the city o f the sanctuary ( C D 12.1-2; 4 Q 2 7 1 5 i 17-18). A l t h o u g h 4 Q D devotes considerable attention to laws o f genital discharge, n o w h e r e else in what survives d o e s it refer to the "city o f the sanctuary," and the Damascus Documents use o f language that e c h o e s the Temple Scroll's characteristic phrasing has n o t b e e n ade­ quately explained. Further, the prohibition o n sexual relations stands apart f r o m its c o n t e x t in b o t h C D and 4 Q D . Yadin suggests that the Temple Scroll's intensified rules for purification after seminal emission derive f r o m G o d ' s instructions for the Israelites as they c a m p b e f o r e Mt. Sinai: " G o to the p e o p l e and warn them to stay pure today and tomorrow. Let t h e m wash their clothes. Let them b e ready for the third day . . . . Be ready for the third day; d o n o t g o near a w o m a n " ( E x o d 19:10-11, 1 5 ) . Because it sees the city o f the sanctuary as analogous to the c a m p o f Israel b e f o r e Sinai, the Temple Scroll derives the process o f purification necessary to enter the city f r o m the process o f purification i m p o s e d b e f o r e the revelation at Sinai. As the passage just q u o t e d shows, E x o d u s 19 includes b o t h o f the innovations o f the Temple Scroll: the three-day p e r i o d o f impurity and washing c l o t h e s . But the in­ fluence o f E x o d u s 19 accounts for the Temple Scroll's treatment o f only o n e type o f impurity, and we have seen that the Temple Scroll intensifies the effects o f and elaborates the rituals for other types o f impurity as well. 36

3 7

38

Exodus 19 also figures in Sara Japhet's argument that the Temple Scroll's laws reflect a strong sense o f o p p o s i t i o n between the sexual and the sa­ cred, like that f o u n d in E x o d u s 19 and 1 Samuel 21, the story o f David and the priests o f N o b . This o p p o s i t i o n g o e s well b e y o n d P's rather mild view o f the impact o f normal genital discharge. In Japhet's reading, the Temple Scrolls failure to provide places for the corpse impure reflects a m o r e lenient stance toward corpse impurity than toward "source" impu­ rity. But while it is true that the Temple Scroll d o e s n o t include the corpse i m p u r e o n the list o f those to remain outside cities as N u m 5:2 39

might lead us to expect, the Temple Scroll d o e s say explicitly that the corpse i m p u r e are b a n n e d f r o m the city o f the sanctuary until they are again pure (7IS45.17), and in other respects the Temple ScroWs treatment o f corpse impurity is in k e e p i n g with its intensification o f the impurity o f genital discharge. While it d o e s n o t increase the seven-day p e r i o d o f impurity the Torah decrees for corpse impurity, it expands the ritual o f purification. It decrees bathing and washing clothes o n the first day, for which the Torah prescribes n o ritual, and adds bathing and washing clothes to the biblical p r o c e d u r e o f sprinkling o n the third day (TS 49.16-50.4; N u m 19:18-19). I n d e e d , the Temple Scroll engages in consid­ erable elaboration o f the Torah's terse c o m m a n d to sprinkle the tent in which s o m e o n e has d i e d and the vessels that were in it o n the third and seventh days ( N u m 19:18-19) with a m o r e rigorous cleansing o f the house ( n o l o n g e r a tent) and a list o f the various types o f vessels and other b e l o n g i n g s requiring purification; the process is to take place "on the day o n which they bring the d e a d man o u t from it," perhaps the first day (TS49.11-21). Thus, despite its failure to set aside a place for bear­ ers o f corpse impurity, the Temple Scroll can hardly b e said to take corpse impurity lightly. In a series o f publications over the last two decades, J a c o b M i l g r o m has argued that the Temple Scroll's elaboration o f biblical laws o f purity reflects a consistent p r o g r a m f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the legal texts from Q u m r a n , a p r o g r a m based o n an understanding o f impurity as layered. Removal o f the first layer o f impurity permits contact with the realm o f the ordinary, but it is only with removal o f the s e c o n d layer that contact with the realm o f the sacred can resume. Thus, for e x a m p l e , the Temple Scroll requires bathing o n the first and third days for those with seminal emissions b e f o r e they can enter the city o f the sanctuary (TS45.7-12). For contact with the ordinary, the first day's ablution, prescribed by Leviticus as well, is e n o u g h . It is for this reason that there is n o place o f c o n f i n e m e n t outside ordinary cities for m e n w h o have had a seminal emission. T h e r e is simply n o n e e d to confine them because at the e n d o f the first day they can b e c o m e sufficiendy pure for life in an ordinary city. For contact with the sacred, however, the s e c o n d layer must b e removed—thus the ablution o f the third day is required b e f o r e entering the city o f the sanctuary. 40

41

42

Milgrom's understanding helps to make sense o f the groups desig­ nated for places o f c o n f i n e m e n t outside ordinary cities: those with skin eruptions; those with abnormal genital flow; and w o m e n after childbirth and menstruants. In Milgrom's view, bearers o f impurity for w h o m the process o f purification removes a layer o f impurity o n the first day n e e d n o t b e e x c l u d e d f r o m an ordinary city. Thus, as just n o t e d , there is n o

n e e d to confine m e n w h o had had a seminal emission, whose ablution o n the first day is o f biblical origin, o r the corpse impure, for w h o m the Temple Scroll decrees bathing o n the first day. O n the assumption that the Temple Scroll designates places outside the city o f the sanctuary only for those whose impurity c o m e s u p o n them suddenly and through circumstances b e y o n d their o w n control, there is clear logic to the c h o i c e o f skin eruptions, abnormal genital flow, and nocturnal emission as relevant causes o f impurity. Even without regard to the Damascus Document's explicit prohibition, it is clear that the Temple Scroll c a n n o t imagine sexual intercourse taking place in the city o f the sanctuary; thus it is n o t necessary to designate a place outside it for m e n w h o have had a seminal emission as a result o f sexual intercourse o r for their wives. Nocturnal emissions, o n the other hand, are b e y o n d the in­ dividual's c o n t r o l and c o u l d o c c u r even within the city o f the sanctuary. Similarly, o n e might discover abnormal genital flow o r skin eruptions while already in the city o f the sanctuary. Milgrom's theory d o e s n o t ex­ plain the absence o f a place o f c o n f i n e m e n t outside the city o f the sanc­ tuary for menstruants. While it w o u l d n o t b e difficult to avoid giving birth in the city o f the sanctuary, surely menstrual impurity might over­ take a w o m a n while she was there. Perhaps the Temple Scroll regards such an o c c u r r e n c e as unlikely because menstruation is a regular event rather than an entirely u n e x p e c t e d o n e like the outbreak o f skin eruptions o r abnormal genital flow. Further, it probably d o e s n o t imagine w o m e n spending a great deal o f time in the city o f the sanctuary, thus limiting the likelihood that such a p r o b l e m w o u l d arise. Corpse impurity poses another p r o b l e m for Milgrom's understand­ ing. As we have seen, the Temple Scroll prohibits those with corpse impu­ rity from entering the city o f the sanctuary, but it is impossible to guard against a sudden death that w o u l d introduce corpse impurity there. Thus, o n Milgrom's theory there should b e a place outside the city o f the sanctuary set aside for those w h o contract corpse impurity in the city; the Temple ScroWs first-day ablution, while sufficient to permit en­ trance to an ordinary city, d o e s n o t r e m o v e the s e c o n d layer o f impurity necessary for entrance to the city o f the sanctuary. Milgrom's discomfort with the absence o f such a place can b e felt in his suggestion that o n e o n c e did appear in the lacuna at the t o p o f c o l u m n 4 7 . But t h o u g h the absence o f a place for the corpse impure is puzzling, the insistence o f the Temple Scroll that there b e a separate place for each type o f impurity (TS 46.17) makes it unlikely that the corpse impure were to share a place with o n e o f the other g r o u p s o f the impure. 43

By n o w I h o p e it is clear that t h o u g h Yadin's claim that the Temple Scroll extends the priestly laws o f purity to all Israel has an e l e m e n t o f

44

truth to it, it is n o t quite accurate. Like the priestly c o d e o f the Torah, the Temple Scroll d o e s n o t understand the laws o f purity to apply particu­ larly to priests; i n d e e d they apply equally to priests and laypeople. In the o r d e r the Temple Scroll envisions, the special impact o f purity laws o n priests w o u l d remain, but the Temple Scroll brings ordinary Jews closer to priests by making the purity laws m o r e elaborate and thus heightening their impact o n lay p e o p l e as well as priests. For example, P's treatment o f menstrual impurity means that priesdy families will e x p e r i e n c e far m o r e i n c o n v e n i e n c e than lay families. Only in priesdy families, which regularly eat consecrated f o o d , w o u l d the menstruant b e f o r b i d d e n to prepare f o o d for the family. By requiring menstruants to stay outside their cities, away f r o m their families, the Temple Scroll ensures that lay families t o o will feel the impact o f menstrual impurity. T h e Temple Scroll's extension o f the impact o f the laws o f purity is n o t a c c o m p l i s h e d by conflating the categories o f priest and layperson. I n d e e d , the Temple Scroll emphasizes the boundaries between priests and laity in passages such as the instructions for preventing the mixing o f the sin and guilt of­ ferings o f the p e o p l e with those o f the priests (TS 3 5 . 1 0 - 1 5 ) . Rather, the Temple Scroll extends the realm affected by impurity and heightens the intensity o f impurity, thus increasing its impact o n nonpriests. 45

46

4QD Unlike the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document is indisputably a sectar­ ian d o c u m e n t in the sociological sense. T h e c o n c e r n s o f its laws make clear, however, that it is n o t a d o c u m e n t o f the Q u m r a n yahad but o f an associated g r o u p that lived in families a m o n g the general population. T h e work contains a historical introduction describing the origins o f the community, often referred to as the "Admonition," followed by a lengthy corpus o f law. T h e Geniza version o f the Damascus Document includes only a small p o r t i o n o f this legal material; the only passage relevant to the laws o f Leviticus 12-15 is the prohibition o n sexual relations in the city o f the sanctuary m e n t i o n e d above. T h e version o f the Damascus Doc­ ument f o u n d at Q u m r a n , 4 Q D , devotes considerable attention to the laws o f skin eruptions and genital impurity, although what survives is un­ fortunately quite fragmentary. T h e extant material d o e s not, however, treat the laws o f corpse impurity (Numbers 1 9 ) . T h e earliest manuscript o f 4 Q D , 4 Q 2 6 6 , dates to the first century B.C.E., while the Damascus Document's reference to Jubilees ( C D 16.3-4, 4 Q 2 7 0 6 ii 17, 4 Q 2 7 1 4 ii 5) d o e s n o t permit a date m u c h earlier than that for the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the work as a w h o l e . As for the Temple Scroll, the author drew o n sources so that s o m e portions o f the work are somewhat earlier than the work as a whole. 47

48

Each section o f the purity laws in 4 Q D refers to itself as a rule, mispat, in construct with the appropriate category. Thus, for e x a m p l e , the unit o n skin eruptions c o n c l u d e s , "This is [the rule (mispat) o f skin] erup­ tions" ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 2 ) , while the section o n male genital discharge be­ gins, " [ A n d the r ] u l e [mispat] c o n c e r n i n g o n e w h o has a discharge . . . " ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 14, 272 1 ii 3 ) . In this usage, mispat appears to b e an inter­ pretation o f the term torn as it is used in Leviticus 11-15, where it ap­ pears in the construct, introducing and m o r e frequently c o n c l u d i n g discussion o f the different types o f impurity, for e x a m p l e , "This is the law [tord] for her w h o bears a child" (Lev 12:7), o r "This is the law [tord] for h i m w h o has a discharge" (Lev 1 5 : 3 2 ) . T h e substitution o f mispat for tord may reflect the eclipse o f the m e a n i n g "law" o r "teach­ ing" that tord carries in Leviticus 11-15 as the term c a m e to designate the B o o k o f the Torah; it may also b e a way o f signaling that these laws are n o t i n t e n d e d as c o m p e t i t i o n for the laws o f the Torah but rather as interpretation. T h e term mispat appears several times in the Damascus Document, but only in o n e other instance d o e s it have the same m e a n i n g it has in the passages discussed here: " C o n c e r n i n g the law [mispat] o f donations" ( C D 16.13, 4 Q 2 7 1 4 ii 1 2 - 1 3 ) . This title b e l o n g s to a larger g r o u p o f headings with al, " c o n c e r n i n g " ( C D 1 0 . 1 0 / 4 Q 2 7 0 6 iv 20, 10.14, 16.10, and perhaps 4 Q 2 6 6 6 iii 3 - 4 / 4 Q 2 7 0 3 ii 12 ) ; the others lack al. A n in­ stance o f this type o f heading is also f o u n d in 4 Q O r d i n a n c e s ( 4 Q 1 5 9 1 ii 6 ) . Elsewhere the Damascus Document uses the term serek, "rule," as a heading in a fashion similar to mispat in the purity laws, either with the demonstrative o r without: "And this is the rule [serek] for the j u d g e s o f the c o n g r e g a t i o n " ( C D 10.4; also 12.19, 22-23; 13.7; 14.3, 1 2 ) . T h e term serek appears to b e associated particularly with sectarian c o m m u n a l regu­ lations. Most instances o f all three types o f heading are p r e c e d e d by a vacat. T h e 'al and serek headings appear exclusively at the b e g i n n i n g o f sections. T h e use o f mispat in at least o n e instance as a conclusion e c h o e s the practice o f the Torah in Leviticus 11-15, where "This is the law [tord]" is used only o n c e as a heading but six times as a c o n c l u s i o n . 49

5 0

5 1

52

53

(

5 4

(

a

5 5

56

Before turning to 4 Q D ' s laws o f genital discharge, I w o u l d like to l o o k briefly at its laws for skin eruptions, which appear in 4 Q D immediately before the laws o f genital discharge. T h e p o i n t o f most relevance for the discussion o f the laws o f genital discharge is that the laws o f skin eruptions have a clearly exegetical aspect; I shall argue that the same is true o f the laws o f genital discharge. T h e laws o f skin eruptions contain the only instance o f an explicit interpretation o f a passage from the Torah in 4 Q D ' s purity laws (Lev 13:33 in a f o r m otherwise unknown; 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 8 - 9 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 i 1 7 ) , and they also devote considerable atten­ tion to clarifying the difficult language o f Leviticus 1 3 . Thus they 57

58

59

define the o b s c u r e sapahat (Lev 13:2; 14:56) (RSV: "eruption"; NJPS: "rash"), as a scab caused by a b l o w ( 4 Q 2 6 9 7 1-2/4Q272 1 i 1-2), clearly distinguishing it from other types o f skin eruption, and they a d o p t the term mam'eret ("malignant"), used in Leviticus only o f eruptions o f fab­ ric (Lev 13:51-52) and houses (Lev 14:44), to clarify the status o f skin eruptions in h u m a n beings ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 5 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 i 1 3 ) . While 4 Q D ' s laws o f skin eruptions follow the o r d e r o f discussion o f Leviticus 1 3 , its laws o f genital discharge clearly and purposefully re­ arrange the laws o f Leviticus 12 and 15. Leviticus 15 o p e n s with the laws o f abnormal male genital flow (Lev 15:1-15), moves o n to normal male genital discharge, that is, seminal emission (Lev 15:16-18), then to nor­ mal female genital flow, that is, menstruation (Lev 15:19-24), and c o n ­ cludes with abnormal female genital flow (Lev 15:25-30). T h e laws o f 4 Q D follow the lead o f Leviticus 15 by treating the varieties o f male gen­ ital discharge together b e f o r e female genital discharge. But unlike Leviticus they place the discussion o f the w o m a n after childbirth (Leviti­ cus 12) together with that o f the menstruant and the w o m a n with ab­ normal genital flow in the rule o f the zabd ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 7 ) . While Leviticus d o e s n o t use the crucial r o o t zwb, "flow," in its discussion o f the w o m a n after childbirth, it c o m p a r e s the first stage o f the impurity o f the w o m a n after childbirth to menstrual impurity (Lev 12:2, 5 ) . T h e key to this reconfiguration o f the laws o f Leviticus as well as to the radical rereading o f the laws o f male genital discharge to which I shall turn in a m o m e n t is the interpretation o f the r o o t zwb. In the por­ tion o f Leviticus 15 d e v o t e d to the impurity o f male genital discharge, the priestly source uses the r o o t for abnormal discharge only: zwb means "flow" and thus is n o t properly applied to seminal emission, which in­ volves ejaculation. For n o r m a l male genital discharge, that is, seminal emission, P uses the term sikbat-zera' (Lev 15:16-18, 3 2 ) . It d o e s n o t make any difference whether the seminal emission takes place in the course o f sexual relations o r without sexual relations; the purity c o n s e q u e n c e s are the same. For w o m e n , b o t h normal and abnormal genital discharge are flow. Thus the discussion o f menstruation begins: " W h e n a w o m a n has a flow [tiheyeh zabd], her flow b e i n g b l o o d from her body, she shall b e in her impurity seven days" (Lev 1 5 : 1 9 ) . For the priestly authors o f the b o d y o f Leviticus 15, then, the r o o t zwb has n o t h i n g to d o with abnor­ mality; it has only to d o with the m o d e o f discharge. 60

6 1

62

63

But the H e b r e w o f the Torah lacks a term equivalent to English "dis­ charge" that includes b o t h flow and seminal emission. T h e absence o f such a term caused confusion as far back as biblical times. This confusion is evident in the contribution o f the editors o f Leviticus 15, w h o e m p l o y the r o o t zwb as an umbrella category for all the types o f genital discharge with which Leviticus 15 is c o n c e r n e d , including seminal emission, in

their c o n c l u d i n g summary o f the chapter: "This is the law for o n e w h o has a flow [hazzdb]: for h i m w h o has a seminal emission [sikbat-zera'] and b e c o m e s i m p u r e from it, and for her w h o is sick with her impurity, and for a m a n o r w o m a n w h o has a flow [hazzdb 'et-zobo\, and for a m a n w h o lies with an i m p u r e w o m a n . " In other words, they use the r o o t zwb to m e a n n o t only its p r o p e r referents, the various types o f genital flow, but also seminal emission. T h e rule for male genital discharge in 4 Q D is only four and one-half lines l o n g , and it is n o t well preserved, but it is clear that it uses the term zab in the e x t e n d e d sense o f the c o n c l u s i o n o f Leviticus 15 rather than in the m o r e limited sense o f the laws o f Leviticus 15: 64

65

[And the r]ule concerning one who has a discharge [hazzdb 'et zobo]: Any man / with a [dis] charge from [his] flesh, [o]r one [who] brings upon himse[lf] lust­ ful thoughts or o n e w h o / [ ] his contact is like that of [ / he shall launder his clo[th]es and [bathe in water ] / him, who touches him shall ba[the]. (4Q266 6 i 1 4 - 1 6 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 H 3-7) 66

67

6 8

Baumgarten's translation o f hazzdb 'etzobo ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 1 4 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 3) as " o n e w h o has a discharge" is in the spirit o f the editors o f Leviticus 15, and it responds to the inclusion o f the o n e whose discharge is caused by lustful thoughts in the category. Such discharge is surely an instance o f seminal emission without sexual relations (Lev 1 5 : 1 6 ) . Like the editors o f Leviticus 15, then, the purity laws o f 4 Q D make n o distinction be­ tween flow and seminal emission. Thus I suggest that the third type o f zab, whose existence is indicated by the s e c o n d '6 'aser, "or w h o , " but whose description is unfortunately lost to us, is the man w h o has had a seminal emission in the course o f sexual relations (Lev 15:18). As far as I can see, Leviticus 15 provides n o other candidates for the role, and the evident inclusion o f the m a n w h o has had a seminal emission outside o f sexual relations in the category zab makes plausible the inclusion also o f the m a n w h o has had o n e in the course o f sexual relations. T h e missing line after '6 'dser might have read something like yiskab issa sikbat zera\ "has a seminal emission in the course o f sexual relations with a w o m a n . " This restoration is drawn from the language o f Lev 15:18; it is certainly possible that the language o f the description was less closely related to Leviticus 15, as for the s e c o n d type o f zab. 69

y

70

T h e process o f purification Leviticus decrees for the m a n with abnor­ mal discharge is very different from the process for the man with a sem­ inal emission. T h e man w h o has had a seminal emission has only to bathe and wait for sundown to b e c o m e pure (Lev 15:16, 1 8 ) . T h e man with abnormal discharge, o n the other hand, washes his clothes and bathes o n the seventh day after the cessation o f the flow; o n the eighth day, h e offers a sacrifice (Lev 15:13-15). A n y o n e w h o has physical contact

with the m a n with abnormal discharge, o r with his spittle, o r anything h e lies, sits, o r rides u p o n also b e c o m e s impure (Lev 15:5-10); h e must wash his clothes and bathe, and h e remains impure until evening (Lev 15:11-12). T h e t o u c h o f a man w h o has had a seminal emission d o e s n o t convey impurity; only the s e m e n itself d o e s so. T h e impurity it causes is r e m o v e d by bathing for h u m a n beings and laundering for garments and skins, and then waiting until evening (Lev 15:16-18). Unfortunately the text o f 4 Q D is t o o fragmentary to permit certainty about the nature o f its p r o c e d u r e s for purification for the man with gen­ ital discharge. Still, the brevity o f the text makes it extremely unlikely that it offered different p r o c e d u r e s for m e n with abnormal discharge and m e n with seminal emission. T h e references to laundering as well as bathing ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 6) and the emphasis o n the p r o b l e m o f contact with the zab ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 5, 7) appear to reflect Leviticus's rules for the man with abnormal discharge. T h e fragmentary c o n c l u s i o n o f the p r e c e d ­ ing line suggests that the subject o f the laundering and bathing is the o n e w h o has h a d contact with the zab rather than the zab himself. It is n o t clear from what is preserved whether the rule ordains laundering and bathing for the man with the discharge himself o r indicates the length o f his p e r i o d o f impurity. O n e aspect o f Leviticus's purification p r o c e d u r e that is almost certainly missing is the sacrifice the m a n with abnormal discharge must bring o n the eighth day. I shall return to this p r o b l e m in my discussion o f the treatment o f the sacrifice o f the w o m a n after childbirth, but it is worth n o t i n g here that the purity laws o f 4 Q D appear to assume participation in the temple cult. 71

72

Despite their fragmentary state, it is virtually certain that the purity laws o f 4 Q D understand the man w h o had had a seminal emission without sex­ ual relations to convey impurity to others. If I am correct that the third type o f zab is the man with a seminal emission in the course o f sexual rela­ tions, h e t o o was understood to convey impurity by his touch. This is an extraordinary intensification o f the impurity o f seminal emission, but it is n o t without parallel; 4 Q T o h o r o t A (4Q274) claims that the impurity o f seminal emission can b e c o m m u n i c a t e d by contact: "And when [a man has] has an e m i s s i o n ] o f semen his touch is defiling" (1 i 8 ) . Indeed, the recognition that the purity laws o f the Torah constitute a system might encourage such intensification. Seminal emission is exceptional a m o n g the types o f discharge discussed in Leviticus 15: the p e r i o d o f impurity it causes is far shorter than those caused by other types o f discharge, and only the discharge itself, but n o t the o n e with the discharge, conveys im­ purity to others. 7 3

As just n o t e d , the state o f the text d o e s n o t permit certainty about whether it reiterated Leviticus's requirements o f laundering and bathing

for the m a n with abnormal discharge o r indicated the duration o f the impurity. It is perhaps m o r e likely that it did not. Yet since it is clear that the purity laws o f 4 Q D offer only a selective treatment o f the laws o f Leviticus, this surely means n o t that they rejected those requirements but that they assumed them. But h o w c o u l d the authors o f these laws have i g n o r e d the plain sense o f Lev 15:16-18 and applied the l o n g e r pe­ riod o f impurity and m o r e c o m p l e x rituals o f purification for a m a n with abnormal discharge to a man with seminal emission? Perhaps they n o t e d that while the Torah refers to the man with abnormal discharge b e c o m i n g pure (Lev 15:13), it states that the man with seminal emission bathes and remains impure until evening (Lev 15:16, 1 8 ) . This m o d e o f expression clearly implies the return o f a state o f purity, but the absence o f explicit m e n t i o n may have m a d e it easier to argue that the Torah in­ t e n d e d the l o n g e r p e r i o d it decrees for the man with abnormal dis­ charge to apply also to the m a n with a seminal emission. A r g u i n g for laundering in addition to Leviticus's requirement o f bathing w o u l d have b e e n relatively easy since the text o f Leviticus 15 elsewhere fails to m e n ­ tion a ritual it surely assumed: bathing for the purification o f the menstruant. If, as I have suggested, the laws o f 4 Q D treat a man with a seminal emission as b e l o n g i n g to the category o f the zab and thus as b o u n d by the laws o f purification for a m a n with abnormal discharge, the conse­ q u e n c e s for married life are p r o f o u n d . Even nonpriests w o u l d n e e d to plan carefully so as to b e in a state o f purity for the occasions o n which they wished to bring sacrifices. But for priests and their families, ordi­ nary married life w o u l d have b e e n virtually impossible if they wished to b e able to eat consecrated f o o d , including n o t only portions o f various sacrifices but also tithes. Thus the impact o f 4 Q D ' s laws w o u l d have b e e n felt b e y o n d the two-week p e r i o d o f service o f a particular priestly watch. N o r is this intensification o f the regulations for seminal emission the only place where the laws o f 4 Q D g o b e y o n d the laws o f Leviticus in a way that w o u l d seem likely to wreak havoc o n everyday life. As we shall see, they also require that infants b e nursed by a wet nurse as l o n g as the m o t h e r is in a state o f postpartum impurity ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 10-11). This re­ quirement is presumably the result o f the quite reasonable inference that a c c o r d i n g to the principles o f the Torah's purity laws the new m o t h e r w o u l d convey impurity to her baby. Yet the priesdy source appar­ ently did n o t find the idea o f a baby in a state o f impurity troubling. 74

Despite their radical intensification o f the laws o f Leviticus, the laws o f 4 Q D are presented in a matter-of-fact m a n n e r without any rhetorical flourish, as if there were n o t h i n g surprising about them at all. T h e y ap­ pear to b e directed at all Israel, n o t at a pious remnant; they give n o hint

o f the c o m m u n a l organization reflected in other portions o f the Damas­ cus Document. Yet surely most Jews w o u l d have f o u n d their d e m a n d s in­ tolerable. T h e y w o u l d have b e e n quite suitable, however, for o n e g r o u p o f Jews: the married Essenes w h o , a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, did n o t have sexual relations during pregnancy because they saw the p u r p o s e o f mar­ riage as procreation, n o t pleasure (Jewish War 2 . 1 6 0 - 6 1 ) . A m o n g such Jews, sexual activity w o u l d at least ideally b e quite limited. It is worth noting that 4 Q D s list o f transgressors appears to include a man w h o has had sexual relations with his pregnant wife ( 4 Q 2 7 0 2 ii 1 5 - 1 6 ) . T h e rule in 4 Q D ' s version o f the penal c o d e for the man 'Svho c o m e s near to fornicate with his wife contrary to the law" ( 4 Q 2 7 0 7 i 12-13) may also b e relevant. Further, if sexual relations were to b e limited to efforts at pro­ creation, the purity laws o f 4 Q D might have b e e n somewhat easier to o b ­ serve. Perhaps a man d i d n o t undertake the full process o f purification after each act o f sexual intercourse but waited until his wife had b e c o m e pregnant to u n d e r g o the process. Such an a p p r o a c h w o u l d d o little to mitigate the impact o f these laws o n priests, however. It is worth dwelling for a m o m e n t o n the attitude toward w o m e n im­ plicit in the purity laws o f 4 Q D . Denigration o f the female was wide­ spread a m o n g the ascetically m i n d e d in antiquity. T h e famous saying 114 at the e n d o f the Gospel of Thomas is typical: "For every w o m a n w h o will make herself male will enter the K i n g d o m o f H e a v e n . " T h e b o d y tends to b e u n d e r s t o o d as female, the soul as male. Even Platonists such as Philo, w h o viewed the b o d y as g o o d , u n d e r s t o o d it as inferior to the s o u l . Yet while the restrictive attitude toward sexual relations in the pu­ rity laws o f 4 Q D is a striking Jewish antecedent to a m o r e radical Christ­ ian asceticism, it is noteworthy that it is n o t linked to a negative attitude toward w o m e n . I n d e e d these laws achieve the limiting o f sexual rela­ tions by intensifying Leviticus 15's laws o f male impurity. 75

,

76

77

7 8

79

80

Following the rule o f the zab, 4 Q D moves o n to "the rule o f the zaba" ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 7) . We have seen that 4 Q D reads Leviticus's three types o f male genital discharge—abnormal genital flow, seminal emission out­ side o f sexual relations, and seminal emission in the course o f sexual relations—as instances o f the discharge o f the zab. Leviticus also delin­ eates three types o f genital discharge for w o m e n , the discharge o f child­ birth, menstruation, and abnormal genital flow. While the fragmentary nature o f the text makes it impossible to b e certain, it appears that 4 Q D treats all three types o f female genital discharge u n d e r the rule o f the zaba. Leviticus's comparison to menstrual impurity o f the first stage o f the impurity o f the w o m a n after childbirth (Lev 12:2) and o f the impurity o f the w o m a n with abnormal flow and o f her b e d d i n g (Lev 15:25, 26) p r o ­ vides a warrant for d o i n g so. T h e menstruant, w h o , as we have seen, is i n t r o d u c e d in Lev 15:19 with the term zaba ( 4 Q D 272 1 ii 7 - 1 8 / 4 Q D 266 8 1

82

6 ii 1-2), c o m e s first, followed by the w o m a n with abnormal discharge ( 4 Q D 266 6 ii 2-4) and the w o m a n after childbirth ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 4 ) . In the single surviving manuscript that preserves the relevant p o r t i o n o f the passage ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 4-5), the discussion o f the w o m a n with abnormal flow c o n c l u d e s in the m i d d l e o f a line, and the discussion o f the w o m a n after childbirth begins o n the next line. But despite this possible indica­ tion that a new unit is beginning, the discussion is n o t i n t r o d u c e d with a phrase involving mispat, "rule," suggesting that 4 Q D understands the w o m a n w h o has given birth t o o as a type o f zdbd. Yet while 4 Q D ' s treat­ m e n t o f the three types o f male genital discharge was remarkable for of­ fering a single set o f rules for all three, for the three types o f female discharge, in contrast, 4 Q D delineates a separate set o f rules for each. Thus the treatment o f female genital discharge is considerably l o n g e r than that o f male discharge. T h e discussion o f the menstruant begins by following the o r d e r o f top­ ics in Lev 15:19-24. It notes the seven-day duration o f menstrual impurity (Lev 15:19; 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 8-9) and g o e s o n to consider contact with the menstruant ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 9-10). At this point, with almost half a c o l u m n re­ maining, the text o f 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii b e c o m e s extremely fragmentary. T h e m o d e l o f Leviticus 15 suggests that it considered b o t h h o w the menstru­ ant conveys impurity to objects o n which she sat o r lay and h o w those o b ­ jects then convey impurity to p e o p l e w h o have contact with them. T h e discussion o f the menstruant in Leviticus, as n o t e d above, is remarkable for neglecting to explain h o w the menstruant rids herself o f her impu­ rity. It does, however, explain h o w those w h o have had contact with her b e d d i n g o r seat get rid o f their impurity. At the right margin o f the bot­ t o m o f the c o l u m n , which is mostly lost, are visible the words me niddd, "waters o f purification," and hahayyi[m], in this context, "fresh" ( 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 15-16). A c c o r d i n g to Leviticus, the man with an abnormal discharge is to wash himself in mayim hayyim, "fresh water," at the e n d o f the process o f purification (Lev 15:13). P uses the term "waters o f purification" for the special water sprinkled o n those with corpse impurity in Numbers 19. T h e fact that the waters are called me niddd may contribute to their asso­ ciation with menstrual impurity. I n d e e d Joseph Baumgarten suggests that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y used sprinkling following bathing to re­ m o v e genital impurity and other types o f impurity as well as corpse impu­ rity. T h e loss o f so m u c h o f this passage means that it is impossible to discern the contours o f the process o f purification, but it is certainly clear that water o f s o m e kind plays a role. It is possible that 4 Q D solved the p r o b l e m o f Leviticus 15's striking omission o f the process o f purifica­ tion for the menstruant herself, but it is impossible for us to b e sure. 83

84

Still following the o r d e r o f the discussion in Leviticus 1 5 , 4 Q D n o w turns to the man w h o has sexual relations with the menstruant (Lev

15:24). I have emphasized the way the laws o f 4 Q D understand the Torah's laws o f genital discharge as a system. But they also reflect the in­ fluence o f another relevant part o f the Torah, the laws o f f o r b i d d e n sex­ ual relations in the Holiness C o d e . N o w h e r e in the course o f Leviticus 15 d o e s P prohibit sexual relations with a menstruant; rather, it men­ tions such relations in o r d e r to lay o u t their implications for the purity o f the man w h o engages in them. T h e Holiness C o d e , however, twice prohibits them (Lev 18:19, 20:18). Well aware o f these prohibitions, the laws o f 4 Q D c h a n g e the rather neutral description o f the result o f sexual relations with a menstruant in Leviticus 15, utehi niddatah 'dldyw, "her impurity is u p o n h i m " (Lev 15:24), to ['a] won niddd 'dld[y\w, "the sin o f menstrual impurity [is] u p o n h i m " ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 2 ) . It is n o t the impurity o f the menstruant that 4 Q D associates with sin; the sin is the fact o f sex­ ual relations with her. T h e formulation o f these f o r b i d d e n relations in the purity laws o f 4 Q D is also i n d e b t e d to the Holiness C o d e . T h e verb Leviticus 15 uses for sexual relations with a menstruant is emphatic a n d straightforward, sdkob yiskab, "lies," o r as the King James Version translates in an effort to capture the emphasis, "lie with her at all." O n e o f the prohibitions o f sexual relations with a menstruant in the Holiness C o d e uses the same verb without the infinitive absolute (Lev 20:18), but the o t h e r uses the e u p h e m i s m tiqrab, "shall a p p r o a c h " (Lev 18:19). T h e laws o f 4 Q D a d o p t the e u p h e m i s m , apparently without an infinitive absolute, al­ t h o u g h lacunae in the text make it impossible to b e certain ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 1 ) . T h e behavior was perhaps sufficiently s h o c k i n g to require a euphemism. Following its discussion o f the menstruant, 4 Q D turns to the w o m a n with abnormal flow. It defines abnormal flow as b l o o d seen "again" n o t during the seven-day span o f menstrual impurity ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 2-3). H e r e 4 Q D describes the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f impurity for the first time, at least in the material preserved: "She shall n o t eat any hallowed thing, nor c o [ m e ] into the sanctuary until sunset o n the eighth day" ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 3-4). A n understanding o f the purity laws o f the Torah as a system is visi­ ble here also. T h e only place the laws o f Leviticus spell o u t the restric­ tions o n s o m e o n e in a state o f impurity is in relation to the first case it discusses, the w o m a n after childbirth: "She shall n o t t o u c h any hallowed thing, n o r c o m e into the sanctuary, until her days o f purifying are c o m ­ pleted" (Lev 12:4). T h e laws o f 4 Q D assume, as most readers d o , that the Torah makes explicit in relation to the first type o f impurity it dis­ cusses prohibitions that apply to the bearers o f other types o f impurity as well. T h u s they apply them to the w o m a n with abnormal discharge as well, but with s o m e significant changes in the wording. T h e language o f 85

8 6

87

4 Q D is m o r e p o i n t e d than that o f Lev 12:4, indicating m o r e precisely the nature o f the contact to b e avoided by changing Leviticus's "touch" to "eat"; eating was the primary way in which a nonpriest, whether a layperson o r a m e m b e r o f a priestly family, might have contact with holy things. A c c o r d i n g to the Torah, consecrated o r holy f o o d (qddes) c o n ­ sists o f tithes o r o f portions o f sacrifices c o n s u m e d by priests and the person w h o b r o u g h t the sacrifice. T h e Torah contains n o general prohi­ bition o n eating this f o o d in a state o f impurity, but rather a n u m b e r o f specific rules, s o m e directed at priests alone, s o m e at l a y p e o p l e . T h e laws o f 4 Q D apparently repeated at least a p o r t i o n o f Leviticus 12's pro­ hibitions for the w o m a n after childbirth; only the prohibition o n eating survives, and the manuscript d o e s n o t appear to have r o o m for a time limit ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i i 9 ) . T h e passage in Leviticus 12 refers to the p e r i o d o f the purification o f the w o m a n after childbirth without m e n t i o n i n g the actual length o f time: "until her days o f purifying are c o m p l e t e d " (Lev 12:4). This is a c o n v e n i e n t expression in its c o n t e x t because the actual length o f the pe­ r i o d differs d e p e n d i n g o n the sex o f the baby (Lev 12:4-5). But while the language o f Lev 12:4 c o u l d b e applied to any type o f impurity, the laws o f 4 Q D prefer to specify the length o f time for the w o m a n with abnor­ mal flow: "until sunset o n the eighth day." Perhaps they were wary o f confusing the time required for purifying the w o m a n with abnormal flow with the time required for the w o m a n after childbirth. But they may also have i n t e n d e d to resolve another question raised by the text o f Leviticus: W h e n d o e s the w o m a n suffering from abnormal genital flow b e c o m e pure? O n the o n e hand, the Torah tells us that after c o u n t i n g seven days f r o m the cessation o f the flow, the f o r m e r sufferer returns to a state o f purity (Lev 15:28; Lev 15:13 for m e n ) . O n the other hand, she ( o r h e ) is required to bring a sacrifice o n the eighth day (Lev 15:29; Lev 15:14 for m e n ) . Despite the Torah's explicit reference to b e c o m i n g p u r e o n the seventh day, the fact that the p r o c e d u r e is n o t c o m p l e t e un­ til the eighth day permits the laws o f 4 Q D to d e c i d e that purity is re­ stored only o n the eighth day. 88

89

T h e stringent a p p r o a c h o f the laws o f 4 Q D d o e s n o t stop there, for they insist also that the state o f purity returns n o t early o n the eighth day but at sunset. This rule t o o reflects a reading o f the Torah's purity laws as a system. While Leviticus 15 d o e s n o t indicate at what p o i n t o n the last day o f impurity the process o f purification is c o m p l e t e for the o t h e r categories o f genital impurity, it says explicitly that the impurity o f semi­ nal emission lasts until evening (Lev 15:16-18). It also notes repeatedly that the impurity caused by contact with bearers o f impurity (Lev 15:7, 19) o r with those o f their b e l o n g i n g s that convey impurity (Lev 15:5-11,

90

21-23, 27) lasts until e v e n i n g . T h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the purity laws o f 4 Q D that the Torah i n t e n d e d the same timing to apply to the purification o f the w o m a n with abnormal flow is n o t at all unreasonable. S o m e scholars have read the insistence that purification is c o m p l e t e only at sundown as representing the Sadducean side o f a debate with the Pharisees; adherents o f this p o i n t o f view see the Sadducees and the c o m m u n i t i e s o f the D e a d Sea Scrolls as p r o p o n e n t s o f the same stream o f halakhah, which is priestly in character. T h e y identify the Pharisees' position o n the basis o f the remarkable report in m. Parah 3:7 that the "elders o f Israel" used to render impure the priest w h o was to burn the red heifer. Thus h e w o u l d have to p e r f o r m the task after h e had bathed but b e f o r e the sun had set, making him, in the terminology o f the rabbis, a tebul yom. I have argued elsewhere in s o m e detail that passages in the D e a d Sea Scrolls that have b e e n read as preserving a p o l e m i c against the idea o f the tebul yom are better u n d e r s t o o d as re­ flecting the type o f systematizing exegesis just described for the relevant passage in 4 Q D . H e r e let m e n o t e only that neither the c o n t e n t n o r the rhetoric o f the passage from 4 Q D o n the w o m a n with abnormal flow and the relevant passages in the Temple Scroll offers any indication that these works u n d e r s t o o d the requirement o f waiting for sunset to b e the subject o f p o l e m i c . T h e treatment o f the w o m a n after childbirth in 4 Q D is remarkable for h o w m u c h o f the relevant passage in Leviticus it includes, o r to put it m o r e precisely, h o w m u c h it appears to have included. T h e passage be­ gins by delineating the different lengths o f the two p e r i o d s o f impurity d e p e n d i n g o n the sex o f the child (Lev 12:1-5). It then repeats a version o f the prohibition o n contact with holy things o f Lev 12:4, again substi­ tuting eating holy things for t o u c h i n g them ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 9 ) . T h e lacunae are o f considerable size, but Baumgarten's restoration quite persuasively includes all o f the information o f Lev 12:1-5, although with s o m e re­ arrangement. 91

9 2

T h e text continues with laws n o t to b e f o u n d in Leviticus 12. First, it terms the violation o f the prohibitions a "capital offense," [mi] spat mavet ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 1 0 ) . This threat o f severe punishment for violation o f the laws o f purity provides an emphatic supplement to the matter-of-fact tone o f Leviticus 12 and 1 5 . Next 4 Q D forbids the new m o t h e r to nurse her child. Rather, she is to give the child to a nurse w h o can nurse the child "in purity" ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii l l ) . While the practical implications o f this ruling are astonishing, the logic o f 4 Q D ' s position is quite power­ ful. As already n o t e d , P explicitly c o m p a r e s the initial impurity o f the w o m a n after childbirth, which lasts o n e o r two weeks d e p e n d i n g o n the sex o f the child, to menstrual impurity (Lev 12:3, 5 ) . E n o u g h o f the text o f 4 Q D is preserved to see that it makes the same c o m p a r i s o n 93

9 4

( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 6, 8 ) . A c c o r d i n g to P, a p e r s o n w h o t o u c h e s a w o m a n in a state o f menstrual impurity b e c o m e s impure until evening (Lev 15:19); presumably this person must launder and bathe since laundering and bathing are required for a p e r s o n w h o touches the menstruant's b e d ­ d i n g o r any object o n which she has sat (Lev 15:21-22). Since the initial impurity o f the w o m a n after childbirth is like menstrual impurity, 4 Q D perhaps c o n c l u d e d that during that initial p e r i o d the infant she nurses w o u l d incur impurity by t o u c h i n g her, its clothes w o u l d require launder­ ing, a n d it w o u l d require bathing daily in o r d e r to b e c o m e pure again at sundown. T h e extra w o r k that such bathing and laundering w o u l d have caused in a society without r u n n i n g water, m u c h less washing ma­ chines, is so c o n s i d e r a b l e that the wet nurse m i g h t have s e e m e d a m o r e practical solution. It is hard n o t to agree with 4 Q D that the g r o u n d rules o f P's system m e a n that a w o m a n in the first stage o f impurity after childbirth conveys impurity to those w h o t o u c h her. Surely it w o u l d n o t have escaped P's notice that the n e w b o r n baby c o u l d n o t avoid such contact. Yet Leviticus 12 betrays n o anxiety a b o u t this contact, presumably because the conse­ q u e n c e s o f impurity are hardly relevant to a n e w b o r n . A n e w b o r n baby is unlikely to have the opportunity to enter the sanctuary o r to t o u c h holy things and is certainly incapable o f eating sacrificial meat and other kinds o f consecrated f o o d . For P the undesirability o f impurity is primarily practical: it prevents contact with the holy for those w h o n e e d to b e in contact with it—priests ministering in the sanctuary—and for those w h o are entitled to eat consecrated food—priests, their families, and laypeople w h o have b r o u g h t certain sacrifices. T h e insistence in 4 Q D o n a nurse to replace the m o t h e r so as n o t to convey impurity to the n e w b o r n baby suggests a somewhat different p o i n t o f view in which purity is valued for its o w n sake. 95

This is an appropriate p o i n t at which to raise the question o f the rela­ tionship between impurity and sin in 4 Q D . For P, the two categories are quite separate, but several scholars have suggested that at Q u m r a n , they were n o t . T h e h e i g h t e n e d c o n c e r n for purity for its o w n sake in 4 Q D might seem likely to lead in the direction o f such a melding, but as far as I can see, 4 Q D offers n o evidence for such a view. I n d e e d , as I have writ­ ten elsewhere, I think the view is mistaken; here, however, I restrict my­ self to c o m m e n t s o n the purity laws o f 4 Q D . These laws give n o indication o f the understanding, foreign to P but important elsewhere in the Bible, that skin eruptions are punishment for sin. T h e lewd thoughts that ac­ c o r d i n g to 4 Q D cause the c o n d i t i o n o f o n e kind o f zab reflect n o t an as­ sociation o f the zab with sexual impropriety, but rather the effort to bring seminal emission outside o f sexual relations u n d e r the heading o f the rule o f the zab. T h e man w h o has sexual relations with a w o m a n in a 96

97

state o f menstrual impurity bears the sin o f her impurity a c c o r d i n g to 4 Q D , but this is because Leviticus forbids sexual relations with a w o m a n in a state o f menstrual impurity, n o t because 4 Q D associates menstrual impurity with sinfulness. In addition to its purity laws, 4 Q D also contains laws regarding marriage to a w o m a n o f b a d reputation, but these are presented as an elaboration o f the law o f the bride accused o f lacking signs o f virginity in Deut 22:13-24; they d o n o t invoke the language o f impurity for promiscuity ( 4 Q 2 7 1 3 1 0 - 1 5 ) . Only in the A d m o n i t i o n o f the Damascus Document, which is homiletical rather than legal, d o e s the term niddd, drawn from the technical vocabulary o f impurity in P, ap­ pear to c o n d e m n sinful behavior ( C D 2.1, 3.17); this usage e c h o e s H's use o f niddd for sexual relations between a m a n and his brother's wife. Altogether, despite the value the requirement o f a nurse for the new­ b o r n baby places o n purity for its own sake, I think it is accurate to say that 4 Q D maintains P's view o f impurity as a ritual state without moral implications. I return to 4 Q D ' s rule o f the zabd. T h e rule treats the sacrifice o f the w o m a n after childbirth (Lev 12:6-8; 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 12-13), but it appears to have skipped the standard sacrifice (Lev 12:6-7) in o r d e r to clarify the somewhat unusual provision for a less expensive bird sacrifice if the w o m a n c a n n o t afford a lamb (Lev 12:8). T h e passage from the Torah uses the phrase timsa' yddah, literally, "her hand finds," to mean, "affords." This u n c o m m o n p h r a s e is replaced in 4 Q D by the expression hisigd yadah, literally, "her hand reaches" ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 1 2 ) ; the Torah uses the imperfect o f this expression for all other sacrifices that permit the sub­ stitution o f less expensive alternatives to the preferred sacrifice. T h e remaining words in the fragment also appear to b e i n t e n d e d to clarify the nature o f the p r o c e d u r e in Leviticus: ve\hemird et ha[ , "[and she] shall substitute [it for the . . . ] " ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 1 3 ) . T h e term "substitute" d o e s n o t appear in the Torah's laws for this sacrifice o r the others in which a less expensive alternative is indicated, but it d o e s use the term in the prohibition o n e x c h a n g i n g o n e animal for another that has b e e n set aside for sacrifice (Lev 27:10, 3 3 ) . If an allusion to that passage is in­ tended, it is presumably meant to contrast permitted substitution with forbidden. 98

99

100

101

f

T h e sacrifice o f the w o m a n after childbirth ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 12-13) is the only purification sacrifice o f Leviticus 12-15 treated in 4 Q D . E n o u g h o f the text is preserved to show that in the portions o f the text d e v o t e d to skin e r u p t i o n s and the w o m a n with abnormal flow, the absence o f the sacrifices is n o t merely the result o f partial preservation. T h e text o f 4 Q D breaks off in the midst o f the sacrifice o f the w o m a n after childbrith, and there is a little m o r e than half a c o l u m n lost before the beginning o f 102

103

a new topic, the laws o f agriculture. Thus it is possible that m e n t i o n o f s o m e o t h e r sacrifices followed. T h e feature o f the sacrifice o f the w o m a n after childbirth that attracted attention was the possibility o f substituting a less expensive offering. This is a feature it shares with the sacrifice after skin eruptions (Lev 14:21-31), but n o t with the sacrifice af­ ter abnormal discharge (Lev 15:14-15, 29-30), and I a m n o t sure h o w to explain the absence o f discussion o f the former. T o sum u p : unlike the Temple Scroll, which integrates types o f impurity treated in different portions o f the Torah, 4 Q D offers a close reading o f Leviticus 12-15; its d e v e l o p m e n t o f the laws o f impurity is to a consider­ able extent an attempt to resolve difficulties it f o u n d in the text o f the Torah. It understands the purity laws o f these chapters to constitute a system, but it believes that the Torah fails to present the system as clearly as it might. Thus 4 Q D reorganizes the purity laws o f Leviticus and makes explicit c o n n e c t i o n s that the Torah fails to make while clarifying diffi­ cult language. T h e best explanation for the contours o f these laws, as far as their partial preservation allows us to discern it, is that they focus o n difficulties in the text o f Leviticus. It is in this light that we should un­ derstand the absence o f significant portions o f Leviticus's laws o f skin eruptions, the lack o f purification p r o c e d u r e s for m e n with genital dis­ charge, and the treatment o f only o n e type o f purification sacrifice. T h e subjects n o t treated were those where the text o f the Torah was suffi­ ciently clear—or sufficiently in line with the thinking o f the authors o f the laws. T h e m o d e o f intensifying the impurity laws in 4 Q D also differs significandy from that o f the Temple Scroll Rather than lengthening the p e r i o d o f impurity and making the ritual o f purification m o r e elaborate for each type o f impurity, 4 Q D ' s approach extends the m o r e stringent re­ quirements o f certain types o f impurity to other types. Thus 4 Q D applies the m o r e severe restrictions placed o n a man with abnormal genital dis­ charge to a m a n w h o has had a seminal emission. It also c o m e s to the re­ markable but logical c o n c l u s i o n that a nursing m o t h e r in the first stage o f postpartum impurity conveys impurity to her child. Like the Temple Scroll, 4 Q D intensifies P's laws o f impurity to make cer­ tain that they will have a significant impact o n the lives o f nonpriests as well as priests. But again like the Temple Scroll 4 Q D d o e s n o t collapse the distinction between priests and nonpriests. I n d e e d , 4 Q D attempts to strengthen the boundaries o f the priesthood by inventing further limita­ tions o n w h o can serve as priest. P disqualifies priests with certain physi­ cal imperfections from offering sacrifices, although they are permitted to eat o f them (Lev 21:16-23), and 4 Q D adds to P's limitations with a prohibition o n priests with weak voices reading from the Torah ( 4 Q 2 6 6

5 ii 1-4), a prohibition o n service by a high priest w h o has b e e n captured by gentiles ( 4 Q 2 6 6 5 ii 4 - 7 ) , and a prohibition o n service by priests w h o have lived in foreign lands ( 4 Q 2 6 6 5 ii 8-14). 104

4 Q D , t h e Temple Scroll, a n d Priestly H a l a k h a h Despite their shared desire to r e m e d y what they see as P's t o o lenient ap­ p r o a c h to impurity, the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D g o a b o u t the task quite differendy. T h o u g h the Temple Scroll presents itself n o t as exegesis but as an alternative torah, it reads the text o f the Torah carefully. T h e most dis­ tinctive d e v e l o p m e n t o f its purity laws is the exclusion o f the impure from the city o f the sanctuary and the other cities o f the holy land; while the system o f places for the impure outside the cities is n o t biblical, it clearly derives from a close reading o f several relevant passages in the Torah. T h e a p p r o a c h o f 4 Q D to the purity laws o f the Torah is perhaps m o r e conservative, but its reading o f Leviticus 12-15 manages to dis­ cover a far m o r e stringent a p p r o a c h to impurity in the Torah than the P source itself intended. T h e differences between the intensified purity laws o f the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D have significant implications for the n o w p o p u l a r theory that the legal texts f r o m Q u m r a n reflect a priestly halakhah to which the Sadducees t o o a d h e r e d and which s t o o d in o p p o s i t i o n to proto-rabbinic halakhah. N o t only d o the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D take different ap­ proaches and emphasize different aspects o f the purity laws, but at s o m e points they contradict each other, making it difficult to see them as parts o f the same legal system. Let m e offer a single example. T h e Temple Scroll extends the very brief p e r i o d o f impurity d e c r e e d by P for noctur­ nal emission (Lev 15:16), until the sun sets, to three days; it also adds laundering clothes to the simple bathing d e c r e e d in Leviticus as the rit­ ual o f purification (TS 45.7-10). For seminal emission in the course o f sexual relations, the Temple Scroll also decrees a three-day p e r i o d o f pu­ rification (TS45.11-12); here it d o e s n o t m e n t i o n bathing and launder­ ing, presumably assuming them by analogy with the practice after nocturnal emission. I argued above that 4 Q D ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 1 4 - 1 6 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 3-7) subsumes b o t h o f these types o f seminal emission u n d e r the heading o f the zab. Thus, although the text is p o o r l y preserved here, it seems clear that the p e r i o d o f impurity is, remarkably, the eight days Leviticus d e c r e e s for the m a n with abnormal discharge. Because the text is so p o o r l y preserved, I confess to b e i n g o n firmer g r o u n d with seminal emission outside o f intercourse than with seminal emission in the c o n t e x t o f intercourse. But even if I am c o r r e c t only a b o u t seminal emission outside o f sexual intercourse, for this type o f impurity at least 105

4 Q D and the Temple Scroll define p e r i o d s o f impurity o f different lengths. T h e idea o f a well-defined priestly halakhah b e c o m e s even m o r e problematic if we consider the purity laws o f the Book ofJubilees, which p r o p o n e n t s o f the theory o f such a legal tradition include a m o n g the priestly legal texts. Despite their differences, the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D are b o t h e n g a g e d in intensifying and elaborating the purity laws o f the Torah. T h e r e is n o evidence that Jubilees has any interest in d o i n g so. As we have seen, Jubilees is deeply influenced by the Holiness C o d e and de­ velops laws a b o u t b l o o d s h e d and sexual relations o n the basis o f its read­ ing o f H . But only o n c e d o e s Jubilees treat a purity law f r o m P, and w h e n it d o e s , Jubilees seems quite c o n t e n t with it. This is the law for purifica­ tion for the w o m a n after childbirth with its different periods o f time de­ p e n d i n g o n the sex o f the n e w b o r n child. In keeping with its tendency to retroject into the primeval history and the p e r i o d o f the patriarchs laws that the Torah presents as revealed to Israel in the wilderness, it places the establishment o f the laws o f impurity for a w o m a n after child­ birth with A d a m and Eve, at the very b e g i n n i n g o f h u m a n history. It then uses the creation to explain why, as Leviticus 12 decrees, the two periods o f impurity for the new m o t h e r after the birth o f a girl are d o u ­ ble the length o f the periods o f impurity following the birth o f a boy. It d o e s so by relating the first, m o r e severe p e r i o d o f impurity to its c h r o n o l o g y o f the creation o f A d a m and the separation o f Eve f r o m his body. T h e s e c o n d p e r i o d o f impurity, l o n g e r but less severe, is taken as reflecting the c h r o n o l o g y o f the entrance o f first A d a m and then Eve into the Garden o f E d e n . But while Jubilees attempts to explain the im­ purity laws o f the w o m a n after childbirth, it makes n o effort to intensify them. W h i l e the Temple Scroll required the exclusion o f the w o m a n after childbirth f r o m its cities and 4 Q D prohibited her to nurse her baby, the restrictions Jubilees suggests d o n o t g o b e y o n d those o f Leviticus 12. Thus, in the o n e place that we can test it, Jubilees' attitude toward P's pu­ rity laws stands in striking contrast to the attitude o f the Temple Scroll and 4 Q D , which insist o n a m o r e rigorous a p p r o a c h to impurity. 106

T h e substantial differences o f a p p r o a c h a m o n g these three works seem to m e to raise significant questions for the theory o f a system o f priestly halakhah. Surely there must have b e e n agreement o n the prac­ tices required for running the temple, public halakhah, o r if n o t agree­ ment, then e n f o r c e m e n t o f a single set o f practices by those in control. O f course the practices so e n f o r c e d c o u l d c h a n g e gradually over time o r m o r e drastically in response to changes o f those in charge. But for m o r e private matters, there might well have b e e n diverse practices even a m o n g the pious w h o wished to g o b e y o n d what the Torah required.

T h e library at Q u m r a n preserves f o r us a variety o f different traditions that share to s o m e d e g r e e a basic orientation: the desire to d e v e l o p the laws o f P to give d u e weight to the seriousness o f impurity. T h e s e texts all serve to strengthen the impact o f the laws o f purity o n all Jews, thus making t h e m a litde bit m o r e like priests, but they d o so in different ways.

Chapter 4

Priesthood and Sectarianism The Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, and the Book of Revelation

Before the Babylonian exile o u r sources show little interest in defining m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel. It must have s e e m e d obvious that with a few e x c e p t i o n s those w h o lived within the boundaries o f the king­ d o m s o f Israel and Judah were Israelites. After the exile matters were quite different. T o b e g i n with, g e o g r a p h y was n o l o n g e r as relevant as it had b e e n . Most o f the J u d e a n exiles c h o s e to remain in Babylonia even after the Persians offered t h e m the opportunity to return to their h o m e ­ land, and there was by n o w a significant Jewish presence in Egypt, which grew and flourished in the later centuries o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . Even in the h o m e l a n d itself, boundaries had b e c o m e blurred. In the m i d d l e o f the fifth century, Ezra and N e h e m i a h felt the n e e d to take ac­ tion against marriages between Jewish m e n and w o m e n f r o m a m o n g the n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s (Ezra 9-10; N e h 10:31; 13:23-29); N e h e m i a h c o m ­ plains that many o f their offspring c o u l d n o t even speak the language o f Judah ( N e h 13:24). A t the same time, after two centuries o f intermar­ riage a n d residence in the land, descendants o f the colonists the Assyri­ ans had p l a c e d in the defeated northern k i n g d o m were d e m a n d i n g equal standing in the cult o f the G o d o f Israel. Ezra and N e h e m i a h re­ g a r d e d the offspring o f those long-ago intermarriages in the same light that they regarded the offspring o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y ones: they had n o place in the p e o p l e o f Israel. It is clear, however, that many Jews o f the Persian period, and n o t only those w h o were themselves c o n n e c t e d to families o f questionable descent, felt quite differendy. T h e author o f the B o o k o f Chronicles, for example, appears to have b e e n sympathetic to the descendants o f the Assyrian setders w h o wanted to worship the L o r d since h e takes pains to show that at least s o m e northerners participated in Hezekiah's Passover after the fall o f the northern k i n g d o m (2 Chronicles 3 0 ) . T h e B o o k o f Ruth presents a m o r e direct challenge to the attitude o f Ezra and N e h e m i a h , w h o 1

w o u l d have d e m a n d e d that Boaz send its Moabite h e r o i n e packing. Ruth's explicit e m b r a c e o f her mother-in-law's p e o p l e (Ruth 1:16) an­ n o u n c e s that even u n d e r foreign rule, with the natural boundaries o f sovereignty g o n e , birth is n o t the only path to m e m b e r s h i p in the Jewish people. T h e idea that outsiders can j o i n the Jewish p e o p l e develops m o r e fully in the course o f the hellenistic p e r i o d . A l o n e o f all the subject p e o p l e s o f the hellenistic empires the Jews were monotheists, and thus they alone avoided participation in the religious rituals o f the rest o f the hel­ lenistic world. Yet f r o m o n e p o i n t o f view the Jews were perhaps m o r e similar to the Greeks than any o f the other subject p e o p l e s . Unlike the Israelites' previous overlords, the Greeks u n d e r s t o o d their culture, Hellenismos, to b e accessible to outsiders, w h o c o u l d b e c o m e Hellenes through education. As the B o o k o f Ruth r e c o g n i z e d , Jewish culture t o o c o u l d b e acquired by outsiders. At least since the time o f Ezra, Jewish culture had at its center the Torah, and a culture based o n a b o o k is a culture that can b e learned, t h o u g h the process o f education n e e d n o t b e formal, as the B o o k o f Ruth shows. T h e author o f 2 Maccabees for o n e r e c o g n i z e d the parallel between Jewish culture and Greek as his in­ vention o f the term Ioudaismos, Judaism, o n the m o d e l o f Hellenismos, shows. T h e p e r i o d after the Maccabean Revolt, as we have already seen, saw a significant n u m b e r o f gentiles j o i n i n g the Jewish p e o p l e . In most cases, n o d o u b t , the absorption was a c c o m p l i s h e d without a c o n s c i o u s effort at education. Nonetheless, this influx o f gentiles to the Jewish p e o p l e in c o m b i n a t i o n with the developing understanding o f Judaism as a culture that c o u l d b e learned o p e n e d u p n e w possibilities for defin­ ing the p e o p l e o f Israel. 2

T h e s e factors I have just n o t e d had a particular impact o n the think­ ing o f sectarian m o v e m e n t s , for the d e m a n d s o f m e m b e r s h i p in a sect require m o r e c o m m i t t e d m e m b e r s than birth a l o n e can assure. T o translate into the terms I have used o f ancient Jewish attitudes toward p r i e s t h o o d , m e m b e r s h i p in a sect requires merit rather than ancestry. In this chapter I c o n s i d e r definitions o f m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel in which birth plays a considerably diminished role and the im­ plications o f these definitions for the idea o f Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests. T h e definitions e m e r g e in the most important Jewish sectarian m o v e m e n t s o f antiquity, the c o m m u n i t i e s reflected in the D e a d Sea Scrolls and the early followers o f Jesus. T h e use o f the category "sect" for ancient Judaism is n o t u n p r o b l e m a t i c , but the g r o u p s I discuss here fit the sociological definitions o f sects very well; their beliefs and practices separate t h e m f r o m the mainstream, and the boundaries are clearly defined. 3

4

The Scrolls and Priesthood My discussion o f the D e a d Sea Scrolls centers o n the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community. Both are rules intended for a pious few, and b o t h were f o u n d a m o n g the scrolls from Qumran, although a ver­ sion o f the Damascus Documentwas already known from the Cairo Geniza. But as scholars have n o t e d for m o r e than half a century now, the rules regulate different communities: the Rule of the Community regulates the affairs o f the yahad, a g r o u p o f apparendy celibate m e n living in isolation from the rest o f society, while the Damascus Document legislates for fami­ lies living a m o n g gentiles and Jews w h o are n o t m e m b e r s o f the sect. T h e historical relationship between the communities reflected in these two texts is crucial for o u r understanding o f the history o f the sectarian m o v e m e n t o r movements they represent. But the complexity o f the texts makes it difficult to arrive at clear answers to historical questions; b o t h rules are c o m p o s i t e works, and b o t h have u n d e r g o n e redaction at Q u m ­ ran. I am inclined to follow those w h o see the m o r e radical yahad as an offshoot o f the m o r e moderate sectarian community o f the Damascus Document, and I believe that the results o f my discussion are compatible with such a picture. But the singular "sect" that appears frequendy in the discussion b e l o w is a c o n v e n i e n c e m a d e possible by the u n d o u b t e d c o n n e c t i o n s between the two works, and it is n o t intended to express a j u d g m e n t about the details o f their relationship. Fortunately, the histori­ cal question is n o t o f central importance for my discussion. T h e sectarian communities o f the D e a d Sea Scrolls have often b e e n characterized as priesdy, and with g o o d reason. Many scholars believe that the sect's origins lie in a dispute about the high p r i e s t h o o d , and criticism o f the way the temple was run is a central theme in several o f the sectarian scrolls. Despite their reservations about the actual temple, however, m e m b e r s o f the sect were deeply devoted to the institution: they seem to have c o n s i d e r e d the sect a sort o f t e m p l e , and they wrote works reflecting o n the eschatological t e m p l e and the heavenly temple and its liturgy. Priestly c o n c e r n s are evident also in the sect's legal works, which give considerable space to matters o f purity, temple p r o c e ­ dure, and qualification for priestly service. Further, the sect appears to have l o o k e d forward to a priesdy messiah, either alone o r in the c o m ­ pany o f a presumably Davidic messiah o f Israel. Finally, priests play a significant role in the organization o f the sect, b o t h in rules for life in the present and the future. 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Still, despite these strong indications o f priestly c o n n e c t i o n s , I shall argue that the sect's relationship to p r i e s t h o o d and purity is m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d than this summary w o u l d suggest. I begin by c o m p a r i n g

the role o f priests in the Damascus Document a n d the Rule of the Commu­ nity. W e shall see that while the Damascus Document understands priests to play a significant role o f leadership in the sect, the Rule of the Commu­ nity gives t h e m only a very limited role. I also c o m p a r e the understand­ ing o f purity in these two d o c u m e n t s . In the last chapter I argued that the purity laws o f the Damascus Document, which strengthen a n d elabo­ rate the laws o f the Torah, serve to make all Jews m o r e like priests, as d o the laws o f the Temple Scroll. T h e Rule of the Community t o o shows consid­ erable interest in purity, b u t unlike the Damascus Document o r the Temple Scroll, it contains n o purity laws. Rather it applies the technical terminol­ ogy o f purity to spiritual states.

Children of Light, Children of Darkness T h e biblical tradition imagines all humanity divided between Israel a n d the nations. This is a division o f the utmost importance, b u t it is n o t a di­ vision between the saved a n d the d a m n e d . Israel has a special relation­ ship with G o d that the nations d o not, but that relationship is by n o means a guarantee o f salvation, as the p r o p h e t s never cease to r e m i n d their listeners. N o r are gentiles necessarily e x c l u d e d from a positive fate; s o m e o f the prophets imagine the nations flowing to Jerusalem as they c o m e to r e c o g n i z e the L o r d (Isa 2:2-4; Z e c h 8:20-23). Like the biblical tradition, the Rule of the Community divides the world in two, b u t it is an absolute division between the saved a n d the d a m n e d . Only m e m b e r s o f the sect are children o f light, while all others, Jews a n d gentiles alike, are children o f darkness. This view is only implicit in the Rule of the Community, in which n o gentiles appear, b u t it is explicit in the War Scroll ( 1 Q M 1.1-2), a text o f the yahad in which gentiles play a cen­ tral r o l e . T h e division o f humanity into children o f light a n d children o f darkness has n o t h i n g to d o with Israel's history; rather, the Rule of the Community tells us, it g o e s back to the b e g i n n i n g o f the c o s m o s : 18

From the God of knowledge comes everything that is and will be. Before they ex­ isted he fixed all their plans, and when they come into existence they complete their work according to their instructions in accordance with his glorious plan, and without changing anything. In his hand are the laws for all things, and he sustains them in all their concerns. H e created man to rule the world, and he assigned two spirits to him that he might walk by them until the appointed time of his visitation; they are the spirits of truth and of injustice. From a spring of light come the generations of truth, and from a well of darkness the generations of injustice. Control over all the sons of righteousness lies in the hand of the prince of lights, and they walk in the ways of light; complete control over the sons of injustice lies in the hand of the angel of darkness and they walk in the ways of darkness. It is through the an­ gel of darkness that all the sons of righteousness go astray, and all their sins,

their iniquities, their guilt, and their deeds of transgression are under his con­ trol in the mysteries of God until his time. All their afflictions and their times of distress are brought about by his rule of hatred, and all the spirits of his lot make the sons of light stumble. But the God of Israel and his angel of truth help all the sons of light. (1QS 3 . 1 5 - 2 5 ) 19

T h e view that m a n was created to rule the world is certainly the view o f Genesis 1, b u t the Rule of the Community d o e s n o t h i n g to signal its c o n ­ n e c t i o n to that passage. I n d e e d it is remarkable h o w litde the Rule of the Community refers to Israel's history a n d its covenant with G o d in formu­ lating its view o f the universe. Apart from the faint e c h o o f Genesis just n o t e d a n d the reference to the G o d o f Israel, there is n o t h i n g in this passage to c o n n e c t it to the biblical tradition. T h e Damascus Document's categories for insiders a n d outsiders, o n the other h a n d , are m u c h m o r e traditional. It is true that it refers to other Jews as those w h o m " G o d d i d n o t c h o o s e . . . primordially" ( C D 2 . 7 ) , it ordains ranking n e w m e m b e r s a c c o r d i n g to their "inheritance in the lot o f light" ( C D 13.12), a n d it may even refer to the c o m m u n i t y it ad­ dresses as the children o f light ( 4 Q D 2 6 6 1 l ) . But m o r e often it c o n ­ d e m n s Jews w h o are n o t m e m b e r s o f the sect in language that alludes to p r o p h e t i c c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the p e o p l e o f Israel: 20

2 1

But during all those years, Belial will run unbridled amidst Israel, as God spoke through the hand of the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, saying, "Fear and a pit and a snare are upon you, O inhabitant(s) of the land" [Isa 24:17]. This refers to the three nets of Belial. . . . T h e first is unchastity, the second arrogance, and the third defilement of the sanctuary. (CD 4.12-18) They also polluted their holy spirits, and with a tongue of blasphemies they opened (their) mouth against the statutes of God's covenant, saying, "They are not right," and abomination they are speaking against them. They are all lighters of fire and burners of brands [Isa 50:11], webs of a spider (are) their webs and eggs of vipers (are) their eggs [Isa 59:5]. (CD 5.11-14)

Further, unlike the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document has n o shorthand term to refer to those outside the sect. It never uses the phrase "children o f darkness." T h e closest equivalent to such an epithet is "chil­ dren o f the pit," from w h o m the Damascus Document orders its audience to separate (CD 6.14-15) ; these undesirables are apparendy other Jews. This epithet appears also in the Rule of the Community (1QS 9.22), where the context gives litde help in deciding whether Jews o r gentiles are meant. 22

Priests, Levites, Israelites If the biblical tradition imagines the world divided between Israel a n d the nations, it also imagines Israel divided into priests, Levites, a n d Is-

raelites. A n d just as the division into Israel and the nations fits p o o r l y the sectarian division o f humanity into children o f light and children o f darkness, so t o o the divisions within Israel p o s e p r o b l e m s for the sectar­ ian view o f the saved. T h e tension between sectarian p r e o c c u p a t i o n s and biblical heritage is strikingly expressed in the Damascus Documents famous peser ( C D 3.21-4.4) o n Ezek 44:15, "the Levitical priests, the sons o f Zadok, w h o shall attend o n m e to offer m e the fat and the b l o o d . " T h e passage from Ezekiel refers to a single g r o u p , descendants o f Zadok, w h o are also, by definition, Levitical priests, but the Damascus Documents citation o f the passage supplies conjunctions for Ezekiel's appositives so as to create three separate groups: "the priests, and the Levites, and the Sons o f Z a d o k " ( C D 3.21-4.1). O n e might thus imagine that the Damas­ cus Document reads Ezekiel as ordaining a m o r e elaborate hierarchy, with sons o f Z a d o k at its apex, atop priests and Levites. But in the Damascus Documents interpretation the hierarchy evaporates. T h e priests are the original penitents o f Israel, presumably the founders o f the sect; the Levites are those w h o j o i n e d them; and the sons o f Z a d o k are the elect o f Israel o f the last days. T h e message is clear: the m e m b e r s o f the sect are the true priests; Ezekiel's categories reflect n o t hierarchical divisions but chronology. Despite the conceptual conflict between biblical hierarchy and sectar­ ian worldview reflected in this passage, b o t h the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community make use o f the biblical division o f the p e o p l e o f Israel into priests, Levites, and Israelites. A l t h o u g h the use o f these cat­ egories is largely ornamental, it is nonetheless significant that b o t h rules e m p l o y the inherited categories despite their unsuitability for the sect. As we have seen, the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the Levites into the Torah's vi­ sion o f the p e o p l e o f Israel was n o t as s m o o t h as it might have b e e n . Still, the B o o k o f Chronicles treats them as an essential e l e m e n t o f the b o d y o f the p e o p l e o f Israel, noting their presence at several important m o m e n t s w h e n the p e o p l e are assembled (1 Chr 23:2; 2 Chr 30:25, 34:30). Both the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community show the influence o f this picture in their arrangements for assemblies o f the sect. Thus the Damascus Document decrees: "They [the members o f the sect] shall all b e mustered by their names; the priests first, the Levites s e c o n d , the sons o f Israel third, the proselyte (s) [ger] fourth. Thus shall they sit and thus shall they inquire" ( C D 14.3-6; the list o f the four cate­ gories appears twice in the passage). I shall return to the fourth cate­ gory, proselytes, below. A similar picture appears in the Rule of the Community: The priests shall enter into the order first, one after the other, according to their spiritual status. A n d the Levites shall enter after them. A n d thirdly all the

people shall enter into the order, one after the other, by thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, so that every man of Israel may know his own position in the community of God. (1QS 2.19-22)

T h e Levites also play an important role in the covenant c e r e m o n y that p r e c e d e s the assembly in the Rule of the Community. In this c e r e m o n y the Levites recite the negatives to the priests' positives, Israel's sins ver­ sus G o d ' s mighty d e e d s ( 1 Q S 1.21), curses o n the lot o f Belial versus blessings o n the lot o f G o d ( 1 Q S 2.1-9), and then j o i n with the priests to recite curses o n those w h o enter the covenant without a b a n d o n i n g their evil ways ( 1 Q S 2.11-17). A c c o r d i n g to Chronicles the primary role o f the Levites is liturgical; the needs o f the c e r e m o n y might well have b e e n un­ d e r s t o o d to require Levites. Yet the Levites disappear f r o m the Rule of the Community's picture rather quickly. T h e seating plan for "the session [mosab] o f the many" di­ vides the sect into priests, elders, and p e o p l e ( 1 Q S 6.8-9). T h e status o f elder is presumably achieved by merit, n o t heredity. I n d e e d , there is a certain tension in the description q u o t e d above o f the assembly after the covenant c e r e m o n y between the ordering o f the sect by groupings based o n hereditary status and the ordering within the groupings by "spiritual status." This m o d e o f ordering requires constant striving since status is n o t fixed: They shall register them in order, one before another, according to their insight and their deeds, that they may all obey one another, the one of lower rank obey­ ing the one of higher rank. They shall review their spirits and their deeds every year that they may promote each man according to his insight and the perfec­ tion of his way, or demote him according to his perversity. (1QS 5.23-24)

It is worth noting that there is n o t h i n g in this passage to suggest that such ordering t o o k place within the hereditary categories o f priests, Levites, and Israelites. T h e assemblies just described are the only places in either rule where the sect is g r o u p e d into priests, Levites, and Israelites, unless we include a reference in the Rule of the Community to the c o m m u n i t y as "all those w h o willingly offer themselves to holiness in A a r o n and to the house o f truth in Israel, and . . . those w h o j o i n them in c o m m u n i t y " ( 1 Q S 5.6). "Those w h o j o i n them in c o m m u n i t y " appears to contain a p u n o n Levites: the r o o t o f the verb j o i n , nilwim, is the r o o t o f the n a m e Levi. M o r e often, w h e n they wish to indicate the totality o f the sect, the rules refer to Israel and A a r o n without m e n t i o n i n g Levites. Thus the Damas­ cus Document in its a c c o u n t o f the e m e r g e n c e o f the sect: "He turned his attention to them and caused to g r o w o u t o f Israel and A a r o n a r o o t o f the planting" ( C D 1.7); "And h e raised f r o m A a r o n m e n o f discernment

and f r o m Israel wise m e n " ( C D 6.2-3). T h e Rule of the Community refers to the eschatological c o m m u n i t y as "a holy house for Israel and a most holy assembly for A a r o n . . . a most holy dwelling for A a r o n . . . a h o u s e o f perfection and truth in Israel" ( 1 Q S 8.5-9). But while A a r o n and Is­ rael indicate the totality o f the Jewish p e o p l e , these passages indicate n o difference in their function. This lack o f differentiation may n o t b e par­ ticularly significant in the highly rhetorical contexts in which these phrases appear, but, as we shall see, w h e n the Rule of the Community at­ tributes authority to priests and the rest o f the community, it also fails to distinguish between them. T h e appearance o f the division o f the sect into A a r o n and Israel alongside the division into priests, Levites, and Israelites may reflect the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the rules over a p e r i o d o f time, although the link be­ tween the tripartite division and assemblies seems to suggest an explana­ tion based o n c o n t e x t rather than c h r o n o l o g y . But the reason that different types o f division can coexist is that neither type o f division is central to the g r o u p ' s self-understanding. T h e crucial division for b o t h rules is between those in the sect and those outside it. Within the sect, individuals are carefully ranked, but the rankings d e p e n d o n merit, n o t lineage. Given their rather limited use o f the category Levite, it is perhaps n o t surprising that the rules offer Levites little to d o . Their role in the covenant c e r e m o n y o f the Rule of the Community is their most significant assignment. While four o f the ten j u d g e s o f the congregation in the Dam­ ascus Document axe to c o m e from "the tribe o f Levi and A a r o n " ( C D 10.45 ) , the phrase probably designates priests, w h o are d e s c e n d e d from b o t h Levi and Aaron, while Levites are d e s c e n d e d from Levi alone. If both Levites and priests were required, it would certainly have b e e n possible to say so m o r e clearly. T h e Rule of the Community's council o f the community ('dsat hayahad) requires three priests and twelve "men," presumably nonpriests (1QS 8.1); Levites are n o t m e n t i o n e d at all in this context. T h e only certain role for a Levite in the Damascus Document is as substitute priest: wherever ten m e m b e r s o f the g r o u p are f o u n d , a priest learned in the "Book o f Hagi" is to serve as the group's authority; when n o such priest can b e f o u n d , a Levite may b e substituted ( C D 13.2-4). S o m e scholars have suggested that the sect, living o n the margins o f Jewish society, at o d d s with the Jerusalem establishment, felt a special kinship with the Levites because o f the Levites' marginality within the biblical s c h e m a . But, as we have just seen, the rules provide little sup­ p o r t for this claim. I n d e e d , such an understanding o f the status o f the Levites requires a better historical imagination than a pious ancient Jew was likely to have had. T h e Levites' precariously liminal situation, after all, was d e c r e e d by the Torah. Further, although s o m e scholars have 23

claimed to find examples o f the elevation o f the status o f the Levites rel­ ative to the biblical text in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, to my m i n d the only persuasive instances are those f r o m the Temple Scroll * But it is unlikely that they reflect sympathy for the biblical u n d e r d o g . Rather, as J a c o b M i l g r o m n o w argues, the innovations in the Levites' favor appear to re­ flect harmonizing exegesis o f the Torah, n o t the pro-Levite Tendenz h e originally saw in t h e m . It is also worth r e m e m b e r i n g that, as I n o t e d in the previous chapter, the relationship o f the Temple Scroll to the sect is n o t clear; s o m e important voices have argued that it is at most protosectarian and perhaps even non-sectarian. 2

25

Jews and Gentiles It is perhaps n o t surprising that the Rule of the Community has nothing to say a b o u t relations with gentiles since the m e m b e r s o f its audience p r o b ­ ably had few occasions to deal with them. Even if they had had such dealings, "gentile" is simply n o t a relevant category for them, because, as we have seen, gentiles are part o f the larger category o f children o f darkness. Like the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document focuses its antagonism o n Jews outside the sect, as in the invective o f the passage q u o t e d above. W h e n it considers gentiles, however, its treatment is n o t entirely negative. It prohibits selling them animals that they might sacri­ fice, grain and wine, o r slaves ( C D 12.8-11), but it also warns against killing t h e m and stealing f r o m them so as to prevent blasphemy ( C D 12.6-8). 26

These laws provide s o m e c o n t e x t for understanding the fourth g r o u p ­ ing, proselytes, into which the Damascus Document decrees that the m e m ­ bers o f the sect arrange themselves at their sessions, alongside priests, Levites, and Israelites. T h e only biblical p r e c e d e n t I k n o w for such a fourfold division o f the p e o p l e o f Israel is the a c c o u n t o f Hezekiah's Passover in Chronicles, which mentions n o t only "the w h o l e assembly o f Judah, and the priests and the Levites, and the w h o l e assembly that c a m e o u t o f Israel," but also "the sojourners [gerim] w h o c a m e o u t o f the land o f Israel and the sojourners [gerim] w h o dwelt in Judah" (2 C h r o n 30:25). As we have seen, in the Bible the g^ris usually a non-Israelite w h o has c o m e to live a m o n g the Israelites. As a c o n c e p t o f conversion emerges during the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , the term ger c o m e s to b e used o f converts, proselytes. T h e picture in the Damascus Document o f a g r o u p o f gerim parallel to priests, Levites, and children o f Israel certainly points to an understanding o f ger as proselyte. T h e only other reference to the category in the Damascus Document, "to support the p o o r , desti­ tute, and proselyte" ( C D 6.21), is n o t decisive but also points in this direction. 27

We have already seen that Jubilees rejects the possibility o f conversion and thus the new understanding o f the category o f the ger, similarly 4QFlorilegium prohibits the ger along with a series o f foreigners f r o m entering its eschatological temple ( 4 Q 1 7 4 I 3-4). T h e presence o f the ger a m o n g the m e m b e r s o f the sect shows that for the Damascus Docu­ ment, in contrast, gentiles were n o t so essentially different f r o m Jews that it was impossible to cross the boundary. Or, to put it differently, for the Damascus Document, just as most Jews walked in the stubbornness o f their hearts and strayed f r o m the path, so s o m e gentiles o v e r c a m e their her­ itage and f o u n d the path. O n the other hand, the fact that proselytes are treated as a separate category is also significant; the Damascus Docu­ ment apparently d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e proselytes as Jews just like any oth­ ers. I n d e e d , taken together with the juxtaposition o f the proselyte with the p o o r in that passage, the existence o f the proselyte as a separate cat­ egory in the assembly suggests that for the Damascus Document's c o m m u ­ nity, proselytes are a marginal g r o u p , like the p o o r and the biblical sojourner. It also shows that for the Damascus Document, unlike the Rule of the Community, the distinction between Jews and gentiles has n o t b e e n completely displaced by the division between children o f light and chil­ dren o f darkness.

Priests I suggested above that the division that d o m i n a t e d the sectarians' c o n ­ sciousness was the division between the sect and the rest o f the world, a division beside which all others pale. In the Damascus Document, the ten­ sion between this o u t l o o k and the ancient prestige o f priests is largely i g n o r e d . As we have seen, the Damascus Document understands priests as figures o f authority: f o u r o u t o f ten j u d g e s are to b e priests, and when­ ever ten m e m b e r s o f the g r o u p assemble there must b e a learned priest present to serve as an authority. A priest learned in the B o o k o f Hagi and the laws o f the Torah is to preside over the assembly in which the p e o p l e are seated as priests, Levites, Israelites, a n d proselytes ( C D 14.6-8). But here t o o , as in the g r o u p o f ten, heredity is n o t e n o u g h ; the priest must also b e learned. T h e laws o f the Damascus Document dis­ qualifying priests f r o m serving in the temple if they have lived a m o n g the gentiles, either as captives o r o f their o w n free will ( 4 Q 2 6 6 5 ii and parallels), reflect a similar o u t l o o k . A l t h o u g h they are c o n c e r n e d with the temple rather than the life o f the sect, their view o f the high stan­ dards o f purity to which priests must adhere indicates great respect for the o f f i c e . 28

Like the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community requires that a priest preside whenever ten m e m b e r s o f the g r o u p assemble ( 1 Q S 6.3-4).

T h e r e is n o r e q u i r e m e n t that the priest b e learned, b u t the m e m b e r s are to b e arranged before h i m by rank; such a ranking implicidy under­ cuts hereditary claims such as that o f the priest. Further, w h e n ten m e m ­ bers are assembled, o n e o f them must always b e e n g a g e d in studying the law ( 1 Q S 6.6). In contrast to the Damascus Document, the priest is n o t sin­ gled out; i n d e e d the ten are to take turns studying. Further, although the Rule of the Community often mentions priests in its definition o f the sources o f authority in the community, they always appear alongside the rest o f the community. T h e rules o f organization o f the Rule of the Community contain several relevant passages. Twice the priests are referred to as sons o f A a r o n , twice as sons o f Zadok: They shall be answerable to the sons of Zadok, the priests who safeguard the covenant, and to the authority of the multitude of the men of the community who hold fast to the covenant. (1QS 5.2-3) H e shall undertake by a binding oath to return to the law of Moses . . . in ac­ cordance with all that has been revealed from it to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and seek his will, and to the multitude of the men of their covenant who together willingly offer themselves for his truth and to walk according to his will. (1QS 5.8-10) They shall examine his spirit in common, distinguishing between one man and another, with respect to his insight and his deeds in regard to the law, under the authority of the sons of Aaron, who have willingly offered themselves in the community to establish his covenant and to pay attention to all his statutes which he has commanded men to perform, and under the authority of the mul­ titude of Israel who have willingly offered themselves to return in the commu­ nity to his covenant. (1QS 5.20-22) If, on the advice of the priests and the multitude of men of their covenant, the decision is taken for him to draw near to the fellowship of the community, both his wealth and his property shall be handed to the overseer of the property of the many. (1QS 6.18-20)

T h e publication o f the Cave 4 fragments o f the Rule of the Community has raised s o m e u n e x p e c t e d questions about the status o f the sons o f Z a d o k in these passages for they lack the references to the Zadokites o f the first two passages q u o t e d above. In the parallel passages in 4 Q S ( 4 Q 2 5 6 ) a n d 4 Q S ( 4 Q 2 5 8 ) , authority b e l o n g s exclusively to the multi­ tude (parallels to 1QS 5.2-3 in 4 Q S I X 3 and 4 Q S I 2) o r to the c o u n c i l o f the c o m m u n i t y (parallels to 1QS 5.9 in 4 Q S I X 8 a n d 4 Q S I 7 ) . O n paleographic grounds, the Cave 4 manuscripts o f the Rule of the Commu­ nity appear y o u n g e r than the Cave 1 manuscript, but in the fullest dis­ cussion o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Rule to date, Sarianna Metso has argued that the f o r m o f the rule in the Cave 4 fragments is o l d e r than the Cave 1 f o r m . T h u s the references to the Zadokites were a d d e d at s o m e p o i n t in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the rule. T h e Cave 4 fragments have n o t shed any n e w light o n the two passages referring to the sons o f b

d

b

d

b

29

d

Aaron; n o parallel to the passage from c o l u m n 6 is preserved, and the parallel to 1QS 5.19-21 in 4 Q S I I 1 includes them. Almost from the m o m e n t o f the discovery o f the D e a d Sea Scrolls, Zadokite priests have played a central role in discussions o f the emer­ g e n c e o f the sect and its d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e d o m i n a n t theories, despite differences o f detail, understand the Teacher o f Righteousness as a Zadokite priest alienated from the Jerusalem priestly establishment by the H a s m o n e a n usurpation o f the high priesthood, perhaps even as himself the legitimate claimant to the office o f high priest. Few adher­ ents o f these theories worried a b o u t the tension between the Zadokite ascendancy they perceived and the u n d e r m i n i n g o f hereditary distinc­ tions by the division o f humanity into children o f light and children o f darkness. O n e w h o did was Daniel Schwartz, w h o attempted to resolve the tension by attributing the differences to historical d e v e l o p m e n t : the original m e m b e r s o f the sect valued priestly ancestry, but as the sect failed to gain a wide following, its adherents b e c a m e m o r e and m o r e alienated from other Jews and so c a m e to understand the world as di­ vided into two camps defined n o t by ancestry but by d e e d s . If Metso is correct, however, Schwartz's reconstruction b e c o m e s untenable. T h e sect m o v e d n o t from priestly e m b r a c e o f lineage toward sectarian atten­ tion to quality o f spirit, but rather from radically downplaying ancestry as a source o f prestige toward a limited acceptance. Albert Baumgarten suggests that this direction o f d e v e l o p m e n t may reflect the p r o b l e m s the c o m m u n i t y e n c o u n t e r e d in an early, egalitarian stage. O n e important aspect o f the community's worldview is the belief that revelation is o n g o ­ ing. In that early phase, in which all m e m b e r s c o u l d b e seen as potential recipients o f revelation, revelations w o u l d surely have multiplied, and with them, fissures within the community. As the difficulties o f maintain­ ing a c o m m u n i t y in the face o f conflicting revelations b e c a m e obvious, o n e faction o f the original g r o u p , like other sects such as the Pauline communities and the Shakers, w o u l d have felt the n e e d to bring the chaos u n d e r c o n t r o l . Placing considerable authority in the hands o f m e m b e r s distinguished by the prestige o f Zadokite ancestry w o u l d h e l p to d o s o . d

30

31

32

33

What I w o u l d like to stress here, however, is that even in the Cave 1 version o f the Rule of the Community, authority rests in the c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e , priests and Israel, n o t in the priests alone o r even in the priests m o r e than the rest o f the community. T h e fact that the priests are sin­ gled o u t for m e n t i o n is an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f their status, but it is ulti­ mately an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t without content. It is worth noting that in o n e passage in which 1QS assigns authority to the sons o f Z a d o k and the many ( 1 Q S 5 . 9 ) , the Cave 4 fragments grant authority to the c o u n c i l o f the m e n o f the yahad, 'dsat 'anse hayahad ( 4 Q S I X 8 and 4 Q S I 7 ) . If b

d

the "council" here is a s u b g r o u p o f the community, this is the only in­ stance in which either version o f the passages in which the Cave 1 text mentions the sons o f Z a d o k grants authority to a p o r t i o n o f the c o m m u ­ nity rather than to the c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e . That p o r t i o n o f the c o m ­ munity, as we have already seen ( 1 Q S 8.1), consists o f twelve laymen and three priests; here t o o , then, priesdy ancestry is singled o u t for atten­ tion, but it is n o t a prerequisite for authority. T h e strongest attribution o f authority to priests in the Rule of the Com­ munity refers n o t to Zadokites but to sons o f A a r o n : "Only the sons o f A a r o n shall rule in matters o f justice [mispat] and wealth, and o n their w o r d the decision shall b e taken with regard to every rule o f the m e n o f the c o m m u n i t y " ( 1 Q S 9.7, with parallel in 4 Q S VII 7 ) . It is difficult to evaluate this claim since n o procedural details follow, but it is perhaps relevant that the Damascus Document gives priests particular privileges in matters involving property. If a w r o n g e d party has n o heirs, the priests are to receive the restitution d u e him, as N u m 5:5-8 decrees, and the priests are to receive any ownerless lost property, "for the o n e w h o f o u n d it d o e s n o t k n o w its j u d g m e n t [mispat]" ( C D 9.13-15). T h e use o f mispat in the Damascus Document in relation to matters o f property might suggest that the "matters o f justice," or, perhaps better, j u d g m e n t in the Rule of the Community ( 1 Q S 9.7) has to d o with matters o f property only. Yet even if this limitation applies, that passage in the Rule of the Commu­ nity represents a very different p o i n t o f view and perhaps a different source from the passages in c o l u m n s 5 and 6 that attribute authority to the c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e . T h e Rule of the Community also grants priests the right to b e first to bless f o o d and wine at a c o m m u n a l meal ( 1 Q S 6.46 ) , but these are ritual roles c o m p a r a b l e to the recitation o f priests and Levites in the covenant c e r e m o n y and n o t indications o f authority. While the Rule of the Community's rhetoric is revealing o f the values it embraces, it is certainly true that its grant o f authority to the c o m m u n i t y reveals almost n o t h i n g about h o w decisions were actually m a d e . It is worth noting that b o t h the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Docu­ ment m e n t i o n several officials w h o lead the c o m m u n i t y . T h e most p r o m i n e n t in b o t h rules, o r at least the o n e m e n t i o n e d most frequentiy, is the mebaqqer, the "examiner"; the relationship o f this official to the paqid, the "officer," m e n t i o n e d o n c e in the Rule of the Community, is n o t clear. T h e paqid may well b e a priest since the Damascus Document twice uses the verb from the same r o o t for the priest w h o serves at the head o f c o m m u n i t y ( C D 14.6-7, 4 Q 2 6 7 9 v 11; 4 Q 2 6 6 11 8 ) . In addition, the rules m e n t i o n j u d g e s and the maskil, usually translated sage o r master. But despite scholarly speculation, there is n o clear indication in either rule that any o f the other officials were priests, a silence that is surely sig­ nificant at least in indicating a lack o f emphasis. 34

d

3 5

36

37

Both the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community, then, c o n ­ tinue to use traditional biblical language to describe the sect. S o m e ­ times they describe the sect as c o m p o s e d o f priests, Levites, and Israelites, while at other times they o m i t the Levites and speak o f the sect as Israel and A a r o n . In b o t h rules the influence o f the biblical tradi­ tion seems to have preserved s o m e o f the traditional prestige o f priests. Yet the roles set aside for priests in b o t h rules are largely ornamental: a hierarchy based o n ancestry is o f limited relevance to a c o m m u n i t y in which m e m b e r s are ranked by their deeds. Still, it is important to em­ phasize that the diminished prestige o f actual priests is by n o means a rejection o f the ideal o f priesthood. T h e Damascus Document, for exam­ ple, insists o n the exclusion o f m e n with physical blemishes f r o m the c o m m u n i t y ( C D 15.15-17), e c h o i n g the prohibitions o n blemished priests. T h e r e is, after all, m o r e than o n e way to achieve a k i n g d o m o f priests. O n the o n e hand, all m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y b e c o m e m o r e priest-like, while o n the other, priests b e c o m e less different f r o m others. T h e Damascus Document's identification o f the c o m m u n i t y with the sons o f Z a d o k in its peser o n Ezek 44:15 is a fine e x a m p l e o f h o w the process cuts b o t h ways. 38

The Transformation of Biblical Language at Qumran Important differences between the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community are evident also in their d e v e l o p m e n t o f the purity laws o f the Torah. T h e legal section o f the Damascus Document, as we have seen, contains a significant b o d y o f material devoted to the purity laws o f Leviticus 12-15. In contrast to the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community has nothing to say a b o u t the sources o f impurity so impor­ tant to the Torah. This silence is d u e , at least in part, to the character o f the regulations f o u n d in the Rule of the Community. Unlike the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community d o e s n o t elaborate laws o f the Torah. Rather, it delineates the special rules that govern the life o f the c o m m u ­ nity while, apparently, assuming the laws o f the Torah. Since the Rule of the Community has n o t h i n g to say o n a w h o l e range o f topics discussed by the Torah—laws o f social life, laws o f sacrifice, the festival calendar, to offer s o m e examples—it w o u l d b e a mistake to read any special signifi­ cance into its lack o f attention to purity laws. T h e m e m b e r s o f the sect were surely e x p e c t e d to observe the laws o f the Torah. Still, although it d o e s n o t c o n c e r n itself with purity laws, the Rule of the Community d o e s use the language o f purity, primarily in highly rhetorical passages that represent those outside the c o m m u n i t y as sinful and i m p u r e in c o n ­ trast to those w h o j o i n the c o m m u n i t y and are cleansed o f their sin and impurity. T h e description o f this cleansing draws o n P's t e r m i n o l o g y o f

impurity a n d ritual purification, b u t deploys it in a very different way. Terms that in P refer to specific physical states and ritual e q u i p m e n t are applied in the Rule of the Community to spiritual states and processes. This lavish use o f the technical terminology o f purity stands in contrast to the virtual absence o f biblical language typical o f l o n g stretches o f the Rule such as the passage describing the struggle between g o o d a n d evil in the c o s m o s q u o t e d above. Yet the Rule uses the terminology o f purity in a way that undermines the biblical meaning in the service o f its quite different vision. 39

T h e first e x t e n d e d passage to use the language o f purity is the c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n o f o n e w h o refuses "to enter into the covenant," apparently after having shown interest in j o i n i n g the community: N o one who refuses to enter [into the covenant of G o ] d so that he may walk in the stubbornness of his heart [shall enter into the comm] unity of truth. . . . H e shall not be made clean by atonement, or purified by waters for purification, or made holy by seas and rivers, or purified by any water for washing. Unclean, un­ clean shall he be as long as he rejects the precepts of God by refusing to disci­ pline himself in the community of his counsel. For it is through a spirit of true counsel with regard to the ways of man that all his iniquities shall be wiped out so that he may look on the light of life. It is through a holy spirit uniting him to his truth that he shall be purified from all his iniquities. It is through a spirit of uprightness and humility that his sin shall be wiped out. A n d it is through the submission of his soul to all the statutes of God that his flesh shall be purified, by being sprinkled with waters for purification and made holy by waters for cleans­ ing. ( 1 Q S 2 . 2 5 , 3.4-9)

This passage draws liberally o n P's language o f purity: the r o o t thr, pu­ rify o r b e c o m e pure ( 1 Q S 3.4, 5, 7, 8 ) ; the technical term me niddd, wa­ ters o f purification, the waters m a d e f r o m the ashes o f the red heifer to b e sprinkled o n those suffering f r o m corpse impurity ( 1 Q S 3.4, 9 ) ; a n d finally, "Unclean, unclean shall h e b e " ( 1 Q S 3 . 5 ) , an allusion to Lev 13:45, which requires o n e suffering f r o m skin eruptions to call out, "Un­ clean! Unclean!" to warn others to stay away from h i m . But the passage g o e s b e y o n d P's language. It constructs terms that have n o biblical par­ allels such as merahas, water for washing ( 1 Q S 3.5), and me duki, waters for cleansing ( 1 Q S 3 . 9 ) . It also uses biblical vocabulary in ways n o t f o u n d in the Torah: the r o o t qds ( 1 Q S 3.4, 9) is never used in the Torah with regard to purification by ablutions o r sprinkling. Only at the very e n d o f the passage d o e s the purification o f the b o d y c o m e into view. Un­ til then, the purification described is purification o f the soul, a topic that P w o u l d have f o u n d quite i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . T h e Rule of the Com­ munity uses the language o f purity in an almost p o e t i c fashion to c o n ­ d e m n those w h o have rejected the c o m m u n i t y in the strongest language it can. 40

A similar use o f the language o f purity appears in the Rule's descrip­ tion o f the eschatological purification o f humanity: Then God will purify by his truth all the deeds of man and will refine for himself the frame of man, removing all spirit of injustice from within his flesh, and puri­ fying him by the spirit of holiness from every wicked action. A n d he will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purification (to remove) all the abominations of falsehood (in which) he has defiled himself through the spirit of impurity. (1QS 4.20-22)

This passage blends the terminology o f purity with a m o r e abstract language: purification takes place by means o f G o d ' s truth and the spirit o f holiness. T h e verb "he will sprinkle," from the r o o t nzh, used in the Torah to indicate sprinkling sacrificial b l o o d (e.g., Lev 4:6, 17) as well as the waters o f purification ( N u m 19:4, 18, 1 9 ) , takes as its object n o t any liquid but "the spirit o f truth," which, though it is c o m p a r e d to "waters o f purification," is n o t a physical entity. As we have seen, H also associates impurity with sin, but in a m a n n e r quite different f r o m the Rule of the Community. H's view o f sin as causing impurity appears clearly at the c o n c l u s i o n o f the first set o f laws o f for­ b i d d e n sexual relations: But you must keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of those ab­ horrent things . . . for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you. (Lev 18:26-28)

Despite the rhetorical flourishes, the sins the passage refers to are those it has just detailed at s o m e length: f o r b i d d e n sexual relations (Lev 18:6-20) and idolatry (Lev 18:21). These are specific sins, quite different from the Rule of the Community's spirit o f injustice, abominations o f false­ h o o d , and spirit o f impurity ( 1 Q S 4.20-22). Further, while the Holiness C o d e uses P's language o f impurity to ex­ hort the p e o p l e o f Israel to stop certain sins from taking place, it never in­ vokes language o f purification. It decrees punishments for the sins that defile the land and the sinner (Leviticus 20; N u m 35:30-31), but it is note­ worthy that it d o e s n o t use purity terminology to explain h o w the impu­ rity o f the land is r e m o v e d (Lev 26:43; N u m 3 5 : 3 3 ) . T h e Rule of the Community, o n the other hand, prescribes m o d e s o f purification for the impurity caused by sin. O f course the means o f purification are just as ab­ stract as the sins from which they purify: "a spirit o f true counsel" (1QS 3.6); "a holy spirit uniting h i m to his truth" (1QS 3.7); "a spirit o f up­ rightness and humility" (1QS 3.8); "submission o f his soul to all the 41

statutes o f G o d " ( 1 Q S 3.8); G o d ' s "truth" ( 1 Q S 4.20); "the spirit o f holi­ ness" ( 1 Q S 4.21); and "the spirit o f truth" (1QS 4.21). T h e Rule of the Community, then, draws o n b o t h sides o f P's language o f purity, the lan­ guage o f defilement and the language o f cleansing, but uses the language in a way considerably further r e m o v e d from its concrete applications in P than d o e s H , which draws only o n the language o f defilement. A similarly m e t a p h o r i c use o f the language o f P's technical terminol­ o g y o f purity is f o u n d in 4 Q 5 1 2 , an extremely fragmentary text that c o n ­ tains blessings to b e recited u p o n c o m p l e t i o n o f purification. But unlike the Rule of the Community, 4 Q 5 1 2 is c o n c e r n e d with actual states o f ritual impurity together with the spiritual impurity that a c c o m p a n i e s them. T h e difficulty o f identifying the types o f impurity to which indi­ vidual blessings are c o n n e c t e d is d u e n o t only to the text's p o o r state o f preservation. Rather, despite the p o o r preservation, it is clear that 4 Q 5 1 2 purposely blurs the distinctions a m o n g the various categories o f impurity f o u n d in the Torah. T h e phrase nega niddd ( 4 Q 5 1 2 V 17, XII 16) provides a g o o d e x a m p l e o f 4Q512's slippery use o f the terminology o f impurity. T h e phrase c o m b i n e s a term that refers to skin eruptions (nega') with the term for menstrual impurity (niddd). Further, the sec­ o n d instance o f the phrase appears in the context o f holy ashes ( 4 Q 5 1 2 XII 3) and sprinkling ( 4 Q 5 1 2 XII 6 ) , as well as water for washing ( 4 Q 5 1 2 XII 5 ) ; a c c o r d i n g to the biblical purity laws, the only type o f im­ purity treated by sprinkling with water m i x e d with ashes is corpse impu­ rity ( N u m b e r s 1 9 ) . T h e fragmentary text o f 4 Q T o h o r o t B ( 4 Q 2 7 7 ) 1 ii 7 - 1 0 appears to ordain b o t h sprinkling and immersion for purification from c o r p s e impurity and other types o f impurity as w e l l . If this was standard practice at Q u m r a n , there is then a halakhic d i m e n s i o n to the conflation o f categories o f impurity. Still, it is clear that the thrust o f the blessings in 4 Q 5 1 2 is n o t halakhic definition but the evocation o f h u m a n imperfection. Phrases such as 'erwat besdrenu, the shamefulness o f o u r flesh ( 4 Q 5 1 2 III 1 7 ) , and 'erwat niddd, the shamefulness o f ( m e n ­ strual) impurity ( 4 Q 5 1 2 VII 9 ) , appear to p o i n t to impurity associated with the genitals: bdsdr is used as a e u p h e m i s m for the genitals in Leviti­ cus 15 ( 2 , 1 9 ) , 'erwd in the sense o f nakedness is used repeatedly in the list o f f o r b i d d e n sexual relations in Levitcus 18, and niddd in its most limited sense refers to menstrual impurity. But Baumgarten points o u t that 'erwd and bdsdr are used elsewhere at Q u m r a n to indicate the inferi­ ority o f the c o r p o r e a l aspect o f h u m a n nature to the spiritual. It is worth n o t i n g that despite the p r o m i n e n c e o f the term niddd in 4 Q 5 1 2 the speaker in all o f the liturgies is m a l e . For 4 Q 5 1 2 , then, the signifi­ c a n c e o f the various types o f impurity carefully delineated by P is the same: all p o i n t to h u m a n frailty and failing. 42

43

(

b

44

45

46

47

I m p u r i t y a n d Sin a n d t h e Status o f L a w at Q u m r a n Jonathan Klawans has argued that passages like the o n e s from the Rule of the Community and 4 Q 5 1 2 c o n s i d e r e d here reflect the belief that sin in general causes impurity, a view that g o e s far b e y o n d H's claim that idola­ try, sexual sin, and m u r d e r defile the land. But, as Klawans himself notes, the Rule of the Community marks as impure n o t so m u c h specific sins as "sinfulness in general." This lack o f specificity might suggest that the association o f sin and impurity is n o t a halakhic claim, and the only halakhic implications Klawans can p o i n t to are the punishment o f exclusion f r o m the pure f o o d and drink o f the c o m m u n i t y prescribed for certain sins in the Rule of the Community ( 1 Q S 7.2-3, 15-16, 18-20; 8.16-18, 2 0 - 2 4 ) . Klawans d o e s n o t spell o u t his argument, but it ap­ pears that h e reads the Rule of the Community as treating the f o o d o f the c o m m u n i t y as equivalent to consecrated f o o d . But I think there is reason to d o u b t that the Rule of the Community un­ derstood exclusion from the community's f o o d in terms o f the purity laws o f the Torah. In the Rule the pure f o o d is closely associated with m e m b e r s h i p in the c o m m u n i t y ( 1 Q S 8.16-19, 2 1 - 2 4 ) . Exclusion from the purity means exclusion from the community. But surely if the Rule was c o n c e r n e d with enforcing the purity rules o f the Torah relevant to consecrated f o o d , m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y in g o o d standing w o u l d also have b e e n e x c l u d e d from time to time o n the basis o f physical im­ purity, which w o u l d have b e e n impossible to avoid entirely even in a c o m m u n i t y o f celibate m e n . T h e Rule of the Community d o e s n o t legislate at all for this eventuality. Further, as M o s h e Weinfeld has shown, the penal c o d e o f the Rule of the Community has close parallels in the rules o f other G r e c o - R o m a n cult organizations and guilds. T h e s e rules contain a n u m b e r o f instances o f exclusion from the organization as punishment; sometimes the exclu­ sion is temporary, sometimes p e r m a n e n t . Exclusion f r o m the pure f o o d and drink o f the c o m m u n i t y is probably best u n d e r s t o o d n o t as a measure related to purity c o n c e r n s but as a way o f e n f o r c i n g exclusion from the community. T h e punishment is thus i n d e p e n d e n t o f c o n c e p t s o f purity, although n o d o u b t the Rule's view o f outsiders as impure m a d e it a particularly resonant punishment. 48

49

5 0

51

52

53

Klawans is certainly c o r r e c t that the Rule of the Community and other sectarian texts such as 4 Q 5 1 2 reflect an understanding o f purity and im­ purity that g o e s b e y o n d anything to b e f o u n d in the Torah. But the only practical implications I can see in the intimate relationship the sectari­ ans f o u n d between sin and impurity is their fondness for baptism and bathing, c e r e m o n i e s that operate o n two levels to address b o t h sin and impurity. T h e blessings o f 4 Q 5 1 2 make frequent reference to water for

sprinkling and bathing. Even in their very fragmentary state it is possible to see that s o m e o f the blessings give thanks n o t only for purification from impurity but also for forgiveness o f sin: [to] ask mercy for all the hidden guilty acts . . . you who are righteous in all your deeds . . . from the affliction of impurity [nega" niddd]. (4Q512 V 15-17) Blessed are you [God of Israel, who have saved me from al] 1 my sins and puri­ fied me from the indecency of impurity ['erwat niddd]. (4Q512 VII 8-9) 54

Still, it is important to n o t e that in b o t h passages, while impurity and sin stand side by side, they remain separate. T h e fragmentary phrase "[to serv]e y o u in the purity o f righteousness" ( 4 Q 5 1 2 XIII [?] 4-5) is the closest 4 Q 5 1 2 c o m e s to applying the language o f impurity to sin o r rather, the language o f purity to righteousness, as in the Rule of the Com­ munity. T h e passages q u o t e d suggest rather that sin and impurity are u n d e r s t o o d as two aspects o f h u m a n finitude, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to soul and body. Bathing removes impurity, as Leviticus dictates; repentance, which is enacted by undertaking to bathe, atones for sin. This view is quite similar to the understanding o f the significance o f baptism for new m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y in the Rule of the Commu­ nity. J o s e p h Baumgarten argues that the language o f spiritual baptism in the passages cited above points to s o m e sort o f actual baptismal rite as part o f the ritual for j o i n i n g the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y . T h e clearest in­ dication o f such a practice in the Rule of the Community is a passage that appears in the instructions for new m e m b e r s o f the community: "He shall n o t enter the waters in o r d e r to t o u c h the purity o f the m e n o f h o ­ liness, for m e n are n o t purified unless they turn from their evil" ( 1 Q S 5.13-14). T h e passage is difficult. It fits p o o r l y in its c o n t e x t , and while the 4 Q S fragments contain s o m e elements o f this passage, they d o n o t m e n t i o n water at all ( 4 Q S I X 8-9, 4 Q S I 7-8). Still, the p o i n t seems clear. Since "purification" has c o m e to m e a n m o r e than removal o f rit­ ual impurity, baptism d o e s n o t "purify" p e o p l e w h o have n o t repented; thus those w h o have n o t r e p e n t e d should n o t b e permitted the rite o f baptism, which entitles them to partake o f the community's f o o d , which represents full m e m b e r s h i p in the community. This d o u b l e m e a n i n g o f bathing applies b o t h to initiatory baptism and bathing as an o n g o i n g practice. Further, it hardly needs to b e pointed out that the use o f bathing to mark repentance is by n o means restricted to Q u m r a n . J o h n the Bap­ tist and his followers and the other g r o u p s o f baptizers alluded to in an­ cient sources m a d e the same c o n n e c t i o n . 55

56

57

b

d

58

I argued in the previous chapter that the intensification o f the purity laws in the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll served to make ordi­ nary Jews m o r e like priests by making those rules m o r e relevant to their

lives. T h e Rule of the Community, o n the other hand, has n o t h i n g to say about the physical states that P designates as impure, although it surely assumes the observance o f these laws, at least in as m u c h as they are rel­ evant to an all-male, celibate community. Rather, the Rules transforma­ tion o f P's purity terminology might b e said to work in the opposite direction f r o m the Damascus Document and the Temple Scrolls intensifica­ tion o f purity laws. It bridges the g a p between priests and others by im­ plying that the true significance o f purity laws lies n o t in the physical realm, but in the spiritual, in metaphors for sin and repentance. In this realm there is n o difference between priests and others. A n earlier generation o f Christian scholars claimed that hellenistic Jews f o u n d the d e m a n d s o f the law deeply problematic; the solution to the p r o b l e m was o f course Christianity. M o r e r e c e n d y Daniel Schwartz has suggested that the sectarians at Q u m r a n also f o u n d the law p r o b ­ lematic, for n o t unrelated reasons. Schwartz acknowledges that s o m e sectarian works such as the Damascus Document wholeheartedly e m b r a c e halakhah as the way to achieve holiness, but h e argues that for other sectarian texts such as the Rule of the Community and the Hodayot, the laws o f the Torah presented a p r o b l e m n o t dissimilar to the p r o b l e m Paul identified and solved after his o w n fashion. Schwartz identifies several factors that contributed to the ambivalent attitude toward the Torah o f these sectarian texts. O n e was the sect's belief that revelation was o n g o ­ ing and thus that the revelation o f the Torah was n o t final. A n o t h e r was the sect's alienation f r o m the Jerusalem temple, which led it to seek substitutes for the rituals o f the temple in its own life, such as prayer to replace sacrifice. T h e most relevant for the passages f r o m the Rule of the Community discussed above is the sectarians' distress about their sense o f falling short in the observance o f G o d ' s laws. T h e i r pessimism about h u m a n nature led them to c o n c l u d e that h u m a n beings are inca­ pable o f d o i n g right without divine aid. But what is the value o f the c o m ­ mandments if success in fulfilling them is entirely in G o d ' s hands? 59

60

61

6 2

Schwartz explicitiy c o m p a r e s the sectarians' attitude toward the Torah to Paul's, but h e parts c o m p a n y from Christian scholarship by hinting that Christianity was n o t the only solution to the p r o b l e m facing Paul and the sectarians: rabbinic Judaism, t o o , constitutes a solution. For the rabbis, the laws o f the Torah d o n o t p o i n t to a truth b e y o n d themselves; they are the e n d in themselves. Further, the rabbis were m o r e optimistic than the sect about the possibility o f fulfilling the law, for G o d the cre­ ator had surely taken a c c o u n t o f the frailty o f his creatures in his T o r a h . 63

64

Schwartz's argument is b o t h provocative and problematic. Let m e be­ gin by noting that o n e c o u l d represent Pauline Christianity quite differ­ ently f r o m the way Schwartz does. It has b e e n m o r e than forty years since Krister Stendahl argued that the traditional view that Paul rejected

the law o u t o f despair at the impossibility o f keeping it told us m o r e a b o u t Luther than about Paul. M o r e recently, an influential b o d y o f scholarship has suggested that Paul's objections to the law pertained only to its observance by gentiles, n o t by Jews. So t o o Schwartz's char­ acterization o f rabbinic Judaism is o p e n to objection. N o d o u b t there are strands o f rabbinic thought that h o l d the view that the laws o f the Torah are an e n d in themselves, but it is by n o means clear that this view is dominant, and its presence is certainly m o r e p r o m i n e n t in s o m e lay­ ers o f rabbinic literature than others. Still, Schwartz is surely c o r r e c t that s o m e sectarian texts reflect the belief that observance o f the laws o f the Torah is n o t in itself sufficient for piety o r salvation. I n d e e d such an attitude appears to lie b e h i n d the use o f the language o f ritual purity for spiritual states discussed above. But d o e s the tension between c o m m i t m e n t to the laws o f the Torah and a sense that those laws are s o m e h o w inadequate necessarily make a system unstable? In my view, Schwartz underestimates the ability o f reli­ gious systems to maintain positions that from a certain angle o f vision may b e incompatible. In the particular case o f the Q u m r a n sectarians and in many other cases as well, the authoritative texts o f the c o m m u ­ nity reflect different and even divergent points o f view. N o t only the sec­ tarians, but other pious Jews throughout the ages, c o u l d b e m o v e d by the evocative personal language o f sin and r e d e m p t i o n o f many o f the psalms without any desire to a b a n d o n the laws o f the Torah. (So t o o , as I suggested in chapter 1, the failure o f the Book of the Watchers to m e n t i o n Moses and his covenant reflects n o t rejection o r lack o f interest in the Torah but rather the specific c o n c e r n s o f the work.) Despite the powerful catalyst o f intense eschatological expectation, the evidence f r o m Q u m r a n shows that the sectarians were able to main­ tain their ambivalent attitude toward the Torah and its laws through sev­ eral generations. It was n o t the inherent instability o f their system o f thought that b r o u g h t an e n d to the sectarian community, as far as we can tell, but rather the devastation caused by the revolt against R o m e and the new situation caused by the destruction o f the temple. 65

66

67

Priests in the Book of Revelation Finally, I w o u l d like to turn to a Jewish sectarian work that, rather than de-emphasizing the role o f priests in the n e w order, understands all o f the righteous as priests. T h e work in question is the B o o k o f Revelation, and the sect is, o f course, the followers o f Jesus. J o h n a n n o u n c e s the new understanding o f priesthood and its importance for h i m at the be­ ginning o f the b o o k in his address to Jesus Christ as "him w h o loves us and has freed us f r o m o u r sins by his b l o o d and has m a d e us a k i n g d o m , 68

priests to his G o d and Father" (Rev 1:5-6); the p r i e s t h o o d o f the saved is a recurring t h e m e o f the b o o k . T h e claim that the B o o k o f Revelation should b e read as a Jewish work perhaps requires s o m e defense. H e r e I am particularly i n d e b t e d to J o h n Marshall, w h o has argued persuasively that it is anachronistic to apply the label "Christian" to Revelation. T h e category Christian hardly ex­ isted in J o h n ' s day, and "Israel" and 'Jews" are clearly positive categories in Revelation. S o m e recent scholarship has righdy insisted that the let­ ters o f Paul constitute e v i d e n c e for Judaism in the first century. But if Paul counts as e v i d e n c e for Judaism, all the m o r e should the B o o k o f Revelation. Unlike Paul, w h o discouraged his converts from observing the laws o f the Torah, J o h n criticizes followers o f Jesus w h o are insufficiently loyal to those laws. T h e B o o k o f Revelation begins with "letters" to the seven churches in Asia M i n o r accusing them o f various failings. David Frank­ furter has recently argued that the specifics o f the accusations suggest that they are directed at followers o f Paul. T h e letters to the churches o f P e g a m u m and Thyatira c o n d e m n m e m b e r s o f those c o m m u n i t i e s for committing harlotry and eating f o o d sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14, 2 0 ) . As Frankfurter admits, it is difficult to determine the specific sins char­ acterized as "committing harlotry," a term that evokes the biblical associ­ ation o f idolatry and sexual sin. But the charge o f eating f o o d sacrificed to idols is m o r e p o i n t e d . It is hard n o t to think o f Paul's advice to the Corinthians: 6 9

70

71

72

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of con­ science. (But if some one says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake— I mean his conscience, and not yours—do not eat it.) (1 Cor 10:27-29)

Either the churches at P e r g a m u m and Thyatira were unwilling to make the concession to John's c o n s c i e n c e that Paul encourages, o r it was n o t e n o u g h for J o h n . In any case, Paul's o w n words make it clear that his position aroused o p p o s i t i o n . Frankfurter also p r o p o s e s to understand the g r o u p s in Smyrna (Rev 2:9) and Philadelphia (Rev 3:9) that J o h n d e n o u n c e s as "synagogues o f Satan" in light o f Paul's teachings. T h e standard view has b e e n that those w h o "say they are Jews but are n o t " are ethnic Jews w h o reject Christ, a reading that, as Marshall points out, reverses a straightforward reading o f J o h n ' s w o r d s . Frankfurter suggests rather that those w h o "say they are Jews but are n o t " are gentile followers o f Jesus. W h i l e they remain uncircumcised, they view themselves, following Paul, as circumcised in the heart, Jews inwardly if n o t outwardly ( R o m 2:27-28). F r o m John's 73

p o i n t o f view, however, they are gentiles w h o claim f o r themselves the h o n o r a b l e title 'Jew" without having any right to it. T h e attack o n those w h o "say they are Jews but are n o t " c o u l d well b e J o h n ' s entry into the debate about whether circumcision was required o f gentile followers o f Jesus, a subject o f controversy in the Galatian c o m m u n i t y Paul ad­ dresses (Gal 5:2-12). Frankfurter also suggests that J o h n ' s c o n c e r n for purity is an indica­ tion o f his c o m m i t m e n t to Jewish practices. T h e insistence that the new Jerusalem b e kept free o f all sources o f impurity (Rev 21:27) is note­ worthy. While o n the o n e h a n d J o h n claims that the city needs n o tem­ ple because G o d a n d the L a m b are to b e available without mediation, the explicit retention o f purity rules suggests that in another sense the temple has n o t b e e n eliminated b u t e x p a n d e d to include the w h o l e o f the city. S o t o o in the Temple Scroll purity laws apply to the w h o l e "city o f the sanctuary." Altogether, it is clear that J o h n c o n t i n u e d to e m b r a c e many aspects o f Jewish practice. T h e r e is n o positive evidence that h e rejected any as­ pect. I n d e e d , J o h n addresses his readers as "those w h o k e e p the c o m ­ mandments o f G o d and the faith o f Jesus" (Rev 14:12). H e calls the p e o p l e against w h o m the d r a g o n makes war, "those w h o k e e p the c o m ­ mandments a n d bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev 12:17). Most c o m m e n t a ­ tors assume that J o h n means only that his audience observes s o m e p o r t i o n o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f the Torah, such as the ethical c o m ­ mandments. But, as Marshall points out, this assumption is based n o t o n any internal evidence b u t o n a preexisting view o f which c o m m a n d ­ ments a Christian should b e e x p e c t e d to k e e p . 74

75

76

77

Finally, Marshall argues that if we start from the assumption that J o h n values Jewish practice, the lack o f explicit reference to certain Jewish practices in Revelation reads quite differendy. O n e e x a m p l e h e points to is J o h n ' s silence o n the Sabbath, an observance that many c o m m e n t a ­ tors have suggested J o h n rejected. Yet n o reader can fail to n o t e that the B o o k o f Revelation is full o f the n u m b e r seven. In light o f J o h n ' s atti­ tude toward other aspects o f Jewish practice, it may well b e that the lack o f explicit reference to Sabbath observance means n o t that J o h n re­ j e c t e d it b u t that h e t o o k it for granted. 78

Jews and Gentiles, Holy Ones and Damned Yet to call Revelation a Jewish work is n o t to question that the place o f gentiles in the s c h e m e o f salvation was a central c o n c e r n for J o h n as it was for Paul a n d others in the Jesus m o v e m e n t . W h e n the Q u m r a n c o m ­ munity replaced the biblical division between Israel and the nations with the division between children o f light and children o f darkness, the

new division left gentiles as a g r o u p outside. T h e sectarians a l o n e were children o f light, while most Jews together with all gentiles were chil­ dren o f darkness. J o h n also superimposes o n the biblical division between Israel and the nations a division between the saved and the d a m n e d , in his terms, the "holy o n e s " and everyone else, or, as h e sometimes puts it, those w h o s e names are written in the b o o k o f life o f the L a m b and those whose names are n o t (Rev 13:8; 21:27). Further, just as the Rule of the Community claims that the division between children o f light and chil­ dren o f darkness g o e s back to the beginning o f time, J o h n places the writ­ ing o f names in the b o o k "before the foundation o f the world" (Rev 13:8). J o h n shares the Q u m r a n sectarians' view o f their fellow Jews: only a mi­ nority is c o u n t e d a m o n g the holy ones, the 144,000 Israelites sealed by the angel (Rev 7 : 3 ) . H e r e I part c o m p a n y from Marshall. Marshall points out that the c h a n g e in status o f those gentiles w h o m the L a m b ransoms and makes holy o n e s is a central theme o f the B o o k o f Revela­ tion, but there is n o indication that any Jews u n d e r g o a c o r r e s p o n d i n g change in status from inclusion a m o n g the holy o n e s to c o n d e m n a t i o n . In the standard reading, o f course, the 144,000 are n o t Jews at all but Christians, and the synagogues o f Satan are Jews c o n d e m n e d for their opposition to Christians. But if we accept Marshall's view that when J o h n says Jews, h e means Jews, the picture is quite different; there is n o refer­ e n c e to c o n d e m n e d Israelites in Revelation. Marshall argues that for J o h n the salvation o f Jews is never at issue: there is n o indication in his b o o k that J o h n saw himself in opposition to Jews w h o were n o t followers o f Jesus; his anger is directed at followers o f Jesus w h o are insufficiently punctilious about Jewish practices and insufficiently zealous in their re­ j e c t i o n o f the evil empire u n d e r whose rule they f o u n d themselves. 79

80

81

Yet is it possible that J o h n believed that the names o f all Jews were written "in the b o o k o f life o f the L a m b " (Rev 13:8)? If so, it w o u l d cer­ tainly require that most o f the Jewish names written in the b o o k be­ l o n g e d to Jews w h o d i d n o t share J o h n ' s allegiance to the L a m b . T o m e this seems unlikely. It is worth noting that while the seal used o n the foreheads o f the 144,000 is first referred to as the "seal o f the living G o d " (Rev 7:2), we later find that the foreheads are inscribed with the n a m e o f the L a m b and his father (Rev 14:1). It is also worth remember­ ing that in the passage f r o m Ezekiel that provides the m o d e l for the seal­ ing o f the 144,000, the angel is to mark the foreheads " o f the m e n w h o sigh and groan over the abominations that are c o m m i t t e d in [ J e r u s a l e m ] " (Ezek 9 : 4 ) . Clearly these m e n constitute only a minority o f the inhabitants o f Jerusalem. Marshall's view that J o h n i n c l u d e d all Israel a m o n g the holy o n e s seems to m e an o v e r c o m p e n s a t i o n for the standard reading o f Revela­ tion in which almost all Israel b e l o n g s a m o n g the d a m n e d . J o h n ' s sec-

tarian view o f humanity makes such an inclusive view o f the saved highly unlikely. Marshall is surely c o r r e c t that the o p p o n e n t s J o h n addresses in the letters at the b e g i n n i n g o f the b o o k are followers o f Jesus insufficiendy c o m m i t t e d to Jewish practice. T h e fact that J o h n has n o t h i n g to say a b o u t Jews w h o are n o t followers o f the L a m b may reflect n o t accep­ tance but a lack o f interest in them. Jews w h o d o n o t recognize Jesus as Christ are simply n o t relevant to J o h n ; they did n o t show u p at the gath­ erings h e attended, n o r d i d they pay m u c h attention to h i m . Marshall is surely c o r r e c t that for J o h n the n a m e "Israel" is always a positive o n e . But the same is true at Q u m r a n . T h e sectarian a p p r o a c h , whether at Q u m r a n o r Patmos, is n o t to reject the n a m e Israel but to limit m e m b e r ­ ship in it. But there is a crucial difference between J o h n and the Q u m r a n sec­ tarians. Gentiles d o n o t seem to have b e e n very m u c h o n the minds o f the Q u m r a n sectarians, w h o had litde contact with them. But the fate o f gentiles, as I have already n o t e d , was an important c o n c e r n o f the early Jesus m o v e m e n t , and gentiles appear to have m a d e u p a significant n u m b e r o f the followers o f Jesus in Asia Minor. Perhaps for this reason J o h n follows the sectarian logic o f merit over ancestry farther than d i d the Q u m r a n sectarians: a central task o f the L a m b is to r e d e e m gentiles with his b l o o d (Rev 5:9-10). T h e gentiles ransomed by the L a m b stand in contrast to the rest o f the gentiles, w h o are c o n d e m n e d for their alle­ giance to the beast (e.g., Rev 13:7-8, 17:15). Perhaps it is unnecessary to note, given J o h n ' s sectarian o u t i o o k , that only a minority o f gentiles are thus p r o m o t e d to salvation. Unfortunately for us, J o h n never lays o u t explicitly what h e e x p e c t e d o f gentile followers o f Jesus. But o n the basis o f what J o h n criticizes and what h e praises, it seems to m e that J o h n must have believed that for a gentile part o f b e c o m i n g a follower o f Jesus was b e c o m i n g a Jew. W h i l e there was n o t yet an agreed-upon ritual for conversion to Judaism, it seems likely that J o h n w o u l d have e x p e c t e d a gentile e m b r a c i n g Ju­ daism ( o r Jesus) to u n d e r g o circumcision and to observe the laws o f the Torah such as the dietary laws and purity laws. 82

A Kingdom and Priests A b o v e I suggested that the Rule of the Community resolved the tension between the meritocratic criteria for m e m b e r s h i p in the sect and the ancestral right to Israelite p r i e s t h o o d in favor o f merit: whatever pres­ tige priests retain in the Rule, their r o l e is almost entirely ornamental. T h e B o o k o f Revelation faced the same p r o b l e m , but resolved it quite differendy. Unlike the Rule of the Community, which d o e s n o t entirely di­ vest itself o f priests, as its logic w o u l d require, J o h n carried his solution

through to its logical c o n c l u s i o n . For Revelation, merit completely trumps ancestry, so that all o f the righteous, Jews and gentiles alike, are u n d e r s t o o d as priests. T h e two solutions are not, however, truly o p p o sites as they may at first glance appear to b e . A c o m m u n i t y in which everyone is a priest is really n o t very different f r o m a c o m m u n i t y in which there are n o priests. As I n o t e d above, J o h n introduces the idea that the saved are priests at the very b e g i n n i n g o f the b o o k (Rev 1:6). T h e inclusion o f gentiles in J o h n ' s p r i e s t h o o d is a n n o u n c e d in the first vision o f the L a m b in the heavenly temple (Revelation 5 ) . T h e r e the living creatures and the eld­ ers praise the L a m b for ransoming gentiles with his b l o o d and making them "a k i n g d o m and priests to o u r G o d " (Rev 5:10), a phrase that e c h o e s Rev 1:6 (with the addition o f the c o n j u n c t i o n "and") and, m o r e distantly, E x o d 19:6. T h e praise is realized in the vision J o h n sees after the sealing o f the 144,000 Israelites, "a great multitude which n o m a n c o u l d number, f r o m every nation, f r o m all tribes a n d p e o p l e s and tongues," dressed in white robes, acclaiming G o d and the L a m b (Rev 7:9-10); they stand "before the throne o f G o d / a n d serve h i m day and night within his temple" (Rev 7:15). T h e 144,000 righteous Israelites sealed by the angel (Rev 7:2-8) also act as priests, for later J o h n sees t h e m standing with the L a m b o n Mt. Z i o n , singing a s o n g that only they c o u l d learn (Rev 14:1-5), a liturgical function. T h e 144,000, we learned earlier, consist o f 12,000 f r o m each tribe o f Israel (Rev 7:5-8). Thus a twelfth o f t h e m can claim Levitical descent and only a smaller p o r t i o n , A a r o n i d e descent. So J o h n ' s Israelite priests t o o transcend the tradi­ tional definition o f priesthood. Furthermore, John's priests must include w o m e n since s o m e o f the holy o n e s in the communities J o h n knew were surely w o m e n . Yet the 144,000 are explicitly described as male for they "have n o t defiled them­ selves with w o m e n " (Rev 14:4), while the g e n d e r c o m p o s i t i o n o f the great multitude is never specified. As their n u m b e r indicates, the 144,000 are intended as symbolic o f the true Israel. T h e presence a m o n g them o f m e m b e r s o f the long-vanished tribes o f the northern k i n g d o m makes this c o n c l u s i o n unavoidable. T h e identification o f the 144,000 as male works to obscure the fact that John's picture implies w o m e n as priests in the heavenly temple. Apparently the idea o f w o m e n as priests was m o r e shocking than the idea o f Jews without Levitical de­ scent o r even gentiles in that role. 83

W h i l e the passages just c o n s i d e r e d distinguish between Jewish priests and gentile priests, J o h n twice represents martyrs as priests without dif­ ferentiating between Jews and gentiles. Before the p o u r i n g o u t o f the seven plagues, J o h n sees "those w h o had c o n q u e r e d the beast" standing with harps b e f o r e G o d ' s throne and singing (Rev 15:2-4); their identifi-

cation as priests is n o t explicit, but it is nonetheless clear. Later, the mar­ tyrs w h o reign with Christ for a thousand years at the e n d are called "priests o f G o d and o f Christ" (Rev 20:4-6). It is as if having established that holy o n e s o f b o t h Jewish and gentile origin can b e priests in the heavenly temple, J o h n can finally treat the two groups as a single body. It is also worth noting that, as elsewhere in apocalyptic literature, priest­ h o o d and angelic status are closely related. J o h n depicts the holy o n e s j o i n i n g in the praise offered by the personnel o f the heavenly temple, the clearly angelic holy creatures, the c h e r u b i m o f Ezekiel's vision, and the twenty-four elders, w h o also appear to b e heavenly beings. J o h n him­ self is assured by his angelic interlocutor that h e is his "fellow servant" (Rev 22:9). J o h n ' s picture o f a gentile priesthood finds an antecedent in the p r o p h e c y in the last chapter o f the B o o k o f Isaiah. As the b e g i n n i n g o f the b o o k looks forward to a day w h e n all nations will r e c o g n i z e the L o r d and c o m e to Jerusalem for his teaching (Isa 2:2-3), thus making Israel's way the way o f all nations, so the last chapter o f the b o o k prophesies that at the e n d o f days G o d will take priests and Levites f r o m a m o n g the nations (Isa 66:21), allowing all nations a place o n the highest rung o f the Israelite hierarchy. J o h n frequently draws o n the last chapters o f Isaiah, and surely h e w o u l d n o t have failed to notice this striking pas­ sage. But J o h n ' s picture o f gentile priests differs from 3 Isaiah's picture in a very important way. T h e p r o p h e t imagines G o d c h o o s i n g a p o r t i o n o f the gentiles to serve as priests just as h e had o n c e c h o s e n a p o r t i o n o f the Israelites. For J o h n all o f the r e d e e m e d gentiles are priests—just as all o f the r e d e e m e d Jews are. T h e attitude toward the temple in the B o o k o f Revelation fits well with the attitude toward priests. It is clear that Revelation, like many Jew­ ish apocalyptic texts, understands heaven as a t e m p l e . As we saw for the Book of the Watchers, interest in the heavenly temple can b e an indica­ tion o f discontent with the state o f affairs in the earthly temple, but it is surely also an indication o f respect for the ideal o f the t e m p l e . Al­ t h o u g h the new Jerusalem that descends from heaven at the e n d o f the B o o k o f Revelation (Rev 21:2) contains n o temple, John's description o f the city makes it clear that the ideal o f the temple has n o t b e e n rejected. J o h n tells us that the eschatological city n o l o n g e r needs a temple, for "Its temple is the L o r d G o d the Almighty and the L a m b " (Rev 21:22). But despite the availability o f the presence o f G o d and the L a m b , J o h n ' s angelic interlocutor measures the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:15-21), just as Ezekiel's angelic guide measured the dimensions o f the eschatological temple in the c o n c l u d i n g vision o f that b o o k (Ezekiel 40-42). In other words, f r o m o n e p o i n t o f view the entire city o f Jerusalem has b e c o m e a temple. Further, as I n o t e d above, J o h n insists that purity laws apply to 84

85

86

87

this city without a temple just as they o n c e applied in the temple (Rev 21:27). H e r e , as in his treatment o f priesthood, in which all the holy o n e s are priests, J o h n transforms the temple by e x p a n d i n g its limits rather than by eliminating it. T h e tension between ancestry and merit for the definition o f the p e o p l e o f Israel was deeply troubling for the sectarian Jews c o n s i d e r e d in this chapter. T h e Damascus Document saw the sect as the true Israel, the Israel defined by merit, but it r e m a i n e d loyal to the thought and language o f texts with a m o r e inclusive view o f an Israel defined by birth. T h e Rule of the Community and the B o o k o f Revelation, o n the other hand, f o u n d the tension intolerable and d e c i d e d in favor o f merit. T h e logic o f the Rule of the Community's division o f humanity into children o f light and chil­ dren o f darkness dictates that a hierarchy based o n ancestry has n o place a m o n g the children o f light, whose status is d e t e r m i n e d by merit alone. T h e rejection o f such a hierarchy o f course has negative implica­ tions for the Jewish priesthood. Yet like the m o r e m o d e r a t e Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community fails to follow through o n its pro­ gram. Priests retain a place, if only an ornamental o n e , and their impor­ tance appears to increase f r o m the earlier version o f the Rule ( 4 Q S ) to the later version ( 1 Q S ) . Further, while in the Rule of the Community the division between children o f light and children o f darkness has su­ p e r c e d e d the division between Israel and the nations, a significant as­ p e c t o f the o l d division is preserved because the Rule c a n n o t imagine gentiles as children o f light. T h e B o o k o f Revelation is m o r e consistent in its application o f the principle o f merit over ancestry. J o h n ' s holy o n e s are drawn n o t only f r o m Israel but also from the nations. A n d since all o f them are worthy, J o h n d o e s n o t de-emphasize the importance o f priesthood as the Rule of the Community d o e s but makes them all priests, a priesthood defined by merit.

Chapter 5

Priesthood and Allegory Philo and Alexandrian Judaism

With the e x c e p t i o n o f J o h n o f Patmos, the authors o f the texts I have c o n s i d e r e d so far lived in the land o f Israel and wrote in H e b r e w o r Ara­ maic. T h e temple s t o o d in easy reach, and its cult was familiar. In this chapter I turn to Philo o f Alexandria, the great philosophical exegete o f the Torah. Alexandria was o n e o f the cultural centers o f the G r e c o R o m a n world, and like its other residents, Philo spoke and wrote Greek. Alexandria at the turn o f the era was h o m e to a well-established Jew­ ish population o f considerable size, and Philo c a m e f r o m o n e o f its lead­ ing families. Philo's brother A l e x a n d e r was the o n e o f the wealthiest m e n o f the age; Alexander's son Tiberius Julius Alexander b e c a m e a high R o m a n official and is reported to have a b a n d o n e d Judaism. Philo's writings leave n o d o u b t that h e received an excellent Greek edu­ cation. His interpretation o f the Torah reflects his conviction that the Torah teaches the same truths as Plato, though h e w o u l d have put it the other way, that Plato teaches the same truths as Moses. Philo probably d i d n o t k n o w H e b r e w and Aramaic, and thus h e c o u l d n o t have read most o f the works c o n s i d e r e d in previous chapters. Like the authors o f those works, however, Philo worried about the meaning o f priesthood and the tension between ancestry and merit in constitut­ ing the Jews as a holy p e o p l e . It is possible that Philo c a m e f r o m a priestly family, and although Jerusalem was far away, h e visited the tem­ ple at least o n c e {On Providence 2.64). Yet I think the key to understand­ ing why Philo was interested in these issues lies n o t in his ancestry, if i n d e e d it was priestly, but in the Torah itself. For these questions are rel­ evant n o t only to Jews living in proximity to the temple for w h o m the special role o f priests was an everyday reality, but to any Jew w h o re­ flected o n the p r o b l e m s inherent in the Torah's picture o f the holiness o f the p e o p l e o f Israel and its provision for a priestly caste. A c c e p t a n c e o f the authority o f the Torah, then, is the element c o m m o n to Philo's writings and the texts c o n s i d e r e d in previous chapters. 1

2

3

4

Philo himself insisted that there was n o tension between the Torah

a n d philosophy; i n d e e d , their messages were the same. Yet Jews with an education like Philo's w o u l d have k n o w n the j u d g m e n t o f many philo­ sophically inclined m e n o f G r e e k culture that while Jewish m o n o t h e i s m was admirable, i n d e e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l , the ritual laws o f the Jews de­ 5

served n o such praise. Philo's o l d e r c o n t e m p o r a r y Strabo, f o r e x a m p l e , praises Moses and his followers f o r their piety a n d righteousness; later, however, Moses' successors i n t r o d u c e d superstitious practices such as 6

the dietary laws a n d c i r c u m c i s i o n . It is thus n o t surprising that s o m e m e m b e r s o f the Alexandrian Jewish c o m m u n i t y were i n c l i n e d to treat the ritual laws as symbolic. T h e p o i n t was to grasp the truths the laws impart, n o t to observe them. W e learn o f such Jews f r o m Philo, w h o c o m p l a i n s a b o u t their behavior in the course o f o n e o f his allegorical commentaries: It is quite true that the Seventh Day is meant to teach the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings. But let us not for this reason abro­ gate the laws laid down for its observance, and light fires or till the ground or carry loads or institute proceedings in court. . . . It is true also that the Feast is a symbol of gladness of soul and of thankfulness to God, but we should not for this reason turn our backs on the general gatherings of the year's seasons. It is true that receiving circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it was capable of begetting on its own power: but let us not on this account repeal the law laid down for circumcising. Why, we shall be ig­ noring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to pay heed to nothing except what is shewn us by the inner meaning of things. Nay, we should look on all these outward observances as resembling the body, and their inner meanings as resembling the soul. It follows that, exacdy as we have to take thought for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we must pay heed to the letter of the laws. If we keep and observe these, we shall gain a clearer conception of those things of which these are the symbols; and besides that we shall not incur the censure of the many and the charges they are sure to bring against us. (On the Migration of Abraham 9 1 - 9 3 ) 7

Philo singles o u t the sanctity o f the temple for m e n t i o n a m o n g the "thousands" o f things those w h o care only for the symbolic m e a n i n g o f the laws m i g h t i g n o r e , suggesting that the temple a n d its cult b e l o n g e d a m o n g the laws that his e n l i g h t e n e d friends preferred to understand rather than observe. Against them, Philo insists that the laws o f the Torah must b e o b s e r v e d as well as u n d e r s t o o d . But as a t h o r o u g h g o i n g Platonist, h e c a n n o t h e l p admitting t h r o u g h his analogy o f b o d y and soul that the inner m e a n i n g o f the laws ranks above the outward obser­ vance. For in Philo's view there c o u l d b e n o d o u b t that the immortal soul is o f greater i m p o r t a n c e than the mortal body. T h u s Philo m i g h t have b e e n e x p e c t e d to treat the temple and its cult as s o m e t h i n g to make the best of, to i g n o r e as m u c h as possible, a n d to allegorize w h e n

ignoring was o u t o f the question, ^ t , although his position may n o t b e entirely consistent with other aspects o f his philosophical o u t l o o k , we shall see that Philo's e m b r a c e o f the temple and its cult is anything but grudging. In the passage q u o t e d above Philo writes that observance o f the laws n o t only provides a clearer understanding o f their inner meaning, but also allows o n e to avoid "the censure o f the many." In other words, o n e reason for Philo's e m b r a c e o f the b o d i e s o f the laws as well as their souls is his loyalty to the Jewish c o m m u n i t y and his desire to adhere to its n o r m s . Philo wrote at a time o f significant tension between the Jews o f Alexandria and their neighbors. T h e b e g i n n i n g o f R o m a n rule in 30 B.C.E. m a d e the status o f the Jews in Alexandria a subject o f debate and cause for antagonism. Many Alexandrians o p p o s e d Jewish efforts to per­ suade the R o m a n s to treat t h e m as citizens o f Alexandria and thus to al­ low them to enjoy the privileges the R o m a n s reserved for citizens o f Greek cities. In 38 C.E. a m o b desecrated synagogues, sacked Jewish h o m e s and businesses, and attacked and killed Jews. Philo n o t only p r o ­ vided us with his view o f this outburst (Against Flaccus) but also played an important role in the Jewish response to it, serving as leader o f the delegation to R o m e that sought to make the community's case to the unsympathetic e m p e r o r Gaius against the c o m p e t i n g claims o f a delega­ tion representing the leadership o f the Alexandrian anti-Semites (On the Embassy to Gaius). Philo's delegation was still in R o m e awaiting a deci­ sion f r o m Gaius w h e n the e m p e r o r was assassinated in 4 1 . With the death o f Gaius, s o m e Alexandrian Jews attempted to take revenge o n their enemies, and the turmoil that followed led to the arrival in R o m e o f another Jewish delegation, this o n e apparently less moderate in its views. W h e n Claudius finally issued a d e c r e e intended to resolve the p r o b l e m s caused by R o m a n policy, h e reaffirmed the Jews' right to o b ­ serve their ancestral laws, but h e definitively d e n i e d them Alexandrian citizenship. 8

9

10

Philo must have b e e n deeply disappointed over the failure to recog­ nize the rights his delegation had claimed t h o u g h n o a c c o u n t o f his re­ action has c o m e d o w n to us. Yet while s o m e o f the Alexandrian Jewish elite w o u l d have f o u n d the R o m a n rejection o f their self-image as true Greeks unsettling, Philo surely remained secure in his belief that the Torah was the most philosophical o f b o o k s and that a pious Jew was thus the truest Greek. T o s o m e Jews in Alexandria the presence o f the temple and its cult at the center o f Judaism, t h o u g h n o t at the center o f their own religious life in Egypt, might have s e e m e d to provide c o m m o n g r o u n d with their neighbors, w h o also frequented temples and offered sacrifices to the

gods. With his Greek education, however, Philo was well aware that philosophers t e n d e d to view this m o d e o f worshiping the g o d s with skepticism. T h e r e are certain points o f contact between the philosoph­ ical critique and Jewish texts f r o m the Bible and later works that insist o n the impossibility o f h u m a n beings providing for the n e e d s o f a tran­ scendent G o d and o n the primacy o f morality. But unlike the Jewish sources, the philosophical critique points toward abolition o f the cult. Philo clearly shares aspects o f the views o f the philosophers. Yet as a Jew Philo is c o m m i t t e d to the sanctity o f the Jerusalem temple and its cult, and his reading o f the Torah works to justify their existence. Philo's most elaborately allegorical treatises are d e v o t e d n o t to the le­ gal portions o f the Torah in which the cult is a central c o n c e r n but to passages f r o m the narrative o f Genesis in which, a c c o r d i n g to the bibli­ cal story line, the cult had n o t yet b e e n institutionalized n o r a special priestly caste designated. Most o f the passages f r o m elsewhere in the Torah that Philo draws into his discussion in these treatises are also nar­ rative; few are legal. T h e limited a m o u n t o f narrative in the Torah about priests and cult may explain o n e o f the peculiarities o f Philo's treatment o f the subject in the allegorical works: h e has far m o r e to say about the high priest and the Levites, to w h o m , at least in these works, h e attrib­ utes priestly status, than a b o u t ordinary priests. But unlike ordinary priests, b o t h Aaron, the first high priest, and the Levites play a significant role in the narrative o f the T o r a h . N o w h e r e d o e s Philo lay out systemat­ ically the allegorical interpretation o f the cult o n which his discussion o f particular passages d e p e n d s . T h e a c c o u n t that follows here is p i e c e d to­ gether f r o m several passages. 11

12

13

14

Philo tells us explicidy that his allegorical interpretation o f the cult has two interrelated aspects, o n e m a c r o c o s m i c , the other m i c r o c o s m i c : For there are . . . two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man; the outward and visible image of whom is he who offers the prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers. (On Dreams 1.215)

In the m a c r o c o s m i c reading, the temple is the universe, and the high priest is the logos ( ' W o r d " in the translation q u o t e d above) that orders the universe. T h e elaborate r o b e Exodus ordains for the high priest points to the variegated elements o f the c o s m o s , just as d o the rich ma­ terials used in the building o f the tabernacle. In the m i c r o c o s m i c read­ ing, the temple is the soul, and the high priest, the "real M a n " o f the passage q u o t e d above, is the l o g o s that orders the soul, the counterpart to the logos that orders the c o s m o s . This logos appears, for example, in Philo's allegorical interpretation o f the cities o f refuge. T h e r e Philo 15

16

17

takes the high priest whose death permits o n e w h o has c o m m i t t e d manslaughter to return to his h o m e as a symbol o f the l o g o s o f the soul, whose absence permits unintentional sin to return to the soul (On Flight and Finding 1 1 6 - 1 8 ) . T h e two allegorical possibilities are closely linked, and Philo moves eas­ ily from o n e logos to the other. Thus, for example, h e follows an interpre­ tation o f the extremities o f garments o f the high priest as cosmic logos, in which the signet o n the high priest's head (Exod 28:32) signifies the intel­ lectual principle by which G o d created the universe, while the flower pat­ terns and bells at the b o t t o m o f the garment (Exod 28:29-30) signify qualities that the senses can perceive, with an interpretation o f the sound o f the bells (Exod 28:31) that takes the high priest to b e the soul (On the Migration of Abraham 1 0 2 - 4 ) . But what o f the cult itself in Philo's allegorical interpretation? T h e strand o f interpretation that takes the temple as c o s m o s d o e s n o t have m u c h to say a b o u t sacrifice. T h e passage a b o u t the two temples q u o t e d above (On Dreams 1.215) g o e s o n to suggest that the high priest's gar­ ments with their c o s m i c symbolism allow the universe to participate with humanity in the temple ritual. T h e c o s m i c correlate o f earthly sac­ rifice, however, is n o t specified, and it appears that Philo was simply n o t interested in working o u t that aspect o f the c o s m i c allegory. Thus his interpretation o f the pillar J a c o b set u p at Bethel as a symbol o f dedi­ cating notes that the entire c o s m o s is an offering dedicated to G o d (On Dreams 1.242-43), a symbolism that w o u l d b e most suitable for the cos­ m i c allegory, but to the best o f my k n o w l e d g e Philo never makes the connection. T h e m e a n i n g o f sacrifice is m u c h clearer in the allegory o f the soul. O n e striking e x a m p l e is Philo's interpretation o f the Torah's rules for the cereal offering: 18

When any one brings a cereal offering as an offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense on it, and bring it to Aaron's sons the priests. And he shall take from it a handful of the fine flour and oil, with all of its frankincense; and the priest shall burn this as its memorial portion upon the altar. . . . (Lev 2:1-2) T h e interpretation runs as follows: What then is the offering of an unembodied soul? What but the fine flour, the symbol of a will, purified by the councils of instruction, fit to produce nourish­ ment that gives no sickness and life that knows no guilt. From such a sacrifice is the priest bidden to take his handful, take it with his whole hand, that is with all the grips of the mind, to offer the best of sacrifices, even the whole soul, brimful of truths of all sincerity and purity—a soul, too, rich with fatness, gladdened by light divine and perfumed with the breaths exhaled from justice and the other

virtues, thus fitted to enjoy for ever a life of all fragrance and sweetness. For this is signified by the oil and the frankincense with which the priest fills his hand as well as with the wheaten flour. (On Dreams 2.73-74) 19

This understanding o f the sacrifice o f the soul-priest as the soul itself is by n o means isolated but appears in a n u m b e r o f other passages. S o m e ­ times the sacrifice is virtues o r aspects o f the soul, and sometimes the whole soul. Philo's understanding o f the true cult as spiritual is hardly surprising in light o f his philosophical views. What is noteworthy is the high value Philo places o n the actual practice o f sacrifice. This value emerges most clearly in On the Special Laws, where Philo offers a systematic discus­ sion o f the laws related to the cult in the course o f his discussion o f all the laws o f the Torah. Philo's allegory o f the temple as c o s m o s prepares us for the c o s m i c significance h e finds in the Jerusalem cult (Spec. Laws 1.97), an understanding h e shares with the priesdy source o f the Torah, as Valentin Nikiprowetzky points o u t . Yet, as Nikiprowetzky also notes, the fact o f Philo's c o m m i t m e n t to the cult is o f a p i e c e with his treatment o f other laws o f the Torah. For while Philo's allegorical interpretations o f narrative portions o f the Torah sometimes suggest the elimination o f the literal meaning and certainly its subordination to the allegorical mean­ ing, his allegorical treatment o f the legal portions o f the Torah never d o e s s o . I n d e e d , as I n o t e d above, Philo is famously critical o f those w h o draw what w o u l d appear to b e the logical conclusion o f the platonizing view o f the Torah to which h e subscribes and, having u n d e r s t o o d the spirit o f the laws, jettison the body. 20

21

22

23

In On the Special Laws Philo organizes the laws o f the Torah a c c o r d i n g to what h e sees as their relationship to the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s . U n d e r the heading o f the s e c o n d c o m m a n d m e n t , the prohibition o f idolatry, h e includes the laws o f the temple itself (1.60-78), the priests (1.79-161), and sacrifices (1.162-256). O n the whole, Philo's a p p r o a c h in On the Spe­ cial Laws is n o t allegorical but didactic and moralizing. But h e d o e s em­ ploy allegory at a n u m b e r o f points in On the Special Laws, including several topics related to the cult such as the high priest's r o b e (1.84-97), the burnt offering (1.198-211), and the ritual o f the red c o w (1.269-72), to offer s o m e o f the most striking and elaborate examples. In each o f these passages and in many others, Philo signals the allegorical interpre­ tation through the use o f the term "symbol" o r its derivatives. Yet these allegorical interpretations are quite straightforward as c o m p a r e d to the c o m p l e x allegories in the treatises interpreting Genesis. 24

Philo's discussion o f the burnt offering (Lev 1:3-17), the first o f the sacrifices h e treats, is a g o o d example o f the less elaborate allegorical technique o f On the Special Laws. After describing the appropriate victims

for the offering and the p r o c e d u r e for the sacrifice, Philo explains that the animal to b e sacrificed must b e male because the male c o r r e s p o n d s to the rational m i n d rather than irrational sense p e r c e p t i o n , which is female. T h u s the burnt offering is the purest o f sacrifices (Spec. Laws 1.200-201). H e g o e s o n to offer similarly allegorical interpretations o f the sacrificer's laying hands o n the sacrificial beast, the p o u r i n g o f b l o o d a r o u n d the altar, the washing o f belly and feet, and the division o f the vic­ tim into pieces (1.202-9). His treatment o f the c o m m a n d to wash belly and feet, which h e designates as "highly symbolical," is typical. T h e belly represents lust, which o f course requires cleansing, and washing the feet signals that the steps o f o n e w h o loves G o d should tread n o t the earth but heaven (1.206-7). But o n e peculiarity o f Philo's treatment o f the burnt offering must b e noted: there is n o allegorical interpretation o f the man w h o brings the sacrifice o r the priests w h o officiate. Philo's unwillingness to turn the hu­ man participants into souls as he often d o e s in his treatment o f the cult in the allegorical works serves to remind us o f the continuing impor­ tance o f the actual practice o f sacrifice for Philo. So t o o while in On the Migration of Abraham the symbolism o f his r o b e helps establish that the high priest represents the logos, in the course o f the detailed allegorical treatment o f the r o b e in On the Special Laws (1.84-97), the high priest re­ mains a h u m a n being. Even in On the Special Laws Philo is n o t always so restrained. In his in­ terpretation o f the ritual o f the red cow, for example, the o n e w h o has b e e n sprinkled with the waters o f purification to prepare to offer a sacri­ fice is in fact offering himself to G o d (1.270-72). I suspect that the deci­ sion to treat the ritual o f the red c o w differendy from the burnt offering was n o t a c o n s c i o u s o n e . In On the Special Laws Philo must have felt him­ self pulled in different directions. O n the o n e hand, h e wanted to lay o u t the m e a n i n g o f the laws o f the Torah, including the ritual laws, as clearly as possible and to insist o n the value o f p e r f o r m i n g them as well as o f understanding them. W e have already seen Philo's anxiety lest a re­ ally c o m p e l l i n g allegorical interpretation o f a ritual u n d e r m i n e its per­ f o r m a n c e . Yet as for the laws o f f o r b i d d e n foods, for which Philo also offers an allegorical interpretation, n o obvious didactic reading o f the laws o f the cult suggests itself, while the very specificity o f the laws and their peculiarities provide an inviting target for allegory, which must have b e e n difficult for Philo to resist. Sometimes, as with the burnt of­ fering, it appears that h e restrained himself and stopped short o f full allegorization, but at other times, as with the ritual o f the red cow, he did not. It is also true that despite the difficulties cultic material presents, Philo was n o t incapable o f a nonallegorical interpretation o f such material. His

interpretations o f the p e a c e offering (Spec. Laws 1.212-25) a n d the sin offering (1.226-46), for example, largely avoid allegory. While h e treats the elements o f these sacrifices as morally meaningful, the difference between his a p p r o a c h to t h e m a n d to the burnt offering is striking. H e explains the absence o f brain a n d heart o n the altar f o r the p e a c e offer­ ing in terms that recall his interpretation o f the burnt offering: "The al­ tar o f G o d should n o t b e a p p r o a c h e d by the container in which m i n d had its lair w h e n it c a m e forth to tread the pathless wilds o f injustice" (Spec. Laws 1.215). But h e g o e s o n to explain the offering o f the fat, the l o b e o f the liver, a n d the kidneys in quite different terms: The fat is the richest part and acts as a protection to the inwards, serving as a covering and a source of richness to them and benefiting them by the softness of its contact. T h e kidneys are chosen because of their relation to the testicles and generative organs. . . . T h e lobe is a sample tribute from the most important

of the inwards, the liver. (Spec. Laws 1.216)

It is interesting that Philo introduces the discussion o f the parts o f the p e a c e offering that are to b e p l a c e d o n the altar with an unusual admis­ sion that the reasons for the laws are n o t transparent: What could be the reason why the law, when setting apart the lobe of the liver and the kidneys and the fat as a tribute reserved from the animals sacrificed, did not include either the heart or the brains, since the dominant principle resides in one or another of them. A n d I expect the same question will present itself to not a few of those who read the holy scriptures with their understanding rather than their eyes. If such persons after examination find a more convincing rea­ son, they will benefit both themselves and me; if not I beg them to consider whether that which has commended itself to my mind will stand the test. (Spec. Law* 1.213-14)

Surely Philo must have b e e n m u c h tempted to engage in allegorical in­ terpretation here as h e h a d just d o n e for the burnt offering, and I a m hard-pressed to explain why h e resisted the temptation here as h e d i d n o t for the high priest's r o b e , the ritual o f the r e d cow, o r the laws o f kashrut, to return to the examples cited above. Philo's treatment o f the laws c o n c e r n i n g priests in On the Special Laws leaves n o d o u b t o f the high regard in which h e holds them. H e r e , for example, is Philo's explanation o f the prohibition o n a priest marrying a harlot: A harlot is profane in body and soul, even if she has discarded her trade and as­ sumed a decent and chaste demeanour, and he is forbidden even to approach her, since her old way of living was unholy. Let such a one indeed retain in other respects her civic rights as she has been at pains to purge herself from her de­ filements, for repentance from wrongdoing is praiseworthy. Nor let anyone else be prevented from taking her in marriage, but let her not come near to the

priest. For the rights and duties of the priesthood are of a special kind, and the office demands an even tenor of blamelessness from birth to death. (Spec. Laws 1.102)

In another c o n t e x t Philo might have u n d e r s t o o d the harlot to represent lust and other desires from which the soul, represented by the priest, must free itself. H e r e the f o r m e r harlot remains a f o r m e r harlot, a n d the priest remains a priest. Thus Philo reads the law as setting priests apart f r o m the rest o f the p e o p l e o f Israel with a higher level o f holiness. A similar attitude toward priests is evident in the discussion o f Lev 22:10: "No lay person shall eat o f the sacred donations." Philo explains that non-priests may n o t eat consecrated f o o d s because "like pay for un­ like worth is inequality, a n d inequality is the fountain o f evil." Priests are to the p e o p l e o f Israel as pilots are to sailors o n a merchant vessel o r as captains a n d admirals are to oarsmen and marines o n warships (Spec. Laws 1.121). Thus the perquisites o f priesthood, restricted to priests a n d priests alone, show that priests are deserving o f their exalted status. T o sum u p , while Philo sometimes treats the cult and the priests in­ volved in it allegorically, h e does n o t resort to allegory to eliminate the dif­ ficulties p o s e d by a hereditary priesthood. Rather, h e follows the Torah in claiming elevated status for the descendants o f Aaron, and h e insists that that status is entirely appropriate. Philo was n o t the only Alexandrian Jewish author to c o n f r o n t the p r o b l e m o f the Torah's hereditary priesthood. S o t o o d i d the author o f the Letter of Aristeas, w h o wrote sometime in the s e c o n d century B.C.E. as Aristeas, a fictional Greco-Egyptian civil servant in the Ptolemaic c o u r t . T h e Letter includes a description o f an embassy to Jerusalem a n d a meet­ ing with the high priest Eleazar, resplendent in his priestly r o b e s (Ep. Arist. 9 6 - 9 9 ) , w h o offers his visitors a philosophical interpretation o f the dietary laws o f the Torah ( 1 2 1 - 7 1 ) . It also offers a flattering portrait o f the priests o f Jerusalem as they p e r f o r m the temple service: 25

In its exhibition of strength and in its orderly and silent performance the minis­ tration of the priests could in no way be surpassed. All of them, self-bidden, carry out labors involving great toil, and each has his appointed charge. Their service is unceasing.. . . Complete silence prevails, so that one might suppose that not a person was present in the place, though those performing the service amount to some seven hundred—besides the great multitude of persons bring­ ing sacrifices to be offered—but everything is done with reverence and in a manner worthy of the great divinity. ( 9 2 - 9 5 ) 2 6

But the glory o f the Jerusalem priests a c c o r d i n g to the Letter ofAristeas pales beside that o f the seventy-two elders c h o s e n by Eleazar, six from each tribe, to g o to Alexandria to translate the Torah. T h e y are m e n "most excellent a n d o f outstanding scholarship," o f "distinguished

parentage," proficient n o t only in Jewish but also in Greek literature, ex­ p e r i e n c e d ambassadors, expert in the law, w h o "zealously cultivated the quality o f the mean . . . eschewing a crude and u n c o u t h disposition," neither p r o u d n o r haughty, and they are deeply d e v o t e d to Eleazar, their altogether admirable leader (Ep. Arist. 121-23) P For the Letter of Aristeas, then, the learned elders stand o u t because o f their merit. T h e priests, defined by m e r e ancestry, fade into the b a c k g r o u n d . It is illuminating to contrast the treatments o f the biblical priesthood by Philo and the author o f the Letter of Aristeas with the claims for the priests o f Egypt o f C h a e r e m o n , a Stoic p h i l o s o p h e r w h o was a c o n t e m ­ porary o f Philo and spent s o m e o f his career in Alexandria. A c c o r d i n g to o n e o f the ancient notices, C h a e r e m o n was also a hierogrammateus, a type o f Egyptian priest expert in hieroglyphs. His works i n c l u d e d a trea­ tise o n hieroglyphs and a history o f Egypt; they survive only in frag­ m e n t s . A m o n g the fragments is this description o f the priests o f Egypt: 28

They chose the temples as the place to philosophize. . . . They renounced every employment and human revenues, and devoted their whole life to contempla­ tion and vision of the divine. Through this vision they procured for themselves honour, security, and piety; through contemplation they procured knowledge; and through both a certain esoteric and venerable way of life. For to be always in contact with divine knowledge and inspiration keeps them far from all kinds of greediness, represses the passions, and incites them to live a life of understand­ ing. . . . They were always seen near the gods, or rather their statues, either carrying or preceding them in a procession or setting them up with order and dignity. And each of these acts was no empty gesture, but an indication of some allegorical truth. 29

It seems to m e safe to assume that this description bears a rather ten­ uous c o n n e c t i o n to reality. It is highly unlikely that the priests o f Egypt as a g r o u p shared a philosophical l o n g i n g to contemplate the divine, es­ pecially since many o f them attained their positions n o t because they led exemplary lives but because they b e l o n g e d to priestly families. Philo and the author o f the Letter of Aristeas w o u l d surely have b e e n n o m o r e false to reality had they described the priests o f Jerusalem in similar terms. But the Torah d o e s n o t make it easy to understand p h i l o s o p h y and piety as requirements for priesdy service. Rather, the office b e l o n g s to all male descendants o f A a r o n , w h o are entitled to serve as priests as l o n g as they are s o u n d in body. Thus the Letter of Aristeas reserves its highest praise for the elders, w h o have achieved their place through merit. C h a e r e m o n , o n the other hand, had n o Torah to inhibit him. T h e rules for m e m b e r s h i p in the priesthoods o f Egypt were n o t avail­ able in a single authoritative text known to every native expert and even to the rank and file. Furthermore, in contrast to the situation o f the Jews, there was a wide variety o f priesthoods in Egypt, a land l o n g n o t e d

for the dazzling multiplicity o f its g o d s . This in itself m a d e k n o w l e d g e o f individual rules less likely. M o r e than the author o f the Letter of Aristeas, Philo makes the most o f the few indications the Torah provides that priestly status reflects s o m e kind o f merit. Thus h e devotes considerable attention to the Levites, w h o m the Torah depicts as having earned their quasi-priestly status. A c ­ c o r d i n g to a passage in E x o d u s (32:25-29), the Levites were c h o s e n to serve the L o r d as a reward for their slaughter o f the offending Israelites after the incident o f the g o l d e n calf. This passage, which shows n o sign o f P's subordination o f Levites to priests, is particularly helpful to Philo in his purposeful conflation o f priests and Levites because it has Moses praise the Levites for "fill[ing] their hands" ( E x o d 32:29), that is, or­ daining themselves, through the slaughter; P applies this terminology to priests alone, n o t to the Levites, whose dedication to temple service is described in different language. Philo makes use o f this incident in several nonallegorical contexts. In On the Special Laws, h e points to it as the reason for the c h o i c e o f the tribe o f Levi for the priesthood: 30

31

The nation has twelve tribes, but one out of these was selected on its special mer­ its for the priesdy office, a reward granted to them for their gallantry and godly zeal on an occasion when the multitude was seen to have fallen into sin. (1.79)

Philo tells the story o f the Levites' slaughter o f the worshipers o f the g o l d e n calf in m o r e detail in On the Life of Moses (2.170-73), emphasizing that p r i e s t h o o d was a reward for their zeal. H e alludes to the story again in On the Special Laws to explain why the Levites were rewarded with the cities o f refuge (3.124-27). T h e Torah d o e s n o t offer a clear resolution to the tension between the picture o f the priesthood o f the Levites, o n the o n e hand, and the limitation o f priesthood to A a r o n and his descen­ dants alone, o n the other. N o r d o e s Philo as h e exploits the stories about the Levites to lend the priesthood a certain a m o u n t o f merit at least at the m o m e n t o f its institution. Philo likes the story o f the Levites' zeal during the incident o f the g o l d e n calf so m u c h that h e makes use o f it in the allegorical treatises as well despite the allegorization o f priests that eliminates the tension between ancestry and piety in these treatises. T h e Levites' slaughter o f the relatives and n e i g h b o r s w h o worshiped the calf represents the soul's o r the virtuous man's excision o f the desires o f the b o d y and all irrational elements (On Drunkenness 6 5 - 7 1 [ m e n ] ; On Flight and Finding 8 8 - 9 2 [ s o u l s ] ) . H e offers a similar alleogorical interpretation o f the zealous act o f slaughter with w h i c h Phinehas, the grandson o f A a r o n , w o n the c o v e n a n t o f p r i e s t h o o d for himself and his descendants ( N u m 25:1-13) (Allegorical Interpretation 3.242; On the Posterity of Cain 1 8 2 - 8 3 ;

3 2

On Drunkenness 7 3 - 7 4 ) . I n d e e d , the passage in On Drunkenness c o n ­ cludes by invoking Phinehas. Perhaps because Phinehas was already a priest at the time o f his zealous d e e d , Philo d o e s n o t e m b r a c e this story as enthusiastically as the story o f the Levites and the g o l d e n calf, treat­ ing it only o n c e , and there briefly, in a nonallegorical c o n t e x t (On the Life ofMoses 1.304). But even if Philo can suggest that the priesthood was established o n the basis o f merit, the Torah makes it difficult to claim that it was passed d o w n o n that basis. Understandably Philo d o e s n o t c o n f r o n t this p r o b ­ l e m directly. Yet h e d o e s at times imply the superior merit o f priests in every generation. In On the Special Laws, for example, in his explication o f D e u t e r o n o m y ' s provision for an appellate level o f the judicial system consisting o f "the levitical priests, o r the magistrate in charge at the time" (Deut 17:8-9), Philo claims that priests make particularly suitable j u d g e s (Spec. Laws 4.191). This is because their service o f the greatest o f kings in­ spires them to keep their minds clear and to avoid error—thus the pro­ hibition o n strong drink for priests when they officiate (Lev 10:8-9). Philo g o e s o n to identify the "magistrate in charge" as the high priest o n w h o m h e confers p r o p h e t i c powers: ' T h e true priest is necessarily a prophet, advanced to the service o f the truly Existent by virtue rather than by birth, and to a p r o p h e t nothing is u n k n o w n " (Spec. Laws 4.192). T h e claim that the high priest's status reflects virtue rather than birth is a remarkable revision o f the plain sense o f the Torah and o f the practice o f centuries. Yet for all his admiration for priests, when Philo attempted an ex­ t e n d e d treatment o f Jewish practitioners o f true p h i l o s o p h y c o m p a r a b l e to C h a e r e m o n ' s a c c o u n t o f the priests o f Egypt, h e f o u n d his subjects n o t in the descendants o f A a r o n , but in the Therapeutae (On the Con­ templative Life). M e m b e r s o f this voluntary c o m m u n i t y were m o r e p r o m ­ ising subjects because, as Philo writes at the b e g i n n i n g o f the Hypothetica, his a c c o u n t o f another voluntary community, the Essenes, "Their per­ suasion is n o t based o n birth [genos] . . . , but o n their zeal for virtue and desire to p r o m o t e brotherly love" (Hypothetica 11.2). In his a c c o u n t o f the Therapeutae, Philo seeks to demonstrate the philosophical excellence o f the way o f life o f these devotees o f the philos­ o p h y o f Moses m u c h as C h a e r e m o n depicts the philosophical excellence o f the priests o f Egypt. Both accounts b e l o n g to a b o d y o f G r e c o - R o m a n texts that offer idealized accounts o f the lives o f philosophical holy m e n ; the descriptions o f the Brahmans and gymnosophists in Philostratus's Life of Apollonius of Tyana are also examples. T h e ascetic regimen Chaer­ e m o n attributes to the Egyptian priests plays o n long-held Greek ideas about the antiquity and sanctity o f Egypt, as well as its strangeness. For example, C h a e r e m o n offers considerable detail about the diets o f his priests. H e notes their restraint in regard to wine and oil and their 33

avoidance o f any f o o d s f r o m outside Egypt. S o m e are vegetarians. T h e y also avoid cows, that is, female cattle, and twin male animals, as well as males that are blemished, piebald, o f unusual shape, o r tame o r that re­ semble sacred animals o r h u m a n b e i n g s . Philo's a c c o u n t o f the Therapeutae is noticeably less c o l o r f u l . T h e emphasis is o n the asceticism o f the Therapeutae, w h o b e c o m e so ab­ sorbed in their study o f wisdom that they sometimes forget to eat (Contempi. Life 3 4 - 3 5 ) . I n d e e d , since the Therapeutae subsist o n bread and water at all times, even o n the Sabbath (Contempl. Life 3 6 - 3 7 ) , Philo is able to avoid discussing the oddities o f Jewish dietary laws, which are ir­ relevant to this highly ascetic r e g i m e n . Perhaps the avoidance o f the exotic was i n t e n d e d to emphasize the truly philosophical character o f the Therapeutae. It is worth noting that Philo also avoids exoticism in the Hypothetical a c c o u n t o f the Essenes, w h o surely provide promising raw material for such an effort, as Josephus's a c c o u n t in the Jewish War (2.119-61) demonstrates. Elsewhere, as we have seen, Philo vigorously defends the philosophical significance o f the ritual laws against Greeks w h o , like Strabo, admired the Jews' belief in the o n e G o d , but n o t their ritual laws. T h e a c c o u n t o f the Therapeutae, o n the other hand, makes such a defense unnecessary by largely avoiding ritual laws. O n e aspect o f Philo's discussion o f the meals o f the Therapeutae is particularly noteworthy for o u r purposes. First, h e explains the lifelong avoidance o f wine by the Therapeutae by noting the abstinence o f priests b e f o r e they officiate at sacrifices (Contempl. Life 7 4 ) , a law o f the Torah that, as we have seen, serves h i m well elsewhere t o o (Spec. Laws 4.191). H e also explains the meals o f the Therapeutae, consisting o f leavened bread and salt m i x e d with hyssop, as intended to avoid c o m ­ parison with the unleavened bread o f the showbread and u n m i x e d salt displayed with it that constitute the "simplest and purest f o o d . . . as­ signed to the highest caste, namely the priests, as a reward for their min­ istry" (Contempl. Life 8 1 - 8 2 ; see Lev 24:5-9). It is a remarkable tribute to priests to claim that even the Therapeutae, the devotees o f the true wis­ d o m , self-selected by their piety, are n o t worthy o f the pure meal re­ served for the sons o f A a r o n . 34

35

36

37

38

39

It seems to m e that Philo has s o m e success in suggesting that the origi­ nal occupants o f the priestly office deserved the status they acquired for themselves because o f their exceptional loyalty to the L o r d . His hints that their descendants t o o are suited to the office n o t only by birth but also by merit are less persuasive, though his effort in the face o f a rather recalci­ trant biblical narrative is a g o o d indication o f h o w m u c h he would have liked to b e able to claim merit for them. If in the e n d Philo is unable to resolve the tension between a hereditary priesthood and his ideals o f h o ­ liness, it is surely because the Torah itself makes such a resolution impos­ sible for s o m e o n e committed to the preservation o f its practices.

Perhaps his c o n c e r n for real priests m a d e it inevitable that Philo w o u l d worry also a b o u t the p r o b l e m expressed in the phrase "a king­ d o m o f priests," the p r o b l e m o f the relationship between this g r o u p dis­ tinguished by ancestry and o c c u p a t i o n and the p e o p l e o f Israel as a w h o l e . I n d e e d h e is a m o n g the handful o f Jewish authors in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d to q u o t e o r allude clearly to the phrase "a k i n g d o m o f priests," which h e knew in its Septuagint translation, basileion hierateuma, a royal priesthood. A p p a r e n d y h e u n d e r s t o o d basileion as a n o u n since b o t h o f the times h e uses the phrase (On Sobriety 66; On Abraham 56) h e inserts kai between the two words. Philo sometimes represents Israel as a k i n g d o m o f priests mediating between G o d and the rest o f the nations as 3 Isaiah d o e s (Isa 6 1 : 5 - 6 ) . Thus Abraham's descendants are "the nation dearest o f all to G o d , which . . . has received the gift o f priesthood and p r o p h e c y o n behalf o f all mankind" {On Abraham 9 8 ) . But unlike 3 Isaiah, Philo understands Israel's p r i e s t h o o d n o t as a p r o m i s e o f material reward but rather as an indication o f spiritual greatness. Israel is "a nation destined to b e conse­ crated above all others to offer prayers for ever o n behalf o f the h u m a n race that it may b e delivered f r o m evil and participate in what is g o o d " {On Moses 1.149). This passage d o e s n o t sound so different from Eleazar's claim in the Letter of Aristeas, trumping C h a e r e m o n ' s claims for the Egyptian priests b e f o r e C h a e r e m o n m a d e it: ' T h e priests w h o are the guides o f the Egyptians, have l o o k e d closely into many things and are conversant with affairs, have n a m e d us ' m e n o f G o d ' [anthrdpoi theou], a tide applicable to n o n e others but only to him w h o reveres the true G o d . T h e rest are m e n o f f o o d and drink and raiment" {Ep. Arist. 1 4 0 ) . For the Letter of Aristeas, then, despite the fact that m e m b e r s h i p in the Jewish p e o p l e is normally hereditary, the requirements o f Judaism make such m e m b e r s h i p an indication o f merit as well. Yet Eleazar d o e s n o t c o n n e c t this claim to priesthood in any way, and, as we have seen, the Letter is considerably m o r e enthusiastic about elders, w h o achieve their role by merit, than priests. 40

Elsewhere Philo makes clear the priesdy aspect o f his sense o f Israel as a nation "consecrated above all others": The Jewish nation is to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State [polis]. For the holy office in very truth belongs to the nation because it carries out all the rites o f purification and both in body and soul obeys the injunctions of the divine laws. (Spec. Laws 2.163) T h e Torah o f course makes priests responsible for many aspects o f its rit­ uals o f purification. Philo works o u t the egalitarian implications o f "a k i n g d o m o f priests" ( o r "a k i n g d o m and priests") in a n u m b e r o f passages. Perhaps the most

c o n c r e t e instance o f the effort to give all Jews a share in the p r i e s t h o o d appears in the discussion o f marriage regulations for priests. Like s o m e other ancient readers, Philo interprets Leviticus as restricting the high priest to a bride from a priestly family. H e then emphasizes that in c o n ­ trast to the high priest, ordinary priests may marry any w o m a n o f Is­ raelite descent, partly because the restrictions required to maintain [ordinary priests'] purity are slight, pardy because the law did not wish that the nation should be denied altogether a share in the priesdy clanship or be entirely excluded from it. . . . Sons-in-law are sons to their fathers-in-law, and the latter are fathers to the for­

mer. (Spec. Laws 1.111) In the centuries b e f o r e the turn o f the era, as we saw in Chapter 1, s o m e Jews read Leviticus as requiring that even ordinary priests marry w o m e n o f priestly descent. It is possible that Philo knows this position and here intends to offer a rationale for rejecting it, but the works that require such marriages, the Book of the Watchers, Aramaic Levi, and 4 Q M M T , are all Palestinian and predate Philo by almost two centuries at the least. Further, Josephus, whose p r o n o u n c e d pride in priestly descent is un­ t o u c h e d by any anxiety about merit, seems quite unaware o f such a re­ quirement, so it is m o r e likely that support for it had simply disappeared by Philo's time. It is noteworthy that Philo's explanation for the permis­ sion given ordinary priests to marry nonpriestly w o m e n reflects an ele­ vated view o f priestly status even as it expresses a certain discomfort with boundaries within the Jewish p e o p l e . This discomfort prepares us for Philo's other efforts at inclusion. Philo's discussion o f why the sin offering is c o n s u m e d by the priests to the exclusion o f the o n e w h o brings the offering (Lev 6:22; Spec. Laws 1.242-43) also makes an effort to e x p a n d the ranks o f priesthood to in­ clude all Israel. This law o f the Torah d o e s n o t appear to b e a very p r o m ­ ising starting p o i n t for an effort to demonstrate the priestly status o f all Israel, but Philo argues as follows: First, restricting c o n s u m p t i o n to priests h o n o r s the o n e bringing the offering, because the guests at the meal h e has p r o v i d e d are o f such high status. Next, it assures h i m that h e has b e e n forgiven because otherwise the meal w o u l d n o t b e permit­ ted to priests. Finally, Philo notes without further explanation that it is significant that n o priest with bodily blemish may p e r f o r m the sacrifice. Presumably his p o i n t is that this restriction makes the h o n o r o f provid­ ing the priests with their meal even greater. But it is the remarkable c o n c l u s i o n Philo draws from these arguments that is most important for o u r purposes: "In fact h e encourages those w h o n o l o n g e r tread the path o f w r o n g d o i n g with the thought that their resolution to purify themselves has given them a place in the sacerdotal caste and advanced 41

them to equal h o n o r with the priest" (Spec. Laws 1.243). Presumably the equal h o n o r lies in providing the priests' feast, t h o u g h s o m e o n e l o o k i n g at the practice through a different lens might draw a rather different c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t its implications for the status o f priests. Yet if the read­ ing seems somewhat f o r c e d , perhaps that makes it stronger evidence for the d e p t h o f Philo's conviction o n this point. Philo also uses the Passover sacrifice to demonstrate the p r i e s t h o o d o f all Israel. This is an easier task than the o n e h e attempts with the sin of­ fering since the Passover sacrifice is the only sacrifice offered by laymen o n their o w n behalf. In this festival many myriads of victims from noon till eventide are offered by the whole people, old and young alike, raised for that particular day to the dignity of the priesthood. For at other times the priests according to the ordinance of the law carry out both the public sacrifices and those offered by private individ­ uals. But on this occasion, die whole nation performs the sacred rites and acts as priest with pure hands and complete immunity. (Spec. Laws 2 . 1 4 5 ) 42

Philo's insistence that the Israelites' priestly activity is undertaken with "pure hands and c o m p l e t e immunity" recognizes the a n o m a l o u s nature o f this sacrifice, the only o n e the Torah leaves in the hands o f the h e a d o f the h o u s e h o l d . Philo g o e s o n to suggest a historical explanation for this deviation from standard practice: At the time o f the Exodus, the Israelites were so o v e r c o m e with j o y at leaving b e h i n d the idolatry o f the land o f Egypt that in their enthusiasm they offered sacrifice without waiting for the priests (Spec. Laws 2.146). This explanation is strikingly different f r o m the Torah's rationale for the sacrifice as the means for providing the b l o o d to mark the h o m e s o f the Israelites and to protect them from the slaying o f the firstborn sons that G o d was about to visit o n the Egyptians. A l t h o u g h priests are m e n t i o n e d as a g r o u p as the chil­ dren o f Israel stand b e f o r e Mt. Sinai shortly after they have left Egypt ( E x o d 19:22), the Torah's a c c o u n t o f the first Passover sacrifice gives n o hint o f the existence o f priests. In Questions and Answers on Exodus (1.10), the Passover sacrifice pro­ vides Philo with another occasion for e x p o u n d i n g the priestly character o f the w h o l e p e o p l e o f Israel. I shall consider only the portions o f the in­ terpretation o f greatest interest for o u r purposes. Again Philo offers a historical explanation for the slaughter o f the Passover sacrifice by the laity, that at the time o f the E x o d u s from Egypt n o priesthood had yet b e e n established, an explanation n o t entirely consistent with the c o m ­ ments in On the Special Laws n o t e d above. But then Philo g o e s o n to sug­ gest that G o d " d e e m e d [the p e o p l e o f Israel] (all) equally worthy o f sharing in the priesthood and in f r e e d o m as well, since all w h o were o f the same nation had given evidence o f equal piety." Further,

H e thought it just and fitting that before choosing the particular priests H e should grant priesthood to the whole nation in order that the part might be adorned through the whole, and not the whole through a part. . . And also that the nation might be an archetypal example to the temple-wardens and priests and those who exercise the high priesthood in carrying out the sacred rites.

T h u s Philo claims here that the priesthood o f all Israel is n o t only chronologically prior to the selection o f a distinct g r o u p o f priests but also ontologically prior: the nation is the archetype o f the priesthood, even o f the high priesthood. T o say that Philo was p r e o c c u p i e d with the p r o b l e m o f the priesthood for a k i n g d o m o f priests w o u l d b e an exaggeration. T h e idea o f a king­ d o m o f priests hardly plays the central role in his thought that it d o e s in the Book ofJubilees, for example. Still, the passages discussed here p o i n t to something significant. T h e biblical injunction that all Israelites are to slaughter the paschal lamb was n o t o f Philo's making, but had h e wished to play d o w n the implications, he certainly c o u l d have d o n e so. O r h e c o u l d have resolved the tension between priests and the priesthood o f all Israel allegorically, by turning priests into souls. H e d o e s n o t d o so, I sus­ pect, o u t o f the same considerations that sometimes led him to restrain himself in his allegorizing o f the cult: h e did n o t wish to undermine the actual c o n d u c t o f sacrifices. Rather, h e seeks other opportunities to actu­ alize the n o t i o n o f a k i n g d o m o f priests. Indeed, there is a c o n c r e t e as­ pect to at least o n e o f Philo's attempts at a solution: intermarriage between priests and w o m e n from nonpriestly families. But perhaps the most powerful is the claim o f Questions and Answers on Exodus: it is the "nation" that is the "archetypal e x a m p l e " for priests and even for the high priest.

Chapter 6

"The Children of Abraham Your Friend" The End of Priesthood, the Rise of Christianity, and the Neutralization of Jewish Sectarianism

In the s u m m e r o f the year 70, four years after the b e g i n n i n g o f the Jew­ ish revolt against R o m e , four R o m a n legions were massed outside Jerusalem, where the rebels had gathered for their last stand. T h e c o m ­ m a n d e r o f the legions was the future e m p e r o r Titus; h e had r e c e n d y re­ placed his father, Vespasian, w h o had b e e n acclaimed e m p e r o r by the legions in the east and was n o w o n his way to R o m e to assert his claim to the office. T h e most important building in Jerusalem, symbolically and strategically, was the temple, yet Josephus reports that Titus had deter­ m i n e d to spare it against the advice o f s o m e o f his generals (Jewish War 6.237-43). I n d e e d , Josephus claims that w h e n o n e o f his soldiers impul­ sively set fire to it, Titus attempted to have the fire extinguished (Jewish War 6.252-59). N o matter what Titus intended, the temple b u r n e d to the g r o u n d (Jewish War 6.260-66). T h e c o n q u e s t o f the city was c o m p l e t e d in the weeks that followed, and Jerusalem was left in ruins (Jewish War 6.392-413). 1

Josephus reports that the c o n d i t i o n s o f the siege had b r o u g h t an e n d to the sacrificial cult shortly b e f o r e the destruction o f the temple (Jew­ ish War 6.94-95). T h e destruction m a d e the cessation o f the cult perma­ nent, t h o u g h it t o o k many decades for most Jews to appreciate this, and n o t only because it takes s o m e time for the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f m o m e n t o u s events to b e c o m e clear. Rather, the e x a m p l e o f the First T e m p l e sug­ gested that the loss o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e w o u l d n o t b e permanent. Roughly seventy years after the destruction o f the First T e m p l e by the Babylonians, s o m e o f the descendants o f the Judean elite returned to Jerusalem from their exile in Babylonia and rebuilt the temple with the permission o f the Persians, w h o had in the meantime t o p p l e d the Baby­ lonian empire. It is n o accident that Baruch, the scribe o f the p r o p h e t Jeremiah, serves as the visionary o f two o f the apocalypses written in the wake o f the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . Jeremiah, after all, 2

p r o p h e s i e d n o t only the destruction o f the First T e m p l e , which h e and Baruch witnessed, but also the restoration o f the p e o p l e to their land af­ ter seventy years. In attributing their visions to Baruch, the authors drew o n these associations, even if o n e o f the apocalypses suggests that the earthly temple is unnecessary and will never b e restored. A n o t h e r apoc­ alypse f r o m the years after 70 takes as its h e r o Ezra, the scribe w h o brought the Torah to the Jews at the behest o f the Persians three-quarters o f a century o r so after the return; the figure o f Ezra thus recalls the fact o f restoration after the Babylonian exile and points to the c o m i n g restoration o f Jerusalem that is a central theme o f his visions. With the m o d e l o f the First T e m p l e in m i n d , then, many Jews in the first century e x p e c t e d that their grandchildren w o u l d again offer sacrifices in a new temple, t h o u g h they differed a m o n g themselves as to whether that new temple w o u l d b e built by h u m a n hands like its predecessors o r w o u l d d e s c e n d f r o m heaven like the Jerusalem o f Ezra's visions (4 Ezra 7:26, 10:40-55, 13:36). A n d many Jews were probably n o t as distressed by the loss o f the Sec­ o n d T e m p l e as their ancestors had b e e n by the lost o f the First T e m p l e . We have seen that even while the S e c o n d T e m p l e was still standing, s o m e critics believed that it lacked the luster o f the First T e m p l e . In­ d e e d , the author o f the Book ofDreams (1 Enoch 83-90), which has usually b e e n dated to the time o f the Maccabean Revolt, g o e s so far as to claim that its cult was polluted f r o m the very start (1 Enoch 89:73), and the radical sectarians at Q u m r a n appear to have given u p o n it completely. After the destruction, 2 Baruch c o m p a r e s the S e c o n d T e m p l e unfavor­ ably to the First T e m p l e ( 2 Bar. 6 8 : 6 ) . With the destruction o f the temple, the descendants o f A a r o n were deprived o f their defining task. This loss was surely a blow to their pres­ tige, which was perhaps already in decline. While the texts f r o m either side o f the Maccabean Revolt critical o f the priestly establishment re­ flect the views o f a pious minority, the unseemly reality o f the last de­ cades b e f o r e the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e c o u l d have had an impact o n the standing o f priests in the eyes o f a larger g r o u p o f Jews. In 35 B.C.E., w h e n H e r o d b e c a m e j e a l o u s o f the popularity o f the y o u n g high priest Aristobolus III, his own brother-in-law and the last Hasm o n e a n to serve in that role (]ose\*\ms, Jewish War 1.437), h e arranged his murder. F r o m then o n , h e c h o s e high priests f r o m priestly families without any previous association with the position. T o limit still further their potential as rivals to his power, almost all c a m e f r o m Alexandria o r Babylonia, and h e did n o t permit them to serve for life. W h e n the R o ­ mans assumed direct rule o f J u d e a in 6 C.E., they c o n t i n u e d H e r o d ' s practice. F r o m the time o f H e r o d , then, the most obvious qualifications 3

4

5

6

7

o f occupants o f the office o f high priest, w h o often served only briefly, were likely to b e wealth and an aptitude for flattering their rulers. In­ evitably, the traditional prestige o f the office was gready diminished. A n d there was another important difference between the loss o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e and the loss o f the First Temple. W h e n the S e c o n d Tem­ ple was built, it s t o o d alone as an institution capable o f unifying and providing definition for a p e o p l e lacking a king o r political indepen­ d e n c e . By the time o f its destruction, although the Jews again lacked b o t h king and i n d e p e n d e n c e , another institution, the Torah, had c o m e to stand with the temple at the center o f Judaism. F r o m o n e p o i n t o f view the Torah served to support and strengthen the temple, but it was also an i n d e p e n d e n t source o f power; n o t only c o u l d its interpreters of­ fer guidance to the p e o p l e at large, they c o u l d also tell priests what to d o . T h u s the loss o f the temple, especially if it was u n d e r s t o o d to b e tem­ porary, was likely less traumatic than it had b e e n in 586 B.C.E. But the evidence for the Bar K o k h b a revolt ( 1 3 2 - 3 5 C.E.), limited though it is, demonstrates that as the seventieth anniversary o f the de­ struction neared many Jews had n o t given u p the goal o f restoring o f the temple. T h e revolt may have b e e n set o f f by Hadrian's plans to turn Jerusalem into a R o m a n colony, Aelia Capitolina, which w o u l d have m a d e the rebuilding o f the Jewish temple impossible. A m o n g the coins the rebels minted are silver tetradrachms bearing images o f the temple with the ark o f the c o v e n a n t . Silver and b r o n z e coins o f various sizes bear the legends 'Jerusalem" and "For the f r e e d o m o f Jerusalem"; these legends are probably slogans a n n o u n c i n g o n e o f the goals o f the revolt rather than statements that the goal had b e e n achieved. T h e title Bar K o k h b a used for himself was n o t king, but nesi'yisra'el, "prince o f Israel." It is attested o n b o t h d o c u m e n t s and c o i n s , and ul­ timately it points to the central place o f temple and priesthood in the goals o f the revolt. This title g o e s back to Ezekiel, w h o uses it instead o f "king" for the descendants o f David in his vision o f the restored temple and c o m m u n i t y o f Israel. T h e r e , as we have seen, it appears to b e part o f an effort to subordinate royal p o w e r to priestly power. In several texts from a m o n g the D e a d Sea Scrolls, the h e r o o f the eschatological batde is called "prince o f the congregation," without any hint that the tide "prince" is intended to limit the p o w e r o f the leader it designates. T h e d o m i n a n t f o r m o f messianic expectation in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, how­ ever, is o f two messiahs, priestly and royal, and in the War Scroll, in which the prince o f the congregation figures prominendy, the high priest is even m o r e important. 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Bar Kokhba's use o f the tide n a i f indicates military leadership as in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, and Bar K o k h b a also imitates the pattern o f dual leadership f o u n d there. His partner is Eleazar the Priest, an otherwise

u n k n o w n figure whose n a m e and tide appear o n s o m e o f the coins f r o m the revolt. T h e r e is n o reason to believe that Bar K o k h b a and his sup­ porters knew the D e a d Sea Scrolls, but they draw inspiration from texts such as Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, and perhaps from m o r e recent traditions that shared the D e a d Sea Scrolls' interest in dual messiani s m . It surely did n o t escape their notice that the building o f the Sec­ o n d T e m p l e was the work o f such a pair o f leaders, Zerubbabel the descendant o f David and Joshua the high priest. While the Book of Jubilees and the D e a d Sea Scrolls treat the priesdy leader as the m o r e important o f the two messiahs, Haggai and Zechariah clearly view Zerubbabel as the d o m i n a n t figure. It is the prophets' version o f the pattern o f dual leader­ ship that is reflected in the Bar K o k h b a revolt, where there can b e n o d o u b t that Bar K o k h b a was the d o m i n a n t figure. S o m e scholars have taken the presence o f a priesdy leader alongside Bar K o k h b a and the in­ terest in the restoration o f the temple and its cult as evidence that priests played an important part in the revolt. This inference may well b e correct, but it is important to insist that the desire to see the temple rebuilt and the cult restored w o u l d hardly have b e e n restricted to priests. I n d e e d , with the passage o f time, the m e m o r y o f the diminished state o f the office o f high priest in the century b e f o r e the destruction o f the temple had surely faded, and the prestige o f the office along with the p r i e s t h o o d m o r e generally may have risen even in the absence o f the institution that gave priests their central task. Unfortunately, the evidence available for reconstructing these developments is extremely limited. With the b l o o d y failure o f Bar Kokhba's revolt and the establishment o f Aelia Capitolina, it b e c a m e painfully evident that n o Third T e m p l e w o u l d b e built seventy years after the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . Bar Kokhba's revolt was the last Jewish attempt in antiquity to set in m o ­ tion the rebuilding o f the temple. But there was o n e further attempt, undertaken n o t by Jews but by the e m p e r o r Julian in the m i d d l e o f the fourth century, out o f motives entirely different from those o f Bar Kokhba and his supporters. 15

16

17

18

At the time o f Bar Kokhba's defeat, Christians were a small and perse­ cuted minority. T h e centuries between Bar Kokhba and Julian saw the c o n t i n u e d expansion o f Christianity, its rising influence, and eventually its legalization and a d o p t i o n as the official religion o f the R o m a n state. W h e n Julian b e c a m e e m p e r o r in 361, Christianity had b e e n the d o m i ­ nant religion o f the e m p i r e for almost half a century. Julian was a c o m ­ mitted pagan Platonist, and during his brief reign h e m a d e a serious effort to u n d o the Christianizing work o f his imperial predecessors. T h e effort c a m e to an e n d with his death in battle against the Persians in 363. T h e plan to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem reflected Julian's

support for the traditional religious practices o f the e m p i r e b e f o r e it be­ c a m e Christian, but it was also i n t e n d e d as a b l o w against the upstart re­ ligion for which the demise o f the Jerusalem temple was an important e l e m e n t o f p r o p a g a n d a . T h e details o f the effort to rebuild the temple are o b s c u r e , but the cessation o f the work, which the Christian accounts understand as miraculous intervention to prevent the achievement o f Julian's sacrilegious goals, appears to have b e e n the result o f a fire, per­ haps caused by an earthquake. W e k n o w very litde a b o u t h o w Jews r e s p o n d e d to Julian's plan. Rab­ binic literature is silent a b o u t it. T h e fourth-century inscription o n the Western Wall that quotes with slight variation a passage from Isaiah, "You shall see, and y o u r heart shall rejoice; / your b o n e s shall flourish like grass" (Isa 66:14), has b e e n read as a reaction to Julian's plan, but this is by n o means certain. Christian sources d e p i c t the Jews as ex­ tremely enthusiastic a b o u t the project. A l t h o u g h the picture is drawn for p o l e m i c a l purposes and serves to heighten satisfaction at the disap­ p o i n t m e n t o f their h o p e s , it d o e s n o t seem unlikely that many Jews were excited a b o u t the opportunity even as the rabbinic elite r e m a i n e d cau­ tiously aloof. Whatever the Jewish reaction, the project itself was short­ lived. With Julian's death, the e m p i r e returned to Christian c o n t r o l , and Jews had to r e c o n c i l e themselves to the p o s t p o n e m e n t o f the rebuilding o f the temple to the dawn o f the messianic age. 19

20

21

Ancestry and Merit after the Destruction In the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , as we have seen, s o m e Jews struggled to constitute themselves as a k i n g d o m o f priests despite the fact that the Torah singles o u t a particular g r o u p to serve the priesdy p e o p l e as its priests. S o m e Jews were also troubled that this p r i e s t h o o d was hereditary and thus that priests distinguished by ancestry but n o t necessarily by piety were responsible for the temple crucial to the well-being o f the Jewish p e o p l e . Anxiety a b o u t a hereditary p r i e s t h o o d l e d s o m e Jews to further anxiety a b o u t the character o f the Jewish p e o p l e , also defined, at least to a large extent, by ancestry rather than merit. With the destruction o f the temple, the p r o b l e m s p r i e s t h o o d created for the pious inevitably b e c a m e less troubling. As I shall try to show, the m e m o r y o f the temple retained its p o w e r even as Jews realized that its loss was m o r e than a temporary i n c o n v e n i e n c e . T h e rabbis d e v o t e d a re­ markable a m o u n t o f attention to rules related to an institution that had b e e n r e n d e r e d inoperative, while the synagogues o f R o m a n Palestine re­ called the lost temple physically, in their ornamentation, and verbally, in their liturgy. It is perhaps n o t surprising that inscriptions and the syna­ g o g u e practice ratified by the rabbis indicate that priesdy ancestry

r e m a i n e d a source o f prestige even in the absence o f the temple. Yet the same e v i d e n c e also makes clear the limits o f its claims. With the deferral o f the restoration o f the temple to messianic times, p r i e s t h o o d might still b e valued, but the advantages accruing to actual priests were m o r e token than real. Yet, I shall argue, the d e c l i n e o f the significance o f priesdy ancestry a m o n g Jews was followed by the widespread and t h o r o u g h e m b r a c e o f a definition o f the Jewish p e o p l e based o n ancestry. This definition served as an implicit rejection o f sectarian definitions restricting m e m b e r s h i p to the worthy alone. Perhaps the loss o f the temple contributed in s o m e small way to this redefinition: the diminution in status o f priests m e a n t that their piety o r lack o f it was n o l o n g e r a subject o f m u c h c o n c e r n , and thus priests n o l o n g e r constituted a glaring e x a m p l e o f the tension between ancestry and merit. T h e most important cause o f the whole­ hearted e m b r a c e o f ancestry, however, was the rise o f Christianity. As Christians claimed to have taken the place o f the o l d Israel, s o m e re­ j e c t e d the language o f ethnicity altogether ("In Christ there is neither Jew n o r Greek" [Gal 3 : 2 8 ] ) , while others claimed that they constituted a n e w p e o p l e defined n o t by g e n e a l o g y but by merit. Against these claims, Jews insisted—as m u c h to themselves as to Christians—on the contin­ u e d viability o f the o l d Israel and the guarantee o f r e d e m p t i o n inherent in descent f r o m A b r a h a m . Thus, despite the e m e r g e n c e o f the c o n c e p t o f conversion to Judaism in the later S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , Jews after the destruction c h o s e to e m b r a c e an understanding o f m e m b e r s h i p in the p e o p l e o f Israel in which merit was de-emphasized and the implica­ tions o f the possibility o f conversion i g n o r e d . This understanding was a c c e p t e d by the rabbis, the religious elite o f the postdestruction p e r i o d , as well as the larger community. It is noteworthy that the rabbis largely i g n o r e d the implications o f conversion, a process they regulated and ac­ cepted, as they resisted the temptation o f a sectarian definition o f Israel, like that o f the Q u m r a n community, in which only the worthy c o u n t e d as Jews. O n e o f the most important c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the e m b r a c e o f an­ cestry by rabbis a n d other Jews was the reassurance it offered: the merit o f the ancestors guaranteed the r e d e m p t i o n o f their descendants.

Rabbis and Priests T h o u g h their successors c a m e to enjoy wide recognition a m o n g other Jews, the rabbis o f the centuries immediately following the destruction ap­ pear to have b e e n an elite without m u c h o f a following. Yet the primary literary evidence for Judaism in the p e r i o d after 70 is rabbinic literature. For Jewish society b e y o n d the circles o f the rabbis, the main evidence is the remains o f synagogues, with all the difficulties o f interpretation 22

p o s e d by material evidence. Both b o d i e s o f evidence offer s o m e insight into the place o f p r i e s t h o o d in postdestruction Jewish society. T h e rabbis u n d e r s t o o d themselves as heirs o f the Pharisees, though re­ cent scholarship has suggested that this is less than the full story, and they c o u n t as their predecessors a n u m b e r o f figures from the p e r i o d be­ fore the destruction. Still, the e m e r g e n c e o f the rabbinic m o v e m e n t was intimately linked in the rabbis' telling to the destruction o f the temple, as can b e seen in the story o f Yohanan b . Zakkai's escape from the R o m a n siege o f Jerusalem. T h e rabbis' claim to authority, like that o f the Phar­ isees according to Josephus (Jewish War 2.162), was based o n expertise in interpretation o f the Torah. T h e elaborate system o f regulations they de­ v e l o p e d governing virtually all aspects o f life is to a considerable extent a result o f such interpretation, even if sometimes the interpretation was e m p l o y e d to demonstrate that an already existing practice c o u l d b e de­ rived from the Torah. As we saw in the halakhic works from a m o n g the Dead Sea Scroll, the enterprise o f extending the laws o f the Torah was al­ ready underway in the p e r i o d o f the S e c o n d Temple, and a considerable b o d y o f recent scholarship has b e e n devoted to the question o f similari­ ties and differences between the halakhah o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and o f the rabbis in b o t h content and a p p r o a c h . As religious experts w h o o w e d their prestige to learned expertise in the Torah rather than ancestral c o n n e c t i o n to the temple, the rabbis might have b e e n e x p e c t e d to view the loss o f the temple with a certain satisfaction even if they preferred n o t to confess to it. Yet precisely as ex­ perts in Torah, the rabbis also had to acknowledge the central place in the ideal o r d e r o f the temple, its sacrificial cult, and its priests, as well as the laws o f purity and tithing. T h o u g h n o l o n g e r o f practical c o n c e r n , priests and sacrifices o f necessity figure prominently in the tannaitic midrashim to Leviticus and N u m b e r s since these works are structured as commentaries. T h e Mishnah t o o gives considerable space to these sub­ jects, t h o u g h with its topical organization it might have i g n o r e d them had it wished to. Instead it devotes o n e o f its six orders, Qodasin (Holy T h i n g s ) , to sacrifices and another, Toharot (Purities), to laws o f purity that were n o l o n g e r in force in the absence o f the temple and the sacri­ ficial system. T h e Yerushalmi lacks gemara for b o t h o f these orders, pre­ sumably because they were n o l o n g e r o f practical interest, but while the Bavli contains gemara for only o n e tractate o f Toharot, it provides gemara for almost all o f Qodasin despite the fact that the cult was by then far in the past. 23

24

25

26

N o t only did the rabbis c o n t i n u e to devote attention to the cult be­ cause o f its importance in the Torah, but they also u n d e r s t o o d its restoration as o n e o f the key elements o f the messianic era, as the liturgy

27

makes abundantly clear. O n e might imagine that in their heart o f hearts m o s t rabbis w o u l d n o t have rejoiced to see rabbinic learning re­ placed by service b e f o r e the altar as the highest f o r m o f prestige. Yet at the e n d o f the nineteenth and b e g i n n i n g o f the twentieth century, in the waning days o f the Lithuanian yeshivot, R. Israel Meir Ha-Kohen, the h e a d o f the yeshiva o f Radin, known as the Hafes Hayyim after his most important b o o k , e n c o u r a g e d several students to study the o r d e r o f Qodasin. This o r d e r d i d n o t f o r m part o f the standard curriculum in the Lithuanian yeshivot, but the messiah might arrive at any m o m e n t , and the Hafes Hayyim wanted to b e sure that there w o u l d b e experts versed in the laws o f sacrifice to participate in the reestablishment o f the temple cult. Thus the Hafes Hayyim lived in expectation o f an age in which priests w o u l d o n c e again p e r f o r m their ancient function. But the restoration o f the temple d i d n o t m e a n the displacement o f rabbis by priests; rather, in that n e w age, priests w o u l d b e g u i d e d by those with rabbinic learning. Indeed, it is significant that the rabbis allowed the idea o f a priesdy messiah to fall by the wayside, embracing instead the other m e m b e r o f the pair envisioned by Haggai and Zechariah, the royal messiah d e s c e n d e d from David. This messiah is sometimes paired with a messiah d e s c e n d e d from Ephraim, a sure sign that the o l d priesdy-royal pairing had fallen o u t o f favor. T h e Hafes Hayyim lived almost two millenia after the destruction o f the S e c o n d Temple, but there is considerable continuity between his attitude toward priests and those expressed in o f the rabbis o f antiquity. Most o f the Mishnah consists o f legal rulings, but m. Abotis a collection o f sayings o f rabbis and great figures o f the p e r i o d before the destruction about h o w to live life; it thus provides an unusual w i n d o w into the rabbis' view o f the world. It o p e n s with an a c c o u n t o f the transmission o f the Torah from Moses at Mt. Sinai to Joshua, the elders, the prophets, the m e n o f the great assembly, and finally, to the rabbis themselves (m. Abot 1:1). Priests are pointedly omitted from the chain. O n e passage in m. Abot treats priests with considerable respect: ' T h e r e are three crowns: the crown o f Torah, the crown o f priesthood, and the crown o f kingship. But the crown o f a g o o d reputation is better than all o f them" (m. Abot 4:13) . Yet a passage from the sixth chapter o f m. Abot, a later addition to the tractate, provides a revealing counterpoint to this saying: ' T h e Torah is greater than priesthood and kingship, for kingship requires thirty qualifications, and priesthood twenty-four, but the Torah requires forty-eight things" (m. Abot 6:5). Mastery o f the Torah, o f course, differs from kingship and priesthood in that it is n o t linked to ancestry. 28

2 9

30

31

S o m e scholars have suggested that priests were c o m p e t i n g with rabbis for leadership o f the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in the centuries following the

32

destruction o f the t e m p l e . T h e evidence for this picture is quite lim­ ited, but regardless o f whether there was actual c o m p e t i t i o n , there is un­ doubtedly an inherent tension between the ideal o f Torah study and the claims o f priesdy ancestry sanctified by l o n g tradition and by the Torah itself. T h e tension can b e seen clearly in a passage f r o m the Mishnah that ranks Jews by their ancestry: priest, Levite, Israelite, mamzer, natin, proselyte, freed slave (m. Horayot 3.8). Such a hierarchy appears to have b e e n widely e m b r a c e d : epigraphic evidence shows that even after the failure o f the s e c o n d revolt and the e n d o f any realistic expectation o f rebuilding the temple in the near term, priesdy ancestry c o n t i n u e d to b e a source o f pride a m o n g Jews. T h e passage f r o m the Mishnah shows that, all other things b e i n g equal, the rabbis t o o e m b r a c e d a hierarchy d e t e r m i n e d by ancestry. T h e passage c o n c l u d e s , however, by insisting that a mamzer learned in Torah outranks a high priest ignorant o f Torah, a claim that surely w o u l d n o t have b e e n a c c e p t e d by most other Jews. It is also worth noting that while Torah study was in principle accessi­ ble to any male Jew with the p r o p e r intellectual e n d o w m e n t and motiva­ tion, in practice only those with considerable resources were likely to have had time for the learning that the office o f rabbi required. Thus it is n o t surprising that the office o f rabbi seems to have run in particular families: many rabbis were the sons o f rabbis, and at least in Babylonia, rabbis often married daughters and sisters o f rabbis. I n d e e d , a few rab­ bis c a m e f r o m priestly families, which must have constituted a signifi­ cant p o r t i o n o f the Jewish u p p e r classes. In other words, ancestry c o n t i n u e d to play a crucial role in securing the status o f the devotees o f Torah study. T h e rabbis' ambivalence about priests can also b e seen in their discus­ sion o f A a r o n ' s status relative to Moses. In a passage that appears in slightly different f o r m in two tannaitic midrashim, Sifra (Vayyiqra' 2) and Sifre Numbers ( 5 8 ) , the rabbis claim that G o d spoke only to Moses, not, as the Torah sometimes suggests, to his brother A a r o n , the p r o g e n i t o r o f the priesthood, as well. For the rabbis, o f course, Moses was the p r o t o ­ type o f the rabbinic sage, and the claim that G o d spoke to h i m but n o t to A a r o n serves to exalt rabbis at the expense o f priests. Yet the discus­ sion o f the same question that o p e n s another tannaitic midrash, the Mekilta (Pisha'l), shows that the rabbis did n o t entirely reject the claims of priesthood: 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

And the Lord Spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the Land of Egypt Saying. From this I might understand that the divine word was addressed to both Moses and Aaron. When, however, it says: "And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spoke unto Moses in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 6.28), it shows that the divine word was addressed to Moses alone and not to Aaron. If so, what does Scripture mean to teach by saying here, "unto Moses and Aaron?" It merely teaches that just as

Moses was perfecdy fit to receive the divine words, so was Aaron perfecdy fit to receive the divine words. A n d why then did H e not speak to Aaron? In order to grant distinction to Moses. 40

For the Mekilta, then, Moses is m o r e equal than A a r o n . Yet the passage g o e s o n to claim that in their dealings with Pharaoh, A a r o n was Moses' equal. It continues: Rabbi says: unto Moses and Aaron. I might understand that the one preceding in the scriptural text actually had precedence over the other. But in the passage: "These are that Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said," etc. (Ex. 6.26), Aaron is mentioned first. Scripture thus declares that both were equal, the one as im­ portant as the other. 41

For the rabbis, as for the Torah, there can b e n o d o u b t that Moses was far and away superior to his o l d e r brother. N o r is it surprising to find the rabbis insisting that worthy t h o u g h A a r o n may have b e e n , Moses a l o n e received revelation. What is perhaps surprising is h o w far the rabbis are willing to g o in praising A a r o n . O f course, it is easier to praise the p r o g e n i t o r o f the priesthood, w h o has special claims to status that o t h e r priests d o n o t and w h o was safely in the past, than to e m b r a c e c o n t e m p o r a r y priests. T h e rabbis d o , how­ ever, a c k n o w l e d g e the special status o f c o n t e m p o r a r y priests in s o m e limited ways. Priests are to b e called first to the Torah (m. Gittin 5 : 8 ) , t h o u g h the motive, "for the sake o f p e a c e , " perhaps suggests that the Mishnah is simply ratifying the reigning custom. T h e rabbis also regu­ late the recitation o f the priestly blessing, a ritual legislated by the Torah, for the s y n a g o g u e ;

42

the p e r f o r m a n c e o f this ritual gave priests

an o n g o i n g role in the synagogue that c o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d by them alone. Even in the post-temple era, the rabbis e x p e c t priests to c o n t i n u e to observe the laws b i n d i n g o n t h e m alone (Leviticus 21) that were n o t impossible to observe in the absence o f the temple: limitations o n mar­ riage partners and avoidance o f cemeteries and funerals o f all but close relatives.

43

This c o m p l e x relationship between rabbis and priests is reminiscent in s o m e respects o f the relationship between scribes and priests in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . I argued above that the tension between scribes and priests has b e e n overstated, and it seems to m e possible to make a similar case for priests and rabbis. In the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , as we have seen, the failings o f priests caused anxiety and distress to many o f the pious. O n e significant difference between the situation o f the pious o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d and the rabbis, o f course, is that for the rabbis the absence o f the temple m a d e the piety o f priests a less urgent c o n c e r n . Despite the fact that priests c o n t i n u e d to stand at the center o f

the ideal o r d e r defined by the Torah, the stakes were n o w m u c h lower. Thus rabbis may occasionally accuse c o n t e m p o r a r y priests o f arrogance and i g n o r a n c e , but the pious o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d had ac­ cused them o f far worse, for the loss o f the temple deprived priests o f the opportunity to defile holy things and c o m m i t sacrilege. As we have seen, efforts to resolve the p r o b l e m s p o s e d by a hereditary priesthood in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d resulted in the conflation o f the offices o f scribe and priest as in the Book of the Watchers' picture o f E n o c h . T h e rab­ bis d o n o t g o so far as to make a single biblical h e r o b o t h rabbi and priest, but their willingness, at least in s o m e m o o d s , to place A a r o n but little b e l o w Moses is surely an indication o f a positive attitude if n o t to­ ward c o n t e m p o r a r y priests, then at least toward the ideal priest. 44

Synagogues and Temple As l o n g as the S e c o n d T e m p l e stood, synagogues functioned in its shadow, supplementing rather than replacing the sacrificial cult o f the house o f the L o r d . With its destruction, they t o o k o n new i m p o r t a n c e . T h e decoration o f the synagogues reflects a sensibility quite different from that o f the rabbis, and rabbinic literature t o o suggests s o m e dis­ tance between the rabbis and the culture o f the synagogues. Thus the remains o f the synagogues are o f great interest in part because they al­ low us s o m e access to the vast majority o f Jews outside the circles o f the rabbis. It is important to k e e p in m i n d , however, that the bulk o f the evi­ d e n c e for synagogues c o m e s f r o m the fourth century and later. Thus most o f it is somewhat later than the rabbinic texts o n which I have c h o ­ sen to focus; b o t h the Mishnah and the halakhic midrashim cite tannaim, rabbis o f the first two centuries, t h o u g h the Mishnah was published only at the b e g i n n i n g o f the third century, while the halakhic midrashim were redacted somewhat later. But I d o n o t believe that the picture o f rabbinic attitudes I have sketched w o u l d c h a n g e gready if I had c h o s e n texts from the Palestinian rabbis m o r e closely c o n t e m p o r a r y with the synagogue remains, such as the Talmud \erushalmi, Genesis Rabbah, o r Leviticus Rabbah. 45

46

47

It is clear that the absent temple left its mark o n the synagogues. S o m e synagogues faced east o n the m o d e l o f the tabernacle, as the Tosefta (t. Megilla 3.22) d e m a n d e d . Others faced the location o f the t e m p l e . Synagogue inscriptions refer to the synagogue with expres­ sions associated with the temple, such as "holy" and "holy p l a c e . " But perhaps the richest evidence, if the most difficult to interpret, c o m e s from the mosaics decorating the synagogue floors. Despite the diver­ sity, certain elements are quite widespread. These c o m m o n elements show clearly that even w h e n the temple and the cult were lost, they were 48

49

50

51

n o t forgotten. T h e object most frequendy depicted in mosaics is the menorah, an object intimately associated with the temple cult. T h e m e n o rah often appears with a shofar, a lulav, and an etrog. Torah shrines flanked by pairs o f incense shovels and o f the four objects just m e n t i o n e d are also c o m m o n . Like the menorah, the shofar and the incense shovel must evoke the temple and its cult. O n the floor o f the nave o f many synagogues, the Torah shrine and its accompanying symbols appear as part o f a c o m p l e x o f symbols and scenes. O n a n u m b e r o f floors, the image o f the Torah shrine is placed at the front with a zodiac circle in the center and a scene o f lions o r other animals flanking a large wreath elsewhere. S o m e floors also include a biblical scene o r scenes. In Seth Schwartz's reading, ' T h e floors... tend to suggest a m o v e m e n t from the world, in idealized form—nature scenes, scenes from biblical narrative—through the heavens (the zodiac circle), to the temple cult, and back to the reality o f the synagogue." Thus the floors reflect a piety in which the absent temple continues to h o l d a central place. T h e temple also plays an important role in the piyyutim, the elaborate liturgical poetry o f the synagogue that began to flourish in the sixth cen­ tury. In the acrostics signing their work, several o f the early payyetanim identify themselves as priests, and s o m e scholars have argued that their interest in the temple and the priesdy courses reflects a peculiarly priesdy sensibility, a p o i n t to which I shall return below. Many piyyutim were c o m p o s e d for occasions that inevitably recalled the temple, as, for example, the A v o d a h service o f the Day o f A t o n e m e n t , in m e m o r y o f the c e r e m o n y o f the scapegoat, o r the Ninth o f Av, the anniversary o f the destruction o f the t e m p l e . O n e popular subject o f the early piyyu­ tim o f particular interest for o u r purposes was the priestly c o u r s e s . S o m e piyyutim enumerate all twenty-four courses that had officiated in the temple in successive weeks; many o f these were c o m p o s e d for the Ninth o f Av o r for other dates associated with the destruction. O t h e r piyyutim treat a single course; these have b e e n associated with a custom o f a n n o u n c i n g in synagogue the n a m e o f the priesdy course that w o u l d have officiated in the temple o n that Sabbath. 5 2

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

T h e piyyutim are n o t the only indication o f interest in the priestly courses in the synagogues o f late antique Palestine. Inscriptions listing the twenty-four courses and j u x t a p o s i n g each o n e with a Galilean city o r village have b e e n f o u n d in several locations in Israel as well as in the village o f Bayt al-hadir in Yemen; m o s t o f the inscriptions are o n stone plaques that were presumably p l a c e d o n synagogue walls. T h e placenames in the inscriptions reflect traditions that are also k n o w n f r o m the piyyutim, w h i c h often play o n place-names in their praise o f the courses. 62

In light o f the interest in the temple evident in the synagogue m o ­ saics, the inscriptions listing the priesdy courses and the attention the piyyutim lavish o n the courses are hardly surprising. T h e association o f the priesdy courses with particular cities and villages in the Galilee in the inscriptions and the piyyutim is m o r e difficult to e x p l a i n . While priests must have participated in the shift o f the center o f gravity o f the Jewish p o p u l a t i o n f r o m J u d e a to Galilee in the p e r i o d after the destruc­ tion o f the temple and the Bar K o k h b a revolt, it is clear that the courses did n o t m o v e as a g r o u p , each to take u p residence in a single l o c a t i o n . In other words, the lists o f the inscriptions and their e c h o e s in the piyyu­ tim reflect s o m e t h i n g o t h e r than actual priesdy residential patterns. Perhaps because the scholarly discussion has b e e n p r e o c c u p i e d with questions o f historicity, the worldview that lies b e h i n d the lists has re­ ceived little attention. W i t h o u t attempting a t h o r o u g h discussion o f this question, which w o u l d have to consider the c o n t e m p o r a r y signifi­ cance o f the specific sites in Galilee, I w o u l d suggest that the idealized picture o f the twenty-four courses residing intact in Galilee constitutes an implicit claim that Jewish life in Galilee effectively continues the in­ stitutions o f temple times. T h e presence o f inscriptions listing the courses and their Galilean locations outside the Galilee, n o t only in other parts o f the land o f Israel but even in Yemen, also d e m a n d s expla­ nation; at the very least, it suggests that the claim the lists imply was n o t merely a matter o f local pride. Several scholars have r e c e n d y argued for a resurgence o f priesdy p o w e r in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries after a p e r i o d o f eclipse, a resurgence to b e explained at least in part by the p o w e r vacuum caused by the e n d o f the patriarchate in the early fifth century. T h e y in­ voke a variety o f types o f evidence in support o f this claim, including tes­ timonies from Christian sources. T h e interest o f the piyyutim in the temple service and the priesdy courses is taken to reflect renewed priesdy ascendancy, as is the appearance o f the hekhalot literature, un­ derstood following Rachel Elior's forceful reading as a repository o f priesdy traditions. 63

64

65

66

T h e Christian evidence marshaled in support o f the claim o f the p r o m i n e n c e and p o w e r o f priests in the p e r i o d after the e n d o f the pa­ triarchate certainly deserves further attention, but the view that Jewish texts that demonstrate interest in the temple o r its priests necessarily re­ flect priesdy authorship o r a situation o f priesdy p o w e r is deeply p r o b ­ lematic. It did n o t require priests in p o w e r to build buildings o r set a liturgy that expressed yearning for the restoration o f the temple o r nos­ talgia for the sons o f A a r o n p e r f o r m i n g the tasks the Torah assigns t h e m . It is also worth r e m e m b e r i n g that priests in the postdestruction 67

p e r i o d are n o m o r e likely to have b e e n o f o n e m i n d a b o u t issues than were priests b e f o r e the destruction. I n d e e d , since s o m e rabbis were themselves priests, the tension between, for e x a m p l e , rabbis a n d wealthy priests in Sepphoris d o e s n o t reveal the w o r l d view o f priests as a g r o u p . N o r is it surprising that priesdy families were p r o m i n e n t a m o n g the wealthy o f Sepphoris, just as it is n o t surprising that s o m e rabbis—a different elite, but an elite nonetheless—came f r o m priestly families. 6 8

Priesdy Interests and Priestly Power Finally, it is worth n o t i n g that despite the way synagogues so actively re­ called the temple, their remains offer litde evidence that priests held a particularly exalted place in them. As we have seen, rabbinic law grants priests certain privileges in the synagogue service and a specified liturgi­ cal role; in so d o i n g , it appears to b e ratifying c o m m o n synagogue prac­ tice. In this light it is interesting that d o n o r inscriptions f r o m the synagogues show that priesdy ancestry was a source o f pride but give n o indication that priests as a g r o u p had a special status in the s y n a g o g u e . T h e lack o f emphasis o n priesdy ancestry in the inscriptions is a striking contrast to the c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f the priestly courses. It might suggest that reverence for p r i e s t h o o d was oriented toward the past: while the priests o f temple times were a worthy subject for liturgical poetry, actual priests in an era without a temple were n o t very different f r o m everyone else. 69

Altogether, despite the fact that the rabbis had reason to b e less nostal­ gic for the temple than did their contemporaries, their attitude toward priests was n o t very different. For rabbis and other Jews alike, priesdy an­ cestry deserved acknowledgment, but it was n o t o f overwhelming impor­ tance for society o r even for the c o n d u c t o f the synagogue liturgy. Indeed, the loss o f the temple had a certain democratizing effect. T h e remem­ b e r e d temple was the place o f all Jews equally, laypeople and priests alike; priesdy ancestry n o l o n g e r meant a special intimacy with the holy place and its rituals. With priests as a g r o u p deprived o f the political p o w e r that was o n c e theirs, it was easier for the rabbis to h o l d the positive attitude to­ ward priesthood as an institution and the illustrious ancestor o f all priests seen in the texts considered above. Real priests were n o longer a source o f anxiety because they n o l o n g e r wielded significant influence, n o r did they exercise the functions that o n c e m a d e their piety a source o f pressing c o n c e r n . Their behavior n o w had n o m o r e impact o n the fate o f Israel than did the behavior o f any other Jew. U n d e r these circumstances, the rabbis c o u l d afford to b e generous.

Ancestry and Merit for a Holy People If the destruction o f the temple ultimately permitted a m o r e relaxed atti­ tude toward the failings o f priests, it intensified the p r o b l e m o f the fail­ ings o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as a whole. T h e requirements o f monotheistic theodicy placed the blame for the destruction squarely o n the Jewish p e o p l e , thus emphasizing their unworthiness and heightening the ten­ sion between the ideal o f a holy p e o p l e and the reality o f a genealogical requirement for m e m b e r s h i p in that p e o p l e . It is true that there were ef­ forts to offer other kinds o f explanations. Several passages in rabbinic literature claim that Israel was h e l d to a higher standard than other na­ tions, as d o 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, thus hinting that the destruction was, if n o t unfair, then at least n o t as black a mark as it might at first appear. A n o t h e r rabbinic tactic was to p o i n t to G o d ' s o w n grief at the punish­ m e n t h e i m p o s e d o n his p e o p l e , suggesting as subdy as possible that the punishment was excessive. But the d o m i n a n t response was to insist that the Jewish p e o p l e was at fault; in the words o f the festival liturgy, "Because o f o u r sins we were exiled from o u r land." T h e first-person plural o f the liturgy is significant. It is n o t the lan­ guage o f a pious remnant amid a sinful majority, but the language o f a c o m m u n i t y that includes sinners in its midst. While 4 Ezra reserves salva­ tion for the few (7:45-61; 8:17-22), the rabbinic responses, even those that try to shift the blame away from the p e o p l e o f Israel, d o n o t differ­ entiate between a righteous remnant and a larger g r o u p o f sinners. This p o i n t should n o t b e taken for granted. Like the Q u m r a n community, the rabbis c o u l d have attempted to separate a pious few from a majority that through its sins had b r o u g h t o n disaster, and they c o u l d have p o i n t e d to the words o f Isaiah and other prophets as a warrant for this step. Instead, they c h o s e to e m b r a c e the d o m i n a n t view o f the Bible, that Israel is a p e o p l e defined by ancestry, j u d g e d and punished, for­ given and restored, as a community. T h e y may have c o n s i d e r e d ordinary Jews ignorant and careless in their religious practices, but they insisted that they were n o t e x c l u d e d f r o m salvation. This is true o f the rabbis o f antiquity and o f their heirs in the M i d d l e Ages. 70

71

72

My understanding o f the rabbis' rejection o f a sectarian understand­ ing o f Israel differs somewhat f r o m that o f Shaye J. D . C o h e n , although I have b e e n influenced by his a r g u m e n t . While previous scholarship t e n d e d to see Yavneh through the lens o f the C o u n c i l o f Nicea, as the m o m e n t at which the Pharisees triumphed over the o t h e r sects that had b e e n their o p p o n e n t s , for C o h e n Yavneh represents "the creation o f a society which tolerates disputes without p r o d u c i n g sects." T h e Mishnah with its preservation o f dissenting o p i n i o n s is the most striking p i e c e o f evidence for this d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e identification o f the rabbis with the Pharisees, assumed by most scholars, is t o o simple; even if many 73

74

o r most o f the rabbis at Yavneh had b e e n Pharisees before 70, there is n o sign o f sectarian consciousness there. T h e new o u d o o k at Yavneh was m a d e possible by the destruction o f the temple, the primary locus o f sectarian dispute in the p e r i o d before 7 0 . O n e difficulty with C o h e n ' s picture is that the evidence for the disap­ pearance o f the sects after the destruction o f the temple is elusive. But m o r e important for my purposes, even if the pre-70 sects d i d n o t survive l o n g in the post-temple era, it w o u l d n o t necessarily m e a n the e n d o f sectarianism. As I have just n o t e d , the p r o p h e t i c idea o f a righteous remnant has the potential to elicit a sectarian response to any disaster. T h e reaction to the destruction o f the temple in 4 Ezra is a g o o d exam­ ple; it has sectarian implications that c o u l d easily have b e e n actualized in the right c o m m u n a l circumstances—and perhaps were, though we d o n o t know. So t o o the devastation caused by the Bar K o k h b a revolt and its suppression might have led the rabbis to separate themselves f r o m the mass o f Jews as m u c h as possible, at least rhetorically. In fact, the rabbis' refusal o f a sectarian self-understanding and e m b r a c e o f the p e o p l e as a w h o l e was to a certain extent rhetorical. That is, the rabbis' e m b r a c e o f an Israel consisting o f all Jews is n o t so m u c h an acceptance o f other Jews in their sinfulness and variety as an effort to i m p o s e the rabbis' n o t i o n o f Israel o n other Jews, to insist that, whether they like it o r not, all Jews are part o f the holy p e o p l e . In other words, o n e c a n n o t take the "we" o f the liturgy's "Because o f o u r sins, we were exiled from o u r land" as a reflection o f c o m m u n a l solidarity without further evi­ d e n c e f r o m the specific historical context, which is unfortunately, rarely available. Nonetheless, there can b e n o mistaking the antisectarian character o f the rabbis' picture o f the p e o p l e o f Israel and the central place it gives to ancestry. Clearly there is ample p r e c e d e n t for this emphasis in bibli­ cal literature. But the importance o f ancestry in rabbinic rhetoric is n o t simply a return to the biblical picture o f Israel. Rather, I believe, it is a response to the e m e r g i n g self-definition o f Christians. 75

76

77

78

79

80

Christians a n d Ethnic Identity F r o m the b e g i n n i n g Christianity claimed to transcend the o l d ethnic identifications. In Paul's famous formulation, in Christ, ' T h e r e is neither Jew n o r Greek, there is neither slave n o r free, there is neither male n o r female" (Gal 3:28), while the B o o k o f Revelation speaks o f creating a new p e o p l e o u t o f the saved o f all the nations: thus the L a m b has "ransomed m e n for G o d from every tribe and tongue and p e o p l e and nation, and ha[s] m a d e them a k i n g d o m and priests to o u r G o d " (Rev 5:9-10). 81

Dispensing with the o l d distinctions d o e s n o t m e a n that Christians dispensed with the language o f ethnicity and race, as Denise Kimber

82

Buell has recently a r g u e d . Thus Christians s o o n claim to b e a third race in o p p o s i t i o n to pagans and Jews. But the Christian race differs from other nations o r races because it is constituted n o t by birth but by merit. This is clear in a passage f r o m the Shepherd of Hennas that Buell discusses at s o m e l e n g t h . T h e Shepherd of Hermas is an apocalypse from the s e c o n d century, probably written in R o m e , t h o u g h its language is Greek. In a vision, Hermas sees a tower that represents the c h u r c h (Sim. 9.13.1), built o f stones f r o m twelve different mountains. T h e interpret­ ing angel explains that the mountains represent the tribes (phylai, Sim. 9.17.1) o r nations (ethne, Sim. 9.17.2) o f the earth. A l t h o u g h the stones are o f many colors w h e n they are m i n e d from the mountains, w h e n they are p l a c e d in the tower they b e c o m e white; they represent those w h o "heard and believed" (Sim. 9.17.3-4). I n d e e d , a c c o r d i n g to the angel, the tower represents "the race (genos) o f the righteous" (Sim. 9 . 1 7 . 5 ) . Thus the Christian race is n o t a race into which o n e is b o r n . Rather, it is m a d e u p o f p e o p l e b o r n into o t h e r races and nations w h o b e c o m e part o f the new race o n the basis o f righteousness. O f course, by s o m e p o i n t in Christian history, perhaps late in the fourth century, b e i n g a Christian was in fact largely a matter o f birth. But if the self-understanding o f the Shepherd of Hermas was n o l o n g e r accurate, it had n o t ceased to b e rele­ vant since the idea o f Christianity as an identity that transcended birth was enshrined in the N e w Testament and other works f r o m the early period. 83

84

85

It is also worth noting that Christian priesthood never b e c o m e s a hereditary office. T h e earliest Christians were self-consciously egalitar­ ian; for J o h n o f Patmos, as we have seen, all o f the saved were priests. Nonetheless, a religious hierarchy quickly e m e r g e d , but leadership was d e t e r m i n e d n o t by ancestry but by merit o r at least s o m e o t h e r f o r m o f status. O f course, as the Christianization o f the e m p i r e advanced, fam­ ily ties and social c o n n e c t i o n s b e c a m e an increasingly important source o f status within the church; o n e has only to think o f the c o n n e c t i o n s a m o n g the C a p p a d o c i a n Fathers, the brothers Basil o f Ceaserea and Gregory o f Nyssa and their friend Gregory Naziansen. But while certain families may have contributed m o r e than their fair share to the ranks o f bishops, there never d e v e l o p e d a hereditary class o f religious functionar­ ies in Christianity, in part, perhaps, because o f the value placed o n celibacy. T h e avoidance o f a hereditary priesthood did not, however, pro­ tect the p r i e s t h o o d from p e r i o d i c complaints o f corruption, and eventu­ ally the institution itself and the n o t i o n o f mediation it entailed c a m e u n d e r attack. Unlike the Jewish thinkers c o n s i d e r e d here, the Protes­ tants w h o transformed the idea o f a k i n g d o m o f priests into the idea o f the priesthood o f all believers were n o t constrained by the Torah's insis­ tence o n an actual class o f hereditary priests. 86

87

Let m e return n o w to Paul's famous formula o f the transcendence o f difference in Christ. Its c o n c l u s i o n is also important for o u r purposes. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. A n d if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:28-29)

Paul d o e s n o t simply claim that the difference between Jews and gen­ tiles is n o l o n g e r relevant; h e insists that gentiles t o o have b e c o m e chil­ d r e n o f A b r a h a m , and he supports this radical claim by means o f exegesis o f the Jews' o w n authoritative scriptures. T h e central p o i n t is that G o d ' s p r o m i s e to A b r a h a m for his offspring ( G e n 12:7; 22:17-18) uses a singular form; thus "offspring" can only m e a n Christ (Gal 3:16), and o n e w h o is Christ's is thus also Abraham's offspring (Gal 3:29). T h e m e t h o d by which Paul arrives at this conclusion demonstrates the other aspect o f the challenge Christians p o s e d for Jews: n o t only did they d e n y the Jews a special status c o n f e r r e d by birth, they also claimed the Jewish scriptures for themselves and asserted that they had a better way o f read­ ing t h e m than did the Jews.

Children of Abraham T h e sketch o f the rabbis' distinctive understanding o f the p e o p l e o f Is­ rael that follows draws primarily o n liturgical texts. T h e y are a rich source for this understanding, and because they formulate the rabbis' views for the larger c o m m u n i t y that recites them, the views they express were particularly influential. O f course, n o liturgical text explicidy ac­ knowledges the Christian challenge to the uniqueness o f the Jewish claim to A b r a h a m . Yet the challenge illumines the recurrent interest o f the liturgy in the patriarchs. T h e Amidah, the central prayer o f each ser­ vice, which dates to rabbinic times, begins: Blessed are you, Lord our God and God of our ancestors, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, God most high, who bestows kindness and creates everything, who remembers the good deeds of the ancestors and brings a redeemer to their children's children, with love, for the sake of his name.

In other words, Jews are assured o f salvation n o t because o f their o w n d e e d s but because o f the piety o f their ancestors. A few blessings later the 'Amidah asks G o d ' s forgiveness because "we have sinned." N o t only d o e s the first-person plural maintain the unity o f the p e o p l e o f Israel, rejecting any separation o f the sinner from the rest o f the Jewish p e o p l e , but the perspective o f the first blessing renders the sins less than cata­ strophic. 88

T h e 'Amidah is n o t the only place the liturgy invokes Israel's ancestors to guarantee its salvation. T h e inclusion o f the story o f the b i n d i n g o f Isaac (Genesis 22) in the m o r n i n g liturgy reflects the same idea, as is ex­ plicit in the prayer that follows the biblical passage: May it be your will, Lord our God and God of our ancestors, that you remember on our behalf the covenant with our ancestors. Just as Abraham our father over­ came his compassion for his only son and wished to slaughter him in order to do your will, so may your compassion overcome your anger at us.

T h e presence o f the b i n d i n g o f Isaac in the liturgy is hardly i n n o c e n t . T h e story was clearly a subject o f c o n t e n t i o n between Jews and Chris­ tians. As early Christians c a m e to read it as a type o f the crucifixion, Jews r e s p o n d e d by d e v e l o p i n g their own theory o f the redemptive p o w e r o f Isaac's ordeal, and it is clear that at least s o m e Jews had the crucifixion in view as they read Genesis. Thus Genesis Rabbah, c o m p o s e d in Palestine in the fourth and fifth centuries, c o m m e n t s o n G e n 22:6, "And A b r a h a m t o o k the w o o d o f the burnt offering and laid it o n Isaac his son": "like the o n e w h o bears his cross o n his shoulder" (Gen. Rab. 5 6 . 3 ) . Later s o m e Jewish texts insisted that A b r a h a m had n o t held back his hand as o r d e r e d by the angel, that Isaac had d i e d o n the altar and had b e e n resurrected. T h e Christian use o f the story appears to have left its mark o n synagogue art as well. T h e prayer following the recita­ tion o f Genesis 22, then, serves to appropriate this crucial event for the Jews as physical descendants o f the patriarchs. 89

90

91

T h e clearest expression o f the view that Jews can rely o n ancestry w h e n merit fails is f o u n d in the prayer that follows the b i n d i n g o f Isaac in the introductory m o r n i n g service. T h e Babylonian Talmud (b. Yoma 87b) quotes the o p e n i n g lines as a prayer for the Day o f A t o n e m e n t , and there is n o reason to d o u b t that the o p e n i n g lines p o i n t to the prayer m o r e o r less as we k n o w it. T h e prayer begins by confessing collective unworthiness: Master of the Universe, not because of our righteousness do we dare to beseech you, but because of your great mercy. For what are we? What are our lives? What is our goodness? What is our righteousness? What is our ability to save? What is our strength? What is our might? What can we plead before you, Lord our God and God of our ancestors? Are not all the mighty ones like nothing before you, and men of renown, as though they had never existed, and the wise, as if they lacked understanding? For most of their deeds are worthless, and the days of their lives are vanity before you, for "man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity." (Eccl 3:19)

But even if Jews lack merit and life is potentially meaningless, they should n o t despair. T h e i r ancestry assures G o d ' s c o n c e r n for them and gives life meaning:

But we are your people, the children of your covenant, the children of Abraham your friend, to whom you made an oath on Mt. Moriah, the offspring of Isaac his only son, who was bound on the altar, the congregation of Jacob your first born son. . . . Happy are we, how good is our portion, how pleasant is our lot, how beautiful our inheritance! Happy are we that twice everyday, evening and morn­ ing, we recite, "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut 6:4)

This prayer a b o u n d s in the language o f ancestry. Jews are the children o f A b r a h a m a n d the offspring o f Isaac. Isaac is called Abraham's only son in an e c h o o f the language in which G o d d e m a n d s his sacrifice ( G e n 22:2), t h o u g h the designation is patentiy false since A b r a h a m has an o l d e r son, Ishmael. Finally, J a c o b , whose distinction a m o n g the patri­ archs is that all his sons are heirs to the covenant and w h o s e other n a m e is the n a m e o f the p e o p l e itself, Israel, is called G o d ' s firstborn son. If Christians claimed to have a path to salvation available to all w h o c h o s e it, regardless o f birth, this prayer answers that Jews were p r o m i s e d salva­ tion simply o n the basis o f birth, without any particular effort o n their part, t h o u g h their texts also told them that they must strive to fulfill the terms o f G o d ' s covenant with those ancestors whose merit guaranteed their salvation. T h e idea that G o d ' s relationship with the p e o p l e o f Israel is a result o f his love for Israel's ancestors g o e s back to the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y : Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it; yet the Lord set his heart in love upon your ancestors and chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day. Cir­ cumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. (Deut 10:14-17) 92

This is n o t the only place that D e u t e r o n o m y uses the L o r d ' s love o f Is­ rael's ancestors to explain his relationship with their descendants (see D e u t 4:37), and D e u t e r o n o m y also invokes the L o r d ' s love o f the de­ scendants a n d his oaths to their ancestors to explain why h e c h o s e such an insignificant p e o p l e ( D e u t 7:6-8). In n o n e o f these instances d o e s D e u t e r o n o m y claim that the descendants, the p e o p l e Moses addresses and, implicidy, the actual a u d i e n c e o f the work at the time o f its publica­ tion in the late seventh century B.C.E., were worthy o f b e i n g c h o s e n . D e u t e r o n o m y uses the fact o f chosenness to e x h o r t Israel to holiness; in all o f these instances the L o r d ' s love is linked to the d e m a n d that Israel k e e p the c o v e n a n t and o b e y the L o r d ' s c o m m a n d s ( D e u t 4:40; 7:9-11; 10:17-11:1). Further, if Israel fails to b e a holy p e o p l e and earns the L o r d ' s wrath by violating his c o m m a n d s , D e u t e r o n o m y insists that it will b e appropriately punished (e.g., D e u t e r o n o m y 29-30). T h e p r o m i s e o f restoration rests o n the p e o p l e ' s repentance.

T h e formulation o f the first blessing o f the 'Amidah, "the great, the mighty, and the awesome G o d , " was clearly influenced by the passage from D e u t e r o n o m y q u o t e d above. Yet by insisting that despite their sins Jews can c o u n t o n their ancestors' b o n d with G o d to assure their salva­ tion, this passage and the o t h e r passages from the liturgy g o b e y o n d any­ thing in D e u t e r o n o m y o r elsewhere in the Bible. D e u t e r o n o m y never claims that the L o r d ' s love o f Israel's ancestors o r his oaths to them will p r o t e c t the descendants, e x c e p t perhaps indirecdy: G o d ' s faithfulness to those w h o love h i m extends for a thousand generations (Deut 7:11). In the liturgy, the appeal to the merit o f the ancestors passes over punish­ m e n t and repentance, two crucial elements o f the D e u t e r o n o m i c schema. T h e authors o f the liturgy apparentiy believed that punish­ ments sufficient to the sins o f any future generations had already taken place—the destruction o f the temple, the failure o f the Bar K o k h b a re­ volt, the triumph o f Christianity. All but the last act o f the collective drama o f the p e o p l e o f Israel is over. Individual Jews c o n t i n u e to live their lives, to sin and repent, to p e r f o r m g o o d deeds, and eventually to face their j u d g m e n t . T h e drama o f their fates is b e i n g played o u t at every m o m e n t . But Israel as a p e o p l e has already b e e n punished o n c e and for all. All that remains is to await the messiah. T h e p r o m i n e n c e in the liturgy o f the merit o f the ancestors as a guarantee o f r e d e m p t i o n suggests that in the face o f a painful reality, s o m e saw reassurance that r e d e m p t i o n was o n the way as m o r e necessary than exhortation to repentance. I c o n c l u d e my discussion o f the liturgy with a passage from the Mish­ nah that offers a clear statement o f the rabbis' inclusive view o f Israel, a passage that eventually b e c a m e part o f the liturgy: "All Israel has a por­ tion in the world to c o m e . " In its original context, the o p e n i n g o f m. Sanhedrin 10:1, the passage is p r e c e d e d by several chapters c o n c e r n e d with the rules for i m p o s i n g the death penalty. Thus it offers a remark­ able statement o f the p o w e r o f Jewish ancestry: because o f their m e m ­ bership in the Jewish p e o p l e even criminals deserving o f death in this world have n o t forfeited their share in the world to c o m e . After this o p e n i n g , the remainder o f m. Sanhedrin 10:1 and m u c h o f the chapter that follows g o o n to n o t e beliefs and behaviors that disqualify Jews from the life o f the world to c o m e as well as individuals and g r o u p s w h o have b e e n deprived o f their share in that world. But despite the willingness to e x c l u d e s o m e Jews, the p o i n t is clear: Jews w h o have n o t distinguished themselves by specific and primarily ideological sins can c o u n t o n eter­ nal life. It is worth noting, however, that two o f the three c o m p l e t e man­ uscripts o f the Mishnah that survive lack the positive statement about the fate o f all Israelites in m. Sanhedrin 10:1, which begins instead with the list o f those w h o have n o share in the world to c o m e . Yet even without the

positive introduction, the negative list points to the positive c o n c l u s i o n , implying that those n o t m e n t i o n e d in it have a share in the world to c o m e . T h e manuscript evidence may then suggest that the positive for­ mulation was a d d e d later to make certain that n o o n e missed the point. T h e positive formulation and the p r o o f text that a c c o m p a n i e s it (Isa 60:21) in m. Sanhedrin 10:1 were eventually detached f r o m the list o f rea­ sons for exclusion f r o m the world to c o m e that follows and placed at the b e g i n n i n g o f the version o f m. 'Abot used in the synagogue. Liturgical use guaranteed a wider audience for this passage than for m. Sanhedrin o r the Mishnah generally. It is n o t clear w h e n the passage f r o m m. San­ hedrin was a d d e d to m. Abot, but an a n o n y m o u s c o m m e n t a r y to m. Abot f o u n d in M a h z o r Vitry discusses its significance. T h e addition, the c o m m e n t a r y explains, is i n t e n d e d to prevent the ignorant w h o hear m. Abot in synagogue f r o m despairing that their sins prevent them f r o m re­ penting and enjoying r e d e m p t i o n . T h e r e is, to b e sure, considerable tension between this insistence o n the r e d e m p t i o n o f all Israel and the exhortations to moral accountability so p r o m i n e n t in m. Abot and throughout rabbinic literature: "Consider three things, and y o u will n o t fall into sin: Know from w h e n c e y o u came, where y o u are going, and before w h o m y o u are fated to give an account" (m. Abot 3:1); 'This world is like a vestibule before the world to c o m e . Prepare yourself in the vestibule so that y o u may enter the banquet hall" (m. Abot 4:16). Surely n o o n e w h o t o o k the message o f m. Abot to heart c o u l d d o u b t that many Jews w o u l d b e f o u n d wanting w h e n they stood be­ fore the divine j u d g e . Yet, as in the Book of Jubilees, the emphasis o n indi­ vidual self-scrutiny stands side by side with the belief in collective salvation. 93

94

Synagogue Inscriptions and the People of Israel W e have seen that the synagogue mosaics provide important evidence for the way the temple was r e m e m b e r e d . While it is m o r e difficult to bring material evidence to bear o n the question o f h o w the p e o p l e w h o built the synagogues and prayed in them u n d e r s t o o d the p e o p l e o f Is­ rael to b e constituted, d o n o r inscriptions f r o m the synagogues are o f s o m e interest for the question. Seth Schwartz has r e c e n d y argued that the inscriptions reflect c o m m u n i t i e s that saw themselves as selfc o n t a i n e d units, e a c h o n e a miniature p e o p l e o f Israel. This under­ standing is reflected in their t e r m i n o l o g y for the c o m m u n i t y : "Israel," "holy c o n g r e g a t i o n , " "members o f the holy community," " p e o p l e . " Further, the inscriptions offer rather litde evidence o f hierarchy within the c o m m u n i t y b e y o n d references to priesdy ancestry, as n o t e d above, 95

96

Levitical ancestry, o r the use o f the honorific "rabbi." It seems unlikely that the c o m m u n i t i e s were as egalitarian as the inscriptions imply, but it is significant that the d o n o r s , w h o were presumably somewhat wealthier than most m e m b e r s o f the community, c h o s e to represent themselves and the c o m m u n i t y as they d i d . 97

Further, e a c h c o m m u n i t y is separated from other such c o m m u n i t i e s n o t by claims to greater piety o r by ideological differences o f any kind but by geography, and at least s o m e inscriptions u n d e r s t o o d the minia­ ture Israels as part o f a larger Israel. O n e inscription, from the J e r i c h o synagogue o f the sixth o r early seventh century, is particularly striking: 98

May they be remembered for good, may their memory be for good, all the holy congregation, great and small, whom the King of the Universe helped so that they pledged and made the mosaic. May H e who knows their names and those of their sons and the members of their household, inscribe them in the book of life with all the righteous. (They are) friends to all Israel. Peace [ A m e n ] . "

T h e inscription's inclusion o f all m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y is em­ phatic: "all the holy congregation, great and small." Further, the inscrip­ tion c o n n e c t s the m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y o f J e r i c h o to the larger c o m m u n i t y o f the Jewish p e o p l e : they are "friends to all Israel." Schwartz notes that the explicit reference to the larger Israel is unusual but n o t unique: "May there b e p e a c e o n this place and o n all the places o f Israel" appears o n the lintels o f two somewhat earlier synagogues. I n d e e d the very use o f the term "Israel" invokes the larger entity. 100

T h e inscriptions, then, offer n o explicit definition o f the p e o p l e o f Is­ rael. Yet they imply an inclusive understanding in which all Jews, b o t h great and small, f o r m part o f the holy p e o p l e , the understanding also re­ flected in the liturgy that was presumably in use in the synagogues in which the inscriptions were r e c o r d e d .

Christianity a n d C o n v e r s i o n t o J u d a i s m I have argued that the rabbis attempted to trump the Christian claim to constitute a p e o p l e saved o n the basis o f merit by insisting that the p e o ­ ple o f Israel was saved by virtue o f its ancestry, a less transient possession, after all, than merit. But they c o u l d have r e s p o n d e d quite differently and redefined the Jewish p e o p l e precisely o n the basis o f merit. As we have seen, Jews had r e c o g n i z e d for s o m e time that birth was n o t the only way to b e c o m e a m e m b e r o f the Jewish p e o p l e . Gentiles w h o so de­ sired c o u l d convert to Judaism. T h e rabbis' acceptance o f conversion was n o t merely passive; they d e v o t e d considerable energy to regulating a process marked by a diversity o f a p p r o a c h e s in the later S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d and to achieving a careful definition o f the status o f converts.

N o r was the e m b r a c e o f conversion c o n f i n e d to literature known only to the rabbinic elite: the daily 'Amidah prays for G o d ' s mercy o n "the righ­ teous and the pious, the elders o f your p e o p l e , the house o f Israel, and the remnant o f their scribes, the proselytes, and us." In principle, the possibility o f conversion should have transformed ideas o f Jewish identity, m o v i n g them away f r o m ancestry toward c h o i c e o r merit, and recent b o o k s by Shaye J. D . C o h e n and Christine E. H a y e s have emphasized its significance for rabbinic definitions o f the Jewish p e o p l e . For Hayes, 1 0 1

102

The rabbis broke with the rigid and highly impermeable group boundary preva­ lent in Second Temple Jewish sources and established a more clearly permeable one. They did this by championing the older Torah vision of Israel as a nation, yes, but a nation bound by a divine Covenant. In other words, biological filiation remained a value, but it was not deemed the only factor in determining group membership. . . . Through the formal recognition of conversion, the rabbis cre­ ated a legal and ritual process whereby biological fact was to be understood as al­ tered by legal fiction. 103

Hayes's claim that the boundaries the rabbis set u p were m o r e perme­ able than those o f S e c o n d Temple sources would b e somewhat less starding if she had spelled out here what she makes explicit elsewhere in the b o o k : the S e c o n d T e m p l e sources she has in m i n d are Jubilees, 4 Q M M T , and perhaps other texts from Q u m r a n that, in her view, share the "holy seed" ideology o f the B o o k o f Ezra. I disagree with Hayes's reading o f 4 Q M M T , but she is certainly correct that Jubilees d o e s n o t allow for the possibility o f a gentile b e c o m i n g a Jew. Yet, as Hayes herself recognizes, outside o f sectarian circles, which viewed most Jews as children o f dark­ ness, and Jubilees, notions o f Jewish identity in the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d were quite fluid. T h e opposition to the assimilation o f gentiles into the Jewish p e o p l e in Jubilees reflects a situation in which the majority ac­ cepted such a process, perhaps without any formal ritual o f conversion, as I argued in Chapter 2 . 104

105

106

1 0 7

It is clear that Hayes, like most m o d e r n s (I include myself a m o n g t h e m ) , prefers the rabbis' view o f Jewish identity in which, as she puts it, "genealogy and biological filiation were n o t dispensed with, b u t . . . were o v e r c o m e " to the exclusively genealogical view o f Jubilees. In­ d e e d , Hayes's b o o k as a w h o l e can b e read as a defense o f the rabbis against charges o f inward-looking exclusivism. Thus, for example, after arguing persuasively that the n o t i o n o f gentile impurity is an innovation o f the tannaim, she suggests that it b e u n d e r s t o o d n o t as a way o f deter­ ring Jews f r o m entering m i x e d marriages, for which it w o u l d surely have b e e n ineffective, b u t rather as "a resistance to, a contestation of, c o m ­ peting characterizations o f m i x e d marriages that is striking in its very 108

109

leniency" I suspect that Hayes's desire to d e f e n d the rabbis leads to overestimating the importance o f conversion n o t only in social reality but even in the rabbis' o w n rhetoric. C o h e n summarizes his view o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f rabbinic ideas a b o u t Jewish identity thus: The boundary between Us and Them is a combination of religion or "culture" . . . and ethnicity or "birth." . . . In a number of passages Philo, Jose­ phus, and the rabbis explicidy acknowledge the duality of the boundary, but do not seem to realize that its two aspects are fundamentally irreconcilable. The identity system that would attain canonical form in rabbinic Judaism was a union of disparate elements, Jewishness as a function of religion and Jewishness as a function of descent. 110

C o h e n locates the origins o f the idea o f conversion in the conquests o f the Hasmoneans that led Idumeans and Itureans to b e c o m e Judeans, a process against which I understand the Book ofJubilees to b e reacting (Chapter 2 a b o v e ) . T h e process had b o t h a political and a religious as­ p e c t . T h e rabbis u n d e r t o o k to regulate the process and d e v e l o p a rit­ ual to enact the transformation. T h e y also d e v o t e d considerable energy to defining the status o f converts and o f the offspring o f unions o f b o r n Jews and converts as well as Jews and gentiles, as Hayes t o o n o t e s . Yet, C o h e n points out, "Rabbinic h e g e m o n y and the political setting o f Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s f r o m late antiquity to early m o d e r n times jointly ensured that Jewishness w o u l d b e neither elusive n o r p r o b l e m ­ atic." Thus for C o h e n , in contrast to Hayes, the normalization o f the process o f conversion by the rabbis is part o f a larger c o n c e r n to clarify boundaries, n o t to lower t h e m . O n this C o h e n seems to m e m o r e per­ suasive than Hayes. 111

112

113

114

115

C o h e n and Hayes are u n d o u b t e d l y correct in their claim that the idea o f conversion makes rabbinic Judaism something other than a religion o f ancestry or, in C o h e n ' s terms, an ethnic religion. Yet I believe they overestimate the actual impact o f the idea. This is perhaps inevitable; a study o f rabbinic views o f conversion necessarily focuses o n texts c o n ­ c e r n e d with conversion. But the passages from the liturgy just discussed suggest that while the idea o f conversion had the potential to transform ideas about Jewish identity, its actual impact was very limited. Converts were seen as exceptions to the rule rather than as exemplars o f a new set o f rules. T h e limited impact o f conversion is perhaps in part because o f its association with Christianity. After a certain point, o f course, most Christians were the children o f Christians, and baptism b e c a m e less a ritual o f conversion than a rite o f passage. Further, the opposite side o f Christianity's self-understanding as a religion o f converts, o p e n to all, is that there is n o salvation outside the c h u r c h . Precisely because they

defined Israel by ancestry, s o m e rabbis thought it unfair to e x c l u d e all others f r o m salvation; thus they claim that righteous gentiles have a share in the world to c o m e (t. Sank 1 3 . 2 ) . 116

Kingdom of Priests or Children of Abraham? I w o u l d like to c o n c l u d e by returning to the phrase that was the starting p o i n t o f this b o o k , "a k i n g d o m o f priests." It is significant that the rabbis showed litde interest in the phrase. T h e Mekilta's c o m m e n t o n E x o d 19:6 is worth noting: 117

The sages said: The Israelites before they made the Golden Calf were eligible to eat of the holy things. But after they made the Golden Calf these holy things were taken from them and given to priests exclusively. (Bahodes2) ns

This interpretation takes the phrase "a k i n g d o m o f priests" quite liter­ ally, b u t restricts its relevance to a time far in the past, r o b b i n g it o f any c o n t e m p o r a r y significance. As w e have seen, Philo offered a similarly historical explanation f o r the fact that the Passover sacrifice is offered n o t b y priests b u t by heads o f h o u s e h o l d : priests d i d n o t yet exist as a separate g r o u p at the time o f the first Passover sacrifice. But Philo g o e s o n to draw a moral with p r o f o u n d implications for the time after the Ex­ odus: the nation is the archetype o f the priesthood (Questions and An­ swers on Exodus 1.10). N o t so the passage f r o m the Mekilta. I n d e e d the rabbis' lack o f interest in the phrase "a k i n g d o m o f priests" is itself suggestive. T h e p r o b l e m the phrase e m b o d i e d for Jews in the S e c o n d Temple p e r i o d had in a sense b e e n resolved by the destruction o f the temple. In the days when the priests p e r f o r m e d a crucial service, sin­ ful priests were a constant reminder that birth d i d n o t guarantee piety. With the temple g o n e , sinful priests were a less powerful reminder o f this still relevant truth. Perhaps this m a d e the embrace o f the d o m i n a n t bibli­ cal understanding o f the p e o p l e o f Israel as the children o f Abraham, a c o m m u n i t y defined by birth and j u d g e d as a whole, less difficult. C o n ­ verts were n o t to b e excluded, but they were exceptions w h o did nothing to c h a n g e the essential logic o f Jewish community. In the face o f a Christ­ ian empire that claimed they were n o longer the heirs to G o d ' s promises to their ancestors, Jews c a m e to insist that their very birth promised them r e d e m p t i o n despite their own failings.

Notes

Introduction 1. Nor does it receive much attention in rabbinic literature. See Daniel R. Schwartz, " 'Kingdom of Priests'—a Pharisaic Slogan?" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, Wissenschafdiche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa­ ment 60 (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 5 7 - 6 6 . 2. Unless otherwise noted, translations of books of the Bible and Apocrypha are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The story appears to bring together three different stories of rebellion: of the Levites, of the "leaders of the assembly" (Num 16:2), and of Dathan and Abiram. The insistence on the holi­ ness of the entire people comes from the revolt of the leaders of the assembly. See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 7 3 - 8 5 , for a recent discussion. 3. Paul D. Hanson The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatobgy, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 68, calls this passage "an astonishing democratization of the formerly exclusive sacerdotal of­ fice." This view is quoted (from the first edition [1975]) and rejected by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, Anchor Bible 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003) 226. Blenkinsopp sees the passage as an instance of the theme of the despoiling of the Egyptians that he finds elsewhere in 3 Isaiah, including Isa 60:5-7, 16.1 have criti­ cized Hanson's larger argument (Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [New \brk: Oxford University Press, 1993] 2 6 - 2 8 ) , and I think he is mistaken to suggest that the prophet is advocating a change in cultic personnel. But the rhetoric of the passage is indeed remarkable, and to subsume it under the heading of "despoiling the Egyptians" fails to do it justice. 4. Thus I disagree with Schwartz, who seems to believe that this outer-directed sense of Israel as a priesdy people among the nations of the world "does not sup­ ply any support for the inner-Jewish application of the verse" (" 'Kingdom,'" 5 8 ) . 5. I single out this passage because it can more confidendy be attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem than many of the other passages referring to a remnant in Isaiah 1-39. The language of Isa 1:27, 4:2-6, 6:13, and 10:20-22 shows significant points of contact with post-exilic prophecy, thus making it likely that these pas­ sages are later additions to the words of Isaiah ofJerusalem. See Joseph Blenkin­ sopp, Isaiah 1-39, Anchor Bible 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 110-11 and comments to the passages noted.

6. Thus the corpus of laws in the Torah for the stranger, ger, dwelling among the people in the land, reflecting the exceptional status of non-Israelite residents of the land. 7. The designation "foreign" perhaps belongs in quotation marks because there is reason to believe that some of those whom Ezra and Nehemiah treated as foreigners viewed themselves as Israelites or at least as worshipers of the God of Israel. Thus Nehemiah's enemy Tobiah the Ammonite bears a Yahwist name, and Neh 2:20 hints that Tobiah and Sanballat do not consider themselves foreigners. 8. The genealogy of Ruth 4:18-22 is widely regarded as a later addition, but opinions about Ruth 4:17, which makes the connection to David, are divided. See Edward E Campbell, Jr., Ruth, Anchor Bible 7 (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1975) 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 - 7 3 . 9. See, e.g., ShayeJ. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Vari­ eties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999) 156-74. 10. See ShayeJ. D. Cohen, "Religion, Ethnicity, and 'Hellenism' in the Emer­ gence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean Palestine," in Religion and Religious Prac­ tice in the Seleucid Kingdom, ed. Per Bilde et al. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990) 2 0 4 - 2 3 ; and idem, Beginnings, 109-39. 11. The fragment of Clearchus is preserved in Josephus, Against Apion 1.176-83; see also Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84) 1.47-52. 12. The term 'Judaism" is first attested in 2 Maccabees (2:21, 8:1, 13:48). 13. Knohl, Sanctuary, argues that this passage comes from H , not P ( 9 6 - 9 7 ) . 14. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (rept. with cor­ rections, Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 5 8 - 7 1 , argues that while the early sources—J, E, and the non-Deuteronomic portions of the former prophets— accept the idea that any Israelite can sacrifice at an altar, it is their more or less unanimous view that priests serving in temples were of Levitical descent. The story about Micah's temple supports the point: in this out-of-the-way spot, the propri­ etor of the temple was prepared to use one of his sons as a priest, but much pre­ ferred to employ a Levite when that became possible (Haran, Temples, 78). 15. Some scholars argue that a tribal basis for priesthood is a later construct. Because there is little clear evidence for the existence of a tribe of Levi in early biblical sources, they see the tribe as a later invention intended to find a ge­ nealogical place for an important group that had originally constituted a guild, though membership in the guild may well have been passed on from father to son given the highly specialized nature of the profession. See, e.g., Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20, Anchor Bible 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 2 8 0 - 8 6 . Against this view, see Haran, Temples, 7 1 - 8 3 . 16. The precise figures are 4,289 priests and 341 Levites. So too almost a cen­ tury later Ezra discovers that the group of Israelites assembled to return to Judea lacks Levites altogether, and he must make strenuous efforts to find some (Ezra 8:15-20). 17. John R. Bardett, "Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem," Journal of Theo­ logical Studies n.s. 19 (1968): 1-18. 18. For discussion of the view of Zadok as a Canaanite priest employed by David and arguments in favor of his Aaronide lineage, see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cam­ bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973) 2 0 7 - 1 5 . Haran argues for Zadok's Levitical lineage in somewhat different terms (Temples, 7 0 - 8 2 ) .

19. O n the one temple, see Gideon Bohak, Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and Its Singular Ramifications,"Journal offewish Studies 50 (1999): 3 - 1 6 . O n the one text, see Martha Himmelfarb, "The Torah between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Difference in Antiquity," in Ancient Judaism in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Carol Bakhos, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

Chapter 1 1. This is a schematic account of a far more complex situation. For a consid­ eration of the history of the priesthood between die destruction and the re­ building of the Jerusalem temple, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, 'The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypotheti­ cal Reconstruction," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998): 2 5 - 4 3 . 2. Two descendants of David, Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1) and Zerubbabel (Ezra 26; Zechariah 3-4), play significant roles in the community of the return. O n other Davidide governors, see Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, 'Jerusalem and Zion after the Exile: The Evidence of First Zechariah," in Sha 'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emmanuel Tov (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992); and Eric M . Meyers, 'The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). 3. E.g., Jewish War 2.261-63; Antiquities 18.85-87; 20.97-98, 1 6 9 - 7 1 . 4. My translation. 5. The term "wisdom" appears only in chap. 1 of the Book of Daniel, and it is restricted to Daniel and his friends. 6. Translations differ considerably: "from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests" (RSV and New Revised Standard Version); "at the dictation of the levitical priests" (Revised English Bible, Jerusalem Bible). The New Jewish Publication Society version resorts to implicit emendation: "When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have a copy of this Teaching written for him on a scroll by the levitical priests"; a note to "by" reads, "Nuance of Heb. milliphne uncertain." 7.1 have modified the translation of RSV, which reads "direct" for "teach." 8. I am much influenced by an unpublished paper by Steven D. Fraade, " T h e y Shall Teach Your Statutes to Jacob': Priest, Scribe, and Sage in Second Temple Times," which argues that most of the scribes of the Second Temple pe­ riod known to us by name were also priests. 9. For a discussion of the process of composition, see George W. E. Nickels­ burg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36; 81-108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 25, 132, 229, 278, 2 9 0 - 9 2 . Nickelsburg is agnostic about whether chaps. 6 - 1 1 , the narrative of the fall of the angels and its aftermath, formed part of die original work, although he believes that chaps. 1 2 - 1 6 represent an interpretation of the traditions of chaps. 6-11 (229). 10. My translation. 11. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 230. My reading of this portion of the Book of the Watchers is influenced by the work of Annette Yoshiko Reed, " 'What the Fallen u

Angels Taught': The Reception-History of the Book of the Watchers in Judaism and Christianity" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2002), revised as Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception ofEnochic Literature (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); and idem, "Heavenly Ascent, An­ gelic Descent, and the Transmission of Knowledge in 1 Enoch 6-16," in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. Ra'anan S. Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 12. James C.VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984) 104-5. At the conclusion of the Astronomical Book, chaps. 8 1 - 8 2 elaborate the picture of Enoch as scribe, but they are unlikely to have formed part of the original Astronomical Book. Nickelsburg, Commentary, connects them to the Book of the Watchers. For a critique of Nickelsburg's posi­ tion, Annette libshiko Reed, 'The Textual Identity, Literary History, and Social Setting of 1 Enoch: Reflections on George Nickelsburg's Commentary on 1 Enoch 1-36; 81-108," ArchivfurReligionsgeschichte5 (2003): 2 7 9 - 9 6 . 13. All translations of the Book of the Watchers are taken from Nickelsburg, Com­ mentary. In 1 Enoch 15:1, Nickelsburg translates, "Enoch, righteous man and scribe of truth." The Aramaic is no longer extant for either 1 Enoch 12:4 or 15:1. The Greek for 1 Enoch 12:4 is grammateus tes dikaiosynesr, for 1 Enoch 15:1, grammateus tes aletheias. Aramaic qustd could be translated by either dikaiosyne, righ­ teousness, or aletheia, truth. See Nickelsburg's discussion of his translation and the meaning of the two phrases (Commentary, 270). 14. Reed, "Heavenly Ascent," 6 1 - 6 6 . 15. Himmelfarb, Ascent, 7 5 - 7 7 . 16. VanderKam, Enoch, 179-80. 17. See the seminal article of George W. E. Nickelsburg, "Enoch, Levi, and Pe­ ter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee," Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 5 7 6 - 8 7 . 18. See Himmelfarb, Ascent, 1 1 - 1 2 for a more detailed discussion and refer­ ences. 19. Haran, Temples, 2 7 6 - 8 8 . 20. See the Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 89:73) for an explicit claim to this effect; the Apocalypse of Weeks in the Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 93:9-10, 91:11) omits the Second Temple from its historical schema altogether, a silence that Nickelsburg, Commentary, reads as a rejection (447). See also Himmelfarb, "Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks" (forthcoming). 21. For a more detailed discussion of heaven as temple with references to other literature, see Himmelfarb, Ascent, 14-20. 22. Exodus offers instructions for the building of the sanctuary and an ac­ count of the building (chaps. 2 5 - 2 7 , 3 6 - 3 9 ) ; 1 Kings describes the building of Solomon's temple (chaps. 6 - 7 ) , for which there is a parallel account in 2 Chron­ icles 3-4; and Ezekiel offers a plan for the restored temple (chaps. 4 0 - 4 2 ) . 23. For biblical parallels, see Exod 26:1 (curtains of the sanctuary); 1 Kings 6:29; Ezek 41:17-19. 24. For biblical parallels, see Exod 25:18-22; 1 Kings 6:23-28. Ezekiel's holy of holies (Ezek 41:3-5, 17-24) does not contain a throne of cherubim until the glory of the Lord returns on the chariot throne (Ezek 43:1-5). 25. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 2 6 5 - 6 6 . 26. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 271, treats Enoch's intercession as part of his

role as scribe and emphasizes the prophetic aspects of that role; he also notes possible priesdy connections. 27. O n this point, see Nickelsburg's admirably cautious formulation in, "Enoch, Levi," 586. 28. Nickelsburg, "Enoch, Levi," 5 8 5 - 8 6 . 29. Ibid. See also David Suter, "Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16," Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 115-35. 30. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 2 7 1 - 7 2 . 31. See the discussion in Chapter 3 below. 32. Nickelsburg takes issue with my claim that Psalms of Solomon is not directed against priests in particular, but does not mention my claim for CD (both in Himmelfarb, Ascent, 21) (Commentary, 2 7 2 ) . I am now inclined to accept Nickels­ burg's reading of the Psalms of Solomon. 33. In his edition of 1 Enoch, Michael A. Knibb emends this clause to *you lusted after the daughters of men" (in consultation with Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls [Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press, 1978] 2.100). The emendation is accepted by Matthew Black in his translation (in consultation with James C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha [Leiden: Brill, 1985] 152). The emendation eliminates one instance of a figurative use of "blood" from the passage, but my argument stands without it. 34. See the discussion of Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 3 1 0 - 1 3 , in his discussion of the sacrifices of Lev 5:1-13. 35. Nickeslburg, "Enoch, Levi," 585. 36. EibertJ. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 198-203. 37. See Martha Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermar­ riage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt," Jewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999): 1-23. The Book of Jubilees, as we shall see in the next chapter, does perceive a problem in the Hasmonean period, but its perception reflects its distinctive un­ derstanding of the people of Israel. (This claim represents a development of my position in the article cited in this note.) 38. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 230. 39. For the text and translation of Aramaic Levi, I use Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 9 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1996). I was unable to make use ofJonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commen­ tary, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); or of Henryk Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 86 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); both works appeared after I had completed this chapter. 40. It uses a solar calendar, and it refers to Enoch's condemnation of Levi's descendents (Ar. Levi 102). See Jonas Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, "Re­ marks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza," Revue biblique 86 (1979): 2 2 4 - 2 5 . 41. The discussion of Aramaic Levi here is based on my discussion in "Levi, Phinehas," 3 - 6 . 42. The text is extremely fragmentary here, but the fragments can be supple­ mented by comparison to Jubilees 30, which either drew on Aramaic Levi direcdy or shared a source with it (Kugler, From Patriarch, 3 6 - 3 7 , 8 3 - 8 6 ) .

43. Robert A. Kugler, "Halakic Interpretive Strategies at Qumran: A Case Study," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Inter­ national Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John Kampen, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 133-35, particularly n. 15; this represents a change from his interpreta­ tion in From Patriarch, 103. 44. The plural form is difficult, but does not figure in the interpretation of Aramaic Levi. 45. This reading of Josephus requires textual emendation, but the emenda­ tion has been widely accepted. See the note there, Josephus IV: Jewish Antiquities, Book I-IV, trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1930) 452. 46. O n the use of zona in this sense, John Kampen, "4QMMT and New Testa­ ment Studies," in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, ed. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein, Society of Biblical Literature Sympo­ sium Series 2 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 135-38. See also Kampen, 'The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined," in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceed­ ings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke with Florentino Garcia Martinez, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 149-67, and Kugler, "Hala­ kic Interpretive Strategies," 131-40. 47. Here I disagree with Kugler, From Patriarch, 108-10. For my view, see, briefly, below, the section on Aramaic Levi, and in more detail, my "Earthly Sacri­ fice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and fubilees," in Heavenly Realms, ed. Boustan and Reed, 104-16. 48. RSV: stock. 49. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma'ase haTorah, Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). 50. "Holy" in this passage is a reconstruction. 51. Qimron, T h e Halakha," in Qumran Cave 4.V, 171-75; Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas," 6 - 1 1 , arrives at the same conclusion but criticizes Qimron's argu­ ment. See also Lester L. Grabbe, "4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society," in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen, 103n. 54, who criti­ cizes Qimron's arguments in "The Halakha" and expresses sympathy for the other position, but remains agnostic. 52. Joseph M. Baumgarten, quoted by Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V, 55, note to line 75, and Qimron, T h e Halakha," in Qumran Cave 4.V, l 7 l n . 178a; Carolyn J. Sharp, "Phinean Zeal and the Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT" Revue de Qumran 18 (1997): 2 1 6 - 1 7 . Kugler, "Halakic Interpretive Strategies," 135-36, thinks the text too obscure to permit a conclusion, but criticizes Qim­ ron and Strugnell for suggesting one with too much certainty. 53. Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas." 54. Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 82-89. 55. See Chapter 2. 56. Remarkably, Qimron considers the passage from Aramaic Levi (which he calls Testament of Levi) "a clear example of a ruling in favour of endogamy" ( T h e Halakha," in Qumran Cave 4.V, 174). 57. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 8 3 - 8 4 .

58. Michael E. Stone, "Lists of Revealed Things in Apocalyptic Literature," in Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank M. Cross, Werner Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Gar­ den City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1976) 444n. 1. 59. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 262. 60. Himmelfarb, Ascent, 61. O n the divine council, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 186-90; E. Theodore Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980) 175-209. 62. O n this last point, see Nickelsburg, "Enoch, Levi," 580. 63. The evidence about the name is actually somewhat complicated. T h e Greek manuscripts usually give the name as Joshua ben Sira ben Eleazar (Sir 50:27). The surviving Hebrew (MS B) gives it as Simon ben Joshua ben Eleazar ben Sira. T h e grandson's reference to "my grandfather Joshua" (RSV: Jesus) in the prologue to his translation confirms the first name according to the Greek. For the Hebrew text of ben Sira, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, Ssupplements to Vetus Testamentum 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 64. For discussion and references, see Patrick W. Skehan, trans, and notes, and Alexander A. Di Leila, intro. and commentary, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, An­ chor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987) 5 7 6 - 8 0 . 65. E.g., Di Leila, Ben Sira, 5 7 6 - 8 0 ; also Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment, Early Judaism and Its Literature 8 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 66-73. 66. See, e.g., James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (llQPs ), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965) 8 3 - 8 5 ; idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1967) 112-17; Celia Deutsch, 'The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation," Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 4 0 0 - 4 0 9 . 67. Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 171-74. 68. E.g., Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schrifigelehrter, Wissenschafdiche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2 / 6 (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1980) 13-26; Saul Olyan, "Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood," Harvard TheologicalReview80 (1987): 2 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 7 5 - 7 6 . 69. All translations of ben Sira are taken from the RSV unless otherwise indi­ cated; the RSV offers a translation of the Greek text of ben Sira. 70. Ben Sira's term for this profession or calling is soper or grammateus (Sir 38:24); the term appears only once in this passage but in a prominent spot, the very beginning of the account. The literal translation "scribe" seems hardly ade­ quate for the activities ben Sira describes. Thus the Revised English Bible trans­ lates "scholar," while Michael E. Stone ("Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age," in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Miller, Hanson, and McBride, 5 7 5 - 8 6 ) uses "sage" and Johannes Marbock ("Sir. 38, 24-39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Eine Beitrag zu Gestalt und Werk ben Siras," in La sagesse de Vancien testament, ed. Maurice Gilbert, 2nd ed.; Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 51 [Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1990] 2 9 3 - 3 1 6 ) calls this figure "der schriftgelehrte Weise." Although ben Sira fails to mention Ezra in his Praise of the Fathers, his lofty understanding of the functions of the scribe surely reflects the career of the most famous biblical a

figure to bear the title "scribe" (so too Marbock, "Sir. 38,24-39,11," 297-99; see P. Hoffken, 'Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach uber Esra?," Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschafi 87 [1975]: 184-201, for a very different position). 71. O n e of these visions (Zechariah 3) is of a scene in the heavenly court, and the speeches of the participants clarify the action. In another (Zech 2:5-9), Zechariah encounters an angel with a measuring rod in hand who explains that he is going off to measure Jerusalem. 72. See Michael Fishbane, 'The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics," Proceeding of the Sixth World Congress ofJewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 9 7 - 1 1 4 ; idem, Biblical Interpretation in An­ cient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) 4 4 7 - 5 7 , for discussion of the form and its ancient Near Eastern background. 73. Martha Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christ­ ian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983) 5 0 - 6 0 . 74. The Book of Malachi also dates to the Persian period, but it contains no references to Persian kings or contemporary figures. 75. O n deeds as defining prophets for ben Sira, see Burton L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Siras Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 28. 76. This is a literal translation of the Greek. There is no Hebrew extant. RSV translates "according to the word"; the verse is numbered Sir 49:6 in RSV. 77. See Mack, Wisdom, 3 0 - 3 2 , for the offices ben Sira implies for Moses and other reasons for believing that ben Sira understood Moses as a prophet. 78. Mack, Wisdom, 32, 104-7; Mack notes that Moses occupies an office that later divides into several different offices (105). 79. Thus Mack, Wisdom, 106-7. 80. Thus Mack, Wisdom, 3 0 - 3 1 . 81. RSV: "two anointed"; the Hebrew, sine bine-hayyishar, is an unusual term, and I prefer the literal translation. 82. For discussion of this type of dual leadership, see David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in fewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1994) 5 7 - 5 9 . Goodblatt also finds support for what he calls the "doc­ trine of the diarchy" in the Torah's picture of Moses and Aaron working side by side ( 5 9 - 6 0 ) ; I find this claim less persuasive. For an extended treatment that emphasizes the lack of evidence for the high priest's political power, see Debo­ rah W. Rooke, Zadoks Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in An­ cient Israel, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 1 2 5 - 5 1 . 83. O n the governors of \ehud, Lester L. Grabbe, fudaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Volume One: The Persian and Greek Periods (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 7 3 - 8 4 , esp. 7 4 - 7 5 ; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, Anchor Bible 25B (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1987) 9 - 1 7 . 84. Thus Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 7 - 2 3 . Rooke, Zadoks Heirs, argues that throughout this period the high priest had authority over the cult alone (see esp. the summaries of her arguments on pp. 120-22 [Persian period] and 3 2 5 - 2 7 [hellenistic period]). For a cautious endorsement of the view that high priests exercised political power in the hellenistic period, see James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004) esp. x, 122-24. 85. Mack, Wisdom, 84—87, 1 6 7 - 7 1 . 1 argue below for a more radical reading of ben Sira's approach to Israelite kingship that resolves the "anomaly" Mack finds

(86) in what he perceives as ben Sira's failure to resolve the tension between the royal high priesthood and absent kingship. 86. There is surprisingly little clear evidence for the expectation of a Davidic messiah in texts of the Second Temple period; it consists of the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and some texts from Dead Sea Scrolls. For discussion, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other An­ cient Literature, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1995) 4 9 - 7 3 . 87. The Greek differs slighdy: "in the days of heaven" (RSV: "all the days of heaven"). 88. I have modified the translation of RSV, which reads, "as the days of the heavens." 89. Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas," 2 2 - 2 3 . 90. The Hebrew of the first two-thirds of the verse reads, wegam berito 'im dawid ben yisay lemateh yehudd / nahdlat 'es lipne kebodo nahdlat 'ahdron lekol zar'o . Stadelmann reads 'es in the second stich as ?s and translates thus: "Und auch Sein Bund mit David . . . ist das Erbe eines Mannes vor dem Angesicht Seiner Herrlichkeit, das Erbe Aarons fur alle seine Nachkommen"; the "man before the face of his glory" is Aaron, whose descendants have inherited the covenant with David (Ben Sira, 156-58; quotation, 157). I find the Hebrew extremely difficult to construe, and I am afraid that it will not bear the meaning Stadelmann as­ signs it. P. W. Skehan emends the Hebrew "in light of G and the parallelism," to "nahdlat 'is libno lebaddo," which he translates, "Was an individual heritage through one son alone" (Skehan and Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 508, 5 1 0 ) . The meaning of the comparison remains less than clear even after this emendation. 91. So in Hebrew; in Greek, only Sir 45:26. 92. The translation of the Hebrew is taken from the notes of the Oxford Anno­ tated Apocrypha, Expanded Edition, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (New \brk: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 1977) 196. The Greek reads, "May he entrust to us his mercy! / A n d let him deliver us in our days!" 93. Nehemiah too is credited with repairing walls and buildings (Sir 49:13), but the activities of Hezekiah are more clearly parallel to Simon's. Simon re­ paired and fortified the temple and laid foundations for retaining walls, dug a cistern, and fortified the city against siege. Hezekiah fortified the city, provided water, and withstood a siege. Simon does everything Hezekiah did and also re­ pairs the temple. See Mack, Wisdom, 35, for Simon as king-like. 94. Compare the Hebrew of Sir 45:24, the covenant with Phinehas, "the law of the covenant of peace"; see Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 161. 95. Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 160. 96. Pancratius C. Beentjes, "'The Countries Marvelled at You': King Solomon in Ben Sira 47:12-22," Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voorfilosofie en theologie 45 (1984): 9 - 1 1 . 97. The Greek of Sir 47:19 does not contain anything that could be construed as "but." The Hebrew offers the connective w, which could mean "but" in the proper context, but can also mean "and." 98. Beentjes, '"The Countries,'" 9 - 1 1 . I cannot agree with Beentjes' view that ben Sira's understanding of Solomon's wrongdoing differs from that of the Deuteronomic history, which reports that Solomon's foreign wives led him into idolatry in his old age (1 Kings 11:1-13). Beentjes notes the absence of reference to idolatry or to the foreignness of Solomon's wives in ben Sira's account (" 'The Countries,' " 8 - 9 ) . But the law of the king itself associates the multiplication of wives with idolatry: "And he shall not multiply wives for himself lest his heart turn

away." Surely this suggests that the wives are foreign, a likely circumstance for a king, since there is no reason why the multiplication of Israelite wives would lead to idolatry. Compare 1 Kings 11:3: "And his wives turned his heart away." 99. "He will never blot out the posterity of him who loved him; / so he gave a remnant to Jacob, / and to David a root of his stock" (Sir 47:22). The Hebrew of the verse is incomplete, and the last two cola especially are severely damaged. They read, "he gave to [ ] , and to [ ] , " but they do not preserve any traces of the name David. Thus it is possible that the Hebrew concluded somewhat differendy from the Greek, although it should be noted that in this verse the extant Hebrew is quite close to the Greek. 100. Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 161-63. 101. Stone, "Ideal Figures," 580. 102. E.g., Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellungjesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 113, 125. 103. In addition to Nickelsburg, whose position is discussed below, see also, e.g., Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways be­ tween Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998) 68-79; and idem, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, From Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002) 8 9 - 1 0 3 ; James C. VanderKam, 'The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch," in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint with the assistance of Tae Hun Kim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001) 142-43; Benjamin G. Wright III, "'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, Sosterberg, Netherlands, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 2 1 8 - 2 1 . 104. Nickelsburg, Commentary, 50. 105. Ibid., 6 0 - 6 1 . 106. Reed, "Heavenly Ascent," 5 5 - 6 1 . 107. Reed, 'Textual Identity," 2 9 1 - 9 2 ; Nickelsburg, Commentary, 6 2 - 6 4 . 108. Thus James C. VanderKam, "2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem, "Journal for the Study ofJudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 12 (1981): 57n. 20, sees the contrast between the tone of the Astronomical Book and that of Jubilees as evidence for his view that the solar calendar was the cultic calendar of the period before the Maccabean Revolt. 109. Wright, '"Fear the L o r d / " 189-222. See also Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, and Gabriele Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300 B.CE. to 200 c.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 7 7 - 9 2 . 110. So too Boccaccini, Middle Judaism, 7 7 - 9 2 . 111. Wright, "'Fear the Lord.' " 112. Ibid., 192-95. 113. Ibid., 191. 114. Ibid., 2 1 8 - 2 2 . 115. Ibid, 2 0 4 - 8 . 116. The most difficult part of these passages to reconcile with a solar calen­ dar is Sir 43:7. VanderKam, who believes that before the hellenistic reform the Jerusalem temple used a solar calendar, admits that the Hebrew text of Sir 43:7 is probably incompatible with a solar calendar, but argues that the Greek, Syriac, and Latin of the passage are not ('The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment ofJaubert's Hypotheses," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 [1979]: 4 0 7 - 1 0 ) .

117. Wright, "'Fear the Lord,'" 2 1 4 - 1 7 ("domesticating," 2 1 7 ) . 118. Wright, '"Fear the Lord,"' 2 1 3 - 1 4 . 119. See Himmelfarb, Ascent, 7 5 - 7 7 , 102-14. 120. Wright, "'Fear the Lord,'" 2 0 8 - 1 2 . 121. Reed, "Heavenly Ascent," 6 1 - 6 6 ; idem, Fallen Angels, 4 4 - 4 9 . 122. Reed, Fallen Angels, 7 0 - 7 1 , quotation, 71; see also 4 3 - 4 4 . 123. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 230, argues that they betray knowledge of the version of the story that appears in the Book of the Watchers. 124. Reed, Fallen Angels, 6 9 - 7 1 . 125. There is no consensus about the existence or nature of intermediate stages between the third- or second-century B.C.E. Aramaic work and the secondcentury C.E. Greek Christian document. Thus, for example, some of the refer­ ences to a royal priesthood in the Testament of Levi are obviously Christian in their current form, but some scholars have suggested that the figure of the sword-wielding priest originated in a document designed to serve as propa­ ganda for the Hasmoneans. For arguments for such a document, see Kugler, From Patriarch, 2 1 6 - 1 9 , and references there. This document, which would have drawn on Aramaic Levi and in turn served as the immediate source for the Testa­ ment of Levi, is of course entirely hypothetical. Marinus de Jonge criticizes Kugler's arguments for an intermediate document in "Levi in Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Levi," 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 fanuary, 1997), ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone, with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 8 4 - 8 9 . 126. For this figure, see Kugler, From Patriarch, 93. 127. The last part of the instructions, 5 1 - 6 0 , repeats and summarizes some of the material that comes before it. This has led some scholars to suggest that this portion is not original to the text. See Kugler, From Patriarch, 108, for references. Jubilees' version of the instructions includes keeping the garments free of blood and covering blood (Jub. 21:17), subjects that Aramaic Levi treats only in this concluding portion (Ar. Levi 53, 5 6 ) . Thus if the conclusion of the instructions is a later addition to Aramaic Levi, it had already been added by the time Jubilees was written. 128. Kugler, From Patriarch, 108-10. 129. Himmelfarb, "Earthly Sacrifice," 104-16. 130. See Kugler, From Patriarch, 128n.230, for those who hold this position. 131. Kugler, From Patriarch, 128-29. 132. O n Joseph, see ibid., 127-28, 223. 133. Cf. Kugler, From Patriarch, 129, and Stone, "Ideal Figures," 5 7 8 - 7 9 . 134. It appears that a considerable portion of the text has been lost (Kugler, From Patriarch, 8 5 ) . 135. Kugler's reading of this passage as promising first fruits to Levites rather than priests in opposition to the command of the Torah (From Patriarch, 86) is part of his overall reading of Aramaic Levi as critical of the priesdy establishment and sometimes in contradiction to the Torah. But surely the context, Levi's im­ minent elevation to priesthood, suggests that it is Levi's priesdy descendants the text has in view. 136. This form is conjectural; the noun appears only twice in the Bible (Gen 49:10, the passage above, and Prov 30:17), both times in the construct. 137. Greenfield and Stone, "Remarks," 2 2 3 - 2 4 .

138. Kugler, From Patriarch, 117 n. 196. 139. The Testament of Levi must be used with even greater caution than usual on this topic. It represents Jesus as a royal priest (chap. 18), to be sure, but this picture clearly served Christian ends. See de Jonge, "Levi," 8 8 - 8 9 . 140. All quotations from Josephus's Life and Against Apion are taken from Jose­ phus I: The Life, Against Apion, trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1976; first printed, 1926).

Chapter 2 1. For a consideration of the evidence from Qumran, see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 143-46. 2. The term "specified" (thus Joseph M . Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, "Damascus Document," in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Transla­ tions, ed. James H . Charlesworth [Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck); Louisville: John Knox, 1995]), is meduqdaq. 3. The figures for manuscripts of biblical books come from James C. Van­ derKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994) 30. The figure for Jubilees comes from James C. VanderKam, "The Jubilees Frag­ ments from Qumran Cave 4," in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March, 1991, ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) esp. 2.642-43. The doubtful manuscript is 4Q217. 4. James C. VanderKam, "Das chronologische Konzept des Jubilaenbuches," Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 8 1 - 8 5 ; idem, Jubilees, 95-96. 5. VanderKam, "Chronologische Konzept," 86-96; idem, Jubilees, 9 4 - 9 5 . 6. Thus James C. VanderKam, 'The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Ju­ bilees," in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. Matthias Albani, Jorg Frey, and Armin Lange, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 2 0 - 2 2 . 7. For more detailed discussion, Martha Himmelfarb, 'Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority of the Book of Jubilees," in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, ed. Benjamin G. Wright, Homage Series (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 19-29. For a collection of the material fubilees indicates as contained in the heavenly tablets and the suggestion that the heavenly tablets constitute a sort of oral torah, see Florentino Garcia Martinez, 'The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees," in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. Albani, Frey, and Lange, 2 4 3 - 6 0 . 8. For a very different understanding of the relationship between fubilees and the heavenly tablets, Cana Werman, "The '[tord] and the [te'uddY Engraved on the Tablets," Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 7 5 - 1 0 3 (Hebrew original, 'The Torah' and the Te'udah' on the Tablets," Tarbiz 68 [ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ] : 4 7 3 - 9 2 ) . Wer­ man argues that fubilees claims to be a copy of the heavenly tablets. Werman's ar­ ticle first appeared at the same time as my 'Torah, Testimony," so I was unable to respond to her arguments. See also Ben Zion Wacholder, 'Jubilees as Super

Canon: Torah-Admonition versus Torah-Commandment," in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez , and Kampen, 195-211. Wacholder argues that Ju­ bilees understands itself as more authoritative than the Torah and that the com­ munity at Qumran accepts this view. 9. For a brief history of the scholarship, see VanderKam, "Origins and Pur­ poses," 4 - 1 6 . VanderKam himself prefers a date between 160 and 150 (20). 10. Thus VanderKam, "2 Maccabees 6, 7a." 11. VanderKam, "Jubilees Fragments," 6 3 9 - 4 0 . 12. Jacob also offers a sacrifice at the conclusion of his treaty with Laban at Gal-ed (Gen 31:54). Jubilees passes over the altar and sacrifice in silence, perhaps because it viewed the occasion as unsuitable (Jub. 29:5-8). 13. See Himmelfarb, "Earthly Sacrifice," 118-22, for Jubilees' attitude toward incense. 14. For arguments in favor of direct dependence, see Cana Werman, "Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period," Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 2 2 0 - 2 1 . The law of the priesthood figures prominendy in Werman's discussion, but she considers other points as well. Michael E. Stone also claims direct dependence ofJubilees on Aramaic Levi ("Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins, "Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 19 [1988]: 159n. 2, 170). It is true that there are significant differences between Aramaic Levi and Jubilees, but it is characteristic of Jubilees to reshape its sources. For a brief discus­ sion of the views of scholars who argue against direct dependence in favor of a common source, see Kugler, From Patriarch, 146-47; for his defense of this posi­ tion based on the relationship of Jub. 30:1-32:9 to Aramaic Levi, see pp. 147-55. James C. VanderKam, "Isaac's Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31," in TheProvo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Inno­ vations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, Studies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 5 1 3 - 1 8 , also argues that an indirect relationship is more likely. 15. All quotations of fubilees are from the translation of James C. VanderKam, The Book of fubilees, Corups Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989). 16. For the view that such a book existed, see Florentino Garcia Martinez, "4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah," in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Ara­ maic Texts from Qumran, Studies on the Texts from the Desert of Judah (Leiden: Brill, 1992). For the view that it did not, see Cana Werman, "Qumran and the Book of Noah," in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives, ed. Chazon and Stone. 17. O n the choice of Levi as priest in Jubilees and related texts, see James Kugel, "Levi's Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings," Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 1-64; Kugler, From Patriarch, 155-69; James C. Van­ derKam, "Jubilees' Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest," Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 3 5 9 - 7 3 ; Werman, "Levi and Levites," 2 1 6 - 2 2 . 18. While the lack of antecedent for the pronouns of these verses at first leaves it unclear whether it is Jacob or Levi offering sacrifice, the identity of the officiant becomes clear by Jub. 32:5: "This was his gift because of the vow which he had made that he would give a tithe along with their sacrifices and their liba­ tions." This can only be Jacob. So too Jub. 32:7, "He was eating happily there— he, all his sons, and his men—for the seven days," can only refer to Jacob. 19. The Ethiopic is mak annen. I would like to thank Annette Reed for her as­ sistance with the Ethiopic here and below. Despite the English translation, Ju­ bilees' "prince" is not connected etymologically to the tide nasi' that Ezekiel gives w

to the royal figure in his program of restoration (Ezek 44:3; 45:16, 17, 22, etc.), nor does it typically serve as a translation for this tide in the Ethiopic Bible. 20. The first Hasmonean to call himself king was one ofJohn Hyrcanus's sons, either Aristobolus or Alexander Jannai (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.—A.D. 135), vol. 1, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black, lit. ed., Pamela Vermes [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973] 2 1 6 - 1 7 ) ; even after adoption of the new tide, they continued to call themselves priests. See the convenient listing of coin legends, 1.603-5. See also the discussion of Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 6 6 - 7 1 . 21. For a convenient summary of the complex evidence, see J. Collins, Scepter, 7 4 - 8 3 . Goodblatt (Monarchic Principle, 70) seems to me correct to question the view expressed by Collins (77) and others that the sect's own organization echoed the eschatological royal-priesdy duo. 22. Thus Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 71. Contrast J. Collins, Scepter, who righdy points out that during the Hasmonean era the idea is attested only in texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls or associated with them, which he takes as evi­ dence that the expectation was "a distinctive trait" of the movement ( 9 5 ) . 23. For the delineation of H material outside the Holiness Code, I follow Knohl, Sanctuary. I am much indebted to his work for my understanding of H and P. H e does not treat the subject of purity in either corpus, however. 2 4 . 1 owe my understanding of P's attitude toward impurity largely to the work of Jacob Milgrom and especially his Leviticus 1-16. I am also influenced by the critiques of aspects of Milgrom's position in Knohl, Sanctuary, 2 2 5 - 3 0 , and Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Ju­ daism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 1 6 5 - 8 1 . 25. For the identification of this passage as Holiness material, see Knohl, Sanc­ tuary, 9 9 - 1 0 0 . 26. Following Knohl, Sanctuary, I take H to be later than P. 27. This verb is used in this sense also in Jeremiah (31:1-2, 9 ) , Psalms (106:38), and perhaps Micah (4:11). 28. See Cana Werman, "The Rules of Consuming and Covering Blood in Priesdy and Rabbinic Law," Revue de Qumran 16 (1995): 6 2 1 - 3 6 (Hebrew origi­ nal: "Consumption of the Blood and Its Covering in the Priesdy and Rabbinic Traditions," Tarbiz 63 [ 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ] : 173-83) for aspects of this subject noted in her tide. I cannot accept Werman's view that Jubilees is engaged in a polemic against the halakhah of the sages. 29. For an analysis of Leviticus 17, see Baruch J. Schwartz, "The Prohibition Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood in Leviticus 17," in Priesthood and Cult in An­ cient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 3 4 - 3 6 . 30. Betsy Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994) 2 5 - 5 4 ; on this point, see p. 28. 31. Ibid., 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 8 - 5 4 . 32. In addition to the two discussed below, Jubilees treats the stories of Joseph and Potiphar's wife (Jub. 39:5-11), in which the forbidden relations are avoided because of Joseph's piety, and the story of Judah and Tamar (Jub. 41:8-28), in which Jubilees is eager to play down Judah's guilt. O n the problems the stories of Reuben and Bilhah and Judah and Tamar pose for Jubilees, see Gary A. Ander­ son, "The Status of the Torah before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the

Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees," Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 19-29. For a discussion of all four stories and their implications for Jubilees' views on acceptable marriage partners, see Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in ^ B o o k of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 108-32. 33. My translation. 34. RSV: 'You," following the Greek, Syriac, and the targum. 35. Judah Goldin, ' T h e Youngest Son, or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?" Journal of Biblical Literature §b (1977): 3 7 - 3 8 . 36. Presumably Reuben and Bilhah could have been condemned to death as adulterers (Lev 20:10) as well, but Jubilees clearly sees the sin as incest. The pro­ hibition of sexual relations with one's father's wife appears also in Leviticus 18 without a punishment (Lev 18:8). 37. See Jacob Milgrom, ' T h e Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll" Revue de Qumran 16 ( 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ) : 2 8 1 - 8 2 , on Jubilees' extension of impurity to forbidden sexual relations. 38. The heavenly tablets ordain that a man is not to lie with his father's wife because it is "impure"; the man and woman are to die together because "they have done something impure" {Jub. 33:10). 'There is to be nothing impure" in God's chosen people (Jub. 33:11). Moses is to order the Israelites to observe this law because "it is an impure thing" (Jub. 33:13). N o man who commits this sin will be allowed to live because he is "despicable and impure" (Jub. 33:14). All who commit this sin are "impure, something detestable, a blemish, and some­ thing contaminated" (Jub. 33:19). 39. See the discussion of Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, Anchor Bible 3A, (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1538-39. Milgrom believes that the prohibition applies even after the death of the father or divorce of his wife. If the father is still alive, he notes, the forbidden sexual relations also constitute adultery. 40. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that Paul criticizes the Corinthian community for tolerating a man engaging in the same sin (1 Cor 5:1). But Paul's rhetoric suggests that it is precisely the exceptional nature of the sin that draws his attention: even the pagans do not engage in such behavior. 41. For a perceptive discussion ofJubilees' reworking of the story of the rape of Dinah, see Cana Werman, "Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Inter­ marriage," Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 1-22. 42. Geza Vermes, "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis," in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Hebrew), ed. Jacob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem: Magnes Press and He­ brew Union College Press, 1981) 108-24. 43. Vermes, "Leviticus 18:21," 119-20. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 7 4 - 7 7 , sug­ gests that Jubilees takes sexual relations with foreigners to cause moral impurity (as Hayes calls H's type of impurity), so that the profanation of seed that occurs in the marriage (as for Ezra) becomes defiling as well. Although this is not the place for a discussion, I am not convinced that the concern for profanation of seed Hayes points to in Ezra, Jubilees, and elsewhere should be understood as a type of purity. Further, while there can be no doubt that Jubilees draws on the Torah and other biblical material to develop its own laws, Hayes does not con­ sider the significance of Jubilees' conception of the heavenly tablets, which per­ mits it to invent new laws without the sort of exegetical justification the rabbis would have required. I must also note that Hayes misunderstands my comments on Jubilees (78). The purity law to which I refer ("Sexual Relations and Purity in the Temple

Scroll and the Book of Jubilees," Dead Sea Discoveries 6 [1999]: 35) is not "forbid­ den sexual relations with Gentiles," as Hayes suggests in brackets in the quota­ tion, but rather the law of a woman after childbirth ("Sexual Relations," 2 5 - 2 7 ) ; I never refer to the prohibition of marriage with gentiles as a purity law. 44. Deut 7:1-5 warns against marriage with both sons and daughters of the in­ habitants of the land. Exod 34:15-16 warns against daughters only, and the ac­ count of the apostasy of the Israelites at Baal Peor in Num 25:1-11 dramatizes the dangers of foreign women. 45. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 103-25, 147-49. 46. Knohl, Sanctuary, 180-89. 47. Eberhard Schwarz, Identitdt durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprvzesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des fubildenbuches, Europaische Hochschulschriften 162 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982) 108-11, carefully gathers the evidence and offers a cautious assessment. John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book offubilees, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 18 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Bib­ lical Association, 1987) 137, assumes rather than demonstrates that "widespread miscegenation constituted the major problem" in fubilees' time, which he also places in the context of the hellenistic reform. 48. In addition to the passage from 1 Maccabees discussed below, Schwarz, Identitdt, 108-10, cites passages from Josephus, the Testament of Levi, and t. Sukkah about priests who marry foreign women or allow their daughters to marry for­ eign men. None of these sources is even roughly contemporary with the Mac­ cabean Revolt, and all are problematic as evidence for Schwarz's claim on other grounds as well (Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas," 17-19). 49. Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas," 1 9 - 2 1 . Schwarz, Identitdt, 108, cites this pas­ sage with appropriate caution. 50. Himmelfarb, "Levi, Phinehas," 2 1 - 2 3 . 51. In "Levi, Phinehas," I argue that fubilees is not preoccupied with intermar­ riage, as others have claimed, but rather was reworking its source, Aramaic Levi, to reflect its view of the people of Israel as a kingdom of priests. While I still think we need to take account of fubilees' use of Aramaic Levi, I argue below that there is a plausible historical explanation for fubilees' concern, but the histori­ cal explanation requires a somewhat later date for fubilees than the early Has­ monean period. 52. Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and thefews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959; New York: Atheneum, 1974) 9 0 - 1 1 6 ; Schiirer, History of the fewish People vol. 2, rev. and ed. Vermes, Millar, and Black, lit. ed., Pamela Vermes (Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1979) 1-20, 8 5 - 1 8 3 . 53. In the course of the revolt, Judah is reported to have attacked two pagan cult sites (1 Mace 5:44, 68; 2 Mace 12:26 [the same incident reported in 1 Mace 5:44]); later, in the 150s, his brothers occasionally did the same (1 Mace 10:84, 11:4, 13:43-48). 54. Uriel Rappaport, "Jewish Religious Propaganda and Proselytism in the Pe­ riod of the Second Commonwealth" (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1965) 7 9 - 8 0 , 82 (Hebrew); idem, 'The Hellenistic Cities and thejudaization of the Land of Israel in the Hasmonean Period" (Hebrew), in Doron; Eighteen Articles in Honor of the Sixtieth Birthday of Prof. Bentsiyon Rats, ed. Shmuel Perlman and Binyamin Shimron (Tel Aviv: Mif'al ha-Shikhpul, Bet ha-Hotsa'ah le-Or shel Histadrut ha-Studentim be-Universitat Tel-Aviv, 1967) 2 2 8 - 2 9 . For criticism and development of Rappaport's position in see Morton Smith, 'The

Gentiles in Judaism, 125 B.C.E.-C.E. 66," in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Vol. 3, The Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Gambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 198-213, and S.J. D. Cohen, "Reli­ gion," esp. 2 1 1 - 1 8 . See also S.J. D. Cohen, Beginnings, 110-19. Seth Schwartz, "Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expan­ sion," Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 16-38, argues that 1 Maccabees' hostile attitude toward the Jews' gentile neighbors must predate Hyrcanus's conquests and the assimilation of the Idumeans into the Jewish population. But perhaps 1 Maccabees' hostility is a reaction to doubts about the process of assimilation, in­ tended to demonstrate that the Hasmoneans were true defenders of their peo­ ple and their Judaism despite the incorporation of the Idumeans. 55. S.J. D. Cohen, "Religion," 214, points to Jeremiah's inclusion in a list of circumcised, yet uncircumcised, nations (Jer 9:24-25) and to Herodotus's re­ port that the "Syrians" in Palestine practice circumcision (Histories 2.104.3). Co­ hen rejects Josephus's claim (Antiquities 8.262; Against Apion 1.168-71) that Herodotus meant only the Jews. 56. For the passage from Ptolemy, Historia Herodis, preserved in Ammonius, De Adfinium Vocabulorum Differentia, see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.356. 57. S.J. D. Cohen, "Religion," 2 1 8 - 2 1 ; idem, Beginnings, 125-39. 58. S. J. D. Cohen, Beginnings, 156-74, esp. 169. 59. Rappaport, "Propaganda," 7 9 - 8 0 , 82; idem, "Hellenistic Cities," 2 2 8 - 2 9 . S.J. D. Cohen attempts to make sense of the differing views of the three ancient historians who discuss the incident, Josephus, Ptolemy, and Strabo, in "Reli­ gion," 211-16; idem, Beginnings, 116-18. Smith, "Gentiles," 2 0 3 - 4 , follows Rap­ paport in understanding the process by which Idumeans became Jews as one of gradual assimilation; he sees it as based on an alliance between the Hasmoneans and the leaders of the Idumean countryside, perhaps hastened along by a show of force on Hyracanus's part. H e discounts Josephus's account of Hyrcanus's conquest as propaganda, though he cannot decide whether it is projewish propaganda from Josephus himself or anti-Hasmonean propaganda going back to Nicholas of Damascus. H e also suggests that the passage from Josephus could be read to mean that the Idumeans already practiced circumcision and that Hyrcanus required them to align their mode of circumcision with that of the Jews. This is perhaps a bit strained. O n the Idumeans in Egypt in the first century, see Uriel Rappaport, "Les Idumeens en Egypte," Revue dephilologie 43 (1969): 7 4 - 7 5 , following Friederich Zucker, "Doppelinschrift spatptolemaischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis Magna," Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschafien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 6 (1937): 1-63; Rappaport sug­ gests a special connection between one of the first century inscriptions and the onomasticon of Marissa ( 7 6 - 7 7 ) . 60. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 155. 61. See Cana Werman, "The Attitude Towards Gentiles in the Book of Ju­ bilees and Qumran Literature Compared with Early Tanaaic Halakha and Con­ temporary Pseudepigrapha" (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995) 2 5 6 - 5 7 (Hebrew); and idem, "Jubilees 30," 6 - 1 0 , for detailed analysis of the story in Jubilees. 62. Some scholars have seen in Jubilees 30 a polemic against the Samaritans, another neighboring group subjugated by the Hasmoneans. I agree with Wer­ man, "Attitude," 256n. 73, that this is unlikely; see also Reinhard Plummer, 'The Book of Jubilees and the Samaritans," Eglise et theologie 10 (1979): 164-78. 63. Werman, "Attitude," 177-99.

64. Rebecca later refers to these wives as Hittites (Jub. 27:8, which parallels Gen 27:46). 65. Werman rejects the idea that Esau represents contemporary Idumeans and sees him rather as representing gentiles in general for Jubilees ("Attitude," 197-99). 66. R. H . Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902) lxii. 67. Rappaport, "Hellenistic Cities," 2 2 8 - 2 9 . 68. For the connection of wars to recent history, see James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, Harvard Semitic Monographs 14 (Missoula, M o n t : Scholars Press, 1977) 217-38: correspondences between Judah Maccabee's campaigns and this war and Jacob's battle against seven Amorite kings (34:1-9) point to an early Hasmonean date for Jubilees. Robert Doran, 'The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub 3 4 - 3 8 ; 23:14-32 in Narrative Context," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 20 (1989): 1-11, argues that the needs of Jubilees' narrative provide a sufficient ex­ planation for the introduction of Jacob's military exploits. Werman, "Attitude," expresses skepticism about previous attempts to find references to contempo­ rary events in the book in her introductory comments ( 1 1 - 2 6 ) and throughout the work as noted above in relation to Esau. 69. Thus Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987) 5 7 - 8 8 , esp. 7 3 - 8 1 , argues on the ba­ sis of the extent of the land in fubilees for a date shordy after the conquest of Idumea, which he dates to 125 B.C.E. 70. Dan Barag, "New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I," Is­ rael Numismatic Journal 12 ( 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 ) : 1-12. Barag notes that Martin Hengel,/wdaism and Hellenism: Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1.62, argued decades ago that Hyrcanus's conquest dated to around 110 B.C.E. on the basis of the tomb in­ scriptions, the latest of which dates to 1 1 2 / 1 1 . 71. Werman, "Attitude," 2 7 3 - 7 4 , takes the texts she considers as reflecting "priesdy halakhah"; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 156-57, refers to "a protesting priesdy voice" (156). In addition to the passages I discuss here both Werman and Halpern-Amaru mention Pesher Nahum (4Q169 3 - 4 ii 9 ) , "kings, princes, priests, and people, with the proselyte accompanying them." For the claim that these texts reflect priesdy attitudes toward converts, see Daniel R. Schwartz, "On Two Aspects of a Priesdy View of Descent at Qumran," in Archeol­ ogy and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. Lawrence H . Schiffman, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8; J S O T / A S O R Monographs 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 165-66. 72. Joseph M . Baumgarten, "The Exclusion of 'Netinim' and Proselytes in 4 Q Florilegium," in Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), argues that the ex­ clusion is not from the eschatological temple but from an inner circle of the eschatological community ( 8 2 - 8 4 ) ; this allows him to harmonize the views of the Damascus Documentand 4QFlorilegium ( 8 2 ) . His argument rests on analogies be­ tween Qumran law and rabbinic law and does not consider the possibility that conversion might have been controversial in some circles. 73. For the placement of this fragment in the eschatological schema, see Devorah Dimant, partially based on earlier transcriptions by John Strugnell, Qum­ ran Cave 4. XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 30 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001) 100, 249.

74. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 8 2 - 9 1 . 75. Werman, "Attitude," 256. 76. Ibid., 139. 77. Different strands of the Torah take different approaches. See the discus­ sion in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 2 2 9 - 3 2 . Weinfeld notes that while H warns that both the ger and the native Israelite will become impure if they eat anything that dies by itself (Lev 17:15), Deuteronomy forbids Israelites to eat such an animal and suggests that they give it to the ger instead (Deut 14:21) (Deuteronomy, 2 3 0 ) . See also Knohl, Sanctuary, 182. 78. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 154—59; Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 7 3 - 8 1 , 8 9 - 9 1 . Hayes does not seem to know Halpern-Amaru's book. 79. Unlike Hayes, Halpern-Amaru does see fubilees rejection of foreign wives as reflecting anxiety about their bad influence; male foreigners, however, are unacceptable marriage partners simply because of their maternal ancestry (Em­ powerment of Women, 158). 80. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 74. 81. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 154-55. 82. Hayes suggests, correcdy in my view, that Jubilees denies the possibility of conversion (Gentile Impurities, 7 7 ) ; thus it is confusing when she writes that ac­ cording to Jubilees there can be no marriage with foreigners, "not even with con­ verts" (78; emphasis in the original). 83. James Kugel emphasizes this point in ' T h e Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times," in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 2 5 - 2 9 . 84. The most influential exponent of this point of view is James VanderKam. The paragraph above is a very condensed summary of his "Origins and Pur­ poses," 19-22. H e lists Klaus Berger, Das Buck derJubilaen,]xxd\sche Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit II.3 (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981), Schwarz, Identiat, and Endres, Biblical Interpretation ("Origins and Purposes," 13-16) as sharing his view of the context for the writing ofJubilees. 85. Cana Werman, T h e Book of Jubilees in Its Hellenistic Context," lion 6 6 (2001): 2 7 5 - 9 6 (Hebrew), reads Jubilees as responding to some of the same is­ sues but dates the book to around 100 B.C.E. (296). 86. Albert I Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Inter­ pretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 87. My understanding of the sociology of sectarianism is particularly influ­ enced by the work of Bryan Wilson. See, e.g., Wilson, T h e Sociology of Sects," in Religion in Sociological Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982). 88. T h e relationship between these two texts and the communities they re­ flect is complex. I shall have more to say about these texts in chapter 4. 89. Baumgarten and Schwartz, "Damascus Document." 90. I discuss the sectarianism of the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community in chapter 4. 91. Jubilees has also been treated as a proponent of the priesdy halakhah many scholars find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For references, see Himmelfarb, "Sexual Relations," l i n n . 3 - 4 . In my view, aside from the calendar, the connections are not particularly striking ( 3 3 - 3 6 ) . For a reading of Jubilees as containing a variety of halakhic traditions, not only sectarian, see Menahem Kister, "Some Aspects of Qumran Halakhah," in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner, 2.581-88. 1

92. Philip R. Davies, Behind theEssenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Brown Judaic Studies 9 4 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 1 2 1 - 2 3 , also notes the absence of the language of the pious remnant from Jubilees 1 in the course of his comparison of that chapter to the accounts of the emergence of the remnant in the Apocalypse of Weeks and the first several columns of the Damascus Document. 93. O n the use of the plant in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related texts, see Patrick A. Tiller, 'The 'Eternal Planting' in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Dead Sea Dis­ coveries 4 (1997): 3 1 2 - 3 5 (on Jubilees, 3 2 3 - 2 4 ) . 94. Menahem Kister, "Concerning the History of the Essenes—A Study of the Animal Apocalypse, the Book of Jubilees and the Damascus Covenant," Tarbiz 56 ( 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 ) : 1-15 (Hebrew), reads this passage in Jubilees as describing the emer­ gence of the sect. In my view he fails to account for the use of generational lan­ guage here. 95. This scenario seems particularly difficult to reconcile with a date for Ju­ bilees shordy after the Maccabean Revolt. The mention of the defilement of the holy of holies certainly recalls the events of the revolt, but during the revolt, the defilement of the holy of holies was the work of foreigners, and the outcome of the revolt was liberation from those foreigners. In Jubilees' scenario, the defile­ ment is the work ofJews, and God's response is to turn Israel over to the nations. Thus it is not the revolt itself that is alluded to here. The events Jubilees predicts are to take place in the future, and not an imminent future. Still, surely it would be odd to introduce elements at once reminiscent of the recent past yet so to­ tally transformed immediately after the revolt. If Jubilees belongs to the reign of John Hyrcanus, the problem is less acute.

Chapter 3 1. Elisha Qimron, with a bibliography by Florentino Garcia Martinez, Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996). 2. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266273), Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 18 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). 3. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 1.277-80, under the influence of the work of Gedalia Alon. For a similar view, see Florentino Garcia Martinez, "El Rollo del Templo y la halaka sectaria," in Simposio Biblico Espanol, Salamanca, 1982, ed. Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, and Javier Fernandez Vallina (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984) 6 1 1 - 2 2 , esp. 612, 622. 4. Joseph M. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV: Halakhic Texts, Discover­ ies in thejudaean Desert 35 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). 5. Maurice Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520), Discoveries in t h e j u ­ daean Desert 7 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). 6. Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V. 7. Eyal Regev, "The Temple Impurity and Qumran's 'Foreign Affairs' in the Early Hasmonean Period," Zion 64 (1999): 1 3 5 - 5 6 (Hebrew), argues that the laws included in 4 Q M M T all have to do with the problem of the purity of the temple, which the authors of the work saw as compromised by the priesdy establishment. The laws of genital discharge could potentially find a place in a composition with these concerns since a priest and in some circumstances even a layperson who failed to observe these rules properly could defile the temple.

8. The precise contours of the Pharisees' purity practices are controversial, which is not surprising given the nature of the evidence. For an argument for a minimalist view, though one that would accept my formulation, see E. P. Sanders, "Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in Purity?'' in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press Interna­ tional, 1990) 131-254. Sanders offers a critique of the work of Gedalia Alon (154-66) and, in great detail, ofJacob Neusner (esp. 166-84, but the entire essay is largely a response to Neusner). 9. My debt to Milgrom, particularly Leviticus 1-16, will be evident in what fol­ lows, although I disagree with him on a number of points. 10. Milgrom has argued that the impurities that require sacrifice as part of the process of purification were understood to pollute the sanctuary from afar ("Is­ rael's Sanctuary: The Priesdy 'Picture of Dorian Gray,' " Revue biblique8S [1976]: 3 9 2 - 9 3 ; idem, Leviticus 1-16, 2 5 4 - 7 8 ) . H e deduces this from the fact that these sacrifices always include a hatta't (Lev 12:6; 14:12,19; 15:14, 3 0 ) , the purification offering intended to cleanse the sanctuary of the pollution caused by the person bringing the sacrifice. A woman in a state of menstrual impurity or a man who has had seminal emission can avoid polluting the sanctuary by taking care not to enter it. It is impossible, however, for a person bearing one of the more severe types of impurity to avoid polluting the sanctuary since his impurity affects it even from afar. Still, despite the inevitability of pollution in these cases, the hatta't sacrifice provides a remedy. I am inclined to agree with Maccoby, Ritual, 165-92, that Milgrom is not persuasive on this point. For Milgrom's response to Maccoby, see Leviticus 23-27, Anchor Bible 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 2458-63. 11. According to Haran, the priesdy school responsible for P goes back to the time of Ahaz in the late eighth century and flourished under Hezekiah at the turn of the eighth to the seventh century (Temples, 1 4 6 - 4 7 ) . Fortunately for us, the date of P is not of great importance for us since it had surely reached its final form well before the later Second Temple period, the era of concern for us. 12. Haran, Temples, 221. 13. Knohl, Sanctuary, 134-35. 14. This is a point that Milgrom has argued forcefully; see Leviticus 1-16, 4 2 - 4 7 , and elsewhere. For the opposing view, see, e.g., Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974). In Milgrom's view the priesdy elimination of the demonic realm left human beings in the role of God's opponents: it is human sin and impurity that defiles the sanctuary, with the danger that, left unpurified, the sanctuary will no longer be a suitable dwelling for God. I am inclined to accept Knohl's view that P's laws for the sanctuary are concerned only with ritual laws; see his critique of Milgrom in Sanctuary, 2 2 5 - 3 0 . For Milgrom's response to Knohl's critique, see Leviticus 23-27, 2440-46. 15. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 4 3 - 4 4 , 8 8 7 - 8 9 . 16. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, points to the origins of both rituals in an under­ standing of impurity as demonic ( 4 3 - 4 4 ) , but argues that the rite of the scapegoat has been substantially transformed (43, 1071-79) while the rite of purification from skin affliction has not (832-35; comparison to rite of scapegoat, 834). 17. This remarkable circumstance has elicited less comment than one might have expected, perhaps because it fits so poorly with notions of purity laws as primitive. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, comments on it briefly (869). See Maccoby, Ritual, 126-28.

18. The RSV translation, which I cite here, translates niddd as "filthy." In my view a more literal translation is to be preferred in light of Lamentations' use of the technical terminology of impurity including a form of tm', impure or un­ clean (Lam 1:9), and the reference to the law of skin eruptions noted below. 19. Even Milgrom, who believes that P understands violations of the moral laws of the Torah to pollute the sanctuary (Leviticus 1-16, 2 1 - 2 6 ) , does not sug­ gest that P attributes immorality to the bearers of impurity, only that immorality pollutes the sanctuary as does impurity. 20. For a treatment of the laws of purity that seeks to explicate the system, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 9 7 6 - 1 0 0 0 . 21. ShayeJ. D. Cohen, "Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism and Christian­ ity," in Women's History and Ancient History, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) 275, 277, reads the omission in Leviti­ cus 15 of bathing for the purification of the menstruant as purposeful and raises the possibility that the Mishnah's silence on the same subject means that the re­ quirement of immersion is a development of the amoraic period. It seems to me, however, that Milgrom is correct when he argues that for P impurity is al­ ways brought to an end with ablutions; thus Leviticus 15 fails to mention bathing for the menstruant and the zabd because it assumes it (Leviticus 1-16, 9 3 4 - 3 5 ) . 22. I follow Knohl's division of the priesdy corpus into P and H in Sanctuary, and I accept his view that H follows P. 23. Thus I think Jonathan Klawans's designation of the impurity with which H is concerned as "moral" (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000] esp. 2 6 - 3 1 ) is problematic. 2 4 . 1 owe the insight about H's transformation of P's use of the term niddd to the junior paper (spring 1993) of Lauren Eichler, now Rabbi Lauren Eichler Berkun. 25. In addition to the three certain manuscripts, there are two other possible manuscripts (Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts, Compan­ ion to the Qumran Scrolls 2 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000] 1 2 - 1 5 ) . 26. For a detailed, column-by-column, listing of the content of the Temple Scroll, see Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Com­ mentary, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 8 - 1 9 . For a useful introduction to the Temple Scroll, see Crawford, Temple Scroll 27. For somewhat different analyses, see Andrew M . Wilson and Lawrence Wills, "Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll," Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 275-88; Michael Owen Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, Studies in the Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990); and Florentino Garcia Martinez, "Sources et redaction du Rouleau du temple," Henoch 13 (1991): 2 1 9 - 3 2 (a lengthy review of Wise, Critical Study). 28. Lawrence H . Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period," in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987, ed. George J. Brooke, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 2 3 9 - 4 0 . 29. T h e style of the Temple Scroll and its modes of exegesis have been the sub­ ject of considerable discussion. See, e.g., Gershon Brin, Issues in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and HaKibbutz Hameuchad, 1994) 1 6 2 - 2 3 0 (Hebrew); Phillip R. Callaway, "Extending Divine Revelation:

Micro-Compositional Strategies in the Temple Scroll" in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. Brooke, 149-62; and Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). For some interesting comments on the scroll's style in relation to its goals, see Aharon Shemesh and Cana Werman, "Halakhah at Qumran: Genre and Authority," Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 1 1 0 - 1 1 . 30. Emile Puech, Qumran Grotte 4. XVIII: Textes hebreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q5764Q579), Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 25 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 87. Before the publication of 4 Q 5 2 4 , Yadin {Temple Scroll 1.386-90) had dated the Temple Scroll to the time of John Hyrcanus, or even earlier, on the basis of a number of considerations, including the laws of kingship (cols. 5 7 - 5 9 ) . After Yadin but before the publication of 4Q524, several scholars made more detailed arguments for the laws of kingship as reflecting the conditions of Hasmonean rule in the late second or early first century. See Martin Hengel, James H . Charlesworth, and Doron Mendels, 'The Polemical Character of 'On Kingship' in the Temple Scroll: A n Attempt at Dating 1 lQTemple," fournal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 28-38; and Lawrence H . Schiffman, "The King, His Guard and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll" Proceedings of the American Academy ofJewish Re­ search 5 4 (1987): 2 3 7 - 5 9 . 31. Yadin took the Temple Scroll to be a sectarian document. See, e.g., Temple Scroll, esp. 1.398; and, idem, "Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?" in Humanizing America s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980, ed. Gene M . Tucker and Douglas A. Knight (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980) 153-69. Both Milgrom and Baumgarten follow Yadin on this point. For Milgrom, see, e.g., 'The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles," in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. Brooke, 165-80; the very tide is revealing. For a recent example in J. Baumgarten's work, see his introduction to 4QTohorot in Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV, 7 9 - 9 2 . Baumgarten's view that the Qumran texts reflect Sadducean law, which goes beyond the sect's own compositions, might provide some justification for proceeding this way, but he does not seem to feel the need to defend this approach. For an argument for treating the Temple Scroll as sectar­ ian despite its differences from clearly sectarian works such as the Damascus Doc­ ument, see Shemesh and Werman, "Halakhah at Qumran," 124-28. O n the other hand, Schiffman has consistendy maintained the view that the Temple Scroll stands at some distance from sectarian compositions, although the details of his view have changed somewhat over time. For a summary statement, now more than a decade old, however, see Lawrence H . Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll and the Nature of Its Law: The Status of the Question," in The Community of the Re­ newed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam, Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 3 7 - 5 5 . 32. For the view that the sect inherited the work, see Florentino Garcia Martinez, "The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem," in The Dead Sea Scrolls af­ ter Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. Van­ derKam, with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 2.441-42; Crawford, Temple Scroll, 2 6 - 2 9 . 33. For the dates of the other manuscripts of the Temple Scroll, see Crawford, Temple Scroll, 1 2 - 1 5 . 34. While Wilson and Wills, "Literary Sources," consider the purity laws of cols. 4 8 - 5 1 as part of a source used by the Temple Scroll, Phillip R. Callaway, "Source Criticism of the Temple Scroll: The Purity Laws," Revue de Qumran 12

( 1 9 8 5 - 8 7 ) : 2 1 3 - 2 2 , refutes their argument, to my mind persuasively. Wise (Criti­ cal Study, 133-39) takes Callaway's arguments into account, but understands the purity laws as a distinctive body of material that summarizes the purity rules of the author's own community, as does Garcia Martinez ("Sources et redaction," 2 2 8 - 3 1 ; "The Temple Scroll," 4 3 7 ) , following him. 35. Scholars have long noted the contradiction between the rule for the wilderness camp of Numbers and the assumption of Leviticus 15 and Numbers 19 that those with abnormal genital flow and corpse impurity live at home. (The stringency of the law of the war camp relative to Leviticus 15 represents not a contradiction but an acknowledgment of the special holiness of the war camp, in which, according to Deuteronomy, the Lord himself is present [Deut 23:15].) Knohl, Sanctuary, 8 6 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 , explains the contradiction between the laws of the wilderness camp and the purity laws by arguing that Num 5:1-4 derives from the Holiness school. The expansion of the categories of impurity that require exclu­ sion from the camp reflects H's extension of holiness to the land as a whole: H applies to the land purity rules that P applies only to the sanctuary. (Knohl sees the editorial hand of H in Numbers 19, but understands the passage as primarily the work of P [ 9 2 - 9 4 ] . ) Milgrom, however, claims that there is no contradiction between Num 5:1-4 and the P passages because the camp of the passage in Numbers is not the land as a whole but the war camp of the wilderness period only (Leviticus 17-22, 1 3 5 4 - 5 5 ) . But the laws of the camp in Deuteronomy are presented as laws in­ tended for use after entrance into the land, the camp is explicidy designated a war camp (Deut 23:10), and the only type of impurity mentioned is that of noc­ turnal emission (Deut 23:11), appropriately for a camp with an all-male popula­ tion. The camp in Numbers, on the other hand, is clearly outside the land; it appears in the context of the narrative of the wandering in the wilderness. It is not called a war camp, and it explicidy mentions women (Num 5:3). In both cases, however, we are given a rationale for the stringent purity measures: the presence of the Lord in the camp. I believe there are other problems with Knohl's argument. First, there is no unambiguous statement in H that the land can be defiled by the types of impu­ rity that concern P. Second, it is worth remembering that unlike the laws of Leviticus 1 2 - 1 5 and Numbers 19, the rules of exclusion from the camp are ex­ plicitly placed outside the land, in the wilderness. Finally, even if the entire land is susceptible to defilement by physical impurity and the laws of the wilderness camp are properly understood as intended for life in the land, it is not clear how exclusion from the camp would protect the land. The exiles, after all, would live within the land even if they were outside the camp. It is worth remembering that Num 5:3 explains the stringency of its rules by appealing to the presence of the Lord in Israel's camps, as Deuteronomy does. N o such explanation appears in H's other legislation intended to protect the land from defilement. 36. I do not understand there to be a significant difference between "the whole sanctuary" ( 7 S 4 5 . 8 ) and "the whole city of the sanctuary" (TS45.11-12). See Sara Japhet, "The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Attitude toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents," Compara­ tive Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993): 75n. 25, 86; and Baruch A. Levine, 'The Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and Literary Character," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232 (1978): 14-17. 37. Enough survives in 4Q271 to show that the context, Sabbath laws, laws of

prayer, and the prohibition on communicating with ghosts, is the same in 4 Q D as in CD. Thus there is no reason to see CD as an abridgment of this portion of 4QD. 38. Yadin, Temple Scroll 1.287-88; Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple Scroll," Jour­ nal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 513; idem, "Qumran Cult,"174; idem, "The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll," in Archeology and History, ed. Schiffman, 8 9 - 9 1 ; Lawrence H . Schiffman, "Exclu­ sion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary in the Temple Scroll," He­ brew Annual Review 9 (1985): 308. 39. Japhet, "Prohibition," 7 6 - 7 9 , 8 3 - 8 7 . "Source" is a euphemism for genitals that appears in Leviticus (12:1, 20:18) and the Temple Scroll. 40. Yadin, Temple Scroll 1.331. 41. See especially Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple Scroll," 5 1 2 - 1 8 , and idem, "First Day Ablutions at Qumran," in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner, 2.561-70. 42. To be more precise, the Temple Scroll requires such bathing of a man who has had a nocturnal emission (TS45.7-10). It goes on to require a three-day pe­ riod of exclusion from the sanctuary for the man who has had a seminal emis­ sion in the course of sexual relations (TS 45.11-12). It does not mention a procedure for purification. The inference that it intends the bathing decreed for the impurity caused by nocturnal emission to apply to the impurity caused by sexual intercourse is reasonable. 43. Milgrom, "Studies in the Temple Scroll," 515n. 44. 44. Yadin, Temple Scroll 1.277-80. Yadin is influenced particularly by Gedalia Alon, 'The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical Cleanness," in Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977). 45. For a discussion of the lack of evidence for the seclusion of menstruants in turn-of-the-eraJudaism, see Sanders, "Did the Pharisees?" 1 4 9 - 5 1 , 155-62. 46. See also the Temple Scroll's instructions for building booths on the roofs of the structures in the third courtyard for the leaders of the people (TS 42.10-17). O n both these points, see the discussion of Israel Knohl, "Post-Biblical Sectari­ anism and the Priestly Schools of the Pentateuch: The Issue of Popular Partici­ pation in the Temple Cult on Festivals," in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner, 2.606-7, esp. n. 14. 47. Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 21. 48. Cana Werman, however, has expressed skepticism about whether the title "Book of the Divisions of the Times in their Jubilees and in their Weeks" is actu­ ally a reference to fubilees, which refers to itself as Torah-Teudah (conversation with the author, Nov. 7, 2002); the translation is from Baumgarten and Schwartz, "Damascus Document." 49. All translations of material from 4 Q D unless otherwise noted are taken from Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII. For my "rule of skin eruptions" above, Baumgarten translates, "rule of sara'at." For material that appears only in C D , the translation is that of Florentino Garcia Martinez and EibertJ. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997-98). 50. Baumgarten's reconstruction yields the somewhat redundant zeh mispat [tora]t hassara'at, for the parallel in 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i 13 (Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII).

51. See also, "And the rule [mispat] for a scall of the head or the bea[rd]" (4Q266 6 i 5; parallel in 4 Q 2 7 3 4 ii 10, which breaks off after the first letter of "head"); and, "[And] the law [mispat] [of a woman who has a discharge]" (4Q272 1 ii 7 ) . All come at the beginning of the relevant laws with the exception indicated above. 52. Introductions: the laws of purification for one with skin eruptions (Lev 14:2). Conclusions: the laws of permitted and prohibited animals (Lev 11:46); the laws of the impurity of the parturient (Lev 12:7); the laws of eruptions of fabrics and leather (Lev 13:59), a topic not treated in 4 Q D ; the offering of the poor man with skin eruptions (Lev 14:32); the laws of eruptions generally (Lev 14:54, 5 7 ) ; the laws of genital discharge (Lev 15:32). The same usage also ap­ pears in Lev 6:2, 7, 18 and Lev 7:1, 11, introducing different types of sacrifice; Num 5:29, concluding the laws of the woman suspected of adultery; and Num 6:13, 21, introducing sections of the laws of the Nazirite. 53. The first item following the heading prohibits vowing any unjust gain to the altar. It is worth noting that the Torah juxtaposes vowing and the term tord in Num 6:21: "This is the law [tord] for the Nazirite who takes a vow." Unlike the purity laws, however, the passage on donations to the sanctuary is not closely linked to a single passage in the Torah. There are other places in the Damascus Document (e.g., CD 10.14, 15.7,16.12) where mispat means something like "rule," but it is not in the construct nor is it used as the heading or conclusion for a spe­ cific set of laws. 54. This rubric involves some reconstruction by Baumgarten; most important, the word 'al appears only in 4Q266, where it is crossed out. 55. As Shemesh and Werman note ("Halakhah at Qumran," 115). 56. For a list of occurrences in Leviticus 11-15, see note 52 above. I count Lev 14:54, 57 as a single instance. Elsewhere in the Torah, the term appears seven times as an introduction and twice as a conclusion. 5 7 . 1 discuss these laws in more detail in "Impurity and Sin in 4 Q D , 1QS, and 4Q5l2"Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001): 16-17. 58. See Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 54. 59. See Himmelfarb, "Impurity and Sin," 16, for more detailed discussion of the treatment of the terms sapahat and mam Wet. 60. The preserved text begins with the definition of sapahat, a term that ap­ pears at the very beginning of Leviticus's discussion (Lev 13:2). Leviticus then switches to the variant form mispahat (13:6-8). The term sapahat appears again only in the summary of the laws of eruptions in Lev 14:56. The laws of skin erup­ tions in 4 Q D conclude with a discussion of scall of the head or beard, which comes toward the end of Leviticus's procedures forjudging the purity status of skin eruptions (Lev 13:29-37); the concluding formula has been preserved ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i l 3 / 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 2 ) . 61. In the single manuscript containing the laws of the parturient, the discus­ sion of the woman with abnormal flow concludes in the middle of a line and the discussion of the parturient begins on the next line ( 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 4 - 5 ) . But de­ spite this possible indication of a new unit, the absence of an introductory phrase with mispat and the active rearrangement of the material of Leviticus 1 2 - 1 5 to place the impurity of the parturient together with the other types of impurity of genital discharge strongly suggest that the parturient is here treated as a third type of zdbd. 62. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 934.

63. My translation. 64. My translation. 65. Both fragments in which the passage is preserved contain the opening heading. While 4 Q 2 6 6 6 i breaks off before the end of the passage, 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 7 contains the opening heading for the topic that follows, female genital dis­ charge. 66. I have added "one" to Baumgarten's translation (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 53, 190). If the first 'o dser, is translated, "or one who," then this '6 dser too should be translated "or one who." The translation of Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar righdy treats the two instances of 'o dser equally, thus suggesting that the passage discusses three categories of men: "Regula[tion concerning the man with a disch]arge. Eve[ry man] [with a di]scha[rge from his flesh, or who brings upon himself a] lustful thought or who [ . . . ] " (Dead Sea Scrolls 1.625). 67. The words "bathe in water" are Baumgarten's reconstruction, as his tran­ scription of the Hebrew indicates, but in the translation the words are not placed in brackets (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 190). I have corrected this error in the quotation above. 6 8 . 1 have combined Baumgarten's translations of the two relevant fragments (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 53, 190). I indicate lacunae only where neither fragment preserves the text, and I have not made any effort to show the actual size of the lacunae. 69. Baumgarten points out that m. Zabim 2.2 exempts discharge from being considered a sign of zab impurity if it can be connected to sexual stimulation (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 54; idem, "Zab Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law," Journal of Jewish Studies 45 [1994]: 2 7 5 ) . But his comment on the passage in 4 Q D , "It would appear from the context that a discharge resulting from lustful thoughts was considered as coming under the category of zab and would there­ fore be defiling" (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 5 4 ) , is somewhat misleading. Any dis­ charge is defiling, but according to Leviticus 15 normal seminal emission defiles for a much shorter period than abnormal discharge and far less effort is re­ quired to remove the impurity. 70. My proposal leaves room for several other words on the line. 71. It is frustrating that the phrase "his contact is like that of" (4Q266 6 i 16; 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii 5) breaks off where it does. Perhaps contact with the zab is compared to contact with the niddd, apparendy the subject a few lines later (4Q272 1 ii 9-10). 72. Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 3 7 - 3 8 , considers the assumption of participation to be characteristic of the legal material in the Damascus Document 73. Trans. Joseph M. Baumgarten, in Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV. This translation reflects the restoration we'im tese\ me is si]kbat hazzera\ Milgrom restores the text differently, we'im tese['mimmenu si]kbat hazzera', in " 4 Q T O H O RA : An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities," in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 5 9 - 6 8 . (Baumgarten's first discussion of the text, 'The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohora [4Q274]," in Time to Prepare the Way, ed. Dimant and Schiffman, 1-8, also uses this restoration.) In Milgrom's reading, the man with the seminal ,

a

a

>

emission is the man referred to in the previous line as counting the days of pu­ rification. Milgrom argues that the touch of this man defiles after the seminal emission because as a former zab (in Leviticus's sense) who has not yet completed the waiting period before the ritual of purification, he was still somewhat impure even before the seminal emission; the seminal emission serves to increase his im­ purity so that his touch is now defiling. This argument rests on Milgrom's view that 4QTohorot A implies first-day ablutions for the impurities it discusses ("4QTOHORA ," 6 6 - 6 7 ) . The attribution by 4 Q D of a defiling touch to a man who has had a nocturnal emission is virtually certain even if the attribution of such a touch to the man who has had a seminal emission during sexual inter­ course is less so. It seems to me that the passage in 4 Q D strengthens the case for Baumgarten's reading of 4QTohorot A, in which the defiling touch is indepen­ dent of the previous state of purity of the man who has had the seminal emission. 74. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 9 3 4 - 3 5 . 75. Indeed, Hempel, Laws, considers the purity laws of the Damascus Document part of the stratum of 4 Q D that does not show a connection to a specific com­ munity (26). 76. The words "pregnant woman" are preserved, but not enough else survives to be certain of the nature of the transgression. See Joseph M . Baumgarten, "A Fragment on Fetal Life and Pregnancy in 4Q270," in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 4 4 5 - 4 8 . 77. Menahem Kister, "Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran," Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993): 2 8 0 - 8 1 . 78. O n the Damascus Document's attitude toward women, see Eileen Schuller, 'Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, ed. Flint and VanderKam, 2 . 1 2 3 - 3 1 . 79. Thomas O . Lambdin, trans., 'The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2)," in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M . Robinson (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) 130. 80. See the discussion of David Winston, "Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body," in Hellenism and Hebraism Reconsidered: The Poetics of Cultural Influence and Exchange I (Poetics Today 19 [ 1 9 9 8 ] ) , ed. David Stern, 4 3 - 5 3 . 81. While Baumgarten has to supply the zabd after "rule of," the term does ap­ pear in the next line, and the context leaves no doubt that it should appear at the beginning of the passage. 82. The beginning of the passage is preserved in 4 Q D 272 1 ii 7-18; 4 Q D 266 6 ii 1-2 preserves the conclusion of the discussion of the niddd. 83. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV, 8 3 - 8 7 . The most important piece of evidence for this claim appears in 4QTohorot B 1 ii 7 - 1 0 : a

b

And those [who receive] th[e lust] ration water shall (first) immerse themselves in water and be cle[an]sed of [human?] corpse defilement [and of every] other [defilement when the pri]est [spr] inkles the lustration water upon them to purify [them, for they cannot] [be sanctified] unless they are cleansed and their flesh is c[lean.] See also ShayeJ. D. Cohen's discussion of the Karaite practice of sprinkling for purification from menstrual impurity, in "Purity, Piety, and Polemic: Medieval Rabbinic Denunciations of 'Incorrect' Purification Practices," in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law, ed. Rahel R. Wasserfall, Brandeis Series on Jewish Women (Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1999) 9 3 - 9 4 .

84. The beginning of the rule of the zabd and the material about the menstru­ ant discussed so far appear in 4 Q 2 7 2 1 ii. The passage about to be discussed, concerning the man who has sexual relations with the menstruant, stands at the beginning of 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii, which continues with discussion of the woman with ab­ normal genital discharge and the woman who has given birth. Thus 4QD's dis­ cussion of the man who has sexual relations with the menstruant appears to be the end of its treatment of the menstruant, just as this topic also concludes Leviticus 15's discussion of the menstruant. 85. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 940, for a discussion of the absence of a pro­ hibition in P. I am not sure that P is as obsessed with purity as Milgrom thinks; the purity laws discussed here obviously thought it insufficiendy obsessed. 86. Himmelfarb, "Impurity and Sin," 2 1 - 2 2 . Baumgarten's comment on this passage, 'The association of impurity with sin [ 'awon] is characteristic of the Qumran oudook" (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 5 6 ) , thus ignores Leviticus 18 and 20. 87. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII, uses "anything hallowed"; I have changed the translation slighdy to make it clear that 4 Q D and Leviticus here use the same term, qodes. 88. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 7 5 1 - 5 2 . 89. O n e of these is the rule just cited, for the woman after childbirth. Another law relevant to laypeople is die prohibition of eating one's share of the wellbeing offering while bearing any type of impurity (Lev 7:20-21) (Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 7 5 1 - 5 2 ) . A passage in Numbers implies a prohibition of eating the paschal sacrifice, a sacrifice to be consumed by laypeople, while suffering from corpse impurity (Num 18:11, 13). The most concentrated set of prohibi­ tions for priests appears in Lev 22:3-9, where priests in various states of impurity are forbidden to eat holy food. 90. The Torah also applies the rule of waiting for sunset to types of impurity that have nothing to do with genital flow, such as the impurity caused by contact with the carcass of a forbidden insect or animal (Lev 11:24, 25, 27, 28, 3 1 ) , eat­ ing a permitted animal that dies of itself, or contact with its carcass (Lev 11:394 0 ) . So too one who enters a house that has been shut because it is afflicted with eruptions becomes impure until evening (Lev 14:46). The Holiness Code de­ crees that one who eats an animal unfit for consumption because it died on its own or was killed by other animals is impure until evening (Lev 17:15). The Torah also decrees that impurity disappears only at evening for those who en­ gage in the various aspects of the manufacture of the ashes of the red cow. The priest in charge of the sacrifice of the cow (Num 19:7), the person who burns the cow (Num 19:8), and the person who gathers the ashes (Num 19:10) all be­ come impure and must launder, bathe, and wait until evening to return to a state of purity. The person who sprinkles the waters on those impure from con­ tact with a corpse also becomes impure, as does anyone who touches the waters, and the impurity lasts until evening (Num 19:21), although here the text is not as clear as it might be. The only type of impurity that lasts more than a single day for which the Torah legislates an evening terminus is the impurity caused by contact with a corpse, the type of impurity removed by sprinkling with waters containing the ashes of the red cow (Num 19:19). 91. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 56; and, Joseph M . Baumgarten, T h e Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts," Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 157-61; Lawrence H . Schiffman, "Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of Tevul Yom," Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 2 8 5 - 9 9 .

92. Martha Himmelfarb, "The Polemic against the Tebul Yom: A Reexamina­ tion," in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Sympo­ sium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, January 9-11 2005, ed. Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements, and Besty HalpernAmaru (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 93. Baumgarten {Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 56) compares the passage in 4 Q D to Num 19:20, which threatens a bearer of corpse impurity who does not undergo purification with being cut off from among the congregation because he has de­ filed the sanctuary, but neither the crime nor the terminology is very close to 4QD. 94. The text is fragmentary, but it is difficult to imagine an interpretation of the surviving letters, ]led lemeneqet betoh[, that does not involve a nurse. 95. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 746, raises the possibility that the infant was to undergo immersion with the mother at the end of the seven- or fourteen-day period of more intense impurity. 96. See, e.g., Joseph M . Baumgarten, "The Purification Rituals in DJD 7," in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappa­ port, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 199-209; Florentino Garcia Martinez, 'The Problem of Purity: The Qumran Solution," in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices, by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 139-57; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 6 7 - 9 1 . Baumgarten comments on the conflation of sin and impurity in 4 Q D in his commentary to it (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 56, 146) and elsewhere ("Zab Impurity," 2 7 5 ) . 97. In "Impurity and Sin," I treat the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Com­ munity, and 4QRitual of Purification B (4Q512). 98. For 4QD's list of transgressors, which I omit from my discussion here, see Himmelfarb, "Impurity and Sin," 2 6 - 2 7 . 99. Himmelfarb, "Impurity and Sin," 13-14, for further discussion. 100. The expression timscC yadah and variations appear a number of other places in the Bible (Jud 9:38; 1 Sam 10:7; Isa 10:10, 14; Hos 2:9; Job 31:25; Eccl 9:10), but it means "afford" only in one other instance (Lev 25:28). 101. Lev 5:11; 14:22, 30, 31, 32. It is also used for sacrifices that do not involve substitution (Num 6:21; Ezek 46:7), and it appears in other contexts as well with the meaning "afford" (Lev 25:26 [perfect], 47; 27:8). 102. The conclusion of the rule for skin eruptions is preserved, and as noted above, the laws of skin eruptions in 4 Q D follow the order of the Torah, where the sacrifice is treated at the end of the discussion. 103. Although it is very fragmentary, 4 Q 2 6 6 6 ii 2 - 4 seems to contain the com­ plete treatment of the woman with abnormal discharge, and there is no indica­ tion of a discussion of sacrifice. 104. Baumgarten argues that the description of the place of service in the tem­ ple indicates that the priest in question is the high priest (Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 51, tol. 7 ) . 105. See, e.g., the influential programmatic essay of Ya'aqov Sussman, "The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls-Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah ( 4 Q M M T ) , " Tarbizb9 ( 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ) : 1 1 - 7 6 (Hebrew) (En­ glish translation without extensive annotation: "Appendix I: The History of Ha­ lakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on MIQSAT MA'ASE H A - T O R A H [ 4 Q M M T ] , " in Qumran Cave 4.V, ed. Qimron and Strugnell,

1 7 9 - 2 0 0 ) . The literature on this topic is now considerable. Eyal Regev, "Were the Priests All the Same? Qumranic Halakhah in Comparison with Sadducean Halakhah," Dead Sea Discoveries 12 (2005): 158-88, has recendy argued against the view that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Sadducees are regularly in agreement on halakhic matters. H e sees them as two separate schools growing out of the common halakhah of the period before the hellenistic reform (184). While Regev is persuasive on many individual points, I hope I have shown that his view that a single legal tradition emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls is untenable. 106. See Himmelfarb, "Sexual Relations," 2 5 - 2 7 .

Chapter 4 1. O n Chronicles' attitude toward the survivors of the northern kingdom, see H . G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (London: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1977) 1 3 9 - 4 0 (summary), and Sarajaphet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989) 3 2 5 - 3 4 . 2. O n the terms themselves, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 1.1-2. O n the idea ofJudaism as growing out of the encounter with Hellenism, see S.J. D. Cohen, Beginnings, 109-39, esp. 132-39. 3. Thus, e.g., Bryan Wilson: "An individual chooses to be a sectarian, and he is normally required to show some mark of merit (by knowledge of doctrine; by quality of life; the recommendation of members in good standing; initia­ tions or ritual performances, and so on) in order to be accepted as a member" {Religion, 9 2 ) . 4. The sect as a sociological category emerged in discussions of Christianity in western Europe, and there is no equivalent to the church against which the sect is defined in Second Temple Judaism. The temple establishment had juris­ diction over only one aspect, however important, of religious life. Nor was there ever an official definition of orthodoxy as there was for Christians. The picture is further confused by Josephus's use of the Greek term hairesis in his account of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The term is usually translated "sect," though Josephus does not seem to have intended to identify these groups as sects in the modern, sociological sense. O n the history of the term and the prob­ lems of using it outside the context for which it was originally developed, see, e.g., Wilson, Religion, 100-105. 5. There is an enormous literature on the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community, and the structure of the sect. In my notes I refer only to the works most relevant to the points I am trying to make. 6. To the best of my knowledge, no single recent article reviews the various theories proposed. Perhaps the complexity of the subject makes the task impos­ sible. For a pre-4QMMT review, see John J. Collins, "The Origin of the Qumran Community: A Review of the Evidence," in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor ofJoseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski (New York: Crossroad, 1989); Collins assumes continuity between the commu­ nity of CD and the yahad and thus does not address the question of the relation­ ship between them. For a recent effort to consider that question including a brief review of the literature, see Charlotte Hempel, "Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship," in Provo International Conference, ed. Parry and Ulrich.

7. See, e.g., Philip S. Alexander, 'The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal" Revue de Qumran (1996): 4 3 7 - 5 3 ; Philip R. Davies, "Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls," in Sects and Scrolls: Essays on Qumran and Related Topics, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 134 (Adanta: Schol­ ars Press, 1996); Hempel, Laws; Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 8. This is the picture suggested by Philip R. Davies; see The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document" (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 25 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982) esp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 1 , and idem, Behind theEssenes, esp. 107-34. 9. Eyal Regev, T h e Yahad and the Damascus Covenant Structure, Organiza­ tion, and Relationship," Revue de Qumran 21 (2003): 2 3 3 - 6 2 , considers many of the same features of the two works that I consider. H e concludes, as I do, that the Damascus Document's community is more hierarchical than the yahad. I am not persuaded, however, by his claim that comparison of institutions shows that the yahad preceded the community of the Damascus Document. 10. See Albert I. Baumgarten, "The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsid­ eration," Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 1 4 0 - 4 1 , and Robert A. Kugler, "Priest­ hood at Qumran," in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, ed. Flint and VanderKam, 2.93-94n. 1, for the history of the discussion. 11. E.g., 4 Q M M T for explicit criticism and the Temple Scroll for implicit. 12. The clearest indication of this view is 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) I 6 - 7 . For discussion relevant to the point here and references to others who have treated this issue, see Devorah Dimant, "4QFUmlegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple," in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommages a Valentin Nikiprowetzky [z"l], ed. An­ dre Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) esp. 174-80,184-89. 13. E.g., 4QFlorilegium, the Temple Scroll, 4QNewJerusalem. 14. 4QShirShabb. 15. E.g., 4QMMT, the Temple Scroll, 4 Q D . 16. For a convenient collection of references, see Kugler, "Priesthood," 108. 17. For references, see Kugler, "Priesthood," 109-12. 18. Aharon Shemesh, 'The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Liter­ ature and Rabbinic Halacha," Revue de Qumran 18 (1997): 2 2 3 - 4 1 , argues that the sect understood biblical laws governing relations with other Israelites to ap­ ply only to the sectarians' dealings with other members of the sect; Jews who were not members of the sect are not considered to be "kinsmen" or "brothers." 19. All translations of the Rule of the Community are taken from Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 20. All translations of the portion of the Damascus Document known from the Geniza (CD) are taken from Baumgarten and Schwartz, "Damascus Document." 21. "Light" is clear, but "children o f is Baumgarten's restoration; see his com­ mentary to this line in Qumran Cave 4.XIII, 32. 22. Baumgarten and Schwartz argue that the manuscript reading at C D 13.14, libne hassahar, "to the Sons of Dawn," is correct. Thus the passage prohibits buy­ ing and selling not with outsiders, but with members of the sect, because it would be wrong to derive material benefit from dealings with fellow members ("Damascus Document," 55n. 2 0 3 ) . 23. See most recendy Robert A. Kugler, "Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and Levites," in Provo International Conference, ed. Parry and Ulrich, 4 7 7 - 7 9 .

24. For discussion of the passages in question, see Kugler, "Levi and Levites," 467-70. 25. Milgrom, "Qumran Cult," 176-77. The position he now rejects appeared in "Studies in the Temple Scroll," 5 0 3 - 4 . 26. For discussion of these laws, Lawrence H . Schiffman, "Legislation Con­ cerning Relations with Non-Jews in the Zadokite Fragments and in Tannaitic Liter­ ature," Revue de Qumran 11 (1983): 3 7 9 - 8 9 . 27. But the placement of the g^rwith the poor and the needy rather than the widows and orphans reflects the Holiness Code's law of the Israelite who has be­ come poor (Lev 25:35-38). This difficult passage commands that the impover­ ished Israelite be treated as a resident alien, ger wetosab (Lev 25:35). While the meaning of the passage is somewhat obscure, it suggests a relationship between the categories of the poor and the ger. Further, the difficult language actually calls the impoverished Israelite ger wetdsab, thus blurring the boundaries be­ tween Israelite and ger. 28. For discussion (though not of this point), see Joseph M . Baumgarten, "The Disqualifications of Priests in 4 Q Fragments of the 'Damascus Document': A Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha," in Madrid Qumran Con­ gress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner, 2.503-13. 29. Metso, Textual Development, esp. 105-6. Alexander, "Redaction-History," ar­ gues that in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the version of the Rule of the Community in the manuscripts that are earlier on paleographic grounds should be understood as the earlier form of the text. Alexander wrote in knowledge of Metso's thesis but before the publication of her book. For my purposes the direction of the development of the Rule of the Community is not crucial because, in my view, even the version that mentions Zadokites grants power to the community as a whole. 30. For a dissent before the publication of the 4QS fragments, see Davies, Be­ hind theEssenes, 5 1 - 7 2 . 31. See the summary of the discussion in A. Baumgarten, "Zadokite Priests," 1 4 0 - 4 1 , and Kugler, "Priesthood," 2.93n. 1. Alison Schofield and James C. Van­ derKam, 'Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?" fournal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 7 3 - 8 7 , have recently argued that the Hasmoneans were probably them­ selves Zadokites. 32. Daniel R. Schwartz, "Introduction: O n the Jewish Background of Chris­ tianity," in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, 20; idem, "Qumran Be­ tween Priesdiness and Christianity," in The Scrolls of the fudaean Desert: Forty Years of Research, ed. Magen Broshi et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Explo­ ration Society, 1992) 179 (Hebrew). 33. A. Baumgarten, "Zadokite Priests," 142-53. See also Charlotte Hempel, "Interpretative Authority in the Community Rule Tradition," Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 7 4 - 8 0 . Hempel discusses the second and third of the passages quoted above (1QS 5.8-10, 1QS 5.20-22) in both their 1 Q and 4 Q versions. She sees them as preserving material from different periods, with earlier, more demo­ cratic material juxtaposed with material that accords priests (sons of Aaron) a greater role even in 4QS, perhaps under the influence of 1QS ( 7 7 - 7 9 ) . Zadokites play a prominent role in two other scrolls in addition to the Rule of the Community, the Rule of the Congregation (lQSa) and the Rule of Benedictions ( l Q S b ) . Baumgarten suggests that because both of these short rules were copied in the same manuscript as the Cave 1 version of the Rule of the Community, they may reflect the views of only a small group and can hardly be taken as

a groundswell of support for the new position ("Zadokite Priests," 1 5 2 - 5 3 ) . See also Hempel, "The Earthly Essene Nucleus of lQSa," Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 2 5 3 - 6 9 . Hempel argues that the central portion of l Q S a (1.6-2.11a), which she sees not as a messianic rule but as a rule very close to the Damascus Document, has also undergone a "Zadokite recension" ( 2 5 7 - 6 1 ) . All of the in­ stances of Zadokite or priesdy authority in l Q S a that Baumgarten notes ( l Q S a 1.2, 1.24, 2.3) juxtapose Zadokites with others as in 1QS. The clearest instance of Zadokite authority in any of the texts in this manuscript is l Q S b 3.22-25, a blessing of the Zadokite priests. 34. Regev, "Yahad and Damascus Covenant" 2 3 5 - 4 0 , argues that the term "council" actually refers to local communities that formed the yahad; if so, even the 4 Q S version of this passage grants authority to the (local) group as a whole. 35. Hempel, "Interpretative Authority," 79, points out that 1QS is more ex­ pansive on this point than is 4QS. 36. See discussion and references to the occurrences of the different tides in Charlotte Hempel, "Community Structures," in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, ed. Flint and VanderKam, 2.79-82. 37. Baumgarten and Schwartz, "Damascus Document," translate "Examiner" with an uppercase "e." 38. As noted by Dimant, "4QFlorilegium," 188. See also l Q S a 2 . 5 - 9 and 1 Q M 7.4-5. For a broader discussion of these passages, see Aharon Shemesh, " T h e Holy Angels Are in Their Council': The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature," Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 193-201. 39. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 7 6 - 7 9 , makes a similar observation. 40. It is used, however, elsewhere in the Bible, when Bathsheba purifies her­ self after menstruation (2 Sam 11:4). 41. Lev 26:43: "But the land shall be left by them, and enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them; and they shall make amends for their iniquity"; Num 35:33: "No expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it." 42. In addition to 4 Q 5 1 2 , there are two other manuscripts containing purifi­ cation liturgies, 4 Q 2 8 4 and 4Q414, recendy published in Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV. 43. In his publication of the fragments Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4.Ill, 263, suggests that cols. 3 - 7 and 9-11 of the work treat sexual impurity; col. 4, priests; col. 8, skin eruptions; frag. 67, eruptions of houses; and col. 12, corpse impurity. As J. Baum­ garten, "Purification Rituals," 200, comments, "Not all of these identifications are equally convincing." 44. See the discussion of J. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XXV, 8 3 - 8 7 . 45. The conflation of categories of impurity in a halakhic context is also sug­ gested in 4QTohorot A ( 4 Q 2 7 4 ) . This very fragmentary text contains rules for the separation of bearers of one type of impurity from bearers of a different type. It is thus remarkable that its first three preserved lines describe an impure man drawing on terminology associated with different types of impurity in Leviticus. Because the impure man occupies a "bed of sorrow" and a "seat of sighing" (trans. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XXV), J. Baumgarten argues that he has abnormal genital flow; abnormal genital flow is the only type of male im­ purity that makes bedding and seat impure (Lev 15:4-6) ("Laws about Fluxes," 3 - 4 ; Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV,\0\-2). Milgrom identifies the man in question as afflicted with skin eruptions because the passage goes on to insist

on his isolation, quoting Lev 13:45, "He shall call out, 'Unclean! Unclean!"' di­ recting a man with skin eruptions to warn others of his presence ( " 4 Q T O H O RAa," 61.) 46. J. Baumgarten, "Purification Liturgies," 203. 47. J. Baumgarten, "Purification Rituals," 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 , 208, notes that the term niddd is used in 4 Q 5 1 2 in a variety of contexts that do not appear to concern menstrual impurity. 48. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 76-78; he uses the phrase in quotation marks on p. 77. H e also refers to "grave sinfulness in general" (76) and "grave sin in gen­ eral" ( 7 7 ) . Eyal Regev has recendy argued in somewhat different terms that the Qumran community understood the temple to have been defiled by the moral impurity of its contemporaries ("Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran," Dead Sea Dis­ coveries 10 [2003]: 2 4 3 - 7 8 ) . 49. The "purity" of the community, tahorat harabbim, has been the subject of discussion ever since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls; for a recent treat­ ment, including a review of earlier discussions, see Friedrich Avemarie, " 'Tohorat ha-Rabbim' and 'Mashqeh ha-Rabbim'—-Jacob Licht Reconsidered," in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen, 2 1 5 - 2 9 . 50. Jonathan Klawans, "Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism, "Journal of fewish Studies 48 (1997): 9; idem, Impurity and Sin, 8 2 - 8 5 . This understanding of the meaning of the pure food and drink of the community is by no means cer­ tain, although there is support for such usage in some of the appearances of the term tahora in the Temple Scroll and perhaps 4 Q M M T (Avemarie, " 'Tohorat haRabbim,' " 2 2 2 - 2 4 ) . The Torah's use of the root thr, on the other hand, suggests a different understanding of lQS's tahorat harabbim. The Torah never uses the noun tahora of food, but it does term some forbidden animals "impure" (Lev 11:4-8; Deut 14:7-9, 19), and it refers to permitted birds as "pure" (Deut 14:11). It also decrees that contact with the corpse of an impure swarming thing ren­ ders impure earthen vessels and their contents, dampened food and drink, and ovens and stoves (Lev 11:33-35). Thus it is possible that in referring to its food as tahora the Qumran community was simply emphasizing that it met the stan­ dards of the Torah. Surely there were many whose food did not; in an agricul­ tural society without refrigeration avoiding prohibited contact with the corpses of impure creatures was probably not an easy task. Indeed, Sanders, "Did the Pharisees?" 2 4 6 - 4 7 , suggests that the Pharisees may have been the only laypeo­ ple who actually observed these laws. (Sanders reads Lev 11:33-35 as concerned with insects as well as the eight creatures that swarm on the earth listed in Lev 11:29-30 [138], but this does not seem to me to be the plain sense of Leviticus.) For a recent argument for the view that concern for purity was widespread in an­ cient Israel, drawing in part on archeological evidence, Eyal Regev, "Pure Indi­ vidualism: The Idea of Non-Priesdy Purity in Ancient Judaism," fournal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 31 (2000): 176-202. There is no indication in the Torah that pure food, as opposed to consecrated food, must be eaten in a state of purity. 51. Knibb, Qumran Community, argues against the view that the second passage is a continuation of the first on the grounds that the first constitutes a separate paragraph in the manuscript passage and that the second passage is preceded by an introductory formula: 'These are the rules by which the men of perfect holiness shall walk with one another" (1QS 8.20). H e prefers to read the two passages as alternate forms of the rule, reflecting the development of the rule

over time (136). In addition to the passage about baptism cited above, the sec­ tion about membership in the community that follows the penal code twice refers to exclusion from the pure food for those who violate the rules, although the relationship between the rulings of the two passages is less than clear. 52. Moshe Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 2 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 53. Mariano San Nicolo, "Zur Vereinsgerichtbarkeit im hellenistischen Agypten," in EIIITYMBION: Heinrich Swoboda Dargebracht (Reichenberg: Stiepel, 1927) 2 8 0 - 8 1 , with references to the rules. 54. My translation is inspired by the RSV translation of 'erwat dabar in Deut 24:1 as "some indecency." 55. O n this phrase, J. Baumgarten, "Purification Rituals," 201. 56. H e notes, however, that one early discussion understood 1QS 3 . 4 - 5 , "He shall not be made clean by atonement or purified by waters for purification, or made holy by seas and rivers, or purified by any water for washing," as evidence for a polemic against baptism (J. Baumgarten, "Purification Rituals," 199; the reference is to M . H . Gottstein, "Anti-Essene Traits in the Qumran Scrolls," Vetus Testamentum 4 [1954]: 1 4 5 - 4 6 ) . 57. Knibb, Qumran Community, 110-11. 58. For an interesting discussion of the parallels between Qumran literature, particularly 1QS, and the thought of John the Baptist as far as it can be recov­ ered, see David Flusser, 'The Baptism of John and the Dead Sea Sect," in Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory ofE. L. Sukenik, ed. Mgael Yadin and Chaim Rabin, assisted by Jacob Licht (Jerusalem: Hekhal Ha-Sefer, 1961) 209-39, esp. 2 0 9 - 1 7 (Hebrew). 59. D. Schwartz, "Jewish Background," 19-24; idem, "Qumran Between"; and, from a somewhat different angle, idem, "Law and Truth: O n Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law," in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Dimant and Rappaport, 239. 60. D. Schwartz, 'Jewish Background," 21-22; idem, "Qumran Between," 179-80; idem, "Law and Truth," 238. 61. D. Schwartz, 'Jewish Background," 21; idem, "Qumran Between," 179. 62. D. Schwartz, 'Jewish Background," 22-24; idem, "Qumran Between," 180; idem, "Law and Truth," 239. H e illustrates this point with passages drawn from the Hodayot (all three articles) and the Community Rule ("Qumran Between" and "Law and Truth "). 63. The comparison to Christianity is central to D. Schwartz's 'Jewish Back­ ground" and "Qumran Between"; it is noted briefly in his "Law and Truth, where the idea of rabbinic Judaism as a solution to the problem appears. It is worth noting that Schwartz suggests that the rise of Christianity may have played a role in shaping the rabbinic attitude that the law is not the means to an end, but the end in itself (230) but he does not develop this suggestion. 64. D. Schwartz, "Law and Truth," 239. 65. Krister Stendahl, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215; reprinted in Paul amongJews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). 66. This point of view was pioneered by Lloyd Gaston, whose essays on this theme are collected in Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Co­ lumbia Press, 1987). It has been further developed by John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New \brk: Oxford University Press, 1983) 197-264. See also

Gager, Reinventing Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), and the ac­ count of traditional views and recent developments there ( 2 1 - 7 5 ) . 67. Thus Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, "Nominalism and Realism in Qumranic and Rabbinic Law: A Reassessment," Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 157-83, who dis­ cusses Schwartz's examples of rabbinic nominalism and argues that rabbinic atti­ tudes toward law include both nominalist and realist strands; Rubenstein claims that the most pronounced form of nominalism does not appear until the fifth century (183). 68. The literature on Revelation, like that for other books of the New Testa­ ment, is huge. As in the section of the chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I limit my references to the most relevant scholarship. 69. For a study of the theme with different concerns and assumptions about John's relationship to Judaism, see Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Priester fur Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse, Neutestamendiche Abhandlungen n.f. 7 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1972). 70. John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Readingfohn's Jewish Apocalypse (Water­ loo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001). Marshall dates the book quite precisely, between the summer of 68 and the late spring of 70 C.E. (Para­ bles, 8 8 - 9 7 ) , but Marshall's argument holds even if we accept a date under Domitian in the late first century, the time favored by much of late twentiethcentury scholarship. 71. David Frankfurter, 'Jews or Not? Reconstructing the 'Other' in Rev 2:9 and 3:9," Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 4 0 3 - 2 5 . 72. The RSV translation, "practice immorality," is too weak. The Greek porneusai is the equivalent of the Hebrew root znh, to be a harlot, and like it, it has clear sexual connotations. 73. For criticism of several recent proponents of the view that the synagogues of Satan are Jews with whom John's community is in conflict, see Marshall, Para­ bles, 12-16. Marshall is more cautious than Frankfurter in characterizing the op­ ponents John addresses; they are "a group of people who do not stand in opposition to Rome and the wider Greco-Roman culture in the way John does" (124-34; quotation, 133). 74. Frankfurter, 'Jews or Not?" 4 1 8 - 2 0 . 75. Frankfurter worries that this contentious question does not show up in John's criticism of his opponents ('Jews or Not?" 422n. 8 1 ) . 76. Frankfurter, "Jews or Not?" 4 1 0 - 1 2 . Frankfurter also treats the description of the 144,000 from the tribes of Israel as those who "have not defiled them­ selves with women, for they are virgins" (Rev 14:4) as an instance of commit­ ment to purity in the service of holy war. See Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984) 1 2 7 - 3 1 , and Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Rev­ elation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993) 2 3 0 - 3 1 . The relationship of this passage to the elaboration of purity laws in the Second Temple period seems to me less clear-cut. The Qumran sectarians lived in an all-male community presumably because it is easier for a man to maintain the state required for holy war and fel­ lowship with the angels if he avoids sexual relations and other physical contact with women. Still, emolunthesan, the term that RSV translates "defiled them­ selves," does not appear to be part of the technical vocabulary of purity for the Greek Bible; it does not appear in the Septuagint's translation of the purity laws of Leviticus. It is used of nonritual defilement in 3 Isaiah (Isa 59:3, 65:4) and of rape in Zech 14:2. Thus I disageree with Bauckham, who claims that the term

refers to "ritual defilement" (Climax of Prophecy, 231). Further, there is no indica­ tion that members of the community at Qumran were expected to be virgins; it is worth noting that some of the Therapeutae according to Philo had left be­ hind wives when they came to join the group (On the Contemplative Life 18). Here, then, John's picture goes significandy beyond what we know from else­ where in Second Temple Judaism. 77. Marshall, Parables, 16-18, 141-48. 78. Ibid., 192. 79. The RSV translation, "saints," has a Christian ring that I prefer to avoid. John likes this term; he uses it fourteen times. See Marshall, Parables, 21n. 21, for a list of occurrences. 80. O n the 144,000 as Jews rather than Christians, see Marshall, Parables, 18-21. 81. Marshall argues that all Israel remains in the default position in heaven (Parables, 1 8 5 - 8 9 ) . In response to my argument here Marshall has pointed out (e-mail correspondence, March 21, 2003) that at the time John wrote, there were far fewer than 144,000 Jews who were followers of Jesus. Thus the number should not be taken to represent a minority of the Jews but rather the ideal Jew­ ish people. I accept Marshall's point about the small size of the Jesus movement, but I remain convinced that John's sectarian logic means that for him, as for Ezekiel, the ideal Israel represented by the 144,000 is necessarily a minority. 82. See Frankfurter, 'Jews or Not?" 4 1 3 - 1 5 . 83. See Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 2 3 0 - 3 1 , on somewhat different grounds. 84. Himmelfarb, Ascent, esp. 4 9 - 5 1 , 6 6 - 6 9 . 85. Some manuscripts read "Levitical priests," the translation of NJPS. This reading would not change my argument. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , sees the passage in Isaiah 2 not as the words of Isaiah ofJerusalem but as a post-exilic composition. Thus it is perhaps contemporary with the last chapter of the book, which belongs to 3 Isaiah (Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 ) , the portion of the book that is entirely post-exilic. 86. The visionary portion of Revelation begins with John's entrance into the heavenly throne room (Rev 4:1-2). The throne, surrounded by living creatures (Rev 4:6-7), develops the picture of Ezekiel's chariot throne (Ezekiel 1), which Ezekiel identifies as the heavenly counterpart to the cherubim throne of the holy of holies on earth (Ezek 10:15, 2 0 ) . Before the throne is a sea of glass (Rev 4:6), presumably the heavenly version of the "molten sea," an enormous bronze basin in Solomon's temple (1 Kings 7:23). The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders who sit on thrones around the throne of God worship the Lamb with harps and golden bowls of incense (Rev 5:6), identified as the prayers of the saints. When the fifth seal is opened, John sees the souls of the martyrs un­ der the heavenly altar (Rev 6:9). After the seventh seal is opened, an angel with a golden censer offers incense to mix with the prayers of the saints on the golden altar (Rev 8:3-5). At the sound of the seventh trumpet, the heavenly temple is opened and the ark of the covenant within is revealed (Rev 11:19). An­ gels emerge from the temple with their sickles to reap the earth (Rev 14:14-20). Seven angels take seven golden bowls of wrath and fill the heavenly "temple of the tent of witness" with smoke as they bring seven plagues on the earth (Rev 15:5-8). A voice from the temple marks the beginning and end of the pouring out of the plagues (Rev 16:1, 17). 87. Himmelfarb, Ascent, esp. 2 2 - 2 3 .

1. J o s e p h u s , / ^ / * War5.205; idem Jewish Antiquities 18.159-60,19.276, 20.100. 2. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.100. Josephus refers to Tiberius Julius Alexander's role as a Roman official at several points in the Jewish War (2.220, 309; 5.45; 6.237). 3. The Wisdom of ben Sira was translated into Greek by ben Sira's grandson in 132 B.C.E. in Egypt. It is also possible that the Book of the Watchers and Jubilees were available in Greek in Egypt in Philo's day. But Philo gives no sign of famil­ iarity with any of these works, which is perhaps not surprising given his focus on the Torah and his very different view of the world. 4. Daniel R. Schwartz, "Philo's Priestly Descent," in Nourished with Peace: Stud­ ies in HellenisticJudaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack, Homage Series 9 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), argues that Jerome's report of Philo's priesdy lineage in De illus­ trious viris 11 is correct. Schwartz also argues that priests played an important role in the Alexandrian Jewish community ("The Priests in Ep. Arist. 310," Jour­ nal ofBiblical Literature97 [1978]: 5 6 7 - 7 1 ) . 5. For examples, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 1.255-67. 6. Strabo, Geographica 16.2.35-40; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1.294-311. 7. All translations of Philo are taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition, Philo, vols. 1-5, trans. F. H . Colson and G. H . Whitaker; vols. 6 - 1 0 , trans. Colson; supplement vols. 1 and 2, trans. Ralph Marcus (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­ versity Press; London: William Heinemann, 1 9 6 6 - 7 1 ) . 8. D. Schwartz, 'Jewish Background," 16-18, comments that Philo's defense of observance of the law in this passage is "hardly cogent" (quotation, 17). 9. Other Alexandrians resented the Jews for their support of the Romans and the privileges the Romans granted them. Further, the Roman policy of ex­ empting citizens of Greek cities from the poll tax encouraged residents of Alexandria who were not citizens, including many Jews, to attempt to be de­ clared citizens. The Jews based their claim on the special privileges they en­ joyed. The claim was vehemendy rejected by many of the Greco-Egyptian citizens (John M. G. Barclay, The Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan [323 B.C.E.-117 C.E.] [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996] 4 8 - 5 1 ) . 10. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 5 1 - 7 1 . 11. Isaak Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen Gesetze (Breslau: M & H Marcus, 1932) 5 2 - 5 7 , 7 8 - 8 1 ; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "La spiritualisation des sac­ rifices et le culte sacrificiel au temple de Jerusalem chez Philon d'Alexandrie," Etudes philoniennes (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1996) 7 9 - 8 4 (article first published in Semitica 17 [1967]: 9 7 - 1 1 6 ) . It is remarkable that Nikiprowetzky never cites Heinemann. 12. Philo notes the difference between priests and Levites at some points in his work (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.156). 13. Nadab and Abihu, two of the very few priests known by name from the Torah's narrative, play a role in Philo's allegorical treatises, interpretations of Genesis, as does Phinehas, who is a priest at the time of his zealous act but stands in line to be high priest. See J. W. Earp, "Index of Names," in Philo, vol. 10, for references. 14. For discussion of Philo's allegorization of the cult, see Heinemann, Philons Bildung, 4 6 - 5 1 , 5 7 - 6 2 ; Nikiprowetzky, "Spiritualisation," 8 4 - 9 0 .

15. For a full development of this theme, see On Dreams 1.206-18; On the Mi­ gration of Abraham 102-3. For Aaron as logos in a noncultic context, see On Dreams 2.185-90. O n Philo's allegory of the high priest, see Jean Laporte, 'The High Priest in Philo of Alexandria," in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic fudaism 3; Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschrift for Earle Hilgert, ed. David T. Runia, David M. Hay, and David Winston (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 7 1 - 8 2 . 16. On Dreams 1.215 (the portion of the passage omitted above); On the Migra­ tion of Abraham 102-3. 17. On Dreams 1.207. 18. The logos of the soul is identified with the Levites in another passage (On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 119). See also discussion in Laporte, "High Priest," 74-79. 19. Nikiprowetzky, "Spiritualisation," 87, quotes this passage, but the para­ graph number in his note is mistaken. 20. For discussion, see Nikiprowetzky, "Spiritualisation," 8 6 - 8 8 . H e includes the following passages on the offering of virtues or aspects of the soul: On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 84, On the Preliminary Studies 106, On Flight and Finding 18-19, and On Dreams 2.232; and on the offering of the soul itself: On Drunken­ ness 152, On the Migration of Abraham 67, and On Dreams 2.67 (not 217), 183. 21. See Nikiprowetzky, "Spiritualisation," 9 0 - 9 6 . 22. Ibid., 9 2 - 9 3 . 23. Ibid., 94. 24. See, e.g., Spec. Laws 1.80, 85, 86, 97; there are many more examples in On the Special Laws and the rest of Philos's work. For a complete listing, see Peder Borgen, Kare Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Philo uses the terms "allegory" or "to allegorize" only rarely in his writings, and at least in On the Special Laws, they mean allegory in general or in the abstract (Spec. Laws 1.269, 287, 327; 2.29, 147; I believe this is a com­ plete list). 25. For the difficulties in offering a more precise date, see Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) vol. 3, p. 1, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, organizing ed. Matthew Black, lit. ed. Pamela Vermes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986) 6 7 9 - 8 4 . 26. All translations of the Letter of Aristeas axe taken from Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951). I also make use of its Greek text. 27. Aristeas's elaborate description of the virtues of these elders is perhaps in­ tended to recall the more austere qualifications of the elders Moses chose to help him with his administrative responsibilities: "capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain" (Exod 18:21), "men who are wise, discerning, and experienced" (Deut 1:13). Note that L X X of Deut 1:15, report­ ing Moses' implementation of the plan, preserves all three adjectives, while M T is down to two. 28. For the testimonia and fragments of Chaeremon's work, see Pieter Willem van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (Leiden: Brill, 1984). 29. Van der Horst, Chaeremon, frag. 10. 30. Although he explicidy acknowledges the difference between priests and Levites at some points in his work (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.156), often Philo ignores

the subordination of Levites to priests demanded by the priesdy source of the Torah, treating the Levites as full priests. On Flight and Finding 93 shows aware­ ness of the distinction: Levites, priests, and those who commit homicide unin­ tentionally are all ministers of God. 31. O n the differences between the processes for priests and Levites, see B. Levine, Numbers 1-20, 2 7 3 - 7 4 . 32. Similar allegories about Phinehas appear also in On the Confusion of Tongues (57) and On the Change of Names (108), but without emphasis on the re­ ward of the covenant of priesthood. 33. David Frankfurter, 'The Consequences of Hellenism in Late Antique Egypt: Religious Worlds and Actors," Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000): 172-73. 34. Van der Horst, Chaeremon, frag. 10.6-7 (pp. 1 8 - 2 1 ) . 35. Despite the differences, scholars have long pointed to similarities of vo­ cabulary and other details in Chaeremon's description of the Egyptian priests and Philo's description of the Therapeutae. But the similarities, are more likely to reflect a common milieu than than Philo's dependence on Chaeremon. See van der Horst, Chaeremon, 56n. 1 to frag. 10, and references there. 36. See the comments of Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "Le De Vita Contemplativa revisite," Etudes philoniennes, 204 (first published in Sagesse et religion: Colloque de Strasbourg, 20-22 Octobre 1976 [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979] 105-25). 37. See discussion at the beginning of this chapter and n. 6 for reference. 38. According to Lev 24:7 in the L X X ; the M T does not mention salt. 39. See also Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "Les suppliants chez Philon d'Alexandrie," Etudes philoniennes, 4 1 - 4 3 (first published in Revue des etudes juives 122 [1963]: 2 4 1 - 7 8 ) . 40. D. Schwartz, "'Kingdom,'" 6 5 - 6 6 , emphasizes this point. I shall try to show below that he is wrong to claim that Philo understands the priesthood of all Is­ rael in internal terms only in relation to the paschal sacrifice. 41. Thus also Colson in his note there ( 2 4 0 - 4 1 ) . 42. Elsewhere Philo writes of the Passover sacrifice, "As commanded by law, the whole nation acts as priest" {On the Life of Moses 2.224).

Chapter 6 1. Though there are certainly grounds for suspicion, Tessa Ra.jak,fosephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 2 0 6 - 1 1 , and Martin Good­ man, 'Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War," in The Bar Kokhba War Re­ considered, ed. Peter Schafer, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 100 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 24, are inclined to accept Josephus's claim. 2. These are 2 (Syriac) Baruch and 3 (Creek) Baruch. Two other apocalypses were written in response to the destruction, 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Abraham. O n the responses of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, see Michael E. Stone, "Reactions to De­ structions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion," fournal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 12 (1981): 195-204. 3. It is 3 Baruch that considers the earthly temple unnecessary. The vision­ ary's ascent through the heavens to the heavenly temple is described there, and the heavenly temple alone is required to keep the cosmos functioning properly.

4. For a similar view, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Temple and the Syna­ gogue," in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy, 3 0 7 - 9 . 5. Nickelsburg (Commentary, 3 6 0 - 6 1 ) now suggests that the allusion to Judah and the events of the Maccabean Revolt in the work are not original and prefers an earlier date, at the end of the third century B.C.E. 6. The Essenes, however, did not break off contact with the temple alto­ gether (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.19). See Albert I. Baumgarten, "Josephus on Essene Sacrifice," Journal ofJewish Studies 45 (1994): 169-83. 7. R. H . Charles, trans., L. H . Brockington, rev., "The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch," in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H . F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). 8. Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 4 0 - 4 5 ; for discussion of the implications of a weakened priesdy aristocracy for the fate of Judea under Roman rule, see pp. 2 9 - 5 0 . 9. For a recent argument in favor of this view that places the establishment of Aelia Capitolina in the larger context of Roman imperial policy toward the Jews, see Goodman, 'Trajan," 2 3 - 2 9 . For a recent defense of the view that the estab­ lishment of Aelia Capitolina was a response to the revolt rather than a cause, see Yoram Tsafrir, "Numismatics and the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina—A Critical Review," in Bar Kokhba War, ed. Schafer, 3 1 - 3 6 . 10. For discussion of the images, see Leo Mildenberg, The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, trans, and ed. Patricia Erhart Mottahedeh (Aarau, Frankfurt-amMain, Salzburg: Sauerlander, 1984) 3 3 - 4 5 . 11. For a table of the occurrences of the legends, see Mildenberg, Coinage, 3 6 5 - 6 8 . For understanding "For the freedom of Jerusalem" as a slogan rather than a method of dating, see pp. 3 0 - 3 1 . 12. For the significance of the title, see Peter Schafer, "Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis," in Bar Kokhba War, 15-20. 13. For the attestations, see Peter Schafer, Der Bar KokhbaAufstand: Studien zumzweitenjiidischen KrieggegenRom (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981) 67. 14. For references and discussion, see J. Collins, Scepter, 5 8 - 6 4 , 7 4 - 7 7 . 15. For the dates and types of coins, see Mildenberg, Coinage, 29. 16. Schafer, "Bar Kokhba," and David Goodblatt, T h e Tide Nasi'and the Ide­ ological Background of the Second Revolt," in The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Ap­ proach, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer and Uriel Rapppaport (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984) 1 1 3 - 3 2 (Hebrew); both argue that the ideology of the Bar Kokhba revolt owes more to such traditions than to the rabbis. 17. Goodblatt, "Title Nasi'"; Dalia Ben-Haim Trifon, "Some Aspects of Inter­ nal Politics Connected with the Bar-Kokhva Revolt" (Hebrew), in Bar-Kokhva Re­ volt, ed. Oppenheimer and Rappaport, 13-26. 18. For a convenient account of Julian's dealings with the Jews and references to the literature, see Giinter Stemberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century, trans. Ruth Tuschling (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000) 198-216. For an examination of the sources and the development of the story of the abortive attempt at rebuilding, see David B. Levenson, "A Source and Tradition Critical Study of the Stories of Julian's Attempt to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1979). 19. Fire caused by earthquake is the view of Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest (New York: Schocken, 1976) 2 0 1 - 3 , following Rufinus's account.

20. This has not prevented scholars from detecting a reaction. See, e.g., AviYonah, Jews ofPalestine, 197-98. 21. For the association, see Benjamin Mazar assisted by Gaalyah Cornfeld, The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1975) 94. Stemberger, Jews and Christians, 2 0 9 - 1 0 , embraces it, though cautiously. 22. Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Rabbi in Second-Century C.E. Society," in Cam­ bridge History of Judaism, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy, 3.961-77; Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) esp. 353-86; Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Mod­ ern World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001) 103-28. 23. Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism," Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 3 6 - 4 2 ; Peter Schafer, "Der vorrabbinische Pharisaismus," in Paulus und das antikeJudentum: Tubingen-Durham-Symposium in Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938), ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel, Wissenschafdiche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 58 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1991). 24. For the sources and different views of their development, see Jacob Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1970), and Peter Schafer, "Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Grundung des 'Lehrhauses' in Jabne," Aufstieg und Niedergangderromischen W ^ I I . 1 9 . 2 (1979): 4 3 - 1 0 2 . 25. For a useful history of the discussion, see Lawrence H . Schiffman, "Ha­ lakhah and Sectarianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H . Lim (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000). 26. See Stuart A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 158-63. 27. See, for example, the blessing in the 'Amidah beginning, "Lord our God, accept your people Israel and their prayer." Other blessings in the daily 'Amidah allude to the restoration of the temple service, while the restoration of sacrifice and the temple is a central subject of both the Amidah for the additional service of the Sabbath and the Amidah for the additional service for festivals. 28. Gedalyahu Alon, "The Lithuanian Yeshivas," in The Jewish Expression, ed. Judah Goldin (New York: Bantam Books, 1970) 452. 29. I follow the numeration of Hanokh Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah: Tractate Neziqin (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1953) (Hebrew). In some other editions this passage is 4:17. Simeon is Simeon ben Yohai, who was active in the mid-second century. 30. The chapter is devoted to the praise of Torah study. It appears in slightly different form in Kalla Rabbati, chap. 8, and Tannddebe Eliyyahu Zuta\ chap. 17. It appears that the sixth chapter was added to m. Abot when it came to be re­ cited in synagogue on Sabbath afternoons between Passover and Shavu'ot in or­ der to provide a chapter for each of the six Sabbaths. Liturgical use of m. Abot is first attested in the academy of Sura; the practice spread to synagogues by the eleventh century. For references to the sources, see Leopold Zunz, Jewish Ser­ mons: Their Historical Development, ed. Hanokh Albeck (trans, from the 2 ed. of the German original, 1892; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1974) 197, 520n. 68 (He­ brew); idem, Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes, geschichtlich entwickelt (Berlin: J. Springer, 1859) 8 5 - 8 6 . n d

31. I follow the numeration of Albeck, Mishnah, in other editions, this mish­ nah is 6:6.

32. Thus Reuven Kimelman, "The Conflict between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic Period (An Explication of PT Shabbat 12:3, 13c = Horayot 3:5, 48c)," Zion 48 (1983): 1 3 5 - 4 8 (Hebrew); see also Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989; Hebrew original, 1985) 171-73; and idem, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000) 4 9 2 - 9 3 . 1 have not been able to see Dalia Ben-Haim Trifon, 'The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Temple to the Rise of Christianity" (Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv, 1985) (Hebrew) 2 1 9 - 2 2 , for reservations about this view (see S. A. Cohen, Three Crowns, 175n. 37 for the reference). 33. Margaret Williams, T h e Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study ofJudaism," in Cambridge History offudaism, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy, 3.89. 34. Thus S. J. D. Cohen, "Rabbi," 9 4 1 - 4 2 , 950; see also 9 7 8 - 7 9 for a list of other, similar rankings in tannaitic literature. In her consideration of this pas­ sage and passages from the two talmudim favoring sages over priests, Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 188-89, correcdy insists that for the rabbis T o r a h learning is supreme" (189), but overlooks the continued relevance of birth as long as it is subordinated to Torah learning. 35. S.J. D. Cohen, "Rabbi," 9 4 8 - 5 0 , 975: "[The second-century rabbis'] status as elites depended as much, if not more, upon their wealth and birth as upon their intellectual and pietistic attainments." 36. S.J. D. Cohen, "Rabbi," 943n. 88; Hezser, Social Structure, 2 6 7 - 6 9 . 37. O n the picture of priests as wealthy in rabbinic texts, S. J. D. Cohen, "Rabbi," 943; L. Levine, Rabbinic Class, 171. 38. For the rabbis as "socially diverse," see Hezser, Social Structure, 2 5 7 - 6 6 . 3 9 . 1 would like to thank Peter Schafer for his helpful comments on this pas­ sage. 40. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, trans., Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933) 1.1. 41. Ibid., 1.2. 42. See L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 4 9 7 - 9 9 , and references there. Some have read m. Meg. 4:5 as implying that priests played a dominant role in the syna­ gogue liturgy; if so, as Levine notes, it stands alone. 43. For marriage laws, see Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942) 3 0 8 - 3 2 . 44. Kimelman, "Conflict"; L. Levine, Rabbinic Class, 172. 45. Hanswulf Bloedhorn and Gil Huttenmeister, T h e Synagogue," in Cam­ bridge History of Judaism, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy, 3.285, claim "solid ar­ chaeological evidence" for approximately seventy synagogues in the land of Israel; they also note literary evidence for approximately fifteen others whose lo­ cation can be identified and approximately thirty-five places where the archaeo­ logical finds may include material from a synagogue. A note says that the article was updated for publication, which took place in 1999 (267n. 1). 46. L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue (esp. 4 4 0 - 7 0 ) , and S. Schwartz, Imperialism (esp. 2 4 7 - 4 8 ) , agree on this point despite their very different approaches to the material. See also Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue dur­ ing the Greco-Roman Period, Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 11 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), and idem, "Between Liturgy and Social History: Priesdy Power in Late Antique Palestinian Synagogues?" fournal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005): 1-9. 47. For a mid-third century date and a discussion of why the third century,

usually viewed as a time of economic decline and political crisis, should have been a time of synagogue building, L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 172-77. The ex­ planation Levine favors is that building is "an act of reaffirmation in the face of economic and social stress" (177). S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 2 6 - 3 9 , argues that synagogues did not become widespread until the fourth century. 48. S.J. D. Cohen "Temple," 320. 49. Ibid. 50. S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 4 6 - 4 7 , emphasizes the difficulties for interpreta­ tion posed by the absence of texts that can be safely connected with the decora­ tion of the synagogues. If the synagogues are not rabbinic institutions, rabbinic texts cannot automatically be presumed to illumine their decoration. Even the liturgy is problematic since the set liturgy of a later period had not yet emerged (250). Indeed the only text that can be used with any certainty to explain the decorative schema of die synagogues is the Bible. 51. The walls of some synagogues were covered with frescoes (Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel [Leiden: Brill, 1988] 2 2 4 ) , but very little of such walls survives. 52. L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 215. 53. Ibid., 2 1 5 - 1 9 , discusses several theories about the significance of the de­ pictions of torah shrines flanked by the symbols mentioned above. While the question of their meaning is certainly complicated, any interpretation that ex­ cludes allusion to the temple (216) seems to me highly implausible. 54. This is the characterization of S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 5 4 - 5 5 . 55. S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 257. 56. Joseph Yahalom, Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1999) (Hebrew), 107. 57. Joseph Yahalom, Priestly Palestinian Poetry: A Narrative Liturgy for the Day of Atonement (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), esp. 5 6 - 5 8 (Hebrew), and idem, Poetry and Society, 111-16. See also L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 4 9 9 - 5 0 0 , and refer­ ences there. Rabbinic influence on the piyyutim is undeniable; see Michael D. Swartz, "Sage, Priest, and Poet: Typologies of Religious Leadership in the An­ cient Synagogue," in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cul­ tural Interaction in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Steven Fine (New York: Roudedge, 1999) 103, 114n. 20 and references there. So too, S. Schwartz, Imperialism, writes, "The piyyut offers unambiguous evidence for the rabbinization of liturgical prac­ tice in sixth century Palestine" (263). 58. A great deal has been written about piyyutim for the Day of Atonement and the Avodah service in particular. I have not seen the new collection of texts and translations by Michael D. Swartz and Joseph Yahalom, Avodah: Ancient Poems for Yom Kippur (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2005). Other recent contributions include Yahalom, Priestly Palestinian Poetry, and idem, Poetry and So­ ciety, 16-35; Michael D. Swartz, "Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an Un­ derstanding of the Avodah in the Rabbinic Period, "Journal ofJewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 135-55. For piyyutim on the Ninth of Av, see below. 59. Ezra Fleischer, "A Piyyut of Yannai the Cantor on the Priesdy Courses," Sinai 64 (1969): 1 7 6 - 8 4 (Hebrew), writes, "It is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that. . . almost all of the early payyetanim of the land of Israel composed piyyutim in their memory" (176). 60. See Fleischer, "A Piyyut of Yannai," I76n. 1, for a list of such piyyutim. 61. Ezra Fleischer, "New Shivatot on the Priestly Courses of the Payyetan Rabbi Pinhas," Sinai 61 (1967): 3 0 - 3 6 (Hebrew); for a different type of evidence, see

Ephraim E. Urbach, "Mishmarot and Ma'amadot" Tarbiz 42 ( 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 ) : 3 0 9 - 1 3 (Hebrew). 62. For the texts of four of these inscriptions with notes, see Joseph Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues (Jerusalem: Ha-Hevrah le-Hakirat Erets Yisrael ye-Atikoteha, 1978) 8 7 - 8 9 (He­ brew) (inscriptions 5 1 - 5 2 , Caesarea and Ashkelon), 9 1 - 9 2 (inscription 56, Kissufim), 1 4 2 - 4 3 (inscription 106, Bayt al-hadir); all but the last are very frag­ mentary. For an inscription housed in Nazareth, Hanan Eshel, "A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priestly Courses?" Tarbiz 61 ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) : 159-61 (He­ brew) . The most complete inscription, the one from Bayt al-hadir, was found on a column in a mosque. 63. For the influential claim that these traditions derive from a baraita, a tan­ naitic saying, of the twenty-four courses and their Galilean locations, see Samuel Klein, Beitrage zur Geographie und Geschichte Galildas (Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909) esp. 94—95. This claim is rendered problematic by the discussion of Dalia [BenHaim] Trifon, "Did the Priesdy Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judaea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt?" Tarbiz 59 (1989-90): 7 7 - 9 3 (Hebrew). 64. For a largely persuasive treatment of the problems, see Trifon, "Did the Priesdy Courses Transfer?" Ze'ev Safrai, "Did the Priesdy Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt?: O n D. Trifon's Ar­ ticle in Tarbiz, L I X [ 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ] , pp. 77-93," Tarbiz 62 (1993): 2 8 7 - 9 2 (Hebrew), takes the sources as a more direct reflection of historical reality. It seems to me that Trifon has the better of the argument. 65. Trifon, "Did the Priestly Courses Transfer?" offers the promising sugges­ tion that the lists reflect regional patriotism (84), but she does not develop the idea. 66. For the theory of resurgence that touches on the piyyutim and hekhalot texts but emphasizes Christian sources, see a series of articles by O d e d Irshai: "Confronting a Christian Empire: Jewish Culture in the World of Byzantium," in Cultures of the Jews: A New History, ed. David Biale (New York: Schocken, 2002) 189-204; "The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiq­ uity: A Christian Model?" in Judische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturrdumlich vergleichender Betrachtung von der Spdtantike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, ed. Christoph Cluse, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel J. Yuval (Hannover: Hahnsche, 2003) 7 5 - 8 5 ; and "The Priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity," in Conti­ nuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, ed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, Yad Ben-Zvi, and Jewish Theological Semi­ nary of America, 2004) 6 7 - 1 0 6 (an expanded Hebrew version of the previous ar­ ticle) . For resurgence with particular attention to the piyyutim, Yahalom, Poetry and Society, 111-16. O n the hekhalot texts as repositories of priesdy traditions Rachel Elior, Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, trans. David Louvish (Oxford; Pordand, Ore.: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004). As noted above, L. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 4 9 2 - 9 3 , suggests ongoing priesdy power after the destruction; in an earlier publication, "Caeserea's Synagogues and Some Historical Implications," in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 6 7 0 - 7 4 , he suggests two possibili­ ties, ongoing priestly power or a resurgence of power in the fourth and fifth cen­ turies, without a clear theory about the cause. 67. Fine, "Between Liturgy and Social History," arrives at a similar conclusion from a different angle of approach.

68. Here I differ with Kimelman, "Conflict," and L. Levine, Rabbinic Class, 171-73. See the comments of Trifon, "Some Aspects," 14-16. 69. Hayim Lapin, "Palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity in Late Antiq­ uity," in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 265. 70. For Lamentation Rabbati, the midrash on the Book of Lamentations, which offers both types of response, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash," Prooftexts 2 (1982): 1 8 - 3 9 (the sins of the nations: 30-33; God's grief: 33-35). For the theme of God's sadness at disasters that befall his people, including the destruction of the Second Temple, see Peter Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und KLage in der rabbinischen Uberlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch) (Lei­ den: Brill, 1978). 71. This passage appears in the Amidahiox the additional service. O f course, the Jews of Palestine had not been exiled from their land; see Israel Jacob \uval, T h e Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship," Common Knowledge 12 (2006): 16-33. Yuval argues that the Jewish understanding of the destruction of the Second Temple as involving exile is determined in considerable part by Christian claims. 72. S.J. D. Cohen, "Rabbi," 9 5 9 - 6 1 , characterizes the rabbis' attitude toward the amme ha ares as disdain rather than hatred. 73. S.J. D. Cohen, "Significance of Yavneh." 74. Ibid., 28-29; quotation, 29. The characterization of earlier scholarship and comparison to the Council of Nicea are Cohen's. 75. S.J. D. Cohen, "Significance of Yavneh," 3 6 - 4 2 . 76. Ibid., 4 3 - 4 6 . 77. Martin Goodman makes this important point in "Sadducees and Essenes after 70 C.E.," in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton (Lei­ den and New York: Brill, 1994) 3 4 7 - 5 6 . For S.J. D. Cohen's careful discussion of the evidence, see "Significance of Yavneh," 31-36. 78. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of fudaeo-Christianity (Philadel­ phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), has recently offered an account of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism as a process parallel to the emergence of Christian orthodoxy. Just as the Christian process required a rejected other, the heretic, so did the Jewish process. This account calls into question Cohen's pic­ ture of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, and Boyarin argues that the devel­ opments Cohen ascribes to Yavneh are late and Babylonian ( 1 5 1 - 2 0 1 ) . 79. Although Boyarin touches only lighdy on the role of ancestry in the rab­ binic construction of Israel, he ends his book by noting the importance of the late rabbinic formulation "an Israelite, even if he sins, remains an Israelite" (b. San. 44a) (Border Lines, 2 2 4 ) , a passage to which he also refers in the intro­ duction ( 1 0 ) . 80. Several recent studies have argued for the importance of Christianity in shaping Judaism in the centuries after the destruction. In addition to Boyarin, Border Lines, and S. Schwartz, Imperialism, I have been particularly influenced by Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Mutual Perceptions of Jews and Chris­ tians (Tel-Aviv: 'Alma / 'Am 'oved, 2000) (Hebrew). 81. All N T translations are taken from RSV. 82. Denise Kimber Buell, "Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christ­ ian Self-Definition," Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 4 4 9 - 7 6 ; and idem, "Race and Universalism in Early Christianity, "Journal of Early Christian Studies 10

(2002): 4 2 9 - 6 8 . Buell criticizes as ideologically motivated the view that early Christians had transcended Jewish particularism in favor of a more universalistic view of humanity, noting that in antiquity ethnicity was not seen as immutable and that Christians continued to use ethnic categories in their polemics and self-presentation ("Rethinking," esp. 4 6 6 - 7 6 ) . Buell's book, Why This New Race?: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), appeared too late for me to take account of it here. 83. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relation between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135-425), trans. H . McKeating (New York: Oxford Univer­ sity Press for the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1986; first French edi­ tion, 1948) 108-9; Buell, "Rethinking," 4 6 6 - 7 2 . 84. Buell, "Race," 4 5 3 - 6 2 . There are further complexities in the picture, for some stones are defective (Sim. 9.4.4-8, 9.6.3-7), but they are not relevant for us (see Buell, "Race," 4 5 5 - 5 8 , for discussion). A convenient edition of the Shepherd of Hermas with both Greek and English is found in Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, ed. and trans. Bart D. Ehrman, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). 85. Buell, "Race," 4 5 4 - 5 5 . Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, translates, "race of the up­ right." 86. O n the emergence of a religious hierarchy during the early centuries, see the classic work of Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1969). 87. For a discussion of the importance of social networks among the Christian elite after Constantine, see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cul­ tural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer­ sity Press, 1992) esp. 11-42. 88. O n the rabbinic idea of "merit of the fathers," see Arthur Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinic Literature, prolegomenon by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (1920; New York: Ktav, 1968) 147-71; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) 4 9 6 - 5 1 1 . 89. The relationship between Jewish and Christian treatments of the binding of Isaac has been the subject of considerable discussion. The pioneering study of Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abra­ ham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah, trans, from the Hebrew, with an intro­ duction, by Judah Goldin (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967), is cautious about the question of influence and its direction. Some scholars con­ tend that early Christians drew on pre-Christian Jewish developments of the story; see, e.g., Geza Vermes, "Redemption and Genesis xxii—The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus," in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2 ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1973), and Alan F. Segal, "The Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Judaism and Christianity," in The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Others are skeptical; see, e.g., Philip R. Davies and Bruce D. Chilton, "The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 5 1 4 - 4 6 . n d

90. Spiegel, Last Trial, 2 6 - 3 7 . 91. For an argument that the mosaic of the binding of Isaac in the Bet Alpha synagogue draws on elements of Christian depictions, see Marc Bregman, "The Riddle of the Ram in Genesis Chapter 22: Jewish-Christian Contacts in Late An­ tiquity," in The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a

Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scriptures Held in Jerusalem, March 16-17, 1995, ed. Frederic Manns (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 1995). See also Bianca Kuhnel, "Jewish and Christian Art in the Middle Ages: The Dynamics of a Relationship," in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzziige, ed. Alfred Haverkamp, Vortrage und Forschungen 47 (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1999) 8 - 9 . 1 would like to thank John Gager for this reference. 9 2 . 1 have modified the translation of the RSV by substituting "ancestors" for "fathers" and "awesome" for "terrible." Both changes are intended to bring the translation of this passage in line with my translation of the first blessing of the 'Amidah and thus to highlight the connections between them. 9 3 . 1 am indebted to Israel Yuval and Peter Schafer for discussion of this pas­ sage in their seminar, Christianity and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity, at Princeton University in Spring 2004. The manuscripts are the Cambridge (William Henry Lowe, ed., TheMishnah on Which the Palestinian Talmud Rests from the Unique Man­ uscript Preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, Add. 470.1 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1883]) and the Kaufmann (Georg Beer, ed., Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50 [Jerusalem: N.p., 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 ] ) . The readings of these two manuscripts are not identical, however. The Cam­ bridge manuscript begins, "Those who have no share," while the Kaufmann manuscript reads, "And those who have no share," which might suggest that there was originally a statement preceding it. 94. For the commentary, see A. Berliner, ed., Commentar zu den Spruchen der Vater, aus Machsor Vitry, mit Beitrdgen (Frankfurt: J. Kauffman, 1897). Berliner at­ tributes the commentary to R. Jacob ben Samson, a student of Rashi. Israel TaShma has shown that this attribution is incorrect; the commentary is a compilation, with extracts from the work not only of R. Jacob but of Rashi's grandson, Samuel ben Meir, and R. Ephraim of Regensburg ("On the Commen­ tary to Avoth in Mahzor Vitry," Kiryat Sefer 42 [ 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 ] : 5 0 7 - 8 [Hebrew]). Since it is a compilation, the commentary is not very useful for dating. Nor is Mahzor Vitry. Although its compiler died at the beginning of the twelfth cen­ tury, many of the manuscripts of the work add material to the original form (Ernst Daniel Goldschmidt, "Mahzor Vitry," Encyclopaediafudaica 11:737). 95. S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 7 5 - 8 9 . 96. Ibid., 275. 97. Lapin, "Palestinian Inscriptions," 266; S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 8 4 - 8 7 . Both make this claim in part on the basis of comparison to pagan and Christian inscriptions. 98. S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 2 8 7 - 8 8 . 99. The translation is by Schwartz, Imperialism, 287-88, with discussion. For the Aramaic text of the inscription with notes, see Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, 1 0 3 - 5 (inscription 6 9 ) . 100. S. Schwartz, Imperialism, 288. "Israel" can be ambiguous, however, as Schwartz notes (288n. 39): At Gerasa, a Hebrew inscription reading "Peace on all Israel" is accompanied by a Greek inscription reading "Peace on the syna­ gogue." 101. S.J. D. Cohen, Beginnings. 102. Hayes, Gentile Impurities. 103. Ibid., 160. 104. Ibid., 7 3 - 9 1 ; minority position: 81 (fubilees) and, more clearly, 83 ( 4 Q M M T ) . Hayes understands the ideology of these texts as a concern for ge­ nealogical impurity, which she understands as a third type of impurity alongside

the ritual impurity discussed in Leviticus 1 2 - 1 5 and Numbers 15 and the moral impurity of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 ) . I am not persuaded that the concern for holy seed is best understood in terms of purity. 105. For my reading of 4 Q M M T , see "Levi, Phinehas," 6 - 1 2 . Hayes discusses my position and rejects it in Gentile Impurities, 8 2 - 8 6 . 106. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 197. 107. Hayes herself treats 4 Q M M T as representing a minority position (Gentile Impurities, 83); see also her comments about Second Temple texts that hold a position different from that of Jubilees (81). 108. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 194. 109. Ibid., 162; italics hers. 110. S.J. D. Cohen, Beginnings, 343. 111. Ibid., 109-39, 342. 112. Ibid., 198-238, 342. 113. Ibid., 241-340; Hayes, Gentile Impurities, esp. 165-78. 114. S.J. D. Cohen, Beginnings, 343. 115. Ibid., 342. 116. David Novak, The Image of the Nonjew in Judaism: An Historical and Con­ structive Study of the Noahide Laws (New York: Edward Mellen Press, 1983) 2 6 2 - 6 3 . 117. See the discussion of D. Schwartz, "Kingdom," 6 2 - 6 3 . 118. Lauterbach, Mekilta, 2.205.

Bibliography

Albani, Matthias, Jorg Frey, and Armin Lange, eds. Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Albeck, Hanokh. The Six Orders of the Mishnah: Tractate Neziqin. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1953. (Hebrew) Alexander, Philip S. "The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal." Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 4 3 7 - 5 6 . Alon, Gedalia. "The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical Cleanness." Pages 1 9 0 - 2 3 4 in Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977. . "The Lithuanian Yeshivas." Pages 4 4 8 - 6 4 in The fewish Expression, ed. Ju­ dah Goldin. New York: Bantam Books, 1970. Anderson, Gary A. "The Status of the Torah before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees." Dead Sea Discover­ ies 1 (1994): 19-29. Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2. Ed. and trans. Bart D. Ehrman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment. Early Judaism and Its Literature 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Avemarie, Friedrich. " Tohorat ha-Rabbim' and 'Mashqeh ha-Rabbim'-Jacob Licht Reconsidered." Pages 215-29 in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen. Avi-Yonah, Michael. TheJews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. New York: Schocken, 1976. Baillet, Maurice. Qumran Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520). Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Barag, Dan. "New Evidence on the Foreign Policy ofJohn Hyrcanus I." Israel Nu­ mismaticJournal12 ( 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 ) : 1-12. Barclay, John M. G. The Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.-117 C.E.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Bardett, John R. "Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem." fournal of Theological Studies, n.s., 19 (1968): 1-18. Bauckham, Richard. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edin­ burgh: T & T Clark, 1993.

Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpreta­ tion. Leiden: Brill, 1997. . "Josephus on Essene Sacrifice." Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 169-83. . 'The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration." Dead Sea Discover­ ies 4 (1997): 137-56. Baumgarten, Joseph M. "The Disqualifications of Priests in 4 Q Fragments of the 'Damascus Document': A Specimen of the Recovery of Pre-Rabbinic Halakha." Pages 5 0 3 - 1 3 in Madrid Qumran Congress, vol. 2, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner. . 'The Exclusion of 'Netinim' and Proselytes in 4 Q Florilegium." Pages 8 7 - 9 6 in Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: Brill, 1977. . "A Fragment on Fetal Life and Pregnancy in 4Q270." Pages 4 4 5 - 4 8 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. . 'The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohora [4Q274]." Pages 1-8 in Time to Prepare the Way, ed. Dimant and Schiffman. . 'The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts." Journal of Jewish Studies SI (1980): 157-70. . "The Purification Liturgies." Pages 2 0 0 - 2 1 2 in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 2, ed. Flint and VanderKam. . "The Purification Rituals in DJD 7." Pages 1 9 9 - 2 0 9 in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Dimant and Rappaport. . Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. . "Zab Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law." Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994) 2 7 3 - 7 7 . Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. "Damascus Document." Pages 4 - 5 7 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. James H. Charlesworth. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck); Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Baumgarten, Joseph M., et al. Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 35. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. . " T h e Countries Marvelled at You': King Solomon in Ben Sira 47:12-22." Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voorfihsofie en theologie4b (1984): 6 - 1 4 . Beer, Georg, ed. Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50. Jerusalem: N.p., 1967-68. Berger, Klaus. Das Buck der Jubilden. Judische Schriften aus hellenistischromischer Zeit II.3. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981. Berliner, A., ed. Commentarzu den Spruchen der Vater, aus Machsor Vitry, mit Beitragen. Frankfurt: J. Kauffman, 1897. Bernstein, Moshe, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John Kampen, eds. Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organi­ zation for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baum­ garten. Studies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Black, Matthew, in consultation with James C. VanderKam. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica. Leiden: Brill, 1985. a

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. . Isaiah 56-66. Anchor Bible 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. . 'The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998): 25-43. Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, and Gil Huttenmeister. T h e Synagogue." Pages 2 6 7 - 9 7 in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran andEnochicJudaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. . MiddleJudaism:Jewish Thought 300B.C.E. to 200 c.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. . Roots of Rabbinic fudaism: An Intellectual History, From Ezekiel to Daniel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Bohak, Gideon. "Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and Its Singular Ramifica­ tions. "Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999): 3 - 1 6 . Borgen, Peder, Kare Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 2000. Boustan, Ra'anan S., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of fudaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Bregman, Marc. 'The Riddle of the Ram in Genesis Chapter 22: Jewish-Christian Contacts in Late Antiquity." Pages 127-45 in The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scrip­ tures Held in Jerusalem, March 16-17, 1995, ed. Frederic Manns. Jerusalem: Fran­ ciscan Printing, 1995. Brin, Gershon. Issues in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univer­ sity, 1994. (Hebrew) Brooke, George J., ed. Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Buell, Denise Kimber. "Race and Universalism in Early Christianity."Journal of Early Christian Studies 10 (2002): 4 2 9 - 6 8 . . "Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition." Harvard Theological Review 9 4 (2001): 4 4 9 - 7 6 . Callaway, Phillip R. "Extending Divine Revelation: Micro-Compositional Strate­ gies in the Temple Scroll." Pages 1 4 9 - 6 2 in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. Brooke. . "Source Criticism of the Temple Scroll: The Purity Laws." Revue de Qumran\2 ( 1 9 8 5 - 8 7 ) : 2 1 3 - 2 2 . Campbell, Edward F. Jr. Ruth. Anchor Bible 7. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1975. Charles, R. H . The Book of fubilees or the Little Genesis. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902. Charles, R. H . , trans., rev. L. H . Brockington. 'The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch." Pages 8 3 5 - 9 5 in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H . F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Chazon, Esther G., and Michael Stone, eds., with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick. 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). Leiden: Brill, 1999. Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. . 'The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash." Proofiexts2 (1982): 18-39. . "Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism and Christianity." Pages 2 7 3 - 3 0 3 in Women's History and Ancient History, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. . "Purity, Piety, and Polemic: Medieval Rabbinic Denunciations of 'Incor­ rect' Purification Practices." Pages 8 2 - 1 0 0 in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law, ed. Rahel R. Wasserfall. Brandeis Series on Jewish Women. Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1999. . "The Rabbi in Second-Century c.E. Society." Pages 9 2 2 - 9 0 in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy. . "Religion, Ethnicity, and 'Hellenism' in the Emergence of Jewish Iden­ tity in Maccabean Palestine." Pages 2 0 4 - 2 3 in Religion and Religious Practice in the Sekucid Kingdom, ed. Per Bilde et al. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990. . "The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism." Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 2 7 - 5 3 . . "The Temple and the Synagogue." Pages 2 9 8 - 3 2 5 in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy. Cohen, Stuart A. The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadel­ phia: Westminster Press, 1984. Collins, John J. "The Origin of the Qumran Community: A Review of the Evi­ dence." Pages 159-78 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989. . The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Crawford, Sidnie White. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Re­ ligion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Davies, Philip R. Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Brown Judaic Studies 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. . The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document. "Jour­ nal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. . "Redaction and Sectarianism in the Qumran Scrolls." Pages 1 5 2 - 6 3 in Sects and Scrolls: Essays on Qumran and Related Topics. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 134. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Davies, Philip R., and Bruce D. Chilton. "The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition His­ tory." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 5 1 4 - 4 6 . De Jonge, Marinus. "Levi in Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Levi." Pages 7 1 - 8 9 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives, ed. Chazon and Stone. Deutsch, Celia. "The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation." Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 9 4 (1982): 400-409.

Dimant, Devorah. "4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple." Pages 1 6 5 - 8 9 in Hellenica et fudaica: Hommages a Valentin Nikiprowetzky [ z 7 ] , ed. Andre Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. . Qumran Cave 4. XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Par­ tially based on earlier transcriptions by John Strugnell. Discoveries in theju­ daean Desert 30. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Dimant, Devorah, and Uriel Rappaport, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Re­ search. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; Leiden: Brill, 1992. Dimant, Devorah, and Lawrence H . Schiffman, eds. Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Doran, Robert. "The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub 34-38; 23:14-32 in Narrative Context."Journal for the Study offudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Pe­ riod 20 (1989): 1-11. Earp, J. W. "Index of Names." Pages 2 6 9 - 4 3 3 in Philo, vol. 10. Elior, Rachel. Three Temples: On the Emergence offewish Mysticism. Trans. David Louvish. Oxford; Pordand, Ore.: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004. Endres,John C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of fubilees. Catholic Biblical Quar­ terly Monograph Series 18. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987. Epstein, Louis M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942. Eshel, Hanan. "A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priesdy Courses?" Tarbiz 61 ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) : 159-61 (Hebrew). Fine, Steven. "Between Liturgy and Social History: Priestly Power in Late An­ tique Palestinian Synagogues?" Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005): 1-9. . This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Pe­ riod. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 11. Notre Dame, Ind.: Uni­ versity of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. . "The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics." Pages 9 7 - 1 1 4 in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union ofJewish Studies, 1977. Fleischer, Ezra. "New Shiv'atot on the Priestly Courses of the Payyetan Rabbi Pinhas." Sinai 61 (1967): 3 0 - 5 6 . (Hebrew) . "A Piyyut of Yannai the Cantor on the Priestly Courses." Sinai 64 (1969): 176-84. (Hebrew) Flint, Peter W., and James C. VanderKam, eds., with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez. The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Flusser, David. "The Baptism ofJohn and the Dead Sea Sect." Pages 2 0 9 - 3 9 in Es­ says on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory ofE. L. Sukenik, ed. Yigael Yadin and Chaim Rabin, assisted by Jacob Licht. Jerusalem: Hekhal Ha-Sefer, 1961. (Hebrew) Fraade, Steven D. " 'They Shall Teach Your Statutes to Jacob': Priest, Scribe, and Sage in Second Temple Times." Unpublished paper. Frankfurter, David. "The Consequences of Hellenism in Late Antique Egypt: Re­ ligious Worlds and Actors." Archiv furReligionsgeschichte 2 (2000): 162-93.

. "Jews or Not? Reconstructing the 'Other' in Rev 2:9 and 3:9," Harvard Theological Review 9 4 (2001): 4 0 3 - 2 5 . Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. . Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garcia Martinez, Florentino. "4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah." Pages 1-44 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. . 'The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees." Pages 2 4 3 - 6 0 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. Albani, Frey, and Lange. . T h e Problem of Purity: The Qumran Solution." Pages 1 3 9 - 5 7 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices, by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson. Lei­ den: Brill, 1995. . "El Rollo del Templo y la halaka sectaria." Pages 6 1 1 - 2 2 in Simposio Biblico Espanol, Salamanca, 1982, ed. Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Julio C. Trebolle Bar­ rera, and Javier Fernandez Vallina. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984. . "Sources et redaction du Rouleau du temple." Henoch 13 (1991): 2 1 9 - 3 2 . . 'The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem." Pages 4 3 1 - 6 0 in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 2, ed. Flint and VanderKam. Garcia Martinez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997-98. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Goldin, Judah. "The Youngest Son, or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong? "Journal of Biblical Literature 9 6 (1977): 2 7 - 4 4 . Goldschmidt, Ernst Daniel. "Mahzor Vitry." Pages 7 3 6 - 3 8 in vol. 11 of Ency­ clopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972. Goodblatt, David. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in An­ tiquity. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994. . 'The Tide A M ' a n d the Ideological Background of the Second Revolt." Pages 113-32 in Bar-Kokhva Revolt, ed. Oppenheimer and Rappaport. (Hebrew) Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. . "Sadducees and Essenes after 70 C.E." Pages 3 4 7 - 5 6 in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton. Leiden: Brill, 1994. . "Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War." Pages 2 3 - 3 0 in Bar Kokhba War, ed. Schafer. Gottstein, M . H . "Anti-Essene Traits in the Qumran Scrolls." Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 145-46. Grabbe, Lester L. "4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society." Pages 8 9 - 1 0 8 in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen. . Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Volume 1: The Persian and Greek Periods. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. . Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. Greenfield, Jonas, and Michael E. Stone. "Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza." Revue biblique 86 (1979): 2 1 4 - 3 0 . Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1988.

Hadas, Moses. Aristeas to Phihcrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Lei­ den: Brill, 1999. . Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical fewish Literature. Val­ ley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of fewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Repr. with correc­ tions. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and fewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conver­ sion from the Bible to the Talmud. New Y>rk: Oxford University Press, 2002. Heinemann, Isaak. Philons griechische undjiidische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung derjudischen Gesetze. Breslau: M & H Marcus, 1932. Hempel, Charlotte. "Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship." Pages 3 1 6 - 2 9 in Provo International Conference, ed. Parry and Ulrich. . "Community Structures." Pages 6 7 - 9 2 in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 2, ed. Flint and VanderKam. . The Damascus Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. . "The Earthly Essene Nucleus of lQSa," Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 253-69. . "Interpretative Authority in the Community Rule Tradition." Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 5 9 - 8 0 . . The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction. Stud­ ies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hengel, Martin, fudaism and Hellenism: Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Trans. John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Martin, James H . Charlesworth, and Doron Mendels. "The Polemical Character of 'On Kingship' in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating llQTemple." fournal offewish Studies 37 (1986): 28-38. Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in fewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. . "Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and fubilees." Pages 1 0 3 - 2 2 in Heavenly Realms, ed. Boustan and Reed. . "Impurity and Sin in 4 Q D , 1QS, and 4Q512." Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001): 9 - 3 7 . . "Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermarriage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt, "fewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999): 1-23. . "The Polemic against the Tebul Yom: A Reexamination." In New Perspec­ tives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Cen­ terfor the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, fanuary 9-11 2005. Ed. Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements, and Besty Halpern-Amaru. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. . "Sexual Relations and Purity in the Temple Scroll and the Book of Ju­ bilees." Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 11-36.

. "Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks." Forthcoming. . 'The Torah between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Difference in Antiq­ uity." Pages 1 1 3 - 2 9 in Ancient fudaism in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Carol Bakhos. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 95. Leiden: Brill, 2005. . "Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority of the Book of fubilees" Pages 1 9 - 2 9 in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early fudaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Homage Series. Ed. Benjamin G. Wright. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. . Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in fewish and Christian Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. Hoffken, P. "Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach uber Esra?" Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975): 184-202. Horbury, William, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy, eds. The Cambridge History of fudaism: vol. 3, The Roman Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Irshai, Oded. "Confronting a Christian Empire: Jewish Culture in the World of Byzantium." Pages 181-221 in Cultures of the fews: A New History, ed. David Biale. New York: Schocken, 2002. . "The Priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity." Pages 6 7 - 1 0 6 in Continuity and Renewal: fews and fudaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, ed. Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: Dinur Center, Yad Ben-Zvi, and Jewish Theological Sem­ inary of America, 2004. (Hebrew) . 'The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity: A Christian Model?" Pages 7 5 - 8 5 in fudische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturraumlich vergleichender Betrachtung von der Spdtantike bis zum 18. fahrhundert, Ed. Christoph Cluse, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel J. \uval. Hannover: Hahnsche, 2003. Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989. . "The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Atti­ tude toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents." Comparative Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993): 69-87. Josephus. Trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam­ bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1926-65. Kampen, John. "4QMMT and New Testament Studies." Pages 1 2 9 - 1 4 4 in Read­ ing 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, ed. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. . "The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined." Pages 1 4 9 - 6 7 in New Qum­ ran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organiza­ tion for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Ed. George J. Brooke with Florentino Garcia Martinez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Kimelman, Reuven. "The Conflict between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic Period (An Explication of PT Shabbat 12:3, 13c = Horayot 3:5, 48c)." Zion4S (1983): 135-48. (Hebrew) Kister, Menahem. "Concerning the History of the Essenes—A Study of the Am'-

mat Apocalypse, the Book of fubilees and the Damascus Covenant" Tarbiz 5 6 ( 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 ) : 1-18. (Hebrew) . "Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran." fournal offewish Studies 44 (1993): 2 8 0 - 9 0 . . "Some Aspects of Qumran Halakhah." Pages 5 7 1 - 8 8 in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient fudaism. New York: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 2000. . "Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism, "fournal ofJewish Studies 48 (1997): 1-16. Klein, Samuel. Beitrdge zur Geographic und Geschichte Galilaas. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909. Knibb, Michael A. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. In consultation with Edward Ullendorff. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. . The Qumran Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Knohl, Israel. "Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools of the Penta­ teuch: The Issue of Popular Participation in the Temple Cult on Festivals." Pages 6 0 1 - 9 in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Mon­ taner. . The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Min­ neapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kugel, James. 'The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times." Pages 2 1 - 3 2 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. . "Levi's Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings." Har­ vard Theological Review 86 (1993): 1-64. Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. . "Halakic Interpretive Strategies at Qumran: A Case Study." Pages 1 3 1 - 4 0 in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen. . "Priesthood at Qumran." Pages 9 3 - 1 1 6 in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 2, ed. Flint and VanderKam. . "Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and Levites." Pages 4 6 5 - 7 9 in Provo International Conference, ed. Parry and Ulrich. Kuhn, Peter. Gottes Trauer und Klage in der rabbinischen Uberlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch). Leiden: Brill, 1978. Kiihnel, Bianca. 'Jewish and Christian Art in the Middle Ages: The Dynamics of a Relationship." Pages 1-15 in fuden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzziige, ed. Alfred Haverkamp. Vortrage und Forschungen 47. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1999. Lambdin, Thomas O . , trans. 'The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2)." Pages 124—38 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper 8c Row, 1977. Lapin, Hayim. "Palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity in Late Antiquity." Pages 2 3 9 - 6 8 in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Laporte, Jean. "The High Priest in Philo of Alexandria." Pages 7 1 - 8 2 in The Stu­ dia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenisticfudaism 3; Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic fudaism and Early Christianity: Festschrift for Earle Hilgert, ed. David T. Runia, David M . Hay, and David Winston. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Lauterbach, Jacob Z., trans. Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933. Levenson, David B. "A Source and Tradition Critical Study of the Stories of Ju­ lian's Attempt to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple." Ph.D. diss., Harvard Univer­ sity, 1979. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1974. . Numbers 1-20. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993. . 'The Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and Literary Character." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232 (1978): 5 - 2 3 . Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000. . "Caeserea's Synagogues and Some Historical Implications." Pages 6 6 6 - 7 8 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Ex­ ploration Society, 1993. . The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989. Hebrew origi­ nal, 1985. Lowe, William Henry, ed. The Mishnah on Which the Palestinian Talmud Rests from the Unique Manuscript Preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, Add. 470.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1883. Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Ju­ daism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fa­ thers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Maier, Johann. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Journal for the Study of the O l d Testament: Supplement Series 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Marbock, Johannes. "Sir. 38, 24-39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Eine Beitrag zu Gestalt und Werk ben Siras." Pages 2 9 3 - 3 1 6 in La sagesse de Vancien testa­ ment, ed. Maurice Gilbert. 2 ed. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 5 1 . Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1990. Marmorstein, Arthur. The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinic Literature. Prole­ gomenon by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. 1920. Reprint, New York: Ktav, 1968. Marshall, John W. Parables of War: ReadingJohn's Jewish Apocalypse. Waterloo, On­ tario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Mazar, Benjamin, assisted by Gaalyah Cornfeld. The Mountain of the Lord. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1975. Mendels, Doron. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987. Metso, Sariana. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Metzger, Bruce M . ed. Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, Expanded Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M . Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1987. . "Jerusalem and Zion after the Exile: The Evidence of First Zechariah." Pages 1 2 1 - 3 5 in "Sha'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emmanuel Tov. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. n d

Meyers, Eric M. "The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerub­ babel to Nehemiah." Pages 5 0 9 - 2 1 in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Miller, Han­ son, and McBride. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellungjesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Mildenberg, Leo. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War. Trans, and ed. Patricia Erhart Mottahedeh. Aarau, Frankfurt-am-Main, Salzburg: Sauerlander, 1984. Milgrom, Jacob. " 4 Q T O H O R A : A n Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities." Pages 5 9 - 6 8 in Time to Prepare the Way, ed. Dimant and Schiffman. 'The Concept of Impurity in fubilees and the Temple Scroll." Revue de Qum­ ran 16 ( 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ) : 2 7 7 - 8 4 . . "First Day Ablutions at Qumran." Pages 5 6 1 - 7 0 in Madrid Qumran Con­ gress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner. . "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priesdy 'Picture of Dorian Gray.' " Revue biblique 83 (1976): 3 9 0 - 9 9 . . Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. . Leviticus 17-22. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. . Leviticus 23-27. Anchor Bible 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. . 'The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles." Pages 1 6 5 - 8 0 in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. Brooke. . 'The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll." Pages 8 3 - 9 9 in Archeology and History, ed. Schiffman. . "Studies in the Temple Scroll." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 501-23. Miller, Patrick D., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Ancient Israelite Reli­ gion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Mullen, E. Theodore. The Assembly of the Gods. Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. Naveh, Joseph. On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from An­ cient Synagogues. Jerusalem: Ha-Hevrah le-Hakirat Erets Yisrael ve-Atikoteha, 1978. (Hebrew) Neusner, Jacob. Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chap­ ters 1-36; 81-108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. . "Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee." fournal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 5 7 5 - 6 0 0 . Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. "Le De Vita Contemplativa revisite." Pages 1 0 5 - 2 5 in Sagesse et religion: Colloque de Strasbourg, 20-22 Octobre 1976. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979. Reprint, pages 1 9 9 - 2 1 6 in Etudes philoni­ ennes. . Etudes philoniennes. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1996. . "La spiritualisation des sacrifices et le culte sacrificiel au temple de Jerusalem chez Philon d'Alexandrie." Semitica 17 (1967): 9 7 - 1 1 6 . Reprint, pages 7 9 - 9 6 in Etudes philoniennes. . "Les suppliants chez Philon d'Alexandrie." Revue des etudes juives 122 (1963): 2 4 1 - 7 8 . Reprint, pages 1 1 - 4 3 in Etudes philoniennes. Novak, David. The Image of the Non-few in fudaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws. New York: Edward Mellen Press, 1983. Olyan, Saul. "Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood." Harvard Theological Re­ view SO (1987): 2 6 1 - 8 6 . a

Oppenheimer, Aharon, and Uriel Rappaport. The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Ap­ proach. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984. (Hebrew) Parry, Donald W., and Eugene Ulrich, eds. The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Philo. Trans. F. H . Colson, G. H . Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. 12 vols. Loeb Clas­ sical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1966-71. Plummer, Reinhard. 'The Book of fubilees and the Samaritans." Eglise et theologie 10 (1979): 147-78. Puech, Emile. Qumran Grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hebreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579). Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Qimron, Elisha. Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. With a bibliography by Florentino Garcia Martinez. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion Uni­ versity of the Negev Press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Maase ha-Torah. Discoveries in thejudaean Desert 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Rajak, Tessa, fosephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Rappaport, Uriel. "The Hellenistic Cities and the Judaization of the Land of Is­ rael in the Hasmonean Period." Pages 2 1 9 - 3 0 in Doron; Eighteen Articles in Honor of the Sixtieth Birthday of Prof. Bentsiyon Kats, ed. Shmuel Perlman and Binyamin Shimron. Tel Aviv: Mif'al ha-Shikhpul, Bet ha-Hotsa'ah le-Or shel Histadrut ha-Studentim be-Universitat Tel-Aviv, 1967. (Hebrew) . "Les Idumeens en Egypte." Revue dephilologie 43 (1969): 7 3 - 8 2 . . 'Jewish Religious Propaganda and Proselytism in the Period of the Second Commonwealth." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University ofJerusalem, 1965. (Hebrew) Reed, Annette \bshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . "Heavenly Ascent, Angelic Descent, and the Transmission of Knowledge in 1 Enoch 6-16." Pages 4 7 - 6 6 in Heavenly Realms, ed. Boustan and Reed. . "The Textual Identity, Literary History, and Social Setting of 1 Enoch: Reflections on George Nickelsburg's Commentary on 1 Enoch 1-36; 81-108." Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte 5 (2003): 2 7 9 - 9 6 . . "'What the Fallen Angels Taught': The Reception-History of the Book of the Watchers in Judaism and Christianity." Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2002. Regev, Eyal. "Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran." Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 2 4 3 - 7 8 . . "Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priesdy Purity in Ancient Ju­ daism. "Journal for the Study ofJudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Pe­ riod 31 (2000): 176-202. . "The Temple Impurity and Qumran's 'Foreign Affairs' in the Early Has­ monean Period." Zion64 (1999) 135-56. (Hebrew) . 'Were the Priests All the Same? Qumranic Halakhah in Comparison with Sadducean Halakhah." Ztetfd Sea Discoveries 12 (2005): 158-88. . "The Yahad and the Damascus Covenant Structure, Organization, and Relationship." Revue de Qumran 21 (2003): 2 3 3 - 6 2 . Rooke, Deborah W. Zadoks Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. "Nominalism and Realism in Qumranic and Rabbinic Law: A Reassessment." Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 157-83. Safrai, Ze'ev. "Did the Priesdy Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt?: O n D. Trifon's Article in Tarbiz, L I X [ 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ] , pp. 77-93." Tarbiz 62 ( 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 ) : 2 8 7 - 9 2 . (Hebrew) San Nicold, Mariano. "Zur Vereinsgerichtbarkeit im hellenistischen Agypten." Pages 2 5 5 - 3 0 0 in EIITTYMBION: Heinrich Swoboda Dargebracht. Reichenberg: Stiepel, 1927. Sanders, E. P. "Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in Purity?" Pages 1 3 1 - 2 5 4 in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Sanders, James. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1967. . The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (llQPs ). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Schafer, Peter. "Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis." Pages 1-22 in Bar Kokhba War, ed. Schafer. . Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: Studien zum zweiten judischen Krieg gegen Rom. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1981. . "Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Griindung des 'Lehrhauses' in Jabne." Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Weft II. 19.2 (1979): 43-102. . "Der vorrabbinische Pharisaismus." Pages 125-72 in Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tubingen-Durham-Symposium in Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938), ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel. Wissenschafdiche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 58. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991. , ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered. Texte und Studien zum antiken Ju­ dentum 100. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Schiffman, Lawrence H . "Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanc­ tuary in the Temple Scroll." Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 3 0 1 - 2 0 . . "Halakhah and Sectarianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 123-42 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H . Lim. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. . 'The King, His Guard and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll" Pro­ ceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 54 (1987): 237-59. . "Legislation Concerning Relations with Non-Jews in the Zadokite Frag­ ments and in Tannaitic Literature." Revue de Qumran 11 (1983): 3 7 9 - 8 9 . . "Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of Tevul Yom." Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 2 8 5 - 9 9 . . "The Temple Scroll and the Nature of Its Law: The Status of the Ques­ tion." Pages 3 7 - 5 5 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. . "The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Tem­ ple Period." Pages 2 3 9 - 5 5 in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. Brooke. , ed. Archeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8. J S O T / A S O R Monographs 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. 0

Schofield, Alison, and James C. VanderKam. "Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?" Journal ofBiblical Literature 124 (2005): 73-87. Schuller, Eileen. 'Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 1 1 7 - 4 4 in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, ed. Flint and VanderKam. Schiirer, Emil. The History of the fewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Vols. 1 and 2. Rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; lit. ed., Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-79. . The History of the fewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Vol. 3, p . l . Rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman; organizing ed., Matthew Black; lit. ed., Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Priester fur Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. Neutestamendiche Abhandlungen n.f. 7. Munster: Aschendorff, 1972. Schwartz, Baruch J. 'The Prohibition Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood in Leviticus 17." Pages 3 4 - 6 6 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M . Olyan. Journal for the Study of the O l d Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Schwartz, Daniel R. "Introduction: O n the Jewish Background of Christianity." Pages 1-26 in Studies in the fewish Background. . " 'Kingdom of Priests'—a Pharisaic Slogan?" Pages 5 7 - 8 0 in Studies in the fewish Background. . "Law and Truth: O n Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law." Pages 2 2 9 - 4 0 in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Dimant and Rappa­ port. . "On Two Aspects of a Priestly View of Descent at Qumran." Pages 1 5 7 - 7 9 in Archeology and History, ed. Schiffman. . "Philo's Priesdy Descent." Pages 155-71 in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic fudaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack. Homage Series 9. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. . "The Priests in Ep. Arist. 310." fournal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 567-71. . "Qumran between Priesdiness and Christianity." Pages 176-81 in The Scrolls of the fudaean Desert: Forty Years of Research, ed. Magen Broshi et al. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Society, 1992. (Hebrew) . Studies in the fewish Background of Christianity. Wissenschafdiche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 60. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and fewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 CE. Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World. Princeton, N.J.: Prince­ ton University Press, 2001. . "Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion." fournal of fewish Studies 42 (1991): 16-38. Schwarz, Eberhard. Identitdt durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen fahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen: Zugleich ein BeitragzurErforschungdesfubildenbuches. Europaische Hochschulschriften 162. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982. Segal, Alan F. 'The Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Judaism and Christianity." Pages 1 0 9 - 3 0 in The OtherJudaisms of Late Antiquity. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Sharp, Carolyn J. "Phinean Zeal and the Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT." Revue de Qumran 18 (1997): 2 0 7 - 2 2 .

Shemesh, Aharon. " T h e Holy Angels Are in Their Council': The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature." Dead Sea Discoveries A (1997): 178-206. . "The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Literature and Rab­ binic Halacha." Revue de Qumran 18 (1997): 2 2 3 - 4 1 . Shemesh, Aharon, and Cana Werman. "Halakhah at Qumran: Genre and Au­ thority." Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 104-29. Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians andfews in the Roman Empire (135-425). Trans. H . McKeating. New York: Oxford University Press for the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1986. First French edi­ tion, 1948. Skehan, Patrick W , trans, and notes, and Alexander A. Di Leila, intro. and commentary. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Anchor Bible 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smith, Morton. T h e Gentiles in Judaism, 125 B.C.E.-C.E. 66." Pages 1 9 2 - 2 4 9 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy. Spiegel, Shalom. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abra­ ham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: TheAkedah. Trans, and with an introduction, by Judah Goldin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2 / 6 . Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1980. Stemberger, Giinter. fews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century. Trans. Ruth Tuschling. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Stendahl, Krister. "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Harvard Theological Review56 (1963): 199-215. Reprint, pages 7 8 - 9 6 in Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84. Stone, Michael E. "Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins." Journal for the Study of fudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 19 (1988): 159-70. . "Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age." Pages 5 7 5 - 8 6 in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Miller, Hanson, and McBride. . "Lists of Revealed Things in Apocalyptic Literature." Pages 4 1 4 - 5 2 in Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank M. Cross, Werner Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1976. . "Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion. "Journal for the Study ofJudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 12 (1981): 195-204. Sussman, Ya'aqov. "Appendix I: The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on MIQSAT MA'ASE H A - T O R A H [ 4 Q M M T ] . " Pages 1 7 9 - 2 0 0 in Qumran Cave 4.V, ed. Qimron and Strugnell. . T h e History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls—Preliminary Obser­ vations on Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah ( 4 Q M M T ) . " Tarbiz 59 ( 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ) : 11-76. (Hebrew) Suter, David. "Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16." Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 115-35. Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. Stud­ ies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Swartz, Michael D. "Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an Understanding of the Avodah in the Rabbinic Period. "Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 135-55. . "Sage, Priest, and Poet: Typologies of Religious Leadership in the An­ cient Synagogue." Pages 1 0 1 - 1 7 in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Steven Fine. New York: Roudedge, 1999. Swartz, Michael D., and Joseph Yahalom. Avodah: Ancient Poems for Yom Kippur. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2005. Ta-Shma, Israel. "On the Commentary to Avoth in Mahzor Vitry." Kiryat Sefer 42 ( 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 ) : 5 0 7 - 8 . (Hebrew) Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and theJews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publi­ cation Society of America, 1959. Reprint, New York: Atheneum, 1974. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Tiller, Patrick A. 'The 'Eternal Planting' in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Dead Sea Dis­ coveries 4 (1997): 3 1 2 - 3 5 . Trebolle Barrera, Julio, and Luis Vegas Montaner, eds. The Madrid Qumran Con­ gress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991. 2 vols. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Lei­ den: Brill, 1992. Trifon, Dalia Ben-Haim. "Did the Priesdy Courses {Mishmarot) Transfer from Ju­ daea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt?" Tarbiz 59 ( 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ) : 7 7 - 9 3 . (Hebrew) . "The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Temple to the Rise of Christianity." Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv Unversity, 1985. (Hebrew) . "Some Aspects of Internal Politics Connected with the Bar-Kokhva Re­ volt." Pages 13-26 in The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer and Uriel Rappaport. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984. (Hebrew) Tsafrir, Yoram. "Numismatics and the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina—A Criti­ cal Review." Pages 3 1 - 3 6 in Bar Kokhba War, ed. Schafer. Urbach, Ephraim E. "Mishmarot and Ma'amadoC Tarbiz 42 ( 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 ) : 3 0 4 - 2 7 . (Hebrew) . The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. Lei­ den: Brill, 1984. VanderKam, James C. "2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem." Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 12 (1981): 5 2 - 7 4 . . The Book of Jubilees. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511. Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. . The Book of Jubilees. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. . "Das chronologische Konzept des Jubilaenbuches." Zeitschrift far die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 8 0 - 1 0 0 . . The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994. . Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984. . From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004.

. "The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch." Pages 1 2 9 - 4 8 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint, with the assistance of Tae H u n Kim. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. . "Isaac's Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31." Pages 4 9 7 - 5 1 9 in Provo International Conference, ed. Parry and Ulrich. . 'Jubilees'' Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest." Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 3 5 9 - 7 3 . . "The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4." Pages 6 3 5 - 4 8 in Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. Trebolle Barrera and Vegas Montaner. . "The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert's Hyothesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 390-411. . "The Origins and Purposes of the Book ofJubilees" Pages 3 - 2 4 in Studies in the Book of fubilees, ed. Albani, Frey, and Lange. . Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Mono­ graphs 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Vermes, Geza. "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis." Pages 1 0 8 - 2 4 in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory ofJoseph Heinemann, ed. Jacob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and He­ brew Union College Press, 1981. (Hebrew) . "Redemption and Genesis xxii—The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus." Pages 1 9 3 - 2 2 7 in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2 ed. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Von Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Trans. J. A. Baker. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer­ sity Press, 1969. Wacholder, Ben Zion. 'Jubilees as Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus TorahCommandment." Pages 195-211 in Legal Texts, ed. Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, and Kampen. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Reprint, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. . The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 2. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires: Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Werman, Cana. 'The Attitude towards Gentiles in the Book of Jubilees and Qum­ ran Literature Compared with Early Tanaaic Halakha and Contemporary Pseudepigrapha." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University ofJerusalem, 1995. (Hebrew) . "The Book of Jubilees in Its Hellenistic Context." Zion 66 (2001): 2 7 5 - 9 6 . (Hebrew) . "Consumption of the Blood and Its Covering in the Priestly and Rab­ binic Traditions." Tarbiz 63 ( 1 9 9 3 - 4 ) : 173-83. (Hebrew) . 'Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage." Har­ vard Theological Review 90 (1997): 1-22. . "Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period." Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 2 1 1 - 2 5 . . "Qumran and the Book of Noah." Pages 171-81 in Pseudepigraphic Per­ spectives, ed. Chazon and Stone. . "The Rules of Consuming and Covering Blood in Priesdy and Rabbinic Law." Revue de Qumran 16 (1995): 6 2 1 - 3 6 . . "The '[tord] and the [te'udd]' Engraved on the Tablets." Dead Sea Discov­ eries^ (2002): 7 5 - 1 0 3 . n d

. 'The Torah' and the 'Te'udah' on the Tablets." Tarbiz 68 ( 1 9 9 8 - 9 ) : 4 7 3 - 9 2 . (Hebrew) Williams, Margaret. 'The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Ju­ daism." Pages 7 5 - 9 3 in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, ed. Horbury, Davies, and Sturdy. Williamson, H . G. M. Israel in the Book of Chronicles. London: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1977. Wilson, Andrew M., and Lawrence Wills. "Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll." Harvard Theological Review lb (1982): 2 7 5 - 8 8 . Wilson, Bryan. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Winston, David. "Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body." Hellenism and He­ braism Reconsidered: The Poetics of Cultural Influence and Exchange I, ed. David Stern. Poetics Today 19 (1998): 4 1 - 6 2 . Wise, Michael Owen. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. Wright, Benjamin G, III. " 'Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest': Ben Sira as De­ fender of the Jerusalem Priesthood." Pages 1 8 9 - 2 2 2 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996, Sosterberg, Netherlands, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Yadin, Yigael. "Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?" Pages 1 5 3 - 6 9 in Humanizing Americas Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980, ed. Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. . The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Yahalom, Joseph. Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1999. (Hebrew) . Priestly Palestinian Poetry: A Narrative Liturgy for the Day of Atonement. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. (Hebrew) Yuval, Israel Jacob. "The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship," Common Knowledge 12 (2006): 16-33. . Two Nations in Your Womb: Mutual Perceptions of Jews and Christians. TelAviv: 'Alma / 'Am 'oved, 2000. (Hebrew) Zucker, Friederich. "Doppelinschrift spatptolemaischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis Magna." Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische KLasse 6 (1937): 1-63. Zunz, Leopold. Jewish Sermons: Their Historical Development. Ed. Hanokh Albek. Trans, from the 2 ed. of the German original, 1892. Jerusalem: Mosad Bia­ lik, 1974. (Hebrew) . Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes, geschichtlich entwickelt. Berlin: J. Springer, 1859. n d

Index

4Q390, 77-78 4Q512, 131-33, 221n.47 4Q524, 93, 209n.30 4QD: on childbirth, 108-9, 110-11, 113, 216nn.93-94; on corpse impurity, 98; dating of, 98; on genital discharge, 85-86, 95,100-112, 212n.61, 213n.69, 213nn.65-66, 213n.7l, 214n.73, 215n.84; and the Holiness Code, 106; on impurity and sin, 92, 106, 109-10, 215n.86; vs. Jubilees, 113-14; vs. Leviti­ cus, 110-11, 112 (see also Leviticus); mispat (rule) organization of, 99, 212n.51; and participation in the temple cult, 102, 213n.72; on purification after sexual relations, 23; on purity laws, gen­ erally, 85-86, 92, 98-113; relevance to priests vs. laypeople, 111-12, 216n.l04; on sexual relations, 95,104, 210-1 ln.37, 214n.76; on skin eruptions, 98, 99-100, 212n.60; sources of, 98; vs. Temple Scroll, 112-14; women, attitude toward, 104 4QFlorilegium, 77, 204n.72 4QMMT: on conversion, 183; on intermar­ riage, 27-28, 78; on priestly marriage, 157; on purity laws, 86, 206n.7 4QOrdinances (4Q514), 86 4QTohorot A (4Q274), 86, 102, 213-14n.73, 220n.45 4QTohorotB (4Q277), 131 Aaron: ben Sira on, 35, 38, 195n.90; death of, 6; as first priest, 55; vs. Israel, sectari­ ans on, 121-22, 128; and Moses, 34, 168-69, 194n.82; priestly garments of,

35; priests as descendants of, 5, 6, 15, 56, 122,151,152; teaching role of, 34, 38 Abihu, 225n.l3 Abiram, 187n.2 Abraham: altar built by, 56; binding of Isaac by, 178, 234n.89; on Canaanite women, 70, 76; children/offspring of, 177-81; death of, 82; Isaac instructed by, 56-57, 58; Jubilees on, 78-79, 82; as priest, 56; sacrifice by, 56; on sexual impurity, 66-67 Adam, 40, 56, 57, 113 Adora, 76 adultery, 68, 90-91, 201n.36, 201n.39 Aelia Capitolina, 162,163, 228n.9 Against Apion (Josephus), 51 'al (concerning), 99 Albeck, Hanokh, 229n.29 Alexander (brother of Philo), 143 Alexander Jannai, 200n.20 Alexandria: anti-Semites in, 145; Jews in, 143-46, 225n.4, 225n.9. See also Philo of Alexandria allegory. See Philo of Alexandria Amidah, 10,177-78,180,183, 229n.27, 233n.71 amme ha'ares, 233n.72 Amorites, 204n.68 Amos (prophet), 32 Angels of Mastemot, 78 anthropomorphism, 88 apocalypse, 16, 20, 82,141,160-61,176, 227n.2. See also under titles of specific apocalypses Apocalypse of Weeks, 82, 206n.92 (

Apocryphon of Jeremiah, 77-78 Aramaic Levi: on Abraham as priest, 56; au­ thorship of, 48; and Book of the Watchers, 25-28; dating of, 16, 25, 48-49, 191n.40; as fragmentary, 45; on Isaac as priest, 56, 71; on Joseph, 48-49; and Jubilees, 56, 59, 199n.l4, 202n.51; on the king­ dom of the sword vs. peace, 49, 197n.l35; on Kohath, 49; on "law of priesthood," 46-47, 197n.l27; on Levi as priest, 57; on Levi's descendants, 49-50, 197n.l35; on Noah as priest, 56; priest and scribe in, 16, 45-51; on priesdy ancestry, 8, 51; on priesdy mar­ riage, 25-28, 47, 157; on Simeon and Levi's attack on the Shechemites, 25, 46, 69-70; solar calendar in, 191n.40; and Testament of Levi, 45, 48, 197n.l25; on wisdom, 47-48, 50 Argall, Randal A., 197n.l23 Aristeas. See Letter of Aristeas Aristobolus, 73, 200n.20 Aristobolus III, 161 Aristotle, 4 Assyrian settlers, 115 Astronomical Book: on Enoch as scribe, 16-17, 18, 190n.l2; on the solar calen­ dar, 40, 196n.l08; and Wisdom of ben Sira, 42, 44 Avi-Yonah, Michael, 228n.l9 Azazel, 88 babies, impurity of, 103, 109, 216n.95 Babylonian Talmud, 166, 178 Balaam, 29 baptism, 132-33, 184, 222n.56 Bar Kokhba revolt (132-35 C.E.), 162, 172, 175, 180, 228n.9, 228n.l6 Baruch, 160-61, 227n.3 bdsdr (genitals), 131 basileion hierateuma (royal priesthood), 156. See also "kingdom of priests" concept Basil of Ceaserea, 176 bathing/sprinkling: for purification, 105, 208n.21, 214n.83; purity laws on, 89-90, 94, 96-97, 208n.21, 211n.42; as repen­ tance, 133. See also baptism Bathsheba, 89-90, 220n.40 Bauckham, Richard, 223-24n.76 Baumgarten, Albert, 81, 126, 219n.33

Baumgarten, Joseph M.: 4QD translations by, 101, 108, 213nn.66-68, 216n.l04; 4QTohorot translations by, 213n.73, 214n.83; on abnormal male genital flow, 220n.45; on baptism, 133, 222n.56; on ger's exclusion from the temple, 204n.72; on niddd, 22In.47; on sprin­ kling for purification, 105; on the Tem­ ple Scroll as sectarian, 209n.31; on zab impurity, 213n.69 Bayt al-hadir (Yemen), 171, 232n.62 Beentjes, Pancratius C , 37, 195n.98 ben Meir, Samuel, 235n.94 ben Samson, Jacob, 235n.94 ben Sira, Joshua, 15, 30. See also Wisdom of ben Sira ben Yohai, Simeon, 229n.29 ben Zakkai, Yohanan, 166 Berliner, A., 235n.94 Black, Matthew, 191n.33 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 187n.3, 224n.85 Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, 230n.45 bloodshed: as defiling, 61, 63-66, 90; impurity through, 62-63; and sacrifice, 64 body, as female, 104 Book of Dreams, 17; dating of, 161, 228n.5; on the Second Temple, 40, 161, 190n.20 Book of Jubilees. See Jubilees Book of the Watchers: and Aramaic Levi, 25-28; authors/composition of, 16, 28-29, 43, 189n.9; dating of, 16, 17, 25; Enoch as prophet in, 29-30, 43; Enoch as scribe and priest in, 16-21, 28-29, 39, 52; on the fallen Watchers and their hu­ man wives, 17-18, 21, 23-25, 191n.33; Active setting of, 40; on heaven as a tem­ ple, 20-21; influence of, 16-17, 41; and Jubilees, 41, 59; on priestly marriage, 21-22, 24-25, 28, 44, 47, 157; priests criticized in, 8, 21; on revelation of se­ crets, 21, 44; relationship to Torah, 39-41; scribe's priestly functions in, 8, 16; and the Wisdom of ben Sira, 16, 42-45,197n.l23 Bowden, John, 204n.70 Boyarin, Daniel, 233nn.78-79 Brahmans, 154 Buell, Denise Kimber, 175-76, 234n.82 Burger, Klaus, 205n.84 burnt offering, 148-49, 150

calendar: lunar vs. solar, 42, 196n.ll6; 364day, 54, 55, 58, 81. See also solar calendar Callaway, Phillip R., 209-10n.34 Cappadocian Fathers, 176 cereal offering, 147-48 Chaeremon, 152, 154-55, 227n.35 Charles, R. H., 76 childbirth: 4QD on, 108-9, 110-11, 113, 216nn.93-94; impurity after, 89, 91, 94, 100,103,106-7,108-9,113, 216nn.93-94 children of Abraham, 177-81 children of light vs. children of darkness, 4, 81, 118-20, 124, 126, 138, 142 Christian asceticism, 104 Christianity, rise of: and ancestry as defin­ ing Israel, 165; dating of, 136; and fam­ ily ties/social connections, 176; and Jewish minority status, 9-10; and Julian and the rebuilding of the temple, 163-64; and sectarians, 134, 222n.63 Christians: on binding of Isaac, 178, 234n.89; conversion of, 182-85; and eth­ nicity, 175-77, 234n.82; Jewish scriptures claimed by, 177; priesthood of, 176 Chronicles (biblical book): on Assyrian set­ tlers, 115; on the high priest, 6; on Levites as essential to Israel, 120-21; on Levites as subordinate to priests, 6; on the temple, 190n.22 circumcision: of angels, 79-80; as conver­ sion, 74, 75, 203n.59; of gentiles, 73-74, 136-37, 139, 203n.54, 203n.59, 223n.75; of the Shechemites, 46, 75 Claudius, 145 Clearchus of Soli, 4 Cohen, Shaye J. D.: on bathing/sprinkling for purification of menstruants, 208n.21, 214n.83; on circumcision, 203n.55; on conversion, 183, 184; on emergence of rabbinic Judaism, 233n.78; on the Idumeans' conversion, 203n.59; on rabbis as elites, 230n.35; on the rabbis' attitude toward 'amine ha'dres, 233n.72; on Yavneh, 174-75 Collins, John J., 200n.22, 217n.6 confinement/wilderness camp for impuri­ ties, 93-94, 96-97, 210n.35 conversion: of Christians, 182-85; circum­ cision as, 74, 75, 203n.59; of gentiles, 73-78, 139, 182-85, 204n.7l, 205n.82; hesitance toward/priestly discomfort

with, 77, 204nn.71-72; and intermar­ riage, 74-78, 183-84; rabbis on, 182-83; rituals for, 4 Corinthians, 136 corpse impurity, 95-96, 97, 98, 215n.90, 216n.93 Council ofNicea, 174 crucifixion, 178 Damascus Document: Admonition of, 98, 110; on boundaries of community of Is­ rael, 81; on children of the pit, 119; on communal organization, 103-4, 214n.75; on conversion, 77; dating of, 98; on division of Israel into priests/ Levites/Israelites, 120, 121-22, 128; on donations, 99, 212n.53; on Ezekiel, 120; on gentiles, 123; halakhah embraced by, 134; on insiders vs. outsiders, 119, 218n.22; on Israel defined by merit vs. ancestry, 142; on Jews vs. gentiles, 124; on Jubilees, 53, 55, 98, 206n.92, 211n.48; on the maskil (sage; master), 127; on the mebaqqer (examiner), 127; on men­ strual impurity in the temple, 23; mispat (rule) in, 99, 212n.53; on the paqid (of­ ficer), 127; and participation in the temple cult, 213n.72; on priests' author­ ity, 124, 127; on priests' qualifications, 124; priests' role in, 118; on property, 127; on proselytes, 123, 124; on purity laws, 128-31, 133-34; on the purity of priests, 8; and the Rule of the Community, 117, 128-31, 2l7n.6, 218n.9; sectarian­ ism of, 98, 117-18, 128-31; serek (rule) in, 99; on sexual intercourse in the city of the sanctuary, 95; on Zadokites, 128. See also 4QD Daniel (biblical book), 13, 32, 189n.5 Dathan, 187n.2 David, 35-36, 37, 167, 196n.99 Davidic king, loss/return of, 35, 194-95nn.85-86 Davies, Philip R., 206n.92 Day of Atonement, 88, 178, 207n.l6 Dead Sea Scrolls: on the Book of the Watch­ ers, 41; messianism in, 117, 162-63, 200nn.21-22; and the Sadducees, 2l7n.l05; sectarianism in, 83, 116, 117-18. See also under titles of individual works

defilement of the temple, 61, 69-72 dejonge, Marinus, 197n.l25 Deuteronomic history, on high priest as royal appointee, 6 Deuteronomy (biblical book): on bribery, 15; on exile/return, 81-82; on God's love of Israel's ancestors, 179-80; on Israelite man's marriage to Moabite woman, 3-4; on judicial role of priests, 14-15; kingship law in, 37, 195n.98; lipne hakdhanim halewiyim, 14, 189n.6; priesdy authority undermined by, 13-14; on priests and Levites as equiva­ lent, 5; priests associated with the Torah in, 14, 15; on punishment, 179-80; on repentance, 179-80; scribes' role ele­ vated by, 12; on seminal emissions, 93; on the temple as holy place, 19; Torah anticipated by, 11; on war camp and impurities, 93-94, 21 On.35; on wisdom, 15, 38 Dinah, rape of, 57, 67, 69-70, 71, 75 Doran, Robert, 204n.68 dreams, 12-13, 42-43

2 Enoch, 17 Enochic school, 41-42. See also Book of the Watchers Ephraim, 167 Ephraim of Regensburg, 235n.94 Epistle ofEnoch, 17, 40, 82, 190n.20 'erwa (nakedness), 131 'erwat besdrenu (shamefulness of our flesh), 131 'erwat niddd (shamefulness of menstrual impurity), 131 Esau: Canaanite wives of, 76, 204n.64; Gen­ esis on, 75-76; vs. Jacob, 75-77; Jubilees on, 75-76, 79, 204n.65 eschatology, 44, 82-83, 135 Essenes, 104, 155 etrog, 171 Eve, 40, 113 evening/sunset and impurity, 107-8, 215n.90 Exodus (biblical book): vs. Jubilees, 53-54; on the Levites' slaughter of golden calf worshipers, 5, 153-54, 188n.l3; on priests as descendants of Aaron, 5; on purification, 95; on the temple, 190n.22 Ezekiel (biblical book): Damascus Documents peser on, 120; on descendants of David, 162; on the destruction of the temple, 174, 175; on idolatry in the tem­ ple, 19; influence of, 29, 141, 190n.24, 224n.86; on the 144,000 sealed by the angel, 138; on priesdy marriage, 26-27; on restoration of the temple, 162 Ezekiel (prophet), as priest, 2, 15 Ezra: compared to Enoch, 22, 24; on inter­ marriage, 115; on Levites among re­ turned Israelites, 6, 188n.l6; on priesdy marriage, 3, 24, 26-27, 188n.7; as scribe, 11, 13, 15; Torah brought to Jews by, 161 Ezra (biblical book): on genealogy of Ezra back to Aaron, 15; on Israel as "holy seed," 79-80, 183, 235-36n.l04

eating, purity laws on, 107, 215n.89 Edomites, 73, 74, 75-76 Egypt: God's slaying of firstborn sons in, 158; Greeks on, 154-55; idolatry of, 158; Idumeans in, 74; priests of, 152-53, 154, 156, 227n.35 ejaculation, 100. See also genital discharge; seminal emission Eleazar, 6, 151-52, 156, 162-63 Eliashib, 12 Elior, Rachel, 172 emolunthesan (defiled themselves), 223-24n.76 Endres, John C , 202n.47, 205n.84 Enoch: compared to Ezra, 22, 24; and the fallen Watchers, 17-18, 28; as first author/inventor of writing, 58; in Genesis, 17; intercession by, 20-21, 28, 190-91n.26; as priest, 56-57; as prophet, 29-30, 43; as scribe, 16, 18, 42; festivals, 229n.27 as scribe and priest, 16-21, 28-29, 39, First Temple: destruction of, 11, 19, 34, 41,52, 190n.l2 160-61,162; God's presence in, 19; vs. Second Temple, 20, 161, 162 1 Enoch. See Apocalypse of Weeks; Astronom­ ical Book; Book ofDreams; Book of the Fleischer, Ezra, 231n.59 Watchers; Epistle ofEnoch; Similitudes food: consecrated, 107, 215n.89; pure, 132, ofEnoch 221-22nn.50-51

Fraade, Steven D., 189n.8 Frankfurter, David, 136, 223n.73, 223nn.75-76 Gaius, 145 Galilee, Jewish life in, 171-72 Garcia Martinez, Florentino, 198n.7, 209-10n.34, 213n.66 Genesis (biblical book): Enoch in, 17; on Esau, 75-76; vs. Jubilees, 53-54; on Noah's sacrifices, 19; on Reuben and Bilhah, 67; on Simeon and Levi's attack on the Shechemites, 46, 70, 75 Genesis Apocryphon, 56 Genesis Rabbah, 170, 178 genital discharge: 4QD on, 85-86, 95, 100-112, 212n.61, 213nn.65-66, 213n.69, 213n.71, 214n.73, 215n.84; Leviticus on, 85-86, 89-90, 94, 100-112, 215n.84; purity laws on, 85-97, 206n.7, 207n.l0, 210n.36; Temple Scroll on, 85-86, 93-95, 96-97, 210n.36, 211n.42. See also menstrual impurity gentiles: assimilation of, 183; circumcision of, 73-74, 136-37, 139, 203n.54, 203n.59, 223n.75; conversion of, 73-78, 139, 182-85, 204n.7l, 205n.82; as fol­ lowers ofJesus, 139; vs. Jews, Damascus Document on, 124; vs. Jews, Jubilees on, 78-81, 205n.79, 205n.82; vs. Jews, salva­ tion of, 137-39, 224n.81; vs. Jews, sectarians on, 123-24, 137-39, 224n.81; as priests, 139-42, 224n.85 ger, 77, 79, 123-24, 205n.77, 219n.27. See also gentiles gerwetosdb (resident alien), 219n.27 God: commands Noah regarding blood­ shed and slaughtering animals for food, 63-65, 200n.28; love of Israel's ances­ tors, 179-80; presence in the temple, 19; slaying offirstbornsons in Egypt, 158; visions interpreted by, 32 golden calf incident, 5, 153-54, 188n.l3 Goodblatt, David, 194n.82, 194n.94, 200n.22 Goodman, Martin, 228n.9 Gospel of Thomas, 104 gospels (New Testament), 86 grammateus (scribe), 193n.70 Greco-Roman cult organizations/ guilds, 132

Greeks: as culturally defined, 4, 74, 116; on Egypt, 154-55; on Jewish monotheism, 144,155; under Roman rule, 145, 225n.9 Greenfield, Jonas, 49 Gregory Naziansen, 176 Gregory of Nyssa, 176 H. See Holiness Code Ha-Cohen, Israel Meir, 167 Hadrian, 162 Hafes Hayyim, 167 Haggai (prophet), 32, 163, 167 hdkdm (wise advisor), 12 halakhah, 112-14, 131, 134, 166, 217n.l05, 220n.45 halakhic midrashim, 170 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy, 66, 74-75, 79, 205n.79 Haman, 13 Hamor, 46 Hanson, Paul D., 187n.3 Haran, Menahem, 88, 188n.l4, 207n.ll harlots/harlotry, 26, 27, 150-51 Hasmoneans: conversion of gentiles by, forced, 73-74, 184; as defenders of their people, 203n.54; high priest usurped by, 126; and Idumeans, 203n.59; as priests/ kings, 50, 61, 200n.20; Samaritans sub­ jugated by, 203n.62; victory by, 60-61; as Zadokites, 219n.31 hattd'tsacrifice, 207n.l0 Hayes, Christine, 27-28, 78, 79, 183-84, 201-2n.43, 205n.82, 230n.34, 235-36n.l04 hazzdb 'etzobo (discharge), 101 heaven as a temple, 20-21, 29, 80, 190n.24, 224n.86, 241 hellenistic Jews, 4, 74, 116, 134 Hempel, Charlotte, 213n.72, 214n.75, 220n.35 Herod, 161 Herodotus, 203n.54 Hezekiah (king), 36, 37, 123, 195n.93 high priest: authority/power/status of, 34-35, 161-62, 163, 194n.82, 194n.94; foreign rule over, 38, 60, 161-62; garments/golden crown of, 35, 146-47; and governor, 34-35; Hasmonean usurpation of, 126; as hereditary leader of the Jews, 60; marriage by, 25-26, 157; as prophet, 154. See also Simon

Hodayot, 134 Holiness Code: and 4QD, 106; on impover­ ished Israelites, 219n.27; and purity laws, 90-92, 106, 210n.35, 235-36n.l04 Huttenmeister, Gil, 230n.45 Hypothetica (Philo), 155 idolatry, 14, 19, 90, 158 Idumeans: assimilation of, 203n.54; con­ quest/conversion of, 73-74, 76-77, 80, 184, 203n.59, 204n.70; and the Edomites, 75. See also Esau impurity: of babies, 103, 109, 216n.95; through bloodshed/murder, 62-63; after childbirth, 89, 91, 94, 100, 103, 106-7, 108-9, 113, 216nn.93-94; conse­ quences of, 61-62, 87, 89; of corpses, 95-98, 215n.90, 216n.93; as demonic, 88-89, 207n.l4, 207n.l6; through eat­ ing animals, 205n.77; and evening/ sunset, 107-8, 215n.90; genealogical, 235-36n.l04; as layered, 96-97; through Molech worship, 62, 63, 71; as natu­ ral/unavoidable, 87; of priests vs. laypeople, 62, 63; repentance to re­ move, 133;ritual(tm'), 62-63, 133, 235-36n.l04; through sexual relations, 22-23, 24, 62, 201n.38; and sin, sectari­ ans on, 132-35, 221-22nn.48-51; and sin/immorality, 89, 90-92, 106, 109-10, 130, 208nn.l8-19, 215n.86, 220n.41; and sunset/evening, 107-8, 215n.90; wilderness/confinement camp for, 93-94, 96-97, 210n.35. See also men­ strual impurity; purity laws incense shovel, 171 incest, 68, 69, 90-91, 201n.36 intermarriage: with Canaanite women, 70, 76; and conversion, 74-78, 183-84; de­ filement of the temple through, 69-72; with foreigners, prohibition against, 69-72, 79, 205n.79; with gentiles, 27, 70, 77-78, 201-2n.43; Jubilees'* preoccupa­ tion with, 72-74, 77, 202n.51; and the Maccabean Revolt, 72-74, 202nn.47-48 Ioudaismos, 116. See also Judaism Isaac: Abraham's instruction of, 56-57, 58; altar built by, 56; binding of, 178, 234n.89; Judah blessed by, 59-60; Levi blessed by, 58-59, 71-72, 80; Levi taught "law of priesthood" by, 46-47, 71; as

priest, 56, 71; on priestly marriage, 25-26; Reuben blessed by, 67 Isaiah (biblical book), 141, 156, 224n.85 Isaiah (prophet), 187n.5; ben Sira on, 33; deeds of, 37; on exile/restoration of Israelites, 3; God/angels seen by, 19; on the sacrifices of the wicked, 2 Ishmael, 78-79 Israelites: ancestry as defining, 3, 4, 8, 84, 165, 174, 178-79, 182-83 (see also under Aaron; Levites); boundaries of commu­ nity of, 3-4, 8, 81, 115-16, 183, 188nn.6-7 (see also sectarianism); as a community/people, 181-82; exile/ restoration of, 3, 6, 32, 81-83, 161, 188n.l6; foreigners among, 3, 188n.7; holiness of all Israelites, tension inher­ ent in, 1-2, 3, 187n.2; as a holy nation, 2-3, 7-8, 187n.4; impoverished, 219n.27; Levites among those returned, 6, 188n.l6; merit as defining, 3-4, 8, 9, 142, 182-83; piety as defining, 3, 8, 82; rabbinic definition of, 174-75, 180-81, 182-83, 233nn.78-79; Second Temple's destruction as exile of, 174, 233n.7l; sectarian definitions of, 4, 81-84, 116, 118-24, 137-39, 142, 165, 174-75. See also conversion; Jews Itureans, 73, 184 Jacob: altar built by, 56; vs. Amorites, 204n.68; vs. Esau, 75-77; as priest, 56; sacrifice of, 56, 57, 199n.l2, 199n.l8; and Simeon and Levi, 46 Jaddua, 24 Japhet, Sara, 95 Jehoiada, 89 Jeremiah (prophet): ben Sira on, 33; de­ nial that the temple could protect sinful people, 19; as priest, 2, 15; visions of, 32, 160-61. See also Apocryphon ofJeremiah Jericho synagogue, 182 Jerusalem: Hadrian's plan for, 162; priests of, 151-52; Roman destruction of, 160; as unconquerable, 19 Jesus, 135-36, 137, 224n.81 Jewish Revolt, 160 Jews: ancestors as guaranteeing salvation, 10; on binding of Isaac, 178, 234n.89; as followers ofJesus, 138-39, 224n.81; vs. gentiles, Damascus Document on, 124; vs.

gentiles, Jubilees on, 78-81, 205n.79, 205n.82; vs. gentiles, salvation of, 137-39, 224n.81; vs. gentiles, sectarians on, 123-24, 137-39, 224n.81; hellenis­ tic, 4, 74, 116, 134; under Roman rule, 145, 225n.9; salvation of, 174, 177-81, 185; synagogues of Satan as, 136-37, 223n.73, 223n.75. See also Israelites John Hyrcanus, 73-74, 76-77, 203n.59, 204n.70 John of Patmos. See Revelation John the Baptist, 133 Joseph, 12-13, 32, 48-49, 68, 155 Josephus: Against Apion, 51; on circumci­ sion of Idumeans, forced, 74, 203n.59; on Great Jewish Revolt, 160; on Manasseh (brother of the high priest Jaddua), 24-25; on priestly marriage, 24, 26-27; priestly/royal lineage of, 50-51, 157; on prophets, 11; on the Samaritan temple's building, 24-25; on sects, 2l7n.4; wisdom of, 50-51 Joshua (high priest), 34, 163 Josiah, king, 37 Jubilees, 53-84, 191n.37; vs. 4QD, 113-14; Aaron omitted from, 57-58; on Abra­ ham's death, 82; on Abraham's descen­ dants, 78-79; antisectarianism vs. sectarianism of, 81-84, 206n.92, 206nn.94-95; on the apocalypse, 82-83, 206n.95; and Aramaic Levi, 56, 59, 199n.l4, 202n.51; authority/influence of, 53; on bloodshed, earth defiled by, 61, 63-66; and Book of the Watchers, 41, 59; and contemporary events, 77, 204n.68; conversion as intermarriage, 74-78; dating of, 55, 80, 202n.51, 204n.68, 205nn.84-85, 206n.95; on de­ filement of the temple, 61, 69-72; on Dinah's rape, 57, 67, 69-70, 71, 75; on Enoch as first author/inventor of writ­ ing, 58; on Enoch as priest, 19, 41, 56-57; on Esau, 75-76, 79, 204n.65; on exile/restoration of Israelites, 81-83; on forbidden sexual relations, 61, 63, 66-70, 200n.32, 201n.36, 201n.38; vs. Genesis and Exodus, 53-54; on gentiles, conversion of, 183, 184; on God's com­ mands to Noah regarding bloodshed and slaughtering animals for food, 63-65, 200n.28; and halakhic traditions,

205n.91; heaven as a temple, 80; and the heavenly tablets, 54-55, 198-99nn.7-8; and hellenism, 55, 80; and the Holiness Code, 54, 61-63, 64, 65, 68-69, 71, 113; intermarriage, pre­ occupation with, 72-74, 77, 202n.51; in­ termarriage with foreigners, prohibition against, 69-72, 79, 205n.79; on inter­ marriage with gentiles, 27, 201-2n.43; on Isaac's blessing of Judah, 59-60; on Isaac's blessing of Levi, 58-59, 71-72, 80; on Ishmael, 78-79; on Israelites as kingdom of priests, generally, 53, 79-80, 84; on Israel's holiness, 8; on Jacob's sacrifice, 57, 199n.l8; on Jacob vs. Esau, 75-77; on Jews vs. gentiles, 78-81, 205n.79, 205n.82; on Joseph and Potiphar's wife, 200n.32; on Joshua, 163; jubilee counting of history in, 53-54; on Judah and Tamar, 69, 200n.32; on Levi as priest, 57; on Noah as author, 58; on priests and books, 58-59; on priests and kings, 59-61, 199-200n.l9, 200n.21; on priests before Levi, 53-58; on Reuben and Bilhah, 67, 68-69, 71, 201n.36; on sacrifice, law for, 197n.l27; and the Samaritans, 203n.62; on Shem/Terah, wives descended from, 74; on Simeon and Levi's attack on the Shechemites, 69-70, 71-72; sources for, 8, 53, 56, 59; vs. Temple Scroll, 113-14; 364-day calendar in, 54, 55, 58, 81; vs. the Torah, 54-56, 198-99n.8; TorahCommandment in, 41, 55 Judah, 59-60, 68, 69, 200n.32 Judah Maccabee, 76, 204n.68 Judaism: as culturally defined, 4, 74, 116; monotheism of, Greeks on, 144, 155; origin of term, 4, 188n.l2. See also Is­ raelites; Jews; rabbis Julian (emperor), 163-64 Karaites, 214n.83 Keturah, 78, 79 "kingdom of priests" concept: and holiness of priests, tension inherent in, 4-5, 7-9, 10; Israelites as, Jubilees on, 53, 79-80, 84; and Israelites as a holy nation, 2-3, 7-8, 187n.4; Philo on, 156-59; Protes­ tant view of, 176; rabbis' lack of interest in, 185. See also Jubilees

kings: Israel's need for, 38; kingship law, 37, 195n.98; and priests, 59-61, 199-200n.l9, 200n.21 1 Kings, 190n.22 Kister, Menahem, 206n.94 Klawans, Jonathan, 132, 221n.48 Knibb, Michael A., 191n.33, 221-22n.51 Knohl, Israel, 88, 188n.l3, 207n.l4, 210n.35 Kohath, 49 Korah, 1-2 Kugler, Robert A., 47-50, 192n.52, 197n.l25, 197n.l35 Lamentations (biblical book), 89, 208n.l8 Letter of Aristeas, 151-53, 156, 226n.l7 Levi: Isaac's blessing of, 58-59, 71-72, 80; Isaac teaches law of priesthood to, 46-47, 71; Moses' blessing of, 14, 34; or­ dained by Jacob, 57; as priest, 57; Shechemites attacked by, 25, 46, 69-70, 71-72, 75. See also Aramaic Levi; Testa­ ment of Levi Levine, Lee, 230n.42, 230-31n.47, 232n.66 Levites: and Aaron's sons, 1-2, 5; cultic re­ sponsibilities of, 5; as essential to Israel, 120-21; as guild vs. tribe, 188n.l5; ordi­ nation as priests through slaughter of golden calf worshipers, 5, 153-54; vs. priests, Philo on, 153, 226-27n.30; priests as equivalent to, 5, 188nn.l4-15; priests as a subgroup of, 5-6; rebellion by, 1-2, 187n.2; among returned Is­ raelites, 6, 188n.l6; as subordinate to priests, 226-27n.30; Torah on, 5, 122-23, 153, 188n.l4 Leviticus: vs. 4QD, 110-11, 112 (see also 4QD); on confinement/wilderness camp for impurities, 93-94, 210n.35; on forbidden sexual relations, 90; on geni­ tal discharge, 85-86, 89-90, 94, 100-112, 215n.84; on the high priest, 157; on priests as descendants of Aaron, 5; on sacrifice, law for, 47; on seminal emission, 23, 89; on skin eruptions, 99-100, 111, 212n.52, 212n.60; tvra (law) in, 99, 212n.52 Leviticus Rabbah, 170 Life ofApollonius ofTyana (Philostratus), 154 Lithuanian yeshivot, 167

lulav, 171 Luther, Martin, 134-35 m. Abot, 167, 181, 229nn.29-30, 235n.94 Maccabean Revolt, 4, 72-74, 80-81, 202nn.47-48, 202-3nn.53-54, 206n.95 Mack, Burton L., 194n.78, 194-95n.85 Mahzor Vitry, 182, 235n.94 Malachi (biblical book), 194n.74 mam'eret (malignant) eruptions, 100 Manasseh (brother of the high priest Jaddua),24, 25 Marisa, 76 marriage by priests, 3, 21-28, 44-45, 47, 157, 159, 188n.7. See also intermarriage Marshall, John, 136-39, 223n.70, 223n.73, 224n.81 martyrs, 140-41 maskil (sage; master), 127 mayim hayyim (fresh water), 105 mebaqqer (examiner), 127 me duki (waters for cleansing), 129 Mekilta, 168-69, 185 me niddd (waters of purification), 105, 129 menorah, 171 menstrual impurity: 4QD on, 100, 104-6, 212n.61, 215n.84; in the city of the sanc­ tuary, 97; confinement places for, 94, 98; defilement caused by sexual rela­ tions during, 22, 23; vs. impurity after childbirth, 108-9; Leviticus on, 100, 104-5, 215n.84; purification following, 89-90, 207n.l0, 208n.21; through sex­ ual relations, 106, 109-10; and sin, 89, 91-92, 208n.l8. See also genital discharge me rahas (water for washing), 129 Metso, Sarianna, 125, 126, 219n.29 Micah (prophet), 188n.l4 Milgrom, Jacob: on the confinement/wilderness camp for im­ purity, 21 On.35; on forbidden sexual re­ lations, 201n.39; on impurities that require sacrifice, 207n.l0; on impurity and sin, 208n.l9; on impurity and the demonic realm, 207n.l4, 207n.l6; on impurity as layered, 96-97; on the impu­ rity of babies, 216n.95; on the Levites, 123; on P's obsession with purity, 215n.85; on purification following im­ purity, 96-97, 208n.21; on seminal

emission, 213-14n.73; on skin eruptions, 220-2ln.45; on Temple Scroll as sectarian, 209n.31; on Temple Scrolls elaboration of purity laws, 96 Miriam, 89 Mishnah: on ancestors as guaranteeing sal­ vation, 10; dissenting opinions in, 174; on impurity and sin, 92; legal rulings of, 167; on priests' status, 169; publication of, 170; on purity laws, 166; rabbis' in­ clusive view of Israel in, 180-81; ranking by ancestry in, 168; on sacrifices, 166 mispohat (eruption), 212n.60 mispat (rule), 99, 212n.51 mixed marriages. See intermarriage; marriage Molech, 62, 63, 70, 71 mosaics (synagogue decoration), 170-71, 172, 181 Moses (prophet): and Aaron, 34, 168-69, 194n.82; ben Sira on, 33-34; elders cho­ sen by, 226n.l7; Levi blessed by, 14, 34; on the Levites, 153; offices/successors of, 33-34, 194n.78; as prophet, 29; as scribe, 33; Torah taught by, 33; TorahTestimony of, 41; on wisdom, 15 m. Sanhedrin, 180-81 murder. See bloodshed

Psalms of Solomon, 191n.32; on Torah vs. Book of the Watchers, 39-40 niddd (menstrual impurity), 89-92, 106, 131,221n.47 Nikaso, 24 Nikiprowetzky, Valentin, 148 Noah: as author, 58; God's commands re­ garding bloodshed and slaughtering an­ imals for food, 63-65, 200n.28; as priest, 56, 57; sacrifices of, 19, 56 Numbers (biblical book), 5-6, 93, 210n.35 '6 'aser (or one who), 101, 213n.66 On Drunkenness (Philo), 153-54 On the Migration of Abraham (Philo), 149 On the Special Laws (Philo), 148-51, 153, 154, 158-59, 226n.24 Oppenheimer, Aharon, 228n.l6

P, on purity laws, 87-92, 98, 106, 207n.ll, 207n.l4, 207n.l7, 208n.l9, 208n.21, 210n.35, 215n.85 pagans, 73, 202-3nn.53-54 Palestine, 73, 164, 171, 178 pdqid (officer), 127 Passover sacrifice, 158-59, 185, 227n.42 Paul: and the Corinthians, 136; and 1 Enoch, 39-40; as evidence for Judaism, 136; laws of the Torah rejected by, 134-35, 136; on sexual relations be­ Nadab, 225n.l3 tween sons and their father's wives, nasi' (prince), 162 201n.40; on transcendence of differ­ nega' niddd, 131 ence in Christ, 175, 177 Nehemiah: as cup bearer, 13; deeds of, 195n.93; Deuteronomy referred to by, Pauline Christianity, 126, 134-35 12, 13; on Eliashib, 12; on intermar­ peace offering, 150 riage, 115; as Persian governor, 12; on Pegamum, 136 priesdy marriage, 3, 24, 26-27, 188n.7; Pesher Nahum, 204n.7l priests criticized by, 7; reform efforts Pharisees, 108, 166, 174-75, 221n.50 of, 6 Philadelphia (ancient), 136 Philo of Alexandria, 143-59; allegory used Nephilim, 65 by, 9, 144-49, 151, 153-54, 159, nesi'yisra'el (prince of Israel), 162 226n.24; on ancestry vs. merit, 8, 143, New Testament, 176 154; on body vs. soul, 104, 144-45; on Nickelsburg, George W. E., 228n.5; on the the burnt offering, 148-49, 150; on ce­ Astronomical Book and the Book of the real offering, 147-48; on cities of Watchers, 190n.l2; on the Book of the refuge, 146-47; and delegation to Watchers'% composition, 189n.9; on the Rome, 145; on harlotry, 150-51; on Book of the Watchers'% dating, 17, 25; on hereditary priesthood, 151; on the high defilement caused by sexual relations, priest, 146-47, 154, 225nn.l2-13; Hypo­ 22, 23; on Enoch's intercession, thetica, 155; on the kingdom of priests, 190-91n.26; on Enoch vs. Ezra, 22, 24; 156-57, 158-59, 227n.40; languages on menstrual impurity, 23; on the

Watchers); of Jerusalem, 151-52; judicial Philo of Alexandria (continued) role of, 14-15; and kings, 59-61, spoken/written by, 143, 225n.3; on the 199-200n.l9, 200n.21; and kings, ben Levites vs. priests, 153, 226-27n.30; on Sira on, 34-42, 194-95n.85, 195n.93; nation as archetype of priesthood, 9, before Levi, 53-58; vs. Levites, Philo on, 159, 185; On Drunkenness, 153-54; On the Migration of Abraham, 149; On the Spe­ 153, 226-27n.30; Levites' subordination to, 226-27; marriage of, 3, 21-28, cial Laws, 148-51, 153, 154, 158-59, 44-45, 47, 157, 159, 188n.7; number 226n.24; on the Passover sacrifice, permitted by the Torah, 1; in patriar­ 158-59, 185, 227n.42; on the peace of­ chal times, succession of, 55-57; pres­ fering, 150; Platonism of, 9, 143, 144; tige of, 6-7; privileges enjoyed by, 4; vs. priesdy lineage of, 143, 225n.4; on prophets, 7; vs. rabbis, 165-70, 230n.42; priesdy marriage, 26-27, 157, 159; on resurgence of power of, 172-73, priests as judges, 154; on the red cow 232n.66; Revelation on (seeRevelation); ritual, 148, 149; on sacrifice, 147-50, role of, overview of, 1; vs. scribes, 7, 12, 157-59; on the sin offering, 150, 15, 51-52, 58-59, 169, 189n.8 (see also 157-58; on the temple and its cult, Book of the Watchers; Wisdom of ben 144-46; on temple as cosmos vs. soul, Sira); status based on ancestry vs. merit, 146-48; on the Therapeutae, 154-55, 4-5, 7-8, 84, 164-65, 168 (see also priest­ 224n.76, 227n.35; on the Torah, obser­ hood, hereditary); as a subgroup of vance of laws of, 143-45, 148, 155, Levites, 5-6; teaching role of, 14, 38; 225n.8; on the Torah vs. philosophy, Torah associated with, 14, 15; wisdom 143-44, 146 of, 38, 45; women as, 140. See also high Philostratus, Life of Apollonius ofTyana, 154 priest Phinehas, 5, 6, 35-36, 46, 49, 153-54, 225n.l3 prophecy, 31-32, 194n.7l prophets, 7, 11, 32-33. See also individual piyyutim (liturgical poetry), 171, 172, 173, 231n.57, 231n.59 prophets Plato and Platonism, 104, 143-44, 148 Protestants, 176 polygamy, 69 Proverbs (biblical book), 13 Psalms of Solomon, 22, 23 Praise of the Fathers (ben Sira). See Wis­ Pseudo-fubilees, 53 dom of ben Sira Ptolemies, 60 prayer, 178-79. See also Amidah Ptolemy, 74 priesthood: Christian, 176; hereditary, 151, 164-65, 170, 176, 188n.l4 (see also purity laws, 85-114; 4QD on, 85-86, 92, priests, status based on ancestry vs. 98-113; 4QMMT on, 86, 206n.7; on merit); "law of," on marriage partners, bathing, 89-90, 94, 96-97, 208n.21, 46; "law of," on sacrifice, 46-47, 211n.42; coherence of, 87-88, 89-90, 197n.l27 111; on confinement/wilderness camp for impurities, 93-94, 96-97, 210n.35; priestly courses, 171-72, 173, 231n.59, and Day of Atonement, 88, 207n.l6; on 232n.62, 232nn.64-65 eating, 107, 215n.89; on genital dis­ priests: and angels, 141; authority of, sec­ charge, 85-97, 206n.7, 207n.l0, 210n.36 tarians on, 124-27, 220nn.34-35; bless­ (see also 4QD; Leviticus; Temple Scroll); ings by, generally, 169; and books, and the Holiness Code, 91, 106, 58-59; as descendants of Aaron, 5, 6, 210n.35; H on, 90-92, 210n.35; impu­ 15, 56, 122, 151, 152; Deuteronomy as rity and sin/immorality, 89, 90-92, 106, undermining authority of, 13-14; Egypt­ 109-10, 130, 208nn.l8-19, 215n.86, ian, 152-53, 154, 156, 227n.35; as equiv­ 220n.41; and impurity as demonic, alent to Levites, 5, 188nn.l4-15; 88-89, 207n.l4, 207n.l6; on niddd gentiles as, 139-42, 224n.85; high (menstrual impurity) and sin, 89, 91, priest, succession to, 6; inherited vs. 92, 110, 208n.l8; P on, 87-92, 98, 106, earned status of (see Book of the

207n.ll, 207n.l4, 207n.l7, 208n.l9, 208n.21, 210n.35, 215n.85; and priesdy halakhah, 112-14, 131, 217n.l05, 220n.45; purification/sacrifice follow­ ing impurity, 23, 86, 89-92, 96-97, 207n.l0, 208n.21; relevance to priests/family vs. laypeople, 85, 86-87, 97-98, 111-12; sectarians on, 128-31, 223-24n.76; on skin eruptions, 86-89, 91, 93, 97, 207n.l6, 212n.52 (see also 4QD); Temple Scroll on, 85-86, 93-98, 112-14, 209-10n.34, 210n.36. See also impurity; menstrual impurity qds, 129, 220n.40 Qimron, Elisha, 192n.52, 192n.56 Qpdasin (Holy Things), 166, 167 Qumran: on impurity and sin, 92, 109-10, 215n.86; Jubilees manuscripts found at, 53; loyalty to the Torah, 40; sectarians of, as children of light, 4; solar calendar in, 81; sprinkling/bathing for purifica­ tion practiced by, 105, 214n.83. See also 4QD; sectarianism; Temple Scroll rabbis: on Aaron vs. Moses, 168-69; on the 'amme hd'dres, 233n.72; ancestry em­ braced by, 165, 175, 233n.79; authority/ prestige of, 166-67; on conversion, 182-83; and the destruction of the tem­ ple, 165, 166; as elites, 165, 173, 230n.35; as heirs of the Pharisees, 166; Jewish people defined by, 174-75, 180-81, 182-83, 233nn.78-79; kingdom of priests, lack of interest in, 185; on the laws of the Torah, 134-35, 222n.63, 223n.67; on the messiah, 167; nominal­ ism of, 223n.67; as Pharisees, 174-75; vs. priests, 165-70, 230n.42; and the sacrifi­ cial cult, attitude toward, 166-67, 229n.27; sectarian view rejected by, 174-75; status based on merit, 9; and synagogues, 165-66; Torah study by, 166-67, 168, 230n.34 Rappaport, Uriel, 73, 74, 76, 203n.59, 228n.l6 reah nihoah (aroma of sacrifices), 88 Reed, Annette, 18, 40, 44 Regev, Eyal, 206n.7, 217n.l05, 218n.9, 220n.34, 221n.48 Reuben, 67-69, 71, 201n.36

Revelation (biblical book), 9; on ethnicity, 175; on gentiles as priests, 139-42; on heaven as a temple, 224n.86, 241; on Is­ rael defined by merit, 142; on Jews vs. gentiles, salvation of, 137-39, 224n.81; on the 144,000 sealed by the angel, 138, 140, 224n.81; priests in, 135-37, 223n.70, 223n.73, 223n.75, 224n.76 Romans: Jewish Revolt against, 160; Jerusalem destroyed by, 160; Jews under, 145, 161-66, 225n.9 Rubinstein, Jeffrey L., 223n.67 Rule of Benedictions, 219-20n.33 Rule of the Community: on baptism/bathing, 132-33, 222n.56; Cave 1 manuscript of, 125, 126-27, 219-20n.33; Cave 4 frag­ ments of, 125-26, 219n.29; on children of light vs. children of darkness, 81, 118-19, 124, 137-38, 142, 218n.l8; on children of the pit, 119; and the Damas­ cus Document, 117, 217n.6, 218n.9; on division of Israel into priests/Levites/ Israelites, 120-21, 122, 128; on gentiles, 123; on hierarchy of priesthood, 9; IQS, 126, 219n.33; on Israel defined by merit, 142; on the maskil (sage; master), 127; on the mebaqqer (examiner), 127; on the pdqid (officer), 127; penal code of, 132; on priests' authority, 125, 126-27, 142, 220nn.34-35; on priests' qualifications, 124-25, 139; priests' role in, 118; on pure food, 132, 221-22nn.50-51; purity language in, 128-31, 134; rules of organization of, 125; sectarianism of, 9, 117-19, 128-31; yahadof, 117, 217n.6, 218n.9; on Zadokites, 125-27 Rule of the Congregation, 219-20n.33 Ruth (biblical book), 3-4, 115-16, 188n.8 Sabbath observance, 137, 229n.27 sacrifice: of Abraham, 56; after childbirth, 110-11; and bloodshed, 64; hatta't, 207n.l0; ofJacob, 56, 57, 199n.'l2, 199n.l8; Jubilees on, 57, 197n.l27, 199n.l8; law for, 47, 197n.l27; 'law of priesthood" on, 46-47, 197n.l27; Mishnah on, 166; of Noah, 19, 56; Philo on, 147-50, 157-59; reah nihoah (aroma) of, 88; of the wicked, 2. See also purity laws; Second Temple; specific sacrifices

Sadducees, 108, 112, 209n.31, 2l7n.l05 salvation: ancestry-based, 10, 179; ofJews, 174, 177-81, 185; of Jews vs. gentiles, 137-39, 224n.81 Samaritans, 24-25, 203n.62 Sanballat, 24, 188n.7 sapahat (eruption), 99-100, 212n.60 saved (holy ones) vs. damned, 138-39, 224n.81 Schiffman, Lawrence, 92, 209n.31 Schofield, Alison, 219n.31 Schwartz, Daniel R., 126, 134-35, 187n.4, 222n.63, 225n.4, 225n.8, 227n.40 Schwartz, Seth, 171,181, 203n.54, 231n.50, 231n.57 Schwarz, Eberhard, 202nn.47-48, 205n.84 scribes, 11-52; in Aramaic Levi, 45-52; Deuteronomy as elevating role of, 12; priestly marriage and the Watchers' wives, 21-25; vs. priests, 7, 12, 15, 51-52, 58-59, 169, 189n.8 (see also Book of the Watchers; Wisdom of ben Sira); qualifica­ tions of, 8, 11; in Wisdom of ben Sira, 30-34. See also Enoch Se'ar yasub, 3 Second Temple: Book ofDreams on, 40, 161, 190n.20; building of, 34; centrality of, 6-7; dedication of, 20; as defiled, 19, 20, 190n.20; destruction as exile of Is­ raelites, 174, 233n.7l; destruction of, 160, 161, 162,164-65, 173-74, 175, 228n.l9; vs. First Temple, 20, 161, 162; holiness of, 20; idolatrous worship in, 14, 19; king's control of, 14; priestly prestige in, 6-7; rebuilding of, 163-64 {see also Bar Kokhba revolt); sacrificial cult's cessation after destruction of, 160; and synagogues, 170-73; vs. Torah's au­ thority, 162 sectarianism, 115-42; of the Damascus Doc­ ument, 98, 117-18, 128-31; in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 83, 116, 117-18; division into Aaron and Israel, 121-22, 128; divi­ sion of Israel into priests/Levites/ Israelites, 120-22, 128; end of, 135, 175; impurity and sin, 132-35, 221-22nn.48-51; and insiders vs. out­ siders, 118-19, 137-39, 218n.l8, 218n.22; and Jews vs. gentiles, 123-24, 137-39, 224n.81; of Jubilees, 81-84, 206n.92, 206nn.94-95; a kingdom and

priests, 139-42; on merit as defining Is­ raelites, 9; and merit vs. ancestry, 116, 142, 217n.4; and priests' authority, 124-27, 220nn.34-35; and proselytes, 123, 124; and purity laws, 128-31, 223-24n.76; and Revelation {see Revela­ tion) ; of the Rule of the Community, 117-19, 128-31; and saved (holy ones) vs. damned, 138-39, 224n.81; and the Second Temple, 161; sect, conceptions of, 116, 2l7n.4; of the Temple Scroll, 93, 209n.31; and the Torah, ambivalence toward, 134-35; and transformation of biblical language at Qumran, 128-31 Sefer Hekhalot, 17 Sefer Zerubbabel, 41 Seleucids, 60 seminal emission, 23, 91-92, 94-95, 100-101, 207n.l0, 211n.42, 213-14n.73. See also genital discharge Sepphoris, 173 serek (rule), 99 sexual relations: adultery, 68, 90-91, 201n.36, 201n.39; forbidden, 62, 90-91, 106; forbidden, Jubilees on, 61, 63, 66-70, 200n.32, 201n.36, 201n.38; with foreigners/pagans, 63, 70, 202n.44; and giving a child to Molech, 70, 71; impu­ rity through, 22-23, 24, 62, 201n.38; in­ cest, 68, 69, 90-91, 201n.36; during menstruation, 106, 109-10; during pregnancy, 104, 214n.76; purification af­ ter, 23, 21 In.42; between sons and their father's wives, 68-69, 201n.36, 201nn.38-40 Shakers, 126 Shechemites, 25, 46, 69-70, 71-72, 75 Shemesh, Aharon, 218n.l8 Shepherd ofHermas, 176, 234n.84 Sheshbazzar, 34, 189n.2 shofar, 171 Sifra, 168 Sifre Numbers, 168 sikbat-zera' (seminal emission), 100 Simeon, 25, 46, 69-70, 75 Similitudes ofEnoch, 17 Simon (high priest), ben Sira on, 8, 16, 34, 35-36, 38, 45, 52, 195n.93 sin: and impurity, Mishnah on, 92; and impurity, sectarians on, 132-35, 221-22nn.48-51; and impurity/

immorality, 89, 90-92, 106, 109-10, 130, 208nn.l8-19, 215n.86, 220n.41; and menstrual impurity, 89, 91-92, 208n.l8; offering for, 150, 157-58; and redemp­ tion, 181 (see also salvation) sin offering, 150, 157-58 skin eruptions, purity laws on, 86-89, 91, 93, 97, 207n.l6, 212n.52 Smyrna, 136 solar calendar: in Aramaic Levi, 191n.40; Astronomical Book on, 40, 196n.l08; vs. lunar calendar, 42, 196n.ll6; in Qum­ ran, 81 Solomon (king), 36-37, 195-96n.98 soper (scribe), 11, 193n.70 Spiegel, Shalom, 234n.89 sprinkling. See baptism; bathing/sprinkling Stadelmann, Helge, 195n.90 Stendahl, Krister, 134-35 Stone, Michael, 49 Strabo, 74, 144, 155 Strugnelljohn, 192n.52 sunset/evening and impurity, 107-8, 215n.90 synagogue inscriptions, 171-72, 181-82, 232n.62 synagogues, 164-65, 169-73, 178, 181-82, 229n.30, 230n.42, 230n.45, 230-31n.47, 231nn.50-51, 231n.53, 234-35n.91, 235n.l00 synagogues of Satan, Jews as, 136-37, 223n.73, 223n.75 tdhorat hdrabbim (purity of the commu­ nity), 221nn.49-50 Talmud \ferushalmi, 170 Tamar, 69, 200n.32 tannaitic midrashim, 166, 168-69 Ta-Shma, Israel, 235n.94 Teacher of Righteousness, as a Zadokite priest, 126 tebel (incest), 91 tebulyom, 108 temple: as abode of gods, 19, 87-88; cult of, Philo on, 144-46; defilement of, 61, 69-72; heaven as, 20-21, 29, 80, 190n.24, 224n.86, 241; restoration of, and role of rabbis, 166-67, 229n.27; tour through/ascent to, 29, 160, 227n.3. See also First Temple; Second Temple

Temple Scroll: vs. 4QD, 112-14; on conver­ sion, 77; on corpse impurity, 95-96, 97; dating of, 93, 209n.30; on genital dis­ charge, 85-86, 93-95, 96-97, 210n.36, 211n.42; on impurity and sin, 92; vs. Ju­ bilees, 113-14; manuscripts/scope of, 92, 93, 208n.25; on purification, 23, 94-95, 96-97, 211n.42; on purity laws, 85-86, 93-98,112-14,133-34, 137, 209-10n.34, 210n.36; on the purity of priests, 8; sectarianism of, 93, 209n.31; on skin eruptions, 93-94; sources of, 92; and the Torah, 92-93, 94, 96, 112 Ten Commandments, 148 Testament of Levi, 45, 48, 197n.l25, 198n.l39 text and wisdom, 15 Therapeutae, 154-55, 224n.76, 227n.35 Third Sibylline Oracle, 45 Thyatira, 136 Tiberius Julius Alexander (nephew of Philo), 143 Tigchelaar, EibertJ. C , 24-25, 213n.66 Titus (emperor), 160 Tobiah the Ammonite, 188n.7 to'ebd (abomination), 91 Toharot (Purities), 166 fc?ra(law),99, 212n.52 Torah: on Adam and Eve, 40, 113; authority/institutionalization of, 7, 11-12, 15, 41, 54-55, 162; Book of the Watchers influenced by, 39-41; on evening/sunset, and impurity, 215n.90; on exile/restoration of Israelites, 3; on the get's status, 79, 205n.77; on the high priest, succession to, 6; on holy food, 107; on impurity, 61-62; vs. Jubilees, 54-56, 198-99n.8; on the Levites, 5, 122-23, 153, 188n.l4; on menstrual im­ purity, 94; on the number of priests per­ mitted, 1; on the Passover sacrifice, 158; Philo on observance of laws of, 143-45, 148, 155, 225n.8; vs. philosophy, 143-44, 146; priestly holiness demanded by, 7; on priestly marriage, 25-26; on priestly status, as inherited vs. earned, 4-5; on priests as descendants of Aaron, 5, 6, 151, 152; priests associated with, 14, 15; rabbinic study of, 166-67, 168, 230n.34; rabbis on the laws of, 134-35, 222n.63, 223n.67; on sacrifice, 110, 158; scribes

Torah (continued) of (ascribes); sectarians' ambivalence toward, 134-35; on strangers dwelling among Israelites, 188n.7; and the Temple Scroll, 92-93, 94, 96, 112; and the Ten Commandments, 148; wisdom as, 31, 48-49. See also Deuteronomy; Exodus; Genesis; Holiness Code; Leviticus; Numbers; purity laws Torah shrines, 171, 231n.53 Tosefta, 170 Trifon, Dalia, 232nn.64-65 Tsafrir, Yoram, 228n.9 Twelve Tribes of Israel. See Israelites Uzziah (king), 89 VanderKam, James C , 77, 196n.l08, 205n.84, 219n.31 Vespasian (emperor), 160 visions, 32, 194n.7l Wacholder, Ben Zion, 199n.8 War Scroll, 118, 162 Watchers, fallen, and their human wives, 17-18,21,23-25, 65, 191n.33 Weinfeld, Moshe, 132, 205n.77 Werman, Cana: on Damascus Document's reference to Jubilees, 21 In.48; on gen­ tiles becoming Jews, 78; on the gers sta­ tus, 79; on the halakhah (rabbinic law), 200n.28; on Jubilees and the heavenly tablets, 198-99n.8; on Jubilees and the Samaritans, 203n.62; on Jubilees on Esau, 204n.65; on Jubilees's dating, 205n.85; on Jubilees's references to con­ temporary events, 204n.68 Western Wall inscription, 164 wilderness/confinement camp for impuri­ ties, 93-94, 96-97, 210n.35 Wills, Lawrence, 209-10n.34 Wilson, Andrew M., 209-10n.34 Wilson, Bryan, 2l7n.3 wisdom: Aramaic Levi on, 47-48, 50; ben Sira on, 31, 48-49; Daniel on, 13, 189n.5; Deuteronomy on, 15, 38; of Joseph, 12-13, 48-49; of Josephus, 50-51; of judges, 15; and kingship, 36;

Moses on, 15; of priests, 38, 45; and text, 15; as the Torah, 31, 48-49; as a way of life, 31 Wisdom of ben Sira: on Aaron, 35, 38, 195n.90; and Astronomical Book, 42, 44; authorship of, 30, 193n.63; and Book of the Watchers, 16, 42-45, 197n.l23; on covenant with David, 35-36; on David's line, 37, 196n.99; dreams dismissed by, 42-43; on Enoch as scribe, 16, 18, 42; on the high priest, 45, 60; on the lunar vs. solar calendar, 42, 196n.ll6; on Phinehas, 35-36; priest and king in, 34-42, 194-95n.85, 195n.93; on prophecy, 43; scribe, prophet, and priest in, 30-34, 51-52, 193-94n.70; on Simon (high priest), 8, 16, 34, 35-36, 38, 45, 52, 195n.93; on Solomon, 36-37; on speculation about hidden matters, 42, 43-44; on wisdom, 31, 48-49 Wise, Michael Owen, 209-10n.34 women: Canaanite, 70, 76; denigration of, 104; as priests, 140 Wright, Benjamin, 42, 44 Yadin, Yigael, 85, 95, 97-98, 209nn.30-31 yahad, 98, 117-18, 122, 126, 2l7n.6, *218n.9 Yavneh, 174-75, 233n.78 Yerushalmi, 166. See also Talmud Yerushalmi Yuval, Israel Jacob, 233n.7l zab, 101-3, 104, 109-10, 112, 213n.69, 213n.7l, 214n.73 zabd, 100, 104-5, 110-11, 212n.61, 215n.84 Zadok, 6, 120 Zadokites, 125-27, 128, 219-20n.33, 219n.31 Zechariah (prophet): in the community of the return, 32; on the messiah, 167; visions of, 32, 34, 194n.7l; on Zerubba­ bel, 163 zera haqqddes (the holy race), 3 Zerubbabel, 6, 34, 163, 189n.2. See also Sefer Zerubbabel zimmd (wickedness), 91 zwb (flow), 100-101 1

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasant duty to thank the many p e o p l e w h o have h e l p e d m e in various ways in the writing o f this b o o k . It is a particular pleasure that the first three I m e n t i o n are alumni o f the Princeton Religion Department. I am grateful to Annette R e e d , n o w o f McMaster University, for many help­ ful conversations, particularly a b o u t the Book of the Watchers. David Frank­ furter o f the University o f N e w Hampshire and J o h n Marshall o f the University o f T o r o n t o read and criticized the p o r t i o n o f Chapter 4 deal­ ing with the B o o k o f Revelation. David Runia o f the University o f Mel­ b o u r n e and Daniel Schwartz o f H e b r e w University offered

helpful

suggestions o n a paper delivered at a c o n f e r e n c e at the Institute for A d ­ vanced Studies at H e b r e w University in March 2001 that was the basis for Chapter 5 . T h e final chapter o f this b o o k owes a great deal to Peter Schafer o f Princeton and Israel Yuval o f the H e b r e w University, w h o al­ lowed m e to sit in o n their wonderful undergraduate course, "Christian­ ity and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity," taught at Princeton in the spring o f 2 0 0 4 . 1 am grateful to b o t h o f them for many thought-provoking conver­ sations that semester. I w o u l d also like to thank Peter Schafer for his helpful c o m m e n t s o n a draft o f that chapter. J o h n Gager o f Princeton of­ fered helpful suggestions at a n u m b e r o f points. C r e g g Gardner, a gradu­ ate student in the Department o f Religion at Princeton, prepared the bibliography and p e r f o r m e d service above and b e y o n d the call o f duty in proofreading and correcting the notes. O u r department manager, Lor­ raine Fuhrmann, eased the burdens o f my term as department chair; without her, this b o o k w o u l d have taken even l o n g e r to c o m p l e t e . I w o u l d also like to thank the other m e m b e r s o f the department staff, Pat Bogdziewicz and Kerry Smith, for all their help and g o o d cheer. Tammy Williams p r o v i d e d timely advice a b o u t c o m p u t e r p r o b l e m s . Part o f Chapter 1 o f this b o o k originally appeared as "The W i s d o m o f the Scribe, the W i s d o m o f the Priest, and the W i s d o m o f the King

A c c o r d i n g to Ben Sira" in the festschrift for G e o r g e Nickelsburg, For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, e d . Randal A . Argal, Beverly A . Bow, and R o d n e y A. Werline (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000) 8 9 - 9 9 . I thank the M o r e h o u s e Publishing C o m p a n y for permission to reprint it. Parts o f Chapters 3 and 4 are drawn from "Sexual Relations and Purity in the T e m p l e Scroll and the B o o k o f Jubilees," Dead Sea Discoveries 6 ( 1 9 9 9 ) : 11-36; "Impurity and Sin in 4 Q D , 1QS, and 4 Q 5 1 2 , " Dead Sea Discoveries 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 9 - 3 7 ; and "The Purity Laws o f 4 Q D : Exegesis and Sectarianism," in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Lit­ erature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, ed. Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 1 5 5 - 6 9 . 1 thank Koninklijke Brill N V for permission to use this material. Finally, I turn to my family. I owe my husband, Steven Weiss, far m o r e than I can possibly thank him for. H e r e I will mention only that he read the manuscript o f this b o o k with great care and offered many helpful sug­ gestions. O u r children, Asher, Margaret, Ruth, and Abigail, n o w adults o r almost adults, provided practical assistance o f various kinds and offered loving encouragement, for which I am deeply grateful. I am also grateful to my mother, Judith Himmelfarb, whose love and kindness are unfailing, to my brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, Edward and Sarah Himmelfarb, Miriam Himmelfarb, A n n e Himmelfarb and Joel Schwartz, Sarah Himmelfarb and R o n Sass, Naomi Himmelfarb and Jack Mearns, Dan Himmelfarb and Carol Cardinale, and to my nephew, Ben­ jamin Himmelfarb. This b o o k is dedicated to the m e m o r y o f my father, Milton H i m m e l ­ farb. I deeply regret that my father's illness prevented h i m f r o m reading and c o m m e n t i n g o n this manuscript as h e did for my other b o o k s . I know the b o o k w o u l d b e a better o n e if it had had the benefit o f his crit­ icism. Jewish tradition teaches us to regard o u r parents as o u r teachers. Over the years my father taught m e many things about Jewish texts and Jewish history, drawing o n a b r o a d and d e e p k n o w l e d g e that was all the m o r e impressive because it was n o t professional k n o w l e d g e . I r e m e m b e r particularly h o w I first learned a b o u t the D o c u m e n t a r y Hypothesis as I sat next to h i m in synagogue at the age o f twelve o r thirteen. During the reading o f the Torah h e w o u l d p o i n t o u t the characteristic language o f the sources f o u n d in that Sabbath's portion, and h e w o u l d explain h o w recognition o f multiple sources illumined the reading. In his writings my father e x p l o r e d the tensions between the culture o f modernity and the claims o f Jewish tradition, insisting that m o d e r n Jews were the p o o r e r if they failed to r e s p o n d to those claims. That was what my father taught m e in those conversations in synagogue, and it was a lesson h e exemplified daily in his life.