The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Vol 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins (Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins)

The Scrolls and Christian Origins

The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Volume Three The Scrolls and Christian Origins E DITED BY JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH THE SECOND PRINCETON SYMPOSIUM ON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS WACO, TEXAS

© 2006 by Baylor University Press Waco, Texas 76798 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press. Book Design by Scribe, Inc. (www.scribenet.com) Cover Design by Brion Sausser

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (2nd : 1997 : Princeton Theological Seminary) The Bible and the Dead Sea scrolls / edited by James H. Charlesworth. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-932792-19-8 (v. 1 : hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-75-9 (v. 1 : pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-20-1 (v. 2 : hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-76-7 (v. 2 : pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-21-X (v. 3 : hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-77-5 (v. 3 : pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-93279234-1 (set : hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-932792-78-3 (set : pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Dead Sea scrolls—Congresses. 2. Bible.—Criticism, interpretation, etc.— Congresses. 3. Qumran community—Congresses. 4. Christianity—Origin— Congresses. 5. Dead Sea scrolls—Relation to the New Testament—Congresses. I. Charlesworth, James H. II. Title. BM487.P855 2006 296.1'55—dc22 2006006943

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

CONTENTS Chapter 1

John the Baptizer and the Dead Sea Scrolls........................1 James H. Charlesworth Chapter 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus ................37 Richard A. Horsley Chapter 3 The Future of a Religious Past: Qumran and the Palestinian Jesus Movement..................61 Donald H. Juel Chapter 4 The Synoptic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls ..............75 Craig A. Evans Chapter 5 A Study in Shared Symbolism and Language: The Qumran Community and the Johannine Community ......................................................97 James H. Charlesworth Chapter 6 The Impact of Selected Qumran Texts on the Understanding of Pauline Theology ..................153 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn Chapter 7 Qumran’s Some Works of Torah (4Q394–399 [4QMMT]) and Paul’s Galatians ..............187 James D. G. Dunn and James H. Charlesworth Chapter 8 How the Scrolls Impacted Scholarship on Hebrews ......203 Harold W. Attridge Chapter 9 The Dream of a New Jerusalem at Qumran ..................231 Adela Yarbro Collins Chapter 10 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocalypse of John ........255 Loren L. Johns Chapter 11 About the Differing Approach to a Theological Heritage: Comments on the Relationship Between the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and Qumran ..................................281 Enno E. Popkes

v

vi

CONTENTS

Chapter 12 Economic Justice and Nonretaliation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Implications for New Testament Interpretation ........................................319 Gordon M. Zerbe Chapter 13 Atonement: Qumran and the New Testament ..............357 Paul Garnet Chapter 14 “The Coming of the Righteous One” in 1 Enoch, Qumran, and the New Testament ................381 Gerbern S. Oegema Chapter 15 Qumran and Supersessionism— and the Road Not Taken ................................................397 Krister Stendahl Chapter 16 The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on New Testament Interpretation: Proposals, Problems, and Further Perspectives ..............407 Jörg Frey Bibliography ..........................................................................................463 Author Index ........................................................................................585 Subject Index ........................................................................................601 Biblical Index ........................................................................................645 Non-Biblical Index ................................................................................685

CHAPTER ONE

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS James H. Charlesworth One fascinating question has preoccupied experts since the beginning of the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were first discovered in the winter of 1947. It is the relationship between John the Baptizer (or the Baptist) and the community of religious men who lived at Qumran, not far from where the Baptizer was active. The purpose of this paper is to present a hypothesis that appeared to me as I was preparing a critical edition of the twelve manuscripts of the Rule of the Community. I am persuaded that this document, the quintessential composition by the Qumranites, helps us understand the most likely relation between John the Baptizer and the Qumranites.1

I NTRODUCTION Since 1956 I have been reading the speculations on how John the Baptizer must have been an Essene or could not have been related in any way to the Qumran Community. I am not interested here in providing a report of published research on this question. If one were contemplated, it might begin with the excessive claim by H. Graetz in 1893 that the first Jews who announced that the Messiah is coming were the Essenes. Graetz claimed that the Essene who sent forth this call to the Israelites was John the Baptist (whose name doubtless meant the Essene), he who daily bathed and cleansed both body and soul in spring water. Graetz contended that John appears fully to have entertained the belief that if only the whole Judean nation would bathe in the river

1. The present paper is a revision and expansion of one that was published in Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich, eds., The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues (New York: Brill, 1999). I am grateful to the editors and publisher for permission to publish this revised version.

1

2

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

Jordan, acknowledge their sins, and adopt the strict Essene rules, the promised Messianic time could be no longer deferred.2 Obviously, no Qumran expert today would defend such a position in light of what is now known about the Qumranites and their library. The reference to Graetz illustrates that a report of research on the relationship between the Baptizer and the Qumranites would entail a large monograph, and that would blur my focus. Presently my concern is turned to the primary texts from Qumran.

APPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY My approach is appreciably different from most of the research published on this focused question. Frequently, those who are interested in John the Baptizer begin with the New Testament evidence and seek to comprehend what can be known about this pivotal figure in both Jesus research and in the study of Christian Origins.3 I, rather, begin with an interest in John the Baptizer and his place within Early Judaism (Second Temple Judaism). John the Baptizer is only the most prominent member of a wide and diverse baptist movement including Bannus, the Nasoreans, Ebionites, Elkasites, and the groups behind the Apocalypse of Adam and Sibylline Oracle book 4. It is important to keep in mind how the Baptizer relates to this wider baptist movement.4 As Adolf Schlatter affirmed, John was given the name “Baptizer” not by Christians but by Jews and probably by members of his movement.5 I shall approach this intriguing figure in light of what I have learned from preparing the first critical edition of all manuscript witnesses to the Rule of the Community. This and other editorial work awakened in me a special appreciation of the Qumranic laws and lore for admitting or excluding a prospective member—or even a full member—of 2. Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893), 2:145–46. 3. B. Chilton portrays Jesus as a “Talmid” of the Baptizer. He mastered John’s “mishnah,” learned to “embody” the imagery of Ezekiel, and in an apocalyptic manner saw the vision of the chariot. See Bruce D. Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 41–63. 4. A helpful book, now dated and in need of expansion, is Joseph Thomas’s Le movement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (150 av. J.-C.–300 ap. J.-C.) (Gembloux: Ducolot, 1935). 5. I am indebted to Hermann Lichtenberger for discussing this issue with me. See Adolf von Schlatter, Johannes der Täufer (ed. W. Michaelis; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1956), 61.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

3

the community.6 I wondered how and in what ways my reflections might provide a better understanding of the striking similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. Second, it is clear that the Qumran Community was a social group with unusually high barriers for admission and strict rules for promotion, temporary exclusion, and even permanent expulsion. I have endeavored to enrich our understanding of the Qumran Community by learning from sociologists about purity and social barriers, and applying sociological studies, obviously refined by a sensitivity to different phenomena,7 so that sociological and anthropological methodologies and insights can help us understand pre-70 Jewish sectarian communities. Surely by now, Qumran experts realize that sociological analysis must be used to deepen historical research and our perception of ancient social phenomena.8 Third, I am convinced that it is time to continue exploring how John the Baptizer may relate to Qumran. Research seems to have been in a stalemate that has polarized into two mutually exclusive groups. On the one hand, certain scholars conclude that the Baptist was an Essene or profoundly influenced by them (Harding, Brownlee, Robinson, Daniélou, Scobie, and Dunn), and these experts employ quite different categories and present subtle differences.9 On the other hand, other 6. I am still uneasy about using the term “halakot” for nonrabbinic texts. It is not used even in Some Works of Torah (4Q394–399 = 4QMMT) in anything like a rabbinic sense. 7. We need to heed S. K. Stowers’s warning: “In the use of social scientific models, the new approach too readily assumes commensurability between ancient and modern societies and ancient and modern thought.” Idem, “The Social Sciences and the Study of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context (vol. 5 of Approaches to Ancient Judaism; ed. W. S. Green; BJS 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 150. 8. See Gerd Theissen, “Zur forschungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung,” in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (2d ed.; WUNT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 3–34. Also see Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 6–17. 9. Gerald Lancester Harding, “Where Christ Himself May Have Studied: A Monastery at Khirbet Qumran,” London Illustrated News (Sept. 3, 1955), 379–81; William H. Brownlee, “John the Baptist in the Light of Ancient Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; new introduction by J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1992), 33–53. Brownlee connected John the Baptizer “with the Essenes in his youth” but did not insist that he must be located “specifically at Qumran” (53); William H. Brownlee, “Whence the Gospel according to John,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 166–94, esp. 174: “John the Baptist…may have resided at Qumran (or at some other centre of Essenism).” Brownlee concluded that Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel came from John the Baptist, either directly to Jesus or to the Evangelist—but most likely to both. See also the following publications: John A. T. Robinson, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community: Testing a Hypothesis,” HTR 50

4

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

experts contend that the Baptist had no significant contact with Qumran (Baidi and Bagitti, Lupieri, Kazmierski).10 Two recent studies help to frame our present explorations into discerning how and in what ways, if at all, John the Baptizer might be related to the Qumranites. L. H. Schiffman concluded that John the Baptizer could have been a member of the Qumran Community, and that he only “shared certain ideas and a common religious milieu with the sectarians at Qumran.”11 H. Lichtenberger is convinced that Josephus portrayed John the Baptizer as an Essene, but he cannot “produce a conclusive answer as to whether John was an Essene at any stage of his life.”12 Lichtenberger ends his article confronting two questions: (1) Was the Baptizer “at one time” an “Essene, but by the time of his public preaching had separated himself from the sect, and could no longer with accuracy be called an Essene? (2) Had John the Essene become John the

(1957): 175–91; Jean Daniélou, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (trans. S. Attanasio; Baltimore: Helicon, 1958), 16; Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), 207: “John may be regarded as an Essene in this broad sense.” More recently, Hans Burgmann was convinced that John the Baptizer had been an Essene. See his “John the Baptist Was an Essene!” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part I: General Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, and the New Testament. The Present State of Qumranology (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]. Qumranica Mogilanensia 2; Kraków: Enigma, 1993), 131–37. This is a rather unsophisticated paper, but Burgmann did make some interesting points. Also, see Stevan L. Davies, “John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth,” NTS 29 (1983): 569–71; James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM, 1970). Dunn contends that John the Baptizer almost certainly had some contact with the sect, even if only peripheral—sufficient at least for him to adopt (and adapt) some of their ideas (9–10). 10. Donato Baidi and Belarmino Bagatti, Saint Jean-Baptiste dans les souvenirs de sa patrie (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1980), 61. I am grateful to Edmondo Lupieri for numerous conversations in Princeton on the possible relation between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. See his Giovanni e Gesù: Storia di un antagonisms (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editori, 1991), 67–68; and his “Halakhah qumranica e halakhah battistica di Giovanni: Due mondi a confronto,” RStB 9, no. 2 (1997): 69–98. Carl R. Kazmierski, John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996). Kazmierski recognizes “some striking parallels” between John’s preaching and the Qumran traditions, but he concludes with skepticism about any “Qumran connection” (30). 11. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 404. 12. Hermann Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist: Reflections on Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 340–46, with quotation from 346. A fuller version of Lichtenberger’s article appeared in German: “Täufergemeinden und frühchristliche Täuferpolitik im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts,” ZTK 84 (1987): 36–57.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

5

Baptist, or better: the Baptizer?” For Lichtenberger, the answer to both questions is most likely yes. Such questions indicate the necessity of continuing to investigate the relation of the Baptizer to Qumran, especially in light of the new research on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

P ERSPECTIVE Along with many Qumran experts I am convinced that the similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites are too impressive to be dismissed as merely an example of a shared milieu. To conclude that the Baptizer could not “have been at home in a community which had broken off all relations with the Jerusalem priesthood to which John’s family belonged”13 is hardly a solution to the complex and striking similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. J. VanderKam gives voice to a widely held opinion among established Qumran experts: The series of similarities between the Qumran sect and John amount to something less than an identification of John as an Essene or Qumranite, but they are certainly suggestive and have led some to make strong claims for the Essene connections of John the Baptist. Yet, if he ever was a member of the Qumran community or visited the site, he must have later separated from it to pursue his independent, solitary ministry.14

VanderKam frames the most probable historical possibility: the Baptizer might have once been connected with Qumran but, if so, he also must have abandoned any ties he had with the Qumranites. Historians will demand, in light of fuller documentation available now, that we explore such possibilities. They must seek to discern probabilities, even though they may never be able to produce definitive or fully convincing solutions. Reconstructing the relation between John and the Qumranites is difficult, because of the nature of historiography, the paucity of our sources, and the redactional and tendentious nature of all extant sources. Given such caveats, it is necessary to seek to discern what is the best, or most attractive, explanation for the shared similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. It is prudent to proceed further since the shared similarities are recognized by most Qumranologists 13. Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, “The Qumran Texts and the New Testament,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (ed. F. García Martínez and J.C. Trebolle Barrera; trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 206. 14. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 170.

6

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

and New Testament historians. Obviously, as I continue to seek the answers now in focus, I must leave my preoccupation with fragments to seek some synthesis and to use some historical imagination.

S IX STRIKING S IMILARITIES The evidence for some relationship between the Baptizer and the Qumranites derives from six striking points of similarity. First, they both come from the same geographical area: John baptized Jews in the Jordan River and, at least some of the time, at the north end of the Dead Sea, where the Jordan flows into it (Mark 1:5; Matt 3:5; Luke 3:3). The Qumranites lived and worked less than three hours walk to the southwest. And there is sufficient data, both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Josephus, to imagine that Qumran Essenes may have lived on the outskirts of Jericho. Perhaps they lived there only after the initial success of Herod the Great. Furthermore, an ostracon found at Qumran by James Strange’s team in January 1996 mentions “Jericho” in line 2.15 It seems prima facie evident that this ostracon belonged to one who was planning on joining the Qumran Community. Second, both the Baptizer and the Qumranites shared a preference for prophecy, especially Isaiah (Mark 1:2–3; Matt 3:1–3; Luke 3:4; and esp. John 1:23). The Qumranites clearly and the Baptizer most likely focused upon a stunning and unique interpretation of Isa 40:3: “A Voice is calling: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH.’” Many Jews, as did the Baptizer and his followers, probably interpreted the text to mean that someone’s voice, or the Voice, was in the wilderness: “A Voice is calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord.’” The Septuagint understands the verse to mean, “A voice crying in the wilderness…” The Targum of Isaiah shifts the meaning so that what is to be expected is not the coming of the Lord but the coming of God’s people to Zion: “The voice of one crying, ‘In the wilderness prepare a way before the people of the Lord.’”16 15. I am grateful to Esti Eshel for allowing me to study and read the James Strange ostracon long before it was published. See now Frank M. Cross and Esti Eshel, “Khirbet Qumran Ostracon (Plate XXXIII),” in Qumran Cave 4:XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 497–507. 16. See the excellent study by Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40.1–5 and Their Adaptation in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45; repr. in New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader (ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter; The Biblical Seminar 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 149–68.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

7

The Qumranites clearly understood the verse to mean that the Voice calls the elect ones to come into the wilderness for a purpose (1QS 8.14):17 “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord” (Krd) (or “the way of truth,” tm)h Krd; cf. 4QS MS E frag. 1, col. 3:4). For the Qumranites Isa 40:3 has an eschatological purpose: they are to prepare “the way” for the final act of the Lord in the wilderness (1QS 8.13; cf. Luke 3:7–9; Matt 3:7–10). The Qumranites have separated “themselves from the session of the men of deceit in order to depart into the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord” (1QS 8.13).18 This interpretation of Isaiah is explicit in the Rule of the Community; it is implicit in the life and teachings of John the Baptizer. Note especially John 1:23: those sent by the priests and Levites in Jerusalem asked the Baptizer who he was and what he thought about himself. The Baptizer replied, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”19 Third, both the Baptizer and the Qumranites shared a concern for eschatological purification by means of ritual cleansing in living water (running, fresh, water that is salvific). Both the Qumranites and John needed an abundance of water. At Qumran there are numerous cisterns and mikva)ot (ritual baths), and the Rule of the Community frequently enunciates the eschatological and salvific importance of purifying water. Likewise, John the Baptizer is reported to be baptizing where there was much water (John 3:23). Both the Baptizer and the Qumranites connected water with sins. A few texts suggest that both seem to see immersion as symbolizing purity already obtained. At Qumran one had to undergo testing before being 17. See James H. Charlesworth “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek Ha-Yahad,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; BibIntS 28;Leiden: Brill, 1997), 197–224. 18. Translation and text in James H. Charlesworth et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community (Philadelphia: American Interfaith Institute/World Alliance, 1996), 36–37. This passage, 1QS 8.13–14, is preserved in 4QS MS E; but it is not preserved in, or was never extant in, 4QS MS B; 4QS MS C; 4QS MS F; 4QS MS G; 4QS MS H; 4QS MS I; and 4QS MS J. It was probably not part of 4QS MS D, which in frag. 2 is parallel to 1QS 8.6–21. Note esp. frag. 2, lines 6–7: “They shall separate themselves from [the midst of the session] of the men of [deceit in order to depart into the wilderness to prepare there the Way of truth. This (alludes to) the study of Tora]h which he commanded through [Moses to d]o everything [revealed].…” Thus, 4QS MS D does not have the reference to Isa 40:3. Does it represent another community? Is it a later recension? It dates palaeographically fifty years later than 1QS. 19. This is an intertext, so it should not be translated too literally as “I (am) a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as said Isaiah the prophet.”

8

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

admitted to enter “the waters,” and he must not enter the water if he is impure (1QS 5.13). Note how the Qumranite can be cleansed: It is by the Holy Spirit of the community in his [God’s] truth that he can be cleansed from all his iniquities. It is by an upright and humble spirit that his sin can be atoned. It is by humbling his soul to all God’s statutes, that his flesh can be cleansed, by sprinkling with waters of purification, and by sanctifying himself with waters of purity. (1QS 3.7–9)

Immersion seems to be the end of a process; it does begin the process for purification. Before entering the “waters of purity,” one first must have entered the community, be cleansed by the Holy Spirit, and then obtain “an upright and humble spirit.” According to Mark and Luke (but not Matthew), Qumran’s concepts are different from those of the Baptizer. He preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).20 According, to Josephus, however, the Baptizer—like the Qumranites—presupposed a life of piety before baptism. As at Qumran, what was needed was a ritual cleansing of the body after the spirit had been cleansed of its impurities. Note the words of Josephus: “In his [John the Baptizer’s] view this [leading righteous lives] was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior” (Ant. 18.117).21 Has Josephus read Qumran ideas into the teaching of the Baptizer? That is possible, but unlikely. If there has been any distortion of the message of the Baptizer, it seems more likely that the Evangelists have portrayed the Baptizer in light of Jesus, who called Jews to “repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). For the Qumranites and the Baptizer, immersion symbolized entering into a community that awaited and was prepared for the final cataclysmic day of judgment. Within this broad similarity, there is—as a historian might expect—much dissimilarity; for example, only at Qumran is the immersion repeatable, indeed frequent.22 While it is conceivable that for the Baptizer some might have been immersed twice in their lifetime, at 20. We should recognize that this is clearer for the Baptizer than for Qumran. 21. Josephus, Ant., 9.82–83. See Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist,” 340–46 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, 18–26. 22. Ben Witherington seems more impressed by the differences and is “vexed” by the relationship between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. See Ben Witherington, “John the Baptist,” in DJG (ed. J. B. Green and S. McKnight; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 383–91.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

9

Qumran ritual immersion occurred each day (and frequently more than once a day). Fourth, John as well as the Qumranites stressed the impending doom of the final judgment (see 1QS 4; Luke 3:9; Matt 3:10). Both the Baptizer and the Qumranites held a radical vision that was both prophetic and apocalyptic, and both condemned the religious leaders of Jewish society with a vengeance.23 Fifth, both the Baptizer and the Qumranites were ascetic, and even celibate (Luke 1:15; 1QS 5.1–6.8).24 Both the Baptizer and the Qumranites stood out in Early Judaism because of this extreme aspect of their utter devotion to God. Sixth, Luke and Matthew recorded that the Baptizer called the multitudes—many among them Pharisees and Sadducees, according to Matthew—a “brood of vipers” (Luke 3:7 = Matt 3:7). Did he make up this term, or did he inherit it from some tradition? Because of its uniqueness in Second Temple Judaism, it is likely that he learned it from the Qumranites. They also talked about their adversaries, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees, as those born of a viper (or asp). And when they chanted their sectarian hymnbook, the Thanksgiving Hymns, in the deeply metaphorically complex column 11 (= Sukenik col. 3), they thought about how Sheol had been opened “[for all] the works of the viper.”25 The “works of the viper,” as A. Dupont-Sommer and O. Betz observed long ago, denoted in this hymn the “creatures” or offspring of Belial.26 The woman is pregnant because of the “viper,” and her offspring are those damned for Sheol. The Greek (ge/nnhma) means “offspring,” and the Hebrew (y#(m) is a plural construct that is familiar in the Dead Sea Scrolls, having many meanings, including “offspring” when it refers back to the “works” of the woman; this means her offspring—and here 23. See Paul W. Hollenbach, “John the Baptist,” ABD 3:887–99; see esp. 898. 24. There should be no longer any doubt about the celibate nature of the Qumran Community. See Joseph E. Zias, “The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?” DSD 7 (2000): 220–53. Also, see my discussion of celibacy at Qumran in James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Also, see Joseph E. Zias’s chapter in Jesus and Archaeology (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 25. See the insights shared by Menahem Mansoor in his The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 115n8. 26. André Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (trans. G. Vermes; Cleveland: World Publishing, 1962), 209n1; Otto Betz, “Die Geburt der Gemeinde durch den Lehrer (Bemerkungen zum Qumranpsalm 1QH III, 1ff.),” NTS 3 (1957): 314–26; idem, “Die Proselytentaufe der Qumransekte und die Taufe im Neuen Testament,” RevQ 1 (1958–59): 213–34. I am indebted to Otto Betz for numerous conversations on this Qumran text.

10

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

“[all] the creatures of the viper” is parallel to “all the spirits of the viper.” The Hebrew and Greek texts are close enough to raise the possibility that the Baptizer inherited from the Qumranites the concept of hatred and the portrayal of the Jewish establishment as a “brood of vipers.” Is that not tantamount to talking about the “creatures of the viper”? And is this tradition, shaped by the liturgy of the Qumran Community, perhaps the source of the Baptizer’s vocabulary and venom?

ASSESSING THE DIFFERENCES Certainly, some differences between the Baptizer and the Qumranites are also obvious. There is no indisputable evidence that John was ever at Qumran. The reference in Luke 1:80, which contains the tradition that John was “in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly in Israel,” does not necessarily indicate Qumran. Nevertheless, that possibility still remains intriguing. As already mentioned, John baptized those who came to him only once, which is not to be confused with the repetitive ritual cleansings at Qumran. Most importantly, John the Baptizer was a missionary prophet calling all Israel to repent, as David Flusser pointed out.27 The Qumranites were not interested in any mission to Israel; rather, they separated themselves from all others and constructed high social barriers to keep purity within the community and the Sons of Darkness outside of it.28 Entrance into the Baptizer’s community, which was not localized, was immediate; and no one was punished or expelled from his community. There were no rigid social barriers. However, the social barriers of the Qumran Community were extremely high and wide. One could not be born into the community; instead, it took over two years to become a full member. Once inside, there were grave and altogether real possibilities of being expelled for one or two years and even permanent expulsion. Upon entering the renewed covenant, a member gave up all his possessions; they now belonged forever to the common storehouse of the community. The biblical laws, especially those pertaining to purity, and the additional 27. David Flusser, “The Baptism of John and the Dead Sea Sect,” in Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 209–33 [in Hebrew]; and idem, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus and the War Scroll,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 143. 28. See Hannah K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis (SBLDS 143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

11

laws were interpreted strictly and administered severely. Even within the community there were barriers, and each person was isolated from others in terms of his “lot” in a rigid hierarchy; each year one was retained, advanced, or demoted publicly. Even after a possibly full night of meditation or reading Torah or one of Qumran’s compositions, a member was punished if he fell asleep in the assembly (1QS 7.10). Rules, restrictions, and severe barriers separated one Qumranite from another and—most importantly—this group of Jews from all other Jews. The Rule of the Community presents a system for understanding the cosmos and the human. The cosmos is electrically alive with a war between the Angel of Light and the Angel of Darkness. On the earth the struggle continues through the bifurcation of humanity into Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness. Not only are these two sides of humanity separated, but also within the community the Sons of Light seem to be separated from the Sons of the Dawn, perhaps the initiates. And all members of the Yah[ad (dxyh) are apparently afraid of pollution from other members who are not of the same advanced “lot.” Josephus even reports the fear of the advanced members being touched by other Qumranites, or Essenes: “And so far are the junior members inferior [e0lattou= ntai w3 st’] to the seniors, that a senior if but touched by a junior, must take a bath, as after contact with an alien.”29 The sociological insights of Mary Douglas surely assist reflections on the sociological and anthropological meaning of the community. Extremely important is her insight that “the only way in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total structure of thought whose keystone, boundaries, margins and internal lines are held in relation by rituals of separation.”30 Qumran clearly had developed “a total structure of thought,” which defined pollution and purity; moreover, each year the Qumranites reenacted a liturgy that separated the pure from the impure. As J. Milgrom has shown, for the Qumranites “impurity is dangerously ‘alive and well,’ obsessively dreaded as the autonomous power of demonic Belial (1QS 1.23–24; CD 4.12–19), intent on wiping out the entire community.”31

29. Josephus, J.W. 2.150. 30. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (New York: Routledge, 1966; repr. 2002), 41. 31. Jacob Milgrom, “First Day Ablutions in Qumran,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J.C. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:570.

12

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS DETECTING A CONSENSUS

In The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism, J. A. Taylor assesses, inter alia, the possibility of any relation between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. She points out that the Baptizer’s life, teaching, and habits are not grounded in the Diaspora but in the Land of Israel. She correctly identifies Qumran with a form of Essenism, and wisely judges that Josephus was most familiar with a group of Essenes who were celibate and may have lived in Jerusalem.32 Taylor contends that the Baptizer, since he baptized “as close as ten kilometers or so away from Qumran,” may “likely” have known “about a community there and about Essenes in general, and he may have been familiar with some of their beliefs.”33 This admission is an exception to her penchant to deny any similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites; so she continues to argue that “geographical proximity does not in itself require influence or connection.”34 She is surely right, strictly speaking, and there are texts that suggest the Baptizer was active in other areas far removed from Qumran (e.g., John 3:23). Taylor’s work thus is intermittently marred by the desire to deny any “close connection” between the Baptizer and the Qumranites.35 She claims that the Baptizer’s exhortation for those who have two garments to share one with any who has none (Luke 3:11) cannot have any connection with Qumran’s “communism.” This position is not adequately defended and supported by careful exegesis. She is content merely to point out the obvious; for the Baptizer “this sharing” is not “to be done within some group of John’s disciples or in a wider Essene movement.” That may be true, but the Baptizer did not establish a community like the Qumran Community. Taylor claims that the Baptizer’s exhortation should be perceived in light of Ezek 18:5–9. This passage does not, as Taylor’s hypothesis would require, suggest anything beyond a moral code of sharing with others. Is that what Luke was reporting when he made the above comment about the Baptizer? Here is the Lukan text; the quotation is attributed to the Baptizer: “Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” And the 32. Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 20. 33. Ibid., 42. 34. Ibid., 43. 35. Ibid., 77.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

13

crowds asked him, “What then should we do?” In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” (3:9–11 NRSV)

What was Luke attributing to the Baptizer? Was it not radical? Was Luke not clearly reporting that, for the Baptizer, one must give all to others and be content with only one “coat?” If so, the Baptizer, like the Essenes, radicalized the moral code; hence, it would follow that some connection with Qumran might be, and probably is, likely. Despite Taylor’s claim, scholars have not assumed that the Baptizer “advised people to live communally with entirely shared resources, as we find in the Rule of the Community 1QS 6.19–23.”36 The Baptizer cannot be simply seen as one who lived within the Yah[ad. Hence, Taylor’s claim that the Baptizer wore sackcloth and was not dressed in white like the Essenes, according to Josephus (J.W. 2.123; 2.137) misses the point, or is beside the point.37 In comparing groups, similarities that reveal relationships do not need to be identical. If the Baptizer had any connection in the past with the Qumranites, he also developed some unique features, thoughts, and habits. As historians we should not miss the uniqueness of the Baptizer. I would tend to agree with Taylor that a relationship between the Baptizer and the Qumranites should not be based on a shared condemnation of incest and, explicitly, the marrying of nieces. Thus, the Baptizer’s teaching, according to Mark 6:17–18, is not based solely on the Damascus Document 4.17–18. When the Baptizer condemned Antipas for marrying his niece (his brother’s wife), he could be assuming the well-known law in the Torah that condemns marrying the wife of your brother (Lev 20:21; cf. 18:16). Without exegesis and explanation, Taylor asserts that the Baptizer, unlike the communal Qumranites and Essenes, was “a loner,” and this “key characteristic of John” would “be completely out of place if he were (or had been at one time) part of the Essene movement” or “community.”38 Taylor needs to explain why no one can become a “loner” once he leaves some form of “communal living.” Did not the Egyptian anchorites, only a century or so after the burning of the Qumran Community, leave a religious community and live as hermits? Is that not clear in the life of St. Antony when around 310 C.E. he left a religious community he had organized and retired to solitude in the desert? Was such a move impossible for John, the son of Zechariah? 36. Ibid., 24. 37. Ibid., 38. 38. Ibid., 20.

14

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

Taylor admits that the use of Isa 40:3 by the Baptizer and the Qumranites constitutes the “most significant potential evidence for any connection.”39 But she is convinced that the verse is interpreted differently. The Qumranites used it to justify their existence in the wilderness. The Baptizer “did not use the verse to justify the establishment of an actual wilderness community.”40 That seems irrelevant and misleading; the Fourth Evangelist in 1:23 does claim that the Baptizer was “in the wilderness” because of his understanding of Isa 40:3. The Synoptics, when they present the Baptizer and quote Isa 40:3, mix together his habits and interpretations of Torah with their own interpretations. One cannot simply assume that what the Evangelists state about the Baptizer’s understanding of Isa 40:3 contains nothing that goes back to him and is only a Christian redaction of traditions from the Baptizer (see Mark 1:2–8; Matt 3:1–12; Luke 3:1–20). Taylor’s methodology is so rigid that possibilities are not allowed to seep in: “Only if the interpretation is precisely the same can we suppose that the two may have been linked.”41 This quotation raises two questions: (1) Is Taylor striving to prove that no relation is possible between the Baptizer and the Qumranites (or Essenes)? and (2) does she understand the need to avoid inflexible methodologies? Using her positivistic methodology, it would become clear that Hillel and Shammai could not have had any “connection” or belong to the same type of Judaism since they habitually interpreted Torah differently. As S. Sandmel stated, it is the “distinctive which is significant for identifying the particular”42; hence, the distinctive interpretation of Isa 40:3 indicates that a relationship most likely did exist between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. Taylor makes sweeping generalizations that are both surprising and unlikely. For example, she claims that “priests and Levites were found in all the major Jewish sects.”43 Given the diversity within Second Temple Judaism, it is wise to avoid the “all” fallacy; that is, almost never use “all.” Surely, there were no Levites among the Samaritans, and probably none 39. Ibid., 24. 40 Ibid., 29. 41. Ibid., 25. 42. Taylor also cites Sandmel’s quotation but seems to misunderstand him. See Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 3. I note a failure in recent publications to comprehend what Sandmel was combating. He did not want to give the impression that parallels cannot indicate a relationship. To the contrary, he wisely pointed out that “parallelomania” was the label appropriate for those who saw parallels and immediately, without exegesis, assumed these were proof of a connection or dependency. 43. Taylor, ibid., 22.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

15

within the Enoch groups. She contends that the “notion that there was a ‘Baptist Movement’—to which the Essenes and John belonged—out of line with ‘mainstream Judaism’ rests on outdated presuppositions regarding Second Temple Judaism.”44 Her unsupported conclusion can scarcely be taken seriously; she neither mentions nor discusses the texts on which such a “Baptist Movement” is based (e.g., Sibylline Oracles 4, Apocalypse of Adam, Odes of Solomon, 4 Baruch, Book Elchasai, and Gospel of John), and she seems ignorant of the arguments that gnostic Sethianism derives from a Jewish baptismal background.45 Taylor is convinced that “a basis for linking John and the Essenes” (= the Qumranites) demands that the “parallels between John and the Essenes” must “be unique and explicable only in terms of direct relationship.”46 This methodology is too wooden, fails to recognize the fluidity between the concepts “direct” and “indirect,” and ignores all possible relationships except the one that would make the Baptizer a member of the Qumran Community. Despite the vast number of scholars who have indicated some relationship, but not “direct relationship” or identity, between the Baptizer and the Qumranites, Taylor seems to choose a model for connection from positivistic historicism and remains blind to possible indirect influence or the hypothesis that the Baptizer had once been a Qumranite but left the Yah[ad. Does Taylor represent a consensus, or does her position denote a challenge to a consensus? Should we imagine that her conclusion is valid? She says that the Baptizer “should probably not be seen as having any direct relationship with the Essenes, least of all the isolated group at Qumran, whether prior to or during his own prophetic activity by the river Jordan.”47 It is clear that she reiterates what some scholars have concluded, that there has been so far no reason to postulate a connection between the Baptizer and the Qumranites.48 Her conclusion is supported 44. Ibid., 48. 45. See Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; SHR 41; New York: Brill, 1981), 588–616; and Jean-Marie Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien (Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986), esp. 284–94. 46. Taylor, The Immerser, 16. 47. Ibid., 48. 48. See, e.g., the following who deny a connection: Harold H. Rowley, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893–1958 (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 218–29; Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “Baptism and Baptismal Rites at Qumran,” HeyJ 1 (1960): 179–88; Josef Ernst, Johannes der Täufer (BZNW 53; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 325–30; Bruce D. Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 17–22; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (ABRL;

16

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

by R. L. Webb, who is convinced that there was “no direct link between John and the Qumran community,” and that “the similarities are better explained as deriving from a common milieu.”49 Many scholars who have focused intense research on trying to explain the Baptizer’s relation to the Qumranites or the Essenes either see some striking link or suggest that he may have been a member of the community but left it.50 These experts have tried to show that the differences are not as impressive as the similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. To mention “similarities” or parallels causes a knee-jerk reaction among some scholars. It seems odd that some researchers think they have made a point by contending that similarities do not indicate a connection.51 It seems patently obvious that similarities can denote a relation, provided—as I have stressed since the late 1960s—that any possible connection is examined and understood within the pertinent contexts. Yet, the assertion that “similarities do not establish a connection” looks too much like a claim that a connection must not be sought via similarities. It is very close to a naive method that implies a connection cannot be related to similarities. Such thinking leads to flawed logic; denying a connection in light of similarities seems an absurd assumption or predilection behind such pronouncements. Thus, when one finds similarities between Jewish phenomena, one should neither assume a connection between (or among) them nor imagine that a connection is impossible. In fact, there are impressive similarities between the Baptizer and the Qumranites, and they do make sense in a unique way within Second Temple Judaism, as leading experts have shown.52 These similarities are so strong and revealing that a consensus may be detected among distinguished Qumran scholars. Numerous leading Qumran experts tend to concur that some relationship most likely existed between the Baptizer New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:25–27. Also, see G. Vermes’s judgment that the Baptizer was probably not an Essene; Geza Vermes, “The Qumran Community, the Essenes, and Nascent Christianity,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Shrine of the Book, 2000), 581–86. 49. Robert L. Webb, “John the Baptist,” EDSS 1:418–21. 50. It seems odd that there is no entry on or discussion of John the Baptizer (or Baptist) in the Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). 51. See esp. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 351n4; and Taylor, The Immerser, 22n11. 52. L. H. Schiffman rightly rejects “the simplistic assumption that Jesus or John the Baptist was actually a member of the sect,” but he does “recognize that these men shared certain ideas and a common religious milieu with the sectarians at Qumran.” Schiffman, Reclaiming the DSS, 404.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

17

and the Qumranites. D. R. Schwartz, for example, concludes that the Qumran Community “shows us the setting according to which he (the Baptizer) is to be understood.”53 Similarly, J. A. Fitzmyer asks, “Could John have spent some of his youth as a candidate for membership in or as a member of the Essene community of Qumran? My answer to that question is yes, as a plausible hypothesis, one that I cannot prove, and one that cannot be disproved.”54 I concur that some relationship between the Baptizer and the Qumranites seems to have existed; but the vast and complicated data do not lead to the hypothesis that John the Baptizer was simply a Qumranite and worked in the scriptorium. Note the following select examples of what seems to be the scholarly consensus: S. L. Davies reports that “a connection” between the Baptizer and the Qumranites or “Essenes is now becoming a commonplace.”55 Schwartz is so convinced of a consensus that he would remove from this quotation the word “becoming.”56 It is obvious to me, as it is to VanderKam, Steinmann,57 O. Betz,58 Flusser,59 and D. Sefa-Dapaah,60 that if John the Baptizer can be imagined living the life of a Qumranite at one stage in his life, it is also imperative to picture him leaving the community. But, why would the Baptizer feel compelled to leave the Qumran Community? This question has not been adequately examined; let us then focus on this crucial question. 53. Daniel R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 3. 54. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 19. 55. Stevan L. Davies, “John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth,” 560n1. 56. Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Qumran and Ephesus,” in Mémorial Jean Carmignac: Études Qumrániennes (ed. F. García Martínez and É. Puech; Paris: Gabalda, 1988), 644n30. 57. Jean Steinmann, Saint John the Baptist and the Desert Tradition (trans. M. Boyes; New York: Harper, 1958), concluded that John “was not simply an Essene; he appeared rather as a dissenter from the Essene community.” In contrast to my thesis, Steinmann claims that the reason the Baptist left the Qumran Community is because he “was driven into the desert by the Spirit as Jesus was to be.” This hypothesis is too theological; any solution today must take account of sociology and the politics of firstcentury Jewish life. 58. Otto Betz, “Was John the Baptist an Essene?” BRev 18 (1990): 18–25, claims that “the Baptist was raised in this community by the Dead Sea and was strongly influenced by it, but that he later left it to preach directly to a wider community of Jews” (18). My own conclusion, derived from some different observations and methodologies, is virtually identical to that defended by Betz. 59. David Flusser with R. Stevan Notley, Jesus (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 37–38. 60. Daniel Sefa-Dapaah, “An Investigation into the Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth: A Socio-Historical Study” (PhD diss., Coventry University, 1995).

18

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS A KEY QUESTION NOT YET ANSWERED

Thus, we confront a key question: What could have been the major catalyst for John the Baptizer’s leaving the Qumran Community? The Qumranites developed the concept of predestination in a way that marks their theology as distinct and unique in Judaism.61 A human was created either a “Son of Light” or a “Son of Darkness,” with fixed portions of light and darkness (4Q186; 4Q534). The Qumranites allowed no free will to alter one’s destiny. If one was born a Son of Darkness, then no repentance, acts of contrition, or forgiveness could help him become a Son of Light. Damnation was tied to one’s creation. John the Baptizer certainly did not share such rigid determinism. From what we learn about the Baptizer, it is obvious that he would have left the community to urge all Israel to seek God for forgiveness. All extant sources clarify that his message was focused on calling all Israel to repent in the face of God’s impending judgment. Such a mission certainly entails the concept of free will for those who hear the Baptizer’s words. These observations lead to my thesis, which has already been adumbrated in a few preceding comments.

THESIS My thesis is rather simple, and at least to some extent it is novel. Working on the critical edition of all the manuscripts of the Rule of the Community and thinking about life at Qumran has convinced me that one cannot be fair to all the data regarding the Baptizer and the Qumranites and conclude simply that he was a Qumran Essene. At the same time, it is also apparent that this mass of primary evidence does indicate that some relationship did exist between him and the Qumran Community. The unique exegesis of Isa 40:3 alone makes it prima facie apparent that there is some significant relation between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. Both chose a prophetic book, the same chapter, the same verse, and virtually the same interpretation. The geographical proximity

61. See esp. the insights by Magen Broshi in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Reproduction Made from the Original Scrolls Kept in the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem (ed. M. Sekine; Tokyo: Kodansha, 1979), esp. 15: “Perhaps the most important theological point differentiating the sectarians from the rest of Judaism was their belief in predestination, coupled with a dualistic view of the world (praedestinatio duplex). Also see Armin Lange, “Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2, no. 3 (1995): 340–54.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

19

of the Baptizer to the Qumranites is evident. They were in the same area in Judea—the wilderness near the northwest section of the Dead Sea. And they are situated there for the same reason: they are living out their exegesis of Isa 40:3, to prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord. These observations indicate that there is most likely some influence from the Qumranites on the Baptizer. Further reason to explore and refine a perception of how the Baptizer and the Qumranites may be related is encouraged by J. A. Fitzmyer’s judgment that supposing John the Baptizer to have been a member of the Qumran Community is a “plausible hypothesis.”62 Pondering the interpretation of Isa 40:3 by the Baptizer and the Qumranites, Flusser affirmed the hypothesis that the Baptizer’s words are “so close to that of the Essenes that it is possible that at one time he may have belonged to one of their communities.”63 Now, it seems pertinent for me to explain fuller my thesis. John the Baptizer was probably the son of a priest who officiated in the Temple, as Luke indicates (Luke 1:5–80). The author of the Gospel of the Ebionites claimed that the Baptizer was a descendant of Aaron.64 If that report is accurate, and it is harmonious with what we learn from the Gospels, it would make pellucid sense for him to leave the Temple and live with those at Qumran, who were Aaronites. It is conceivable that he went into “the wilderness” (Luke 1:80) to the Qumran Community, where priests dominated, as we know from the Rule of the Community and the Temple Scroll especially.65 John would then have progressed through the early stages of initiation, which took at least two years (1QS 6.21). He would thus, almost surely, have taken the vows of celibacy and absolute separation from others. John may have taken the vow but not yet become a full member of “the Many” at Qumran. Adding historical imagination to what we have been told about the Baptizer by Josephus and the Evangelists,66 it is clear that during the two years of novitiate he would have been attracted to many aspects of Qumran theology. He most likely would have admired the Qumranites’ dedication and devotion to God, their love for one another, the brotherhood 62. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 106. 63. Flusser, Jesus, 37–38. 64. Epiphanius, Pan. 30.13.6. 65. Josephus reported that Essenes “adopt other men’s children” (J.W. 2.120). I am persuaded that although the Temple Scroll may antedate Qumran, it was edited there and influential on the Qumranites. 66. Of course, the evangelists portray the Baptizer primarily to elevate Jesus. See Josef Ernst, “Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth in historischer Sicht,” NTS 43 (1997): 161–83.

20

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

of the Yah[ad, the calendrical and cosmic dimension of prayer, the perception of angels being present on earth during Qumran worship, the pregnancy of the eschatological epoch, and the final judgment.67 He would thus have rejoiced at reciting the ritual of covenantal renewal, especially the refrain at the end of the following excerpt: Then the priests shall enumerate the righteousness of God along with its wondrous works, and recount all (his) merciful acts of love toward Israel. Then the Levite shall enumerate the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their guilty transgressions and their sins during the dominion of Belial. [And al]l those who cross over into the covenant shall confess after them (by) saying: We have perverted ourselves, We have rebel[led], We [have sin]ned, We have acted impiously, We [and] our [fath]ers before us… (1QS 1.21–25)68

In light of the habits and ideas attributed to him, there is no reason to doubt that the Baptizer would have felt comfortable reciting these words. It is precisely this confession of guilt and need for God’s forgiveness that he would have experienced in the Temple, perhaps when his father was one of the leading priests.69 This piety also characterizes one aspect of Qumran theology. In making this confession of sin collectively among the Qumranites, the Baptizer might have felt comfortable. He would not be cursing his parents and others whom he loved. He would also have felt at home, perhaps, the first time he heard or recited the subsequent liturgy in which the Qumranites praised God’s elect. The following probably would have appealed to him, at least initially: Then the priests shall bless all the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in all his ways, and say: 67. See James H. Charlesworth’s foreword and introduction, “The Theologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Helmer Ringgren’s masterful The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; trans. E. T. Sander; New York: Crossroad, 1995), ix–xiii, xv–xxi. 68. For Hebrew text and English translation of 1QS, see James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 1), 9. 69. We know about the liturgies in the temple primarily because of passages in the Torah (Old Testament) and the Mishnah. See esp. Patrick D. Miller, “Sacrifice and Offering in Ancient Israel,” The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 2000), 106–30; and Efraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. I. Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), esp. 420–36 (on sin) and 649–90 (on redemption).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

21

May he bless you with all good and keep you from all evil; May he enlighten your heart with insight for living, May he favor you with eternal knowledge. May he lift up his merciful countenance toward you for eternal peace. (1QS 2.1–4)70

Initially, the blessing following a heartfelt confession would have been appealing. And it would even be more attractive when one not only perceives but also experiences how the blessing is fashioned upon the memory of reciting with other priests the Aaronic (or priestly) Blessing: The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. (Num 6:24–26 NRSV)

When the Baptizer would have heard the blessing on “all the men of God’s lot,” during his early years at Qumran, he might have conceived that these also included Zechariah, his father the priest. Eventually, he would learn that his father would have been perceived by the Qumranites as one of the Sons of Darkness and one who did not belong to “the men of God’s lot.” I have no doubt that there were additional words in the ceremony for covenantal renewal that would have disturbed the Baptizer. This assumption seems to be a reliable historical insight, if we can trust the portrait of the Baptizer given to us by Josephus and the Evangelists.71 I have no doubt that eventually the Baptizer would have been disturbed by the words that followed the blessing just quoted from the Rule of the Community. Possibly, he would have first recited these words, and then, over time, mouthed them, and then finally refused to say them. Subsequently, he would have been signaled out for severe punishment because he would not say the requisite “Amen, amen.” Here is the section of the liturgy of covenantal renewal that John the Baptizer would most likely have found difficult and eventually impossible to affirm: Then the Levites shall curse the men of Belial’s lot; they shall respond and say:

70. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community” (PTSDSSP 1), 9. 71. See esp. Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); and Paul W. Hollenbach, “John the Baptist,” 887–99. Hollenbach rightly thinks that John may have lived at Qumran “for a while” (898).

22

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS Cursed be you in all your guilty (and) wicked works. May God give you up (to) terror through all the avengers. May he visit upon you destruction through all those who take revenge. Cursed be you without compassion in accordance with the darkness of your works. Damned be you in everlasting murky fire. May God not be compassionate unto you when you cry out. May he not forgive (you) by covering over your iniquity. May he lift up his angry countenance to wreak his vengeance upon you. May there be no peace for you according to all who hold fast to the fathers. And all those who cross over into the covenant shall say after those who bless and those who curse: “Amen, amen.” (1QS 2.4–10)72

These words turn the famous Aaronic blessing on its head. They were probably disturbing and finally shocking to the Baptizer. They reveal a hate-filled and closed society with high barriers, exclusive to the extreme. In the history of Jewish thought it is virtually impossible to match such venomous hatred for other Jews. Only one who was convinced of double predestination, who held the Qumranic doctrine of creation as a Son of Light, and who believed that he was among the few elect ones fighting the final battle against Belial and the Sons of Darkness—only such a person could have recited such a liturgy. It is clear from 1QS 2.4–10 that Qumran theology does indeed devolve, in some passages, into a theology of hate and exclusion. Given the portrait of the Baptizer provided by Josephus and the Gospels, he most likely would have become silent during the covenantal renewal ceremony. He would not have been able repeatedly and ceremoniously to curse all others to eternal damnation, without some concomitant call to repentance, which obviously became the hallmark of his eloquent preaching (Ant. 18.116–19). His compassion for others was celebrated especially by Luke and Josephus. The great historian of the first century called him “a good man,” who “had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives” (Ant. 18.117); that means he did not reserve his preaching for only God’s so-called predestined elect. The Third Evangelist informs us that the Baptizer instructed the crowds to share their clothes with the needy, the tax officials to collect only what is required, and the soldiers to rob no one, make no false accusations, and be content with their wages (Luke 3:10–14). This exhortation to share one’s goods is reminiscent of Qumran’s storehouse, in which all possessions were 72. Charlesworth, ibid., 9–10.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

23

placed, and the allocation of only one garment for a Qumranite. The links between the Qumranites and the Baptizer are extensive and sometimes impressively significant. It has become difficult to deny that the Baptizer is related in some ways to Qumran. If my scenario is plausible, then the Baptizer’s refusal to say the mandatory “Amen, amen” would not have gone unnoticed. Perhaps the reason the repetitive affirmation was added to this curse was to isolate any who did not fully espouse Qumran hatred. Such a person would have been exposed as in nonconformity with Qumran laws and lore. He would have been punished and probably expelled from the community. He would perhaps have been considered as one who slandered “the Many” and so would “be banished from them” so as “never” to “come back again” (1QS 7.16–17). In fact, a passage in the Rule of the Community may be directed to those who did not say such benedictions correctly: “If he blasphemed…while he is reading the Book or saying benedictions—he shall be excluded and never again return to the Council of the Community” (1QS 7.1–2). The publications of L. H. Schiffman and M. Weinfeld have deepened our understanding of this aspect of Qumran’s penal code.73 Any refusal by the Baptizer to say “Amen, amen” or any refusal to be in full compliance with Qumran’s exclusive dualism would surely have been judged harshly. He would be branded as one who grumbled against “the authority of the community”; then he would “be banished and never come back” (1QS 7.17). The truncated fragment called Decrees (4Q477) lists men who were reproached because of their attitude, behavior, or disrespect of the community. While none named are reproached for failing to say “Amen, amen,” this action could well be subsumed under generic categories. John the Baptizer’s refusal to say “Amen, amen” could have been condemned 73. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 168–73. I disagree with Schiffman that expulsion from the Qumran sect resulted only from “the total rejection of the teachings of the sect” (173). I am convinced that refusal to participate with other Qumranites in the liturgically ordered cursing of all others would also have branded a Qumranite (or potential Qumranite) unfit for the community. Even so, I am persuaded that the Baptizer left the community, although he may have been excluded or exiled for one or two years. See Moshe Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA 2; Edtiones Universitai res Friburg Suisse; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Weinfeld rightly reports that absolute expulsion resulted from any slandering of the sect (1QS 7.16–17), any refusal to accept the sect’s authority (1QS 7.17), or any action or nonaction that might be construed as betrayal by any leader of the sect (1QS 7.22–25).

24

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

because, in the eyes of the Many, he had “the evil eye,” possessed “a boastful spirit,” or especially reduced “the spirit of the community.” Such so-called “backsliding” in the minds of the men of the community led to post factum legislation; some of it is found in 1QS, especially columns six and seven. For the Qumranites there was a decidedly Kierkegaardian either/or; if one was not a Son of Light with full devotion to the community, he was simply accursed, a Son of Darkness. It is thus enlightening to observe how the covenantal renewal ceremony continues immediately after the words previously quoted from 1QS 2.10: And the priests and the Levites shall continue and say: Because of the idols of his heart, which he worships, cursed be he who enters into this covenant and puts the stumbling block of his iniquity before him so that he backslides, (stumbling) over it. And when he hears the words of this covenant, he blesses himself erroneously, saying: “Peace be with me, for I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.” May his spirit be destroyed, (suffering) thirst along with saturation, without forgiveness. May God’s wrath and his angry judgments flare up against him for everlasting destruction. And may all the curses of this covenant stick to him. May God set him apart for evil that he may be cut off from all the Sons of Light because of his backsliding from God through his idols and the stumbling block of his iniquity. May he put his lot among those who are cursed forever. And all those who enter the covenant shall respond and say after them: Amen, amen. (1QS 2.11–18)74

In light of what Josephus and the Evangelists report about the Baptizer, it is clear that at this point the Baptizer would not—and could not—continue to say, “Amen, amen.” His preaching did not condemn virtually all humanity. Rather, he called all Israel to forgiveness. Perhaps thinking of anyone who was not—or no longer—a member of the community (dxy), the Baptizer would obviously find it impossible to continue to utter such curses. He would then be labeled for all time one who “backslides” and would be accursed and damned by the Qumranites. Expulsion from the community had devastating results. The Qumranites vowed to “separate themselves from the congregation of the men of deceit” (1QS 5.1–2). Such would now include the Baptizer. If he refused to participate in the liturgy that condemned all others, he would be expelled from the community. He would be one of the outcasts, and that would be his category whether he had been thrown out or sauntered away disheartened. To the Qumranites, he would not have failed in 74. Charlesworth, ibid., 11.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

25

mastering Qumran lore because of their inability to teach it; the only explanation is that God from the beginning had determined human ways (1QS 5.7), and he had decreed that nothing can be changed (1QS 3.16). That is, God had not created the Baptizer a “Son of Light.” The men of the Yah[ad would judge that John had more portions of darkness than light (cf. 4Q186; 4Q534), and that his “lot” was now beyond their social and cosmic barriers and in the lot of darkness. For the Qumranites, he was one who had not been elected, since they held a unique Jewish concept of double predestination.75 He would thus receive the hatred and cursing specified for the Sons of Darkness. Words such as the following would have been directed now at him: “Cursed be you without compassion” (1QS 2.7) and “Be damned in everlasting murky fire” (1QS 2.7–8). This insight dismisses the logical possibility that Qumranites would have left Qumran to visit with the Baptizer near the Jordan. According to their developed rules, they could not in any way relate to him again. The hatred of all the Sons of Darkness is a result of the conviction that God has established a bifurcated humanity and put perpetual enmity between the two irreconcilable sides (1QS 4.16–17). The Sons of Light hate all the Sons of Darkness in imitation of God’s hatred of them (1QS 4.1). The Baptizer, who once had been considered one of the Sons of Light and beloved, would now be the object of Qumran hate. The Baptizer, as a partially or fully initiated Qumranite, could not even receive a gift of food from another Jew. There is every reason to assume that he had made a vow to God to “keep far away from others in everything” and never to “eat or drink anything of their property” (1QS 5.15–17).76 Interpreting Isa 2:22, the Qumranite swore not to have anything whatsoever to do with others, especially “all those who are not accounted within” the Qumran covenant (1QS 5.18). And Qumranites were sworn not to give a “backslider,” as the Baptizer would have been branded, anything to eat; anyone who did so would also be banished (1QS 5.16; 7.24–25). This point is enunciated by Josephus, who reported that one who is expelled “from the order” is bound by his “oaths” and thus cannot “partake of other men’s food, and so falls to eating grass and wastes away and dies of starvation.”77 75. See also Josephus: The Essenes declare that “Fate is mistress of all things” (Ant. 18.172). 76. Recall Josephus’s comment that the initiated Essene “is made to swear horrendous oaths.” Among such oaths is the promise “that he will forever hate the unjust ones” (J.W. 2.139). 77. Josephus, J.W. 2.143. Also see Schiffman, “Swearing of Oaths,” in Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 136–41.

26

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

Surely, now—for the first time—we have a cogent explanation for the Baptizer’s eating habits. During the beginning of his attempt to enter the community, he would have sworn an oath to obey Torah according to the interpretation of the priests (1QS 1.16–20; 5.1–6.1; 6.13–23). After being banished from the community, he ate only locusts and wild honey, which would indicate that he did not accept food from others, even though many who came to him from Jerusalem would have brought adequate food to share with him. The description of what the Baptizer did eat has a decidedly Qumran or Essene ring to it. That is, locusts and honey were acceptable foods for the Qumranites and the Essenes. The most important text for obtaining this insight is the Damascus Document; although it was intended for the Essenes who lived outside of Qumran, it most likely also informs us of the dietary laws at Qumran. According to this text, locusts could be eaten if they were cooked while alive: A man may eat of “all species of locusts [Mhynymb Mybgxh lkw] provided that they are “put into fire or water while still alive” (CD 12.14–15).78 The reference to honey precedes this passage in CD but is more opaque. According to CD 12.12 one is not permitted to eat “the larvae of bees [Myrwbdh ylg(m], and that might mean it is permissible to eat honey that has been filtered.79 This exegesis is suggested, though not demanded, by Philo’s comment that some Essenes [ 0Essai=oi] “superintend the swarm of bees [smh&nh melittw=n].”80 Thus, the honey should be filtered. Some first-century Jews thought the bee was an unclean animal because it may have been born or worked in a defiled carcass.81 Hence, according to the ancient reports, the Baptizer ate only what had been permitted by Qumran or Essene lore and law. The most probable explanation of all we have learned about the Baptizer, especially his diet, thus seems to warrant the speculation that he had almost completed the more than two-year initiation at Qumran, was expelled (or most likely left), and continued to observe the vows and oaths he had made before God. According to his Essene vows, he also could not receive anything from others. If he had been nearly fully initiated into the community, he would have sworn to God not to “accept anything whatever from” the hand of 78. Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2, Damascus Documnt, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). 79. I am indebted to Chaim Rabin for this insight. See Chaim Rabin, ed. and trans., The Zadokite Documents (2d, rev. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 61. 80. Philo, Hypoth. 11.8. 81. See Philo, Spec. 1.291.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

27

one who was not a Son of Light (1QS 5.16). Hence, upon expulsion—or voluntary departure—he must make his own clothes. Also, we learn why he did not wear the clothes that Jews living in Galilee, Jerusalem, Jericho, and elsewhere would have willingly offered him. He could not accept anything from others. He thus wore only the skins of animals: “Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist.” (Mark 1:6; Matt 3:4). The isolation of one who had almost become a fully initiated Qumranite is emphasized in the liturgical hymn that now completes the Rule of the Community: “I will not have compassion for all those who deviate from the Way” (1QS 10.20–21). He was thus isolated in the interstices between two segments of pre-70 Jewish society. In the late 1950s, J. A. T. Robinson suggested that the Baptizer and his group may well have thought of themselves as making atonement for Israel’s sins.82 He also indicated that they obtained this idea from Qumran. He contended that this atonement movement helps explain why Jesus of Nazareth would be attracted to John.83 The hypothesis is attractive, and the Qumranites did claim to be atoning for the Land (1QS 5.6; 8.6, 10; 9.4), but the historical records do not suggest that the Baptizer led a movement that was atoning for Israel’s sins. Rather, the Baptizer was most likely an eschatological prophet who claimed that one needed to repent and be baptized because of the coming day of judgment, as Josephus (Ant. 18.117–18) and Luke reported (Luke 3:10–14). Another probable Qumran influence on the Baptizer seems to have been missed by scholars. It is clear to me that the Righteous Teacher, or another genius at the beginning of the Qumran Community, developed the concept of the Holy Spirit. They developed, or created, the concept of a hypostatic being, separate from God, called “the Holy Spirit”; this concept is not found in rabbinic writings, the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), or the Old Testament Apocrypha. It is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha only in passages that seem to indicate Essene influence.84 When the Righteous Teacher and his little group left 82. John A. T. Robinson, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community,” HTR 50 (1957): 175–91. 83. See now Robert L. Webb, “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus (ed. B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 179–229; W. Barnes Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1994). According to the Jesus Seminar, John the Baptizer was not a member, or former member, of the Qumran community. Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus, 12. 84. See James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 1–74, esp. 20–22, 58–60.

28

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

the Temple, they eventually felt that God’s Holy Spirit had gone with them into the wilderness. There, in “the House of Holiness,” they were “the Holy Ones” because “the Holy Spirit” dwelt only with them. Thus, the appearance of the concept of “the Holy Spirit” in the Baptizer’s words, if they are authentic to him, probably indicates some Qumran influence. It is singularly important, therefore, to observe that according to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the Baptizer is reputed to have said that the Messiah will baptize you “by means of (or with) the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Luke 1:67). It seems clear that the most obvious source of the Baptizer’s concept of “the Holy Spirit” is Qumran; most likely he learned about the Holy Spirit during his time at Qumran.

SOCIOLOGY, THE BAPTIZER, AND THE QUMRANITES We might obtain a better perception of the Baptizer’s life if we learn from sociologists. Using the terminology of A. van Gennep in his Rites de Passage,85 I am persuaded that the Baptizer apparently found himself checkmated between the second and third phases of his rite of passage into the Qumran Community. He had moved beyond separation and even transition but could not move on to the final stage, incorporation. Perhaps his rite of passage stopped short of incorporation into the Yah[ad, because he was hindered in proceeding further by the Maskil, “the Master.” More likely, it seems to me, that the Baptizer had refused to curse into eternal damnation those whom he had loved for years, including his parents, his relatives, and others whom he admired (perhaps many in the Temple cult). He could not morally curse these loved ones without their having any opportunity to repent; and repentance is not possible for one who was created to be damned (as is clear from Qumran theology). Most important, the Baptizer had likely completed the phase called separation, meaning he had made certain irreversible vows that moved him permanently away from all forms of normal Jewish life. However, he could not proceed further and enter into another paradigmatically different world of meaningful symbolism, even though it promised a world in which space and time were defined as sacred. In the language of sociologists, the Baptizer was mired at that time in a “liminoid” phase: he had left one social status but had not yet taken up the meaning of acceptable status in another group. Now, due to his expulsion or act of leaving, he never could. I can imagine that he had listened approvingly to the teachings found in 1QS 3.13–4.26 and had been instructed in the sacred language

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

29

and regulations of “Rules for Life in the Community” (1QS 5.1–6.23). Thus, it appears the Baptizer was caught in a liminal stage; he was no longer outside the Qumran Community, but he could never be inside it. As Victor Turner points out, an initiate into a sacred community undergoes a change in the quality of time and enters “a cultural realm which is defined as ‘out of time,’ i.e., beyond or outside the time which measures secular processes and routines.”86 Hence, sociologists who have focused on what occurs when people live in societies, as in the Qumran Community, help us reconstruct a probable scenario between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. They also provide insights that help us comprehend why the Baptizer’s message was primarily centered upon sacred time. His teaching was almost exclusively the proclamation that the end of time was now (Luke 3:7–9, 15–18; Matt 3:7–12; Mark 1:7–8; John 1:26–27). This insight regarding the importance of time for the Baptizer is enriched by the observation that on entering a temple a devotee crosses over into sacred space and time. The Qumranites thought of their “House of Holiness” as an antechamber of heaven, in which angels dwell during ritual, and as a replacement of the Temple; thus, the Baptizer had learned and experienced a concept of time that would be with him forever. He was focused on the pregnant moment of present time: the present was the dawning of the future eschatological day. There is every reason to conclude that the Baptizer inherited some of his eschatology from Qumran theology. We should strive to perceive, as M. Shanks and C. Tilley show in Social Theory and Archaeology, that individuals like the Baptizer obtain self-understanding, or consciousness, because they are “situated in a social and symbolic field.” That is, the Baptizer obtained meaning that he was able to articulate to the many who flocked to him, because his society that provided him with symbols, signs, and concepts. These symbols provided meaning for his activity and preaching.”87 As Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann stress, “Man is biologically predestined to construct and to inhabit a world with others. This world becomes for him the dominant and

85. Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (trans. M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffe; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960). 86. Victor Turner, Process, Performance, and Pilgrimage: A Study in Comparative Symbology (New Delhi: Concept, 1979), 16. 87. Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley, Social Theory and Archaeology (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987), 71.

30

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

definitive reality.”88 And so we come to a probable scenario with the Baptizer: his world was shaped by his formative interaction with the Qumranites. As numerous sociologists have demonstrated, groups or sects can have low or high barriers to entry. It is extremely difficult to enter a social group with high barriers and monumentally catastrophic to leave it. The Qumran Community had and maintained an exceedingly high social barrier. One could not be born into the group, and it took over two years to enter—to cross over into—the covenant community. Once inside, all private possessions belonged to the community. The difficulty of becoming a member of the Yah[ad is accentuated by the Qumranites’ choice of words for entering: one “crossed over into the covenant [tyrbb wrwb(y]” (1QS 1.16). Thus, it becomes easier to imagine how John the Baptizer had been caught in the interstices that separate two social groups. When he began to cross over into the Qumran Community, he had left one social group behind; that is, the religious culture of most Judean Jews, whose world was defined by the Temple cult. He had not yet entered the Yah[ad, and so he was lost in a world of ambiguity in which he had only a liminal social status. The Baptizer was thus in a “liminoid” phase. He was outside one meaningful social group to which he could never return, and he was not able to enter another one that promised meaning and sacred status. Being expelled, or leaving voluntarily, left him permanently in liminality. So far in this paper I have avoided labeling the Qumran Community a “sect.” In the history of Western culture, it has become a disparaging term. Through an insensitive application of comparisons, the word “sect” isolates a group that is depicted to be theologically unacceptable in light of dogma and doctrine. Divested of pejorative overtones, as Ernst Troeltsch endeavored to do long ago,89 and of theological baggage, the concept “sect” seems applicable to the Qumranites. This follows from the sociological research by Bryan Wilson on sects. He concludes that a sect is a group that tends to be exclusive, claims a monopoly on religious truth, and is “generally anti-sacerdotal.”90 The first two of these three criteria fit Qumran and suggest that it can be described as a “sect.” When one adds 88. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 183. 89. Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1912); ET: The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (trans. O. Wyon; 2 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1931). 90. Wilson adds to the latter third category that sects “also tend to be lay organizations.” This criterion does not apply to Qumran. See Bryan R. Wilson, “The Sociology of Sects,” in Religion in Sociological Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 91.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

31

another criterion,91 then there should be no doubt that Qumran fits the definition of a sect. The final criterion is that a sect can be discerned within Judaism when one Jewish group leaves the larger body, especially the Temple establishment and its leaders, polemicizes against it, and is subsequently harassed or persecuted by the larger group. The Qumranites meet all these criteria, and do so in a stunning fashion. They were intellectually and sociologically exclusive and composed exclusive lore and laws. They claimed to monopolize truth (especially the contention that all the mysteries of the prophets were revealed to no one except the Righteous Teacher [lQpHab 7]).92 The Qumranites were vehemently against the Wicked Priest and the Temple cult. The Wicked Priest persecuted the Righteous Teacher on the Day of Atonement observed by the Qumranites. This latter report indicates that the Qumranites even followed a calendar different from the establishment in Jerusalem (1QpHab 9; esp. 1QpHab 11.4–8).93 These reflections on the Qumran Community as a sect help us understand the life of John the Baptizer. He almost became a sectarian, but his ministry and the group he gathered around him did not constitute a sect.94 We have seen how helpful it becomes to think about the Baptizer’s relation to the Qumranites in terms of the insights and observations learned from sociology—surely not simply imposing sociology on ancient phenomena. I am led to wonder if the Baptizer’s call for other Jews to abandon their proud claim to be children of Abraham (Luke 3:8) is a reflection of his own crisis of alienation and period of liminality. John the Baptizer called those who came to him to break free of the usual social categories and enter into a community prepared for and awaiting God’s act and the day of judgment. The Baptizer offered a new sign, baptism, although as H. C. Kee and many scholars suggest, this new sign “may have had precedent in ceremonial washings among the Dead Sea community at Qumran.”95 The Baptizer was certainly shaped by the social forces of his day; and as Shirley Jackson Case stated in the 1920s, he desired “social change,” and he expected a new social order to be set up through the catastrophic intervention of the Deity.96 91. I am indebted to Alan Segal for private discussions on this subject. 92. See Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History. 93. For the critical edition of these texts, see Maurya P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher,” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 6B). 94. For the reasons given above for considering the Qumran Community a sect, it would follow that the Palestinian Jesus movement was also a sect. 95. Howard C. Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 33. 96. Shirley J. Case, The Social Origins of Christianity (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1923; repr., New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1975), 49.

32

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

My thesis is simple. It synthesizes most of what we know about John the Baptizer and the Qumran Essenes. The Baptizer probably had been one of the Sons of the Dawn, if that terminus technicus denotes a young man attempting to enter the Qumran Community. As one who wished to “cross over into the covenant” at Qumran, he took vows that explain his later lifestyle. During his years of training as a potential member of the Qumran Community he had sworn never to receive food, clothing, or anything from one who was not a Son of Light. He probably was almost fully initiated into the community, but he refused to accept the utter condemnation of all those who were not members of the community. As D. Flusser stated, John the Baptizer was “certainly not a member of the Essene community,” but he was “evidently a dissident Essene, who opposed the sectarian and separatist followers of Essenism, both in their ideology and in their social organization.”97 The Baptizer thus was banished from the community or left it voluntarily. He took with him much that he had learned from the Qumranites. Being a homo religiosus, he would remain faithful to the vows he had made to God. His teaching continued the eschatological fervor—and a prophecy of doom on those who are not faithful to God—he had learned from the Qumranites, and he remained in the wilderness because he felt called, like the Qumranites, to prepare in the wilderness the way of YHWH. If the Baptizer had learned from the Qumranites about the eschatological importance of “wilderness,” then Luke has helped us understand why he was in the wilderness before his mission to Israel began. Recall again the text: And the Baptizer “grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness (e0n tai=j e0rh&mouj) until the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80). Luke reports that the Baptizer told the multitudes of people who came to him to share their possessions with others. Recall again the exportation attributed to him: “He who has two coats, let him share with one who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11). This is a unique exhortation. It has parallels only with the Qumran concept of a common storehouse for all members of the community. Most likely, the Baptizer had learned this teaching from the Qumranites. John the Baptizer may well have rejected the Qumranic, liturgically institutionalized hatred of all who were not Sons of Light, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that he was a man of love. The hatred he may have learned from the Qumranites reappeared in his fiery denunciations of Jews who did not grasp the singular importance of repentance and preparation 97. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 143.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

33

for God’s final salvific act. Only a few decades after his preaching began, John is reputed to have said to the crowds who came to him for baptism: “You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?…Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree; every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:7–9; cf. Matt 3:7–10). The Baptizer reputedly warned that he was “sent” (John 3:28) before the Messiah; and when he comes he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire (Luke 3:17). How was John the Baptizer able to move on to a meaningful life near the Jordan? How was he able to move from being almost a Qumranite to becoming a powerful orator for the crowds? The answer seems to reside in his prophetic consciousness. He believed he was sent by God to proclaim that “the axe is laid to the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:9). Using the insights obtained by Max Weber, it seems appropriate to recognize that John the Baptizer was a charismatic. He was in no way dependent on a social structure; there was no agency to control him or dictate what he was allowed to say. John the Baptizer acted out of “inner determination and inner restraint.” He demanded obedience to and acknowledgment of the truth he proclaimed because of his divine mission and the sheer power of his own personality, which was enthusiastically supported by the crowds. John did not derive his power from the vote or support of the crowds, but it was “the duty of those to whom he addresses his mission to recognize him as their charismatically qualified leader.”98 It seems relatively certain, therefore, that John the Baptizer was deeply influenced by Qumran theology, but that he was expelled or left the community during the final period of full initiation, or after he was a member of “the Many” at Qumran for a relatively short time. There is a possible sequel to this attractive scenario.99 Bannus, with whom Josephus lived for “three years”—during the formative years of 16 to 19—in the wilderness (thn_ e0rhmi/an), may well have been a former Qumranite or Essene. As with the Baptizer, Bannus may also have once been a member of the Qumran Community but left it, or was expelled from it (Life 11–12). Bannus not only lived in the wilderness (which reminds us of the Qumran interpretation of Isa 40:3), but also wore only what trees provided, ate only what grew of itself, and frequently washed in cold water 98. Max Weber, Essays in Sociology (trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills; New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 246–47. 99. I am grateful to Stephen J. Pfann, with whom I have spoken about my thesis both near the Qumran caves and in the Rockefeller Museum. I found his insights and support especially helpful as I developed this thesis.

34

JOHN THE BAPTIZER AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

“for purity’s sake.” Perhaps these descriptions suggest that Bannus also had taken vows at Qumran. The noun “Bannus” is not a name;100 it is a description. It signifies that this man, like the Baptizer, was defined by his preoccupation. Bannus, which probably derives from bnn)h (h)nb), “bather,”101 means that this desert ascetic was defined by cleansing. In fact, “Bannus” may mean “baptizer.”102 Bannus’s occupation and lifestyle remind us of what was allowed to prospective members after the Qumran vows had been uttered; they are also reminiscent of the Qumranites’ devotion to ritual purification by immersion. If Bannus had been an Essene, then it is clear how and in what ways Josephus knew so much about the Essenes; he had been with Bannus, a former Essene.

CONCLUSION The present thesis explains the striking similarities between the Qumranites and John the Baptizer and also the paradigmatic differences between them. Many key aspects of the Baptizer’s teaching are appreciably different from Qumran theology. He “preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; cf. Matt 3:2). He refused to reject the vast majority of Jews; they were not “Sons of Darkness.” They were not predestined to eternal damnation (cf. 1QS 3–4; 4Q186; 4Q534). The Baptizer did not develop or belong to a social group with strict laws and high social boundaries. He did not espouse a rigid determinism nor predestinarianism. All these ideas, and his less-rigid social barriers, make him decidedly non-Qumranite. Unlike the Qumranites, John the Baptizer was an eschatological preacher of doom to whom large crowds flocked. Unlike the Qumranites, he was defined by a mission to the lost of Israel. He urged them to repent and to prepare for the final act in God’s drama of salvation (Mark 1:5; Matt 3:5, 7–10; Luke 3:7–9). There seems no reason to doubt that the Baptizer adopted at least some of the teachings of the Qumranites. He probably inherited from the 100. It should not be equated with the latter rabbinic name “Bannai.” Cf. b. Ketub. 50b and b. Ber. 38b. 101. See Marcus Jastro, Dictionary of the Targumim (New York: Pardes Pub. House, 1950), 1:176; Tg. Esth. 2.6.12; also see bny in Michael Sokoloff, Dictionary of Judean Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003), 105; and Syriac banâ), “bath.” 102. This suggestion was published long ago by Robert I. Eisler in The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (London: Methuen, 1931), 23n2.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

35

Qumranites at least the interpretation of Isa 40:3, the concept of the Holy Spirit, a belief in the impending doom of the end of time, and the concept of the lost as a brood of vipers. But probably, John the Baptizer was one who refused full initiation because of the institutionalized hatred of all who were not within the Qumran Community. The Baptizer thus seems to be one who was expelled from—or better, left—the Qumran Community. Both John the Baptizer and the Qumranites lived at the same time and place and evidenced some striking similarities. The historian must attempt some synthesis and use some historical imagination that accounts for all the relevant data. The present thesis, I am convinced, best accounts for the complex similarities and dissimilarities between John the Baptizer and the Qumranites. In summary, the Baptizer was not an Essene, but—most likely—he had been almost fully initiated into the Yah[ad. He apparently refused full initiation and left the Qumran Community because of their rigid predestination and their institutionalized hatred of all the Sons of Darkness. My thesis explains many otherwise inexplicable aspects of the life of the Baptizer, as we hear about him from the ancient authors like Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most important, for the first time the thesis explains two key dimensions of the similarities between the Qumranites and the Baptizer. First, it helps us comprehend the Baptizer’s choice and interpretation of Scripture, especially Isa 40:3, his location in the wilderness not far from Qumran, his apocalyptic eschatology, and his use of water in preparing for the day of judgment. Second, it helps us understand his concept of having only one coat, eating only what was allowed by Qumran lore and not accepting food from other Jews, and also his hatred of the unrighteous and unrepentant.

CHAPTER TWO

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS Richard A. Horsley This subject requires some critical focusing for historical investigation. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are texts, while Jesus was a person, and almost certainly one who did not read texts. Moving the focus from the scrolls to the community that produced them would be a step in the right direction. But Jesus would be more comparable to the Righteous Teacher mentioned prominently in the scrolls, whereas what would be comparable to the DSS would be the whole variety of early Christian literature from the first two centuries after Jesus. The discrepancy is equally as severe with the secondary literature on the DSS and Jesus, respectively, over the fifty years since the discovery of the scrolls. According to the prevailing paradigm of New Testament studies, the DSS and the historical Jesus was not a legitimate subject of study. The “New Quest” for the historical Jesus was confined to a group of German Lutheran theologians and paid little attention to the DSS or to any other evidence from the historical context of Jesus. Mainly in the United States and, to a degree, in England and only in the last two decades have a number of New Testament scholars begun “research” on the historical Jesus. Although the production of Jesus-books became a “growth industry” in the last decade, few “Jesus-scholars” devote much attention to precise analysis of Jesus’ historical context, and fewer pay any attention to the DSS.1 On the other hand, those who have made 1. For example, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), refers to passages from the DSS at only two points, and not in his discussion of Jesus but as illustrations (three) of the scribal use of prophetic texts that may illuminate the development of the passion narrative (369) and as illustrations (two) of the hierarchical gathering at meals in the Qumran community as a contrast with the Lord’s Supper focused on Jesus (403). He reproduces the same illustrations of the same points in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), 143–45, 180–81. Edward P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), makes several comparative references only to the Essenes generally and refers to particular texts in only four endnotes. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:93–94, dismisses the DSS in a half-page.

37

38

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

comparisons between the scrolls and Jesus have not had the historical Jesus as their area of scholarly specialization.2 Although many suggestive essays have appeared, a systematic review of the secondary literature on the DSS and the historical Jesus would not be as fruitful as, say, a review of the more substantive work on the DSS and Paul or John. Moreover, much of what has been written comparing the DSS and Jesus, like much written about the historical Jesus, has been working with a modern Western understanding of the individual or the “self” (“What was Jesus really like?”) and/or a late-nineteenth-century understanding of Jesus as a religious-ethical teacher of everyone in general and no one in particular. The “Jesus” of the Jesus Seminar or of the Society of Biblical Literature Q Seminar sometimes does not seem all that different from the Jesus of liberal theologians such as Harnack or Troeltsch at the turn of the last century. The modernist obsession with the individual person Jesus and the nineteenth- to twentieth-century focus on the teachings of Jesus wrenched from concrete historical as well as literary context are narrow, distorting, and indefensible in terms of historical inquiry. Sayings do not mean anything in isolation from a meaning context. Nothing much is communicated in isolated aphorisms. Jesus cannot possibly be understood except as embedded in both the movement he catalyzed and the broader context of Roman imperial Palestine. I therefore would like to focus the comparison (stated in chiastic form) on Jesus-in-movement as known through the Gospel traditions and the DSS as sources for the Qumran movement as led by the Righteous Teacher. Moreover, I am looking not simply for particular similarities and dissimilarities, but for how the DSS illuminate Jesus-in-movement and how Jesus-in-movement illuminates the Qumran Community and its writings. Pursuit of an appropriate comparison between Jesus-in-movement and the Qumran movement, moreover, requires some reconceptualization and reformulation of procedural principles in the fields of Jewish history and New Testament studies. For example: •

Since it is impossible to separate religion from political-economic life in antiquity, it makes obvious historical sense to shift from the vague general concept “Judaism” into more precise references to the historical politicaleconomic-religious structures, where particular movements fit. • Continued use of the broad modern constructs of “Judaism” and “Christianity” sets up unhistorical oppositions and obscures the dominant historical oppositions, such as between the Jerusalem rulers, their Pharisaic

2. For example, most of the contributors to James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992).

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

39

retainers, their Herodian patrons (and later allies/rivals), and their Roman imperial sponsors, on the one hand; and virtually all other Palestinian Israelite groups and movements, such as the Essenes/Qumranites, Jesus movements, and other popular movements, on the other. • Since interpretation has focused mainly on ideas, and ideas have been interpreted mainly in terms of modern theological issues and concepts, such as “eschatology” and “apocalypticism,” and so on, in order to maximize the possibility of reconstructing an ancient meaning context in which to understand documents, we should begin rather from what we know and can reconstruct of the historical context, such as social relations in which the community may have been involved and historical developments involving the principal actors mentioned in the texts. • Obviously, how Jesus is constructed and how the DSS are read make a huge difference in how their relationship is understood. We should at least ask the same questions of and use the same interpretive categories on both. • The DSS provide a good example of the “scripts” (action plans) for leaders and movements that were operative in Judean society at a scribal level, and suggest that we look for the corresponding scripts operative at a popular level in Galilee and Judea.

PARALLEL RENEWAL MOVEMENTS When I first came into the field of “Christian Origins” (i.e., late Second Temple Jewish History and New Testament Studies) twenty years after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, working under the tutelage of Krister Stendahl, Frank Cross, and John Strugnell, I taught that the primary significance of the scrolls’ discovery for Early Christianity was the evidence it provided not so much for parallel apocalyptic motifs and ideas, but for a concrete apocalyptic community parallel to the movements of Jesus’ followers. Now, fifty years after the discovery of the DSS and with almost two generations of scholarly study and interpretation of the scrolls, I would focus that more precisely: knowledge of a contemporary Judean protest-and-renewal (of Israel) movement parallel to the early communities of Jesus’ followers is the primary significance of the DSS for our understanding of the historical Jesus. This conclusion, however, comes by a rather circuitous route. It arises not out of recent studies on the historical Jesus, which pay little attention to the scrolls, nor out of any systematic critical studies comparing the DSS and the teachings of Jesus, but from recent perspectives on the history of Judea under the Seleucid

40

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

and Roman Empires and the rise of renewal movements in response to the imperial impact on (greater) Judea.3 The Qumran community is the only priestly-scribal movement and Jesus-and-movement is the only popular movement for which we have any sources beyond brief accounts. To speak of “sectarian Judaism” makes no sense historically since Qumran (the Essenes) is the only movement that the modern sociological concept of “sect” could possibly be made to fit as well as the only concrete movement we know about at the scribal-priestly level of Judean society.4 The Pharisees (and perhaps also the Sadducees) were apparently more like a political party or interest group among the scribal retainers of the temple-state in Jerusalem.5 What Josephus calls the “Fourth Philosophy” and the Sicarioi were apparently even smaller groups of political activists, although the Sicarioi may have spawned a brief scribal “messianic” movement focused on Menahem in Jerusalem in the summer of 66 C.E.6 Those connected with writings such as the sections of 1 Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon apparently belonged to scribal circles, but they are not discernible social movements. Among the peasantry we know of many concrete movements such as the popular prophetic movements in Judea and Samaria around mid-first century and the popular messianic movements in Galilee and Judea in 4 B.C.E. and 67–70 and 132–136 C.E.7 The movements that responded to Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee and the closely related figure of John the Baptist, however, were the only ones for which we have more sources than passing references in Josephus. We could also consider the “Maccabean Revolt” as a popular movement, but it is difficult to sort out the initial 3. See my previous treatment in Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 95, 119, 137; and my more recent Jesus and Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), chs. 1–2. 4. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement, 95. Cf. Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 5. See Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 16–19, 30–31, 62–63, and esp. 68–71; and Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988; repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), esp. chs. 5 and 12. 6. See Richard A. Horsley, “The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish Terrorists,” JR 59 (1979): 435–58; idem, “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode among the Sicarii—Not Zealot Messianism,” NovT 27 (1985): 334–48; and idem, Jesus and the Spiral, 77–89. 7. Analyzed according to traditional social form and script in Richard A. Horsley, “Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus,” CBQ 46 (1984): 471–95; idem, “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus,” CBQ 47 (1985): 435–63; and idem, “Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their Principal Features and Social Origins,” JSNT 26 (1986): 3–27.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

41

popular movement from the guerrilla warfare that, after its remarkable success, quickly shifted into the rise of the Hasmoneans as the new high priestly regime that gradually consolidated its power in Judea and expanded its rule in Palestine. Both the Qumran/Essenes movement and Jesus-and-movement originated as responses to the impact of empire.8 Once imperial domination became direct, particularly with Seleucid military attacks and Roman conquest and reconquest, scribal-priestly circles dedicated to the traditional Israelite way of life, such as those who formed the Qumran community, and “peasants” rooted in Israelite traditions, such as those who formed the Jesus movement(s), sought (biblically) unprecedented ways of symbolizing the suffering and evil they were experiencing and new initiatives by God to deliver them from oppressive rule. Conquest by alien empire and their own suffering could not possibly be due only to their own sin, their own failure to keep Mosaic commandments. The only satisfactory explanation was that superhuman demonic forces had gained virtual control of the historical situation and/or of their own particular lives. In both the DSS and the Gospel traditions of Jesus, the situation in which the authors/readers live is dominated by demons or caught up into a struggle between superhuman forces. The scribes at Qumran reflected theologically and systematically on the historical situation. Contrary to appearances, God was still ultimately in control. Indeed, God had appointed two Spirits, the Prince of Light/Angel of Truth versus the Angel of Darkness/Belial/Satan, who struggle for control of human life/Israelite society. But God has also ordained an end for Falsehood, a time when the evil Spirit and its human forces at the historical-political level (the Kittim = the Romans) will be defeated by God’s forces and people (Esp. 1QS 3–4; 1QM). The exorcism stories in Mark and the preMarkan and pre-Q Beelzebul discourses provide evidence of a less systematic and more ad hoc symbolization of a similar situation in which the people are caught in the struggle between divine and demonic forces.9 Although certain Judean apocalypses offer similar symbolization of the situation under imperial domination, Qumran/the Essenes and Jesusand-movement are the only two movements we know who were actively 8. This subject has not been carefully explored in any depth. Some provisional analysis is available in Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, chs. 1–2 and pp. 129–46, 184–90; Richard A. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), chs. 1, 3, and 5; and idem, Jesus and Empire. 9. See further, Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 184–90; and idem., Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 136–148.

42

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

engaged in the struggle, on the side of what they saw as the final divine initiative. Indeed, the Qumranites understood themselves as “the Sons of Light” as opposed to “the Sons of Darkness,” and it is at least conceivable that the Jesus tradition in Luke 16:8 is a reference to the Essenes (hence, evidence of Jesus-and-movement having knowledge of Qumran). Also striking in both Jesus traditions and DSS is the biblically unprecedented manner of speaking about “the Holy Spirit” as if the being is an agent semiseparate from and semi-independent of God.10 Within that situation of foreign domination and struggle between the superhuman divine and demonic forces, both the Qumranites and Jesusand-movement became convinced that God was about to act decisively and that their very movement was the anticipatory step of God’s final deliverance. And both understood this in terms of the fulfillment of history. In the DSS this is expressed nowhere more clearly than in the oft-cited statement in 1QpHab 7.5 that “all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” have been “made known” to the Righteous Teacher. The implication is clear, as widely recognized: all that the prophets spoke of in the past was understood as happening in the Qumranites’/Essenes’ own historical situation, as God had now disclosed to the Teacher. They understood their own historical situation, moreover, as the preparation for God’s final intervention to bring evil to an end and history to fulfillment as a virtual restoration of the divinely intended creation, when God would “purify every deed of mankind with his truth…so that all the glory of Adam shall be theirs” (1QS 4.18–25). A common pattern in Jesus traditions, in both Q and Mark, is that in Jesus’ ministry, something patterned after but historically superior to great figures or events of salvation in Israel’s history is now here (e.g., several passages in Mark 4–9; Q/Luke 11:29–32).11 Not only were (Isaiah’s) prophecies of salvation being fulfilled in Jesus’ practice, but the kingdom of God he announced and inaugurated surpassed (and brings to fulfillment) any figures and events of (Israel’s) history (Q/Luke 7:18–28). Jesus’ reference to age-old longings of Israelites, previously articulated in prophecies now included in the book of Isaiah (29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1; cf. Ps 146:6–7), as reaching fulfillment in his activity has often been misunderstood as referring precisely and literally to his particular acts of healing, preaching, and so on. Both those prophecies and Jesus’ statement in Q/Luke 7:21–22, however, use a stock set of activities 10. See Frederick F. Bruce, “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts,” ALUOS 6 (1969): 49–55; Arthur E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 11. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, ch 7.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

43

that symbolized the people’s longings for renewal and wholeness. The followers of Jesus believed that these longings, the new age of wholeness, the “kingdom of God,” was being fulfilled in the activity of Jesus.12 A fascinating reference to this same tradition of longings for an age of fulfillment and wholeness has been found also in the DSS. The fragment 4Q521, commonly but inappropriately referred to as the “Resurrection Fragment,” refers to both the prophecies included in the book of Isaiah (esp. Isa 61:1) and Ps 146:6–7. The longings that Jesus’ followers believed to be fulfilled in his ministry were understood at Qumran as what the Lord or the Lord’s spirit (and/or anointed one) will effect among the righteous poor, apparently in the imminent future. Qumran’s most striking parallel to Jesus-and-movement, with regard to the sense of imminent fulfillment and the movement’s own anticipatory participation in that fulfillment, comes in their similar practice of community meals. Qumran held communal meals in keen anticipation of the presence of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel (1QS 6; 1Q28a = 1QSa 2), while Jesus’ communities celebrated the Lord’s Supper in keen anticipation of the coming (back) of Jesus, who had now been designated as the Messiah in God’s vindication of his martyrdom (Mark 14:25; 1 Cor 11:26).13 In the central way of expressing the fulfillment of (Israel’s) history now happening, both Qumran and Jesus-and-movement thought of themselves as engaged in a new exodus and renewed Mosaic covenant. In somewhat different ways the two movements saw “Isaiah’s” prophecy as now being fulfilled. The Qumranites in the wilderness were “preparing the way of the Lord” (1QS 8.13–14). For Jesus-and-movement John the Baptist was the voice crying in the wilderness to “prepare the way …” (Mark 1:3; Matt 3:3). The Righteous Teacher was, in effect, a new Moses. The whole community went on an exodus into the wilderness, where they formed the new (or renewed) covenant community. In the DSS this is so explicit that 1QS opens with a covenant renewal ceremony and continues with a full-fledged covenant form, patterned directly on the Mosaic covenant of ancient Israel (cf. Exodus 20; Joshua 24; etc.).14 The 12. See further Richard A. Horsley, “The Kingdom of God as the Renewal of Israel,” in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 263–65. 13. See further Karl Georg Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper, 1957), 65–93; and Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 178–81. 14. Further analysis in Klaus Balzer, The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 99–107; and Horsley and Draper, in Whovever Hears You Hears Me, 206–9.

44

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

Qumran community understood itself most prominently in covenantal terms, indeed as itself constituting “God’s covenant” (see, e.g., 1QpHab 2.4; 1QS 3.11; 4.22; 5.5–6, 8; 10.10; CD 6.19; 8.21 = 19.33b–34). In the Synoptic Gospel traditions of Jesus, the new exodus and new or renewed covenant are less explicitly stated in terms of direct recitations, but unmistakably narrated or enacted in Jesus’ actions and speeches. In the miracle cycles that Mark used in chapters 4–8 (cf. parallels in John), Jesus performs miraculous sea crossings, healings, and feedings in the wilderness as the new Moses and new Elijah. In Q/Luke 6:20–49, developed more explicitly in Matthew 5, Jesus presents an adapted Mosaic covenant to the people, beginning with covenantal blessings to the poor, hungry, and so on, offering them “a new lease on life” in the covenant that they assumed they had broken, and for that reason were cursed with poverty, hunger, and sorrow.15 The discourse in Mark 10 covers the familial, economic, and political aspects of the people’s collective life that implicitly or explicitly renews the traditional Mosaic covenantal principles of egalitarian reciprocity and social relations. The cup in the “Lord’s Supper,” finally, was understood explicitly as “my blood of the [new] covenant” (Mark 14:24; cf. 1 Cor 11:25; although contrast Did. 9–10). In the particular application of their renewal of Mosaic covenant, both the Qumran movement and the Jesus movement(s) combined the sense that in God’s decisive new action a new age is at hand or imminent, with a renewed dedication to covenant law as the norm for community (or even societal) life. It has long been noted that passages in the scrolls, CD 4.13–21 and 11QT 57, parallel Jesus’ apparent prohibition of divorce in Q/Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:2–9, seeming to reject or at least bypass Deut 24:1–4.16 In articulating this prohibition of divorce, moreover, both movements appear to oppose the dominant tradition of interpretation articulated by the Pharisees and/or the incumbent high-priestly regime. 15. Much of recent study of Q is so focused on individual sayings and is so convinced that those sayings should be classified as “sapiential” that they miss the broader covenantal form of the discourse as a whole as well as covenantal substance of many of the sayings within it. But Q, the non-Markan materials shared by Matthew and Luke, is a sequence of discourses, not a collection of sayings. Review of the principal Mosaic covenantal texts in the Hebrew Bible as well as the secondary literature such as Mendenhall and Balzer, should clarify the issue, as explored at length in Horsley, “The Covenant Renewal Discourse: Q 6:20–49,” in Whoever Hears You Hears Me, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 195–227. 16. On this issue see James R. Mueller, “The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts,” RevQ 10 (1980): 247–56; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence,” To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 79–111; and Horsley, “Israelite Traditions in Q,” in Whoever Hears You Hears Me (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 116–17.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

45

There is also a dramatic difference between the scrolls and Jesus-inmovement insofar as the Qumran scribal authors cite a text from either the Torah or the Prophets on every other line of the scroll in CD 4.13–21, whereas the prophet Jesus merely delivers his prohibition of divorce and remarriage in a simple legal formulation in Q/Luke 16:18 (“everyone who”).

OPPOSITION TO TEMPLE AND H IGH P RIESTHOOD We simply cannot pretend that the Jerusalem temple and high priesthood and the Qumran community’s and Jesus’ stances toward them were merely issues of religion, that these ruling institutions enjoyed widespread support either in scribal circles or among the peasantry, or that there was a standard expectation of a rebuilt eschatological temple.17 The temple and high priesthood stood at the center of a Judean politics (or political economy) that was highly charged and at times volatile under declining Seleucid domination and then expanding Roman imperial domination. The Hasmoneans had usurped the high priesthood and then launched two generations of military expansion in which they took over Samaria, Idumea, and Galilee, as well as several of the surrounding Hellenistic cities. Alexander Jannaeus fought a virtual civil war with the Pharisees and others, after which the Pharisees, placed in power by his wife and successor, Alexandra Salome, wrought vengeance on their enemies who had served in high positions under Jannaeus. Once appointed by the Romans as their client “King of Judea” to replace the declining Hasmonean rulers, Herod the Great simply used the temple and high priesthood as important instruments of a shrewd statecraft oriented to the Roman Empire and Jewish Diaspora communities more than to his Judean kingdom. He brought in new high-priestly families, including one from Egypt and another from Babylon, and then rebuilt the temple in grand Hellenistic scale and style as one of the “wonders of the world” and a goal of pilgrimage for Diaspora Jews. Sometime during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, the “temple tax” was instituted, an innovation to finance the temple not mentioned in the Torah. After the deposition of Herod’s incompetent son Archelaus as ruler of Judea proper and Samaria, the four dominant high-priestly families who remained as the ruling aristocracy became increasingly exploitative and 17. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 286–91.

46

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

even predatory, according to both Josephus and rabbinic traditions.18 As evident from archaeological explorations in Jerusalem, by the early first century B.C.E., the high priestly families and other wealthy and powerful families had come to dominate the city from their mansions in the New City, overlooking the temple from the West. It is difficult to imagine that the temple and high priesthood could have retained much legitimacy and influence during these generations of turmoil either among the peasantry, whose tithes and offerings formed the economic basis of the ruling institutions, or even among scribal circles, who were economically dependent on them. Except for a few explicitly pro-Hasmonean documents, literature of this period produced by Judean scribal circles is sharply critical of the temple and high priesthood. It is difficult to find more than one or two texts (e.g., Tob 14:5–6) that attest a rebuilt temple in the future (contrast 1 En. 89–90; Testament of Moses; and Psalms of Solomon). It is understandable that Judean peasants, many of whose ancestors had participated in the Maccabean struggles against imperial profanation of the temple, would have been strongly attached to the temple, even if they became disillusioned with the Hasmonean incumbents and/or Herod’s manipulation of both temple and high priesthood.19 It is unclear, however, just what grounds Galileans would have had for attachment to the temple and high priesthood. Assuming that they were descendants of the northern Israelites who had rebelled against Jerusalem rule over nine centuries earlier, their cultural traditions would have included criticisms of previous domination by Jerusalem rulers. Galileans came under Jerusalem rule again only about a hundred years before the birth of Jesus and, according to Josephus, had been forced to live according to the “laws of the Judeans,” which presumably included obligations of the temple tax and other tithes, offerings, and sacrifices.20

18. See Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and Richard A. Horsley, “High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” JSJ 17 (1986): 23–55. 19. The coalition of fugitive Judean peasants who became known as the “Zealots,” emerging in 67–68 C.E., in the middle of the great revolt, elected by lot as “high Priest” a rustic with supposedly true Zadokite credentials. Richard A. Horsley analyzes this episode in “The Zealots: Their Origins, and Relationships, and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” NovT 27 (1996): 159–92. 20. Fuller discussion in Horsley, Galilee, esp. chs. 2 and 6.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

47

Qumran Opposition to the Temple and High Priests in Jerusalem The Habakkuk Pesher, in particular, articulates a vitriolic attack on the “Wicked Priest,” presumably (one of) the (first) Hasmonean high priest(s) who usurped the proper Zadokite incumbents in mid-second century B.C.E. (1QpHab 1.3; 8.9–11; 9.5–12; 11.4). The attack includes indictments for robbing the people, especially the poor, to enhance their own wealth (1QpHab 8.8–12; 9.4–5; 10.1; 12.6–10; cf. CD 4.18; 6.6, 11, 15–16; 8.4, 7; 20.23; 4QpNah 1.11; cf. 1 En. 92–104). Among the more recently available scrolls, 4Q390 mentions high-priestly violence and oppression as part of a review of Israel’s history. Similar indictments can be found in other late Second Temple Judean Literature (see esp. Pss. Sol. 2:3; 8:12; T. Levi 16:1–2; 17:11; T. Mos. 5:4; 7:3–10) and in early rabbinic literature (m. Ker. 1:7; t. Menah[. 13:18–21; t. Zebah[. 11:16–17; b. Pesah[. 57a), and Josephus provides accounts of high-priestly violence and oppression for the mid-first century B.C.E. (e.g., Ant. 20.179–81; 20.205–7; 20.213). Although Josephus reported that the Essenes offered sacrifices among themselves (Ant. 18.19), Philo understood that they did not offer animal sacrifices (Prob. 75). Archaeological probes to date have produced no altar at Qumran. We should thus take seriously the references in the Rule of the Community claiming that the Qumranites’ own righteousness and “perfection of way” constituted their offerings, oblations, and “expiation for the earth” (1QS 8.10; 9.3–5). Indeed, there is considerable evidence in the scrolls that the Qumranites understood their community as the true temple, the social-ethical replacement for the Jerusalem temple, now utterly corrupted and defiled by their usurpers. The community itself was “an everlasting planting, a house of holiness for Israel, as assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron…who shall atone for the land…the ‘precious cornerstone’ (Isa 28:16)” (1QS 8.5–7). The “sanctuary” that the Lord established in the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:17–18) was understood as “a sanctuary of men, that there they may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the Law” (4Q174 = 4QFlor 1.2–7). That the purity code intended originally for the priests in the temple was extended to all members of the Qumran community fits precisely such a conception of the community itself as constituting the sanctuary of God. This also fits the dominant picture of the Qumran community as having modeled itself on the exodus and covenant, despite its origin in priestly and scribal circles formerly based in the temple.

48

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

If we attempt to reconcile this view of the community as the (current and eschatological) (replacement for the) Jerusalem temple with the Temple Scroll, which appears to speak of a concrete temple building, then perhaps we must conclude that the Qumranites were still hoping to be restored to power in Jerusalem, where they would again preside at the temple sacrifices. The key passages in Rule of the Community (1QS) and Florilegium (4Qflor), and so forth, give the impression of an anticipated continuity between the Qumran community itself as the true/spiritual temple in the present and the eschatological community as God’s ultimate sanctuary.

Jesus’ Prophecies Against the Temple and High Priesthood Anachronistic reading of Acts 2:46 has skewed modern Christian understanding of Jesus and his followers’ stance toward the temple. Apparently on the model of European and American “attending church (or synagogue),” Acts 2:46 has been taken to mean that the disciples and others in “the first church” in Jerusalem were “day by day, attending the temple together” (RSV). Scholars then made the simple argument that if Jesus’ first followers were thus praying and sacrificing in the temple, surely Jesus himself must have been committed to the temple, so much so that he had performed a “cleansing” of the temple so that it might be prepared for its function as a “house of prayer for all peoples [Gentiles]” in the eschatological fulfillment (Mark 11:17). The typical Lukan terms proskartere/w (“attend to”) and o9mofumado/ n (“with one accord”) in Acts 2:46 hardly suggest regular sacrificing and prayers. As Luke was aware, the temple courtyard was the principal public space in Jerusalem and hence the obvious place where the disciples of Jesus would have been busy expanding their movement by spreading the word about the renewal of Israel inaugurated by Jesus, performing healings, and recruiting people for their expanding renewal communities (see also Acts 3:11; 5:12–16).21 That Jesus delivered prophetic oracles condemning the temple and (perhaps) announcing the (re-)building of a temple “not made with hands” is deeply rooted in Gospel traditions and is paralleled by his prophetic demonstration in the temple courtyard.22 The application of the oracle of judgment against the temple to Jesus’ own body in John 2:19 21. Idem., Jesus and the Spiral, 291–92. 22. On the following, see further ibid., 292–306.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

49

places in stark relief just how concretely the Synoptic tradition of the oracle was understood as directed against the actual temple (Mark 13:1–2; 14:58; 15:29–30; cf. Acts 6:13–14). In recent discussions of Jesus, the Synoptic accounts of his action in the temple have been taken seriously as attesting what must have been a prophetic demonstration against the temple reminiscent of Israelite prophetic demonstrations (e.g., those of Jeremiah in chs. 19; 27–28; Jeremiah’s oracle against Solomon’s temple, of course, is recited in Mark 11:15–17 et par.). Jesus’ prophetic lament over Jerusalem in Q/Luke 13:34–35—in which, with its allusion to the Song of Moses in Deut 32:11, the “I” is surely God—was an indictment of the Jerusalem ruling “house,” the temple’s high priesthood, which prevents God from gathering the villages of Israel under God’s wings and even kills the prophets God sends. Josephus’s account in J.W. 6.301–6 of the prophetic lament over Jerusalem by another popular prophet named Jesus, son of Hananiah, provides a close parallel from roughly a generation later. The Synoptic Gospels, moreover, make explicit that the parable of the wicked tenants was directed against the high priestly rulers. Among many recent books on Jesus and articles on his pronouncements and demonstration against the temple, there is a virtual consensus that the arrest and execution of Jesus had something to do with his prophetic pronouncements and/or demonstration against the temple (and the high priesthood).23 Jesus’ popular-prophetic condemnation of the temple and high priesthood thus parallels the scribal-priestly condemnation found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their parallel lines of criticism and condemnation appear to be closely coordinate on two points on which each illuminates and confirms the other. According to the instructions in 4Q159 2.6–8, Qumranites were to pay the yearly half-shekel temple tax only once in a lifetime—clearly a polemical stance of active resistance to the temple establishment. Depending on how one coordinates “the kings of the earth” and “the sons” in Jesus’ saying in Matt 17:24–27, “the sons are free” would indicate fairly bluntly that the children of Israel are free from half-shekel temple tax—a declaration of independence at least in principle, coupled after all with an unrealistic way of raising and paying the temple tax in the anecdote. That the Qumranites understood their own community as the new or true “temple” of God, moreover, suggests that the “temple not made with hands” that Jesus was accused of promising to build (Mark 14:58; 15:29–30) meant the community or renewed people

23. For example, Edward P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

50

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

(Israel) that he and his movement were catalyzing.24 It would appear that both the Qumran community (evident in the DSS) and Jesus and the Jesus movement(s) (evident in the Synoptic Gospel tradition) were movements dedicated to the renewal of Israel over against the temple and high priesthood. They had rejected the temple at different points in Second Temple history and from different social locations. Neither movement needed the temple and its sacrificial cult for expiation and forgiveness of sins. The major difference, of course, is that the priestlyscribal community at Qumran, if anything, intensified their concern for the purity of the community, whereas the Palestinian Jesus movement, based in villages and town communities, actively resisted the purity system that reverberated to their disadvantage economically.

PARALLEL LEADERS AND MOVEMENTS IN DIFFERENT SOCIAL LOCATIONS Corresponding to their mutual condemnation of the temple and high priesthood, both Qumran and Jesus-in-movement understood their own movement and communities as constituting the renewed Israel now underway or in preparation. Not surprisingly, these parallel movements have certain features in common. For example, they both involved several communities, which involved communication among them. Both Mark (6:7–13) and Q (Luke 10:2–16) feature Jesus’ “mission discourse,” commissioning and regulating the work of traveling preachers-healers-organizers who were taken into and supported by households from village to village. The Essenes apparently had a similar provision for travel between and mutual support of envoys and reciprocal visitations. Josephus reports that, on the arrival of travelers, “all the resources of the community are put at their disposal; and they enter the houses of men whom they have never seen before as though they were their most intimate friends; consequently they carry nothing with them on their journeys” (J.W. 2.124–25). Both Jesus’ covenantal exhortations and exhortations in the scrolls insist on solidarity among members of the movement and its communities. The former focuses on overcoming local tensions and the practice of mutual reciprocity among members of village communities, in which Jesus-and-movement were based (Q/Luke 6:27–36; 12:22–31; Mark 10:17–31).25 Since Essene communities apparently involved the 24. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 294–95. 25. Ibid., ch 9.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

51

members physically moving to a community location, their reciprocity took the form of sharing goods in common (1QS 6.22; Josephus, J.W. 2.122; cf. Luke’s portrayal of the “Jerusalem community” in Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–37; 5:1–11). Jesus emphasized love, even of one’s “enemies” in the local community, while the Essenes showed a strong attachment to one another (Q/Luke 6:27–36; J.W. 2.119). To many interpreters, however, the differences between Jesus-in-movement and the Qumran community have been far more important than the similarities. These differences may be more susceptible to intelligible discussion and less susceptible to distortion from Christian ideology of anti-Judaism if we factor in the clear difference in social location, social circumstances, and social interests. Jesus was apparently working in Galilean and other peasant villages, whereas dissident priests and retainers from Jerusalem formed the Qumran community. Jesus was thus addressing, healing, and organizing people embedded in long-standing families (lineages) and communities that were disintegrating under the pressures of multiple layers of rulers (high priestly, Herodian, and Roman) and their economic demands. Their principal problems were integrally related to their rulers’ intensified exploitation of their productivity, which had left them poor, hungry, despairing, divided against themselves, and even “possessed” by demonic forces. Jesus’ program of hope, healing, and restored covenantal relations meant renewal of village communities, which had always constituted the principal social form of Israel. The priests and scribes at Qumran had been economically dependent on the temple and high priesthood but had chosen to abandon their former lives completely and to join the new-exodus, newcovenant community in the Dead Sea wilderness. It has been claimed that Jesus was open and public, whereas the Qumran/Essene community was closed and private.26 That generalization, however, is not quite true once we factor in the historical social dynamics of Seleucid and Hasmonean Judea and Roman Judea and Galilee. Jesus-in-movement was not simply open to but also aggressively expanded into the villages of the areas surrounding Galilee, such as “the regions of Tyre” and “the villages of Caesarea Philippi” and of the Decapolis. The focus was upon the renewal of (“the lost sheep of the house of”) Israel, but there was little concern about maintaining boundaries over against other peasants in nearby village communities, who shared the interests and concerns of Galilean peasants. 26. James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 22–23.

52

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

Jesus-in-movement, however, was hardly open to the wealthy and powerful (rulers) who had systematically “defrauded” the poor in violation of the Mosaic covenantal commandments, for whom it would be impossible “to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:17–25). Nor, so far as we can imagine, did Jesus and his disciples walk boldly into the agoras of Herod Antipas’s newly constructed capital cities, Sepphoris and Tiberias, to discourse with Herodians about how they could inherit eternal life. His march directly into Jerusalem and the temple courtyard must have constituted a final prophetic face-off with the rulers and ruling institutions. Having finally gone “public” in the ruling city, Jesus-andmovement became subject to severe repression by the Jerusalem and other rulers. The Qumran community, on the other hand, defined itself from the beginning as the true, righteous community of Israel over against the unrighteous usurpers of their positions and prerogatives. As priests and scribes whose whole heritage consisted of serving and interpreting the temple and priesthood, moreover, the Qumranites carried over their priestly orientation and concerns into their new-covenant community/ movement. One of the principal features of priestly ideology, of course, was the strict separation of priests from ordinary Israelites by special rules governing marriage and cultic purity. The intensification of the imperial situation in the Seleucid attacks and Roman conquests and imposition of Herodian client kings only intensified the priestly and scribal concern for maintaining the boundaries between the priests and ordinary Israelites as well as the boundaries between Israel and aliens. The Essenes/ Qumranites simply carried such concerns over into their erection of boundaries around their tiny and quite vulnerable community, as the only righteous ones, under the Spirit of Truth, amid a wider sea of wickedness, dominated by the Prince of Darkness. Since the usurpers had blatantly defiled cult and society, it was all the more important for the righteous remnant, on whom God’s as well as Israel’s future depended, to maintain an absolute level of purity. Their program included but went far beyond concern to maintain the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations, such as Sabbath observance, far more strictly than that of the Pharisees (e.g., CD 10–11).27 They thus generated elaborate and strict purity codes to protect themselves from impurity and to punish any intentional or accidental offenders in their midst (scrolls concerned heavily with purity are numerous: 1QS; 1QH; CD; 4Q394–399 [= 4QMMT]; 4Q159; 4Q181; 4Q512; 4Q513–514; 27. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 77–133.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

53

5Q13).28 Even the penal code at Qumran was closely coordinated with purity concerns.29 And the stress on repeated ritual purification by water certainly attests the heavy emphasis on purity and anxiety about defilement. By contrast, Jesus-in-movement was virtually unconcerned about purity and boundary maintenance, for the lines of opposition between the wealthy and powerful rulers and the productive peasantry were long since drawn in the fundamental political-economic-religious structure of the Judean temple-state and the Roman Empire. Consideration of the different social locations and interests of Jesusand-movement and Qumran may make the most difference with regard to how they drew upon Israelite (biblical) traditions. Working out of the prevailing Christian construction of the “religion” of “(early) Judaism,” scholars commonly declare that “the Qumran community and Jesus basically agreed with one another in their acceptance of the Torah as the central and decisive authority for their beliefs.”30 Then the authors of the scrolls are grouped with the Pharisees into the Christian other category of “legalistic religion.”31 One of the principal results of discovery of the DSS, however, has been the realization that there was no standard version of the Torah as text in Roman Judea, even among scribal circles.32 And since most communication in late Second Temple Judean society was oral,33 even among literate scribes, oral Torah was almost certainly considerably different, area by area, and group by group. Far more significant than the variation of Torah traditions among scribal groups would have been the difference between the form in which literate scribal circles, such as those at Qumran, and illiterate villagers, such as Jesus and the Galileans in his movement, would have known 28. Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 116. 29. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983). 30. Hartmut Stegemann, “Some Aspects of Eschatology in Texts from the Qumran Community and in the Teachings of Jesus,” in Biblical Archaeology Today (ed. J. Amitai; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 408–26, esp. 418. 31. Cf. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” 32. 32. Eugene C. Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” 77–93; and Emanuel Tov, “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QPara Gen-Exod,” 11–34; both in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [1993] (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994). 33. See the survey of oral communication in connection with the Hebrew Bible by Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996); and my survey of oral communication in relation to texts for Palestine and the Roman Empire generally, in Horsley, “The Oral Communication Environment of Q,” in Whoever Hears You Hears Me (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 123–49.

54

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

Israelite traditions.34 Anthropologists use the distinction between the “great tradition” and the “little tradition” to comprehend such a difference. The Torah and other literature that became the Hebrew Bible were produced largely by scribal-priestly circles connected with the Davidic monarchy and especially with the Second Temple high priesthood. Popular legends, customs, and traditions were incorporated and probably transformed according to the interests of the dominant circles, along which lines the Torah and other protobiblical literature were produced. Those popular legends, customs, and traditions, however, continued to function orally in the villages of Judea. The same traditions and others, moreover, continued among the northern Israelites and were almost certainly alive among their descendants, who comprised the Galileans at the time of Jesus. There was regular interaction between the official tradition and the popular tradition. Josephus writes that at the Hasmonean takeover of Galilee, the people were allowed to continue in their land if they agreed to abide by “the laws of the Judeans.” And presumably representatives of the official tradition based in Jerusalem, such as “the scribes and Pharisees,” on occasion pressed upon locals in Judea and perhaps also in Galilee the importance of observing requirements of the official law. Along with and indeed as a presupposition of such interaction, however, the popular tradition continued to inform local community life parallel to the operations of the official tradition in scribal and priestly circles in Jerusalem. The Qumranites may well be the community of Western antiquity that was the most focused on the “great tradition” of its culture in literary form as well as the most literarily productive. From their scrolls of prophetic books, we know that they possessed many texts; and we know from the pesharim they left behind that they studied at least those prophetic texts and cited them carefully in their extensive attempts to shed light on their own historical situation. How unusually “bookish” or “scrollish” they were stands out by comparison with later rabbinic circles, in which rabbis studied and taught Torah orally, including chains of halakic rulings. But, of course, once they abandoned their former roles in the Jerusalem temple-state and its cult, what they had left was the literate (and oral) “great tradition” of Jerusalem. Jesus-and-movement, on the other hand, worked out of the Israelite popular tradition that had presumably been cultivated for generations in 34. On the following see the provisional sketches in Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 129–31; idem., Galilee, 46–52, 147–57; and idem., “Israelite Traditions in Q,” 94–122.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

55

Galilean village communities.35 For example, Jesus countered “the traditions of the elders” pressed by the scribes and Pharisees with the age-old basic “commandment of God” from the Mosaic covenant (Mark 7:1–13). His dynameis (acts of power) reenacted or acted in reminiscence of the actions of Moses and Elijah of old (Mark 4:35–8:26). In the first long discourse in Q, Jesus has such command of particular Mosaic covenantal forms and exhortations that he can reconfigure them into an offer of new life as well as a reconstitution of cooperative village community (Q/Luke 6:20–49). Jesus patterned his demonstrative entry into Jerusalem according to a prophecy of how a popular messiah, relying on a peasant mode of transportation, as opposed to a war chariot, would arrive on the scene (Mark 11:2–8; cf. Zech 9:9; 2 Kgs 9:11–13). And he performed a prophetic demonstration condemning the temple and its operations with clear allusion to Jeremiah’s condemnation of Solomon’s temple (Mark 11:15–17). In contrast with the scribal Righteous Teacher and other Qumranites who applied old prophecies to new situations, moreover, Jesus pronounced new prophecies, patterned creatively after the traditional prophetic forms such as lament and woes (Q/Luke 13:34–35; 11:37–52).

P ROPHET, P RIEST, KING, ONCE AGAIN LITERATE SCRIPTS AND POPULAR SCRIPTS Finally, I want to suggest a way in which the DSS may prove helpful for a previously unexplored approach to the historical Jesus. If we were attempting to write about “the historical Abraham Lincoln” we would hardly focus almost exclusively on his “pithy” sayings and clever “aphorisms,” as recent treatments do for the “historical Jesus.” If anything, we would give priority to his performance in public roles and offices as lawyer and president in the particular context of U.S. history in the mid1800s, with special attention to the great issues of U.S. society at the time, particularly slavery and the survival of the Union. Ancient Judea and Galilee under the Roman Empire, of course, were not analogous to the nineteenth-century United States. The ruling temple-state in Jerusalem included offices such as the high priest and the temple captain, and the priestly aristocracy was assisted in its governing by scribes, among whom were leading Pharisees. Among the peasantry, who lived in hundreds of villages of varying sizes, however, there were no formal offices to which 35. On the following, see the fuller sketch in Horsley, “Israelite Traditions in Q.”

56

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

Jesus might have been elected. Yet when popular movements emerged from time to time, they did take distinctive forms informed by the Israelite traditions that presumably were cultivated in the villages. Thus, it would seem to be an obvious step to compare Jesus-and-movement, as represented in the Gospel traditions, with the other popular leaders-andmovements at the time in order to discern the traditional role(s) he was playing. The Jewish historian Josephus and other sources provide brief yet sufficiently suggestive accounts that enable us to discern two distinctive types of popular leaders-and-movements at the time. We can compare Jesus to them: movements headed by a prophetic figure appearing as a new Moses or Joshua leading a new exodus and wilderness preparation for return to the land, and movements led by a messianic figure appearing as a new Saul or David leading battles for independence of exploitative foreign rulers.36 Thus, even though Judean texts around the time of Jesus offer little evidence for any expectation of a messiah or an eschatological prophet among literate circles, Judean and Galilean peasants generated a number of messianic and prophetic movements. Although there is little evidence of a script for a messiah or prophet in scribal circles, such movements indicate that scripts for both messianic movements and prophetic movements were actively performed among the people. Looking for evidence of such scripts of leaders and movements in the DSS requires us to use the scrolls in a way different from before, when our focus was on “Jewish expectations” of “the Messiah” or “the eschatological prophet” and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled (or differed from) those expectations. In the latter connection, the discovery of the scrolls fifty years ago was a lifesaving, as well as a foundations-shaking, event. This is nowhere truer than with regard to Christology in theologically oriented biblical studies. Just when biblical scholars were being 36. See the analysis in Horsley, “Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus,” and “Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus.” So far as we know from our minimal sources, expectations/traditions of a messiah or of a new Moses or prophet like Moses were dormant in the early Second Temple period. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 40, 94, confirms my conclusions in the above studies. Significantly, such images did not spring to life even in connection with the turmoil of Hellenizing reform and the Maccabean revolt—so solidly did the tradition/image of the high priesthood dominate even among the Judeans who actively resisted the imperial encroachments on their traditional way of life. As the Hasmoneans consolidated their power, they were careful to make clear that no prophet was even remotely discernible on the horizon (as indicated in 1 Macc 14:41: “…until a trustworthy prophet should arise” [NRSV].

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

57

forced to admit that the supposedly standard Jewish expectation of “the Messiah” had little basis in Second Temple Jewish literature, along came the scrolls, attesting not just one but two messiahs and an eschatological prophet as well. The scrolls confirmed the need to recognize the diversity of Jewish expectations of future redeemer figures. But the scrolls’ diverse representation of such figures also provided textual evidence for a considerable variety of christological constructions that scholars were eager to document. The DSS also provided other important confirmations for Christology. Christian interpreters observed the difference between the Qumranites/ Essenes and the Palestinian Jesus movement. On the one hand, the DSS did not apply the expectations of a priestly messiah and/or an eschatological prophet (Teacher at the End of Days) to the Righteous Teacher,37 whereas the followers of Jesus did apply any and all expectations to Jesus. On the other hand, if our interest is in the historical Jesus and we proceed analogously on the scrolls’ side of our comparison to inquire about the historical Righteous Teacher, we must look for the tradition-grounded role(s) they played, respectively, in relation to their initial followers.38 While the scrolls apparently do not identify the Righteous Teacher with the Teacher at the End of Days or the Messiah of Aaron or “a prophet like Moses,” they do represent him as a new Moses with some additional prophetic characteristics, at least in relation to his followers.39 A more thorough exploration of his role as the new Moses and associated prophetic features may prove to be highly suggestive for our understanding of one of the popular scripts that the historical Jesus may have adapted and performed, although in a more indirect way than the popular prophetic movements on the same social level as Jesus-and-movement. 37. Following Collins, Scepter and the Star, 102–15. 38. Hartmut Stegemann, “The ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and Jesus: Two Types of Religious Leadership in Judaism at the Turn of the Era,” in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ed. S. Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 196–213, does break with the habit of focusing on christological titles; he proceeds relationally, analyzing both Jesus and the Teacher in relation to their disciples and communities. I am suggesting that those relations were already structured according to certain scripts alive in the popular and scribal Israelite tradition. 39. I base this observation on the work of Collins, Scepter and the Star, 112–15; Frederick M. Schweitzer, “The Teacher of Righteousness,” and Michael O. Wise, “The Temple Scroll and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part II: The Teacher of Righteousness. Literary Studies (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]; Qumranica Mogilanensia 3; Kraków: Enigma, 1991), 53–97 and 121–47, respectively; Michael O. Wise, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,” RevQ 14 (1990): 587–613; and the provocative study of Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” ( JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983).

58

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

Given the significant differences in social location and interest and the differences between the “great” and “little” traditions mentioned above, of course, we should not simply assume that documents from scribal circles such as the DSS are good sources for what the people generally were thinking and doing.40 In the case of the scrolls, let us examine the presentation of the Righteous Teacher in the role of a new Moses and/or prophet. Two factors, in particular, suggest that in this matter they may be more similar to popular views than other scribal literature. First, in their sense of oppression by domestic and foreign rulers, the Qumranites have moved into a position vis-à-vis the established rulers similar to the position in which peasants ordinarily appear. Second, the tradition of Moses, focused in the exodus and covenant, stood against hierarchical order and centralized rule, particularly oppressive alien rule. Significantly, when Judeans celebrated the Passover festival, remembering their people’s deliverance from Pharaoh’s oppressive rule, the festivities often led to demonstrations clamoring for independence of Roman rule. And the popular prophetic movements in Judea and Samaria took place around the mid-first century, after Roman rule had become more directly evident and when the highpriestly families were becoming increasingly predatory. Thus, it is surely significant that priests and scribes, who would ordinarily have depended upon the royal and priestly Zion traditions and would have a vested interest in the august figure of the old Moses as author of the official Torah, turned to a new Moses and the exodus-covenant tradition when they broke with the Hasmonean regime. Suddenly they were in a relationship to the rulers similar to that of the peasantry and, correspondingly, acted out of the Mosaic exodus and covenantal tradition. Thus the appearance of the Righteous Teacher as the new Moses—for which the DSS provide far more textual evidence than we have for the popular prophets closer to the time as well as the social location of Jesus— may provide important indirect evidence for the Mosaic-prophetic script that informed those popular movements. This indirect evidence expands the script from exodus into covenant. Most fundamental to the script as evident in the popular prophetic movements such as Theudas and his followers was an exodus into the wilderness from the Pharaoh-like Jerusalem rulers and/or the Egypt-like situation of Jerusalem under imperial rule (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97–98; cf. the Jericho-like Jerusalem that the “Egyptian” Jewish prophet and his followers opposed in a new Joshua vs. Jericho scenario, in Ant. 20.169–71). As portrayed in the scrolls, the 40. As I argued initially in Jesus and the Spiral, 129–31.

RICHARD A. HORSLEY

59

Righteous Teacher and his followers not only launched an exodus into the wilderness but also founded a new covenant community. That the community is headed by a council consisting of three priests, as well as twelve men (1QS 8.1–4), suggests that it was a distinctively priestly version of the renewed covenant of Israel. Aside from the priestly component, the renewed covenant community led by the Teacher suggests that the new Moses script must have included the renewed covenant as well as the new exodus. The Dead Sea Scrolls thus add a new or renewed covenant component to the Mosaic-prophetic script that simply does not appear in any of Josephus’s brief accounts of popular prophetic movements. The renewed covenant community at Qumran, moreover, is a reconstitution of Israel. Some interpreters have suggested that the restoration of Israel was a “militant messiah’s” mission separate in Judean literature from the renewal of justice and holiness among the people by a “prophet like Moses.”41 But that appears to be a misreading of the scrolls as well as Psalm of Solomon 17. The Qumran Community led by the Righteous Teacher was both; it was a restoration of Israel (albeit provisional and by anticipation) precisely in a life of holiness and justice.42 If we can combine the new Moses as reconstituting the covenantal people (as leader of the new exodus) evident in the Righteous Teacher of the Qumran Movement with the new Moses as leader of the new exodus evident in the popular prophetic movements, then we have a more complete sense of the popular prophet script that may have been followed by the historical Jesus. Studies of the historical Jesus based heavily on his sayings isolated from literary and historical context depend heavily on the modern scholar for construction of a meaning context in which the isolated sayings can be understood in some coherent fashion. Recently, for example, some have suggested that Jesus must have resembled the Cynics, vagabond countercultural philosophers active in Hellenistic cities. But that takes us far afield from the concrete social-religious power-relations of ancient Judea and Galilee. Instead, we can investigate further the popular prophetic script, the traditional social role that Judean prophets around the time of Jesus actually performed, as the possible script, role, or “office” that Jesus performed and was understood as performing. That script or role was situated directly 41. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 122. 42. So also Ps. Sol. 17, the principal text still cited as attesting a “militant messiah,” portrays a restoration of (the twelve tribes of) Israel in holiness and justice, only by a messiah whose militance has been transposed into scribal power—a scribal version of the messianic script parallel to the scribal version of the Mosaic-prophetic script in the DSS.

60

THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS

within the particular structure and dynamics of power-relations in ancient Judea and Galilee under Roman rule, and it was part and parcel of the historical meaning context in which Jesus’ actions and sayings can become historically intelligible. Assuming that this covenantal component is not a distinctively scribal feature, the scrolls thus flesh out the prophetic script of a restored covenantal Israel in a way that gives us greater confidence in identifying many of Jesus’ teachings and exhortations (such as those in Q/Luke 6:20–49 or Mark 10) as part of a new or renewed covenant pattern. We may thus discern suggestive information from careful exploration of the prophetic script evident in the DSS, information that may illuminate the prophetic script that informs portrayals and teachings of Jesus in Gospel traditions—so long as we keep in mind the differences between a scribal-priestly (even Zadokite) circle and its concerns and a popular movement and its concerns. Whereas the Righteous Teacher had revealed all the mysteries of God’s wisdom to the wise scribes and priests at Qumran, Jesus (in Q/Luke 10:21) thanked “the Lord of heaven and earth” that he had “hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants.”

CHAPTER THREE

THE FUTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST: QUMRAN AND THE PALESTINIAN JESUS MOVEMENT Donald H. Juel I came to the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS = Qumran Scrolls) as a student of the New Testament. This remarkable set of documents played a major role in the way Early Judaism took shape and came alive for me. One fragment in particular, 4Q174 (= 4QFlor) Florilegium, came to play a crucial role in my doctoral thesis. When I finally traveled to Israel and stood next to the Qumran ruins and the series of caves, I was unprepared for the sense of disappointment: everything seemed so small. That experience was, I believe, a salutary taste of reality. Scholarly interests may give false impressions of how things really are. The significance of the scrolls has little to do with the size of the community or the splash it might have made in its day. Nor can the significance of the scrolls have much to do with the immediate future of that little community, since it had none—at least until 1947, when some of its secrets were unearthed. The significance of the community and its literature is for us on whom the end of the ages has dawned. The discoveries have provided a perfect example of what postmoderns know and moderns suspect: our world is a construct that rests uneasily on a religious, political, cultural, and intellectual consensus. One of the great fictions is that we can achieve a measure of stability by locating foundation stones in the past on which to build a present and a future. The reality is that there are no such stones—only layers beneath which we may find something new and surprising, whose artifacts may be fashioned into new mosaics. “The country with an unpredictable past” is what a former member of the Soviet Union and his schoolmates used to say about their homeland when one new history of the Soviet Union after another would appear. We might well say the same about our own conception of our past as Christians and Jews. Old stereotypes vanish, and we find ourselves in a somewhat unfamiliar and awkward situation of knowing less clearly exactly who we are.

61

62

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

That is not the popular view. People are fascinated with the scrolls because they imagine they hold some secret that will unlock the mysteries of the past (and present). Ordinary people in congregations still flock to adult forums on the Dead Sea Scrolls. And it is not just the uninitiated to Qumranology who have such hopes and expectations.1 There are still a good number among the learned community who pore over the remaining fragments, convinced they will find evidence that there really was some expectation of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah—and that such a find will settle some ancient disputes and provide something substantial on which to construct a faith and a theology. What has occurred is the opposite: the more we have read, the more impressed we have become by the strangeness of these ancients and how poorly they fit some of the portraits we have sketched of our ancestors.

CONSTRUCTING THE PAST Such portraits are constructs, assembled from available data by each generation of architects of the past, that play a crucial role in determining how we make sense of our Scriptures and our religious heritage. While in biblical studies during the last decades there has been a protest against collapsing literature into its context, all reading presumes a setting. I recall one of my teachers, Jacob Jervell, insisting on this point as we proposed interpretations of Luke-Acts that resulted “simply” from our engagement with the narrative. He demonstrated how completely our reading was dependent on a particular sketch of early Christianity, which was in turn derived from a reading of postbiblical Jewish history.2 It is now interesting to me that we even use “early Christianity” in reference to the first century C.E. The term “Christian” appears only three 1. Don Juel passed away before he could polish or update his paper. I have kept and protected the integrity of his work, and (besides the usual editing of a chapter) have added only some notes that draw attention to more-recent publications. I often think of Don; he was a close colleague and we greatly admired each other. For the last part of his life he took over my PhD seminar on “First-Century Judaism,” which I now teach again. He would often show me his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was always with enthusiasm. Just before his last Easter, I went to his home. We read the Greek of the Gospel of John (ch. 20), affirming our own belief in the resurrection of Jesus by God, and our experience of another world awaiting us both—for him now (JHC, editor). 2. Jacob Jervell’s work includes collections of essays such as Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) and The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). His most recent and mature contribution is his commentary on Acts in the Meier Series.

D ONALD H. J UEL

63

times in the New Testament. In Acts, it is used by outsiders to refer to a “sect” and an ideology that is Jewish. What characterizes the particular Jewish group in Antioch is apparently its commitment to “Christ” and its attitude toward Gentile participation in community activities. But these believers do not regard themselves as “Christians” as opposed to “Jews.” They do not, in fact, adopt the terminology at all. And from the perspective of outsiders, “Christian” is a name that attempts to distinguish this “sect” of Jews from others. The term “sect” is actually used in Acts 28:22, where the “local leaders of the Jews” tell Paul that “with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against” (NRSV). If we are not permitted to use anachronistic terminology in reading LukeActs—like “Christian”—identifying the group and understanding its piety become a different matter. We use the term “Christian”—meaning something other than “Jewish”—because we presume a history in which a decisive break between Jesus’ followers and the “Jewish” community occurred before the end of the first century C.E. If that construct is inaccurate, our reading of Luke-Acts (and the rest of the New Testament) will change. As heirs of postbiblical Judaism and of the New Testament, we see different things and see things differently as a result of having encountered new texts and archaeological data. One of the questions before us is how we have changed and what is different about what we see. What difference does it make to students of the Mishnah and Talmud and to students of the New Testament if they have read the Dead Sea Scrolls? What difference does it make that these writings are part of our religious past?

“CHRISTIAN” AND “J EW” Due in large measure to the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the conversation they have engendered, it has become customary to speak of “first-century Judaism.” Students of Walter Bauer have likewise seen the appropriateness of speaking of a variety of forms of early Christianity, understanding “Christianity”—like “normative Judaism”—as a creation of the second, third, and fourth centuries C.E.3 3. Walter Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei in Ältesten Christentum (ET: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971]). Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson have developed his thesis in their Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).

<~?~q can you ply the title and lication informa for this? is it book, the theo of the acts of apostles (cambri cambridge un sity press, 1996)

64

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

Nevertheless, the data have not yet fundamentally altered the paradigm within which we do our work as students of Jewish and Christian tradition. Scholars continue to speak of “Christianity” in the first century of the Common Era—and to juxtapose Christianity and Judaism—as though these were distinct and different social phenomena. Such practice will become increasingly difficult as our sketch of the larger Jewish community continues to be revised by what we have learned from the DSS. What were taken to be distinctive features of the New Testament—distinctive in the sense that they manifest a “Christian” perspective over against Judaism—turn up in the Qumran Scrolls. One of the greatest changes taking place is the relocation of the literature of the Palestinian Jesus Movement squarely within the larger Jewish community. Vocabulary is significant. What language shall we borrow for our construction of the religious history of the first century? “Christian” is not a word that New Testament authors use to speak of what we may label the Palestinian Jesus Movement. Our use of the term “Christian” is not a harmless anachronism for a reality that existed in the first century. It prejudges and misconstrues what was the case; it creates a reality that did not exist until a century after Jesus of Nazareth. It is remarkable how dramatically the interpretive game is changed when the word “Christian” is eliminated as a term appropriate to the first-century Palestinian Jesus Movement. Not long ago the (SBL) LukeActs Seminar tried to carry on its business for one session without using the term “Christian.” The group was persuaded to try the experiment since everyone agreed that from the perspective of Luke-Acts, believers were not “Christians.” Our experiment did not last more than half an hour. Members of the group would inadvertently say “Christian,” then apologize with a nervous laugh and try to find a substitute. They were unable to imagine a perspective that was not “Christian” as opposed to “Jewish.” Anachronistic language solved a problem that perhaps provides the occasion for Luke’s two-volume work. The experience indicated—and for most scholars, still indicates—how completely our reading of the literature of the first century has been shaped by particular constructs from our own religious heritage as “Christians” and “Jews.” And it provides at least a hint of what it will mean when the new material made available to us through the painstaking work of a generation of scholars forces the whole academic—and nonacademic—world to acknowledge that “Christianity” began as a Jewish sect and that the New Testament belongs to what should be called the “pre-Christian” era (or proto-Christian literature). The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the only reason for the reconstruction of our view of the first century of this era, but they are a crucial factor.

D ONALD H. J UEL

65

They have provided parallels to features of the New Testament that were previously regarded as distinctive. Perhaps most obvious is attitude toward the future. The Palestinian Jesus Movement was characterized by a lively eschatology, whether expressed in terms of a conviction that the end was not far off (Mark 9:1; 13:30; 1 Cor 7:29–31; Rev 22:20) or that the “new has come” (2 Corinthians; Gospel of John). The DSS add richness and texture to this “apocalyptic” perspective. There is in the scrolls, as in the New Testament, a tension between expectation of the future and the conviction that the present is already the beginning of the future. Traces of an angelic liturgy (as in Angelic Liturgy [4Q400-407]) may be reminiscent of Colossians and Ephesians as well as later Jewish mysticism. For both groups, fulfillment of prophecy is one of the dominant features of a religious imagination. Eschatologically, the Palestinian Jesus Movement is far closer to the sectarians on the shores of the Dead Sea than to the later rabbis. The roles assigned end-time deliverers in the New Testament and the DSS are mutually illuminating. While quite different, both communities deal explicitly with expectations of a prophet like Moses, an anointed priestly figure, and a royal messiah from the line of David. For the first time in Jewish literature prior to the New Testament we encounter a messianic reading of Nathan’s Oracle in 2 Samuel 7 (in Florilegium [4Q174]), a passage quoted in the New Testament (Heb 1:5) that was of considerable importance in providing language with which to speak of Jesus as God’s “Son.”4 In each community, scriptural texts about coming deliverers are understood in light of the particular histories of each group. A comparison yields both a sense of a common heritage and creative interweaving of biblical passages. Impressive is both the common stock of messianic texts, like 2 Samuel 7; Isaiah 11; Genesis 49; Num 24:17; Jeremiah 33; and Zechariah 6, and the enormous differences in the way the texts are read and deployed. The Habakkuk Pesher takes the passage so important to Paul, “The righteous shall live by (his) faith” (Hab 2:4), and applies it to the founder of the community and his supporters, with different meaning and implications: Its interpretation concerns all those who observe the Torah in the House of Judah, whom God will save from the house of judgment on account of their tribulation and their fidelity to the Righteous Teacher. (1QpHab 8.1–2)5 4. Donald H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), chapter 3. 5. The translation is by Maurya P. Horgan, “Habakkuk Pesher,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 175 (for the Hebrew, see 174).

66

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

Not only in particulars but also in form and tone, scriptural interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided closer analogies to the New Testament than other postbiblical Jewish literature. In view of the use of Scripture in the DSS, we can no longer speak of a “Christian” hermeneutic. Scripture is interpreted in much the same way as in other branches of the Jewish community, but with a different starting point and in particular social settings.6 The Qumran Community was aware of their separateness and concerned about identifying and maintaining boundaries. The Palestinian Jesus Movement was no different. They had to decide how they would live with their neighbors (see, for example, the discussion of idol meat in Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 8–10), how they would deal with strangers, and what status the law of Moses would have among them. Some matters were settled early on: worship of Israel’s God in the Palestinian Jesus Movement would include Gentiles. Not settled was on what conditions Gentiles would participate in the worship and life of the community. Opinions ranged from Paul’s insistence that Gentiles be free from observance of the law, to Luke’s modified requirements for eating together, of abstinence from blood, and idol worship (Acts 15), to the insistence of the “circumcision party” that Gentiles wishing to become full members of the community be circumcised and invited to observe the whole law of Moses—a group that never mustered the votes to get its opinions published and are known only in the writings of their opponents (Galatians 2; Acts 15). While these boundaries were drawn quite differently than at Qumran, they were determined in the same way: by appeal to experience and to the Scriptures (Acts 15 and Galatians 2–3 are examples). And while the selection of scriptural texts to which appeal is made may be different, there is no sense that the Palestinian Jesus Movement, any more than the Qumran sectarians, believed its connection with Israel’s heritage had been severed. The Qumran Scrolls make it possible to understand how members of the Palestinian Jesus Movement could understand themselves as Jews—as members of Israel’s family. They surely appeared to be so from the viewpoint of their neighbors. They believed themselves to be children of Israel’s God, a God with a particular history of involvement with the world and a name that could no longer be pronounced, a God who had elected a people and made promises out of which the communities lived. 6. See esp. Nils A. Dahl, “History and Eschatology in Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Jesus the Christ (ed. D. H. Juel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 129–45.

D ONALD H. J UEL

67

CHILDREN OF LIGHT/CHILDREN OF DARKNESS: THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is interesting that some of the earliest studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls pointed to similarities in outlook and vocabulary with the Fourth Gospel, a work that might argue against the thesis that the New Testament belongs within the boundaries of Jewish literature. The world of the Fourth Gospel is divided between “children of light” and “children of darkness,” throughout the narrative identified as “the Jews” (67 times). The fierceness of the polemic against “the Jews” is matched in the Qumran Scrolls by antipathy toward the Wicked Priest, the Purveyor of Lies, and the “Seekers of smooth things,” presumably members of Israel’s family responsible for ousting the priestly group that made up the community, forcing them into exile, and even persecuting the Righteous Teacher. The followers of this teacher anticipated the punishment and destruction of their opponents within the family with a vehemence that matches anything in the Fourth Gospel. Yet this polemic does not suggest that the Qumran covenanters regarded themselves as anything but children of Israel. Is the case different in the Fourth Gospel? The Prologue, with its striking statement that “the law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth come through Jesus Christ” (1:17 NRSV), draws heavily on Wisdom imagery that had centuries earlier been employed by members of Israel’s family to interpret the creation story in Genesis 1. That God created the heavens and the earth is not in dispute. That God’s creative word has become embodied and accessible is likewise not an issue of disagreement. The central question is where that Word is to be found, and on that there is a crucial difference of opinion. “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the Law which Moses commanded us,” writes the author of Sirach (24:23 NRSV). “The Word became flesh and lived [lit.: tented] among us” (John 1:14 NRSV) is a different claim. For the Fourth Gospel, as for the Qumran Scrolls, Israel’s Scriptures are authoritative. The questions thus become “Who is an authorized interpreter?” and “What may be expected from interpretation?” The problem, as conceived by both communities, is that those who are not among the chosen are blocked from understanding the words of the Scriptures as interpreted by respective “Teachers” and their careers. The “bread from heaven” discourse in John 6 not only illustrates the point but also offers an experience of it. The crowd hurls “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” at Jesus as a challenge: Moses gave our ancestors

68

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

bread (manna). What can you do? Jesus offers an interpretation of the passage: “It is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven” (NRSV). The tense is present, not past. The subject is God, not Moses. And the “bread” refers to Jesus, not manna.7 The crowds understand the words, but they cannot grasp what they mean without help. “And they shall all be taught by God” (Isa 54:13, quoted in John 6:45 NRSV) is one way of expressing this inspiration. Another is in 16:12–15, where Jesus promises that the Spirit (the Advocate) will come to lead his followers “into all the truth.” The same sentiment is expressed in Habakkuk Pesher: […Look, O traitors, and] s[ee;] [and wonder (and) be amazed, for I am doing a deed in your days that you would not believe if] it were told. (vacat). [Its interpretation concerns] the traitors together with the Man of the Lie, for (they did) not [believe in the words of] the Righteous Teacher (that are) from the mouth of God. And it concerns the trait[ors to] the new [covenant,] f[o]r they did not believe in the covenant of God [and they profaned] his holy name. And thus (vacat) the interpretation of the passage [concerns the trai]tors towards the latter days. They are the ruthless [ones of the cove]nant who will not believe when they hear all that is going to co[me up]on the last generation (as it is explained) from the mouth of the Priest, to whom God has been giving in [his heart discernme]nt to interpret all the words of his servants the prophets [whom] by their hand God enumerated all that is going to come upon his people and up[on his congregation]. (1QpHab 1.16–2.10)8

The Fourth Gospel includes bitter words of Jesus to “the Jews,” which offer an explanation for their obduracy and lack of understanding, later systematized into a whole ontology by those we know as “gnostics”: Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires.…Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God. (John 8:43–47)

7. Jesus’ response works best as a comment on a Hebrew passage in which the consonantal text does not necessarily disclose the tense of the verb “to give.” It may be read as a present (“He gives”) or as a past (“He gave”), depending on the vowels supplied. The present text of the Fourth Gospel is, of course, Greek. This raises interesting questions about the earlier history of the Fourth Gospel and its traditions. The current text makes sense, but the Greek cannot convey the ambiguity of the Hebrew verb on which the story plays. See Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1965). 8. Charlesworth’s restoration and translation; see Horgan, in “Habakkuk Pesher” (PTSDSSP 6B), 160–63.

D ONALD H. J UEL

69

The writer of the Rule of the Community (1QS) offers a similar explanation for differences of opinion about crucial matters: In a spring of light emanates the nature of truth and from a well of darkness emerges the nature of deceit. In the hand of the Prince of Lights (is) the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. But in the hand of the Angel of Darkness (is) the dominion of the Sons of Deceit; and in the ways of darkness they walk. By the Angel of Darkness comes the aberration of all the Sons of Righteousness; and all their sins, their iniquities, their guilt, and their iniquitous works (are caused) by his dominion, accord to God’s mysteries, until his end. (1QS 3.19–23)9

In the case of both communities, such explanations are offered for disagreements principally with members of the same family. Neither literature contains a full-blown mythology. Crucial for locating the groups, as Alan Segal has pointed out, neither group moves toward relegating Israel’s God—the Creator—to the status of a lesser god who is the problem.10 What distinguishes scriptural interpretation at Qumran and within the Palestinian Jesus Movement from later rabbinic midrashim has to do with social location and the particular experience of God out of which the writings grew. In these communities it has become impossible to live together within the larger family. Particular forms of faith in God—Israel’s God—have opened unbridgeable chasms between branches of the family of Israel. How to understand and live in such a world as children of God is what generates narratives and rules and commentaries. Although within rabbinic tradition there is confidence in reason to convince even hostile Gentiles with a sound argument and a sense that the world is a place where regularities can be identified, the literature of the Palestinian Jesus Movement is far more impressed with the surprises in tradition. The scandal involves the gulf between what is taken for common sense and the truth. Most striking—and worthy of comment—is the inability to convince others of the community’s reading. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not grasped it” (John 1:4). The community that produced the scrolls operates with a similar view of the world. Reasoned conversation with the “children of darkness” is impossible. As close as the analogies may be, a significant difference remains: in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ opponents are regularly identified as “the Jews.” 9. Charlesworth’s translation, in “Rule of the Community,” in The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 15. 10. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977).

70

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

Statements about “children of darkness” are applied specifically to them. Much has been invested in an effort to understand the designation “Jews” in the Fourth Gospel.11 Although a geographical reading works for many occurrences, I am not convinced that it accounts for the usage overall. Significantly, however, there is no self-designation that stands over against “Jews.” There are surely no “Christians” in the Fourth Gospel. The only time Gentiles (“the Greeks”) are mentioned in a positive light is in chapter 12, where their coming indicates that Jesus’ “hour has come” (12:20–23). The story is about Jesus and his followers, all of whom are from the family of Israel. And while there are no “Christians” in the Fourth Gospel, in the opening chapter Nathaniel is called “an Israelite in whom there is no guile.” It is apparently acceptable to be an Israelite and not a “Jew.” The various constructs proposed by J. Louis Martyn12 and Raymond E. Brown,13 to name only the most prominent, make sense of the terminology. “The Jews” is a self-designation of a group to whom adherents of the Palestinian Jesus Movement no longer belong—according to the Fourth Gospel, because of an official decision made by synagogue authorities (9:22).14 We do not need to debate here if there ever was such a formal decision. The Fourth Gospel depicts a situation in which former members of Israel’s family have been forced out and can no longer call themselves “Jews.” In this regard, the situations of the Qumran Essenes and the Johannine community are quite similar. Even this most extreme “sectarian” form of the new faith, however, does not create a religious alternative to faith in Israel’s God. To call the Johannine community “Christian” is not simply to introduce a foreign terminology but to presume a final solution to an unsolved problem. If there is no ultimate court of appeal during the last decades of the first century C.E. to determine who really are “Jews,” neither is there any way of ruling “messianists” out of the family of Israel. That such a separation is in progress is not in question. The issue is how close an analogy the 11. Among those who have argued that the designation is geographical (“Judeans”) is Bruce E. Schein in his unpublished Yale dissertation, “Our Father Abraham,” 1972. See also his Following the Way: The Setting of John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980). For more-recent discussions, see the contributions in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000 (ed. R. Bieringer et al.; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001). 12. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1968; 2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979). 13. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB 29–29A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–70); and idem, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979). 14. See Charlesworth’s contribution in the present volume (ch. 1).

D ONALD H. J UEL

71

Dead Sea community provides to the Johannine community. I suggest it is quite close. The Johannine community stands at a crossroads; confessing Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God” is creating a rift that will become an unbridgeable chasm. But it is still on the other side of the crossroads. The bitterness of the anti-“Jewish” polemic still belongs within a family struggle over the rights of inheritance. The difference between the first-century Palestinian Jesus Movement, broadly defined, and the Qumran Community is not that one was “Jewish” and the other “Christian.” Both were Jewish; to varying degrees, both experienced intense opposition from others within the family to the point of calling into question their status as the people of God; both argued their case, for insiders at least, by drawing on Israel’s scriptural heritage interpreted in light of their distinctive history. And both communities sketched a world in which opposition from members of the same family was one of the most significant—and intense—features of authentic religious life. The Fourth Gospel reflects a later stage in the life of Israel, after the destruction of the Temple, when new lines were drawn and identity reconstructed. How the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have fared in the changed environment is something we will never know. They disappear from the pages of history. So too does the Johannine movement disappear as a Jewish expression of the Palestinian Jesus Movement. It has left only a literary deposit that, as part of “Christian” Scriptures, has become something new.

RESULTS The discovery and processing of the Essene writings from Qumran have provided a new layer to explore, to use the archaeological image, or new pieces from which to form a mosaic of our religious past. The Qumran Scrolls provide insight into a crucial period in the religious history of Jews and Christians. We should not overlook what the scrolls may contribute theologically. They offer another example of what it means to believe in the God of Israel, of how faith takes shape. They indicate the rootedness of faith in the concrete, everyday realities that include concern about boundaries, the ordering of everyday life, and hopes for the future, sometimes in the context of hostility and fierce disagreement. They provide evidence of the difficult task of speaking together about deep issues. From my perspective as a student of the New Testament, the scrolls offer a glimpse of a common heritage as well as a particular embodiment

72

THE F UTURE OF A RELIGIOUS PAST

of that heritage in light of which to understanding the particularities of the first-century Palestinian Jesus Movement. One of the results has been an increasing appreciation of the Jewishness of the Palestinian Jesus Movement. The literature of the New Testament belongs within the larger Jewish community in the Greco-Roman world. It cannot properly be called “Christian” in its first-century environment because that identity was only being formed. The various crises that resulted in a great sifting within the family of Israel and the eventual emergence of an “orthodox” expression were the same as those that resulted in the eventual break between the Palestinian Jesus Movement and others within the Jewish family and the formation of a “Christian” identity. The point has been made by many colleagues, perhaps most eloquently captured in the image Alan Segal uses for the title of his book Rebecca’s Children.15 The literature of the New Testament belongs largely on the other side of the great watershed, before the break that led in such different directions. Central, therefore, is the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls in appreciating the particularity of our religious heritage. It is too simple and finally unproductive to blame the dark moments in the history of our two communities on the documents that have come to be foundational. They emerged within a larger family conversation in which the rights of inheritance are at stake. The scrolls, as the New Testament writings, reflect the pain and the hostilities and resentments that intimate family battles generate, particularly when the battles are over questions of truth. It is quite another matter, however, when later generations—particular later generations of Gentiles—come to read the literature as their own and as sacred Scripture. When the Palestinian Jesus Movement and its literature becomes “Christian,” whole new dynamics come into play. Failing to understand those dynamics has given rise to mischief of all sorts. It is one thing for beleaguered minorities within Israel to appeal to the notion of a “remnant” from Isaiah. It is quite another matter to lay claim to the tradition when no one within Gentile Christianity can even imagine what it means to observe the law, so that the symbols lose all contact with ordinary reality. Gentile Christianity has yet to take with sufficient seriousness its Jewish roots and what it means that the Palestinian Jesus Movement—including not only the “Palestinian” movement but also those Greek-speaking communities in the Diaspora out of which the New Testament arose—understood itself within the tradition of Israel and belief in the God who chose Abraham, gave the Torah to Moses, and made promises out of which Israel’s family continues to live. The resulting 15. Alan F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).

D ONALD H. J UEL

73

issues are not only sociological but also theological: the God who raised Jesus from the dead, according to the New Testament, is the God who made promises to Israel. That God breaks promises and replaces one people with another is hardly good news for a religious community that lives in the hope that God will prove faithful to what has been promised. As a Gentile Christian, I am in no position to dictate agendas for Jewish brothers and sisters. For that matter, I am hardly in a position to dictate agendas for anyone. It does strike me as important, however, that both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the literature of the Palestinian Jesus Movement be included as a chapter of Israel’s history, and that “Christianity” and “Judaism” be abandoned as terms appropriate to the first century of our common era. I can only begin to suggest what it means to read the literature of the Palestinian Jesus Movement as Gentile Christians in this changed environment. It must surely involve modesty, a sense of amazement that there might be a place at Abraham’s table for such strangers, and deep sadness at the cost others in Israel’s family have been forced to pay, often at the hands of Christians. Paul will probably prove most helpful in thinking the whole matter through, though even Paul belonged within the family of Israel in a way few Christians can understand. Speaking as a Gentile Christian, the discovery of our strangeness and distance from those religious ancestors with whom we have become acquainted suggests a whole agenda for theology that will occupy us as it thus far has not. It will require conversation with Jewish brothers and sisters about a common heritage as well as differences. When the rootedness of the Palestinian Jesus Movement in the tradition of Israel is taken seriously, we may hope not only for a more interesting period in scholarship but also for a more fruitful and productive engagement with one another, with the Scriptures, and with God. The Dead Sea Scrolls are important not because they are intrinsically more interesting or more relevant than other literature. Nor are they important because they hold the key to some dark secret that, brought to light, will settle something. They are important because they offer a new perspective on what we already possess. They suggest that our Scriptures and our religious heritage are larger than we have imagined them to be; that they are about darkness as well as light; and that they may be richer and more promising than we could have known. To the degree that we are products of that heritage, our future identities may likewise be richer and more promising because of our engagement with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Craig A. Evans This essay offers little that is new; its primary purpose is to assess some of the significant gains in the study of the Synoptic Gospels in light of the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 But it also hopes to show that all of the major themes or emphases in the Synoptics have close parallels in the scrolls, thereby underscoring once again the Palestinian and Jewish provenance of these Gospels. This is an important point to make, for throughout much of the last century scholars have often exaggerated the non-Jewish and non-Palestinian features of the Gospels.2 Form critics and redaction critics have, in my opinion, assigned too much of the Synoptic material to provenances outside of the Jewish Palestinian milieu. The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided interpreters with a wealth of fresh data, and these data compel us to return the Synoptic tradition to the Jewish 1. For a pre-1991 study, see Otto Betz, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranschriften für die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments,” BK 40 (1985): 54–64; repr. in idem, Jesus: Der Messias Israels (WUNT 42; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987), 318–22. 2. As seen in some of the recent publications of B. L. Mack, his students, and some of the members of the Jesus Seminar. See Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988); idem, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993); Leif E. Vaage, “Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity,” in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. R. A. Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 199–229; idem, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers according to Q (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994). Mack and the others have been influenced by Francis Gerald Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (JSOT Manuals 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); idem, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992). For recent, devastating critiques of the Cynic hypothesis, see David E. Aune, “Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 176–92; Hans Dieter Betz, “Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis,” JR 74 (1994): 453–75; Christopher M. Tuckett, “A Cynic Q?” Bib 70 (1989): 349–76; idem, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 368–91; Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 123–43.

75

76

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

Palestinian context.3 One interesting implication is that the cultural, religious, and social gap between the historical Jesus, on the one hand, and the later interpretive presentations of him in the Gospels, on the other hand, is significantly narrowed.4 In the pages that follow, each of the Synoptics will be treated. We begin with Mark, looking at its themes of mystery and revelation. Next we move to Matthew and its themes of righteousness and fulfillment. Finally, we treat Luke and its themes of election and community. All of these themes are of major importance to the evangelists, and all of them are consistent with themes and emphases in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

MYSTERY AND REVELATION IN MARK One of the curious features of the Gospel of Mark is its theme of secrecy. Jesus commands people and demons to be silent, to tell no one about him, and in some cases not even to enter a nearby village. Mark tells us that Jesus never taught without using parables, but that these parables at times seem to be riddles and enigmas more than clarifying illustrations. Mark further tells us that even the disciples, Jesus’ closest followers, had difficulty understanding Jesus. Indeed, not only did they fail to understand his teaching regarding the kingdom of God; they also rejected his stated mission of suffering and death. At the turn of the twentieth century, these phenomena led William Wrede to develop his well-known hypothesis of Mark’s “messianic secret,”5 an hypothesis that has been at the center of Markan study for the whole of the twentieth century.6 An enormous literature has grown up around the more or less related topics of secrecy in Mark’s Gospel, Mark’s understanding of the kingdom of God, Mark’s understanding of 3. This is not to claim, of course, that the Gospels were necessarily composed in Palestine or that the evangelists themselves were necessarily Jewish or had no interest in or acquaintance with Hellenistic culture and traditions. 4. This is a point that has not been adequately appreciated by the North American Jesus Seminar. 5. William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); ET: The Messianic Secret (Cambridge London: James Clarke, 1971). 6. See now Heikki Räisänen, Das ‘Messiasgeheimnis’ im Markusevangelium: Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1976); rev. ET: The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990); Christopher M. Tuckett, ed., The Messianic Secret (IRT 1; London: SPCK, 1983). For additional bibliography, see 141–45.

CRAIG A. EVANS

77

the parables, Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ miracles, and Mark’s understanding of Christology. Indeed, interaction with the secrecy theme seems to lie behind many of the interpretations of Mark developed by redaction and literary critics, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. The discovery and eventual publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls have thrown much of this complicated discussion into a new light, at least in general terms. In some ways the scrolls may clarify two related themes, that of mystery and revelation. Before the discovery of the scrolls, it was not uncommon for scholars to appeal to Greco-Roman mystery traditions to explain these themes in the New Testament.7 The scrolls have forced scholars to reassess this position. The language of hiddenness (kru/ ptw) and revelation (a)pokalu/ ptw) occurs in a few places in the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew 10:26 = Luke 12:2: “for nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and hid that will not be known” (ou0de\n ga/ r e0stin kekalumme/non o4 ou k) a0 pokalufqh&setai kai _ krupto\ n o4 ou ) gnwsqh&setai). The passage is closely related to Mark 4:22: “for there is nothing hid except it be manifest, and nothing hidden but that it come to light” (ou0 ga/r e0stin krupto\ n e0an_ mh_ i3na fanerwqh|= , ou)de\ e0ge/ neto a0 po/ krufon) and should be compared to 4Q427 frag. 7 1.18–19, which also juxtaposes hiddenness and revelation: “Bless the One who performs majestic wonders, and makes known the strength of his hand, sealing up mysteries and revealing hidden things [twrtsn twlglw Myzr Mwth[l]],

7. For examples, see Alfred E. J. Rawlinson, St Mark (6th ed., London: Methuen, 1947), 51–52; Alfred W. F. Blunt, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Clarendon, 1939), 168; Bennett H. Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark (MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1937), 78–79. Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 103, suggested that Luke’s plural musth/ria reflects “a timeless secrecy to which there corresponds an equally timeless disclosure of the mysteries thanks to gnosis.” Even without the scrolls, there is no basis for this suggestion. Mark’s oi( e #cw are nondisciples; the language coheres with the later rabbinic epithet Mynwcyxh, which referred to Gentiles or nonobservant Jews (cf. m. Meg. 4:8; m. Sanh. 10:1; Num. Rab. 14.4 [on Num 7:48]; 15.22 [on Num 11:16]; Pesiq. Rab. 3.2). Most of these latter references refer to “outside books,” meaning noncanonical writings. This does not necessarily refer to books authored by heretics or Gentiles. Commenting on m. Sanh. 10:1, the Talmud records a baraita in which these books are understood to be “the books of the Sadducees” (b. Sanh. 100b), although some MSS read “books of the minim.” An early and helpful example is found in the Prologue to Sirach, where ben Sirach’s grandson explains why his grandfather wrote his teaching: “Those who love learning should be able to help the outsiders [toi=j e0kto&j] by both speaking and writing.” His oi9 e0kto&j is equivalent to Mark’s oi9 e1cw.

78

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

raising up those who stumble and fall.”8 Here comparison might be made to Jesus’ saying about exalting the humble and humbling the proud (cf. Matt 18:4; 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14). Matthew 11:25 = Luke 10:21: “At that time Jesus answered and said: ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the discerning and have revealed them to babes’” (e0n e0kei/nw| tw|~ kairw|~ a0 pokriqei _j o9 I0 hsou= j ei]pen, e0comologou= mai/ soi, pa/ter, ku/ rie tou= ou)ranou= kai\ th= j gh= j, o3ti e1kruyaj tau=ta a0po\ sofw=n kai _ sunetw= n kai\ a0 peka/luyaj au)ta_ nhpi/oij). This prayer seems to reflect Danielic tradition: “The Lord has given to the young men knowledge and discernment and sense in every grammatical art and to Daniel he has given discernment in every utterance and vision and dream and in all wisdom” (kai\ toi=j neani/skoij e1dwken o9 ku/ rioj e0pisth&mhn kai\ su/ nesin kai _ fro/ nhsin e0n pa/sh| grammatikh|= te/xnh| kai\ tw|~ Danih_l e1dwken su/ nesin e0n panti\ r9h&mati kai\ o9ra/mati kai\ e0nupni/oij kai\ e0n pa/sh| sofi/a [1:17 LXX]). “And he changes seasons and times, removing and appointing kings, giving to the wise wisdom and discernment to those who possess knowledge” (kai\ au)to\ j a0 lloioi= kairou\ j kai _ xro/ nouj, meqistw=n basilei=j kai\ kaqistw=n, didou\ j sofoi=j sofi/an kai\ su/ nesin toi=j e0n e0pisth&mh| ou]sin [2:21 LXX]). Jesus has alluded to Daniel, but has subverted its perspective: rather than giving wisdom to the wise, God has revealed his truth to the naive and simple. Matthew 11:27 = Luke 10:22: “All things have been handed to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (pa/nta moi paredo/ qh u(po\ tou= patro/ j mou, kai\ ou)deij_ e0piginw& skei to\ n ui9o\n ei0 mh _ o9 path&r, oud) e\ to\ n pate/ra tij e0piginw&skei ei0 mh _ o9 ui9o\j kai\ w|{ e0an_ bou/lhtai o9 ui9o\j a0 pokalu/yai). Matthew 13:35: “in order that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: ‘I shall open my mouth in parables, I shall speak things hidden from the foundation of the world’” (o3pwj plhrwqh|= to\ r9hqe\n dia_ tou= profh&tou le/gontoj: a0 noi/cw e0n parabolai=j to\ sto/ ma mou, e0reu/comai kekrumme/ na a0 po\ katabolh= j [ko/ smou]). In applying Ps 78:2 (77:2 LXX: a0 noi/cw e0n parabolai=j to\ sto/ ma mou,

8. Translation is taken from Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 364–65. 4Q427 frag. 7 1.18–19 overlaps with 1QH frag. 55 lines 1–2. See Edward M. Cook’s reconstruction and translation (which is virtually identical to that of García Martínez) in Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 113.

CRAIG A. EVANS

79

fqe/gcomai problh&mata a0 p 0 a0 rxh= j) to the parables, the Matthean evangelist casts Jesus’ teaching into the framework of hiddenness and revelation. Matthew 16:17: “Answering, Jesus said to him: ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of John, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father who is in heaven’” (a0 pokriqei\j de\ o9 0Ihsou= j ei]pen au0tw|~ : maka/rioj ei], Si/mwn Bariwna= , o3ti sa_rc kai\ ai[ma ou0k a0 peka/luye/n soi a0 ll 0 o9 path&r mou o9 e0n toi=j ou0anoi=j). Matthew’s elaboration on Mark’s version of Peter’s confession is consistent with the texts above, especially Matt 11:25, which alludes to Daniel. In the Matthean context, it is clear that Peter’s insight into Jesus’ true identity is due to divine revelation. Luke 18:34: “and they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they could not grasp the things that were spoken” (kai\ au0toi\ ou0de\n tou/twn sunh=kan kai\ h]n to\ r9 h=ma tou= to kekrumme/non a)p 0 au0tw= n~ kai\ ou)k e0gi/nwskon ta_ lego/ mena). The Lukan evangelist adds this comment to explain why the disciples failed to understand Jesus’ third prediction of his passion. How could Jesus’ closest followers not understand? They could not, Luke explains, because God hid the meaning. Luke 19:42: “If only in this day you knew, even you, the things that lead to peace; but now they are hidden from your eyes” (ei) e1gnwj e0n th|= h9me/ra| tau/th| kai _ su_ ta_ pro\ j ei0rh/nhn: nu= n de\ e0kru/bh a0 po\ o0fqalmw=n sou). This Lukan material is similar to 18:34. Not only were the disciples unable to grasp the import of Jesus’ passion predictions; Jerusalem itself is also unable to comprehend its danger. The passive, “hidden from your eyes,” is probably a divine passive. Jerusalem’s obduracy is no accident, but results from the divine will. For all of the focus on “hiddenness” it is interesting to observe that the word musth&rion only occurs once in Mark, at 4:11. Its appearance in this passage carries over into Matthew at 13:11 and Luke at 8:10. The word appears nowhere else in the Synoptics, in marked contrast to its appearance twenty-five times elsewhere in the New Testament (mostly in Paul). In the Synoptics musth&rion occurs in the context of the discussion concerning the purpose of the parables. The passages read as follows: Mark 4:11–12—kai\ e1legen au0toi=j: u9mi=n to\ musth/rion de/dotai th=j basilei/aj tou= qeou=; e0kei/noij de\ toi=j e1cw e0n parabolai=j ta_ pa&nta gi/netai, i3na ble/pontej ble/pwsin kai\ mh\ i1dwsin, kai\ a0kou/ontej a0kou/wsin kai\ mh\ suniw~ sin, mh/pote e0pistre/ywsin kai\ a)feqh|= au)toi=j. And he was saying to them: “To you the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given; but to those who are outside all things are in parables, in order that seeing they will see and not perceive, and hearing they will hear and not understand, lest they turn back and it be forgiven them.”

80

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS Matt 13:11–13—o9 de\ a)pokriqei\j ei]pen au)toi=j: o3ti u9mi=n de/dotai gnw~ nai ta\ musth/ria th=j basilei/aj tw~ n ou0ranw~ n, e0kei/noij de\ ou0 de/dotai. o3stij ga\ r e1xei, doqh/setai au)tw|~ kai\ perisseuqh/setai: o3stij de\ ou0k e1xei, kai\ o4 e1xei a)rqh/setai a)p 0 au0tou=. dia\ tou=to e0n parabolai=j au0toi=j lalw~, o3ti ble/pontej ou0 ble/pousin kai\ a0kou/ontej ou0k a0kou/ousin ou0de\ suni/ousin. But answering, he said to them: “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to those it has not been given. For whoever has, to him it shall be given and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. For this reason I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they neither hear nor understand.” Luke 8:10—o9 de\ ei]pen: u9mi=n de/dotai gnw~nai ta\ musth/ria th=j basilei/aj tou= qeou=, toi=j de\ loipoi=j e0n parabolai=j, i3na ble/pontej mh\ ble/pwsin kai\ a)kou/ontej mh\ suniw~ sin. But he said: “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest (it is given) in parables, in order that seeing they should not see, and hearing they should not understand.”

The word musth/rion occurs only twenty times in the whole of the Septuagint. In the Old Testament the Aramaic equivalent zr occurs only in Daniel. Its usage in this writing is consistent with its hermeneutical usage in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament. The most relevant texts are these: Dan 2:19—to/te tw|~ Danih\l \ e0n o9ra&mati th=j nukto_j to_ musth/rion a)pekalu/fqh. Then was the secret of the king revealed [MT: ylg hzr] to Daniel in a vision of the night. Dan 2:28–30—a)ll 0 e1sti qeo_j e0n ou)ranw|~ a)nakalu/ptwn musth/ria o4j e0dh/lwse tw|~ basilei= Nabouxodonosor a4 dei= gene/sqai e0p 0 e0sxa&twn tw~ n h9merw~ n. to_ e0nu/pnio/n sou kai\ ai9 o9ra&seij th=j kefalh=j sou e0pi\ th=j koi/thj sou tou=to/ e0stin: su\ basileu=, oi9 dialogismoi/ sou e0pi\ th=j koi/thj sou a0ne/bhsan ti/ dei= gene/sqai meta\ tau=ta kai\ o9 a)pokalu/ptwn musth/ria e0gnw&rise/n soi a4 dei= gene/sqai. kai\ e0moi\ de\ ou0k e0n sofi/a| th|= ou1sh| e0n e0moi\ para\\ pa/ntaj tou\\j zw~ ntaj to\\ musth/rion tou=to a0pekalu/fqh, a)ll0 e3neken tou= th\n\ su/gkrisin tw| ~ basilei= gnwri/sai, i3na tou\j \ dialogismou\j \ th=j kardi/aj sou gnw|~ j. But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets [MT: Nyzr )lg], and he has made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head upon your bed, is this: You, O king, your thoughts came into your mind upon your bed, what must come to pass after these things; and he who reveals mysteries has made known to you what must come to pass. But as for me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living has this mystery been revealed [MT: ylg hnd )zr] to me, but in order that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your heart.

CRAIG A. EVANS

81

Dan 2:47—kai\ a)pokriqei\j o9 basileu\j \ ei]pen tw|~ Danih/l: e0p 0 a)lhqei/aj o9 qeo\j \ u9mw~n au0to/j e0stin qeo\j \ qew~ n kai\ ku/rioj tw~ n basile/wn kai\ a0pokalu/ptwn musth/ria, o3ti h0dunh/qhj a0pokalu/yai to_ musth/rion tou=to. And answering, the king said to Daniel, “Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries [MT: Nyzr hlgw], seeing that you were able to reveal this mystery [MT: hnd hzr )lgml].”

A passage from Amos might also be cited: Amos 3:7—dio/ ti ou0 mh\ poih/sh| ku/rioj o9 qeo_j pra= gma e0a\n mh\ a)pokalu/yh| paidei/an au0tou= pro\j tou\j dou/louj au0tou= tou\j profh/taj.… Surely the Lord God will do nothing, except he reveal his instruction [MT: dws—counsel or secret] to his servants the prophets.…

Finally, we should also cite a passage from the Wisdom of Solomon: Wis 2:22—kai\ ou0k e1gnwsan musth/ria qeou= ou)de\ misqo\n h1lpisan o9sio/thtoj ou0de\ e1krinan ge/raj yuxw~n a0mw&mwn. And they did not know the mysteries of God, nor hoped for the wages of piety, nor discerned reward for blameless souls.

There are Jewish traditions from our period in which musth/ria are viewed as potentially dangerous, if taught to the unworthy. Illustrative of this idea is 1 En. 9:6, which criticizes an evil angel for having revealed mysteries to the unworthy: “You see what Azazael has done; how he has taught all iniquity on the earth and disclosed the mysteries of eternity which are in heaven [musth/ria tou= ai0wn~ oj ta\ e0n tw|~ ou0ranw|~ ], which humans practice and have learned?” (cf. 10:7–8). Because of these mysteries, men and women multiply evil deeds on the earth (16:3). Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the closest parallels were those found in Daniel and in the Wisdom of Solomon. Although inexact, these parallels are useful, for they illustrate the world of thought that Mark 4:11–12 reflects: the “mystery” of the kingdom of God has been disclosed to some, but not to others.9 For the “outsiders” it and other things remain mysterious. But Daniel has no disciples. He is not principally a 9. For pertinent bibliography, see Ernst Vogt, “‘Mysteria’ in Textibus Qumran,” Bib 37 (1956): 247–57; Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (FBBS 21; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); Joel Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (SBLDS 90; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Bruce D. Chilton, “Commenting on the Old Testament (with Particular Reference to the Pesharim, Philo, and the Mekilta),” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture; Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 122–40, esp. 122–27; Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

82

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

teacher or interpreter of Scripture. He stands more in the tradition of figures like Joseph, who also with divine assistance was able to interpret dreams.10 Passages from the Book of Giants link understanding heavenly mysteries with reading tablets and holy writings: “For I know this mystery [to\ musth/rion tou=to]; I have read the tablets of heaven and have seen the holy writings, and I have understood the writing in them” (1 En. 103:2). “And again I know a second mystery [musth/rion], that to the righteous and holy shall be given my books for the joy of truth [Ethiopic: the Scriptures of joy, for truth and great wisdom]. And they will believe in them and in them all the righteous shall rejoice and be glad to learn from them all the ways of truth” (1 En. 104:12–13). But this privilege does not seem to be directly connected to divine revelation as such. Parallels from the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to what we have in Mark 4:11–12. In this literature the focus is on Scripture and is part of the task of teaching. There is nothing exotic, such as the interpretation of dreams or the viewing of heavenly tablets. The parallels from the scrolls add nuance, showing how this kind of language serves hermeneutical and eschatological interests. The following passages should be taken into consideration: …concealing the truth, that is, the mysteries of knowledge [tm)l )bxw t(d yzr]. To these ends is the earthly counsel of the spirit to those whose nature yearns for truth. Through a gracious visitation all who walk in this spirit will know healing (1QS 4.6) For from the fount of His knowledge has my light shot forth; upon his wonders has my eye gazed—the light of my heart upon the mystery of what shall be [hyhn zrb]…For the truth of God—that is the rock of my tread, and His mighty power, my right hand’s support. From His right [w)lp yzrm]. Upon the eternal has my eye gazed—even that wisdom hidden from humanity, the knowledge, wise prudence from humanity concealed. The source of righteousness, gathering of power, and abode of glory are from fleshly counsel hidden. To them He has chosen all these has He given—an eternal possession. He has made them heirs in the legacy of the Holy Ones; with the Angels has He united their assembly, a Yah[ ad society. They are an assembly built up for holiness, an eternal Planting for all ages to come. (1QS 11.3–9) These things I know through Your understanding, for You have opened my ears to mysteries of wonder [)lp yzrl], even though I am a vessel of clay and kneaded with water. (1QH 9.23) …because of His abundant mercies, has shown favor to the meek. He has opened their eyes to see His ways and their ears to hear His teaching. 10. First-century sources tell us of two other men named “Joseph” with similar gifts: Joseph the husband of Mary (cf. Matt 1:18–25) and Joseph of priestly family also known as Josephus (cf. J.W. 3.351).

CRAIG A. EVANS

83

“He has circumcised their hearts’ foreskin” [cf. Deut 10:16], and delivered them for the sake of His kindness. He has set their feet firmly on the path, and has not abandoned them in their great distress. (4Q434 frag. 1 1.3–4)

The latter texts are especially interesting, for they constitute the flip side of Mark 4:11–12. In the Markan text the mystery of the kingdom of God is disclosed to the disciples of Jesus, but to outsiders (i.e., nondisciples) kingdom teaching is little more than riddles, for their eyes are closed and their ears are stopped up (paraphrasing Isa 6:9–10). In 1QH and 4Q434 the author thanks God for having opened the eyes and ears of himself and his colleagues to the mysteries of wonder. At least two more passages elaborate on this theme: You have appointed me as a banner for the chosen of righteousness, and an informed mediator of wonderful mysteries [)lp yzrb]. (1QH 10.13)

The implication here is that the person appointed as “banner” (the Righteous Teacher?) understands the mysteries and is able to convey them to his disciples. And again: You have opened within me knowledge in the mystery of Your insight [hklk# zrb t(d]. (1QH 20.13)

In the famous Habakkuk Pesher the hermeneutical dimension of the concept of revelation is rendered explicit, as in 1QpHab 7.1–5: Then God told Habakkuk to write down what is going to happen to the generation to come; but when that period would be complete he did not make known to him. When it says, “so that with ease someone can read it,” this refers to the Righteous Teacher to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets [My)bnh wydb( yrbd yzr lwk].

The idea here that the words of the prophets are mysterious is consistent with the raz/pesher interpretation often encountered in the commentaries of Qumran. Jesus’ appeal to the Scriptures, as potentially shedding light on the nature and purpose of his ministry (e.g., Mark 7:6; 9:12–13; 14:21), fits this pattern, at least as the Markan evangelist understands it. The appeal to Isa 6:9–10 (in Mark 4:11–12) is especially illustrative. The mystery of the kingdom of God is revealed to those to whom God wills it to be revealed, and it is withheld from those from whom God wills it to be withheld. Texts like Isa 6:9–10 (and Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:1–2; Deut 29:1–3) provide scriptural support for this idea. There is nothing in Mark’s development of this theme that must be explained by appeal to texts and traditions that fall outside of the Jewish world of late antiquity, or—thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls—fall outside of Palestine itself.

84

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND F ULFILLMENT IN MATTHEW

Comparison of Matthew with the Gospels of Mark and Luke reveals that the Matthean evangelist is particularly fond of righteousness and its word group.11 What precisely should be made of this emphasis has been an item of debate (usually with reference to Paul). These words occur 26 times in Matthew, 20 times in Luke, and only twice in Mark (2:17; 6:20). The Matthean occurrences are as follows (with brief comments): Matthew 3:15: “Answering, Jesus said to him: ‘Permit it this time, for it is appropriate for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he permitted him” (a0 pokriqei\j de\ o9 0Ihsou=j ei]pen pro\j au0to/n: a1fej a1rti, ou3twj ga_r pre/pon e0sti\n h9mi=n plhrw~sai pa=san dikaiosu/nhn. to/te a0fi/hsin au0to/n). To “fulfill” all “righteousness” brings together two of the evangelist’s favorite concepts. In Matthew, Jesus not only fulfills prophecy (as in the infancy narrative, but also in various places in his ministry); he also fulfills the legal requirements of torah, as exemplified especially in the socalled antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (5:21–48). Matthew 5:6: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (maka/rioi oi9 peinw~ntej kai\ diyw=n~ tej th\n dikaiosu/nhn, o3ti au0toi\ xortasqh/sontai). The idea of hungering and thirsting for righteousness is approximated in several texts: “He created insight for all those who pursue knowledge” (4Q299 frag. 8 line 7). “How can you say, ‘We are weary of insight, and we have been careful to pursue true knowledge’?” (4Q418 frag. 69 line 11). “…Your law, and You have opened up my mind and strengthened me to pursue Your way” (4Q436 frag. 1 line 6). “You shall pursue righteousness and righteousness alone [qdc qdc], so that you may live, entering and inheriting the land that I am about to give you” (11QT 51.15). Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (maka/rioi oi9 dediwgme/noi e3neken dikaiosu/nhj, o3ti au)tw= n~ e0stin h9 basilei/a tw=n~ ou0ranw=n). The sentiment of this beatitude is paralleled in places in Qumran literature: “Pure lives they loathed from the bottom of their heart. So they persecuted 11. See, for examples, Graham N. Stanton, “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 181–92; Alan F. Segal, “Matthew’s Jewish Voice,” in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 3–37; Donald A. Hagner, “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church (ed. M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige; JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 101–20.

CRAIG A. EVANS

85

[Pdr] them violently” (CD 1.21). “The Wicked Priest…pursued [Pdr] the Righteous Teacher to destroy him” (1QpHab 11.4–5). Matthew 5:20: “For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (le/gw ga_r u9mi=n o3ti e0an_ mh\ perisseu/sh| u9mw~n h9 dikaiosu/nh plei=on tw= n grammate/wn kai\ Farisai/wn, ou) mh\ ei0se/lqhte ei0j th\n basilei/an tw= n ou0ranw= n). At times the scrolls complain of the shallowness of their opponents’ commitment to torah (cf. CD 1.18–21; 1QH 10.31–33), labeling their opponents “seekers of smooth things.”12 Matthew 5:45: “in order that you become sons of your Father in heaven, because he makes the sun rise over the wicked and the good, and rains upon the righteous and the unrighteous” (o3pwj ge/nhsqe ui9oi\ tou= patro\j u9mw= n tou= e0n ou0ranoi=j, o3ti to\n h3lion au0tou= a0nate/llei e0pi\ ponhrou\j kai\ a0gaqou\j kai\ bre/xei e0pi\ dikai/ouj kai\ a0di/kouj). Becoming “sons of your father” is defined in 5:48, where Matthew’s Jesus enjoins his followers to “be perfect, as [their] heavenly Father is perfect.” The injunction roughly approximates Deut 18:13: “You shall be perfect [Mymt] before the Lord your God”), as well as the view expressed in CD 7.5: “by these laws, in perfect [Mymt] holiness, according to all the instructions, God’s covenant stands firm.” The association of righteous with perfect is attested in 1QH 9.36: “O you righteous [Myqydc], put an end to injustice. All you whose way is perfect [Mymt] take hold of […] of the destitute.” W. D. Davies has opined that Matt 5:48 is paralleled by 1QS 1.12–13 (“to direct their strength according to the perfection of His ways”) and other passages.13 Davies suggests further that in style and authority Jesus approximates a teacher of righteousness, including his building a fence around the law (i.e., in reference to the antitheses; cf. 1QS 10.25: “I shall encompass it close about, so to preserve faith and strict judgment—conforming to the righteousness of God”). Matthew 6:1: “Watch lest you practice your righteousness before people to be seen by them; if you do not [so watch], you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (prose/xete [de\] th\n dikaiosu/nhn u9mw~n mh\ poiei=n e1mprosqen tw= n~ a0nqrw&pwn pro\j to\ qeaqh=nai au0toi=j: ei0 de\ mh/ ge, misqo\ n ou0k e1xete para\ tw|~ patri\ u9mw= n tw|~ e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j). The Rule of the Community enjoins the men of the Yah[ad “to hold fast to all 12. The phrase twqlx y#rwd (1QH 10.32) may be rendered literally “those who seek the smooth things.” It is speculated that this is a deliberate allusion to religious interpreters who seek (i.e., #rd) legal rulings (twklh) from Scripture. Some have suggested that these are the Pharisees, but Qumran’s criticism could apply to other groups. 13. William D. Davies, “‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25–30,” HTR 46 (1953): 113–39, here 115.

i s t

n

86

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

good deeds; to practice [tw#(l] truth, righteousness [hqdc], and justice” (1QS 1.5; cf. 1QS 8.2). Matthew 6:33: “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (zhtei=te de\ prw= ton th\n basilei/an [tou= qeou= ] kai\ th\n dikaiosu/ nhn au0tou=, kai\ tau=ta pa/nta prosteqh/setai u9mi=n). Seeking righteousness recalls the beatitude of Matt 5:6. Coupling the quest for righteousness to the kingdom brings the preaching of Jesus and Matthew’s interests together. To seek righteousness is also to seek the kingdom. Matthew 12:37: “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (e0k ga_r tw~n lo/gwn sou dikaiwqh//sh|, kai\ e0k tw= n lo/gwn sou katadikasqh/sh|). Matthew 13:17: “For truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous persons longed to see what you see, but did not see, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear” (a0mh\n ga\r le/gw u9mi=n o3ti polloi\ profh=tai kai\ di/kaioi e0pequ/mhsan i0dei=n a$ ble/pete kai\ ou0k ei]dan, kai\ a0 kou=sai a4 a0kou/ete kai\ ou0k h1kousan). Matthew 13:43: “Then the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (to/te oi9 di/kaioi e0kla/myousin w9j o9 h4lioj e0n th|= basilei/a| tou= patro\j au0tw~n). Matthew 13:49: “Thus will it be at the end of the age; the angels will go forth and separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous” (ou3twj e1stai e0n th|= suntelei/a| tou= ai0wn~ oj: e0celeu/sontai oi9 a1ggeloi kai\ a0foriou=sin tou_j ponhrou_j e0k me/sou tw=n dikai/wn). Matthew 21:32: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but the toll collectors and the harlots believed him. But even when you saw it, you did not later repent and believe him” (h]lqen ga\r I0 wa/nnhj pro\ j u9ma=j e0n o9dw|~ dikaiosu/nhj, kai\ ou0k e0pisteu/sate au0tw|~ , oi9 de\ telw= nai kai\ ai9 po/rnai e0pi/steusan au0tw|~ : u9mei=j de\ i0do/ntej ou0de\ metemelh/qhte u3steron tou= pisteu=sai au0tw|~ ). Matthew 23:28: “Thus even you on the outside appear to people as righteous, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (ou3twj kai\ u9mei=j e1cwqen me\n fai/nesqe toi=j a0nqrw/poij di/kaioi, e1swqen de\ e0ste mestoi\ u9pokri/sewj kai\ a0 nomi/aj). Matthew 25:46: “These will depart to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (kai\ a0peleu/sontai ou[toi ei0j ko/lasin ai0w/nion, oi9 de\ di/kaioi ei0j zwh\n ai0w/nion). In 1980 Benno Przybylski addressed quite compellingly the question of Matthew’s use of these words.14 He criticizes the tendency of many 14. Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

CRAIG A. EVANS

87

scholars, especially German scholars, to “Paulinize Matthean theology” and thereby invest Matthew’s use of di/kaioj (“righteous”) and dikaiosu/nh (“righteousness”) with Pauline nuances.15 Przybylski concludes that Matthew’s use of these words is consistent with their usage in early Judaism.16 The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is assessed only in part by Przybylski, bears this out. qydc (“righteous”), hqdc (“righteousness”), and qdc (“righteousness”) occur some 250 times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only a few passages may be cited here: So listen, all you who recognize righteousness [qdc], and consider the deeds of God. (CD 1.1) So He raised up for them a Righteous Teacher [qdc hrwm] to guide them in the way of His heart. (CD 1.11) Without these rules they shall obtain nothing until the appearance of one who teaches righteousness in the last days [Mymyh tyrx)b qdch hrwy]. (CD 6.10–11) He is to discern who are the true Sons of Righteousness [qwdch ynb] and to weigh each man’s spiritual qualities. (1QS 9.14) Then [the Son of Rig]hteousness [qdch ynb] shall shine to all ends of the world, continuing to shine forth until the end of the appointed seasons of darkness. (1QM 1.8; cf. 13.10) [For the wicked man hems in] the righteous man [qydch]. (Hab 1:4b) [The “wicked man” refers to the Wicked Priest, and “the righteous man”] is the Teacher of Righteousness. (1QpHab 1.12–13)

In his contribution to the Baumgarten Festschrift, John Kampen believes that righteousness is more important for Matthew’s self-designation than Przybylski has allowed.17 Agreeing with Baumgarten’s earlier study,18 he suggests that the vocabulary of righteous and righteousness functioned as a “sectarian indicator” and as such has important affinities 15. See Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 105–15. 16. This is not to say that Paul’s understanding of dikaiosu&nh in Gen 15:6 is without parallel among the scrolls. The appearance of the phrase hqdcl Kl hb#xnw (“and it will be reckoned to him for righteousness”) in Some Works of Torah (cf. 4Q398 frags. 14–17 2.7 = 4Q399 frag. 1 2.4) suggests that Paul was not shadowboxing but was contending with an understanding of righteousness and possibly an exegesis of Gen 15:6 actually held by his contemporaries. See Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and the MMT,” BAR 20, no. 6 (1994): 52–55. Also, see the contribution by Dunn and Charlesworth in this volume. 17. John Kampen, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew and the Legal Texts from Qumran,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen: STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 461–87. 18. Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic,” ANRW 2.19.1 (1979): 219–39.

88

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

with Matthew’s use of this language.19 This is supported in an important way by the observation that in both Matthew and in the Damascus Document the communities’ respective teachers (“the Righteous Teacher” in the former, Jesus of Nazareth in the latter) define what is righteous for their communities.20 In a Jewish context, to define righteousness is in effect to define orthodoxy.21 Kampen concludes that the Matthean evangelist “is advocating a particular way of life within the Jewish community which is not accepted by the majority, but which is considered by its adherents to be true ‘righteousness.’…They were the ‘righteous’ Jews who practiced a way of life based on their understanding of ‘righteousness.’”22 Emphasis on righteousness is inevitably linked to the understanding of Scripture and its fulfillment (legally and prophetically). More than forty years ago Krister Stendahl compared Matthew’s understanding of the fulfillment of Scripture to that of the scrolls.23 Although many have questioned his hypothesis of a Matthean school, the recommendation that Matthew’s eschatological and typological interpretation of Scripture be compared to Qumran’s pesher interpretation has served as a point of departure for Matthean scholarship since.24 19. John Kampen has compared Matthew to the Dead Sea Scrolls at other points; cf. John Kampen, “A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matthew 5:21–48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990 (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLSP 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 34–59; idem, “The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 149–67; idem, “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses within the Social World of the Matthean Community,” DSD 1 (1994): 338–63. 20. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 17–23. Kampen (“‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” 471) concurs. Kampen comments that the “conflict over the correct definition of righteousness characterizes the entire work [CD].” 21. John C. Reeves in “The Meaning of Moreh Sedeq in the Light of 11QTorah,” RevQ 13 (1988): 287–98, accordingly has recommended translating qdc hrwm as “true lawgiver,” a suggestion that meets with Kampen’s (“‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” 472) qualified approval. Kampen (479) ends his survey of the usage and meaning of qdc and hqdc at Qumran by concluding that, for the community of the renewed, covenant righteousness had more to do with their special identity as chosen people than it did with stricter legal interpretations. At this point Kampen disagrees with the conclusion of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977), 312. For his extensive survey of righteous and righteousness in Qumran, see Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 239–328. 22. Kampen, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” 484, 487. 23. Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; Lund: Gleerup, 1954; rev. ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 183–202. 24. See also Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967).

CRAIG A. EVANS

89

The Gospel of Matthew contains more than sixty explicit quotations of Scripture (at least twice as many as any other Gospel). The evangelist’s citation of Scripture, often introduced with the words, “in order that it be fulfilled,” does not exactly parallel the common formula of the scrolls, “this is that.” Yet the comparison of scriptural details and patterns with specific events in the life and ministry of Jesus is certainly cognate. Bertil Gärtner’s criticism of Stendahl’s comparison between Matthew and Qumran pesharim is valid to some extent.25 After all, Matthew does not provide verse-by-verse commentary on extended passages of Scripture. Comparing Scripture and event, often cast in an eschatological perspective, is in essence what Matthew has done, and that is quite similar to what is done in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, pesher-type exegesis at Qumran is not confined to the pesharim proper, where we have verseby-verse commentary; it is also found in writings where Scripture is cited in an ad hoc fashion (e.g., 4Q285 frag. 5 lines 1–3). Here the comparison is closer to what we have in Matthew. The principal difference is that the scrolls are futuristic; fulfillment is awaited. Matthew’s perspective is historical; fulfillment has occurred. The perspectives are obviously quite different, but the hermeneutics are comparable.

E LECTION AND COMMUNITY IN LUKE One of the interesting features in comparing Luke-Acts to the Dead Sea Scrolls has been the observation that both communities regarded themselves as “the Way,” and that this self-designation was inspired by Isa 40:3, a prophetic text that enjoined the faithful to “prepare the way of the Lord.”26 The “Way” passages in Luke-Acts include the following: Luke 3:4: “as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: ‘A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths’” (w9 j ge/graptai e0n bi/blw| lo/ gwn 0Hsai5ou tou= profh/tou: fwnh\ bow= ntoj e0n th|= e0rh/mw| : e9toima/sate th\n o9do\ n kuri/ou, eu0qei/aj poiei=te ta_j tri/bouj au0tou= ). In citing Isa 40:3 the Lukan evangelist has followed his Markan source (1:3). The evangelist extends his quotation to Isa 40:5 (“all flesh will see the salvation of 25. Bertil Gärtner, “The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew,” ST 8 (1954): 1–24. 26. On the function of Isa 40:3 at Qumran, see James H. Charlesworth, “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek Ha-Yaha9 d,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; BibIntS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 197–224.

90

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

our God”), which anticipates the Gentile mission described in the book of Acts, the second volume of the evangelist’s literary enterprise. The implication is that the “Way” of the Lord involves not only the people of Israel, but all peoples. Luke 7:27: “This is he concerning whom it is written: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you’” (ou[to/ j e0stin peri\ ou[ ge/graptai: i0dou\ a0poste/llw to\n a1ggelo/ n mou pro\ prosw/pou sou, o4j kataskeua/sei th\n o9do/n sou e1mprosqe/n sou). The citation of Mal 3:1 is drawn from Q (cf. Matt 11:10) and takes the place of Mark 1:2. Malachi’s anticipation that the “way” will be prepared complements Isa 40:3 (and, indeed, is probably dependent on this passage). In Mark these two related Old Testament passages are combined (in Mark 1:2–3), but not in Luke. In Luke (following Q) the reference to Mal 3:1 clarifies the mission of John the Baptist. In context, this clarification was in response to John’s question put to Jesus. Yes, Jesus is the coming one; the implication is that John’s preparatory work of the “Way” has not been in vain (cf. Luke 7:29–30). Luke 20:21: “Teacher, we know that rightly you speak and teach and show no partiality, but teach the way of God in truth” (dida/skale, oi1damen o3ti o0rqw~j le/geij kai\ dida/skeij kai\ ou0 lamba/neij pro/ swpon, a0 ll 0 e0p 0 a0 lhqei/aj th\n o9do\n tou= qeou= dida/skeij). The passage is drawn from Mark (12:13–17), but in some ways it has been enhanced (see especially the addition of o0rqw= j). To “teach the way of God” recalls the words of Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1 and implies that Jesus is fulfilling scriptural expectations. Acts 9:2: “…and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he should find some of the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (…h|t 0 h/sato par0 au0tou= e0pistola\j ei0j Damasko\n pro\j ta_j sunagwga/j, o3pwj e0a/n tinaj eu3rh| th=j o9dou= o1ntaj, a!ndraj te kai\ gunai=kaj, dedeme/nouj a0ga/gh| ei0j I0 erousalh/m). This is the first occurrence of o9do/j with the technical meaning “Way,” though the passages that have already been cited from the Gospel laid the foundation. Paul’s mission against members of the “Way,” dwelling in Damascus, offers an interesting parallel to Qumran’s members of the Way, some of whom perhaps dwelled at one time in Damascus. Acts 13:10: Paul’s caustic statement: “O full of all guile and all villainy, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord [ta_j o9dou\j (tou= ) kuri/ou ta_j eu0qei/aj]’?” probably alludes to Isa 40:3. Elymas the magician, as an agent of Satan, is portrayed here as attempting to undo God’s work in preparing the way of salvation.

CRAIG A. EVANS

91

Acts 16:17: Although not bearing the technical meaning seen in Acts 9:2, the cry of the girl with the familiar spirit, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the way of salvation [o9do\ n swthri/aj],” is consistent with Luke’s understanding of the Christian movement as the “Way.” It appears that again we have an instance of Satanic opposition to the preparation of the Way. Acts 18:25–26: “This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord [th\n o9do\ n tou= kuri/ou]; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John, and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and expounded unto him the way of God [th\n o9do\ n tou= qeou= ] more accurately.” Here reference to “the way of the Lord” may be generic (as in the way of righteousness; or as in CD 20.18, “vindicating his brother, helping him walk in the way of God [l) Krdb]”), or it may be the technical self-designation (as in “the Way of the Lord”). Acts 19:9: “But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way [th\n o9do\ n] before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.” The technical usage here seems quite clear. Acts 19:23: “And about that time there arose no small stir concerning the Way [th=j o9dou=].” The technical self-designation again is apparent, as in the next three passages. Acts 22:4: “…and I persecuted this Way [tau/thn th\n o9do\ n] to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.” Acts 24:14: “But this I confess to you, that after the Way [th\n o9do/ n], which they call a sect [ai3resin], so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things that are according to the Law, and that are written in the Prophets.” Acts 24:22: “But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the Way [th=j o9dou=] deferred them, saying, ‘When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter.’” Luke’s use of “the Way” is virtually identical to the self-referential use of Krd in some of the scrolls. According to CD 2.6: “[God] with all the angels of destruction shall come against all who rebel against the proper way and who despise the law, until they are without remnant.” The most important texts come from the Rule of the Community: Thereby he shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect Way. Indeed, God has chosen them for an eternal covenant. (1QS 4.22)

92

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS They shall separate from the session of perverse men to go to the wilderness, there to prepare the Way of truth [Krd t) M# twnpl]: as it is written, “In the wilderness prepare the Way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God [Isa 40:3].” (1QS 8.13–14) The Instructor must not reprove the Men of the Pit, nor argue with them about proper biblical understanding. Quite the contrary: he should conceal his own insight into the Law when among perverse men. He shall save reproof—itself founded on true knowledge and righteous judgment— for those who have chosen the Way, treating each as his spiritual qualities and the precepts of the era require. He shall ground them in knowledge, thereby instructing them in truly wondrous mysteries; if then the secret Way is perfected among the men of the Yah[ ad, each will walk blamelessly with his fellow, guided by what has been revealed to them. That will be the time of “preparing the way in the desert” [Isa 40:3]. He shall instruct them in every legal finding that is to regulate their works in that time, and teach them to separate from every man who fails to keep himself from perversity. These are the precepts of the Way for the Instructor in these times, as to his loving and hating: eternal hatred and a concealing spirit for the Men of the Pit! (1QS 9.16–22) I shall hold no angry grudge against those repenting of sin yet neither shall I love any who rebel against the Way; the smitten I shall not comfort until their walk be perfected. I shall give no refuge in my heart to Belial. (1QS 10.20–21) Surely apart from you the way cannot be perfected, nor can anything be done unless it please you. (1QS 11.17) […You lead me in] the everlasting way [Mlw( Krdb] and on the paths which You have chosen. (1QH 12.4)

That early “Christianity” would regard itself as the “Way,” the same self-designation employed by their contemporaries and rivals who made up the Yah[ad, is an important point that must not be underrated. Remember, in all probability the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile. Yet he understood the messianic movement (of which he became a part and eventually an apologist) to be a movement within Judaism. In my opinion his use of this epithet, which he continues even after “Christians” come to be called “Christians” (i.e., messianists; cf. Acts 11:26), attests to his conviction that the “Christian” movement is continuous with Israel’s sacred heritage and history. Indeed, elsewhere I have argued that the author of Luke-Acts deliberately imitates the style of the Septuagint in order to underscore this very point: the life and ministry of Jesus, which are continued in the church, constitute a continuation of biblical history.27 27. Craig A. Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 14; SSEJC 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),

CRAIG A. EVANS

93

Finally, we may briefly consider two additional and related features of Luke’s theology. The first concerns Luke’s emphasis of the communal dimension of “the early church.”28 This emphasis warrants comparison with the communal lifestyle articulated in some of the scrolls, for a similar emphasis is attested in some of these writings as well. There are two interesting parallels: 1. In both Luke-Acts and Qumran there was in some sense a correlation between spirituality and one’s attitude toward wealth and possessions. In Luke, John the Baptist directs Israelites to share their surplus with those in need (Luke 3:10–14). The Lukan evangelist singles out women who financially support Jesus and his disciples (8:1–3). The Lukan Jesus urges his followers to “sell [their] possessions and give alms” (12:33). The rich man of the parable is condemned to hell, while his impoverished neighbor is comforted in the company of Abraham (16:19–31; cf. 6:20–26). Zacchaeus the chief tax collector is singled out for praise because he gives half of his goods to the poor and makes fourfold restitution to all those overcharged (19:8). Because of this generosity he may be called a “son of Abraham” (19:9). In Acts the church is said to have practiced a form of communism (2:44–47; 4:32–37). But the giving of gifts must be sincere: Ananias and Sapphira were struck down for giving a gift hypocritically (5:1–11). The communal sharing of property was practiced at Qumran as well: “All who volunteer for His truth are to bring the full measure of their knowledge, strength, and wealth into the Yah[ ad of God. Thus, will they purify their knowledge in the verity of God’s laws, properly exercise their strength according to the perfection of his ways, and likewise their wealth by the canon of his righteous counsel” (1QS 1.11–13).29 After the initiate’s successful entry into the community, his property will be incorporated (1QS 6.16–23; 7.24–25). Lying about one’s property was a serious 170–201. See now Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997), who has argued that Luke-Acts constitutes a succession narrative. 28. See Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); idem, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (OBT 9; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981); Leander E. Keck, “The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament,” ZNW 56 (1965): 100–29, esp. 103–12; idem, “The Poor among the Saints in Jewish Christianity,” ZNW 57 (1966): 54–78; George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–30; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:162–79; Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). 29. Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 127.

94

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS

offense in the Qumran community, as it was in the early “Christian” community: “If there be found among them a man who has lied about money and done so knowingly, they shall bar him from the pure meals of the general membership for one year; further, his ration of bread is to be reduced by one fourth” (1QS 6.24–25).30 2. Both early Christians, as depicted in Acts, and the Qumran community believed in support of poor. This idea is closely related to the above point. According to Acts 6:1–6 Greek-speaking Jews complained, “because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food” (NRSV). The apostles responded by appointing deacons (all of whom have Greek names) to see to the needs of the poor. Similar provisions are found in the Damascus Document. There we read that “the judges will give some of it [i.e., alms previously collected] for their wounded; with some of it they will support the poor and needy, and the feeble elder, the man with a skin disease, whoever is taken captive by a foreign nation, the girl without a near kinsman, the boy without an advocate” (CD 14.13–16).31 A second similarity between Luke-Acts and Qumran concerns ideas of election. But their respective understandings of election differ sharply.32 Note Luke’s version of the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15–24), which he has redacted.33 After the wealthy and apparently blessed refuse to answer the call to dinner, the “poor and maimed and the blind and the lame” are invited to the banquet. This list resembles that of Lev 21:17–23, which describes Levites whose physical defects disqualify them from serving as priests. The restrictions of Lev 21 apparently lie behind Qumran’s prohibition of defective persons from participation in the final great holy war (cf. 1QM 7.4–5)34 and the feast (1Q28a = 1QSa 2.5–22).35 We may suspect that Jesus (or Luke at 30. Ibid., 135. 31. Ibid., 72. 32. See James A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4” and “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable,” in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 46–69, 106–20, respectively. 33. Compare Matt 22:1–14. Evidence of Matthean redaction is also evident. 34. “No one crippled, blind, or lame, no man who has a permanent blemish on his skin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go into battle”; Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 157. 35. “No man with a physical handicap—crippled in both legs or hand, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or possessed of a visible blemish…may enter to take a place in the congregation of the men of reputation. For the holy angels are part of their congregation…to the banquet held by the society of the Yah[ad, when [God] has begotten the Messiah among them”; ibid., 146–47.

CRAIG A. EVANS

95

the very least) has intentionally contradicted this strict interpretation. The implication of this is that Jesus apparently did not see physical defects as indicative of either divine punishment or disapproval. Similarly, in the Nazareth sermon (Luke 4:16–30), which appears to be a rewrite and expansion of Mark 6:1–6, Luke’s Jesus appeals to Isaiah 61 and apparently contradicts the congregation’s exegetical understanding and eschatological expectations (“Doubtlessly you will quote to me the proverb…”). Jesus’ midrash suggests that the blessings anticipated by Isaiah will not be limited to the pious of Israel, but will be extended to Gentiles (Luke 4:25–26), even to Israel’s traditional enemies (4:27). The congregation is understandably angry. The function of Isaiah 61 in Melchizedek (11Q13) helps us understand why Jesus’ neighbors reacted the way they did. In this scroll, the element of judgment is emphasized (as seen in Isa 61:2b: “the day of vengeance of our God” [NRSV]), and this very element is what has been omitted in Jesus’ sermon. The Scriptures provide the common ground, but the respective hermeneutics of Jesus (or Luke) and the scribes of the renewed covenant are significantly different.

CONCLUSION It is important to consider that in the case of almost every principal topic in the Synoptic Gospels, there is significant overlap with distinctive emphases in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially with regard to the “core” scrolls. At the very least this recognition underscores the Palestinian, as well as Jewish, dimension of the Gospels. This is not to say that they give no evidence of Greco-Roman or Diaspora ideas. But comparison with the scrolls should serve to warn interpreters against too quickly drawing parallels with sources and ideas remote from the world of first-century Palestine. These interesting and significant parallels between the Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls could also suggest that the ideas found in the core scrolls are not as sectarian as has often been assumed. Just as the parallels draw the Gospels back to Jewish Palestine, so also the parallels pull the scrolls closer to mainstream Jewish ideas.

CHAPTER FIVE

A STUDY IN SHARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE: THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY AND THE JOHANNINE COMMUNITY James H. Charlesworth The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a Jewish library from the land and time of Jesus.1 The library was found in eleven caves on the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea, one of the lowest places on the earth. Some of the caves form a semicircle to the south and west of an ancient ruin that was destroyed by Roman soldiers in 68 C.E. The ruin is known as “Khirbet Qumran.” The library contains about eight hundred scrolls. Among them are copies of virtually all the books in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament), copies of some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and much more. Most important, for the first time we learn about and can possess copies of formerly unknown works, like the collection of rules and lore in the Qumran Community (in the Rule of the Community), the hymnbook of the community (the Thanksgiving Hymns), and the lost portions of the Damascus Document. There is much more in this Jewish library. In it are compositions that reflect the ideas and hopes of non-Essenes and Jews not living at Qumran—some may have been Pharisees or the forerunners of this group in Second Temple Judaism. Clearly, scribes in Jerusalem placed the ink on many of the leather scrolls—especially those in Aramaic. Although most scholars rightly label the Qumran Community an Essene group (or sect), the library should not be labeled “an Essene library.” As in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. or in the British Library in London, so also in this library are compositions from many different authors. Some documents represent the thoughts of the Essenes, and other works the thoughts of other Jews, some of whom held quite different ideas from the Essenes.2 Thus, the library represents the 1. This chapter was completed in 2001 (but a publication of 2002 was added at proof stage). 2. The Prayer of Jonathan, for example, found in the Qumran caves, honors a person who was hated by the Qumranites. See James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

97

98

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

ideas, most likely, of some Sadducees and Pharisees (or their precursors), some traditions associated with the Samaritans, some books produced by the Enoch groups, and other types of Jews within Early Judaism. While the library raises the question of the nature of the Qumran Community, surely it was not merely a marginal group, as was once assumed.3 The result of the study of these once-lost compositions has caused a paradigm shift in the study of Second Temple Judaism (or Early Judaism). Before 1947 world-class scholars had formulated a notion of the typical features of Judaism during Jesus’ day, which in light of discoveries from 1947 to the present is simply false or misleading. The purpose of the present paper is to seek to discern how and in what ways, if at all, the newly revealed ideas preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls help us better to comprehend the origin and thought in the work known now as “the Gospel of John.” The central question becomes: How have the ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls helped improve the study of the origins of Christianity and, in particular, provided a better understanding of the Fourth Gospel? That is, how have the ideas in these ancient scrolls changed our understanding of Jewish thought during the time of Jesus? How have they shifted our perception of the origins of Christianity? These questions have caught the imaginations of many, including scholars who have devoted decades to seeking answers representative of the challenging discoveries. Such assessments have opened something like newly found windows through which we can gain a better glimpse of life and thought in and near Jerusalem before and during the time of Jesus of Nazareth. According to scholars—Jews, Roman Catholics, and Protestants—the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized our perception of Judaism before the burning of the Temple in 70 C.E.4 The unique terms and concepts in these ancient scrolls have also dramatically altered our understanding of Christian origins.5 The scrolls have appreciably enriched and at times 3. The question, “How central or marginal was the Qumran Community?” is ostensibly the issue addressed in Timothy H. Lim et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000). 4. I dedicated the earlier version of this work to Professor D. Moody Smith. I am indebted to the editors and publisher for allowing me to prepare a revised, expanded, and updated version of that work: “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 65–97. 5. See the following introductions: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Paulist Press, 1992); Hartmut Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg: Herder, 1993); James C. VanderKam,

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

99

significantly improved the interpretations of Paul’s letters, Hebrews, Revelation, Matthew, and Acts.6 The exegesis of no document in the New Testament, however, has been so fundamentally improved or altered by the recovery of the Qumran Scrolls as has the Fourth Gospel. That judgment seems sound, regardless of the means by which we assess the influence from Qumran on the Fourth Evangelist. Some nineteenth-century scholars identified this Gospel as a second-century Greek composition; however, it is now clear that it is a first-century Jewish writing. That is a shift in paradigms; the new perspective is significantly due to the assessment of archaeological discoveries, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls.

AN EARLIER CONSENSUS IN H ISTORICAL CRITICISM For the last two centuries the acids of biblical criticism have burned away many cherished perceptions regarding the Fourth Gospel. It was slowly but widely accepted that John was the latest of the Gospels and historically unreliable, since it was the product of a second-century Christian. The founder of the Tübingen School, Ferdinand C. Baur, claimed that the Fourth Gospel could not be apostolic because it was written around 170 C.E.7 For Alfred Loisy, the Fourth Evangelist was a theologian unacquainted with any historical preoccupation; he could not have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ life and teachings, let alone an apostle. Loisy contended, moreover, that a convert from Diaspora Judaism composed the Fourth Gospel. That is, the Fourth Evangelist was influenced by Philo The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1995); André Paul, Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte: La voix des esséniens retrouvés (Paris: Bayard, 1997); Carsten P. Thiede, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity (Oxford: Lion, 2000); Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, ed., Qoumrân et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (Paris: Cerf, 2000). 6. See, for example, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Qumran and the New Testament,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae; The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 55–71; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth, eds., Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Crossroad, 1990); Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth, eds., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Crossroad, 1992). 7. Ferdinand C. Baur pointed to an Entwicklungsprozess (developmental process), which proved that the Fourth Gospel could not belong to the apostolic period; see his Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien (Tübingen: Fues, 1847), esp. 328, 365, 378, 383. Also see the insightful discussion by Martin Hengel, “Bishop Lightfoot and the Tübingen School on the Gospel of John and the Second Century,” Durham University Journal 84 (January 1992): 23–51; the quotation appears on 24.

100

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

and was “one of the greatest mystical theologians.” The concepts in this Gospel were shaped by Alexandrian Judaism.8 Thus, the Fourth Gospel was inspired by Greek philosophy. The Logos-concept aligned John with pre-Socratics like Heraclitus, or with the Stoics. Johannes Weiss concluded that Johannine dualism could not have derived from any form of Judaism and that it came from Hellenism.9 Similarly, Edgar J. Goodspeed claimed: The thoroughly Greek character of the thought and interest of the Gospel, its literary (dialogue) cast, its thoroughly Greek style, its comparatively limited use of the Jewish Scriptures (roughly one-fifth of Matthew’s), its definite purpose to strip Christianity of its Jewish swaddling clothes, its intense anti-Jewish feeling, and its great debt to the mystery religions—combined to show that its author was a Greek [and] not a Jew. In the Gospel of John the Greek genius returns to religion.10

In the 1930s not all Johannine scholars would have agreed, but Goodspeed’s words do encapsulate the spirit of an earlier age and an old approach to the Fourth Gospel.11 Thus, exactly ten years before the discovery of the scrolls, a leading New Testament expert could claim that John was composed by a Greek who was influenced by the mystery religions. For many professors, the Fourth Evangelist was a genius who had worked alone in his study and was influenced by Greek philosophy. Building on nineteenth-century research, many experts once supported a scholarly consensus that the Fourth Gospel was perhaps written sometime in the middle or late second century C.E. Scholars also claimed that John was the most Greek of the Gospels. Hence, they confidently dismissed the ancient tradition that the Fourth Gospel was related to—let alone written by—the apostle John, the son of Zebedee.

A N EW CONSENSUS Now—after more than fifty years of work on the Qumran library—many Johannine experts throughout the world conclude that the Fourth Gospel 8. Alfred F. Loisy, Le quatrième évangile (Paris: Picard, 1903), 123–29. 9. Johannes Weiss, Das Urchristentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 624. 10. Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 314–15. 11. In the 1960s, I remember Robert E. Cushman, then dean of Duke Divinity School, discussing with me why it was clear to him that the Fourth Gospel was composed by a Christian who was deeply imbued with Platonic philosophy.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

101

may contain some of the oldest traditions in the Gospels and even perhaps some of the oldest sections of them. It is also conceivable, though impossible to prove, that some of these oldest sections may be related in some ways to an eyewitness of Jesus, perhaps an apostle, conceivably (but probably unlikely) the apostle John himself. The extant Fourth Gospel certainly represents more than one edition.12 The Fourth Gospel is now judged to be Jewish. Most commentators now study it in terms of first-century Palestinian Jewish writings, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls. Martin Hengel, a leading specialist on Judaism and Christian origins, rightly states, “The Qumran discoveries are a landmark for a new assessment of the situation of the Fourth Gospel in the history of religion.”13 How is this possible? What has led us to such a marked shift?

THE DATE AND P ROVENIENCE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN The discovery of Papyrus 52, preserved in Manchester’s John Rylands Library, closed the door to the possibility that the Fourth Gospel postdates 125 C.E.14 This fragment is not from a source utilized by the Gospel’s author. It represents a codex of this Gospel. The fragment contains 18:31–33 and 18:37–38 and dates no later than 125 C.E. A late second-century date for the Gospel is now impossible, since a fragment of a book can hardly predate its composition. It now seems safe to report that no scholar dates the Fourth Gospel after the first decade of the second century C.E., and most experts agree 12. Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille conclude that the Qumran influences on the Gospel of John are concentrated in the third level of composition. See their Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en Français III: L’évangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977). 13. Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989), 111; idem, Die johanneische Frage (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 281–84, where Hengel holds that “die Qumranfunde einen Markstein für die religionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des 4. Evangeliums darstellen” (282). Note also C. K. Barrett, who contends that “two circumstances have led to a strong reiteration of the Jewish background and origin of the gospel: on the one hand, the criticism, directed against Bultmann and those who follow him, concerning the relative lateness of the comparative material used to establish a Gnostic background of John; on the other, and more important, the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.” See Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism (trans. D. M. Smith; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 7–8. 14. Cf. Kurt Aland, “Der Text des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert,” in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 1–10. See now esp. Brent Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” HTR 98 (2005): 23–48.

102

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

that it dates from around 100 C.E. or perhaps a decade earlier. Hence, the Fourth Gospel is now perceived to be a late first-century composition in its present extant form (minus 7:53–8:11, added much later, because it is now found in the earliest witnesses). Moreover, the Gospel shows signs of being a “second edition,” with at least 1:1–18 and chapter 21 added by perhaps the Evangelist himself (although the Logos hymn may not be his own composition). The “first edition” would have to antedate the present Gospel (chaps. 1–20), and that may take us back to a time near to the composition of the Gospel of Mark, shortly before 70 C.E., or perhaps even earlier.15 The Evangelist used sources, and some of these are quite early. One of them might be a signs-source,16 which appreciably predates the Gospel of Mark. This alleged source used by the Fourth Evangelist may have been composed in ancient Palestine by a Jew living within a decade or two of Jesus of Nazareth.17 Hengel and many others are convinced that the “numerous linguistic and theological parallels to Qumran, especially in the sphere of dualism, predestination, and election, also point to Palestine,” as the provenience of the Fourth Gospel.18 In his superb commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Leon L. Morris came to the conclusion that the Dead Sea Scrolls “have demonstrated, by their many parallels to this Gospel both in ideas and expression, that our Fourth Gospel is essentially a Palestinian document.”19 F. F. Bruce expressed the same conclusion: An argument for the Palestinian provenance of this Gospel which was not available to scholars of earlier generations has been provided by the discovery and study of documents emanating form the religious community which had its headquarters at Qumran, northwest of the Dead Sea, for about two centuries before AD 70.20

It is not only the research on the Qumran Scrolls that has led to this new appreciation. Other discoveries and studies have also contributed to this 15. See John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 199–204. Also, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Priority of John? Reflections on the Essenes and the First Edition of John,” in Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums: Symposion in Salzburg am 10. März 2000 (ed. P. L. Hofrichter; Theologische Texte und Studien 9; Hildesheim: Olms, 2002), 73—114. 16. See Robert T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs (SNTSMS 11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). 17. See Urban C. von Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel (Wilmington: Glazier, 1989). 18. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 281. 19. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 9. 20. Frederick F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983, 1992), 2.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

103

reassessment. Among them the most important are our renewed appreciation of the Fourth Evangelist’s keen knowledge of topography and the debates we now know were raging within Early Judaism. We are impressed with the Evangelist’s physical descriptions (esp. of Bethesda) and his understanding of the Samaritans, their territory, and the costly provisions for the Jewish rites of purification.21 In the endeavor to understand the Fourth Gospel and assess the level of influence from the Essenes, we cannot avoid some subjectivity. And obviously some imagination is demanded in any attempt to reconstruct the past. As we strive to be objective, we need to be cognizant of prejudices and presuppositions that could distort and undermine the results of our detailed research.22

THE H ISTORICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN For decades scholars thought it obvious that the Fourth Gospel contained false or at least historically misleading information. The Evangelist referred to a monumental pool inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem, but no ancient descriptions of Jerusalem supported this report. This pool is not mentioned in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, or in other early descriptions of Jerusalem. Yet the Evangelist described the pool of Bethesda (or Beth-Zatha) as having five porticoes. His report was judged to be misinformed, because no ancient building resembled a pentagon. It seemed to follow that the Evangelist could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. He seems to be an author interested in symbolism and ignorant of the physical description of pre-70 Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig exactly where the Evangelist claimed a pool was located and designated for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with shrines probably dedicated to the Greek god of healing, Asclepius. The pool had porticoes (open areas with large columns): one to the north, one to the east, one to the south, one to the 21. See the contributions to the millennium celebration in Jerusalem in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 22. I agree with E. P. Sanders that subjectivity “cannot be avoided in anything we do,” and that in “the humanities in the United States today, subjectivity is … embraced far too enthusiastically.” Indeed, each scholar should aim “at objectivity.” See Edward P. Sanders, “How do We Know what We Know about Jesus?” in Jesus Two Thousand Years Later (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver; Faith and Scholarship Colloquies; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 53.

104

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

west, and one between two buildings.23 The buildings, dedicated to healing, thus had five porticoes. Hence, the Evangelist knew something about Jerusalem that was not mentioned in other sources composed by individuals, like Josephus, who had lived there. The discovery of the Copper Scroll in Qumran Cave 3 added to this fascinating research. This Dead Sea Scroll describes where the Temple treasures were hidden before the Roman soldiers surrounded the city. In frustratingly ambiguous detail it refers to some of the topography in and around Jerusalem. One passage of this scroll apparently refers to the pool of Bethesda (or Beth-Zatha), mentioned by the Evangelist. This passage makes sense in light of the other places in which treasures were hidden; but the reading is far from certain.24 Conceivably, however, the Copper Scroll helps to prove that the author of John was not ignorant about Jerusalem.25 Many commentators, intent on understanding the meaning of the pericope in which Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1–11), have missed the importance of an oblique aside made by the Evangelist. He reports: “Six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (2:6). Now, we know about the crucial importance of stone vessels; they were far superior to earthen jars. For example, in the Temple Scroll, the longest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, we possess a pre-70 C.E. firsthand insight into the regulations and necessity for purification. A house and everything within it, especially valuable commodities stored in pottery vessels, becomes impure—and worthless—when one who is ritually unclean enters: And if a woman is pregnant, and her child dies in her womb, all the days on which it is dead inside her, she is unclean like a grave; and every house she comes into is unclean, with all its furnishings, for seven days.… And all earthen vessels [#rx ylk lwkw] shall be broken, for they are unclean and cannot become clean again forever. (11QTemplea 50.10–19)26

Excavators working in the upper city of Jerusalem have unearthed large stone vessels, like the ones the Fourth Evangelist mentions in passing. All 23. See Joachim Jeremias, The Rediscovery of Bethesda, John 5:2 (Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966). 24. In 3Q15 11.12, J. T. Milik reads Nytd#) tyb and takes the second noun to be a dual construction (Beth Esdatayin); hence, the meaning would be “[in] the House of the Two Pools.” See Jósef T. Milik, “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la Grotte 3Q (3Q15),” in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 214, 271–72. 25. See Joachim Jeremias, Abba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 361–64. 26. According to the text and translation in Yigael Yadin, ed., The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 2:222–24.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

105

of them antedate the destruction of 70 C.E. The chief excavator, Nahman Avigad, reported, “We were astonished by the rich and attractive variety of the stone vessels.”27 Hence, the Fourth Evangelist, most likely a Jew—and probably his fellow Jews—possessed considerable knowledge about Jewish purification rights. From other areas of research we now know that the requirements for purification were increased considerably from the time when Herod the Great began to rebuild the Temple around 20 B.C.E. until its destruction in 70 C.E. The Fourth Gospel, therefore, should not be ignored in the study of pre-70 traditions that may contain history.28 We should amass all pertinent data in order to reconstruct the past. Hand in glove with the relegation of the Fourth Gospel to the second century and the perception of it as a Greek work was the contention that it contained only theology and not history. Only the Synoptics—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—could be used in searching for the historical Jesus. As Paula Fredriksen states: The discovery of the Scrolls—whose place, date, and completely Jewish context is very secure—undermined this view of the Fourth Gospel. For the Scrolls, like John, speak the language of Children of Light and Children of Darkness; they, too, envisage struggle between the two realms. One need not posit, then, as earlier scholars did, that such language and thinking point to a late or non-Jewish origin for John’s Gospel. The Scrolls incontrovertibly show that early first-century Judean Jews spoke and thought in similar ways. And an earlier, Jewish context of composition for John’s Gospel then reopens the question of its historical value for reconstructing Jesus’ life.29

Such comments indicate that a powerful movement is now finally evident among the leading scholars. The Fourth Gospel must not be shelved in attempts to say something about Jesus, son of Joseph, and his time. As D. Moody Smith has demonstrated, the Gospel of John contains “an array 27. Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 176; for photographs and pertinent discussions, see 120–36. 28. D. A. Carson rejects the concept of a Johannine school and is suspicious of any historically reliable information in the Fourth Gospel. See Donald A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Gospel Perspectives 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 83—145. More recently, F. J. Moloney has taken up Dodd’s insights and shows that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the Synoptics, and in places, especially in Jesus’ early ministry, preserves reliable historical information. See Francis J. Moloney, “The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History,” NTS 46 (2000): 42–58. 29. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 5.

106

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

of historical data,” which have as good a claim to be historically reliable as passages in the Synoptics.30 In his study of the historical Jesus, John P. Meier has shown that the Fourth Gospel often provides genuine historical information.31 In The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz rightly stress that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the Synoptics and in places preserves “old traditions” that are “not worthless” historically.32 In her Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (2000), Paula Fredriksen uses the Fourth Gospel to solve the riddle of Jesus’ crucifixion and the survival of his followers. In Rabbi Jesus (2000), Bruce D. Chilton heavily depends on the historical information found in the Fourth Gospel to write this “intimate biography.” In the terminology of Hellenistic historiography, the Fourth Gospel is a mixture of rhetorical and mimetic historiography (as Martin Meiser argues for Philo’s Against Flaccus);33 but more importantly for understanding “history” in the Fourth Gospel is the Jewish creative view of history34 and the importance of the events themselves (as Peder Borgen has shown for Against Flaccus).35

DUALISM Of all archaeological discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest impact upon the study of Johannine theology.36 The dualistic 30. Dwight Moody Smith, “Historical Issues and the Problem of John and the Synoptics,” in From Jesus to John (ed. M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 252–67. Also, see idem, “John and the Synoptics: Historical Tradition and the Passion Narrative,” in Light in a Spotless Mirror: Reflections on Jewish Traditions in Dialogue (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and M. A. Daise; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 77–91. 31. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), esp. 1:41–55. 32. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (trans. J. Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 36–37. 33. Martin Meiser, “Gattung, Adressaten und Intention von Philos ‘In Flaccum,’” JSJ 30 (1999): 418–30. 34. See esp. Doron Mendels, “‘Creative History’: The Jewish Case,” JSP 2 (1988): 13–20. 35. Peder Borgen, “Philo’s Against Flaccus as Interpreted History,” in A Bouquet of Wisdom (ed. K.-J. Illman et al.; Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter 48; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2000), 41–57; also see idem, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 36. R. Bauckham affirms this consensus, but thinks “this hypothesis is mistaken.” See Richard Bauckham, “The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

107

thinking so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is not to be traced back to Platonic idealism (even if there is some influence from Plato mediated through early Jewish thought). The dualism in the Fourth Gospel is also appreciably different from that found in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), the apocryphal books (esp. Sirach and Judith), or rabbinic writings.37 What scholars could not find within Judaism before the discovery of the scrolls, beginning in 1947, is boldly displayed with surprising clarity within the most important of the scrolls, the Rule of the Community (1QS; 4QS; 5QS).38 In columns 3 and 4 of this document, we find what the Master (lyk#m) taught those entering the sect. He taught them the cosmic dualism between two powerful forces (angels), expressed in terms of a light-versus-darkness paradigm, with humans at the center of the struggle and divided into two lots—the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.39 Some sections of this Rule were memorized, and surely that seems to be the case with columns 3 and 4. The section begins with the words, “It is for the Master to instruct and teach all the Sons of Light” (1QS 3.13). Such an initiate was to know by heart that “from the God of knowledge comes all that is and shall be” (1QS 3.15). Other scrolls composed, or finally edited, in the Qumran Community show that these words were memorized. For example, in the Angelic Liturgy40 we see the effect of the Master’s teaching: “For from the God of knowledge came into being all which is forever” (4QshirShabb 4; cf. MasShirShabb 1.2). Fully initiated members of the Qumran sect would not have needed to carry a copy of Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 105—15; the quotation is on 105. An earlier and shorter version of Bauckham’s paper appeared as “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There a Connection?” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 267–79. 37. See Geert H. C. Stuart, The Struggle in Man between Good and Evil (Kampen: Kok, 1984), esp. 94–100. 38. One manuscript of this document was found in Cave 1, ten copies in Cave 4, and one in Cave 5. The critical edition of the Rule, with apparatus, may be found in the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project volumes: The Dead Sea Scrolls—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6 vols. (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994–). 39. One of the first scholars to see Qumran influence on the Fourth Gospel was Karl G. Kuhn; see his “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebraïschen Texte und das neue Testament,” ZTK 47 (1950): 192–211. 40. A pre-Qumran origin of the Angelic Liturgy is conceivable, but the work was certainly used in the Qumran Community, and the work may have been composed at Qumran, as Carol A. Newsom points out in her initial edition of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 2.

108

u verify the actual re? i would insert q401 [=” before same applies to

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

1QS 3–4 to quote from it. As novitiates they had studied it for a period of at least two years. All Qumranites had been examined in its teachings by leaders of the sect (1QS 6.14–20).41 This section of the Rule of the Community was also probably recited in various cultic settings. After the burning of their buildings, those Qumranites who survived the attack by Roman soldiers would have been dispersed with cherished memories, including the secrets that had been revealed only to them through the Righteous Teacher (see 1QpHab 7). If they entered any other Jewish group, they would have surely influenced its members with their special insights and developed terminology. If, indeed, Qumranites or the wider group of which they were members (the Essenes)42 joined a new group within Second Temple Judaism (i.e., the Palestinian Jesus Movement), they would have influenced it with their special vocabulary, “knowledge” (t(d), and insight into the secret mystery (zr). As some scholars have suggested since the 1950s, Acts possibly records the movement of some Essene priests into this group: “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem multiplied greatly, and a great crowd of the priests followed in the faith” (6:7).43 This statement occurs in one of Luke’s little summaries, easily dismissed as devoid of historical worth; but it is never wise to discard data that, in the light of other sources, may preserve vestiges of history. We know of two major priestly groups in first-century Jerusalem, the Sadducees and the Essenes.44 It is practically impossible to imagine that 41. See Edward P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 349. 42. Despite the dissent of a few authors, a consensus still exists among the best Qumran specialists on the identification of the Qumranites with the Essenes. L. H. Schiffman challenges the Essene origins of the Qumran group, but he has affirmed (at least to me on several occasions) that the Qumran group in the first century C.E. is to be identified as Essenes. After almost thirty years of teaching and publishing on the Qumran Scrolls, I have concluded that the Qumran group was Essene and a sect (deliberately removing itself, sociologically and theologically, from other Jews and, indeed, persecuted by the powerful Temple group). Also, we should think about Qumran Essenes, Jerusalem Essenes, and other Essene and Essene-related groups living on the outskirts of most of the Jewish cities, as Philo and Josephus reported. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994); and idem, “The Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Judaism,”in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:552—71. In “Identity and History of the Community,” James C. VanderKam shows why the Qumranites were most likely Essenes; his chapter appears in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:487—533. 43. The verb u(ph&kouon (followed) with the dative case denotes full surrender. 44. For evidence of Essenes living in Jerusalem, see the pertinent chapters in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

109

Acts 6:7 refers to Sadducees. In stark contrast to the Essenes,45 the Sadducees rejected the concept of a resurrection (see esp. Acts 4:1–4), actively persecuted Jesus’ group (Acts 1–12, see, e.g., 5:17), and probably had no patience with messianism and apocalypticism (both characteristic of the Essenes and Jesus’ followers). Although Acts surely reflects Luke’s own tendencies and is theologically slanted to prove that the Spirit has broken forth again in history, we should not dismiss as unthinkable Luke’s report that priests joined the Palestinian Jesus Movement in the 30s and 40s. It is also conceivable that Luke was wrong chronologically and was thinking about the Essenes, who joined the Jesus group after the destruction of 70 C.E. The book of Acts also refers to the Palestinian Jesus Movement as “the Way.” According to the author of Acts 22:4, Paul reports, “I persecuted this Way to the death.” “Way” is a technical term, as becomes clear when studying Acts 9:2. According to this passage, the high priest commissions Paul to bring bound to Jerusalem “any belonging to the Way.” Where is the origin of this technical term? It—the Way—is not typical of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, or the Jewish magical papyri. It is, however, the self-designation of the Qumran sect: “These are to the norms of the Way (krdh [N.B. medial consonant in final position], for the Master in these times” (1QS 9.21; see also 1QS 9.19; 11.11; 1Q30 line 2; 1Q22 2.8; 1Q28a [= 1QSa] 1.28; 11Q19 [= 11QTemplea] 54.17). The most likely reconstruction of Christian origins thus leads us to postulate that members of Jesus’ group were called “the Way,” because of the terminology developed within the Qumran sect and perhaps also within the larger group of the Essenes. How did that term move from Essenism to Jesus’ group? Possibly numerous Qumranites or Essenes joined Jesus’ group by the time Luke wrote Acts, or even earlier. While this scenario helps us catch another insight into the presence of former Essenes within early Christianity, it does not permit us to see Essene influence in such Johannine phrases as Jesus proclamation, “I am the way” (14:6). In light of the favorable interest in the Levites in many of the Qumran Scrolls,46 and the evidence of Essenes probably living in the southwestern 45. This statement does not mean that in their own sectarian writings the Essenes affirmed belief in a resurrection. They did not reject it, and they used books in which it was clearly present, such as Daniel 12, 1 Enoch, and On Resurrection (4Q521). 46. Richard C. Stallman, “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JSP 10 (1992): 163–89.

110

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

section of Jerusalem,47 it is worth pondering what relation the well-known Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus, had with Essenes of Levitical descent living in Jerusalem and its environs (Acts 4:36). If he was a convert and a Levite, then why not others—especially those we call Essenes? What is the most reliable indication that Essenes were entering the Jesus group? And how do we know they were joining this new Jewish group in sufficient numbers to have an impression on the new movement after the 60s? The answer seems to lie in the paucity of parallels to Qumran or Essene thought in works prior to that time. There is virtually no clear Essene influence on Romans, Galatians, and other authentic writings by Paul.48 In contrast, however, significant links with Essene thought and terminology appear in works postdating the 60s and especially 70 C.E., namely in Ephesians, Hebrews, Matthew, Revelation, and particularly the Fourth Gospel.49 It is also apparent that a section in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians (6:14–7:1) is a later addition to it by one influenced by Essene thought. But in the Fourth Gospel scholars have found the most impressive and numerous parallels to Qumran thought. In the Fourth Gospel we find a unique form of dualism and a collection of technical terms. This dualism and these termini technici are not 47. Both the author of the Temple Scroll and Josephus mention a gate, purportedly that of the Essenes, which was located at the southern end of Jerusalem’s western wall. Many archaeologists now claim that a gate, below the remains of a Byzantine one and beside a Herodian socket, is indeed the “Essene Gate.” It is located in the southwestern section of the old wall of Jerusalem (not the present Turkish wall) and appears in the model of first-century Jerusalem near the Holy Land Hotel. For photographs, drawings, and discussion, see Rainer Riesner, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 198–234; and James H. Charlesworth, The Millennium Guide for Pilgrims to the Holy Land (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000), the 7th color picture between 40 and 41, and 149 (the Herodian socket of the Essene Gate and discussion). 48. See the pertinent chapters in Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth, Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 49. Krister Stendahl demonstrated that there was a school of Matthew and that scholars within it interpreted Scripture in a manner strikingly similar to that found in the Qumran commentaries, or pesharim; see The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968). Also see Kurt Schubert, “The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts,” in Stendahl and Charlesworth, The Scrolls and the New Testament, 118–28; and William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), esp. 208–56. Davies argues—and I fully concur—that the Sermon on the Mount “reveals an awareness of the [Dead Sea Scroll] Sect and perhaps a polemic against it” (235). On the links between Essene thought and Ephesians, see Murphy-O’Connor and Charlesworth, Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ix–xvi. Essene affinities with the Fourth Gospel are recognized by the contributors to James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Crossroad, 1991).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

111

found in Greek, Roman, or Egyptian ideology. The dualism and terms are not found in Philo, Josephus, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha (with the exception of the early Jewish portions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which, in the judgment of many scholars, is related to or influenced by Essene thought). Terms and phrases, known for centuries as “Johannine,” have turned up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, precisely in the section of their book of rules that was probably memorized, namely, the Rule of the Community, columns 3–4. Observe John 12:35–36, a passage once cherished as the product of the Evangelist’s creativity: Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become Sons of Light.”

Why did the Evangelist use such symbolism, such phrases and terms, and from what source did he inherit the technical term “Sons of Light”? The most probable explanation is that he, and perhaps those in his own group, were influenced by the light/darkness paradigm, developed only in the Rule of the Community.50 In that scroll we find an explanation of who are the “Sons of Light” (see 3.13, 24–25), and we are introduced to the phrase, “and they shall walk in the ways of darkness” (3.21; cf. 4.11). One passage in the Rule contains phrases and words that seem “Johannine” to many who do not know that this scroll antedates John by about two centuries: In the hand of the Prince of Lights [is] the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. But in the hand of the Angel of Darkness [is] the dominion of the Sons of Deceit; and in the ways of darkness they walk. By the Angel of Darkness comes the aberration of all 50. Bauckham denies any Qumran influence on the Fourth Gospel, but he repeatedly refers to dualistic “imagery.” He thereby misses the main point of my work and that of others. The crucial point is to see the unique termini technici and the dualistic paradigm. It is found only in Qumran sectarian writings and the Fourth Gospel; outside of Judaism it is found only in Zurvanism. Bauckham rightly states, “Only if the development in the two cases exhibited extensive similarities not attributable to common roots in the common Jewish tradition would there be any reason to postulate a connection” (107). Only in the Fourth Gospel do we find a developed dualistic paradigm and termini technici that are part of the paradigm. The Fourth Evangelist did not create this paradigm; he inherited it. Within Judaism, it is found only at Qumran. It follows that he most likely was influenced by Qumran concepts and terms, but not the theology. As I have been stressing, the Fourth Evangelist was a genius with creative skills. See R. Bauckham, “The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John.”

112

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE the Sons of Righteousness; and all their sins, their iniquities, their guilt, and their iniquitous works [are caused] by his dominion, according to God’s mysteries, until his end. And all their afflictions and the appointed times of their suffering [are caused] by the dominion of his hostility. And all the spirits of his lot cause to stumble the Sons of Light; but the God of Israel and his Angel of Truth help all the Sons of Light. He created the spirits of light and darkness, and upon them he founded every work. (1QS 3.20–25)51

While expressions familiar to a Christian seem “Johannine,” this passage is certainly not a Christian composition (pace those journalistic authors who confuse the distinguishing borders of the Essenes and Jesus’ group). The kerygma does not appear in this passage. Jesus is neither mentioned nor adumbrated in it. The Rule is a pre-Christian, Jewish work that emphasizes cosmic dualism, expressed in terms of the light-versusdarkness paradigm, subsumed under the absolute sovereignty of “the God of Israel.” In John 3:16–21 we find the following famous passage: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light, and do not come to the light, lest their deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been accomplished through God [lit.: have been worked in God].

This passage reflects the Johannine christological proclamation that Jesus is God’s only Son (3:16; 20:31). No Qumranite could agree—unless, of course, he accepted Jesus as the Messiah and believed in him. A member of the Qumran sect would have needed instruction in this belief, by someone other than the Master. This claim is a proclamation typical of the kerygma in the Palestinian Jesus Movement; as such, it distinguishes Jesus’ sect from the Essene sect. The Christology here belongs to the Evangelist, but he did not create the symbolism and the terminology. The spirit is definitively Christian and Johannine, but the mentality was inherited. The source, or at least one 51. Translation by James H. Charlesworth, “The Rule of the Community,” in The Dead Sea Scroll: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1, The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

113

of the major sources, is clearly Qumranic in perspective (as signaled by the terminological links, even technical terms, italicized in the Johannine excerpt above). As Stephen S. Smalley states, it is certainly impossible to think that the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) can be the source of the Fourth Evangelist’s dualism, because as “in Qumranic thought, John’s dualism is not physical but monotheistic, ethical and eschatological.”52 The Evangelist refers to Jesus as “the Son.” We can no longer report that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not refer to God’s Son, or the Son53 (although there is no evidence of the apocalyptic title “the Son of Man” in the Qumran sectarian compositions). The Elect of God Text (4Q534 = 4QMess) does refer to a powerful person named the “Elect of God” ()hl) ryxb). Who this person is remains unclear; moreover, it probably is from a pre-Qumran composition.54 A caveat seems pertinent at this point, especially in light of popular, misinformed publications. Of the eight hundred Qumran scrolls, none mention or allude to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the attempts by some authors to identify some of Qumran’s anonymous leaders with well-known persons in the Jesus Palestinian Movement are simply misinformed. The Righteous Teacher or Wicked Priest must not be equated with Jesus, Paul, James, or other persons prominent in the origins of Christianity. Established scholars, however, have concluded that significant, and unexpected, data have revolutionized our perception of early Jewish thought. It is clear that the Qumranites knew the concept of being “God’s son,” as it is well-known from Scripture (esp. Psalm 2). Now, there is evidence that the Qumranites knew about the apocalyptic title “the Son of God,” which certainly obtained an eschatological and apocalyptic meaning in Second Temple Judaism. One Dead Sea Scroll does contain the title “Son of God” (l) yd hrb). It is an Aramaic pseudepigraphon of Daniel (4Q246 = 4QPs Dana). The two-column fragment has nine lines and is dated by Józef T. Milik to the end of the first century B.C.E. The document refers to the “Son of God” (l) yd hrb) and also to the “Son of the Most High” (Nwyl( rbw). Joseph A. Fitzmyer defines this document as “properly apocalyptic.” He concludes that these Aramaic titles were 52. Stephen S. Smalley, John—Evangelist and Interpreter (London: Paternoster, 1978, 1992), 30–33. 53. 4Q381 85 contains the form Nbh, but this word means “understand.” 54. See Florentino García-Martínez, “4QMes. Aram. y el Libro de Noe,” in Escritos de Biblia y Oriente (ed. R. Aguirre and F. García López; Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 38; Salamanca: Casa de Santiago, 1981), 195–232; also, Benedict T. Viviano, “Aramaic ‘Messianic’ Text,” ABD 1:342.

114

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

“applied to some human being in the apocalyptic setting of this Palestinian text of the last third of the first century B.C.” He continues by judging that these titles “will have to be taken into account for any future discussion of the title used of Jesus in the NT.”55 Obviously, the Fourth Evangelist inherited the titles “the Son,” “Son of God,” and “Son of the Most High” from Palestinian Judaism and also from early sources related to Jesus, both oral and written; but he placed his own creativity upon them. The 4Q246 fragment cautions us about our knowledge of pre-70 terms and their use. We must be careful about arguing over what was not known in first-century Judaism. It urges us, further, to ponder how and in what ways the Fourth Evangelist and others like him were influenced by ideas such as the following: [But your son] shall be great upon the earth. [O King! All (men) shall] make [peace], and all shall serve [him. (col. 2) He shall be called the son of] the [Great [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High. As comets (flash) to the sight, so shall be their kingdom.56

This text is not necessarily messianic; at least, “the Messiah” is not mentioned in what has been preserved from this document. However, the phrase “all shall serve him” is reminiscent of another text, On Resurrection (4Q521), in which we read that the heavens and the earth shall obey (or serve) “his Messiah” (wxy#ml). The Qumran Community, like the Johannine community, was exclusivistic. The word “all” appears with more frequency in the Qumran Scrolls than in any other biblical or parabiblical works. This term, in Greek, appears twice in the previously quoted pericope from the Fourth Gospel (“all who believe” [3:16] and “all who do evil” [3:20]), which reflects two distinct opposites in humanity. It is an anthropological dualism. In the Fourth Gospel the word “all” appears infrequently—only 63 times, in contrast (for example) with Matthew and Luke, in which it respectively appears 128 and 152 times. These statistics indicate that the word “all” may appear in the Fourth Gospel in sections where Qumran influence has been detected, since the word is not typically Johanine. 55. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979), 92–93 (see also 90–91, 102–7); idem, “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text from Qumran Cave 4,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (ed. M. O. Wise; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 163—78. Milik lectured on this text at Harvard as early as 1972. 56. Fitzmyer’s translation; for text and translation, see his A Wandering Aramean, 92–93.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

115

There are only two main antecedents to the uniquely developed Johannine dualism: Qumranism and Zurvanism. The latter religion developed in ancient Persia by a group within Zoroastrianism. Zurvanism most likely influenced the Qumran sect, and it probably influenced the Fourth Gospel.57 The Qumran concept of final judgment at the messianic end time is reflected in John 3:16–21: those who are not “Sons of Light” will perish; all “Sons of Light” will have eternal life. These thoughts are most likely influenced by Qumran dualism, developed at least two centuries earlier and found again in the passage taught to initiates. According to the Rule of the Community, those who are not Sons of Light will receive “eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath, everlasting terror and endless shame, along with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of murky Hell” (1QS 4.12–13). In the Gospel of John 3 the author refers to “the wrath of God” (v. 36), which is reminiscent of “the fury of God’s vengeful wrath” in the Rule (1QS 4.12). The Qumranites believed that the Sons of Light will be rewarded “with all everlasting blessings, endless joy in everlasting life, and a crown of glory along with a resplendent attire in eternal light” (1QS 4.7–8). The author of the Fourth Gospel claimed that all who believed in Jesus would inherit eternal life (e.g. John 3:16). When studying the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls, readers often overlook the fact that both were very interested in salvation (defined in different ways, of course). The Fourth Evangelist thinks in terms of the world’s salvation, a concept quite close to the Qumranites’ understanding that they were exiled and living in the wilderness in order to atone for the land and the earth. The Holy Ones in the community were chosen by God “to atone for the earth” (1QS 8.6, 10); “they shall atone for iniquitous guilt and for sinful faithlessness” (1QS 9.4). It is conceivable—indeed probable—that the Fourth Evangelist derived from the major Dead Sea Scrolls composed at Qumran numerous words, expressions, and terms to express his conviction that the world has been saved.58 The key that opens up the probability that John 3:16–21 has been influenced by the concepts developed quintessentially in 1QS 3–4 is the appearance of the light-versus-darkness dualism, a paradigm most likely 57. See Charlesworth in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), xiii–xvi, 76–106. 58. Ernst Haenchen draws attention to the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for interpreting John 4; see his John 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 223. Compare Paul Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1977).

116

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

created at Qumran (I am convinced that it originated with the Righteous Teacher). Note these termini technici and the resulting dualistic paradigm. Except for “Sons of Darkness,” all these technical terms are found in a self-contained, short, memorable section of the Rule (e.g., cols. 3–4): light Sons of Light Angel of Light Angel of Truth Sons of Truth Sons of Righteousness spring of light walking in the ways of light truth God loves everlasting life

darkness [Sons of Darkness; see 1QS 1.10] Angel of Darkness Spirit of Perversity Sons of Perversity Sons of Perversity well of darkness walking in the ways of darkness perversity God hates punishment, then extinction

All these technical terms appear together in one section of the Rule. They are termini technici and they form a paradigm. This paradigm explains the human condition by clarifying that God “created the spirits of light and darkness” (1QS 3.25), that “he founded every work upon them” (3.25), and that all humans, including the “Sons of Light,” err because of the Angel of Darkness (3.22).59 All these terms (except for “Sons of Darkness”) are clustered in a focused passage to be taught to and, in my judgment, memorized by those who wish to cross over the barrier and into the Qumran Community. This section, Rule 3.13–4.14, contains the quintessential dualistic teaching of the Qumranites. “Sons of Light” is almost always unique to Qumran theology and is the sect’s self-designation.60 The term is defined in 1QS 3.13–4.26 (3.13, 24, 25; cf. 1.9; 2.16; 3.3) and is found in many other 59. Clearer in the Horoscopes than in the Rule is the explanation that each Son of Light has a mixture of darkness along with light (see esp. 4Q186). Each human has nine parts, some of light and others of darkness. Some humans are very evil, having eight parts of darkness and one of light. Other humans are nearly perfect, having <~?~q fn eight parts of light and one of darkness. 60. The technical term “Sons of Light” has been found only in Qumran composi57: need artitions and in documents influenced by Qumran theology. See David Flusser, Judaism cle or chapter and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), esp. 26; idem, “The Parable title> of the Unjust Steward: Jesus’ Criticism of the Essenes,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 176–97. Bauckham, “The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John,” claims that I “misrepresent the matter” when I claim that “the expression ‘sons of light’ is characteristic of Qumran and John” (109). He quotes me correctly, and from John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 101. Bauckham claims that “sons of light” appears in Luke 16:8; 1 Thess 5:5; and

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

117

Qumran Scrolls (specifically, 1QM 1.1, 3, 9, 11, 13; 4Q510 11.7; 4Q177 [= 4QCata] frag. 12 1.7 and 1.11; 4Q174 [= 4QFlor] frag. 1 1.1–9). As the Israeli Qumran specialist Devorah Dimant states, “One of the most striking elements in the Qumranic documents is the dualistic doctrine expounded by them. Unique in Early Judaism, this doctrine drew the attention of scholars from the earliest days of Qumran research.”61 If the dualism is unique to Qumran within the world of Second Temple Judaism, as most scholars have concluded, it is misleading and fruitless to find isolated and similar phrases in other early Jewish texts (pace Bauckham). What is missing in these other early Jewish texts is a cluster of termini technici that constitutes a paradigm. It is apparent to many Qumran and New Testament specialists that in some way Qumran’s dualism and its terminology has influenced the Fourth Gospel. Darkness (esp. John 3:19) is contrasted with light, evil with truth, hate with love, and perishing with receiving eternal life.62 Barnabas Lindars rightly pointed out that the Qumran Scrolls, especially the Rule, contain “the clearest expression of the contrast between light and the darkness, which is a central theme of John.” He offered the following conclusion: “Some kind of influence of the sect on John seems inescapable.” This is superb scholarship; yet, it is disappointing to read his subsequent judgment that the Fourth Evangelist may have obtained this knowledge without any contact with Qumranites or Essenes, since

Eph 5:8. He is correct with the first two passages, but I had mentioned them on the page from which he quotes me. He is incorrect to include Eph 5:8; it has “children of light” (te/kna fwto&j). What is missed by Bauckham is the fact that “sons of light” is “characteristic” of Qumran and the Fourth Gospel. Both contain this technical term, which is rare in pre-135/6 compositions. For example, it does not even appear in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. One might have expected the term to appear in this Jewish pseudepigraphon, since, as is well-known, this document has a dualism reminiscent of, and perhaps influenced by, Essene dualism. The absence of “the Sons of Light” in these Testaments is remarkable for an additional reason. The Christian additions to it often seem to show influence from the Fourth Gospel. See the insight by Howard C. Kee in OTP, 1.777. 61. Dimant, Devorah. “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives.” Pages 55—73 in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research; Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947—1997) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 1998). 62. Those who are convinced that the Fourth Gospel contains predestinarian ideas will be impressed by the possibility of additional Qumran influence, because it was at Qumran that predestination was developed in a unique way in Second Temple Judaism. See James H. Charlesworth, “The Theologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Faith of Qumran (ed. H. Ringgren; New York: Crossroad, 1995). Also see Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1968–87), 1:132–33.

118

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

Qumran’s “ideas were probably widespread and influential.”63 It is a pity he never explained or defended this claim.64 I would agree, however, that after the death of Herod the Great some Essenes lived in Jerusalem, and their ideas and terms would have been known in the intellectual atmosphere in Jerusalem (the zeitgeist).65 Essene ideas in and around Jerusalem may account for some Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel, but the degree to which the Fourth Evangelist seems to know the Essene paradigm for a dualistic explanation of evil and sinning suggests that he was somehow directly influenced by Essene thought. The probability that the Fourth Gospel is influenced by Qumran’s dualistic terms and conceptions, though not its theology, is enhanced by the appearance of “the Sons of Light” and an array of related Qumranic technical terms. The Fourth Evangelist knows the unique Qumran paradigm for dualism and its termini technici. Note, especially, a later passage in John (12:35–36): Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become Sons of Light.”

It is hard to resist the conclusion that the Evangelist received from Qumran the idea of “walking in darkness” versus “walking in light.” Qumran and the Fourth Evangelist witness to the Semitic concept of talking about moral conduct as a way of walking (i.e., halakot). Note, in particular, 1QS 3.21: “and they shall walk in the ways of darkness” (note also 1QS 4.11). Prior to the composition of the Fourth Gospel, nowhere in the ancient world do we find the dualism of light and darkness developed so thoroughly as in Qumran’s Rule of the Community. The closest parallel is to the East, in Zurvanism. Throughout the ancient world we do obviously find a dualistic use of “light” and “darkness”; but only at Qumran is it raised to the level of a paradigm with termini technici. Only in Zurvanism, Qumran’s Rule, and in the Fourth Gospel do we find the paradigm and its 63. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972; repr., 1995), 38. 64. Lindars’s final verdict was that while there are obvious similarities between Qumran and the Fourth Gospel, “the lasting effect of the discovery of the Scrolls is not to range John alongside Qumran, but to give decisive support to the Jewish character of John and the Johannine church.” Barnabas Lindars, John (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 49. 65. I have enjoyed and profited from discussions on this issue with Martin Hengel, who agrees that the zeitgeist in Jerusalem, after Herod, was shaped by Essene theology and terminology.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

119

termini technici. And in the Fourth Gospel this paradigm is assumed and not created. Thus, the paradigm must antedate the Fourth Gospel. As in the Qumran Rule so also in the Fourth Gospel we hear about a cosmic and soteriological dualism. Moreover, it is subsumed under the belief in one and only one God, and it is joined with a conviction that evil and the demons will cease to exist. As Raymond E. Brown observed, “It will be noted that not only the dualism but also its terminology is shared by John and Qumran.”66 I would add, “and also the unique paradigm.” In addition to those already mentioned, several terms and phrases are significantly shared by the Qumranites and the Johannine Jews. Most significant among them are the following: “doing the truth” (1QS 1.5; 5.3; 8.2; John 3:21; 1 John 1:6), “water of life” (1QH 8.7, 16; 1QpHab 11.1; CD 19.34; John 4:10–14), “works of God” (1QS 4.4; John 9:3), “light of life” (1QS 3.7; John 8:12), and “knowing the truth” (1QH 6.12; 9.35; 10.20, 29; John 8:32). In Qumran’s Thanksgiving Hymns God is described “as perfect light” (1QH 4.23). The author of 1 John, who is close to and perhaps one of the editors of the Fourth Gospel, writes, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1:5). Surely, there is some relationship exposed by these shared technical terms. As Jürgen Becker points out in his Das Evangelium nach Johannes, the dualism in the Fourth Gospel is closest, in the ancient world, to that found in 1QS 3–4. This widespread recognition leads to the thesis that “the Johannine community must, after some undualistic phase, have come under the influence of a type of Qumran dualism.”67 That insight does not demand that the Essene influences come into the Fourth Gospel only at the final level of editing.68 It is important to stress that the Fourth Evangelist (and likely others in his community) probably has been influenced by Qumran’s paradigm and terminology. In some passages he reveals that his thought and perception have been shaped by the concepts, phrases, and technical terms of Qumran. There is, however, insufficient evidence to warrant the logically possible conclusion that he was a former Qumranite or Essene, or that he was influenced by their premessianic eschatology and peculiar theology.69 He was a follower of Jesus; that is, he took some earlier terms 66. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII) (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) lxii. 67. Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (3d ed.; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1991), 1:176. 68. Boismard and Lamouille (see note 12) conclude that the Essene influences come in at stage three of editing. I have judged that they are there in the “first edition.” There is much research still to be prosecuted on this issue. 69. Brown concluded (The Gospel according to John (I–XII), lxiii): “In our judgment the parallels are not close enough to suggest a direct literary dependence of John upon

120

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

and concepts and reshaped them to articulate the contention that Jesus was none other than the Messiah promised to the Jews (see, e.g., John 4:25–26). In summary, the preceding discussion of excerpts from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel helps to clarify a consensus (though not a unanimous one)70 in current research. Among all the ancient writings, only the Dead Sea Scrolls disclose a type of thought, a developed symbolic language, and a dualistic paradigm with termini technici that are surprisingly close to the Gospel of John.71 This widely held conclusion is clearly articulated by D. Moody Smith: “That the Qumran scrolls attest a form of Judaism whose conceptuality and terminology tally in some respects quite closely with the Johannine is a commonly acknowledged fact.”72 John Painter astutely concludes that “the context in which the Johannine tradition was shaped…is best known to us in the Qumran texts.”73 The Fourth Evangelist’s most striking point of contact with the Dead Sea Scrolls, whether direct or indirect, is surely with the dualistic paradigm and its technical terms. These, moreover, are developed in two columns of the Rule of the Community. This section of the Rule contains the quintessential theology of the Qumranites: It summarizes their lore and explanation of evil and suffering, as well as the cosmic explanation of human behavior. Since it is introduced as a section to be taught by the Maskil, “the Master,” to the candidates for admission into the Qumran Community, it probably was the heart of Qumran lore that had to be mastered and memorized by all members of the Qumran sect.

THE J EWISHNESS OF THE JOHANNINE G ROUP Subsequent to the widespread recognition that the Fourth Evangelist had been influenced in some way by the dualism found in the Rule,74 and the Qumran literature, but they do suggest Johannine familiarity with the type of thought exhibited in the scrolls” (italics mine). 70. Günther Baumbach denies a direct influence from the Rule on the Fourth Gospel; see his Qumran und das Johannesevangelium (AVTRW 6; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1957), 53. 71. Some of the Hermetic tractates and gnostic codices are strikingly similar to the Fourth Gospel, but the influence seems to flow from the Fourth Gospel to them. 72. D. Moody Smith, Johannine Christianity (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), 26. 73. John Painter, The Quest for the Messiah (2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 29. 74. See Otto Böcher, Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965); Raymond E. Brown, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospels and Epistles,” in Stendahl and Charlesworth, The Scrolls and the New Testament, 183–203; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 1:108, 128–35,

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

121

thanks to the work of J. Louis Martyn and Raymond E. Brown on the historical setting of the Johannine community, many scholars have become convinced that the Fourth Gospel bears the marks of a major sociological rift.75 The Greek term a0 posu/nagwgoj appears only in the Fourth Gospel (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This term means that members of the Johannine community have been thrown out of the synagogue; moreover, others in the community are afraid that they will also be expelled from the synagogue. According to 9:22, the parents of a man who had been blind from birth are said to fear the Jews, “for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess [ Jesus] to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.” These words indicate not only the actions by some Jews in a synagogue, but also that members of the Johannine community had been attending, and wanted to continue to attend, Jewish services and the calendrical festivals in the synagogue. It is hence beyond any doubt that some members of the Johannine community, perhaps many, were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Christ. Many members of the Johannine group (including some who had not been born Jews) saw themselves, as Wayne A. Meeks explains, “entirely within the orbit of Jewish communities.” It also seems evident that the leaders of these communities “despised secret believers in Jesus who wanted to remain in the Jewish community.”76 The Johannine community was obviously Jewish. Many scholars are now recognizing that in many ways the Fourth Gospel is the most Jewish Gospel in the Christian canon. Jesus is portrayed telling the Samaritan woman that “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). And some members of the Johannine community are being expelled from a synogogue in which they wish to worship. The Jewishness of this Gospel and the crisis created by the Johannine community’s exclusion from the synagogue services become readily apparent when we study the Gospel in light of the Jewish festivals.77 Chapters 7 and 8, and perhaps also 9, are united by a common setting. Chapter 7 clarifies the setting: It is the “Feast of Tabernacles” (7:2). Being 241, 249, and 402–7; and most of the essays in Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 75. 75. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979); Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979). 76. Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 109; see also idem, The Prophet-King (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967). 77. See Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 92–120. I am also indebted to discussions with students in my doctoral seminars on the Gospel of John.

122

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

a devout Jew, Jesus makes the required pilgrimage up to Jerusalem for the feast (7:10) and enters the Temple (7:14). This great feast at the end of the year (Tishri, in early fall) celebrates the ingathering of the crops and is sometimes called “the Feast of Ingathering.” It is also called the Feast of Booths, when Jews celebrate the period in the wilderness following the exodus from Egypt. Parts of John 7 and 8 may indicate how some Jews remembered the way this feast was celebrated when the Temple was still standing, or how it may have been commemorated in the synagogue from which they were later excluded. The Fourth Evangelist has Jesus stand up in the Temple on the last day of the feast and exhort those who heard him to “come to me and drink” (7:37–38). The multiple references to water and to “rivers of living water” may reflect the seven-day water libation ceremony (m. Sukkah 4:9). When the Temple cult was active, a priest would obtain water in a golden container from the pool of Siloam, south of the Temple. The priest would then proceed ceremoniously through the “Water Gate” of the Temple, pour the water into two silver bowls near the altar, from which the water would pour forth from perforated holes. This libation to Yahweh would elicit rejoicing and the playing of trumpets, flutes, and rams’ horns. On the one hand, Jews in the Johannine community may have remembered experiencing these celebrations. On the other hand, they may have remembered reliving them in synagogues. In either case, the Fourth Gospel mirrors the fact that both of these once-cherished celebrations are no longer possible for the Jews in the Johannine community. Jesus’ words “I am the light of the world” (8:12), reminiscent of Qumran ideology, have an interesting setting. He is said to have uttered them also during the Feast of Tabernacles, in which one ceremony is called the “lighting of lights” (m. Sukkah 5:2). Well after 70 C.E. Jews would have remembered the lighting of lights and the dancing that ceremoniously accompanied it in the Temple. Perhaps these customs were reenacted in some way in synagogue services. I tend to agree with Gale A. Yee who, in Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John, contends that the “attention that the Fourth Evangelist gives these festivals strongly suggests that these feasts had an important place in the piety of his community as Jewish Christians.”78 Whether the Evangelist is referring to the Temple ceremony of Jesus’ time or recalling how Tabernacles was celebrated after 70 C.E., it is clear that Jewish festivals play an important, if perhaps only a rhetorical, role in the Gospel. This fact underscores the Jewishness of 78. Gale A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989), 27 (italics hers).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

123

the Johannine group; it helps us imagine and appreciate the pain of converted Jews being excluded from the synagogue services (and also the horrifying loss all Jews felt at the loss of the “house of God,” the Temple). Another rift in the Johannine community is obvious. The First Epistle of John illustrates that some members of that community have left the community: “They went out from us, but they were not from [or of] us; for if they had been from us, they would have continued with us” (2:19). The author denounces them as antichrists. We have only the words of the author of 1 John, but according to him these former members of the community could not agree on the reality of the incarnation. They ostensibly would not confess that Jesus was the Christ and denied that he had come in the flesh, as one truly human.79 As the members of the Johannine community hear the Gospel read out loud, they would reflect on the claim that Jesus was one who was from above and had descended to earth. Ernst Käsemann claimed that the Fourth Gospel contains some passages that are naively docetic. It is clear that this Gospel can be interpreted so as to support Docetism (the doctrine that Jesus was not really human); but it is certainly not a docetic text.80 If this schism is viewed in light of the expulsion from worship by synagogal Jews, and if both rifts are perceived in light of some Qumran influence on the Gospel, then it is easy to imagine that former Essenes in the Johannine community, unlike some Greek converts, would have emphasized that Jesus, the Messiah, had been a real human, and he was “the Light.” It is possible to distinguish different Jewish beliefs in a messiah. Some Jews believed he would be a human being (see, for example, the Psalms of Solomon). He could experience exhaustion and shed tears. Both human emotions are portrayed in John (see chaps. 4 and 11). Other Jews believed in a messiah who would be heavenly, coming from the sky or out of the sea (thus, 1 Enoch 37–71 and 2 Esdras 13). The Qumranites believed in the first concept. They expected an earthly, human messiah who would be sent by God (1QS 9). One Qumran text does mention God’s (lit., “his”) messiah, who will appear when the Lord (directly or through him) restores life to those who are dead (On Resurrection, 79. See esp. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple; Dwight Moody Smith, First, Second, and Third John (Louisville: John Knox, 1991); and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 17–24. 80. See Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus (trans. G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), and the counterarguments by Hengel, The Johannine Question, 68; Rodney A. Whitacre, Johannine Polemic (SBLDS 67; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 127–28; and Marianne M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

124

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

4Q521).81 Hence, it is more likely that former Essenes would have agreed with the Fourth Evangelist and with the author of 1 John against the schismatics. A third rift, well-known and discussed in most commentaries, is also evident in John.82 The Gospel’s prologue and other passages show us with impressive force the polemic between the Johannine group and the followers of John the Baptizer. The Evangelist has the Baptizer state, “I am not the Christ.” The Baptizer is even portrayed as denying that he is Elijah or “the prophet” (see John 1:19–23). In this attempt to distance the Baptizer from Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist may reveal his knowledge of Qumran messianology; that is, at Qumran Elijah, the prophet, and the Messiahs are distinguished.83 These retorts in the Fourth Gospel are probably directed against those Jews who believed that John the Baptizer was the Christ, or at least Elijah, or the prophet. In this Gospel the function of the Baptizer is reduced to making straight the way of the Lord, as Isaiah prophesied (1:23), and proclaiming that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (1:29) and “the Son of God” (1:34).84 We are thus given a view of the Baptizer that reflects the needs and convictions of the Johannine community. These observations cumulatively lead to a reconsideration of the Johannine community. It seems to have been something like a “school.” We should not forget, however, that it was similar to other schools in antiquity and was not simply the Qumran Community revived.85 The clearest signals that the Fourth Gospel is from a school are the evidence of its relation to 1 John, the apparent writing and rewriting of the Gospel itself (the addition of chs. 1 and 21; 4:2; and perhaps chs. 15–17), and the manifest similarities between the Johannine community and ancient schools. Since the different layers of writing in the Fourth Gospel may be 81. The rumors that this text has the Messiah raise the dead is based on a dubious restoration and overlooks the fact that, in the immediate context, the governing subject (nomen regens) is clearly “the Lord.” 82. See Wilhelm Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums (Freiburg: Mohr [Siebeck], 1898); Rudolf K. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 84–97. 83. See the insightful reflections by Herman N. Ridderbos in The Gospel according to John (trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 65. 84. In chapter 1 in this volume, I discuss the hypothesis that Qumran influence impinged on the writing of the Fourth Gospel through John the Baptizer. 85. R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School (SBLDS 26; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). See also Georg Strecker, “Die Anfänge der Johanneishchen Schule,” NTS 32 (1986): 31–47, and Eugen Ruckstuhl, “Zur Antithese Idiolekt-Soziolekt im johanneischen Schrifttum,” in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 219–64.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

125

by different authors, and each layer reflects the same vocabulary, use of symbolism, and sociology of knowledge,86 it is evident that they cumulatively point to a Johannine School. A scribal school at Qumran was contemplated, but not defended, in 1958 by Malachi Martin.87 It is now evident that most of the manuscripts found in the eleven Qumran caves were copied or composed somewhere besides Qumran and that there is a discernible scribal school at Qumran. The manuscripts that were composed or copied at Qumran share a common orthography, morphology, and unique scribal features such as the paragraphos sign and the writing of the tetragrammaton as tetrapuncta (four dots) and sometimes with paleo-Hebrew characters.88 In numerous publications Emanuel Tov has detected and amassed the evidence for the Qumran scribal school.89 Both the Qumran school and the Johannine School faced not only ostracism but also persecution. The high priest and some of the Temple police persecuted the Qumran school. The Johannine community faced opposition and death from synagogal Jews (16:2) and then rejection from followers of Jesus who denied he had been a “fleshly” human being (thus, the cause of the Johannine schism was Docetism).90 Experts on the Gospel of John have begun to agree on a probable solution to a major problem. John 14 ends with Jesus’ exhortation to his disciples, “Rise, let us go hence” (v. 31). According to the Gospel’s present shape, Jesus subsequently launches into long speeches (chs. 15–17). Then we come to John 18, which begins, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples across the Kidron valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered” (v. 1). These words follow chapter 14 much more sensibly than chapters 15 through 86. The fact of a unified vocabulary and use of language throughout the strata in the Fourth Gospel was clarified by E. Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl with P. Dschulnigg. See Eduard Schweizer, Ego Eimi (2d ed.; FRLANT 56; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965); and Eugen Ruckstuhl and Peter Dschulnigg, Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium (NTOA 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 87. Malachi Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Bibliothèque du Muséon 44–45; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1958), 1:393–402; 2:710–11. 88. Seven of the eight manuscripts in which more than one hand is discernible reveal the Qumran scribal school’s characteristics; hence, these seven texts may indicate cooperation within the Qumran scribal school. I am grateful to Emanuel Tov for this information. 89. See esp. Emanuel Tov, “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 199—216. 90. See Peter Stuhlmacher’s insights in “Zum Thema: Das Evangelium und die Evangelien,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; ET The Gospel and the Gospels; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 12–15.

126

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

17. Hence, John 15–17 was probably added by someone (perhaps the Evangelist himself) in a “second edition” of the Gospel. The clinching argument in favor of this hypothesis is the recognition that chapters 15 through 17 appeal for unity. John 15 uses the image of the vine and urges the reader to remain grafted onto the true vine, which is Jesus. John 17 is Jesus’ appeal to God that his disciples be one: “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one” (17:20). These words make best sense in light of the sociological rift in the community. The Fourth Evangelist (or a later editor) has Jesus appeal to the members of the Johannine community, probably calling on all of them to avoid a schism, or to heal the schism. We should note, as Bultmann demonstrated long ago, that the Prologue, John 1:1–18, is probably a hymn once chanted in the community and now added to the Gospel for the purpose of clarifying Jesus’ origins (eschatology becomes protology) and that Jesus had clearly come in the flesh (1:14). Bultmann noted that the most striking parallels to the Logos-hymn are found in the Odes of Solomon.91 After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the recovery of the Greek version of Ode 11, Michel Testuz concluded that the Odes were composed by an Essene.92 Jacob Licht, among others, acknowledged the strong links between the Odes and Qumran.93 Jean Carmignac and I suggested, with different nuances and insights, that the author was a “Christian” who may once have been an Essene.94 Conceivably, this author completed his compositions within, or in the environs of, the Johannine School.95 No other early work except the Odes refers so frequently to Jesus as “the Word.” And this terminology is best known to us from John 1:1–18; but the attempts to prove that the Odes depend on the Fourth Gospel have not proved persuasive to most experts. As Smith reported, “The many affinities with the Odes of Solomon, which partly overlap with those of Qumran, are not easily explained as the result of the Odist’s use of the Johannine 91. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 13–18. 92. Michel Testuz, ed., Papyrus Bodmer X–XII (Cologne: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959). 93. Jacob J. Licht, “Solomon, Odes of,” EncJud 15 (1971): 114–15. 94. Jean Carmignac, “Un qumrânien converti au christianisme: L’auteur des Odes de Salomon,” in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14. Oktober 1961 (ed. H. Bardtke; Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissehschaft 42; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1963), 75–108; James H. Charlesworth, “Les Odes de Salomon et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte,” RB 77 (1970): 522–49. 95. See James H. Charlesworth, “Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 107–36.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

127

literature.”96 Scholars are likewise almost unanimous in concluding that it is unlikely that the Fourth Evangelist borrowed from the Odes. Hence, it seems most likely that the Odes of Solomon come to us from the same environment as the Fourth Gospel and perhaps were composed within the Johannine School.97 The Fourth Gospel was not written by a philosopher working alone and dependent on the Synoptic Gospels.98 It is, rather, the product of a group of scholars; most of them were Jews who worked independently of the Synoptics.99 The Fourth Gospel took shape over more than two decades in something like a school. It is intriguing to ponder who may have been members of this school. How many of its early members had been Essenes? Had any of them formerly lived on the marl terrace south of Qumran or in one of the caves just north or west of Qumran? Did they influence the Johannine community and the composition of the Fourth Gospel by what they had memorized in an Essene setting (at Qumran, Jericho, Jerusalem, or elsewhere in ancient Palestine)?

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND SOCIOLOGY These insights into the Johannine group and their social rifts with John the Baptizer’s group, with another form of “Judaism,” and with what will 96. Smith, Johannine Christianity, 27. 97. See James H. Charlesworth and R. Alan Culpepper, “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” CBQ 35 (1973): 298—322. A slightly revised version of this work appears as “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” in in Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of John (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; vol. 1 of Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon; JSPSup 22; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 232—60. 98. Even though we have come to realize how different are the Tendenzen of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, I concur with the majority of scholars that there is still merit in seeing these three Gospels together, as the Synoptics, and in contrast with the Fourth Gospel. They tend to see the chronology and teaching of Jesus with (syn) the same eye (optic). Yet we must be alert to the distortions that also can arise by the assumption that they see Jesus synoptically and with little differences. 99. Although the Fourth Evangelist may have known one of the Synoptics, he was not dependent on any one of them, as Gardner-Smith, Goodenough, Käsemann, Cullmann, Robinson, Smith, and other gifted scholars have demonstrated in different ways. As Peder Borgen pointed out, the Fourth Gospel seems to relate to the pre-Synoptic tradition that is evident, for example, in Paul; see his “John and the Synoptics,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels (ed. D. L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 408–37. See the major study by Dwight Moody Smith, John among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); and idem, “The Problem of John and the Synoptics in Light of the Relation between Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” in John and the Synoptics (ed. A. Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 147–62.

128

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

eventually be labeled “heretical Christians” lead to further sociological reflections. As W. A. Meeks pointed out, this Gospel indicates that faith in Jesus demands “transfer to a community which has totalistic and exclusive claims.” A study of the redactional nature of the Fourth Gospel helps one perceive how the additions and expansions reflect the history of the community. It has become isolated.100 The study of the thoughts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially those composed at Qumran, and archaeological examination of the ruins at and caves near Qumran reveal to us an exclusive Jewish sect. Although the Qumranites owned and used documents written by many other Jewish groups, they deliberately cut themselves off from other Jews. They vehemently rejected the Temple cult (at least during the formative period at Qumran). The Qumranites saw their own sect as “Sons of Light”; all others, even those heralded as the most pious within Jerusalem, were “Sons of Darkness.” Others belonged to “the lot of Belial,” the devil. The Qumranites were a sociological group with strong barriers.101 They lived “liminally,” between the end time and the messianic age.102 Only members of the Qumran Community have secret knowledge, understand the writing that is encoded (4Q186; 4Q317), and possess the key for unlocking God’s word (1QpHab 7). Hate of others is institutionalized, and love is reserved only for “the Sons of Light,” those who belong to the Qumran (or Essene) Community. These reflections help us to understand Johannine sectarianism, even if one is not impressed by the evidence of direct influence of Qumran thought on this Gospel. Like the scrolls composed at Qumran (esp. 1QS; 1Q28a [= 1QSa]; 1Q28b [= 1QSb]; 1QH; 1QM), the Fourth Gospel is the product of a sect. In the Johannine community were Jews who represented numerous types of Judaism, and it now seems evident that more than one type of Jew played a significant role in it.103 These Jews were being cut off from other Jewish groups and excluded from synagogue services. The Jews in charge of the local synagogue were in revolt against 100. Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72, esp. 70–71. 101. See my sociological reflections in chapter 1 in this book: “John the Baptizer and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” 102. I use the term “liminality” in the sense defined by Victor W. Turner, Process, Performance, and Pilgrimage: A Study in Comparative Symbology (New Delhi: Concept, 1979), esp. 11–59; see also Jonathan Z. Smith, “Birth Upside Down or Right Side Up?” HR 9 (1969–70): 281–303; idem, “A Place on Which to Stand: Symbols and Social Change,” Worship 44 (1970): 457–74. 103. R. E. Brown rightly suggested that some Samaritans seemed to have joined the Johannine community. See Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 34–40.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

129

the Johannine group.104 In such a social setting there was no place for secret admirers of Jesus (like Nicodemus). Unlike Jesus’ initial group, but like the Qumran Community, the Johannine group had strong social barriers, and the transition through initiation from Judaism to “Johannine Judaism” was surely the passage from one social status to another.105 In the process ethnic identities would have been strained. The members of the Johannine community—Greeks as well as Jews—also lived in a liminal time between Jesus’ resurrection and his return (thus, esp. 1 John). They too claimed to possess secret knowledge, since Jesus is the only one who knows and reveals God (John 1:1–8). As Herbert Leroy and François Vouga have demonstrated, the Johannine esoteric language and use of rhetoric, especially the rhetoric of misunderstanding, reveal the existence of a social group with special speech known only to those who know the truth.106 Perhaps here also—in the use of esoteric knowledge and secret language—the Fourth Gospel reflects Essene influence. Perhaps under the influence of Qumran predestinarian exclusivism, the Johannine group more and more delimited the love commandment so that it included only its own members. This development is complete by the time 1 John is written: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers” (3:14). Those outside the community, especially other followers of Jesus, are labeled antichrists (2:18–25). Once Qumran, or Essene, influence is obvious in ideological terms, it is wise to perceive possible Qumran influence in sociological issues. Is it possible that earlier rivalries between Essenes and Pharisees (and Sadducees) were later transferred to the social setting of the Johannine sect?107

104. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), esp. 208–9. 105. A. Destro, a cultural anthropologist, and M. Pesce, a New Testament scholar, compare the process of initiation between 1QS 6 and the Fourth Gospel. They discover major similarities and differences. See Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce, Come nasce una religione: Antropologia ed esegesi del Vangelo di Giovanni (Rome: Laterza, 2000). 106. See Herbert Leroy, Rätsel und Missverständnis (BBB 30; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1968); and François Vouga, Le cadre historique et l’intention théologique de Jean (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), esp. 15–36. 107. As J. Painter points out, “This comparison [between John and Qumran] is important because it highlights the sectarian character of both the Qumran community and the Johannine Christians” (Quest, 38). See also Marie-Émile Boismard, “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 156–65.

130

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE TRANSLATING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TODAY

The Greek noun Ioudaioi (‘Ioudai=oi) is almost always translated “Jews.” That rendering is, however, sometimes inaccurate. The social setting of the Fourth Gospel, and the rivalry between Jewish groups—the postJamnian Hillelites and the post-70 “Christians” who had been born Jews—caused the Fourth Evangelist creatively to reconstruct the history of Jesus’ time.108 By his own time the opponents of Jesus’ group are not the Sadducees and chief priests, who ceased to exist as a social force after 70 C.E. The opponents were the only other group of Jews who survived the destruction of 70: the Pharisees, followers of Hillel and Shammai. It is they whom John sometimes simply labeled Ioudaioi. Context is more important than etymology when translating a word that has a wide semantic range. It is, therefore, sometimes absurd to translate Ioudaioi as “Jews.” Take, for example, John 11:54: “Jesus therefore no longer went about openly en tois Ioudaiois (e)n toi=j ‘Ioudai/oij), but went from there to the country near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples.” To render Ioudaiois in this verse as “Jews,” as do most translators, indicates that Ephraim was not a Jewish town, that the disciples were not “Jews,” and perhaps that Jesus was not a Jew. According to the Fourth Gospel (11:57) and many other passages in the Gospels and Acts, the opposition to Jesus emanated from the priestly circles in Jerusalem. It is sometimes best then to render Ioudaiois in 11:54 as “Judean leaders.” In this way, the meaning of John 11:54 becomes clear: “Jesus therefore no longer went about openly among the Judean leaders.”109 Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish writings, especially the Pseudepigrapha, has increased translators’ sensitivity to the different meanings that words obtained by the first century C.E. One of these multivalent terms is surely Ioudaioi. As I hope to show in a future publication, before 70 C.E. there were many Jewish groups, certainly more than twelve Jewish groups or sects (pace Josephus). After 70 only two Jewish groups survived with any recognition and influence: the Hillel (and 108. See the studies by Jewish and Christian scholars in Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); and see R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 125–32. 109. For a development of this position, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Gospel of John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus ( John 11:54 and 14:6),” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000 (ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville; Jewish and Christian Heritage Series 1; Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2001), 479–513.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

131

Shammai) group, which gave us the Mishnah, and the Jesus group (or sect), which gave us the New Testament. In 68 C.E., the Qumran Community was burned, and it disappeared from history. It also vanished from view except for the upper portions of the northern tower, until Roland de Vaux excavated what many had erroneously judged to be a Roman fortress. After 70, and the burning of Jerusalem, the Qumranites and other Essenes were murdered or eventually, perhaps slowly, disappeared.

S UMMARY AND RECONSTRUCTION A reevaluation of the relation between “Qumran and John” should begin by emphasizing a new perspective.110 Forty years ago we imagined that Qumran was perhaps an isolated group living in the wilderness. Now we know that only a small percentage of the writings found in the Qumran caves were composed at Qumran. The Qumran Scrolls represent writings from many other Jewish groups, including at least the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, the Jewish substratum to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, early versions of the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document, Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms, the Prayer of Joseph, Second Ezekiel, and the Copper Scroll. We now take far more seriously Josephus’s reference to two types of Essenes. And we recognize that Essenes lived throughout ancient Palestine, including the southwestern section of Jerusalem. In the process of seeking to comprehend the extent of Essenism in antiquity, we have become much more aware of the unique features of Qumran theology. To be taken seriously is David Flusser’s comment that the Qumran Community “is the only group within Second Temple Judaism to develop a systematic theology.…The Dead Sea Sect, in the paradoxical restriction of its ideas, created a system which later influenced the history of all mankind.”111 As I have repeatedly stated in my 110. Here I am succinctly collecting my own reflections over thirty years. I am not reviewing the research by Qumran and Johannine experts nor merely summarizing the previous discussion. Hence, it is not possible to present an exhaustive report of the best research. For bibliographical assistance, consult Bastiaan Jongeling, A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958–1969 (STDJ 7; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 1–29; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (rev. ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 173–79; and Florentino García Martínez and Donald W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970–95 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). 111. David Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect (Tel Aviv: MOD Books, 1989), 46.

132

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

own works, while the Qumranites taught an esoteric wisdom reserved only for full initiates, some of their ideas, symbols, and technical terms were known by other Jews. Indeed, Josephus knew a vast amount about their theology, and that observation alone puts to rest the claim that Essene theology was a secret known only to full initiates at Qumran. This caveat, however, does not dismiss the uniqueness of Qumran thought or make it indistinguishable from other forms of thought in pre-70 Judaism. These observations lead us to focus more deeply on the Fourth Gospel. Rudolf Schnackenburg concludes that apocalypticism has not influenced John as much as Qumran thought. He contends that “the frequently recurring concepts of ‘truth,’ ‘reveal’ and ‘know,’ the importance of the divine Spirit, the longing for the heavenly world and also the close brotherly union seem to establish a close affinity between the Qumran community and the circle which one must envisage behind the Johannine writings, from their mentality and diction.”112 Schnackenburg represents the consensus among specialists who have focused intensive research on the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relations with the Fourth Gospel. Since many, perhaps most, Johannine experts see some Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel, we might continue to explore more deeply the ways that Essene thought and symbolism may have helped to shape the Fourth Gospel. I have organized these initial probes into thirteen areas: 1. Cosmic dualism and its termini technici. Both the sectarian Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel express a dualism in terms of two cosmic spirits. The evil spirit causes the presence of evil in the world. Technical terms for expressing this conception were developed in a unique way at Qumran, and members of the Johannine School inherited these terms from Essenes. At Qumran and in the Fourth Gospel, we hear about “the spirits of truth and deceit” (1QS 3.18–19; 4.21, 23; John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. 1 John 4:6), the “Holy Spirit” (1QS 4.21; John 14:26; 20:22), and “the Sons of Light” (1QS 3.13, 24–25; John 12:36). The Johannine Paraclete and Jesus himself (the “Light of the World,” John 8:12; 9:5) function in many ways as do “the Spirit of Truth” and “Angel of Light” at Qumran (1QS 3.25). Note these shared termini technici: Dead Sea Scrolls—Fourth Gospel in the light of life (1QS 3.7) the life of life (John 8:12) and they shall walk and who shall walk in the ways of darkness (1QS 3.21; cf. 4.11) in the darkness (12:35; cf 8:12) 112. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 1:129.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH the furious wrath of the God of vengeance (1QS 4.2–3) blindness of eyes (1QS 4.11) in the fullness of his grace (1QS 4.4; cf. 4.5) the works of God (1QS 4.4)

133

the wrath of God (3:36) the eyes of the blind (10:21) full of grace (1:14) the works of God (6:28; 9:3)

Because of their isolation from the Temple, the priests who followed the Righteous Teacher into the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord, acting out the prophecy of Isa 40:3, perceived reality in stark ways and developed a unique form of dualism with sharply focused technical terms. The Fourth Gospel certainly reflects the dualism developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In some ways the Johannine School and its Gospel have been impacted by Essene concepts and terms. What is new today after over fifty years of research and the ability to study approximately eight hundred scrolls? First, the discoveries that this dualism is defined, and its technical terms amassed, are only in 1QS 3 and 4. Second, the candidates for admission into the Qumran Community were most likely forced to memorize this section. Third, other Qumran compositions indicate that these terms reflect the mind-set of the community and overflow into other Qumran compositions. One should not jump to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel is virtually a Qumran composition. As Schnackenburg points out, the “important contrast between life and death, however, which dominates Johannine thinking, has no parallel at Qumran.” To him, this discovery is the “strongest argument to show that Johannine ‘dualism’ cannot have been taken over from Qumran.” Johannine dualism is certainly influenced by the Essenes, but it was not unreflectively borrowed from them without incorporation into the prismatic Christian kerygma. As Schnackenburg stresses, “One can hardly say more than that the Johannine ‘dualism,’ based on Jewish thought, has in many respects its closest parallels in Qumran, especially with regard to ‘light-darkness’. But then there are profound differences which stem from the Christian faith and its doctrine of salvation.”113 The uniqueness and brilliance of Qumran dualism and its technical, well-developed terms are stunning in the history of human thought. To proceed by recognizing that they shape the mentalité—though not the esprit—of the Fourth Gospel is the correct track to follow, as we seek to discern how and in what ways Qumran conceptions and expressions shaped the presentation of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative, conceptuality, and terminology.114 113. Ibid., 1:131–32. 114. In using these terms I wish to express my indebtedness to R. de Vaux, P. Benoit, M.-É. Boismard, and J. Murphy-O’Connor. During my time at the École

134

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

2. Dualism of flesh and spirit. As D. Flusser and W. D. Davies have pellucidly demonstrated, a feature of Qumran theology that distinguishes it from other theologies in Early Judaism is the flesh-versus-spirit dualism.115 In Early Judaism the flesh-versus-spirit dualism denoted far more than merely human weaknesses versus divine strength; it mirrored an eschatological conflict, two spheres of power, and overlapping modes of existence.116 Thus, we obviously need to explore how this particular terminology shaped the Fourth Gospel, especially in 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The cultured articulation of this flesh-versus-spirit dualism in the Fourth Gospel is indicative of reflections by sophisticated Jews living within the Johannine School. Could the Evangelist have been influenced by this particular dualism, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Few should be so foolish as to deny that this shared theologoumenon indicates some Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel, but its extent and the reasons for its occurrence raise different issues. 3. Predestination. Magen Broshi rightly stresses that perhaps “the most important theological point differentiating the sectarians from the rest of Judaism was their belief in predestination, coupled with a dualistic view of the world (praedestinatio duplex).”117 Josephus reported that the Essenes’ predestinarianism distinguished them from other Jewish groups, like the Sadducees and Pharisees. As James C. VanderKam states, the Essenes thought that God “not only predetermined all and then proceeded to create the universe in line with his plan; he also chose to communicate with Biblique they emphasized, under the influence of J. Guitton, that early “Christian” theology was shaped by the esprit of Jesus and in some ways developed through the mentalité of Qumran. 115. See William D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl and J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1992), 157–82; David Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect, 52–56. 116. See James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1.3–4,” JTS 24 (1973): 40–68, esp. 52–55. It is surprising to read today R. P. Menzies’ conclusion that the dualism in the Rule is a psychological dualism, pertaining to “human dispositions.” See Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology ( JSNTSup 54; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 80. 117. See Magen Broshi, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1979), 12–20, with quotation from 15. Flusser concurs: “The great basic idea, which the Teacher of Righteousness apparently gave the world and which differed from those of similar movements of his age, was the doctrine we call the doctrine of predestination.” See Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect, 46. I am impressed that the three of us independently came to the startling conclusion that the Essenes bequeathed to Western civilization the concept of predestination.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

135

his creatures and to scatter clues throughout his creation to the structure of the cosmos and the unfolding pattern of history.”118 One way for Qumranites to explain why well-educated and cultured people, like the reigning high priest, were so impervious to the truth was to say that they were not created as “Sons of Light.” They are not among those who have revealed to them special knowledge (cf. 1QpHab 7). Predestination is implied in the Rule and apparent in the Horoscopes. In the Fourth Gospel there is no thoroughgoing predestination, because of its missiology (see, e.g., 3:16–21).119 There are, however, definite echoes of predestination in the Fourth Gospel. Note the following passages: no one can come to Jesus “unless the Father” who sent him “draws” that person (6:44); those who do not believe in Jesus have the devil as their father (8:44); and the Lord has blinded the eyes of those who do not see (that is, believe) that Jesus is the Christ (12:40; see also 1:12–13; 3:31; 9:39–41; 6:45). Predestination may also be implied in the contrast between those “of God” (8:47) and “of the truth” (18:37), on one side; and those “of this world” (8:23), “of the earth” (i.e., “from below,” 3:31), and “of the devil” (8:44), on the other. Flusser rightly stressed that some “connection or affinity” between the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel is “indicated” by the fact that the dualism shapes the expression of predestination. As Flusser stated, “The predestinational ideas are linked with dualistic motifs: ‘He that is from God heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not; because ye are not from God’ [John 8:47].”120 Another passage that may reflect some predestinarian strain is the claim that the “children of God” are those “who were born, not from blood nor from the will of the flesh nor from the will of man, but from God” (1:12–13). Are these not echoes of the idea that was created at Qumran: predestination? Genesis and creation theology and traditions shaped the Qumran documents and the Fourth Gospel. Bauckham correctly points to the importance of Genesis in understanding the development of the light-darkness motif in the Fourth Gospel,121 but he fails to see that this connection does not undermine Qumran influence on the Fourth Gospel; in fact, perhaps it enhances the possible source of such influence. To ascertain the extent of possible influence on the Fourth Gospel, we might mine the Qumran commentaries on Genesis or pesharim on Genesis and the abundance of 118. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 109. 119. See Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 1:132–33. 120. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 28–29. 121. Bauckham, in Porter and Evans, The Scrolls and the Scriptures, 278.

136

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

copies of Genesis found in the Qumran caves, as well as creation motifs in sectarian writings like the Thanksgiving Hymns.122 4. Pneumatology. In the Qumran Scrolls and in the Fourth Gospel we find a strikingly similar pneumatology. This shared pneumatology is sometimes impressively different from what is found in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Most important, the concept of the “Holy Spirit” in the Qumran Scrolls reflects a development from the Hebrew Scriptures.123 The concept of Spirit at Qumran became a personification, and probably a hypostatic being, separate from God. As Frank M. Cross stated judiciously, “In the Qumrân Rule the Spirit of Truth has a ‘greater distance’ from God; the hypostatized Spirit of God has become largely identified with an angelic creature, the spirit from God, and their functions combined.”124 This development was achieved by the Essenes and unique to them; the concept of “the Holy Spirit” appears in other early Jewish writings only in texts that are suspiciously under Essene influence. The concept of the Holy Spirit abounds in the scrolls composed at Qumran. Hence, the Fourth Gospel, which identifies the Paraclete with “the Holy Spirit” (14:26) and has the risen Jesus breathe upon his chosen disciples “the Holy Spirit” (20:22), has most likely been influenced, somehow, by this uniquely Qumran pneumatology.125 We need to allow for the possibility that earlier Jesus126 had inherited the concept of the Holy Spirit from the Essenes.127 The unusual term “Spirit of Truth” also links the Qumran Scrolls (1QS 3.18–19; 4.21, 23) with the Fourth Gospel (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. the variant in 4:24).128 Apparently, the Fourth Evangelist inherited this as 122. See esp. Michael A. Daise, “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 293—305. 123. See Frederick F. Bruce, “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts,” ALUOS 6 (1966–68): 49–55. 124. Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 153 (italics his). 125. If the Fourth Evangelist was influenced by Paul, then we should consider if Paul was influenced by Essenes as he developed his pneumatology. 126. Obviously, we need to explore to what extent the early followers of Jesus imparted pneumatology to Jesus and that this aspect of the early kerygma and didache eventually helped shaped the Fourth Gospel, as well as the other Gospels. 127. See my discussion in “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 20–22. 128. R. Bauckham (“The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 [ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000], 105—15), an erudite and gifted scholar, seeks “to disprove” the possibility that Qumran has influenced the Fourth Gospel (108). I

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

137

a technical term from Essenes. In the Fourth Gospel the Paraclete appears mysteriously, without explanation or introduction. This being is reminiscent of Qumran pneumatology; thus, it is wise to consider the advice of Otto Betz that the Johannine Paraclete is rooted in Qumran theology.129 The overall mentality—explaining human destiny and meaning through warring cosmic angels that are subservient to one Creator, assisted by cosmic beings named “the Holy Spirit” and “the Spirit of Truth,” and expressed in terms developed within a dualistic paradigm—unites the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel.130 It is irrelevant that one can find some elements of this dualistic paradigm in the Hebrew Scriptures. What is unique at Qumran is the context and collection of complex terms into a new system. In the Hebrew Scriptures one can frequently find the name Joshua or Jesus. In the Old Testament Apocrypha one can ubiquitously find the name Judas. Such discoveries, however, do not suggest that there is nothing unique about the presence of these names in the New Testament. In that corpus of texts, they take on a new meaning because of a new context and the interrelationship of the names Jesus and Judas in a new story. The dualistic paradigm is created by a great mind at Qumran (probably the Righteous Teacher). It is this unique system of thought—the dualistic paradigm and its termini technici—that is reflected in the Fourth Gospel. 5. Realizing eschatology. As is well-known, Qumran theology, in contrast to the Jewish apocalypses, is built upon the presupposition that the doubt that scholars will be convinced that this method is evidence of objective historical research. He also claims that in “assessing the hypothesis of a Qumran origin for Johannine dualism, it is therefore very useful to focus on precisely how this imagery of light and darkness is used in each case” (106). He thus falls into the error of functionalism (different uses do not prove different influences). He misses the following point: evidence that an author has been influenced by a document but changes some of its meaning and uses it differently than originally intended is still clear evidence that the author has been influenced by the document. That is precisely what happens when Matthew redacts Mark. However, using his “method,” Bauckham, influenced by but misunderstanding Lindars, contends that the appearance of “the Spirit of Truth” in Qumran sectarian writings and the Fourth Gospel—but in no other document antedating Bar Kokhba—is irrelevant and should not be included in a study of Qumran and the Fourth Gospel, because in the latter work the term does not appear “in the context of the lightdarkness imagery” (113–14). Cannot a Qumran technical term be used differently by the Fourth Evangelist? And are we to think that “the Spirit of Truth” appears in a Gospel that is not permeated by the imagery (and indeed the paradigm) of light-versus-darkness? 129. Otto Betz, Der Parakiet Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im Johannesevangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGJU 2; Leiden: Brill, 1963). Also see Alfred R. C. Leaney, “The Johannine Paraclete and the Qumran Scrolls,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 38–61. 130. Of course, the authors of the Qumran Scrolls habitually refer to God as l), whereas the Fourth Evangelist preserves Jesus’ preferred reference to God as Father, path&r (e.g., John 14:8–11).

138

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

present—and not the far-off future—is the end time, or the latter days.131 The pesharim (the Qumran biblical commentaries) interpret Scripture so that ancient prophecies do not point to the future; they explain the past, present, and near future of the Qumranites.132 The Thanksgiving Hymns breathe the air of end-time realization. This is singularly important, since only in the Fourth Gospel—in stark contrast with the eschatology of the Synoptics, Paul, 2 Peter, and Revelation—do we find a shift from the expectation of the eschaton to the exhortation to experience salvation in the here and now. In his three-volume Die johanneische Eschatologie, Jörg Frey has amply demonstrated the striking parallels between the Qumran concept of time and the Johannine concept of time, in which the realizing dimension of eschatology appears within a dualistic framework.133 Surely, in light of obvious Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel, it is not wise to deny that Essene concepts, perspectives, and terms have shaped the eschatology of the Evangelist. 6. Esoteric knowledge. Both the Essene literature and the Fourth Gospel stress esoteric knowledge. For approximately two years, and maybe more, the Qumran initiate was instructed to memorize Essene lore. During this time he was periodically tested and examined for moral and mental acceptance—and most likely for the ability to interpret Scripture using the pesher method. The Fourth Gospel reflects a school in which teaching, studying, and interpreting the Scriptures proceeded in line with special, revealed knowledge. Both the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel are first and foremost revelatory compositions. Both highlight the importance of “knowledge,” an emphasis that makes them exceptional in early Jewish literature before 135 C.E. This shared emphasis may perhaps be because of Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel. 7. Salvific and eschatological “living water.” Both in the scrolls and in the Fourth Gospel we find the technical term “living water” (1QH 8.7, 16; 4Q504; 11QTemple 45.16;134 John 4:10–11). In both writings this expression denotes eschatological salvation. In the Biblia Hebraica (and in rabbinics) the term means “running” or fresh water. In the New Testament “living water” appears only in the Fourth Gospel (cf. Rev 21:6; 22:1, 17). That is, only the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel 131. One of the best studies is by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). 132. See Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History. 133. Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997–2000), esp. 1:209, 274–75, 400; and 3:77, 200. 134. See James H. Charlesworth, “An Allegorical and Autobiographical Poem by the Moreh Hasi-Siedeq (1QH 8:4–11),” in “Sha(arei Talmon” (ed. M. A. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 295–307.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

139

use a term that means “living water.” In both, in contrast to other literature, this term signifies salvific and eschatological sustenance that is necessary for “life” and “eternal life.” The noun “water” occurs with unusual frequency in the scrolls, and the provisions for purification at Qumran are exceptional. A shared preoccupation with water distinguishes the Fourth Gospel from the first three canonical Gospels: u3dwr appears 21 times in the Fourth Gospel but only a total of 18 times in the Synoptics (7 times in Matthew, 5 in Mark, and 6 in Luke). Here, surely, one should be open to some Essene influence on the Fourth Evangelist. 8. United community. The Hebrew noun Yah[ad (dxy) is well-known in biblical Hebrew; but in the Dead Sea Scrolls it obtains a unique meaning. It is usually translated “community,” which reflects the concept of oneness.135 This technical term Yah[ad is pervasive in the Rule, shaping and uniting the disparate works collected into it.136 The Greek term hen (e3n) appears 36 times in the Fourth Gospel; as Johan Ferreira states, “the mere frequency of the term and its centrality in the narrative underscores its importance for Johannine theology.”137 After or just before the schism that devastated the Johannine community, the Evangelist, or one of his students, enlarged the first edition of this Gospel, adding chapters 15–17. It is impressive to observe therein the repetitive emphasis placed on the concept of unity, expressed through the word “one.” The author depicts Jesus praying to the Father, beseeching that his followers be united into one: I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may be one (hen), even as you, O Father, are in me, and I in you.…The glory that you gave me I have given to them, so that 135. Long ago Preben Wernberg-Møller warned against thinking that the dxy, indicated “a monastically organized society of Jewish ascetics.” He rightly stressed that the community was “open for membership to any pious Jew of the required intellectual and moral standard.” See his “The Nature of the Yah[ad according to the Manual of Discipline and Related Documents,” in Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969 (ed. J. MacDonald; ALUOS 6; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 56—81; quotations are on 61. See also Shemaryahu Talmon, “Sectarian dxy—A Biblical Noun,” VT 3 (1953): 133—40; repr. as “The Qumran dxy—A Biblical Noun,” in idem, The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 53—60; Johann Maier, “Zum Begriff dxyh in den Texten von Qumran,” in Qumran (ed. K.-E. Grözinger; Wege der Forschung 410; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), 225—48. 136. For the frequency of the use of dxy, see James H. Charlesworth et al., eds., Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 275 (this form without a preformative appears ten times in 1QS). 137. Johan Fer reira, Johannine Ecclesiology ( JSNTS 160; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 132.

140

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE they may be one (hen) even as we are one (hen), I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (hen). [ John 17:20–23]

g water” (1QH Q504; <~?~q is 9 or 11q20?>

The reference in John 17 to the “glory that you gave me” has a Qumran ring to it. The understanding and use of “glory” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel are significantly similar and distinct from the concept of glory in the Old Testament. At Qumran “glory” denotes God’s glorious design and wisdom (1QS 3.16; 4.18) or the dwelling place of God (1QH 12.30). The Qumran linkage between God’s glory and salvation (1QH 6.12, 14; 12.15, 22; 16.9) is a significant development beyond the Old Testament concept of “glory” and may lie behind the Johannine claim that “we have beheld his glory” (1:14).138 Ferreira concludes his comparison of “glory” at Qumran and in the Fourth Gospel with these words: “John inherited his concept of do&ca from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and modified it to emphasize salvation corresponding to his Christology, which emphasizes the descent of the heavenly Revealer.”139 Is it also conceivable that converted Essenes living within the Johannine community, and perhaps some converted Essenes working in the Johannine School, helped other Johannine Jews (and Greeks) work through the tragic traumas of their schism in light of a theology of “being one.” Ferreira judges, and I think rightly, that the Qumran use of terms for one and oneness (Yah[ad [dxy]) “may help to clarify the Johannine motif of unity,” and that these do help us comprehend “some of the traditions that flow into the Johannine theological prism.” He also wisely stresses that the “Johannine oneness motif is not to be found in any” prior Jewish tradition, and that the creative theology of this Gospel is seen in presenting the Father and Son as one, and united, “in action and function.”140 The full extent of Essene influence at the level of the Gospel’s redaction, perhaps as a means of rethinking some aspects of the schism with the synagogue and then within the community, needs to be explored and carefully researched. Guiding such further research should be the experience of alienation and rejection experienced by Essenes for centuries and the fact that both the Qumran Community and the Johannine community may be designated “sects,” since both were isolated from “mainstream” Judaism and persecuted by some of its leaders. 9. Purity. The Qumranites accentuated the necessity of ritualistic purity in an extreme way within Second Temple Judaism. As Hannah K. 138. See ibid., 145–65. 139. Ibid., 162. 140. Ibid., 133–34.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

141

Harrington states, although the Qumran Scrolls “represent differences of authorship, date and genre, they consistently champion a more stringent standard of ritual purity than was currently observed in Jerusalem.”141 This is obvious from the numerous cisterns and mikva)ot (ritual baths) at Qumran, and from the claim in Some Works of Torah (4Q394–399) that because of purity issues the Qumranites have separated from other Jews, especially the priests in the Temple. The author of the Fourth Gospel and his community knew in a special way the Jewish rites for purification and the debates concerning them (see John 2:6; 3:25). If the Baptizer and his followers were influenced by Essene rites of purification,142 then perhaps the debate between them and another Jew “concerning purification” (peri _ kaqarismou=), according to 3:25, may suggest dimensions of Essene thought to which the Fourth Evangelist alludes. The references in the Fourth Gospel are oblique, suggesting that perhaps the author knew about the Essene obsession with purity and the need for stone vessels for rites of purification. We will never be certain, since some Sadducees and Pharisees also most likely developed, after the “rebuilding” of the Temple, heightened requirements for purification—as we know from excavations of mikva’ot in the Upper City of Jerusalem and in Herodian Jericho. 10. Messianology and Christology. Prior to the destruction of 70 C.E., only three known Jewish groups clearly yearned for the coming of the Messiah: the Jews behind the Psalms of Solomon, the Qumranites, and the followers of Jesus. Interest in Qumran messianism has peaked because of discussions of recently published texts in which “Messiah,” “the Messiah,” and messianic terms are mentioned.143 A reference book is now dedicated to Qumran-Messianism, and it contains all the relevant passages in which the Messiah, and clear messianic figures, appear in the Qumran Scrolls.144 141. Hannah K. Harrington, “Purity,” in EDSS (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:724. 142. See Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” chapter 1 in the present volume. 143. Some authors have made wild and unprofessional claims about “the Messiah” in some Dead Sea Scrolls. For a judicious assessment, see the chapters by James H. Charlesworth, Lawrence H. Schiffman, James C. VanderKam, and Shemaryahu Talmon in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); as well as the chapters by John J. Collins, James C. VanderKam, and Émile Puech in The Community of the Renewed Covenant (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994). Equally important are Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect, 83–89; and Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 317–27. 144. James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds., Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).

142

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

The Fourth Gospel is the only document in the New Testament that contains the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew and Aramaic word for “Messiah.” Only in the Fourth Gospel do we find the Greek transliteration for the Hebrew term mas ]îah[ (xy#$m); that is [Messi/an] in John 1:41 and [Messi/aj] in 4:25. Clearly, in a way unparalleled by the other Evangelists, the Fourth Evangelist and his community claimed that Jesus was to be identified as the Messiah promised to Jews. Only in the Fourth Gospel does Jesus admit that he is the Messiah. A Samaritan woman tells Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming—he who is called Christ” (4:25). Jesus says to this anonymous Samaritan woman: “I, the one speaking to you, am he” (4:26).145 Were discussions with Samaritans and Essenes, living within the Johannine School, responsible for this aspect of Johannine Christology? This possibility cannot be proved, but it remains a conceivable, and perhaps a likely, scenario. 11. A barrier for love. At Qumran the exhortation to love one’s neighbor in Lev 19:18 (cf. 19:34), which elicited deep discussions on defining “neighbor” among Jews prior to 70 C.E., was restricted to the elect ones, “the Sons of Light.” Only members of the community were “Sons of Light.” All others were “Sons of Darkness.” Concomitant with Essene predestination, a Qumranite was exhorted to love only those in the community and to hate all others (1QS 1–4).146 Surprising in light of Jesus’ exhortation to love “one another” as he had loved his disciples (John 13:34), and especially in light of his instruction to love even enemies (Matt 5:44 and parallels), is the Johannine tendency to restrict love to one’s brother in the community. This tendency comes virtually to full bloom in the Johannine Epistles. It seems wise to consider Qumran influence in the shaping of this Johannine tendency. As Marie-émile Boismard contends, it is rather obvious that 1 John “is addressed to a Christian community whose members to a large extent had been Essenes.”147 12. Anonymity. In a frustratingly disconcerting manner the Qumranites habitually avoided writing proper names. The key figures in their history are all anonymous; thus, the Righteous Teacher, the Wicked Priest, and the Man of Lies remain anonymous in all the hundreds of Qumran Scrolls.148 While a unique phenomenon in early Jewish literature, this anonymity is amazingly present in the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth 145. The Greek of John 4:26 is carefully constructed, making a play on the ineffable tetragrammaton, Yahweh: “I am [he], the one who is speaking to you.” 146. See Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect, 76–82. 147. Boismard, “The First Epistle of John,” 165. 148. See Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

143

Evangelist never informs the reader of the name of Jesus’ mother. The name of the Beloved Disciple is also hidden from the reader, although his identity was most likely known to the Johannine Christians.149 In stunningly unique ways the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel utilize the narrative art of anonymity. Has the tendency to employ the art of anonymity when describing the Righteous Teacher helped to shape the presentation of the Beloved Disciple?150 13. Symbolic language. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in the Thanksgiving Hymns, we find an unusually refined employment of symbolism and metaphor.151 Among the dozens of early Jewish writings, some of the scrolls may be categorized with the Fourth Gospel in terms of their refined, symbolic theology. Both the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel stand out in early Jewish literature (i.e., documents composed by Jews before 200 C.E.) with regard to the literary skills demonstrated: the employment of paronomasia, double entendre, metaphor, rhetoric, and sophisticated iconographical language. I am convinced that the best explanation for this linguistic phenomenon is that the Fourth Evangelist was directly influenced by Essenes: that is, he knew Essenes and discussed theology with them. Their highly developed language helped to shape his own reflections and articulations.

S UMMARY AND ADDITIONAL REFLECTIONS This reconstruction of the Johannine community should not seem idiosyncratic or overly imaginative. As we have indicated, especially in the notes, some Qumran or Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel is advocated by the leading experts. The Qumranites, or Essenes, were the Jewish scholars before 70 C.E. They are the Jews who were defined by scribal activity. It is clear that the Palestinian Jesus Movement was a sect within Early Judaism. It was composed primarily of Jews. The only known writing sect in Judaism before 70 disappeared after that date. As E. Earle Ellis states, the Qumran sect “combined an intense apocalyptic expectation with prolific writing.”152 The same is true of the Enoch group 149. I develop this idea in James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), xiv–xvi, xix, 14–48, 205–10, 267–68, 384–85. 150. See Jürgen Roloff, “Der johanneische ‘Lieblingsjünger’ und der ‘Lehrer der Gerechligkeit,’” NTS 15 (1968–69): 129–51. 151. See Charlesworth, “An Allegorical and Autobiograhical Poem,” 295–307. 152. E. Earle Ellis, “Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; ET The Gospel and the Gospels; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 27—54; the quotation is on 40.

144

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

that gave us much more than the five books of Enoch in so-called 1 Enoch. Before 70 C.E. and within Judaism, the most prolific writing group was the Essenes. They disappeared as a unique sect in 70. After 70 and before the defeat of Bar Kokhba (135/136), the most prolific writing group within Judaism was the Johannine School. Is it odd to suggest that after 70 the new “writing” school within Judaism was influenced by Qumranites or Essenes? Would sociological reflections not indicate that a social group so preoccupied with reading and writing may well have influenced another later writing group within the same religion? These reflections need to be enriched by the discovery that the most significant influences from the Essenes upon New Testament authors have been seen in documents that postdate 70 C.E.153 An accurate grasp of both the Fourth Gospel and the Essenes requires an understanding of their use of a solar-lunar calendar. The Essenes and the communities behind Jubilees and the Books of Enoch followed a solarlunar calendar154 and thus observed festivals, holy days, and the beginning of the year at a time different from that of the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem. This is a remarkable sociological phenomenon whose theological ramifications are profound when one understands how the Essenes perceived the cosmic dimension of the calendar. Because the Fourth Evangelist gives a time different from that in the Synoptics for the celebration of the Last Supper, it is conceivable that the Johannine community followed, or recorded, that Jesus had followed an Essene calendar. This possibility is weakened by our inability to discern how unique within Early Judaism was the Essene calendar; but it is strengthened by the growing awareness that Jesus apparently celebrated the Last Supper within the Essene quarter of Jerusalem.155 Even if this possibility looms probable, it is the Fourth Evangelist’s theology that removes the institution of the Eucharist from Jesus’ Last Supper; that is, he wants to ground this celebration (as is evident in the early tradition of 1 Corinthians 11) in the remembrance of Jesus’ life, placing it with innuendoes in the feeding of the five thousand in chapter 6. 153. See James H. Charlesworth, “Have the Dead Sea Scrolls Revolutionized Our Understanding of the New Testament?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 116—32. 154. See the authoritative study of S. Talmon, “The Calendar of the Covenanters of the Judean Desert,” in The World of Qumran From Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 147—85; repr. of rev. ed. from “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean Desert,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958; 2d ed. 1965), 162–99. 155. See the discussions in Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

145

Other features of Qumran theology reappear in the Fourth Gospel, but our ability to discern the level and extent of Essene influence is hindered by our inability to determine whether such ideas were unique to or especially characteristic of the Essenes. Under this category would be placed a cosmological panorama for the drama of salvation: The Qumranites thought about angels being present in divine services and celebrated with them the angelic liturgy, while thought in the Johannine community was directed to “the one from above.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls (esp. 1QH 16 [olim 8]) and in the Fourth Gospel (esp. ch. 21) narrative art is shaped by motifs of paradise and Eden.156 Both communities experienced isolation from the Temple cult, and both developed theological reflections in light of persecution from the reigning priests. The Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel are both shaped in paradigmatic ways by Isaiah. In contrast with other Jewish groups, both preserve a belief in resurrection. Both the Qumran Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel are products of Jewish schools. Perhaps the commandment of Jesus in John 13:34 appears only in the Fourth Gospel because of the Essene penchant for rules and legislation. All these are possible parallels that may link the Fourth Gospel with the Essenes, but our lack of historical knowledge precludes developing any one of the points.

RECONSTRUCTION Many scholars agree that the Fourth Evangelist was influenced either directly or indirectly by the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most obvious point of influence, as we have seen, is the unique Essene paradigm for dualism and its termini technici. There is, however, no consensus on how Essene concepts, symbols, and termini technici influenced the Fourth Evangelist and his school. Scholars have published five intriguing hypotheses for explaining how Essene concepts, symbols, and termini technici—if not ideas—came to appear in the Fourth Gospel. First, William H. Brownlee suggested that the influence from Qumran came through John the Baptizer, who may have been an Essene (a suggestion supported in part by Bo Reicke and others).157 This hypothesis is therefore conceivable. Some influences from Qumran 156. Adam, having sinned, knew that he was naked before God. So, Peter, having denied the Christ, is described as naked and jumping into the cleansing water before the Lord. 157. William H. Brownlee, “John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl and J. H. Charlesworth, New York: Crossroad, 1992), 33–53; idem, “Whence the Gospel according to John?” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 166–94; cf. Bo Reicke, “Nytt ljus över Johannes döparens förkunnelse,” Religion och Bibel 11 (1952): 5–18.

146

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

on John the Baptizer are evident, and he may have once been a member of the Qumran Community (as I have argued elsewhere in this volume). Moreover, the Beloved Disciple was probably once a follower of the Baptizer.158 The obvious tension, reflected in the Fourth Gospel, between the Evangelist’s community and the Baptizer’s group may diminish the possibility that this is the best scenario for explaining Essene influence on the Fourth Gospel.159 And the Essene influences seem to appear not so much in the Jesus traditions the Fourth Evangelist inherited as in his own redactional work of the Jesus traditions in which he employs concepts and terms he shared with others in the Johannine School. Second, Brown stressed the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Fourth Gospel and concluded that the influence came to the Evangelist indirectly. Notice his words: “In our judgment the parallels are not close enough to suggest a direct literary dependence of John upon the Qumran literature, but they do suggest Johannine familiarity with the type of thought exhibited in the scrolls.”160 In his essay, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” Brown contended that the “ideas of Qumran must have been fairly widespread in certain Jewish circles in the early first century C.E. Probably it is only through such sources that Qumran had its indirect effect on the Johannine literature.”161 This is admirably cautious, but to suggest that Qumran ideas were “widespread” in pre-70 Palestine does not seem obvious. We have not found evidence of the Qumran dualistic paradigm in any other pre-70 Jewish document, with the exception of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (and some of the possible mirroring of this paradigm may result from later Christian redaction that was under the influence of the Fourth Gospel).162 We have been focusing upon concepts, symbols, and technical terms that after more than fifty years of research are now seen as ostensibly unique to the Qumran Community.163 I concur with Brown that there is no 158. See Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, esp. ch. 12. 159. Thus, Ashton: “The pervasive and deep-lying dualistic structures … are scarcely to be accounted for by the suggestion that the evangelist was a disciple of John the Baptist, unless the latter was himself so deeply soaked in Qumranian ideas as to be virtually indistinguishable from one of the community’s own teachers” (Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 235). 160. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII), lxiii. 161. Brown, “The Qumran Scrolls,” 206 (article originally published in 1955). 162. See Howard C. Kee in OTP, 1:780. Jean Riaud finds that the Christian redaction of the Paralipomena Jeremiae is inspired by the Fourth Gospel. See his “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetiae: His Originality; His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (9.10–32),” JSP 22 (2000): 31–44; see esp. 41–42. 163. See, further, my introductory comments in Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

147

evidence that the Fourth Evangelist had been an Essene or had studied the Rule of the Community, yet I agree with John Ashton that Brown has given us a rather obtuse scenario.164 Surely the influences from Qumran are more important than an ambiguous explanation that concludes with some inexplicable “indirect” influence. Thus, in Brown’s final publication he raised a question he had pondered for years and was tempted (I am persuaded) to answer positively: Did the “Baptist disciples who had been Qumranians filter what they heard from Jesus through the prism of their own dualistic outlook?”165 Thus, Brown may have concluded with a scenario that is a modification of Brownlee’s hypothesis. Third, I argued in the 1960s that the influence was direct.166 I was convinced that the Fourth Evangelist “did not borrow from the Essene cosmic and communal theology,” but that nevertheless we “have seen that John has apparently been directly influenced by Essene terminology.”167 Professor Ashton, I think not unfairly, criticizes my lack of precision: Accordingly it makes little sense to speak, as Charlesworth does, in terms of “borrowing,” however right he may be, against Brown and Schnackenburg, to adopt a theory of direct influence. For what kind of borrowing is he thinking of? Does he picture John visiting the Qumran Library, as Brown calls it, and taking the Community Rule out of the repository, scrolling through it, taking notes perhaps, and then making use of its ideas when he came to compose his own work?168

Ashton’s question is astute, but one that I had not contemplated. I never imagined, or concluded, that the Evangelist had direct access to a Qumran scroll; yet, I realize that my presentation could have been improved. Long ago I simply offered the opinion that the Essene influence on the Fourth Evangelist can be explained “through the vivid memory of an Essene who had become a Christian, made notes on its contents, perhaps only mental ones, and then composed his Gospel…in Palestine.”169

164. See Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 235. 165. 165. Raymond E. Brown, “John, Gospel and Letters of,” in EDSS, 1:414–17. 166. I was (and remain) influenced by Brown’s research, as well as that published by Karl G. Kuhn: “Johannesevangelium und Qumrantexte,” in Neotestamentica et Patristica (ed. W. C. van Unnik; NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 111–22; idem, “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte.” 167. Charlesworth, “Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon,” 103–4. This essay was first published as “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III.13–IV.26,” NTS 15 (1968–69): 389–418. 168. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 236–37 [italics his]. 169. Charlesworth, ibid., 105. What I omit from this quotation is my attempt to state in the 1990s what should have been presented more lucidly in the 1960s.

148

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

Let me now, over forty years later, try to clarify my position. I am now persuaded that those who wished to join the Qumran Community had to memorize Essene lore, and that consisted of knowing by heart the teaching and terms preserved in the Rule of the Community, in columns 3 and 4. Later, some of those who had memorized this teaching that “the Master” (or Instructor [lyk#m]) taught to the members of the community most likely entered the Johannine School. Their memorized terms and sophisticated perceptions about the origin of evil and the reason for a Son of Light to err eventually left their imprint on the Fourth Gospel. I will clarify this scenario at the end of this study. Fourth, Ashton takes both Brown and me to task for not realizing how significant is the influence from Qumran on the Fourth Evangelist. He is convinced that the Evangelist had once belonged to Essene groups. He contends that “the evangelist had dualism in his bones.” In this, Ashton is certainly correct. He continues by concluding that the Fourth Evangelist “may well have started life as one of those Essenes who were to be found, according to Josephus, ‘in large numbers in every town’.”170 Fifth, and in similar fashion, Eugen Ruckstuhl has suggested that the Beloved Disciple, the Gospel’s trustworthy witness (19:35; 21:24), may have been a monk who once lived in the Essene quarter of Jerusalem. He is impressed by how the Qumran calendar helps to explain the time of Jesus’ Last Supper, according to the Fourth Evangelist. Ruckstuhl suggests that this meal may have been an Essene Passover supper.171 It is possible that the Last Supper was celebrated in the guesthouse of Jerusalem’s Essene quarter and that the seat of honor was given to the Beloved Disciple, a leading Essene? This is an intriguing question. Since the Beloved Disciple, according to Ruckstuhl, would have been a priest, it is understandable how he was known to the high priest (John 18:15–17). There is impressive evidence that Essenes were living in the southwestern corner of Jerusalem when Jesus celebrated the Last Supper, and it is conceivable that he celebrated the meal in an Essene quarter. Ruckstuhl’s suggestion regarding the date of the Last Supper is, however, rather speculative, and I am persuaded that John 18:15–17 is not a narrative about the Beloved Disciple.172 It is conceivable, nevertheless, that some Essene influence came to the 170. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 237. 171. Eugen Ruckstuhl, “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu, I,” SNTU [Linz] 10 (1985): 27–61 (esp. see 55–56); idem, “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu, II,” SNTU [Linz] 11 (1986): 97–129; idem, Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien, 393–95. 172. See Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple.

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

149

Evangelist through the Beloved Disciple, since it is probable that he had been a follower of the Baptizer. Let me now return to the position I merely intimated has become the one that now seems most likely—in light of my research and thinking since 1966. After more than forty years of work devoted to either the Fourth Gospel or to the Dead Sea Scrolls (usually focusing on the Gospel or on one scroll without thinking about the other), I am persuaded that, while nothing can be clearly demonstrated, a likely scenario now looms in credibility. It should be introduced for reflection. Let me now present what I am convinced is the best explanation for the pervasive Essene influences on the Fourth Gospel. Not all Qumranites died in the attack on their abode in the Judean wilderness in 68 C.E. Some probably fled southward to Masada and left some scrolls, which archaeologists have uncovered. Others may have fled eastward toward the safe Transjordan and others westward, probably to Jerusalem. Some Qumranites were most likely still alive when the Fourth Gospel was being written. It seems widely, and wisely, acknowledged that some Essenes became members of the Palestinian Jesus Movement.173 The most striking and impressive parallels between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament documents are in those compositions produced by the second generation of Jesus’ followers. The influence from the Essenes did not come most powerfully through John the Baptizer or Jesus, although (as I have shown) the points of contact here are also intermittently impressive. Paul was not significantly influenced by the Essenes, but the Pauline School (which produced Ephesians, 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, and other documents) shows signs of Essene ideology and terminology. Mark is not similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but Matthew certainly contains significant affinities to the Qumran school of scribes. This observation arouses in the attentive reader thoughts about the school of Matthew. It is obvious that scholars have been perceiving in the products of the Pauline School and the Matthean School the most impressive links between the Essenes and Jesus’ followers.174 The same conclusion makes sense for the Fourth Gospel. 173. It is conceivable that none of the Qumranites ever joined the Palestinian Jesus Movement. That still leaves most of the Essenes unaccounted for, since over 3,700 of the 4,000 Essenes were living outside of Qumran in ancient Palestine, if Philo and Josephus can be trusted. Did none of the Essenes join the Palestinian Jesus Movement? Is that likely when Pharisees are clearly known to have joined it? 174. I have argued that “Essene thought probably had some impact on Jesus and then Paul, but that the major and clearest influences can be dated to writings that

150

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

The Fourth Gospel comes to us from a school,175 reveals sources and probably two editions, and discloses a struggle with the synagogue. These and other observations prove that Jews were in the Johannine community. It does not seem prudent, in light of the numerous links with Qumran symbolism and terminology, to deny the possibility that some of these Jews had been Essenes.176 Most of the influences from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Fourth Gospel most likely come, therefore, from former Essenes living in the Johannine community. These Jews had memorized portions of the Qumran Scrolls, certainly some of the Thanksgiving Hymns and the Rule of the Community (at least 1QS 3.13–4.14). Some of these former Essenes probably labored in the Johannine School; perhaps one of them was the author of the Odes of Solomon. Thus, we do not need to think that “direct influence” implies that the Fourth Evangelist visited Qumran or saw a Qumran Scroll. The pervasive influence of Essene thought on the Fourth Evangelist, as mirrored in the Fourth Gospel, is best explained by the appearance of Qumran lore present in the minds of some Jews who were living in the Johannine School.

CONCLUSION Have the unique perceptions and terms in the Qumran Scrolls helped shape the Fourth Gospel? The answer of many leading experts is an postdate 70 C.E.” See James H. Charlesworth, “Have the Dead Sea Scrolls Revolutionized,” 116—32; the quotation is on 127. 175. Perhaps other compositions as well come from the Johannine school, including 1, 2, and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, and the Odes of Solomon. Ignatius of Antioch probably knew John and the Odes, but it is difficult to prove this point. 176. In the late 1960s, James Louis Martyn considered the possibility of Essenes and Samaritans living in “John’s city.” He opined that this possibility “cannot be said” or cannot be said “with certainty” (112). In the late 1960s, J. Louis Martyn considered the possibility of Essenes and Samaritans living in “John’s city.” He opined that this possibility “cannot be said” or cannot be said “with certainty” (112). See his History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. In light of recent discoveries, improved methods, and more careful research, W. Meeks and R. E. Brown concluded that converts from Samaritanism were most likely in the Johannine community. See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 318–19; and Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, esp. 36–40, 56. I now conclude that Essenes were probably living in the Johannine school or community. Note that while Martyn mentions “city,” Brown and I talk about the Johannine community. For a careful and informed assessment of possible Samaritan influence on the Fourth Gospel, and a review of the publications by J. Bowman, W. A. Meeks, E. D. Freed, G. W. Buchanan, M. Pamment, J. D. Purvis, and others, see Marie-Émile Boismard, Moses or Jesus (trans. B. T. Viviano; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Boismard adds some challenging new insights and wisely concludes that the links between Samaritan thought and Johannine theology “cannot be the effect of chance” (32).

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

151

unequivocal “yes!” As Ferriera reports, “The results of the research on the Scrolls so far have convinced most New Testament scholars that the Gospel of John was produced in a community that knew and interacted with the traditions of Qumran.”177 How have the Qumran Scrolls influenced the Fourth Gospel? Experts have offered five attractive hypotheses: 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

John the Baptizer had once been a member of the Qumran Community, Jesus was his disciple, and Jesus passed some of the unique Qumran terms on to his own disciples. The Beloved Disciple, Jesus’ intimate follower, had been a disciple of the Baptizer who had been a member of the Qumran Community, and he influenced Jesus and some of his followers. Jesus met Essenes on the outskirts of towns and cities in Galilee and Judea; he discussed theology with them and was influenced by some of their ideas and terms. Essenes lived in Jerusalem (or Ephesus)178 near the Johannine community and influenced the development of Johannine theology. Essenes became followers of Jesus and lived in the Johannine School, shaping the dualism, pneumatology, and technical terms found in the Fourth Gospel. This could have happened in numerous places, including Jerusalem.

Each of these is a possible scenario. One should not think that only one of these explanations is possible. It is conceivable, indeed likely, that each explains how the Essenes, over approximately seventy years, helped influence the Palestinian Jesus Movement. In my judgment, the influence in the Fourth Gospel may come from all levels, and in an increasing dimension, as one moves from the first to the fifth hypothesis. Finally, one should not think that “Christianity” is merely Essenism revived or that other forms of Judaism did not also influence the Fourth Gospel and other aspects of the Palestinian Jesus Movement. Pharisaism and Samaritanism clearly left their influences on the new Jewish movement. The interest in Moses in the Fourth Gospel seems to betray some Samaritan influence.179 177. Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 140. 178. P. Grech examines the anti-Jewish polemic of the Johannine writings, esp. Revelation 2–3, which make sense in light of what is known about Ephesus. See Prosper Grech, “Ebrei e christiani ad Efeso: Riflessi nel Vangelo di Giovanni,” in IV Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo (ed. L. Padovese; Rome: Pontificio Ateneo Antoniano, 1994), 139–46. Murphy-O’Connor seems to favor the conclusion that Essene influence helped shape the Fourth Gospel in Ephesus. See his “Qumran and the New Testament,” in Epp and MacRae, The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, 62. 179. The name “Moses” appears 12 times in John but only 7 times in Matthew, 8 in Mark, and 10 in Luke. As is well-known, Moses was the quintessential prophet in

152

A STUDY IN S HARED SYMBOLISM AND LANGUAGE

It is now obvious that the Fourth Gospel is not a second-century Greek philosophical composition. The Jew who is called the Fourth Evangelist, inheriting earlier writings within the Palestinian Jesus Movement, composed a masterpiece in the mid- or late-first century. This work—the Fourth Gospel—was influenced significantly by the symbolic language, pneumatology, and technical terms that are found only in a dualistic paradigm within the Qumran Scrolls, especially the Rule of the Community. The Fourth Gospel may be our most Jewish Gospel. In concluding, let me clarify that the Qumran Scrolls do not solve most of the enigmas confronted by a reflective examination of the Fourth Gospel. This Gospel is remarkably different from the Synoptics. It has an independence that remains disturbing to some critics. In fact, a penetrating study of the Qumran Scrolls, followed by a thoughtful comparison of their ideas with the Fourth Gospel, awakens a deeper appreciation of the uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel.180 The Fourth Evangelist was a genius and a creatively independent thinker. By studying the Qumran Scrolls we might perceive how Johannine Jews searched for their own identity in a world that had become increasingly defined by hostility, especially from other admired Jews. The search for identity had been sought earlier by the followers of the Righteous Teacher, who led a small band of priests from the Temple in Jerusalem to an abandoned fort in the wilderness just west of the northern shores of the Dead Sea. They yearned for the end of the latter days and the fulfillment of God’s promises; some looked for the coming of the Messiah. The Johannine Jews founded their identity and faith on the truthful eyewitness of the Beloved Disciple to Jesus (John 19:35; 21:24), whom the Evangelist hails as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the One-from-above. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenge us to think about the source of the Fourth Evangelist’s vocabulary, symbolism, and refined language. They help to clarify the uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel and the Evangelist’s distinctive anthropology, cosmology, pneumatology, Christology, and theology. This research proves that the origins of the Fourth Gospel should be studied within the history of Early Judaism.

Samaritanism. See Ferdinand Dexinger, “Die Moses-Terminologie in Tibåt Mårqe (Einige Beobachtungen),” Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrage 25 (1998): 51–62. 180. See esp. the insights found in James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; ET The Gospel and the Gospels; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 330—37; and in R. Alan Culpepper, “What Makes John Unique?” in The Gospel and Letters of John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 18–26.

CHAPTER SIX

THE IMPACT OF SELECTED QUMRAN TEXTS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF PAULINE THEOLOGY Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn The following “parallels” have been collected and selected by the Munich project “Qumran and the New Testament,” which I brought into being and which I later confined for my own work mainly to Qumran and the authentic letters of Paul.1 “Parallels” can be correctly understood only when they are interpreted in their individual contexts. This can, of course, only partly be done in this paper, but the reader is requested to consider more of the contexts than are quoted. Indeed, the user of a collection such as this, even when its author tries to avoid any misleading, should always be aware that the greater context, beginning with the writing itself, is important. It will also not be possible to go into Qumran 1. On the occasion of forty years of Qumran research, I gave a lecture at the Qumran Symposium at the Universities of Haifa and Tel Aviv in 1988, where I chose from my collected material the “top ten” passages in the authentic letters of Paul on which the Qumran Scrolls throw light; see Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 327–39. In this chapter, first prepared in 1997 and 1998 in connection with a symposium held at Princeton Theological Seminary (November 1997) and updated in the winter of 2004–5, I present nineteen Pauline passages where the comparison with the Qumran texts is of interest for an understanding of the apostle’s theology. All ten passages from the former paper are included here; these are, according to the numbering in this chapter: A 1; B 1, 2, 3; C 1, 3, 6, 7; D 1, 3. In 1999 I published a paper with eight parallels that show a rather close relationship to the Qumran community (here esp. A 2, 3; B 1; C 4; D 3; further B 2, 3; D 1); see Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Qumran und Paulus: Unter traditionsgeschichtlichem Aspekt ausgewählte Parallelen,” in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte (ed. U. Mell and U. B. Müller; ZNWBeih 100; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 228–46. Cf. also my six papers on 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians (listed in the bibliography). I selected works that focus fully or partially on Paul and the Qumran texts; though some of these works have not been cited in the present chapter, all of them appear in the general bibliography at the end of this volume. I thank Dr. Almut Koester for correcting my original English manuscript and Alison Deborah Sauer for correcting the final English version. My collaborator Jacob Nordhofen was of great help in preparing the final manuscript.

153

154

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

research in any detail, for example such questions as the problem of dualism, or to delve further into New Testament research, e.g., the problem of Paul’s understanding of Jewish Law. For a critical evaluation of “parallels,” we even sometimes have to transgress the borders of Paul and other early Christian writers or the borders of Qumran and its early Jewish context (I gave an example of this in my paper on “The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper” [see n46, below]). Since general statements about two areas of religious matters, which are supposed to have some kind of similarity in a number of subjects, often tend toward quite subjective interpretations, it is the goal of this project to look especially for literal correspondences between the Qumran texts and New Testament writings, in this case the authentic letters of Paul. It is certainly not always easy or even possible to escape the traps of Strack-Billerbeck or the Neuer Wettstein,2 especially since the Qumran writings are not only of different ages, but also of different origins. “Parallelomania,”3 of which some scholars seem to have great fear, would help nobody, but leaving the correspondences aside would help even less. The conclusions at the end of the paper have more weight when they are reached by research of literal details and not only by general assertions. Out of an already large collection, here I select interesting “parallels” between Paul in seven authentic letters and the Qumran library (whether the writings originated in Qumran or not). I speak of “parallels” in a twofold way: I mean Qumran texts that (1) are helpful for a better understanding of Paul, and (2) also texts in the letters of Paul that seem to suggest a certain relationship with Qumran traditions, though not necessarily a direct one. In both cases I have included “parallels” that show a contrast between Paul and the Qumran texts, such as the understanding of Hab 2:4.4 Nevertheless, facile parallels can be misleading. Two similarities may have no relationship when examined in a detailed study, or they may not be in the scope of this project, e.g., two parallels may be too widespread in many writings of different origins outside the 2. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–61); Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 2, Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996). 3. Cf. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13; James R. Davila, “The Perils of Parallels” (University of St. Andrews, Scotland, April 2001 [cited Jan. 17, 2005]); online: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/parallels.html. See also the careful remarks of Hans-Josef Klauck, “Wettstein, alt und neu,” BZ NS 41 (1997): 89–95. 4. See below, C 1.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

155

Qumran texts. But it is naive for scholars to believe that “parallels” must always have the same context or even the same function or tendency. Dependencies on writings or traditions do not work like this; moreover, especially the contrasts often make “parallels” interesting (of course, those who point to differences should not work as apologists for their own party). This is, for example, true for Paul’s and Qumran’s term “works of the Law” (see C 4 in the following outline and section). Only now are we in a rather comfortable situation in the field of comparative study of Qumranic and Pauline texts. Almost all Qumran texts are published (with photographs)5; also, we have access to a concordance for all texts in a printed form6 and on CD-ROM.7 Concerning the New Testament, most critical scholars agree that the texts of seven canonical letters of Paul are authentic (roughly in the order of their supposed origin: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans). The greatest help for a better understanding of Pauline theology (in contrast to the Gospels) still seems to come from the manuscripts of Qumran Cave 1, while the fragments, especially of 4Q, that do not belong to parallel manuscripts found in 1Q, are mostly less helpful (with the exception of 4QMMT).8 In general, I will mention only a supposed non-Qumranian origin, since the majority of the texts quoted 5. Most of them are in the series “Discoveries in the Judaean Desert” (DJD; + “of Jordan” [DJDJ] = vols. 3–5). The majority of the volumes contain Qumran texts; only few of the Qumran volumes are still missing (vols. 5a, 32, 37, 40). As far as texts are found in this series, the references to columns and lines generally follow these editions. To avoid confusion, this applies even to DJD 5 (not without taking into consideration John Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’,” RevQ 7, no. 26 [1970]: 163–276), but I refer also to Annette Steudel’s reconstruction of 4QMidrEschata–b in her Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata–b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q117 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Regarding the Temple Scroll, I add to the traditional numbering of Yigael Yadin—The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977; rev. ed. 1983 [Hebrew])—resp., Elisha Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press; Jerusalem: IES, 1996) and the new correct numbering in Annette Steudel et al., Die Texte aus Qumran II: Hebräisch und Deutsch (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2001). In case of uncertainties about the original text, I rely on the photographs, not on the editions, yet considering the editions’ readings and restorations. 6. Martin G. Abegg, Jr., et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, vol. 1, The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (2 parts; Leiden: Brill, 2003). 7. Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts: Qumran Text and Grammatical Tags (on CD-ROM; version 2.1 in Accordance 6.3; Alamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree Software, 2004). 8. See below, esp. C 4.

156

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

below probably originated in the community (e.g., 1Q/4Q Rule of the Community for the most part,9 1Q/4Q Hodayot,10 Cairo Damascus Document [CD]/4Q–6Q Damascus Document,11 and the pesharim), either at Qumran itself, perhaps at some other location in the beginning of the community, or in “all their settlements” outside (1QS 6.2; par. 4QSd [4Q258] 2.6); to simplify matters I speak in all three cases of the “Qumran community” or “Qumranian.” The paper has the following structure: A.

Eschatology and Present Salvation 1. The Eschatological Revelation of God’s Righteousness 2. New Creation Now 3. Present Salvation and Hope

B.

The Community as Temple of God and as “Children of Light,” a New Covenant, the Common Meal, and Predestination 1. The Community as Temple and God’s Plantation 2. The Community as “Children of Light” 3. A New Covenant

9. The instruction on the two spirits (1QS 3.13–4.26; partly parallel in 4QpapSc [4Q257] 5–6; cf. 1 En. 41:8–9) is apparently pre-Qumranian, though there is no full evidence that 4QSd (4Q258) and 4QSe (4Q259) have not included 1QS 1–4 (“rather speculative,” say Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, in Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yah[ad [ed. P. Alexander and G. Vermes; DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 131). It seems clear that the instruction is certainly not missing in 4QSb (4Q256). 4QpapSa (4Q255) frag. A (but hardly 4QSh [4Q262] frag. A) was presumably part of another redaction of the instruction (cf. Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Community Rule [STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 25–26, 49–51, 91–93, 113–14; Metso [25] counts it “highly improbable” that 4QSb did not include the instruction; see also the further remarks of Alexander and Vermes, ibid., esp. 37, 192–93). On the instruction, cf. Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 127–28; idem, “Qumran 1,” TRE 28:45–65 (see 57); Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335. 10. References to columns and lines of 1QHa follow the reconstruction by Stegemann as recently republished by Hartmut Stegemann (in great and independent agreement with Émile Puech): “The Number of Psalms in 1QHodayota and Some of Their Sections,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 191—234 (see Appendix 1, 224—26). In passing I also refer to the editio princeps by Eleazar L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (in Hebrew, 1954; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1955). The same way of referring to 1QHa is used in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov et al.; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 310–13 (see 310n17). 11. Cf. Lange, “Qumran 1,” 60.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN 4. 5.

157

The Common Meal Predestination

C.

Torah, “to Be Counted as Righteousness,” Man’s Unrighteousness, Grace, and Liberation from Sin 1. “Law” and “Faith” 2. “To Be Counted as Righteousness” 3. Torah and Crucifixion 4. “Works of the Law (Torah)” 5. “Sinful Flesh” 6. No Man Is Righteous 7. “By Grace Alone” 8. God’s Spirit and Man’s Liberation from Sin

D.

Ethical Dualism 1. Catalogs of So-Called Vices and Virtues 2. Servants of Impurity/Servants of Righteousness 3. Hate and Love

Conclusions

A. E SCHATOLOGY AND P RESENT SALVATION 1. The Eschatological Revelation of God’s Righteousness Paul Romans 1:17: “For the righteousness of God is being revealed in it (i.e., the gospel), beginning and ending in faith” (dikaiosu/nh ga_r qeou= e0n au0tw|~ a0 pokalu/ptetai e0k pi/stewv ei0v pi/stin). Romans 3:21: “Now, in contrast, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been made known (dikaiosu/nh qeou= pefane/rwtai), as attested by the Law and the prophets.”

Qumran 1QHa 6.33–34 (14.15–16 Sukenik): “All injustice (34) [and wick]edness you will destroy for ever, while your righteousness (= the eschatological salvation) shall be revealed before the eyes of all your creatures (Ky#(m lwk yny(l Ktqdc htlgnw …).” For similar statements, see below.

158

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

Explanations A statement like the one cited above from a “community song”12 of 1Q/4Q Hodayot provides the background for the understanding of the two Pauline passages. These passages are of special importance in the letter to the Romans, because the first one belongs to 1:16–17, which contains the theological theme of the whole epistle, and the second one introduces the main passage in Romans on justification by faith (3:21–31). Like Paul, the Qumran text uses a biblical phrase speaking of salvation (see Isa 56:1). The same phrase with its eschatological meaning is also found in other Qumran texts, as in the probably non-Qumranian13 sapiential Book of Mysteries (1Q27 frag. 1 1.6–7; partly also in the same composition in 4QMystb [4Q300] frag. 3 line 6)14 or in the Damascus Document (CD 20.20); in the latter text, as in Isa 56:1, “righteousness” is found in parallel with “salvation.” By looking at the context, the meaning of the above-cited Qumran passage is clear: In the future the final salvation (God’s righteousness) will appear before the eyes of the whole world. What does it mean when Paul says that the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel? From the background of the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism, Paul states that the final salvation expected for the future has already appeared (cf. the “now” in Rom 3:21). But this eschatological salvation through Christ does not yet happen openly before the whole world; it is a salvation now found only in the gospel and for those who believe. This example clearly shows that the Qumran parallels are helpful for a better understanding of Paul.15

2. New Creation Now Paul 2 Corinthians 5:17: “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature” (or: “new creation happens”) (ei! tiv e)n Xristw|~ , kainh_ kti/siv); “old” and “new” stand in opposition here: ta_ a0 rxai=a in contrast to kaina&. 12. See Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 21–26. 13. See Lange, Weisheit, 95–96. 14. The transcription of the Hebrew text by Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Mysteries,” in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (ed. T. Elgvin et al.; DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 105, line 6, is not correct: 4Q300 and also 1Q27 read qdchw (“and the righteousness”), not qydchw (“and the righteous”; the English translation of Schiffman is correct). 15. For the Qumran passages see H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 35–38.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

159

Galatians 6:14–15: “New creation” (kainh_ kti/siv) stands in opposition to “the world has been crucified.”

Qumran 1QHa 11.21–22 (3.20–21 Sukenik): “(there is hope for him) (22) whom you have created away from the dust for the eternal council (htrcy Mlw( dwsl rp(m).” 1QHa 19.16–17 (11.13–14 Sukenik): “to be renewed together with all that [(…)] exists” (hyhn[(.)] (17) [(…)] lwk M( #dxthl).

Explanations Galatians 6:11–18 was added by Paul himself to a letter he dictated (see v. 11). The text in 2 Cor 5:17 speaks of the Christian individual (whether kti/siv is understood as “creature” [as in Rom 8:39] or “creation” [as in Rom 1:20]), while Gal 6:14–15 clearly refers to a “new creation” in a cosmological sense. In both cases, as in the texts cited above (A 1), a future eschatological event is taken into the present. Concerning the Qumran texts we find in 1QS 4.25 (h#dx tw#(w … d(, “until…a new creation”) the “normal” idea of a future new creation.16 Both texts in 1QHa belong to “soteriological confessions”17 in two “community songs,” the second text seems to depend on the first one,18 and both texts speak of a present experience. “You have created” (htrcy) does not relate to the first creation of man and human birth. The sentence refers to a new creation that takes place with the entrance into the community.19 Besides the argument that the omission of a word for “new” in our text is normal in

16. For the idea of a new creation in Palestinian Judaism (in the future) see ibid., 75–78. Especially for the understanding of conversion as new creation in the Jewish Diaspora writing Joseph and Aseneth, see Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (SNTSMS 119; Cambridge: University Press, 2002), 54–76. Cf. also Christina Hoegen-Rohls, “Neuheit bei Paulus: Kommunikative Funktion und theologische Relevanz der paulinischen Aussagen über den Neuen Bund, die Neue Schöpfung und die Neuheit des Lebens und des Geistes” (Theol. Habilitation, University of Munich, 2003), 99–144; soon to be published. 17. See H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 26–27. 18. See ibid., 80–85. 19. Against Ulrich Mell, Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie (ZNWBeih 56; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989).

160

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

ancient Hebrew,20 one can give several reasons for an interpretation that denotes new creation.21 Here I mention only two points: 1.

2.

The inversion of a verb (i.e., the object comes before the verb)22 in the following sentence clearly shows that this sentence “you have cleansed a perverse spirit of much sin” is an interpretation of the preceding sentence “whom you have created away from the dust for the eternal council.” Thus, the text interprets new creation as forgiveness of sin, which means that the sentence in question can relate only to a new birth in the community. In 4QHa (4Q427) frag. 7 2.8 (par. 4QHe [4Q431] frag. 2 line 7; 1QHa 26.27 [frag. 7 2.2 Sukenik]) we have a very helpful parallel to our passage in question: “Thus he (i.e., God) raises the poor away from the dust to [an eternal height (or similar)]” ([ Mlw( Mwr]l Nwyb) rp(m Mryw).23

In 1QHa 19 (11) the text speaks of a new creation that happens now in the community. For this new creation of the covenanters the verb #dx in the stem Hithpa(el is used (19.16 [11.13]), which in the context does not mean “to renew themselves with all that [(…)] exists,” but “to be renewed…” (cf. the passive meaning of the stem Hithpa(el, e.g., in Eccl 8:10).24 Without a doubt, the “new creation” here does not belong to a future eschatology. But it is also certain that in the Qumran writings we have primarily a future eschatology, even in the context of the song in 1QHa 11.20–37 (3.19–36 Sukenik), where one finds the so-called “Little Apocalypse,” beginning in line 27, and the word “hope” in line 21 (see the next entry, A 3).25 20. In the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature a word for “new” is missing when a verb referring to new creation is used; see Ps 102:19 (102:18 ET), which means “a people to be created anew.” 21. See the more detailed discussion in my chapter “Qumran Texts and the Historical Jesus: Parallels in Contrast,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20—25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 573—80. 22. Cf. GKC, § 142; see also H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 21n3. 23. See rp(m (“away from the dust”) in 1QM 14.14 par. 4QMa (4Q491) frags. 8–10 1.12; Isa 52:2 (= 4QTanh 9 [= 4Q176] frags. 12–13 line 3); 1 Sam 2:8 par. Ps 113:7. See also r#bm (“away from the flesh”) in similar meaning in 1QHa 7.30 (15.17 Sukenik). 24. See Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), § 310.16. 25. Ken Penner, referring to Émile Puech and myself, is not precise enough in his article “Realized and Future Salvation in the Hodayot,” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (2002): n.p. [cited 15 Sept. 2004]; online: http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org. Especially, he does not recognize differences in the syntax of Hebrew sentences (like inversions) and is not really interested in different genre elements. Sometimes I cannot recognize my arguments in his description.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

161

3. Present Salvation and Hope Paul Romans 8:24: “For in hope (th|= ga_r e0lpi/di) we were saved.”

Qumran 1QHa 11.21–22 (3.20–21 Sukenik): “There is hope (hwqm #y) for him (22) whom you have created (anew) away from the dust for the eternal council.”

Explanations Both, in Rom 8:24 and in the “soteriological confession”26 of the cited “community song,” salvation takes place with the entrance into the community (“we were saved” and “whom you have created anew”).27 But the two texts also speak of “hope” for a future eschatological salvation.28 Both paradoxical statements explain each other.

B. THE COMMUNITY AS TEMPLE OF GOD AND AS “CHILDREN OF LIGHT,” A N EW COVENANT, THE COMMON M EAL, AND P REDESTINATION 1. The Community as Temple and God’s Plantation Paul 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16–17: “You are God’s temple [nao&j, v. 16].” “For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (v. 17b). “God’s temple” also appears in the accusative case (v. 17a). “You are God’s field [gew/rgion], God’s building [oi0kodomh&, v. 9].”

26. See H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 26–27. 27. See the discussion of this text under A 2, above. 28. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, ibid., 34.

162

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

Qumran 1QS 8.5–6 (partly 4QSe [4Q259] 2.13–14; also in 4Q Miscellaneous Rules [4Q265] frag. 7 line 8): “…then the society of the Community shall be established in truth to be an everlasting plantation (4QSe: […according to] eternal [ju]stice), a house of holiness for Israel and a foundation (or: an assembly) of a holy (6) of holies for Aaron (tyb Mlw( t(+ml … Nwrh)l My#dwq / #dwq dwsw l)r#yl #dwq)”; 4QSe reads the first word in 2.14 as +Xp# X X[ml…]; 4Q265 has a gap here. See also 1QS 8.8–9; the combination of temple and plantation in 1QS 11.8; and further, for example, CD 3.18–4.10 and especially 3.19, “a safe house in Israel”; according to the context, this is the community as temple.

Explanations Outside Qumran and the Christian literature in the Hellenistic-Roman period or earlier, there seems to be no parallel to an understanding of a group as temple. Paul speaks of the community as a temple of God in 1 Cor 3:16–17,29 the Qumran texts in 1QS 8.5–6, 8–9, and other texts. Both Paul and Qumran texts combine with this the understanding of the community as “field” (gew/rgion, 1 Cor 16:9)30 or “plantation” (t(+m, 1QS 8.5, which is misread as +p#m in 4QSe 2.14; t(+m also appears in 1QS 11.8); Paul does this in the context (see 3:5–9), Qumran directly in 1QS 8.5–6 and in 11.8. In 1 Cor 3:10–12 Paul uses the term “foundation (qeme&lion)” three times31 which is found also in 1QS 8.8 (perhaps, too, in lines 5–6).32 In 8.8 the text says that the foundations (whytwdwsy) of the community shall “not tremble nor sway in their place.” There is a certain tension in Paul between “God’s field” and “God’s building” (v. 9), planted and built by Paul and others, and the idea of the community as a temple, where nothing is said of human activity. In this context, the latter idea gives the impression of a tradition that has been taken over. In using the combination “temple,” “plantation,” and “foundation,” does Paul draw on Qumran tradition?33 29. In 1 Cor 6:19 Paul speaks of the individual believer whose “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” 30. In 1 Cor 3:9 the apostle and his fellow workers are juxtaposed to the group of believers. 31. The only other place where Paul uses the word qeme&lion is in Rom 15:20. 32. See the translation given above. 33. For further discussion see especially Georg Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament (SUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

163

2. The Community as “Children of Light” Paul 1 Thessalonians 5:4–9: “For you are all children of light” (v. 5, in a dualistic and eschatological framework typical for texts of the Qumran library, as well as for texts of the community and for texts that originated outside the community), “not in darkness” (v. 4) or “of darkness” (genitive case, v. 5). For predestination in 1 Thess 5:9, see below (B 4).

Qumran “Children of light” (rw) ynb and once rw)h ynb): 1QS (including the apparently pre-Qumranian34 instruction on the two spirits in 3.13–4.26, and esp. 3.13, 24–25; also see 1.9; 2.16); 4QDa (4Q266) frag. 1 a–b line 1 (the original beginning of CD); 1QM (only in col. 1; see 1.1, 3, 9, 11, 13, and mainly reconstructed in line 14; to be reconstructed also in 1QM 13.16?); and quite a few other texts (a total of 22 times in eight different writings, as far as the two words are not fully restored; including the two Aramaic occurrences). The “children of light” are often found in opposition to “children of darkness” (K#wx ynb). They appear mainly in texts of the community with an ethic orientation or some ethical background: besides (1) 1QS, see (2) 4QDa (cf. the ethically oriented context, speaking of “ways” in 4Q266 frag. 1 a–b line 1) and (3) 1QM (cf. esp. “righteousness” in 1.8), a writing with a tradition that probably begins outside the community (1–3 cited above). The metaphor also appears in (4) the Midrash on Eschatology which originated in the Community (4Q174 + 177), here in 3.8–9, 9.7, 11.12, 16 (4Q174 frags. 1–2 1.8–9; 4Q177 frags. 10–11 line 7; frags. 12–13 1.7, 11; see the verb “to stumble/fall” in 3.8 [4Q174 frags.1–2 1.8] and in 1QS 3.24); and further in (5) the Curses of the community (4Q280 frag. 2 line 1; see the term “children of light” and the curses in 1QS 2.4–25); in (6) the Songs of the Maskil/Master, originating in the community (4QShira [4Q510] frag. 1 line 7; 4QShirb [4Q511] frag. 10 line 4; see especially “those of perfect behavior” in 4Q510 frag. 1 line 9; and in 1QS 4.22); and finally in (7) the thematic community midrash Melchizedek (11Q13 2.8, with rw) restored). Ruprecht, 1971); Christoph G. Müller, Gottes Pflanzung—Gottes Bau—Gottes Tempel: Die metaphorische Dimension paulinischer Gemeindetheologie in 1 Kor 3, 5–17 (Fuldaer Studien 5; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1995). 34. See n9, above.

164

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

The phrase is also found in what is probably a pre-Qumranian Aramaic composition: “children of the light” / “children of the darkness” ()rwhn ynb / )k#wx ynb) Visions of Amram f ar (4Q548 frag. 1 col. 2–frag. 2 line 16) and for the most part restored in Visions of Amramb (4Q544 frag. 3 line 1; it may also be reconstructed in Visions of Amrama [4Q543 frag. 14 line 1], and Visions of Amram f [4Q548 frag. 1 lines 9, 10, 12, 15]; “the children of light” are also called “children of ri[ghteousness…]” in 4Q548 frag. 1 col. 2–frag. 2 line 7).

Explanations In contemporary Judaism, besides the library of Qumran, the expression “children of light”35 almost never occurs in plural and indeed never of human beings (though the expression seems to be pre-Qumranian).36 There are only parallels in gnostic texts; but Paul’s text is eschatologically and ethically oriented (a similar ethical orientation also appears next to an eschatological orientation in Qumran texts, as shown above: besides 1QS and 4QDa, see Midrash on Eschatology [4Q174+177], Curses [4Q280], Songs of the Master [4Q510–511], Melchizedek [11Q13], even 1QM 1 and Visions of Amram [4Q543–548]), which makes it different from Gnosticism. In fact, apart from 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, which in my opinion is a later addition,37 no other text in the authentic letters of Paul is closer to 35. For “Children of Light” in early Christian writings until about 150 C.E., see HeinzWolfgang Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes: Vorstellung des Münchener Projekts: Qumran und das Neue Testament/The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians: Presentation of the Munich Project on Qumran and the New Testament,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18—21 March 1991 (ed. J. C. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:349—50. 36. On T. Job 43:6 (sg.) and 1 En. 108:11 (of angels), see H.-W. Kuhn, “Verständnis des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes,” 350. On dualism in the Qumran texts, see J. Frey, “Different Patterns,” who wants to “distinguish (at least) a sapiential type of…ethically oriented cosmic dualism (as represented by 1QS 3:13–4:26…) and also a presumably priestly type of sheer cosmic dualism…(as documented by the War Rule…)” (288). See now also idem, “Licht aus den Höhlen? Der ‘johanneische Dualismus’ und die Texte von Qumran,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das Johannesevangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 117–203, esp. 151–70. Devorah Dimant offers an opposing opinion, “Dualism at Qumran,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research; Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal Press, 1998), 55–73. 37. Cf., e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1,” in The Semitic Background of the New Testament: Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and a Wandering Aramean; Collected Aramaic Essays

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

165

Qumran ideas than 1 Thess 5:4–9, in Paul’s earliest known letter. There is a tension between Paul’s intention to speak in 1 Thess 5:4–8 of “day” and “night” (referring to “the day of the Lord” in v. 2), and the dualistic opposition between “light” and “darkness” in vv. 4–5. This tension points to the use of tradition. Discovering this tradition aids a better understanding of the Pauline text, whose argumentation is on the literary level not fully coherent.

3. A New Covenant Paul Second Corinthians 3:6: “us [the apostles] as ministers of a new covenant”; “new covenant” is found also in the tradition of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:25 (see B 4, below). In 2 Cor 3:14 regarding the Torah (Pentateuch), Paul speaks of the end of the “old covenant.” Compare also Gal 4:24–25, contrasting “two covenants,” and one of them “comes from Mount Sinai.”

Qumran CD 6.19 (partly 4QDd [4Q269] frag. 4 2.1): “those who entered the new covenant (h#dxh tyrbh y)b) in the land of Damascus.” See also CD 8.21; the parallel 19.33–34 (with wording like 6.19); 20.12 (all CD-passages are found in the so-called “Admonition” [CD 1–8; 19–20 + 4QD MSS]); see also 1QpHab 2.3: “the trai[tors of] the new [covenant]” (h#dxh[ tyrbb Myd]gwbh). There are no more occurrences of the term “new covenant” in the Qumran texts. Compare further in Prayers for Festivals (1QPr Fetes = 1Q34 + 1Q34bis),38 a text whose Qumranian origin (1971 and 1979; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 205–17 (part 1), 292–93 (part 2); Joachim Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” (first in 1968, later) in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor and J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1990), 48–68. Differently, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Philo and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1,” RB 95 (1988): 55–69. Margaret E. Thrall in “The Problem of II Cor. VI. 14–VII. 1 in Some Recent Discussion,” NTS 24 (1978): 132–48, argues, in spite of “so many points of comparison with Qumran” (138), for a Pauline authorship. 38. 1Q34 and 1Q34bis are only one manuscript (thus not 1QPrFetesa+b); see John C. Trever, “Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments from Qumran Cave I,” RevQ 5, no. 19 (1965): 323–44 (see pl. IV).

166

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

is doubtful,39 fragment 3 2.6 (partly in 4QFestival Prayersc [= 4Q pap509]40 frags. 97–98 1.8): “And you renewed your covenant for them” (Mhl KtyXrb #dxtw) (it refers to ancient Israel, because the context speaks of the election “from all nations”).41

Explanations The tradition of the Lord’s supper in 1 Cor 11:25 states that through the covenant sacrifice of Christ’s death, God made a “new covenant” (apparently according to Jer 31:31 [38:31 LXX] as in CD; quoted later than Paul in Heb 8:8). Paul himself employs the term only once in 2 Cor 3:6; it is rather un-Jewish to put the “new covenant” in sharp opposition to the “old” one (3:14) at Sinai (but see Jer 31:32 [38:32 LXX]). This difference (a real new covenant or only a renewed covenant) makes the parallel theologically interesting and aids a better understanding of Paul and Qumran.42 Several times the Damascus Document speaks of a “new covenant” that God made in “the land of Damascus” (whatever “Damascus” means); it seems that this group of the “new covenant” existed already before the Qumran community proper was founded.43 The same group is apparently meant in 1QpHab 2.3.44 All this could mean that the Qumran community did not use the phrase to denote itself.45

39. Cf. James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (ECDSS 6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 17. 40. The same composition as 1Q34 + 1Q34bis? 41. My statement on p. 332 in “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls,” 327–39, has to be corrected, since it is not a covenant for the Qumran Community. 42. This was overlooked by Timothy H. Lim, “Studying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in Their Historical Context,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. J. R. Davila; STDJ 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 135–56, esp. 138–42. 43. See Hartmut Stegemann, “Das Gesetzeskorpus der ‘Damaskusschrift’ (CD IX–XVI), RevQ 14, no. 55 (1990): 409–34, esp. 427–29; Hermann Lichtenberger and Ekkehard Stegemann, “Zur Theologie des Bundes in Qumran und im Neuen Testament,” Kirche und Israel 6 (1991): 134–46, esp. 134–35. 44. See Stegemann, “Gesetzeskorpus,” 427–28n79. 45. For the problem of a “new covenant” in the Qumran texts and in Paul, see also Manuel Vogel, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18; Tübingen: Francke, 1996); cf. also Hoegen-Rohls, “Neuheit bei Paulus.”

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

167

4. The Common Meal46 Paul 1 Corinthians 11:23–26: “For I received from the Lord the tradition that I handed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in memory of me.’ [25] In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant sealed by my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in memory of me.’ [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.”

Qumran See 1QS 6.4–6, with parallel texts in 4Q: 4QSd (4Q258) 2.9–10 par. 1QS 6.4–6; 4QSg (4Q261) frag. 2a–c lines 4–5 par. 1QS 6.4–5. Divergences from the manuscript 1QS do not really exist (besides spellings and the dittography in 1QS 6.5–6, which is missing in 4QSd [4Q258] 2.10). The narrower context in 1QS 6 extends from near the end of line 1 to the beginning words of line 8 and has the heading: “In these (ways) [2] they shall walk in all their places of residence, each person who is there together with his companion.” It includes: “And then, when they prepare the table for eating or the (new) wine (#wryth47) [5] for drinking, the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first to recite the benediction over the firstfruit of the bread [6] and the (new) wine.” Also see 1QSa (1Q28a) 2.17–22 (there is no certainty about the exact assignment of the fragments 4Q pap cryptA SEf [= 4Q249f; also identified as cryptA MSMf] frags. 1–3 lines 8–9; SEg [= 4Q249g; also identified as cryptA MSMg] frags. 3–7 lines 18–19; SEh [= 4Q249h; also identified as cryptA MSMh] frag. 3 line 1). Until now it has not been possible to decipher the fragment in lines 10–12, or where gaps have been filled, the text is questionable. But we can safely say that from line 12 on “the Anointed One” 46. For all details I have to refer to my lengthy article “The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World,” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World (ed. A. Christophersen et al.; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 221–48. 47. In this context the Hebrew word #wryt means “wine” or perhaps particularly “new wine” (wine in its first year) in accordance with the feast of the new wine in the Temple Scroll (11Q19–20; 11Q21[?]; 4Q524). #wryt is probably preferred to Nyy (the normal word for “wine”) in the Qumran community because the word belongs to a priestly language related to the theology of creation.

168

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

(or two messianic figures) occurs. The subject of a common meal comes at the latest in line 17. In the following lines, the text is structured according to the contents, which should help to understand them more easily: And [when they]48 gather together [at the tab]le [or to drink the (new) w]ine (#wryY [th…]), and prepared is the table [18] of the Community [and the] (new) wine [is mixed (?)] for drinking, [no-]one [shall stretch out] his hand to the firstfruit [19] of the bread and [the (new) wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who] recites the benediction over the firstfruit of the bread [20] and the (new) win[e ([… #]wrythw) and who stretches out] his hand (first?) to the bread before them. And after[ward] the Messiah of Israel (l)r#y xy#m) [shall str]etch out his hands (first?) [21] to the bread. [And afterward] the whole congregation of the Community [shall recite the bene]diction, ev[eryone in accordance to] his honor. And according to this ruling [they] shall proceed ([w]#(y) [22] at every prep[aration, when] at least ten men are [gat]hered.

The two texts correspond almost exactly in structure and wording. Compared to the Rule of the Community, the text in Sa/SE has at the end three supplementary statements about the “Messiah of Israel,” the “congregation of the Community,” and the command to continue (recognizable in the last three paragraphs of the text as printed above), and above all, the text in Sa/SE is expanded in the opening statement (2.17–18).

Explanations When we compare the Qumran meal and the Eucharist as taken over by Paul (considering also the other early Christian texts on the Lord’s Supper), we can detect the following fourfold correspondence that sets the two meals apart in various ways from other meals in the GraecoRoman world: 1.

2.

3.

In both cases it is a meal that was clearly determined by Jewish tradition; this is also clear from the early Christian texts dealing with the Eucharist. Let us particularly note the breaking of bread and the benedictions over bread and wine. In both cases it is a matter of a meal in a (from a sociological point of view) closed assembly that sees itself as a community of the saved into which one is admitted. In both cases there is an eschatological expectation linked to the meal that corresponds to the Jewish tradition (so clearly in 1QSa/4QSE and in Paul). 48. Line 21 shows that “the whole assembly of the Community” is intended here.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

169

In Paul this expectation is not actually part of the text quoted (see 1 Cor 11:26), but it is also not merely a Pauline theologumenon, as is illustrated by the “Maranatha.” Finally, connected to both meals is a command to repeat the act. In both cases the verb “do” in the imperative is used: tou~to poiei ~te, “do this,” twice in Paul in 11:24–25 (likewise in Luke 22:19); or [w]#(y hzh qwxkw, “and they should act in accordance with this decree” in 1QSa.

4.

As for the Qumran Meal, the “apocalyptic” rule in Sa/SE shows that the community anticipated a meal with the Messiah (or with the priestly and Davidic Messiahs?).

5. Predestination Paul 1 Thessalonians 5:9: “For God has not destined (placed) us for wrath but for obtaining salvation…” (o3ti ou)k e1qeto h(ma~v o( qeo_v ei0v o0r 0 gh_n a)l ) la_ ei)v peripoi/hsin swthri/av…). Romans 8:28–30: “…who are called according to his purpose, [29] for those whom he foreknew he also predestined [or: decided upon beforehand, prow/risen]… [30] And those whom he predestined he also called…” For predestination, see also, for example, Romans 9, especially verses 10–29: “vessels of wrath that are made for destruction” (v. 22), “vessels of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). Divine purpose is mentioned: “to make known his power” (v. 22) and “to make known the wealth of his glory” (v. 23).

Qumran 1QHa 15.37–38 (7.34–35 Sukenik) + 4QHb (4Q428) frag. 10 line 1: “I praise you, O Lord, for you have not cast [1] my lot in a congregation of vanity and in a community of pretenders you have not placed (destined) my portion (yqwx htm# )l), [38] and thus you have called me (yn)rqXtw) to your mercies and to [your acts of] forgiveness [you have …].” See also especially 1QHa 7.27–34 (15.14–21 Sukenik); 12.39 (4.38 Sukenik); CD 2.2–13 (partly paralleled in 4QDa [4Q266]; 4QDd [4Q269]); and the apparently pre-Qumranian49 instruction on the two 49. See n9, above.

170

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

spirits in 1QS 3.13–4.26. Divine purpose is mentioned in 1QHa 7.33–34 (15.20–21 Sukenik): “that [all] know your glory and your great power.”

Explanations 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is found in the context of 5:4–9 (see B 2, above), which has the closest Pauline parallels with the Qumran writings (besides 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, which seems to be an addition after Paul). This text and the above-cited “community song” of 1QHa 15, paralleled by 4QHb, have several features in common (all the above-mentioned Hodayotb texts belong to “community songs”): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

The concern of both texts is predestination, partly double predestination. Both texts use the verb “to place” (tiqe/nai; My#). Both texts speak of predestination in a negative way with “not.” Both texts refer to the members of the community, either with “us” (Paul) or with “me” (Qumran). Both texts speak not only in a negative way of the goal of predestination, but also positively: in Paul it is “salvation” (swthri/a); in the Qumran texts it is “mercies” and “acts of forgiveness.” The verb “to call” (kalou~n), although missing in 1 Thess 5:4–9 (but see 5:24), occurs in Rom 8:30 and in line 1 of the quoted 4Q Hodb text ()rq).

In Rom 9:22–23 and 1QHa 7.33–34 (15.20–21 Sukenik) the same nouns are used for the purpose of God’s predestination: “power” and “glory”; even the verbs are similar: “to make known” (Paul), “to know” (Qumran). In a narrow sense, “predestination” concerns individuals who all may belong to one group and who are destined by God for salvation, while others or all others are destined for damnation, and this happens at least before birth (CD 2.7: “from long before”; Rom 8:29–30 and 9:23 “beforehand”). In the Qumran texts and in the Pauline letters, we find this type of predestination. There are hardly any full parallels to this in the Hebrew Bible, in early Judaism, or in the pagan world of that time. Nevertheless, the main Pauline texts of predestination, Rom 8:28–30 and 9:20–29, hardly show a convincing relationship to the Qumran texts.50 50. For further study of predestination in the Qumran texts, especially see David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” (first in 1958, later) in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 23–74, esp. 28–30; Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975); Günter Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung: Untersuchungen zur frühjüdischen, paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie (Texte und

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

171

According to Magen Broshi, “the doctrine of predestination” is “the most important contribution of the Dead Sea Sect, that is, the Essenes,” “or rather the immediate predecessors, the sapiential proto-Essene school,” “to Western civilization.”51

C. TORAH, “TO B E COUNTED AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” MAN’S U NRIGHTEOUSNESS, G RACE, AND LIBERATION FROM S IN 1. “Law” and “Faith” Paul Galatians 3:11 and Rom 1:17 cite Hab 2:4: “The one who is righteous shall gain life by faith,” or translated as “The one who is justified through faith shall gain life” (o9 [de\] di/kaiov e0k pi/stewv zh/setai). “Law” (no/ mov) is found in opposition to “faith” (pi/stiv); see the context and, for example, Rom 3:21–22.

Qumran 1QpHab 8.1–3 interprets Hab 2:4: “The interpretation refers to all those who observe the Law (hrwth y#w( lwk) in the house of Judah [= among the Jews] [2] whom God will deliver from the house of judgment [= God’s final judgment], because of their exertion and their faithfulness [3] to the Righteous Teacher (qdch hrwmb / Mtnm)w Mlm( rwb(b).”

Explanations For Qumran and Jewish thinking, “faithfulness” in Hab 2:4 (LXX: pi/stiv) is part of observing the Law (“it refers to all those who observe the Law,” says the quoted Qumran Habakkuk Pesher); but Paul, understanding Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 14; Tübingen: Francke, 1994), 72—85; idem, “Prädestination: I. Biblisch,” RGG4 6:1524—26; Armin Lange, “Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 340–54; idem, Weisheit; Magen Broshi, “Predestination in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (JSPSup 36; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 238–52; Roland Bergmeier, “Prädestination II: Judentum,” TRE 27:102–5. 51. M. Broshi, “Predestination,” 247. Before Paul, Röhser (“Prädestination,” 6:1525) sees double predestination in a narrow sense and fully developed (“voll ausgeprägt”) only in texts from Qumran.

172

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

“faith” from his new Christian background, is contrasting both. The translation of Hab 2:4 should render the related Hebrew and Greek words in Paul and a Jewish text differently, as typical Pauline “faith” and Jewish “faithfulness.”52 For Paul, Hab 2:4 is one of the most central passages in his Bible, which shows him that “faith” (he means “faith” in Christ) and not the Law is the way to salvation. In Romans it is again (see A 1, above) the theological theme of the whole epistle (1:16–17), where we find the quotation from Habakkuk, which is so meaningful for Paul. The contrast in the understanding of Hab 2:4 in a Qumran text and in Paul is helpful for a sharper analysis of both. We need to compare “their faithfulness to the Righteous Teacher” to “faith in Jesus Christ,” as in Gal 3:22. See also Phlm 5: “…the faith you have toward the Lord Jesus…”

2. “To Be Counted as Righteousness” Paul Galatians 3:6 cites Gen 15:6 LXX (a citation also in Rom 4:3): “Just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted (e)logi/sqh) to him as righteousness…”

Qumran 4QMMT C 31 (= 4Q papMMTe [4Q398] frags. 14–17 2.7; partly also in 4QMMTf [4Q399] 2.4): “And it will be counted to you [the addressee] as righteousness” (hqdcl Kl hb#xnw; compare Ps 106:31: “And it was counted to him [Phinehas] as righteousness”), “since you will be doing what is right and good before him.”53 See also “works of the Law” and further similarities in 4QMMT and Paul (see C 4, below).

Explanations While for Paul “faith” (in contrast to observing the Law) is “counted as righteousness,” the Qumran text again says that the fulfilling of the Law (“doing what is right and good before him”), obeying the precepts earlier outlined, is counted in this way (cf. 4QpsJuba [= 4Q225] frag. 2 1.8: … b#xXtwX X, “and it was counted to him [Abraham] as righteousness”; Jub. 52. See Dunn and Charlesworth in the present volume (ch. 7). 53. For the reconstruction of 4QMMT, see n61, below.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

173

30:17 refers to two sons of Jacob; 1 Macc 2:52: kai _ e)logi/sqh…, “and it was counted to him [Abraham] as righteousness”).54 The contrast between Paul and MMT in using this expression55 is quite parallel to what was found already in Paul’s and Qumran’s understanding of Hab 2:4 (see C 1, above).56

3. Torah and Crucifixion Paul Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by coming under the curse for our sake, for it is written [Deut 27:26 + 21:23]: ‘Cursed is everybody who hangs on a tree.’”

Qumran 11QTemplea (11Q19) 64.6–13 (now 9–16 Steudel; corresponding to Deut 21:22–23; partly also in 4Q524 frag. 14): “…[8] you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die.…[9] he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on a tree.…[10]…you shall hang him also on a tree [11] and he shall die…for [12] he who is hanged on a tree belongs to those who are accursed of God and men.” From “for he who is hanged” (lines 11–12), the text continues differently in a fragment of 4QTempleb (4Q524) 14 (see lines 4–5) with a text corresponding Deut 22:11. The original Temple Scroll seems to belong to about the third century B.C.E. 4QpNah (4Q169) fragments 3–4 1.6–8 (interpretation of Nah 2:13b concerning the High Priest and King Alexander Jannaeus [103–76 B.C.E.]): “[7]…and hangs men alive [8]…of a man hanged alive on a tree” (for the last wording, cf. Deut 21:22–23).57

54. Cf. Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law,’” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. P. W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 203–16, esp. 209. 55. Abegg, Jr., “4QMMT,” 207–8; he also correctly remarks that the Hebrew text of Ps 106:31 is closer to 4QMMT than Gen 15:6 is. The Masoretic text in Gen 15:6 has “and he [the LORD] counted it to him [Abraham] as righteousness,” while LXX, Qumran, and Paul (Gal 3:6) use the passive, as does the Hebrew text of Ps 106:31. 56. For 4QMMT, see C 4, below. 57. Cf. Lange, “Qumran 1,” 52–53.

174

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

Explanations As we now know with certainty through the quoted Qumran texts, Paul uses an early Jewish understanding of Deut 21:22–23 (crucifixion, as opposed to the original meaning of the Bible text) to give an interpretation of the crucifixion of Christ. By becoming cursed “for us” according to the Law in Deut 21:23, Christ redeemed his believers “from the curse of the Law” to receive “the blessing of Abraham” by faith (Gal 3:13–14).58 Nahum Pesher alludes also to Deut 21:22–23 and refers to the crucifixion of eight hundred rebels by Alexander Jannaeus about 90 B.C.E. in Jerusalem.59 Nahum Pesher no doubt speaks of that crucifixion, known from Josephus.60

4. “Works of the Law (Torah)” Paul Galatians 2:16 (3x); 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20 (in all cases “by works of the Law” [e0c e1rgwn no/ mou]); 3:28 (“apart from works of the Law”” [xwri\j e1rgwn no/ mou]. All cases are negative, mostly with “no/not” (ou0) or with “or” (h1).

Qumran 4QMMT C 26–27 (= 4Q papMMTe [= 4Q398] frags. 14–17 2.2–3; parts of the sentence also in 4QMMTf [= 4Q399] 1.10): “Now, we have written 58. Cf. C. Marvin Pate, Communities of the Last Days: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament and the Story of Israel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 155–95 (ch. 6), “The Reverse of the Curse: Justification according to the DSS and Paul”; idem, The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom and the Law (WUNT 2.144; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Both publications are more broadly oriented than the title The Reverse of the Curse would suggest. 59. See James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 60. Josephus, J.W. 1.97–98; 1.113; Ant. 13.380–83. Concerning crucifixion in ancient Palestine until the beginning of the First Jewish War (66 until about 74 C.E.), see Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit: Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums,” ANRW 25.1 (1982): 648–793, esp. 709–17; cf. idem, “Die drei wichtigsten Qumranparallelen zum Galaterbrief: Unbekannte Wege der Tradition,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Bartelmus, T. Krüger, and H. Utzschneider; OBO 126; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 227—54, esp. 231—38.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

175

to you some of the works of the Law [add for understanding: that have to be observed]” (hrwth y#(m tcqm [27/3] KyXl)X wnbtk wnxn) P)w).61 See also “to be counted as righteousness” in 4QMMT and Paul (see C 2, above). In Florilegium (4QFlor = 4Q174) fags. 1–2 1.7 (= 4QMidrEschata 3.7) the text has “works (= offerings) of thanksgiving” (hdwt y#(m), not “works of the Law” (hrwt y#(m).62

Explanations Except in Paul and MMT, the phrase “works of the Law” (e1rga no&mou / hrwt[h] y#(m) is never found in the Hebrew Bible, in early Judaism, and the rabbinical literature63 (but see 2 Bar. 57:2 from the end of the first century C.E.: “the works of the commandments”; and cf. in Qumran texts, esp. CD 20.6: “his deeds (wy#(m) according to the interpretation of the Law”). In contrast to an earlier opinion,64 I now ask myself if the often-used translation “some precepts of the Law” is not linguistically misleading. The normal translation of the sentence would be “We have written to you some works of the Law” (some things to be done in fulfilling the Law). In any event this interpretation comes close to the meaning “precepts.”65 In 4QMMT C 7 (= 4QMMTd [= 4Q397] frags. 14–21 line 7) and Gal 2:12 the verb “to separate” (#rp and a)fori/zein) is used in the context of “works of the Law.”66 If one understands the Pauline “works of the Law” in its Jewish use in Qumran, according to 4QMMT it refers to specific regulations of the Law in detail (more than 20 precepts). Rules and practices in 4QMMT define a boundary (between Jews and Jews), while for Paul “faith” is the 61. The generally accepted shape of 4QMMT was produced by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma(ase ha-Torah (ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 62. See Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes: Aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill 1994), 169—221, esp. 202–13; cf. pls. 8—9. 63. Cf. David Flusser, “Die Gesetzeswerke in Qumran und bei Paulus,” in Judentum, vol. 1 of Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion (ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 395–403, esp. 397. 64. H.-W. Kuhn, “Verständnis des Galaterbriefes,” 209–10. 65. For the problem of translating h#(m, cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 358n94. Dunn and Charlesworth translate hrwth y#(m as “works of the Law.” See their chapter in this volume (ch. 7). 66. See James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” NTS 43 (1997): 147–53, esp. 147–48.

176

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

central boundary (dividing humankind). Is “works of the Law” really “the Pauline term for ‘covenantal nomism’”?67 In 4QMMT the text gives many different rulings and practices by which those “who observe the Law” are “saved” (lcn) from the final judgment (cf. 1QpHab 8.1–2), because “it will be counted as righteousness” (a similar wording in Gal 3:6 and Rom 4:3, following Gen 15:6 LXX)68 “at the end of time” (4QMMT C 30–31 [= 4Q papMMTe (4Q398) frag. 14–17 2.6–7]).69 Paul argues against this decisive function of the Torah with its many rules and practices (but for the Qumran community see also the factor of divine grace, as described in C 7, below),70 turning down this function of the Torah by introducing “faith” in an un-Jewish way. Thus, the Qumran phrase “works of the Law” appears in a text that may be a letter from the beginning of the community (“we-group,” as in C 7, below) against an opposition believed by some to be the high priest (“you-group,” as in 4QMMT C 8; or one person, as in C 28) and also against a totally hostile group (“they-group,” as in B 6, above). This usage can help us find the right interpretation of an important issue in the theology of Paul. It is indeed striking that five features—(1) the “works of the Law,” (2) the expression “to be counted as righteousness” (see C 2, above), (3) a similar use of the verb “to separate” (see above), (4) the topic of blessing and curse,71 and finally (5) the calendrical observances,

67. Thus Dunn, Theology, 355, using the concept of “convenantal nomism” from Edward P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977). Among the many authors who discussed “the works of the Law,” Dunn’s voice is prominent: See also, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, “Yet Once More: ‘The Works of the Law’: A Response,” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117; idem, Theology, 354–66; idem, “Noch einmal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialog Continues,” in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity (ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni; NovTSup 103; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 273–90. Robert Keith Rapa’s The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans (Studies in Biblical Literature 31; New York: Lang, 2001) seems not to be very helpful. Of newer articles on this subject, I mention also Michael Bachmann, “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, hrwt y#(m und ERGA NOMOU,” ZNW 89 (1998): 91—113; repr. Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, “The Concept of ‘Works of the Law’ in Jewish and Christian Literature,” in ChristianJewish Relations through the Centuries (ed. S. E. Porter and B. W. R. Pearson; JSNTSup 192; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 116–47; Abegg, Jr., “4QMMT.” 68. See C 2, above. 69. Cf. also CD 3.14–15. 70. The “works of the Law” are the way to salvation at the end of time, in contrast to Paul, but not without God’s grace. 71. 4QMMT C 12–16 (= 4Q papMMTe [4Q398] 14–17 1. 5–8; 4QMMTd [4Q397] frags. 14–21 lines 12–14) and Gal 3:9–10, 13–14. See for this topic also Abegg, Jr., “4QMMT,” 212–13.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

177

at least attached to one manuscript,72—are all found in 4QMMT and in Galatians.

5. “Sinful Flesh” Paul Romans 8:3: “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (sarko_v a9marti/av).”

Qumran 1QS 11.9 says: “However, I belong to a wicked humankind and to a company of unjust flesh (lw( r#b); my sins (ytwnww(), my crimes (y(#p), my errors (yt)+x)…”73 In different use (see below) for all wicked men, especially in the pagan nations: 1QM 4.2–3 on a banner: “From [3] God is the power of war against all unjust flesh (lw( r#b),” identified in line 2 as people who belong to “Belial and all the men of his lot”; 1QM 12.11–12 in a prayer: “…and may your sword [12] consume guilty flesh (hm#) r#b),”74 identified in a parallelismus membrorum as “the nations, your enemies.”

Explanations The term “sinful flesh” or similar was not used in the Hebrew Bible (including Sirach) or in the Septuagint. The same is true for the Mishnah.75 It also cannot be found as sa&rc a9 marti/av (“sinful flesh”) in any Jewish or pagan Greek text between the third century B.C.E.76 and the third 72. See 4QMMT section A (4Q394 frags. 3–7 col. 1, but not frags. 1–2 according to the reedition of Shemaryahu Talmon in Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Calendrical Texts [ed. S. Talmon, J. Ben-Dov, and U. Glessmer, DJD 21; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001]) and Gal 4:10. 73. Already in 1952 Karl Georg Kuhn emphasized the parallel between Rom 8:3 and 1QS 11.9; see his “Peirasmo&j—a(marti/a—sa&rc im Neuen Testament und die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen,” ZTK 49 (1952): 200–22, here 210n2; revised in ET: “New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 94–113, 265–70, here 267n23. 74. In the parallel passage in 1QM 19.4, “guilty” is missing. 75. Here t)+x r#b (in m. Zebah[ 8:4; 14:13) means “meat of a sin offering.” 76. According to Thesaurus Linguae Graecae [on CD-ROM], Version E, published at the University of California, Irvine, CA, 1999.

178

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

century C.E. While in 1QM only the wicked, especially the wicked nations, are referred to as sinful flesh, the passage in 1QS includes also the pious (“I”), and that means all humankind. In this way, Paul is using the term for Christ (but regarding Christ, Paul feels it necessary to weaken his statement by adding “in the likeness”).77 Paul uses “flesh” in a negative way for all human beings, including the pious (as in Rom 8:5), and even for Christ. Some Qumran writings use “flesh” in the same way, especially in the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien and the Elendsbetrachtungen of the community in 1Q / 4Q Hodayot (see “flesh” in 1QHa 7.34 [15.21 Sukenik]; 12.30 [4.29 Sukenik]).78 The only direct parallel to the composed term in Rom 8:3 is 1QS 11.9. “Flesh” in Paul and “flesh” in Qumran writings of the community are sometimes used in the same negative way, describing all people, even the pious, as sinful (not only as weak or mortal creatures);79 in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, which show some nearness to some Qumran writings, we clearly find the same negative usage of “flesh” (esp. T. Jud. 19:4).

6. No Man Is Righteous Paul Romans 3:10 alludes to Eccl 7:20 in combination with Ps 14:3 (13:3 LXX) or Ps 53:3 (52:4 LXX): “There is no one righteous, not even one.” For Paul, the insight that all people are sinful is central (see also, e.g., Rom 3:23; Gal 3:22; and C 5, above).

Qumran 1QHa 17.14–15 (9.14–15 Sukenik): “No one can be righteous [15] in your ju[dg]ment.” This motive is typical for the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien and the 77. Cf. 2 Cor 5:21. 78. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 27–29. 79. Cf. the discussion of “flesh” in the Qumran writings and Paul in several articles of Jörg Frey, especially in “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90 (1999): 45–77; and “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998 (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 197–226. It should be emphasized that the probably preEssene writing 1Q/4QInstruction (olim Sapiential Work), though using “flesh” in a negative way for the sinful wicked, does not use r#b in the sense that all pious are sinful (see esp. 4QInstructiond [= 4Q418; olim Sapiential Work Aa] frags. 81 + 81a lines 1–2).

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

179

Elendsbetrachtungen of the community in 1Q/4Q Hodayot, e.g., 1QHa 9.23–29 (1.21–27 Sukenik).80

Explanations The basic insight into human nature that no one is righteous can be found in Paul and in the Qumran texts. It was present in the Hebrew Bible, where this judgment is given most clearly in Ps 143:2 (142:2 LXX): “No one living can be righteous before you.” Galatians 2:16 and Rom 3:20 seem to echo this verse from the Septuagint. In early Judaism, we find this view especially in 2 Esdras at the end of the first century C.E. (e.g., 7:68).81

7. “By Grace Alone” Paul Romans 3:24: Believers are “justified by his [God’s] grace as a gift”; there are similar Pauline passages.

Qumran 1QHa 5.33–34 (13.16–17 Sukenik) says: “Alone by your goodness can one be righteous” (#y) qdcy / Kbw+b qr), which is affirmed in other Qumran passages and reinforced by the use of “grace” (dsx) in Qumran texts.

Explanations The word “alone,” found in the above-cited “community song,” is missing in Paul in connection with grace (or faith), and yet it is meant by him (“allein durch den Glauben” is Luther’s translation of Rom 3:28). Only 1QHa 5.33 (13.16 Sukenik) has this “alone” and, in opposition to Paul or Pauline tradition, it is denied in Jas 2:24 (but here also regarding faith: 80. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung, 27–29. 81. For the Qumran Community see, e.g., Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in den Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), esp. 209—12. Cf. critically Sanders, Paul, 545–46.

180

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

“not by faith alone” [ou)k e)k pi/stewv mo/ non]). The word “alone” (qr) in the “community song” helps us understand that “by God’s grace alone” is Jewish, too, while “by faith alone” is especially Pauline.

8. God’s Spirit and Man’s Liberation from Sin Paul Romans 8:2–8 states: “For the principle (o9 ga_r no/ mov) of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the principle (a0 po__ tou= no/mou) of sin and death” (v. 2).

Qumran 1QS 3.6–12 (partly paralleled in 4Q papSa [4Q255] frag. 2 lines 1–9; 4papSc [4Q257] 3.9–14): “For through the spirit of God’s true counsel there can be atonement for the ways of man—for all [7] his sins—that he can behold the light of life, while he will be cleansed from all [8] his sins by the holy spirit.”

Explanations The Qumran parallel is a strong argument for the meaning of no/ mov in Rom 8:2 as “principle” (see, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.315: “by the principle of warfare” [pole/mou no/mw| ]) instead of “Law” (see also Rom 3:27). This means that Paul plays with the word nomos (in Rom 8:3, 4, and 7 it means “Law”) and does not speak of a “law/Law of sin and death.” Between Rom 8:2–8 and 1QS 3.6–12 are further parallels in terminology. “Flesh” occurs nine times in Rom 8:2–8 and also in 1QS 3.9 (for the expression “sinful flesh” in Rom 8:3, see C 5, above). We need to compare “the requirement of the Law” in Rom 8:4 with “the laws of God” in 1QS 3.8; see further the verb “to please” in Rom 8:8 and 1QS 8.11.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

181

D. ETHICAL DUALISM 1. Catalogs of So-Called Vices and Virtues Paul + Qumran Gal 5:16–26

1QS 3.25–4.14 (partly paralleled in 4QpapSc [4Q257])

5:16–18—dualistic introduction for both catalogs (vices and virtues)

3.25ab–4.1—final dualistic introduction for both catalogs (virtues and vices) 4.2aa—heading for both catalogs

5:19a—introduction for the catalog of vices

4.2ab–3aa—introduction for the catalog of virtues

5:19b–21—catalog of vices

4.3ab–6—catalog of virtues

5:21b—eschatological retaliation

4.6b–8—résumé and eschatological reward

5:22a—introduction for the catalog of virtues

4.9aa—introduction for the catalog of vices

5:22b–23a—catalog of virtues

4.9ab–11ba—catalog of vices

5:23b—(indirect) eschatological reward

4.11bb–14—eschatological retaliation

5:24–26—specific Pauline continuation

Explanation Both sets of catalogs are found in a dualistic and eschatological framework (for Paul, also esp. cf. Rom 13:12). 1QS 3.13–4.26 is an apparently pre-Qumranian instruction on the two spirits.82 For the Qumran dualism with ethical orientation, see B 2 (above). Between Paul and Qumran, there is no closer parallelism between such catalogs than here (even surprising parallels in detail exist, e.g., “walking by the spirit” in Gal 5:16 par. 1QS 4.6 and the comparisons in D 2, below). In the authentic letters 82. See n9, above.

182

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

of Paul, only in Galatians 5 does one find both sets of catalogs together; the same seems to be true for 1QS 3–4 among the Qumran texts. In Paul, the single catalogs of vices dominate; in 1QS the single catalogs of virtues dominate; hence, Paul starts in Galatians 5 with the vices. Since in the context of Gal 5:16–23 we find nothing specific for the Qumran texts and since the instruction on the two spirits in 1QS is rather pre-Qumranian, one may hesitate to postulate a relationship for Paul with specific Qumran traditions.83

2. Servants of Impurity/Servants of Righteousness Paul Romans 6:16–19 says: “You presented your members as slaves to impurity [before conversion]; …now present your members as slaves to righteousness” (v. 19).

Qumran 1QS 4.9–10 offers terms such as “in the service of righteousness” (line 9) and “in the service of uncleanness” (line 10). See also 1QM 13.5: “for all their service of extreme uncleanness.” 1QM partly originated before the origin of the Qumran community.84

Explanations While the above-cited texts speak in a general way of members and nonmembers of the community, the full parallel expression “the service of righteousness” in 2 Cor 3:9 concerns Paul’s special ministry as apostle (cf. also 11:15). A further parallel to this Pauline expression in 2 Corinthians 3 is found in the Qumran wording “service of righteousness” in 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a, earlier 4QTNaph [= 4Q215] frag. 1 2.9); this text concerns men in the eschatological future.

83. For all details, especially the corresponding vices and virtues in Galatians 5 and 1QS 3–4, see H.-W. Kuhn, “Qumranparallelen zum Galaterbrief,” 238–45. For the instruction on the two spirits, see n9, above. 84. Cf. Lange, “Qumran 1,” 60–62.

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

183

3. Hate and Love Paul Romans 12:17–21: Paul uses early Christian paraenetic tradition here and makes several points before the closing sentence in verse 21.85 The last point cites the Septuagint: “If your enemy is hungry, give him to eat; if he is thirsty, give him to drink…” (v. 20; Prov 25:21–22 LXX).

Qumran 1QS 10.17–21 (partly parallel texts in 4QSd [= 4Q258]; 4QSb [= 4Q256]; 4QSf [= 4Q260]): In a way similar to Rom 12:17–20, this text is also a unit, beginning with “I will not repay to anybody the reward of evil” (line 17) and ending with “until their way is perfect” (line 21). It mentions several points found in Paul in almost the same order, but with less logical sequence (Qumran: 1a, 1b, 2, 4, 5; Paul: 1a, 1b, 4, 2, 5; for the numbering see the “Explanations,” below). The Qumran text adds “spirit of wickedness” and “riches of violence” between numbers 2 and 4 (in Paul number 3 is missing). But in the Qumran text the sentence that follows all these statements says the opposite, speaking according to the Qumran dualism of religious hate (as in 1QS 9.21–22; cf. Ps 139:21–22) instead of something that comes close to love for the enemy: “But [20] I shall not take away my wrath from the children of injustice and I shall not be happy until he [God] establishes judgment.…I shall not take pity [21] on all who depart from the way. I shall not comfort the defeated [4QSf 5.1: those who walk ahead (?)] until their way is perfect”. Paul’s treating the enemy well, quoted from Proverbs, comes rather close to love for the enemy, which we seldom find even in early Christian writings until around the middle of the second century C.E. (Matt 5:44 par. Luke 6:27, 35; 2 Clem. 13:4; Did. 1:3; Ep. Apos. 18).

Explanations The dualistic aspect of Pauline ethics (characteristic for Qumran texts) follows clearly in Rom 13:11–14 (v. 12: “the works of darkness” and “the armor of light”). There are five parallel points: 85. Cf. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Das Liebesgebot Jesu als Thora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt,” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Für Joachim Gnilka (ed. H. Frankemölle and K. Kertelge; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 194–230, esp. 199–204.

184

I MPACT OF QUMRAN TEXTS ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

Qumran (1QS 10.17–21)

Paul (Rom 12:17–21)

1a. I will not repay to anybody the reward of evil.

1a. Repay no one evil for evil.

1b. I will pursue man with goodness.

1b. Be concerned about what is good in the sight of all men [cf. Prov 3:4 LXX].

2. For with God rests the judgment of every living being, and it is he who will render to man his reward.

4. Leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord [Deut 32:35].

4. I will not grapple with the men of perdition.

2. Live at peace with all men.

5. I will have wrath and no pity for the children of injustice.

Give your enemy to eat and to drink.

One may ask: How close to 1QS 10 is Paul in Rom 12–13 or the Jewish-Christian tradition he is using? In any case, the Pauline ending of a series of ethical topics seems to be typical for the contrast to Qumran.

CONCLUSIONS Some of the nineteen “parallels” quoted above are of eminent importance for a better understanding of what Paul is saying. I believe this is especially true for the idea of the eschatological revelation of God’s righteousness (A 1, above); in this first case I add that with this parallel one can also sharpen the analysis of Paul’s saying. We can also gain a better understanding of Paul on the relationship between present salvation and hope (A 3), on the distinction between “Law” and “faith” according to Hab 2:4 (C 1), on the way in which Paul argues regarding crucifixion (C 3), on Paul’s and Qumran’s expression “works of the Law” (C 4), on the Qumranian sola gratia (C 6), and finally also for a set of ethical traditions concerning hate and love (D 3). This is one way of looking at the so-called parallels: Where are they helpful for a better understanding of Paul? It is most interesting to see how very differently sometimes Paul uses the same words and phrases;

H EINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN

185

yet we may wonder if they are the “same” words and phrases despite the language barrier (in the cases discussed above, nevertheless, I would speak of “parallels”). The other question is more difficult: We can ask which “parallels” seem to prove or suggest a certain acquaintance of Paul with traditions of the Qumran community; such knowledge need not be direct. For those “parallels” it is necessary to presuppose that certain ideas originated in the Qumran community or were of major importance for the community, as with the term “children of light.” A certain acquaintance with traditions of the Qumran community— though Paul is writing before 68 C.E., the destruction of the Qumran settlement and a possible dispersion of Qumran people—could be argued especially for the understanding of the community as temple and God’s planting (B 1), for the community as “children of light” (B 2), for the concept of predestination (B 5), for the phrase “works of the Law” (C 4), and also for the already-mentioned set of ethical traditions (D 3). It thus is important to distinguish between two approaches to investigating the impact of Qumran on Paul; we seek (1) to achieve a better understanding of Paul through Qumran texts, and (2) to examine Paul’s possible acquaintance with Qumran traditions. A direct contact of Paul with the writings of the Qumran community is in no place probable; it can even be denied.

CHAPTER SEVEN

QUMRAN’S SOME WORKS OF TORAH (4Q394–399 [4QMMT]) AND PAUL’S GALATIANS James D. G. Dunn and James H. Charlesworth1

I NTRODUCTION—CHARLESWORTH Some Works of Torah (4QMMT, or Halakic Letter = 4Q394–399)2 is another example of the paradigmatic importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for understanding Christian Origins. The title of this text, if it ever had one, has not been preserved. Its present title derives from a phrase found in the final lines. Since the words m(s 8y htwrh (hrwth y#(m) appear in only one extant fragment and it is not near the beginning of the document, we should not assume we know the title of this document. Whether it is a letter or a treatise is not clear. Leaders at Qumran most likely sent it to the ruling priest and his group in the Jerusalem Temple. It dates from about the middle of the second century B.C.E.; conceivably, the Righteous Teacher composed it. The importance of this document at Qumran is clear, since six fragmentary copies were found in Cave 4.3 This document states why the Qumranites left Jerusalem and separated from other priests in the Temple cult. The text explains that its 1. Robert Hayward and Loren T. Stuckenbruck provided assistance for the first draft of this paper. This essay is a revised and expanded version of an article by James D. G. Dunn that appeared in NTS 43 (1977): 147–53. The Cambridge University Press and the editor of NTS are due appreciation for the permission to revise and republish the work that appeared in 1977. James H. Charlesworth expanded and updated the work, making its insights more accessible to a wider audience, and supplying information obtained by the Princeton team that worked on MMT. 2. In the mid-1990s, the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (PTSDSSP) renamed MMT Some Works of Torah, to reflect consistency in translating key terms. Throughout this chapter, 4QMMT will be used interchangeably with 4Q394–399. 3. See the contributions to John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein, eds., Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

187

188

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

authors disagree with the ruling priests in at least twenty laws pertaining, inter alia, to sacrifices and especially purity.4 It will become evident in this essay that the editors translated a common Hebrew noun in MMT as “precepts.” When we observe the more common meaning of this noun—“works”—we discover a striking link between this document and Paul’s thought in Galatians. Let us now turn to this phrase.

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND GALATIANS—DUNN The occurrence of the phrase miqs[at ma(as 8ê ha4tôrâ (hrwth y#(m tcqm) in Some Works of Torah (4QMMT) had already been exciting comment for some years prior to the official publication of the scroll fragments.5 In one of the first reflections on the official publication,6 Martin G. Abegg Jr. suggested that Paul’s use of the same phrase, ergo¯n nomou (e1rgwn no/mou) in Galatians and Romans (Gal 2:16; 3.2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28) indicates that Paul was “rebutting the theology of documents such as MMT.” Abegg continued, suggesting “that Paul was reacting to the kind of theology espoused by MMT, perhaps even by some Christian converts who were committed to the kind of thinking reflected in MMT.”7 As we shall see below, Abegg presented some further reasons for seeing a parallel or even a connection between the thought of 4QMMT and Paul’s argumentation in Galatians in particular. But even he does not seem to have appreciated all the points of possible connection between this Qumran composition and Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In assessing the significance of 4QMMT for New Testament study (“nothing short of

4. For a succinct introduction, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Miqs[at Ma(asei ha-Torah,” in EDSS (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:558–60. Esther Eshel shows that the rules regarding some sacrifices unite not only 11QTemple (11Q19–20) and MMT but also preserve views attributed to one or more rabbis (viz., R. Ishmael). See Esther Eshel, “4QLEVd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and Miqs[at Ma(as e8 ha-Torah,” DSD 2, no. 1 (1995): 1–13. 5. See James D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988), 154. 6. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994); the text and translation have been reprinted in Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “For This You Waited 35 Years: MMT as Reconstructed by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell,” BAR 20, no. 6 (1994): 56–61. 7. Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT,” BAR 20, no. 6 (1994): 52–55 (here 54). Now, see idem, “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law,’” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. P. W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 203–16 (added by JHC).

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

189

revolutionary,” concludes Abegg), it may be of value to summarize the significance of these points of possible connection.8 Fortunately, it is not necessary to become involved in any debate about the reconstruction of 4QMMT.9 The points of possible connection almost all come in the fragments numbered 4Q397 and 4Q398. Qumran experts agree that these fragments comprise the final section of this composite document. Indeed, they constitute the section of 4QMMT that Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell designate as an epilogue consisting of thirty-two lines.10 So we can proceed to the points of comparison without delving into the complexities raised by the fragments. The sequence of the four main points follows the sequence in MMT.

Self-Description The first point of interest is the self-description of the writer(s) of the scroll: “We have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people” ([M](h bwrm wn#rp[#11; Qimron, C7). Qimron reconstructs the next phrase as Mt)m+ lwkmw12 (“and from all their impurity”). But even without that reconstruction, it is clear from the context, especially when taken in conjunction with the second part of MMT, that the separation was motivated by purity concerns (cf. CD 5–7).13 The Hebrew noun prsh (#rp), of course, forms the root from which the name “Pharisees” is generally derived (My#&wrp = “separated ones”).14 The implication is clear 8. For a wide range of issues raised by MMT that are crucial for New Testament research, see John Kampen, “4QMMT and New Testament Studies,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. J. Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 129—44. For a guide to publications on the importance of MMT for the New Testament, see idem, 138n39 (added by JHC). 9. For years a PTSDSSP team, with the help of Qimron and Strugnell, worked to improve the document for publication. It is imperative to observe that the composite text evolves from decisions about the relationships among the fragments. 10. See Florentino García Martínez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. W. G. E. Watson; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 4QMMT Composite Text, lines 86–118. See Qimron and Strugnell, in Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah (DJD 10), 58–63; Abegg, “For This You Waited,” 60–61; Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; London: Penguin, 1995), 182, includes only the last eight lines. Also, see Robert H. Eisenman and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1992), 196–200. 11. For the diacritics, see Qimron and Strugnell, ibid. (DJD 10), 27. Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth. 12. Charlesworth has inserted the Hebrew. 13. Qimron and Strugnell, ibid. (DJD 10), 142–75. 14. Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth.

Qimron, C7<~ clarify use of “ throughout. on p plus a numeral, numeral to indica system is being us bibliographic s drawn from?>

190

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

that these Jews were so-called “separatists” because they tried to separate themselves within or even from the rest of Israel, again with the clear implication that the motivation was based on purity rules and interpretations of Torah (Law).15 Not least of interest here is the evidence that the author(s) of MMT advocates what later sources indicate to have been a Sadducean halakhah16 and that their opponents in view sound more like Pharisees.17 Nevertheless, the usage here to express a clearly sectarian attitude is striking. And the fact that this is the first time the term prsh appears in early Jewish literature18 adds immeasurably to the significance of MMT. In this first case the possible point of contact is Paul’s description of the action of Peter, followed by the other Jewish Christians, who “separated himself” from the Gentile Christians in Antioch, having previously eaten with them. The suggestion that Paul’s use of the verb “to separate” (aphorizein) in Galatians may echo his own previous experience of selfseparation as a Pharisee is an old one.19 What is new? Simply this: we now have a text roughly contemporaneous with Paul20 that uses precisely this language to describe a sectarian self-separation from the rest of the larger Jewish religious community21 for purity reasons. They chose to avoid “associating (or participating) with” other Jews (cf. García Martínez, 93; Qimron, C8). We now possess an unprecedented and striking parallel in early Jewish literature to Paul’s language. The inference is appropriate that the motivation behind Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:12) was of a similar character and rationale as the withdrawal of the MMT group from their larger Jewish community. 15. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–87), 2:396–97; cf. e.g., Ulrich Kellermann, a)fori/zw, in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 1:443; ET Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993). 16. Schiffman contends that the “views of the author of MMT are representative of Sadducean halakah.” Lawrence H. Schiffman, EDSS 1:559 (added by JHC). 17. Qimron and Strugnell, ibid. (DJD 10), 111, 115–17. 18. Ya(akov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Appendix 1 in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma(ase ha-Torah (ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 192. 19. See Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig: Deichert, 1905), 61–62, with reference to Gal 1:15. 20. Qimron and Strugnell put the composition of MMT in the period 159–152 B.C.E. (idem, ibid. [DJD 10], 121), but also note that the manuscripts date from about 75 B.C.E. to 50 C.E. (109); that is, the memory of the “separation” was preserved alive at Qumran in the copying of the text.

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

191

Blessings and Curses The second point of comparison between MMT and Galatians is the emphasis on the blessings and curses written in the book of Moses (Qimron, C13-22; García Martínez, 99–108). The allusion is clearly to the famous climax in Deut 27–30.22 MMT recalls the curses that have fallen on Israel in the past: “We know that some of the blessings and the curses have (already) been fulfilled” (Qimron, C20). The understanding is obvious that these previously fulfilled blessings and curses await an eschatological completion: “‘And it shall come to pass, when all these things [be]fall you’ [a clear echo of Deut 30:1], at the end of days, the blessings and the curses…” (Qimron, C13-14). “And it is the end of days when they will return in Israel ([l)]r#&yb) to the Law” (cf. Qimron, C21-22).23 Evidently the authors of MMT shared a more widespread fascination with this section of Deuteronomy as a way of making sense of the ups and downs of Israel’s history.24 Whether this means that they thought they were themselves still in exile—a recently popular line of exegesis25— is another question. The author(s) of CD 1.5–8 clearly thought of themselves as at the end of the process. And the impression given by the MMT passage is that the authors’ eschatology was similar to Christian eschatology, in which realized and unrealized, already-and-not-yet, concepts 21. Abegg, “Paul,” 54, thinks that the broken word [M](h should read rather [hd](h, “the congregation.” Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth. 22. Kuhn points to the use of Deut 21 at Qumran and Galatians. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 329–31 (added by Charlesworth). 23. Qimron translates: “‘And this is at the end of days when they will return to Israel’”; cf. García Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, composite text, lines 107–8, “‘And this is the end of days, when they go back to Israel for [ever …].’” But “to Israel” is not an obvious translation for [l)]r#&yb; “return to,” in biblical and Qumran Hebrew, is almost always expressed with l), or l, and often with the addition, “in peace” (Mwl#$b). García Martínez acknowledged the point at the SBL meeting in Chicago in November 1994. The translation in the text is the revised translation he suggested on that occasion, in which he completes the lacuna at the beginning of line 108 (Qimron, C22) as hrwtl. Now, see his second (1996) edition. Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth. 24. See particularly James M. Scott, “‘For as Many as Are of Works of the Law Are Under a Curse’ (Galatians 3.10),” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTS 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 187–221 (here, 194–213); see also idem, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 645–65. 25. Nicholas T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992); in particular, see 268–72.

Q i m r o C22[~?~q pl clarify use of “c” and in n28. (cf. and in-text citat on pp. 3–9 in body of this chap what system is b used, and what bib graphic source drawn from?>

192

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

of time were held in tension. These Jews were confident enough of their own status and acceptance before God (the already), but they still held out the hope that others in Israel would also return to the Lord and to his Torah (the not yet).26 Whatever the finer points of MMT’s (and Qumran’s) eschatology, the point of significance for us is that this section of MMT indicates a line of self-reflection, or Israel-reflection, on the blessings and curses of Deut 27–30, which is quite similar to Paul’s own Israel-reflection in Gal 3:8–14. It is true, of course, that the blessing in this case is the blessing promised to and through Abraham (Gal 3:8–9, 14). Anyone familiar with the curse language of Deuteronomy, however, would inevitably think of the counterbalancing promise language—a probability that the difficulty of making sense of the Deuteronomic curse language in 3:10 and 13 (Deut 27:26; 21:23) has caused commentators to forget or neglect. Moreover, in both contexts (Genesis and Deuteronomy) there is an interplay between the ideas of blessing and curse. Recall the crucial texts: I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. (Gen 12:3 NRSV) When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses.…The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies.…” (Deut 30:1, 7 NRSV)

With considerable subtlety Paul creates a fresh variation on this interplay. He integrates the Abrahamic blessing into the Deuteronomic pattern of blessing and curse, thereby switching the emphasis from the thought of Gentile cursing to that of Gentile blessing.27 In short, at the heart of Paul’s exposition is a concern similar to that in 4QMMT: how widely shall the blessing extend? MMT hopes for all Israel to return to (the Law) (Qimron C21) and “for your welfare and (the welfare of) Israel (l)r#ylw Kl bw+l).”28 Paul has in mind the blessing to the Gentiles, and perhaps “for Israel” to be redefined in terms of that blessing (Gal 6:16).29 26. The translation of Qimron and García Martínez (initially)—“to Israel”—may reflect the assumption that the perspective of the writers was as those who wrote from exile. But a more accurate translation—“in Israel”—points away from that interpretation. 27. Note Qumran’s own variation on the blessing/curse language in 1QS 2 and 4Q266; see Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 197, 215–17. 28. Text and translation supplied by Charlesworth. See Qimron, C31–32. 29. But the problems of interpreting the reference to “Israel” in Gal 6:16 are wellknown; see e.g., James D. G. Dunn, Galatians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1993), 344–46.

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

193

Works of the Law The third point of comparison is, of course, the phrase on which most attention has so far been rightly focused: hrwth y#&(m.30 The closeness of the parallel with Paul’s phrase—“the works of the Law” e1rgwn [or e1rga] no/mou31—has unfortunately been obscured by the translations initially adopted: “the precepts of the Torah” (Qimron, C27; García Martínez, 113), “observances of the Law” (Vermes).32 However, “deed” or “act” is the most natural meaning for h#&(m.33 Its appropriateness in MMT is borne out by the various parallels with which we were already familiar in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In particular, note these examples of how this noun, in the construct plural (y#&(m), has been translated: •

1QH 1.26: “righteous deeds” (Vermes); “works of justice” (García Martínez) • 1QH 4.31: “righteous deeds” (Vermes); “acts of justice” (García Martínez)

•

4Q174 (= 4QFlor) 1.7: “works of the Law” (Vermes); “the works of the law” (García Martínez, 1994) (cf. 1QS 5.21, 23; 6.18; 1QH 6.9).

Indeed, it is noticeable that Qimron and García Martínez both translate the same term four lines earlier in MMT (hmhy#(mb) as by “their deeds.” At the SBL meeting in Chicago in November 1994, García Martínez acknowledged that the printed translation of (his) line 113 was less satisfactory, and that y#&(m should after all be rendered “works of” here too, as elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Accordingly, García Martínez’s revised translation of 1996 reads, “some of the works of the Torah.”34 It is now beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, that MMT provides 30. Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth. 31. English translation and Greek inserted by Charlesworth. 32. However, Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, render the phrase as “works of the law,” as has Abegg, “Paul.” 33. The ambiguity arises because y#(m can signify “deed” as prescribed deed (hence “precept”) as well as a deed carried out. Qimron and Strugnell, in Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah (DJD 10), 139n41, note that the LXX translates h#&(m in Exod 18:20 as ta_ e1rga. Also, note that they translate rwdw rwd [y#(mb in the Composite Text, line 11, as [“events of] ages past” (JHC). 34. In 1997 García Martínez preferred “the works of thanksgiving”; note that the rendering “works of” is not in question. Michael Bachmann, “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, hrwt y#&(m und ERGA NOMOU,” ZNW 89 (1998): 91–113, has followed up his earlier “Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus,” TZ 49 (1993): 1–33—both reprinted in his Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels (NTOA 40; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999)—and argues that the phrase refers only to the law’s precepts

194

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

us with the earliest appearance of a terminus technicus, previously known only from Paul’s writings; it is “works of the Law.”35 It is also quite clear from 4QMMT what was intended by the phrase, hrwth y#(m.36 The full phrase, hrwth y#(m tcqm, clearly refers to the purpose of the document itself: “We have also written to you some of the works of the Torah that we think are good for you and for your people” (my own translation of Qimron, C26-27). The allusion back to the beginning of the second section of the text is beyond dispute: “These are some of our rulings (wnyrbd tcqm hl))…which are…the works (My#(m[h])…” (Qimron, B1-2).37 What then follows is a series of legal (or halakic) rulings, chiefly relating to the Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and purity, and regularly introduced with the formula “We are of the opinion that” (…# Myb#wx wnxn)w; Qimron, composite text, B8, 29, 36, 37, 42, 55, 73). The parallel between MMT and Galatians is quite striking. As in MMT, the phrase seems to be used first (in Gal 2:16) as a summary reference to a series of legal (or halakic) rulings and practices that have been at the center of the previous paragraphs, notably circumcision (Gal or legal (halakic) rulings. But Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, “The Concept of ‘Works of the Law’ in Jewish and Christian Literature,” in Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (ed. S. E. Porter and B. W. R. Pearson; JSNTS 192; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 116–47, insists with equal certainty that the phrase refers only to “deeds” as distinct from “precepts.” In both cases the distinction is forced. The most accurate translation would be “prescribed deeds.” Also, see James D. G. Dunn, “Noch einmal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialogue Continues,” in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity; Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni; SupNovTest 103; Leiden: Brill, 2001) (added by Charlesworth). A fuller version of the last essay can be found in James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); and his debate with Bachmann continues in Michael Bachmann, ed., Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (WUNT 182; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 69–134 and 397–401. 35. Kuhn examined the manuscript of 4QFlorilegium. He concludes that the text, in 1.7, does not read “works of the Torah”; it denotes “works of thanksgiving.” He reports that “there can be almost no doubt that we have to read dalet” in 4QFlorilegium. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes: Aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill 1994), 174. Kuhn is convinced that hrwth y#(m in MMT should be translated more “precepts” of the Torah; and he cites m. S 0eb. 10.2 (but this expression might mean “and all the works of the Bet Din” [JHC]). Kuhn acknowledges that the Pauline “works of the Law” does “occur for the first time in antiquity in Qumran” (174). See, also 2 Bar 57:2, “works of the commandments.” 36. The Hebrew in this paragraph was supplied by Charlesworth. 37. Qimron and Strugnell, ibid. (DJD 10), 110. This reference tells against the thesis of Eisenman and Wise (Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered) that C was a separate document.

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

195

2:1–10) and rules governing table-fellowship with Gentiles (2:11–15). It is true that the “works” (My#&)(m) of MMT are all highly technical issues, principally related to the proper administration of the Temple cult. Whereas in Galatians the “works of the Law” (e1rga no/mou) might seem (from a “Christian” perspective at least) to focus on much weightier matters.38 More to the point, however, is the fact that in both cases the rulings and practices (works) have been focal points of dispute within the community, sufficient indeed to cause a separation in the wider community, with those following the stricter interpretation separating from those following the less strict practice. This difference between the two early Jewish texts in what are referred to by the terms (My#&(m and e1rga)39 may be simply explained by the fact that in the one case it is an intraJewish dispute, where the issue of separation hangs on finer points of religious law (halakah), whereas in Galatians the issue was of separation between Jew and Gentile.40 The principal point of parallel remains the same, however: that the Hebrew (hrwt y#(m) and Greek (e1rga no/mou) expressions both seem to refer to “works of the Law,” and both were understood as defining a boundary that marks out those of faith and faithfulness from others.41

Reckoned for Righteousness Not least striking of the parallels between MMT and Galatians is the one that appears in the penultimate line of 4QMMT (116 in the Composite Text).42 The writer hopes that “at the end of time, you may rejoice in finding that some of our words (or practices) are true (or correct)” 38. The fact that the phrase in Paul is always anarthrous (almost always in the form e0c e1rgwn no&mou) is comparatively unimportant in view of the similar form in 4Q174 (= 4QFlor 1.7). (Charlesworth has supplied the Greek in this note, and the Hebrew and Greek in this paragraph.) 39. The Hebrew and Greek are supplied by Charlesworth. 40. In his response to the earlier version of this paper (“Paul and Qumran: When Paul Shuns the ‘Works of the Law,’ Is He Referring to the Very Works Commended by the Dead Sea Scroll Known as MMT?” BRev 14, no. 5 [1998]: 18, 54), Nicholas T. Wright misses these points of parallel: both involved separation; and at issue in both cases was the hope of final justification (next section, below); see further again Dunn, “Noch einmal ‘Works of the Law.’” See also Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness,’” DSD 6 (1999): 139–47. 41. See also James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 354–66. 42. Noted also by Abegg, “Paul,” 55; and Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 183–85.

196

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

(Nk wnyrbd tcqm).43 If so, “this will be reckoned (hb#$xnw) to you for righteousness (hqdcl Kl) in doing what is upright and good before him” (117, my translation; cf. Qimron, C30-31). Clearly in view, on the one hand, are the rulings and practices (works) documented in the previous paragraphs (cited in the section above). Equally clearly in view, on the other hand, is the formulation of Gen 15:6—“He [the Lord] reckoned it to him [Abraham] as righteousness (hqdc wl hb#$xyw).” But note difference: the phrase is understood as it was subsequently understood in Early Judaism, that is, as righteousness reckoned in recognition of covenant faithfulness: Ps 106:31—Phinehas’s action in preventing Israel’s defilement was “reckoned to him for righteousness” (hqdcl wl b#$xtw)44; 1 Macc 2:52— “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness?” (NRSV); and Jub. 30:17— righteousness was reckoned to Simeon and Levi for maintaining the purity and distinctiveness of the children of Israel, like Phinehas, by killing the Shechemites. So here, in MMT similarly, the assumption is evidently that “righteousness is reckoned” to those who are faithful in observing the rulings and following the practices (works) outlined in the earlier paragraphs of MMT. The parallel with Galatians at this point obviously lies in the reference to the same phrase from Gen 15:6. Paul cites precisely this text in Gal 3:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness” (italics mine). For Paul, this meant that “those who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham” (3:9). The language is the same—“reckoned for righteousness.” In both cases appeal is being made, in effect or explicitly, to Abraham as the normative pattern. The difference is that Paul attributes Abraham’s being reckoned righteous solely to his faith, whereas in Psalm 106, 1 Maccabees 2, Jubilees 30, and MMT righteousness is attributed to a pattern of behavior understood by the respective authors, implicitly or explicitly, as demonstrating faithfulness to covenant obligations. More to the present point, the argument in Gal 3:6–9 is clearly an elaboration of the basic thesis enunciated in 2:16: “No one is justified from works of Law but only through faith in Jesus Christ.” In other words, Paul is objecting precisely to the sort of understanding and attitude we find expressed in 4QMMT. MMT, in common with 43. Dunn’s translation, with Hebrew inserted by Charlesworth. 44. As Abegg observes in “4QMMT,” Gen 15:6 and Ps 106:31 are the only biblical verses that contain both the verb b#$x and the noun hqdc. The implied appeal to Gen. 15:6 carries with it the implication that Phinehas’s action was interpreted, like that of Abraham in 1 Macc 2:52, as an expression of his covenant faithfulness. (Charlesworth has inserted the Hebrew.)

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

197

other strands of Second Temple Judaism, understood “righteousness” and “(final) justification” in relation to and as somehow dependent on works of the Law (hrwth y#(m and e1rga no/mou). The same understanding determined the decision of Peter and the other Jewish Christians to withdraw (or separate, a)fw/rizen) from table fellowship with Gentile believers at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). In direct opposition to Peter and the others with him (including Barnabas!), Paul insisted that “faith in Jesus Christ” alone was sufficient, precisely as “faith in Jesus Christ” and not as “faithfulness” to rules and practices that required separation from the unfaithful, of Jew from Gentile.45

Calendars and Feasts For the sake of completeness we might simply mention one other parallel between 4QMMT and Galatians. I refer to the fact that the first part of MMT seems to preserve rulings about the proper calendar to follow. Some scholars doubt that MMT originally contained the section about the calendar since it is not represented in most of the manuscripts.46 Yet, at least one manuscript of MMT does contain a discussion of the importance of the 365-day quasi-solar calendar. We also know that concern for the proper calendar had provoked a heated debate among Jews, beginning in the early second century B.C.E., if not earlier (cf. 1 Enoch and Jubilees). This concern is understandable since it was deemed essential to ensure that the observance of the set feasts was in accord with the heavenly calendar.47 A heated factional dispute separated those who calculated 45. Insofar as the contrast between Galatians and 4QMMT implies a contrast between faith and faithfulness (cf. Jas 2:18–24), it strengthens the case against the currently popular rendering of pi/stij I)hsou= Xristou= in Galatians and Romans as “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” Only those who see no contrast between Paul and James on this point could be confident that Paul understood the phrase as indicating Jesus’ faithfulness in what he did. See further James D. G. Dunn, “Once More, PISTIS CHRISTOU,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1991 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; SBLSP 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 730–44, in debate with the preceding paper by Richard B. Hays, “Pistis and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1991 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; SBLSP 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 714–29. Abegg, “4QMMT,” 142, doubts that MMT helps us understand Paul, who—according to him—probably did not study under Gamaliel, and it is “doubtful” that Paul was educated “as a Palestinian Jew” (added by JHC). 46. Schiffman thinks that it “questionable whether the calendar is really integral to the text of MMT, an issue that is connected with the physical reconstruction of the manuscript.… It is apparent that this calendrical list was not composed by the author of the MMT text but was imported as a unit into the text.” Schiffman, EDSS 1:558 (added by JHC). 47. The sentences within brackets, [ ], were added by Charlesworth.

198

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

the dates of the feasts by the sun and those who calculated them by the moon (see particularly Jub. 6:32–35; 1 En. 82:4–7; 1QS 1.14–15; CD 3.14–15).48 The point of contact here is with Gal 4:10, a verse which indicates clearly enough that observance of set feasts was also a concern “troubling” the Galatians. That the Jewish feasts were in Paul’s mind is almost certain.49 Concern for proper observance of the (Jewish) feasts is consistent with the emphasis on “works of the Law” both in MMT and in the teaching of the Galatian (Christian Jewish) missionaries against whom Paul polemicizes in Galatians. It is not clear, however, whether we should draw further significance for a parallel between MMT and Galatians at this point. In summation, the four or five points of parallel between 4QMMT and Galatians surely give us sufficient grounds for concluding that MMT preserves the sort of theological attitude and legal practices that determined the attitude and action of Peter and the other Christian Jews in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). One should not conclude, of course, that Galatians was written with knowledge of MMT, or that the “certain ones from James” (Gal 2:12) were themselves Qumranites or influenced by Qumran, or anything of the sort. But the weight of the evidence does seem to suggest that MMT preserves a vocabulary and manner of theologizing that left its mark on a wider spectrum of Jewish thought and practice; and that it was just this sort of theologizing and practice that confronted Paul in Antioch and that he wrote Galatians to counter.

E PILOGUE—CHARLESWORTH The document—Some Works of Torah—is extremely important for comprehending why the Qumranites concluded that they had to leave the Temple and the Holy City. It provides important information for understanding the mind-set of the Qumranites. The document explains the wise interpretation of the Torah, the proper religious laws (halakot), the correct means of obeying the sacrificial laws, and the rules for purification and purity. The final lines of the Composite Text (111–118) clarify the purpose of 4QMMT:

48. 4Q321 tries to correlate the two calendars; see Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 109–16; García Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 454–55. 49. See Dunn, Galatians, 227–29.

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

199

Remember David, who was a man of mercies, [and] also he was [s]aved from many troubles, and he was pardoned. And also we have written to you some of the works of the Torah according to our decision, for the good of you and your people. For we have s[e]en in you prudence and knowledge of the Torah. Consider all these (things) and seek of him that he make straight your counsel, and that he remove from you evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial so that you may rejoice in the latter time, when you will find that some of our pronouncements are true. And that it might be accounted to you as righteousness, when you do what is pleasing and good before him for your good and for Israel. (4Q398 frags. 14–17, 2.1–8)50

As Dunn illustrates, 4QMMT provides an essential theological background for comprehending Paul’s argument and interlocutors according to Galatians. It helps us understand the language he has chosen, especially “works of the Law.” Recall again Paul’s major point in Galatians: We who are Jews by birth and not sinners from the Gentiles, know that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ. We have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law, because by works of the Law no one51 shall be justified. (Gal 2:15–16, my translation and emphases)

The redundancy—three times the term “works of the Law” appears in only one verse (2:16)—and the fact that each time the expression appears without the article (the anarthrous form e1rgwn no/mou) indicates that Paul is focusing on this term and that the expression was not well-known to his Gentile readers.52 In Gal 3:2 Paul again employs the phrase, and again it is without the article: O stupid53 Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was placarded as54 crucified? Only this do I wish to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you ignorant? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? (Gal 3:1–3)55

50. Underlining is mine. For text and translation, see Elisha Qimron et al., “Some Works of Torah,” in Damascus Document Fragments, Some Works of Torah, and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 3), 187–254. 51. Literally, “not all flesh,” or “no one of the flesh.” 52. For example, note that since Zerah and Tamar are well-known to Matthew’s readers, he refers to them as kai\ to_n Za&ra e0k th~j Qama&r (Matt 1:3). 53. Or “foolish,” “ignorant.” Note, however, that Paul is aggressive and is not trying to be tactful. 54. Or “publicly portrayed as.” 55. Translation mine, similar to the RSV.

200

SOME WORKS OF TORAH AND PAUL’S GALATIANS

Perhaps this evidence suggests that Paul’s readers did not know about the disputes within Judaism, even though those “who are Jews by birth” might have known the traditions that now appear in Some Works of Torah. Paul carefully chose the verb tenses in Gal 3:1–3 to make his point. He asks the Galatians whether they received (in a completed sense)56 the Spirit by works of the Law or by hearing (or obedience) of faith. Since the Galatians started (fully in a complete sense)57 with the Spirit, which is not debatable, Paul wants to know if they now are to degenerate in finishing (in a continuous and incomplete sense)58 by endeavoring to fulfill in the flesh the works of the Law. What concerns the author(s) of 4QMMT is also what Paul is focusing on in Galatians: the means of salvation. The author(s) of this Qumran document is (are) interested in virtue, righteousness, and the welfare of those who receive the document and also “the welfare of Israel.” The author(s) exhorts his reader(s): “Remem]ber the kings of Israe[l] and pay heed to their works: those among them who feared [the To]rah were saved (lwcm) from troubles, and they were see[k]ers of Torah, [forgiv]en of (their) sins. Remember David who was a man of mercies, [and] also he was [s]aved (lc[n]) from many troubles, and was pardoned” (Composite Text, lines 23–26).59 The Hebrew verb lcn can mean “deliver” or “save.” As Hermann Lichtenberger states, MMT “makes plain the link between fulfillment of the Torah and salvation.”60 It is certainly obvious that 4QMMT is fundamental for perceiving Paul’s anger and point in Galatians, but it is also wise to avoid sensational claims. This document, 4QMMT, does not provide “the smoking gun” that explains Galatians.61 The issue is more complex than that metaphor assumes, and there is no reason to posit a “direct” link between 4QMMT and Galatians. As M. Abegg concludes in a recent publication:

56. The verb is a culminative aorist that denotes completed action. Abegg clarifies Paul’s meaning: “To paraphrase: if you were saved by the Spirit why are you now continuing by your own effort?” See Abegg, “4QMMT,” 215. 57. The verb is an aorist participle, denoting perfected action. 58. The verb is an indicative and present middle, indicating progressive action. 59. Qimron et al., “Some Works of Torah” (PTSDSSP 3), 249. 60. Hermann Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day: A Sketch,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 16. 61. In an early and very popular article, Abegg (“Paul,” 55) claimed that “MMT…provides the ‘smoking gun’ for which students have been searching for generations.…” Abegg now appears to abandon such language; see his “4QMMT,” 203–16.

JAMES D. G. DUNN AND JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

201

The nexus of so many unique topics—works of the law, reckoning of righteousness, and Deuteronomic blessings and curses—occurs in but two ancient documents: MMT and Galatians. It is highly unlikely that the discussions in which they take their place are unrelated. Too bold is the suggestion that Paul actually knew MMT, but certainly the theological issue expressed therein, complete with its component parts, must have survived intact to the middle of the first century C.E.62

The fact that all six manuscripts of MMT found in Cave 4 at Qumran are in the Herodian script indicates that this document continued to be important, at least into the early decades of the first century C.E. and at least at Qumran (esp. the lateness of 4Q399). The weight of the evidence does seem to suggest a solid and surprising conclusion. The Qumran composition known as 4QMMT preserves both a vocabulary (“works of the Law”) and a way of interpreting Torah that obviously helped shape the thought and practices of some early Jews. We should not assume that only the Qumranites knew about the ideas and teachings preserved in 4QMMT, since not only Paul’s Galatians but also halakot in rabbinics prove that other Jews knew some ideas found in this document. Does the ancient evidence converge to suggest that Jews with the theological reflections and religious laws preserved in 4QMMT confronted Paul in Antioch or when he wrote Galatians? Or, were the claims and interpretations of Torah found in 4QMMT so wellknown to Paul that he wrote the way he did in Galatians? The discovery and publication of Some Works of Torah allows us, perhaps for the first time, to understand more deeply why Paul chose the words “works of the Law.” We also have more data that guides us as we seek to discern what Paul meant by them. Paul was not anti-Jewish. Like many of his contemporaries, he spoke harshly against interpretations of Torah (Law) that he found misrepresenting the meaning of God’s will and word (Torah).

62. Abegg, “4QMMT,” 216.

CHAPTER EIGHT

HOW THE SCROLLS IMPACTED SCHOLARSHIP ON HEBREWS Harold W. Attridge The relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the New Testament has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate over the course of the last half century.1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, with its distinctive Christology and exegetical style, has been an important focal point for that debate. Before reviewing the state of the question, it is important to keep in mind what kind of text Hebrews is.2

THE E PISTLE TO THE H EBREWS The Epistle to the Hebrews, an anonymous early Christian homily, exhorts a Christian community, beset by external opposition (10:32–34; 13:13) and perhaps losing some of its initial zeal (10:25, 39), to renewed fidelity, inspired by the example of the faithful Son and High Priest, Jesus Christ (12:1–3).3 Hebrews combines warnings of impending judgment4 1. An earlier version of this survey appeared in Alan J. Avery-Peck, Daniel Harrington, and Jacob Neusner, eds., When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini, vol. 2, Judaism and Christianity in the Beginning (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 315–42. 2. For a useful brief survey of the entire question, see George J. Brooke, “The Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty (ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; SBLEJL 15; Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 61–76. 3. For detailed discussion, see Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), with earlier bibliography. More recently, see the commentaries by Harald Hegermann, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988); William L. Lane, Hebrews (WBC 47A–B; Waco, TX: Word, 1991); Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Hebrews,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed. C. Newsom and S. Ringe; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 364–68; Eric Grässer, An die Hebräer (EKKNT 17; 6 vols.; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990—1999) idem, Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief zum 65. Geburtstag mit einer Bibliographie des Verfassers (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992); Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek

203

204

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

and positive exhortations5 to endure and witness with fidelity. A vision of the “last days” (1:12), bounded on the one side by the death and exaltation of Jesus (2:9) and on the other by an imminent day of reckoning (10:25), frames the paraenetic program. Within that frame stand the addressees, an unknown community of believers (3:1; 4:14; 6:4; 10:32) perhaps located in Rome, less likely in Jerusalem or a city of the Greek east.6 The homilist’s vision describes the reality of their situation, a reality that sustains and gives substance to their faith-filled hope (11:1). The homilist builds his literary mosaic with stones taken from the Scriptures, clearly in their Greek form.7 He knits them together with devices familiar from the rhetorical tradition,8 both on the surface, where Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); David A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001). Important recent studies on Hebrews include Nello Casalini, Dal simbolo alla realtà: L’espianzione dall’Antica alla Nuova Alleanza secondo Ebr 9,1—14; Una proposta esegetica (Analecta, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 26; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1989); Carlos Zesati Estrada, Hebreos 5,7–8: Estudio histórico-exegético (AnBib 113; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1990); Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); John M. Scholar, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNT 73; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis (NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994); David A. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 4. Heb 2:1–4; 4:1–2; 6:4–8; 10:26–31; 12:12–17; 12:25–29. 5. Heb 4:11, 14–16; 6:9–12; 10:19–25; 11:1–12:11. 6. For discussion of the options, see Attridge, Hebrews, 9–13. Lane (Hebrews, li–lxvi) argues for a Roman destination. 7. The general reliance on a Greek form of the text is clear. For instance at 1:7, Hebrews cites Ps 104:4 in a form different from that found at Qumran. See Frank F. Bruce, “‘To the Hebrews’ or “To the Essenes’?” NTS 9 (1962–63): 217–32, esp. 219; Lincoln D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 45. That Greek is the language of composition is obvious from Heb 4:3–5, where an exegetical argument, like the rabbinic qal wahomer, depends on the similarity between th_n kata&pausi&n mou, “my rest,” in Ps 95:11 and kai\ kate&pausen o( qeo_j, “and God rested,” in Gen 2:2. The association is impossible in Hebrew, where the terms are ytxwnm for “my rest” and tb#yw for “and he rested.” 8. The rhetorical sophistication of Hebrews is widely recognized. For a comprehensive treatment, along with a novel analysis of the sources of Hebrews, see Paolo Garuti, O.P., Alle origini dell’omiletica cristiana: La lettera agli Ebrei; Note di analysi retorica (Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 38; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1995).

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

205

figures of speech such as alliteration and assonance embellish the discourse,9 and at the level of structure, where devices such as synkrisis, or comparison, are used to organize large sections of an exercise of epideictic oratory.10 The resulting encomium focuses on the person and work of Christ. In a creative application of various early Christian traditions,11 the author portrays the eternal Son (1:3), enfleshed in order to perfect12 his human brethren (2:10–11), and exalted, in the language of Psalm 110, to heavenly glory at God’s right hand (1:3).13 The process of perfecting begins with Christ’s death, understood by Hebrews to be a sacrifice with two interrelated functions.14 Foreshadowed by the rituals of Yom Kippur, it provides effective atonement for sin by cleansing consciences from guilt (9:14). At the same time, it inaugurates the “new covenant” promised by Jeremiah (Heb 8:7–13; 10:1–10). Using conceits inspired both by Jewish speculative traditions and by Platonic philosophy,15 the homilist suggests that the new covenant guarantees believers access to ultimate reality, the 9. The incipit is a prime example of both: polumerw=j kai\ polutro/ pwj pa&lai (Heb 1:1), etc. 10. Thus, the comparisons of Christ and the angels (chs. 1–2), Christ and Moses (chs. 3–4), Christ and Aaron (ch. 5), Christ and Melchizedek (ch. 7). 11. On the traditions underlying the text, see William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (WMANT 53; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981); and Mikeal C. Parsons, “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews,” EvQ 60 (1988): 195–216. 12. On the theme of perfection, see David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 13. Allusions to the motif of enthronement and Ps 110:1 recur at Heb 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2. 14. On the key themes of Hebrews 8–10, see John Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 71; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 15. James W. Thompson in The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982) highlights the philosophical categories deployed by Hebrews, but Hebrews remains rhetoric, not philosophy. Debates about the relationship between eschatology and philosophy in the conceptual world of Hebrews appear frequently in modern scholarship. The resemblance of Hebrews to Philo, stressed by Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–53), was criticized by Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970). More recent attempts to find philosophy in Hebrews elicit a critical response in Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews. Some of the critical acumen in these debates is misplaced. The homilist playfully exploits elements from different conceptual schemes; his aims are rhetorical, not analytical; his methods evocative and affective, not definitive and expository.

206

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

realm where Christ’s sacrifice is truly consummated (9:23–27), the sphere where hearts are submitted in obedience to God (10:8–10). Christ’s sacrifice not only makes possible a relationship with God (10:19); it also provides the ultimate16 model for living in fidelity to the divine call (12:1–3), accepting suffering, boldly proclaiming what God has done, and relying on a firm hope that the divine promises will be fulfilled.17

H EBREWS AND THE H ISTORY OF SCROLLS RESEARCH Such, in brief, is this “word of exhortation” (13:22)18 written in an elegant Greek style, which celebrates the work of the Messiah in order to inspire the faithful to remain resolute members of a covenant community. While the homily’s rhetorical style seems to belong to a world far different from that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are intriguing parallels.19 The prominence given in Hebrews to the notion of the new covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah recalls the self-designation of the community of the Damascus Document. Both Hebrews and the scrolls make much of priesthood and temple, and both express interest in such figures as angels and Mechizedek. Stimulated by such parallels, some scholars, such as Yigael Yadin, in the early days of scrolls research posited a substantial connection between the scrolls and Hebrews.20 Some even suggested a 16. The list of the exemplars of faith in ch. 11 provides a complex portrait of the subject, but the chief example is clearly Christ. On the rhetoric of this list, see Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Its Literary Context (SBLDS 156; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). For a contemporary theological interpretation of the language of faith in Hebrews, see Dan O. Via, “Revelation, Atonement, and the Scope of Faith: A Deconstructive and Reader-Response Interpretation,” BibInt 11 (2003): 515–30. 17. For the motif of the divinely promised eschatological salvation, cf. 1:14; 4:1; 6:13–20; 11:17–22. In one of the text’s complex thematic conceits, these promises are part of the “inheritance” of believers (1:14; 9:15), embedded in the “testament” (diaqh&kh) that is the “covenant” (diaqh&kh) inaugurated by Christ’s death (9:15). His death validates the testament (9:16–17), and his position at God’s right hand makes him a reliable guarantor (7:22) of its promised contents. 18. The term may be a technical designation of a synagogue homily. Cf. Acts 13:15, where the elders of the synagogue at Perga invite Paul to deliver such an address after the reading of the Torah in the Sabbath service. Cf. Harold W. Attridge, “New Covenant Christology in an Early Christian Homily,” QR 8 (1988): 89–108; and idem, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo&goj th=j paraklh&sewj),” Semeia 50 (1990): 211–26. 19. For the history of the discussion, see Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 43–66. 20. Yigael Yadin, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ScrHier 4 (1958): 36—55; Celas Spicq, “L’Épître aux Hébreux: Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran,” RevQ 1 (1958–59): 36–55.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

207

direct relationship, with Hebrews aiming to convert Essenes.21 Hans Kosmala’s rather forced and artificial interpretation of passages that presume a Christian commitment22 on the part of the addressees convinced few students of Hebrews.23 The contemporary scholarly consensus holds that the scrolls in a significant way illuminate aspects of the general Jewish milieu out of which Christianity, including the Greek-speaking variety evidenced in Hebrews, emerged, but that there is no direct literary dependence between this bit of Christian rhetoric and the scrolls.24 Most scholars would also agree that there are analogies between the community of the scrolls and the early Christian movement, occasioned by the common sectarian situation and eschatological orientation. The consensus is largely correct, although the publication of scrolls in the last decade has added important details to the picture.

ANGELS AND THE SON After an elaborate exordium (Heb 1:1–4) Hebrews moves to the first of several comparisons between Christ and biblical figures. A catena of scriptural citations, primarily from the Psalms, demonstrates Christ’s superiority to the angels (1:5–13). The catena is formally similar to the messianic florilegia among the scrolls, Florilegium (4QFlor = 4Q174) and Testimonia (4QTestim = 4Q175). The former even cites two texts that appear in Heb 1:5: 2 Sam 7:14 and Psalm 2.25 Hence, it is likely that Hebrews draws on 21. Hans Kosmala, Hebräer, Essener, Christen (Leiden: Brill, 1959). 22. Cf., e.g., the appeals to hold on to or maintain the “confession”: Heb 3:1; 4:14; 10:23 23. For critical responses to early theories of a connection, see Bruce, “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’?” 217–32; Joseph Coppens, “Les affinités qumrániennes de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” NRTh 84 (1962): 128–41, 257–82; and Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 1:241–78; 2:181–84. 24. See the review of scholarship by Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 43–66. 25. 4QFlor (= 4Q174) 1.7–10: “And as for what he said to David, [citation of 2 Sam 7:11], (it refers to this,) that he will obtain for them rest from all the sons of Belial, those who make them fall, to destr[oy them for their s]ins, when they come with the plans of Belial to make the s[ons of] light fall, and to plot against them wicked plans so that they are trapped by Belial in their guilty error,” and [citation of 2 Sam 7:12–14]. This (refers to the) “branch of David,” who will arise with the Interpreter of the law who [will rise up] in Zi[on in] the last days.” The text later cites Ps 2:1 and offers an interpretation of the nations rising against Yahweh and his anointed. It does not cite Ps 2:7, as does Heb 1:5. For a comparison of Hebrews and the text from Qumran, see Herbert W. Bateman, “Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5–13 and 4QFlor 1.1–19,” JETS 38 (1995): 11–28.

208

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

a traditional form and perhaps even a specific collection of proof texts. Yet Hebrews has developed any inherited materials in its own way. The citations, for example, of Deut 32:43 LXX in 1:6 and Ps 103:4 LXX (104:4 ET) in verse 7 seem specifically related to the comparison of Christ and the angels and thus are part of the argument that Hebrews is making. The significance of the comparison has long intrigued commentators. Attempts to construe Hebrews as a polemic against a Christology or piety that reverences angels founder on the lack of explicit polemic with these issues.26 Such construals fail to recognize the text’s rhetorical strategy. Christ is not compared to something denigrated but to entities valued and revered, whose high status redounds to his glory.27 That Christ’s exaltation made him superior to all heavenly powers was, moreover, a common early Christian affirmation.28 While polemic is unlikely, the argument of the first chapter suggests that author and addressees shared a piety where angels played a role. The significance of such piety, amply attested in the scrolls, has become increasingly apparent. According to 1QSa 2.3–10, the community was to maintain purity, while admission to the assembly was denied to those “defiled in his flesh, paralyzed in his feet or in his hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb or defiled in his flesh with a blemish.” The reason for the prohibition is the presence of angels in the assembly: “He unites their assembly to the sons of the heavens in order (to form) the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation” (1QS 11.8).29 The community’s sense that it was 26. For example, Thomas W. Manson, “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” BJRL 32 (1949): 109–34; and Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim, 1981), 5–13; both of these works posit a situation similar to what confronted Paul or Pseudo-Paul at Colossae. For discussion of earlier theories, see Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 45–46, who notes some of the pronounced differences between Hebrews and the angelology of the scrolls. The designation of angels as “sons of heaven” in 1QS 4.22; 11.8; and 1QH 3.22 (DupontSommer/Sukenik = 11.22 in García Martínez), and as “gods” in 4QDeut (= 4Q37–38) 32:43 and 11QMelch (= 11Q13) 10, citing Ps 82:1, bespeaks a higher regard for angels than that appears in Hebrews. 27. For treatment of the rhetoric of status in Hebrews, see DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude. 28. Cf. Phil 2:10; 1 Pet 3:22. 29. Cf. also 1QSa 2.8–9: “For angels of holiness are among their congregation.” Angels are not only peaceful creatures; according to 1QM 7.6: “The holy angels are together with their armies.” On purity notions in the Second Temple period, see now Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); and, particularly important for the social dimensions of purity concerns, see Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

209

worshipping with the angels is in evidence in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy (4QShirShabba–h = 4Q400–407),30 which repeatedly summon the heavenly powers to worship.31 Echoes of the piety that describes the worship of the “holy ones,” “sovereign princes,” and “gods” may appear not only in the opening chapter of Hebrews, but also in its description of the eschatological reality to which its addresses are called. The heavenly Jerusalem in Heb 12:22 is first characterized by its “myriads of angels in festive assembly.” The “sacrifice of praise” that the addressees are called upon to offer (13:15) is of a piece with what the angels proclaim on high.32 There are various designations of the heavenly beings in the scrolls in general, and particularly in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, but two are worth noting. The heavenly powers include the “seven priesthoods in the wonderful sanctuary” as well as the “angels of the king in their wonderful residences.”33 If heavenly beings offer “sacrifices of praise” and function as priests propitiating the divine will for penitent sinners,34 it is hardly surprising that they should be worshipping in the heavenly tabernacle. This image, prominent in Heb 6:19; 8:4–5; 9:11–12, 24; and 10:20, is developed in a complex and evocative way, but it has firm roots in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.35 Two passages from 30. See Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). 31. 4QShirShabbd [= 4Q403] 1.30–31; cf. 1.43; 2.18; 4Q404 frag. 4; 4Q405 frag. 8. Unless otherwise indicated, the translations throughout are those of Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). 32. The notion of a “sacrifice of praise” is familiar to the worshippers using the scrolls. Cf. 1QS 9.4–5: “The offering of the lips in compliance with the decree will be like the pleasant aroma of justice and the correctness of behaviour will be acceptable like a freewill offering.” Cf. 1QS 10.5–6. 33. 4QShirShabbd [= 4Q403] 2.22–23; cf. 11Q17 2.5 for angels, and 4.1–5 for the priestly accoutrements. The notion that angels are priests appears also in the Songs of the Master: 4QShirb [= 4Q511] frag. 35, 3–4: “Among the holy ones, God makes some holy for himself like an everlasting sanctuary, and there will be purity amongst those purified. And they shall be priests, his holy people, his army and his servants, the angels of his glory.” See the discussion of the text in André Caquot, “Le service des anges,” RevQ 13 (1988): 421–29. 34. 4QShirShabba [= 4Q400] frag. 1, 1.16: “And they shall appease his will, in favour of those converted from sin”; cited by Carol Newsom, “‘He Has Established for Himself Priests’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSPSup 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 104–13, esp. 105. See also Darrell J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of Hebrews (Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993). 35. See Hans Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951); Aelred Cody, O.S.B., Heavenly Sanctuary

210

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice illustrate the motif. 4QShirShabbd (4Q403) 2.7–16 portrays the activity of the angels in the heavenly inner sanctuary or debir: The spirits of the holy of holies […] 8 of the holy of holies, spirits of the gods, eternal vision […] 9 and the spirits of the gods, forms of flames of fire around […] 10 wonderful spirits. And the tabernacle of greater height, the glory of his kingdom, the debir […] 11 And make holy the seven august holy ones. And the voice of the blessing of the chiefs of his debir […] 12 And the voice of the blessing {is heard} is glorified when the gods hear it, and the foundations of […] 13 of the blessing. And all the decorations of the debir hurry with wonderful hymns…[…] 14 wonder, debir to debir, with the sound of crowds of holy multitudes. And all their decorations […] 15 And the chariots of his debir praise together, and his cherubim and opanim bless wonderfully […] 16 the chiefs of the structure of the gods.

The document’s fragmentary character prevents a totally clear picture from emerging, but part of the text’s effect no doubt derives from the complexity of the imagery, designed to convey a sense of the joy of those who serve in heaven’s innermost sanctuary. The second text describing a heavenly tabernacle, 4QShirShabbf [4Q405] frags. 20–22.7–9, clearly displays the influence of Ezekiel 1:

7–9<~?~q is it al chapter manu-

and exalt him…the glory in the te[nt of the God] knowledge. The cherubim lie prostrate before him, and bless when they rise. The voice of a divine silence is heard, 8 and there is the uproar of excitement when they raise their wings, the voice of a divine silence. They bless the image of the throne-chariot (which is) above the vault of the cherubim, 9 and they sing [the splen]dour of the shining vault (which is) beneath the seat of his glory.

Whatever the inspiration for the image of the heavenly tabernacle in Hebrews, the text relies on generic presuppositions about the “heavenly tabernacle” evidenced in these passages from the scrolls.36 Heaven is the “true” realm, where real worship takes place (Heb 8:1), where the real and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspectives (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960); and Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989), esp. 26–40. Apart from the scrolls, prominent attestations of the motif are in 1 Enoch 14:10–20; 71:5–10; T. Levi 3:2–4; 2 Enoch 55:2; 2 Baruch 4:2–6. 36. There are other allusions to the tabernacle in the scrolls, unrelated to the notion of a heavenly tabernacle: CD 6.12–20; 4QDibHama [= 4Q504] frag. 2, 4.2–12. 1QH 20 (Sukenik 12).2–3 has a fragmentary reference to “tents of glory” (dwbk ylh)), which some have construed to be an allusion to a heavenly tabernacle, but too little remains to be certain. On these texts, see Koester, Dwelling, 26–40.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

211

High Priest, better than any angel, consummates his atoning sacrifice (9:11–14). Yet Hebrews relies on such associations only to subvert them.37 The true sacrifice is one that takes place by submission to God’s will in a body (10:10); access to the real presence of God is through a curtain of flesh (10:19–20). Portraits of angelic priests serving in the heavenly tabernacle/temple may be relevant to the roots of Hebrews’ Christology. It is remotely possible that the initial comparison between Christ and the angels forestalls readers inferring from the later comparison with Melchizedek that Christ is simply another priestly angel. If so, the point is subtle. The celebration of the messianic event, not apologetics, dominates the initial comparison. Parallels between Hebrews and the recipients of the letter of Paul or Pseudo-Paul to Colossae have often been suggested, but such suggestions usually amount to explaining obscurum per obscurius. Whatever the precise problem with angels at Colossae,38 both texts emerge from contexts where Jewish traditions about heavenly worship played a role. The scrolls provide abundant attestation of such traditions.

M ESSIANISM IN THE SCROLLS AND IN H EBREWS: SON AND H IGH P RIEST The comparison between the Messiah and the angels in the first chapter is ultimately a way of emphasizing the exalted character of the Son, seated, in the words of Ps 110:1, “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3). The roots of this complex portrait clearly lie in Jewish traditions.39 It was hardly unusual, therefore, that the scrolls, which have contributed significantly to the illumination of the complex messianic expectations of the late Second Temple period,40 should enter into the discussion of Hebrews. 37. The playfulness of Hebrews in dealing with traditional imagery has caused consternation among commentators, particularly about how they are to construe the notion of the heavenly tabernacle. For treatment of these issues, see Attridge, Hebrews, 222–24; and Koester, Dwelling, 152–83. 38. For some suggestions see Harold W. Attridge, “On Becoming an Angel: Rival Baptismal Theologies at Colossae,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. L. Bormann, K. Del Tredici, and A. Standhartinger; NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 481–98. 39. From the vast literature on the Christology of Hebrews, see especially Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester; and Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 45–92. 40. In general, see Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge

212

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

At one level,41 the catena of the first chapter describes the process whereby the Messiah achieves his heavenly status, with the designation “Son” (Heb 1:5) and an eternal throne (1:8–9). The image of exaltation and heavenly enthronement was an important way for the early Christian movement to express its conviction that Jesus had triumphed over death.42 The Jewish roots of such notions in descriptions of ascents to heaven43 have become increasingly clear. Contributing to the picture, 4Q491 frag. 1144 refers to a throne of strength in the congregation of the gods above which one of the kings of the East shall sit. (4Q491 frag. 11, 1.12)

It also contains the voice of the individual sitting on the throne: University Press, 1987); James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); James C. VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 211–34; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumran Messianism,” in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 73–110; and Harold W. Attridge, “The Messiah and the Millennium: The Roots of Two Jewish-Christian Symbols,” in Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America (ed. A. Amanat and M. T. Bernhardsson; London: Tauris, 2002), 90–105. 41. There is a tension between the affirmation of the exordium (Heb 1:1–3) that the Son is a primordial emanation from God, the instrument of creation, and the position of the catena (1:5–13), which stresses his exaltation. The author may have reread the catena in the light of the Christology of the exordium and then introduced elements such as the introductory comment of v. 6 to allude to the incarnation. See Attridge, Hebrews, 56–58. 42. Cf., e.g., Rom 1:4; Phil 2:6–11; Acts 2:29–36. 43. James D. Tabor, Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in Its Greco-Roman, Judaic and Early Christian Contexts (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986); John J. Collins, “A Throne in Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in Death, Ecstasy and Otherworldly Journeys (ed. J. J. Collins and M. A. Fishbane; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995). For a review of the primary texts, see Collins, Scepter and Star, 136–53. Discussion of such encounters with the angelic world has played a role in recent discussions of the origins of Christology. See Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985); idem, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); and Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 11–17. 44. First published by Maurice Baillet in Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 26–30; translation in García Martínez, DSS Translated, 117–19. Another copy of the text appears at 4Q471b.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

213

My glory [is incomparable] and besides me no one is exalted.…I reside in the heavens and there is no […]…I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in the holy congregation; […] my desire is not according to the flesh [and] all that is precious to me is in glory […] holy [pl]ace. (4Q491 frag. 11, 1.13–15)

The speaker boasts that no one resembles him in his glory and, apparently, in his ability to endure suffering and opposition: Who […] sorrows like me? And who […] anguish who resembles me? There is no one. He has been taught, but there is no comparable teaching. […] And who will attack me when I open [my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips? And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgement? […] For I am counted among the gods, and my glory is with the sons of the king. (4Q491 frag. 11, 1.16–18)

Interpretation of the text and the identity of the speaker have been debated. Maurice Baillet originally proposed that the text’s “I” was the archangel Michael. Morton Smith argued for reading the hymn as an account of a mystical ascent to heaven, associated with the kind of piety that envisions the community of worshippers involved with a heavenly liturgy.45 John Collins notes weaknesses in Smith’s reading. The text does not in fact speak of the process of enthronement, nor does it give a hint that the one enthroned has ascended to heaven. Collins has instead argued that the text refers to an eschatological priest and teacher seated in heavenly glory.46 If so, the fragment would provide another interesting parallel between the messianic expectations of the scrolls and the Christology of Hebrews. Unfortunately, the scroll remains ambiguous and the identity of its “I” a mystery. The text at least illustrates use of imagery central to the literary and theological program of Hebrews. The scrolls know of other eschatological figures cloaked in royal glory. Most impressive no doubt is the so-called “son of God” text, An Aramaic Apocalypse ar (4Q246), which speaks of the throne” of an “eternal king” (4Q246 2.1–8). The description of this individual and his reign evokes elements of the catena in Hebrews: He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several years over the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a city another city. Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, 45. Morton Smith, “Two Ascended to Heaven–Jesus and the Author of 4Q491,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 290–301. 46. Collins, Scepter and Star, 147–48.

214

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness]. The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great god among the gods. He will make war with him; he will place the peoples in his hand and chase away everyone before him. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom…

As in Heb 1:5, this figure has the title royal “son.” The citation of Psalm 45 (44 LXX) in Heb 1:8 parallels several affirmations of the Qumran text. Like the scroll, it addresses its messianic figure as “God.”47 It also lauds the “righteousness” of the eschatological kingdom, and the eternity of its throne, a theme evoked by the citation of Ps 102 (101 LXX) in Heb 1:10–12. The fragmentary scroll has more imagery appropriate to a warrior king than does Hebrews, where the only reference to the subjugation of enemies appears in the citation of Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX) in Heb 1:13. One final text, 4Q521 2.7, which portrays the marvels performed in the eschatological age and seats the devout “upon the throne of eternal royalty.” Whether there are any messianic overtones here may be doubted. While the Christ of Hebrews shares characteristics of many portraits of anticipated messiahs of Jewish expectation, he is above all the High Priest of the new covenant. Here, too, data from the scrolls has enriched our understanding of the traditions underlying Hebrews. Early discussion focused on the expectation of a priestly Messiah of Aaron alongside a royal or Davidic Messiah. The locus classicus is the reference in 1QS 9.9–11 to the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. Yadin found here and in related texts the position against which Hebrews developed its distinctive affirmations about Jesus as eschatological High Priest.48 Few scholars followed such a simple path from Qumran to Hebrews.49 Whatever the relationship between the scrolls and Hebrews, scholars have also debated the foundation for the comparison itself, the expectations of a dual messianism at Qumran.50 Grounds for doubt include the presence of “messianic” texts (4Q246 and 4Q521, noted above) that speak of a single 47. On the exegetical issues of Heb 1:8, see Attridge, Hebrews, 58–59. 48. Yadin, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 44. 49. Among the few to follow Yadin’s lead were Frank Charles Fensham, “Hebrews and Qumran,” Neot 5 (1971): 9–21. 50. See Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 46–48, citing Lou H. Silberman, “The Two ‘Messiahs’ of the Manual of Discipline,” VT 5 (1955): 77–82; Angus J. B. Higgins, “Priest and Messiah,” VT 3 (1953): 321–26; and Charles T. Fritsch, “The So-called Priestly Messiah of the Essenes,” JEOL 6 (1967): 242–48. More recently, Michael O. Wise and James D. Tabor, “The Messiah at Qumran,” BAR (Nov. 1992), 60–65.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

215

messiah, and the ambiguous wording of the other major witness to dual messianism, the Damascus Document.51 To account for the evidence from the scrolls, scholars have proposed various developmental theories, none without significant problems.52 However the scrolls are related, it is clear, as Collins forcefully argues,53 that the sectarians who produced them did indeed anticipate that a priestly figure would play a leading role in the drama of the end times. His prominence is clear in the “Messianic Rule” of 1QSa [= 1Q28] 2.12–20, where the priest must bless the banquet before the Messiah of Israel eats. Traces of a priestly messianism may also be found in fragmentary texts. Of particular interest are the intriguing fragments of the Visions of Amram, in literary terms a testament of Amram, son of Qahat, son of Levi, which probably offers predictions about the Levitical line.54 One fragment of Visions of Amrame ar (4Q547 frag. 1) speaks about the general importance of priests in this lineage: 5 […] great upon the bronze altar […] 6 […] the priest will be exalted among all my sons for ever. Then […] 7 […] and his sons after him for all generations in tru[th …]

Visions of Amramc ar (4Q545 frag. 2 lines 3–6) hints at a particularly important priestly figure: I will show you the mystery of his service, holy judgment […] 4 holy for him will be all his descendants for all [eternal] generations […] 5 the seventh of the men of His will [and he will] can and he will […] 6 he will choose as eternal priest.

The even more fragmentary Visions of Amrama ar (4Q543 frag. 3 lines 1–4) apparently predicts the heavenly installation of this “eternal priest.” You will be God, and angel of God will you be cal[led] 2 […] and you will do in this land, and a judge […] 3 […] …your name for all […] 4 […] for eternal generations.

The special priest may simply be Levi, exalted to heaven as part of his installation as priest, as in T. Levi 8.55 At the very least, these texts illustrate 51. A dual messianism was suspected before the discovery of the scrolls on the basis of CD 12.23; 14.19; and 19.10–11, which refer to “the messiah [sg.] of Aaron and Israel”; and CD 20.1, which refers to “a messiah from Aaron and from Israel.” 52. For a review of such theories, see Collins, ibid., 77–83. 53. Ibid., 74–77. 54. The preliminary edition was Jozef T. Milik, “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origene,” RB 79 (1972): 77–97. See the treatment of part of the Visions of Amram in Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchires ]a( (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), 24–36. 55. See OTP 1:791.

216

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

a way of speaking about the eternality of the Levitical priesthood against which the attribution by Hebrews of an eternal priesthood to Christ (Heb 7:11–19) makes particular sense. It is also remotely possible that the texts allude to the installation of a messianic priest or to the role of an angelic priest, but they remain too fragmentary for certainty. Other fragmentary texts show that some scrolls expect an eschatological priest alongside a Davidic warrior. 4QpIsaa (4Q161 frags. 8–10 3.25), for example, after a lengthy description of Isa 11:1–5 and the Shoot of David, notes: “With him will go out one of the priests of renown, holding clothes in his hand.”56 While at least some Qumran sectarians anticipated a priestly Messiah, perhaps in reaction to the consolidation of leadership roles by Hasmoneans such as John Hyrcanus,57 the relationship of such expectations to Hebrews is not transparent. The distinctive features of the image of Jesus as High Priest, his unique atoning self-sacrifice,58 his establishment of a new covenant, are not to be found in the scrolls’ allusions to an eschatological priest. At the same time, the scrolls’ portrait of the eschatological priest presiding at a festive banquet alongside a royal Messiah displays touches nowhere in evidence in Hebrews. The scrolls and the Christian homilist no doubt have the same biblical roots (the “anointed priest” of Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:20, 22) for their messianic beliefs, but those roots have grown in different directions. The development of a priestly messianism in Hebrews may at least have been aware of claims made for the priestly line generally, and perhaps for one of its special members.59 The scrolls also provide scattered evidence of other eschatological expectations. Intimations of a “prophet like Moses,” based on Deut 18:18, appear in Testimonia (4QTest = 4Q175), which cites the Pentateuchal verse.60 This figure then is a likely candidate to be the “prophet” mentioned 56. Cf. also 1QpHab 2.7–9; and 4Q285 frag. 5, 3–5, a text related to the War Scroll; prophesying the battle of the “bud of David,” perhaps indicating his death; and which states that, “a priest will command.” One prophetic priest, of course, is the Teacher of Righteousness, at least according to 4Q171 3.14–17. On related texts, see Collins, ibid., 76. 57. Collins, ibid., 95. 58. The “Canticle of Michael” (4Q491 frag. 11) discussed above suggests that the enthroned figure, whether angel or priest, met opposition, but he is hardly the selfsacrificing High Priest of Hebrews. 59. The special case of Melchizedek requires separate treatment, but it is obviously related to the concerns of this segment of our inquiry. 60. The citation of Deut 18:18 appears tightly wedged between Deut 5:28–29 and Num 24:15–17, the oracle of Balaam referring to a star and a scepter. These are followed by Deut 33:8–11, introduced with the comment “And about Levi he says.” Testimonia (4QTest = 4Q175) 16–20 also cites the passage from Deuteronomy,

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

217

in the passage already cited from 1QS 9.11.61 The combination of priest and prophet might be relevant to the comparison in Hebrews between Jesus and Moses (Heb 3:1–6), but the possibility needs further exploration. The expectations in the scrolls relative to an eschatological prophet or teacher are obscure, and as George Brooke and John Collins62 argue, it is likely that the scrolls expect the prophetic functions to be fulfilled by a priestly interpreter of the Law, who will “teach justice at the end of days” (CD 6.11).63 The figure is apparently understood to be the referent of the “star” of Balaam’s oracle in Num 24:15–17, a text cited in the Damascus Document (CD 7.18–20) and in Testimonia (4QTest = 4Q175). There are formal parallels with Hebrews, where Christ models fidelity (12:2–3), and where the covenant that he inaugurates is “written on the heart” (8:10; 10:16). Yet a direct connection seems unlikely. Hebrews does not explicitly accord prophetic status to Christ. Like other elements of the Scriptures, prophets can be invoked in order to illustrate some aspect that Christ embodies in a fuller or more complete way. Thus, they delivered God’s word of old (1:1), in a way inferior to the Son. Moses as seer (11:26)64 has prophetic characteristics that are not prominent in Hebrews. Like other prophets and judges (11:32), he is an example of the Messiah’s fidelity (12:1–4). If elements of a “prophetic” Christology are weak, neither is Christ explicitly said to be a teacher, and certainly not of the Law, to which Hebrews is hostile.65 It is also interesting that Balaam’s oracle, featured in the scrolls, is nowhere in evidence in Hebrews. The expectation of an eschatological prophet is a secondary element in the eschatology of the scrolls. The expectation of some priestly figure or figures plays a larger role, although the focus on that expectation may have shifted during the life of the community. The complex and inventive portrait of an eschatological or heavenly priest in Hebrews uses some of the building blocks of Jewish tradition found in the scrolls but does not construct the same edifice.

although it lacks the key verse Deut 33:10: “They [the descendants of Levi] teach Jacob your ordinances and Israel your law.” 61. So Yadin, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 54. The connection between the citation in 4Q175 and 1QS 9.11 is questioned by Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 50. 62. George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT 1985); Collins, ibid., 103–35. 63. See the citation of 4Q174 above in n. 25. 64. On the figure of Moses, especially in Heb 11:23–31, and of the midrashic traditions that may be involved here, see Mary Rose D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). 65. See the disparaging remarks of Heb 7:11–12; 8:7, 13; 10:1–4.

218

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS M ELCHIZEDEK IN THE SCROLLS AND IN H EBREWS

The issue of the relationship between the Hebrews’ evaluation of Jesus and the expectations of the scrolls emerges with particular intensity around the figure of Melchizedek. Hebrews bases its portrait of the heavenly high priest on an application of Psalm 110, the first verse of which early followers of Jesus frequently used to describe his heavenly exaltation.66 The fourth verse, designating the royal figure a “priest after the order of Melchizedek,” when understood as an address to the Messiah, warrants the application of a priestly title. But that warrant carries heavy freight: the meaning of the “order of Melchizedek” (kata_ th\n ta/cin Melxise/dek). The interpretation of the “order of Mechizedek” as a heavenly and eternal reality offers an explanation of how Jesus, who did not have a Levitical lineage (7:13–14), could be a priest. It also suggests that he was a very special kind of High Priest. This conceit then grounds the central argument of Hebrews (chs. 8–10), that Jesus at his death performed a definitive atoning sacrifice in an eternal, “heavenly,” realm. Scholars have often suspected that underlying Hebrews’ considerable ingenuity may be speculation on the mysterious biblical priest from Salem, whose only scriptural appearances are at Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. The scrolls have contributed to the debate the evidence of Melchizedek (11QMelch = 11Q13), an eschatological midrash on Lev 25:9–13 involving Melchizedek.67 The fragmentary text attests speculation on the mysterious figure, identifying the biblical priest as one of the Elohim (“divine beings”) of Ps 82:1 and attributing to him an eschatological role. Melchizedek appears first as a liberator in the eschatological Jubilee. The midrash bases its scenario upon Lev 25:13 and Deut 15:2 (11Q13 2.2–3). In fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 61:1, Melchizedek will inaugurate 66. On the use of the psalm in early Christianity, see David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973); and Martin Hengel, “‘Setze dich zu meinem Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110, 1,” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. M. Philonenko; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 108–94. 67. For the editio princeps, see A. S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OTS 14 (1965): 354–73. For a thorough study of the text, see Kobelski, Melchizedek. See also the review of literature in Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 52–60; and in Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek or ‘King of Righteousness,’” EvQ 63 (1991): 305–12. Martin Bodinger, “L’énigme de Melkisédeq,” RHR 211 (1994): 297–333, reviews the data and secondary literature on Melchizedek, arguing for derivation of the figure from a Canaanite solar deity.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

219

this blessed time and “proclaim liberty to them, relieving them [of the debt] of all their iniquities” (11Q13 2.6). Melchizedek also plays a priestly role,68 effecting atonement appropriate to the Jubilee: And this will [happen] in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the day [of atonem]ent is the end of the tenth jubilee in which atonement will be made for all the sons of [God] and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek. (11Q13 2.6–8)

He plays the role of judge, as described in Ps 82:1 and Ps 7:8–9. In that capacity, he will carry out the ven[geance] of God’s judgments [on this day, and they shall be freed from the hands] of Belial and from the power of all [the spirits of his lot]. To his aid (shall come) all “the gods of [justice”; he] is the one [who will prevail on this day over] all the sons of God, and he will pre[side over] this [assembly.] (11Q13 2.13–14)

Isaianic hues complete the portrait. As the “messenger” of Isa 52:7, he brings good news (11Q13 2.15–18).69 In the words of Isa 61:2–3, he is to comfort the afflicted: to do so is “to instruct them in all the ages of the worl[d]” (11Q13 2.20). Hints of the eschatological priest and teacher encountered in 4Q491 resurface. The surviving text concludes with another hint of Melchizedek’s stature. Isaiah 52:7, “Saying to Zion: ‘Your God rules,’” provides the basis for interpretation. The midrashist first takes “Zion” to refer to a new covenant: “[Zi]on” is [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people. (11Q13 2.23–24)

The interpretation continues: “Your God” is [… Melchizedek, who will fr]ee [them] from the hand of Belial. (11Q13 2.24–25)

Melchizedek is thus envisioned as a major player in the eschatological drama, combining varied strands of speculation about a deliverer. As a heavenly 68. It is true that Melchizedek is not explicitly designated a priest in Melchizedek. This fact has led some scholars to hesitate about identifying him as such in this text. See Bodinger, “L’énigme,” 326. 69. The “messenger” is also described as “[the ano]inted of the spirit about whom Dan[iel] spoke.” This text (11Q13 18) probably alludes to Dan 9:25, see Kobelski, Melchizedek, 21.

220

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

priest, judge, and teacher, Melchizedek is associated with the eschatological reign of God envisioned as a perfect Jubilee. Whether the Melchizedek of this text is to be identified with some other eschatological figure known from Qumran, such as Michael, remains debated.70 Further evidence of Melchizedek as a priestly angel is found in other fragmentary texts.71 In the New Testament book of Hebrews the treatment of the figure of Melchizedek displays similarities with the imagery of the scrolls. Like Melchizedek, Christ the High Priest sits enthroned among the angels and is considered a divine being (1:5, 8), however that divinity is to be understood. Moreover, his followers belong to a new covenant, and for them he has provided atonement. Yet other features of the midrash are absent. Hebrews does not explicitly draw upon the eschatology of the Jubilee. At most, an allusion appears in the notion of sabbatical rest in 4:11.72 Unlike the scrolls, and the Gospels,73 Hebrews does not involve a proclamation of Isaianic “good news.” Neither does Christ as High Priest play a role as eschatological judge. Here again the contrast with early Gospel traditions (Mark 13:24–27; Matt 25:31–46) is of interest. Hebrews knows of a coming judgment, a “day” that draws nigh (10:25), but in that final assize it is God who will exact vengeance (10:27–31), God who is the Judge (12:23). Jesus, as High Priest enthroned beside the divine majesty (1:3), serves as a defense attorney, who empathizes with the weakness of sinners (4:15–5:2), an intercessor for those who approach God (7:25), a covenantal mediator (7:22; 12:24), whose blood cries out, like that of Abel, but cries for mercy.74 But the judicial role 70. Some scholars doubt the association, including Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); and Bodinger, “L’énigme,” 325–26. For arguments in favor of the identification, see Kobelski, Melchizedek, 71–74, who relies particularly on Visions of Amramb (4Q544), discussed on 26–36, but the key phrase, giving three names (Michael, Prince of Light, and Melchizedek, according to Kobelski) of the angelic prince, must be restored. 71. See 4Q401 frag. 11 1.3, published in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1(ed. E. Eshel et al.; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 205; and 11Q17 col. 2 frag. 3 line 7, in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 269–70. 72. On this motif see Judith Hoch Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). 73. Cf. Matt 11:2–5; 12:18–21; Luke 4:18–19. Cf. also 4Q521 frag. 2 2.12, which includes, among the works of a Messiah, his “preaching good news to the poor.” See Collins, ibid., 117. 74. The precise point of the “blood crying out” at Heb 12:24 is debated, but the other references to the effect of Christ’s blood indicate its positive, cleansing, atoning functions. Cf. Heb 9:14; 10:22.

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

221

accorded to the Son of Man in the apocalyptic material of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 25:31–46) is absent. Most important, Hebrews is not explicitly interested in the figure of Melchizedek and makes no attempt to reduce the mystery around the figure by identifying him with another eschatological agent.75 The studied reticence reflects our author’s rhetorical goals. The text functions not to explicate obscure biblical traditions but to celebrate Jesus. The scrolls—like other witnesses to the pervasive “Melchizedek tradition,” such as Philo,76 2 Enoch,77 and the Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek,78— attest the interest in learned circles of antiquity generated by the obscure biblical figure. Hebrews perhaps exploits that interest by using Melchizedek as a prototype of the Messiah, but it does not resolve the mystery about the identity or history of Melchizedek himself. It goes only so far into the texts of Genesis and Psalm 110 as is necessary in order to establish a symbolic connection. Yet the character of that connection is relevant to the background of Hebrews 7. Melchizedek foreshadows Christ’s eternal priesthood because of the scriptural testimony that “he lives” (Heb 7:8). The living figure to whom Scripture witnesses is likely to be an angel or exalted human being of some sort. The scrolls afford a glimpse of speculation into the genus; Hebrews’ reticence precludes identification of the specific version of Melchizedek speculation that its author probably knew.

THE N EW COVENANT AND THE ATONING CULT The author of Hebrews was not unique in using the language of a “new covenant” (8:7, 13) nor in appealing to Jeremiah. He shared the language with other early Christians, such as Paul,79 and the Synoptic 75. For the innumerable attempts to do so, see Horton, Melchizedek Tradition, passim; and Attridge, Hebrews, 192–95. 76. Congr. 99; Abr. 235; Leg. 3.79–82. For Philo, Melchizedek becomes an allegory of the human mind and the Logos, who reveals the divine. 77. 2 Enoch 71–72. See Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:91–100. The text contains the legend that Noah’s nephew Melchizedek, miraculously conceived and born from his mother’s corpse (and hence without father or mother!), was saved from the flood to continue the line of priests begun with Seth. The child is also transported to paradise, there to remain forever. 78. See the edition by Birger A. Pearson, “Melchizedek,” in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (ed. B. A. Pearson; NHS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 19–85. 79. 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14. At Gal 3:15, 17 Paul makes a play similar to Heb 9:14 on diaqh&kh as covenant and testament.

222

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

evangelists,80 who considered themselves members of a new covenantal community. Neither were Christians alone in adopting such a stance. The scrolls too know of a new covenant, and their use offers parallels to that of the early Christians.81 The major references to a new covenant appear in the Damascus Document.82 CD (MS A) 6.14–21 indicates fairly clearly the function of the terminology: Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the law for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which defiles, either by promise or by vow, and from the wealth of the temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, from making their widows their spoils and from murdering orphans; to separate unclean from clean and differentiate between the holy and the common; to keep the sabbath day according to the exact interpretation, and the festivals and the day of fasting, according to what they had discovered, those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus; to set apart holy portions according to their exact interpretation; for each to love his brother like himself; to strengthen the hand of the poor, the needy and the foreigner.

Members of the “new covenant in the land of Damascus,” whenever and wherever it was formed, bind themselves to a life of separate holiness. In a community marked by brotherly love, these volunteers are able to pursue their exact interpretation of the Law and a detachment from things that defile. The “new covenant” is not, as for Jeremiah 31, a heartfelt renewal of fidelity to the covenant as an undertaking by the whole of Israel, but as the designation of a sect. 80. The term appears only in the Last Supper narratives in Matthew and Mark (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24) and in the parallel in Luke 22:20. In Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; and 7:8 appear references to God’s covenant of old. 81. Susanne Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); for the absence of the idea in postbiblical Judaism, see 35–42. Earlier literature includes Raymond F. Collins, “The Berith-Notion of the Cairo Damascus Document and Its Comparison with the NT,” ETL 39 (1963): 555–94; and Christoph Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). Most recently, see Brian J. Capper, “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus,” The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Post-Biblical Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. R. Davila; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90–116. 82. In addition to the major references discussed here, there is mention of a covenant in several minor fragments. In the following documents sufficient context is lacking: 1Q30 4.2; 1Q36 7.2; 1Q54 1.2; 1QDM (= 1Q22) 2.8; 4.2; 4Q185 3.3; 4Q497 1.5. Some texts simply refer to biblical covenants, such as the covenant with Noah (4Q370 7) or with Moses (4Q381 frag. 69, 5–8; 4Q503 frag. 3 2.13).

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

223

It is clear from CD (MS A) 8.20 that, like the recipients of Hebrews, the members of this community understood themselves as fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah: This is the word which Jeremiah spoke to Baruch, son of Neriah, and Elishah to Giezi his servant. All the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus…83

Later references indicate that the sect, like so many similar movements, experienced internal discord. Those who abandoned the group stand under severe censure: And thus, all the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus and turned and betrayed and departed from the well of living waters, shall not be counted in the assembly of the people and shall not be inscribed in their [lis]ts, from the day of the session of {of him who teaches of the teacher} // of the unique Teacher until there arises the messiah of Aaron and Israel. (CD [MS B] 19.33–20.1) They shall be judged according to the judgment of their companions, who turned round with insolent men, for they spoke falsehood about the holy regulations and despised the covenant {of God} and the pact which they established in the land of Damascus, which is the first covenant. And neither for then nor their families shall there be a part in the house of the law. (CD [MS B] 20.10–13)

Other references to the sectarian community as a new covenant appear in other scrolls, such as 1QpHab 2.3; and, as noted above, at 11Q13 2.23–24. They add little to the picture derived from the major references in the Damascus Document. One passage in the Songs of the Master (4Q511 frags. 63–64, 3.1–4) expresses the sense of commitment to the covenant and the judgment on those who break it: As for me, my tongue will extol your justice Because you have unfastened it. You have placed on my lips a fount of praise and in my heart the secret of the start of all human actions and the culmination of the deeds of the perfect ones of the path, and the judgments of all the works that they do, to vindicate the just one in your faithfulness and pronounce the wicked guilty for his fault; in order to announce: Peace to all men of the covenant and to shout with a terrifying voice: Woe on all those who break it. 83. MS A of the Damascus Document from the Cairo Genizah breaks off at this point. What has been designated column 9 in fact follows column 16. See García Martínez, DSS Translated, 39–40.

224

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

Several parallels with Hebrews suggest common features of sectarian life. Like the readers of the scroll, the members of the Christian covenant community are “perfect,”84 although their perfection consists not in observance of Torah, but in the cleansing of their conscience by Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 9:14). The wish for peace on fellow covenanters is not unusual in any group based on the religion of Israel, although 12:11–14 offers not a blessing of shalom, but an injunction to pursue peace with all. Finally, the terrifying voice issuing a curse on those who abandon the covenant sounds a note similar to the warnings in Hebrews, particularly to 10:29, which threatens those who consider the “blood of the covenant,” meaning Christ’s sacrificial death, to be profane. In both groups the definition of the covenant community requires the imposition of well-marked social boundaries. Other aspects of covenantal life according to Hebrews offer parallels to the scrolls, although most are sufficiently general to characterize any “sectarian” group that defines itself over against a larger entity. One point on which the scrolls and Hebrews converge is an interest in the temple cult, although from quite different points of view. For the scrolls, what transpires in the temple, at least in the ideal or eschatological temple, is of fundamental significance. For Hebrews, what transpires in the earthly tabernacle, and by implication in the temple that succeeds the tabernacle of the desert, is but a symbol of eschatological reality, the Messiah’s sacrifice (9:9; 10:1). In this context, the Temple Scroll (11QTemple = 11Q19–20) merits special attention.85 The Temple Scroll describes cultic areas and processes analogous to those of Hebrews: the cover of the ark overshadowed by the cherubim (11QTemplea [= 11Q19] 7.10–12; Heb 9:5); the high priest who sacrifices for people and then priests (11QTemplea 15.15–17; 25.16–26.7; Heb 5:3);86 the rituals of the smearing and sprinkling of blood (11QTemplea 84. Cf. Heb 10:1, 14. 85. The relationship between the Temple Scroll and the covenanters is debated. See Baruch A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 5–23; and Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll in Literary and Philological Perspective,” Approaches to Ancient Judaism II (ed. W. S. Green; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 143–58, Koester, Dwelling, 33; the essays in George J. Brooke, ed., Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); and Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT (STDJ 14; Leiden: Brill, 1995). The Temple Scroll lacks most of the major polemical elements of the clearly sectarian texts and diverges from sectarian halakah at several points. It seems likely that the text was composed outside of the community, but perhaps used by the sectarians. 86. Cf. also 11QTempleb (= 11Q20) frag. 1 1.11–13, for a distinction between sacrifices for the high priest himself and for other priests. For the distinction between the

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

225

16.16–17; 23.11–14: Heb 9:7, 12, 25); and a focus on the Day of Atonement (11QTemplea 25.9–16). Such parallels are hardly surprising in two texts that highlight the actions of the high priest. Had the author of Hebrews known of the Temple Scroll’s detailed halakah, he would no doubt have been as dismissive of it as he is of the “regulations of the flesh” (9:10) or the “strange and varied teachings” (13:9).87

THE COMING J UDGMENT The author of Hebrews exhorts renewed fidelity to Christ in the light of his imminent coming in judgment (10:25, 37; 12:25–29). To support that exhortation, Hebrews 10:37–38 cites from Hab 2:3–4, a text that receives extended treatment at 1QpHab 7.3–8.3: 7.3 [. . . .]And as for what he says: Hab 2:2, “So that the one who reads it may run.” 4 Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has disclosed 5 all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets. Hab 2:3 “For the vision has an appointed time, it will have an end and not fail.” [. . . .] 7 Its interpretation: the final age will be extended and go beyond all that 8 the prophets say, because the mysteries of God are wonderful. 9 Hab 2:3b “Though it might delay, wait for it; it definitely has to come and will not 10 delay.” Its interpretation concerns the men of truth, 11 those who observe the Law, whose hands will not desert the service 12 of truth when the final age is extended beyond them, because 13 all the ages of God will come at the right time, as he established 14 for them in the mysteries of his prudence. Hab 2:4 “See 15 [his soul within him] is conceited and does not give way.” Its interpretation: they will double 16 [persecution] upon them [and find no mercy] at being judged. [. . . .] 8.1 Its interpretation concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom 2 God will free from punishment on account of their deeds and of their loyalty [Mtnm)] 3 to the Teacher of Righteousness.88

high priest and people, cf. Lev 9:7; 16:6–17. By the Second Temple period the distinction was applied to daily sacrifices (Exod 29:38–42; Num 28:3–8; Ezek 46:13–15). Cf. Heb 7:27; Philo, Her. 174. 87. Both passages deal with issues of kashruth. Not surprisingly, the Temple Scroll has similar interests, restricting what comes into the city to pure foods and liquids (11QTemplea 47.3–7). Hegermann (Brief an die Hebräer, 175) compares the disparaging comments on kashruth regulations in Hebrews to the purity requirement for membership in the covenant community at 1QS 3.3–9; 6.13–23; 7.15–20. 88. For treatment of the text see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979).

226

Q Te m p l e a please confirm s is scroll a and

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

Both Hebrews and the pesher call for continued fidelity, but construe its objects differently. In view of imminent eschatological judgment, 1QpHab insists upon fidelity to Torah and its interpretation by the Teacher of Righteousness. It is by that “faith” that the righteous will live. Hebrews, which clearly uses a Greek translation making the subject of the verb in the final clause of Hab 2:3 not “the vision” as in the MT but “the one who is to come,”89 applies the prophecy to Christ’s second coming and urges imitation of Christ’s fidelity to God in the face of persecution (12:1–2). By following his example of “faith,” the members of this community can be assured they too will live. The fact that Paul too could cite Hab 2:4 in arguments about faith and the Torah (Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17) indicates its utility for early Christians. His usage may share some of the interests of Hebrews but addresses other issues than the need to remain faithful in the fact of opposition.90 In its appeal to remain faithful, Hebrews deploys both warnings of judgment and promises of the “rewards” of fidelity.91 Among these are the intimations of the “city” prepared for the faithful (11:10, 16; 13:14), the “heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22) inhabited by saints and angels. The image’s Jewish roots are obvious,92 and the scrolls have added to the dossier a series of fragments describing the ideal city.93 Most of these fragments treat architectural and topographical details. Hebrews, unlike Rev 21:10–14, is uninterested in such details, whatever their potential symbolic value. The only points of contact between Hebrews and the scrolls’ descriptions of the new Jerusalem is the note that the city is where true divine worship takes place, a place where, in the language of the scrolls, the altar is set up and priests officiate (2Q4 frag. 4; 11Q18 frags. 1–3, 11–13), where atonement takes place (2Q4 frag. 8). The sectarian vision sketched in this fragment and in the Temple Scroll, probably arising from kai\ a)natelei= ei0j pe/raj kai\ ou)k ei0j keno/n: e0an_ u(sterh/sh|, u(po&menon au0to&n, o3ti e0rxo/menoj h3cei kai\ ou0 mh\ xroni/sh For detailed discussion, see Attridge, Hebrews, 302–3. 90. Paul and Hebrews may be closer than once thought, if revisionist views of the significance of “Christ faith” in Paul are correct. See, e.g., Arland J. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63; and Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 91. On those rewards, see Heb 6:9–12; 10:35–36; 11:26; 12:2. 92. For earlier literature, see Attridge, Hebrews, 374. 93. 2Q4; 4Q554; 4Q555; 5Q15; 11Q18. See García Martínez, DSS Translated, 129–35. 89. MT:

d(wml Nwzx dw( yk bzky )lw Cql xpyw wl hkx hmhmty M) rx)y )l )by )b yk

LXX:

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

227

dissatisfaction over the Jerusalem temple and its leadership, attests the debate to which Hebrews, at least in part, responds. As with many other images derived from biblical and postbiblical Judaism, Hebrews toys with the notion of the new Jerusalem. The pointillist sketch in 12:22–24, evoking heavenly citizens, angels, and martyrs, concludes with the focus on the text’s real concern, the mediator of the new covenant. Evidence of concrete hopes for a restored or renewed Jerusalem are lacking, and the author cloaks the details of his eschatological expectations.94 The imagery of the heavenly Jerusalem in Hebrews finally balances the threat of judgment with an assurance of ready access to God through the Messiah for adherents to the new covenant.

SOME TERMINOLOGICAL PARALLELS One further intriguing parallel related to the social setting of the covenant communities appears in the halakic texts from Qumran. In its concluding exhortation (13:13), Hebrews urges its addresses to follow Jesus “outside the camp” (e1cw th~j parembolh~j). The referent of the expression has been a matter of debate. Those who see Hebrews urging its addressees to maintain a separate identity from the people of Israel see the “camp” as a symbol for the community of the old covenant. Those unconvinced that the major factor motivating the paraenesis of Hebrews is relationship with Israel focus on the parallel with Christ, crucified in shame outside the city. Outside the camp is that place of social ostracism to which the addressees have been relegated by their Christian commitment (10:32–35). The homilist thus calls on the addressees to embrace such a state of marginalization.95 The scrolls do not assist in resolving that debate but do provide parallels for the expression. The most interesting is in Some Works of Torah or Halakhic Letter (4QMMT = 4Q394–399) 30–34:96 And concerning what is written: Lev 17:3 [“When a man slaughters within the camp”—they] 31 [slaughter] outside the camp—“a bull, or a [she]ep or a 94. Some commentators, such as George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), unconvincingly take the imagery of a new Jerusalem to indicate an expectation of such renewal. 95. For the division of opinion among earlier scholars, see Attridge, Hebrews, 399. For the latter reading, see particularly DeSilva, Perseverance. 96. I cite the composite text. The verses are found in 4Q394 frag. 1 2.13–18 and 4Q397 frag. 1 1–5.

228

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS she-goat”: the pl[ace of slaughter is to the north of the camp.] 32 And we think that the temple [is the place of the tent of meeting, and Je]rusalem 33 is the camp; and outside the camp is [outside Jerusalem;] it is the camp of 34 their cities. Outside the ca[mp…]… (Composite text)

The symbolic equation of Jerusalem and the “camp” (hnxm) of the desert generation is not surprising, given the presence in the city of the temple, the holiness of which is so important to the letter. Outside the camp/city is the realm of impurity, where lepers and the unclean must reside (4QMMT 67–69).97 Direct dependence is unlikely, but Hebrews, in its use of the spatial metaphor for social reality, attributes the same value to the “outside” as it does the scroll. But paradoxically, the text urges its readers to welcome the conventional negative judgments associated with the “outside” because, as the next verse indicates, they have a different city to which they belong (13:14).

I NTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURES During the course of this exploration of certain key themes within Hebrews, the parallels between its scripturally based “word of exhortation” and the scriptural expositions of the scrolls have surfaced on more than one occasion. Ever since the discovery of the scrolls, scholars have noted similarities and debated their significance.98 The major feature shared by Hebrews and many of the scrolls is an eschatological horizon, a conviction that the readers of Scripture are living in the “latter days,”99 whose events are in some sense foreshadowed by sacred Scripture. Within that broad horizon, both Hebrews and the scrolls evidence considerable flexibility in the appropriation and use of Scripture,100 and 97. From 4Q394 frag. 3 14–16; 4Q396 frag. 1 3.5–7. Note the insistence on the purity of the community in which the angels reside at 1QS 11.8; 1QSa 2.8–9, noted above (in n29). 98. For a review of most of the significant literature, see Hurst, Epistle to the Hebrews, 61–65; and George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–94. Among earlier literature of particular importance is Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968). Recent studies of exegetical techniques include Martin Hengel and Helmut Lohr, eds., Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (WUNT 73; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994). 99. Heb 1:1: e0pe_ s 0 xa&tou_tw~n h(merw~n tou/twn; 1QpHab 2.5; 1QSa 1.1; 4QFlor (= 4Q174) 1.12 (Mymyh tyrx)b). 100. On exegesis in the scrolls in general, see Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran; Michael A. Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra: Text,

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE

229

this paper can hardly do justice to the variety of methods and stances toward the sacred text in evidence in both. Yet there are characteristic tendencies indicating significant differences between the exegetical world of Qumran and that of Hebrews. The most distinctive aspect of the interpretation of Scripture in the scrolls is the eschatological interpretation of the pesharim, which treat Scripture as a riddle to be solved. Texts are prophetic, each with a meaning or pesher, which consists of a referent in the historical experience of the community to which the text refers.101 The author of Hebrews knows that biblical texts and the institutions described in them can foreshadow things to come (10:1). Yet the voice of Scripture speaks to the present of its hearers in a variety of ways (1:1; 4:11). Hebrews generally tends to be more subtle and more flexible than the pesharim. The homilist probes texts in various ways, exploiting syntactical ambiguity (2:8–9), using analytical techniques akin to the rabbinic gezerah shawah (4:4–10) to achieve a hortatory application (in 4:11) of a Psalm (95:11), and investigating etymology (Heb 7:2) and logical analysis (7:7) to score apologetic or hortatory points. Over the course of a lengthy exposition, Hebrews can tease out the significance of certain phrases102 and use Scripture as a structuring device.103 Finally, the writer can be playfully serious, as in attributing words of Psalms to Jesus (2:12–13; 10:5–7).104 In those words the homilist hears the word of God, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling; CRINT 2.1; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), 339–77; Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran”; and Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran,” both in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. C. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–94, and 95–110, respectively; and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 211–22; and in Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215–38. 101. For a useful overview of the pesharim, see Devorah Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483–550, esp. 503–14. For the debates about the historical allusions in these texts, see James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 102. Note the recurrent use of Ps 110:l or 4 at Heb 1:13; 5:6; 6:17; 8:1; 10:12. 103. Note the citation of Jer 31:31–34 at Heb 8:8–12 and 10:16–17. 104. Although no direct connection seems likely, it is interesting to compare the Hodayot as expressions of the personal piety of this psalmist and Hebrews’ use of the first person in the canonical psalms to give voice to the perceived intentions of Jesus.

230

THE SCROLLS’ I MPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON H EBREWS

but those words have their status precisely because they are spoken by the Son (1:2). In its hermeneutical stance, as in all else, Hebrews reflects its complex background, combining Jewish exegetical presuppositions and techniques, devices of Greek rhetoric, and a profound commitment to the importance of Christ as the agent of God’s salvific purposes.

CONCLUSION More than fifty years after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is abundantly clear that they have irreversibly altered the scholarly landscape for the study of Judaism of the Second Temple period and of Christian origins. It would not be proper to generalize from Hebrews, but the epistle does serve as a signal instance of that change. The scrolls have not provided a single key that explains the particular character of Hebrews as an example of early Christian rhetoric, and they certainly cannot support a claim that Hebrews emerges directly from or responds directly to the sectarians in evidence among the scrolls. The scrolls have, however, enormously enriched the material relevant to the Jewish heritage of Hebrews. The unknown homilist who composed the text uses that heritage brilliantly but, from the point of view of the tradition, perversely, to give expressions to a new vision of how to be faithful to the God of the covenant.

For discussion of that conceit, see Harold W. Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology (ed. A. A. Das and F. J. Matera; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 197–209; and idem, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise and M. J. Menken; London: T & T Clark: 2004), 197–212.

CHAPTER NINE

THE DREAM OF A NEW JERUSALEM AT QUMRAN Adela Yarbro Collins This essay is based on the conclusion of many scholars that there was a Jewish sectarian community, whose members were probably Essenes, that emerged in the mid-second century B.C.E. and established communal buildings at the site known today as Khirbet Qumran. Not all the documents found in caves near the site were composed by members of this community. The sectarian documents date from various periods and may reflect different points of view held at different times. Nevertheless, this essay attempts to synthesize ideas about Jerusalem expressed in the nonbiblical manuscripts and consider to what extent these various ideas are compatible with one another. But first I sketch a brief history of the main religious ideas relating to Jerusalem.

J ERUSALEM IN THE H EBREW B IBLE AND IN H ISTORY According to Genesis 14, Abraham, after defeating four foreign kings, was honored by local rulers, including Melchizedek, the king of Salem. The city of Salem is identified with Jerusalem in Ps 76:3 MT (76:2 ET). A historical reading of the source incorporated into Genesis 14 leads to the conclusion that Melchizedek was a priest of the Canaanite deity ElElyo¯n. Later religious Hebrew literature identified El-Elyo¯n with the God of Israel.1 In the description of the territory assigned to the tribe of Judah in Joshua 15, the writer takes extreme care to show that the stronghold of Jebus (Jerusalem) lies outside Judah’s border.2 When David became king of Israel, he ruled at first for seven and a half years in Hebron before conquering Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusites, and making it his capital (2 Sam 5:1–10). After uniting Israel and Judah under his rule, David eliminated the old Jebusite enclave from the midst of his newly 1. Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 105–9. 2. Joshua 15:8–9, 63; for discussion, see Robert G. Boling, Joshua (AB 6: Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 370, 392–93.

231

232

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

united kingdom and chose a capital that was centrally located and thus acceptable to both the northern and southern tribes.3 After capturing Jerusalem, David took up residence there, fortified the city, and began a building program, extending the city of David northward toward the present temple mount (2 Sam 5:9).4 The dominant biblical tradition is that David’s son and successor, Solomon, built the first temple and the adjoining palace complex immediately south of the temple.5 During his reign, the city became an internationally known capital of the Israelite empire.6 Jerusalem declined in importance during the divided kingdom and was destroyed in 586 B.C.E. by the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8–12).7 Since there is no record of the destruction of the altar and Jerusalem continued to be occupied during the exile of the people’s leaders in Babylon, it is likely that sacrifices continued to be offered from 586 to 538 B.C.E.8 After conquering Babylonia in 539 B.C.E., Cyrus II allowed the leaders of the Jews to return to their homeland and authorized the rebuilding of the temple (Isa 44:28; 2 Chron 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4).9 The second temple was dedicated in 515 B.C.E. in the reign of Darius (Ezra 6:15–18).10 With the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelite monarchy and the building of the temple, traditions flourished that gave the city a religious, symbolic, and even mythic significance. According to Psalm 2, a royal psalm, God declares (v. 6), “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.” Psalm 48 shows that Mount Zion and the city of Jerusalem were interchangeable in religious symbolism. It also reflects the identification of the temple mount with Mount Zaphon, the cosmic mountain, the meeting place of heaven and earth, located at the center of the world (Ps 48:1–2; Ezek 5:5; 38:12).11 The “J” account of creation and the oracle 3. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel, (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 141–42. 4. For discussion, see Philip J. King, “Jerusalem,” ABD 3:754. 5. On traditions implying that David did build a temple, see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985), 95–96. 6. King, “Jerusalem,” 754. 7. Ibid., 756–57. 8. Ibid., 757. Theodor A. Busink accepts Jer 41:5 as evidence that sacrifices were offered in Jerusalem shortly after the destruction, but he did not think that this practice lasted for long; local shrines became prominent again, and there was no central shrine until the return; idem, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes, vol. 2, Von Ezechiel bis Middot (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 777–78. 9. King, “Jerusalem,” 757. 10. Ibid. 11. On Mount Zion as the cosmic mountain, see Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 111–37.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

233

against Tyre in Ezekiel imply a similarity between Zion as the garden of God and the garden of Eden.12 The Jebusites may already have believed in the invincibility of their city (2 Sam 5:6).13 In any case, this motif became a central theme in the biblical traditions about Zion (2 Kgs 8:19; Ps 46:4–7; Isa 29:1–8). Jeremiah challenged the notion that Mount Zion was invulnerable to any attack and asserted that the presence of God in Zion was dependent upon the ethical behavior of the people (Jer 7:1–15; cf. Psalms 15 and 24).14 When the temple had been destroyed, the city was still regarded as sacred, and the devout prayed facing Jerusalem in the hope that their prayers would ascend from there into the heavenly court.15 During the exile, the prophet Ezekiel envisioned a restoration in terms of a new exodus (Ezek 20:33–38). After the new deliverance of the people, the Lord would bring them into the land of Israel and accept their offerings “on my holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel” (Ezek 20:40). This saying describes the temple mount in terms of the mythical mountain of God, the cosmic mountain.16 A related oracle proclaims that the Lord would establish a new, everlasting sanctuary in the midst of the people (Ezek 37:26–28). This hope for the restoration of the temple took concrete form in the vision of Ezekiel 40–48. The core of this vision is the narrative that describes how an angel led the prophet through the new sanctuary, a tour that reaches its goal in the holy of holies. This core likely goes back to Ezekiel himself (Ezek 40:1–37, 47–49; 41:1–4).17 The vision as a whole was expanded and updated, first by Ezekiel himself and later by those who preserved his oracles and visions.18 The core vision may be dated to 573 B.C.E.19 We may define the core vision as eschatological, and not only ideal or utopian, because it was associated by the prophet with a time in which God would give the house of Israel a new heart and a new spirit and would remove their hearts of stone and give them hearts of flesh. Further, God would put the divine spirit in them and make the land and the trees 12. Levenson, ibid., 128–31. 13. For discussion, see ibid., 93–94. 14. For discussion, see ibid., 165–76. 15. Such ideas are reflected in Dan 6:10–11; for further discussion, see ibid., 125. 16. Cf. Ezek 40:2; for discussion, see Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (ed. F. M. Cross, K. Baltzer, and L. J. Greenspoon; trans. R. E. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 417. 17. For discussion, see Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel II: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (ed. L. J. Greenspoon and P. D. Hanson; trans. J. D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 547–53. 18. Ezek 41:5–15a and 42:15–20 are secondary, but probably belong to an expansion made by Ezekiel himself. See ibid., 547–548. 19. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 10–11.

234

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

bear abundantly, so that famine would be unknown. The land that was desolate would be like the garden of Eden (Ezek 36:22–38). This complex of motifs implies a new creation, a restoration of the original creation before it was marred by the sin of Adam. The description of Zion as “a very high mountain” presupposes the eschatological tradition that Zion would be given an elevation higher than all the other mountains of the earth in the last days (Ezek 40:2; Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–4; cf. Ezek 20:40).20 Thus, the Israelites adapted and extended old mythic motifs as they created a picture of a definitive future age. In its present form the great vision of Ezekiel 40–48 contains a passage about the allocation of the land that is to follow the new settlement (Ezek 47:13–48:29). According to this plan, the people are not to settle in Transjordan or the Anti-Lebanon, but from the region “toward Hamath” in Lebanon on the north, to the boundary with Egypt in the south.21 Each tribe is allocated a strip of land from east to west, with Dan in the far north and Gad in the far south.22 South of the territory of Judah and north of Benjamin, a strip of land between them is to be “set apart” for the Lord. This is the hmwrt (consecrated area) in the widest sense. It includes the site of Jerusalem. This area contains two districts that are consecrated in a narrower sense, the portion of the Levites and that of the priests. Each of these is a #$dqh tmwrt (sacred area). South of the territory of the priests is the district of “the city,” which has the same dimension as the districts of the priests and Levites from east to west, but is only half as large from north to south. This territory contains the city, its pastureland, and its arable land. To the east and the west of the three strips for the priests, the Levites, and the city are two regions to be given to the prince.23 In this arrangement the temple precinct is far more important than the city of Jerusalem. The passage never mentions the name “Jerusalem.” The outer gates of the sanctuary are quite similar to Solomon’s city gates in Megiddo, Hazor, and possibly Gezer.24 The gates of the sanctuary lack towers and have a cultic rather than a military purpose. But the architecture suggests that Ezekiel has shifted the emphasis from the city to the temple. The impression that the text is downplaying the city is reinforced by the fact that the sanctuary is not actually in the city. Instead, it is placed in the district of the priests. The area of the priests is 20. For discussion, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel II, 347. 21. For discussion, see Zimmerli, ibid., 528–32. 22. See the map in ibid., 537. 23. See the diagram in ibid., 535. 24. Ibid., 352–53.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

235

holy, whereas the city is explicitly said to be profane ()wh-lx; Ezek 48:15). Ezekiel’s vision pointedly excludes a royal palace from the temple mount.25 Similarly, the city itself is in a different zone of the consecrated area. The “prince” is the representative of the house of David, but his role is primarily cultic. In sum, the vision of Ezekiel drastically subordinates the royal, military and political tradition to priestly and cultic concerns. The passage that concludes the great vision in its present form focuses on the city and was probably added at a late stage in the literary history of Ezekiel 40–48 (esp. Ezek 48:30–35).26 It describes the twelve gates of the city, which were perhaps inspired by the twelve gates of the sacred precinct of the ziggurat Etemenanki in Babylon.27 The gates are adapted to an Israelite context by association with the twelve tribes. The old tradition of the city of Jerusalem as the place of the divine presence finds expression here once more, in spite of the quite different emphasis in the rest of the vision.28 Nevertheless, the anonymity of “the city” is maintained in this passage until the end, when it is given the new name “The Lord Is There” (Ezek 48:35). Like other motifs in the book of Ezekiel, this renaming also suggests a new age. The theme of the new exodus, already applied to the return from exile in the book of Ezekiel, was developed in hymnic language by a successor of Isaiah. He declared, for example: Was it not You who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, And sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Isa 51:10–11 RSV [modified])

25. On the tensions between cultic and royal institutions from the time of Solomon down to the Hasmoneans, see Johann Maier, “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. G. J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 28–33; see also Hartmut Stegemann, “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll,” in Brooke, Temple Scroll Studies, 141–42. 26. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel II, 544–46. 27. So ibid., 546. 28. Ibid., 545–46.

236

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

The new exodus would be followed by the restoration of Jerusalem: “Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in travail! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord. Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; hold not back, lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes. For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your descendants will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.”… “O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with sapphires. I will make your pinnacles of agate, your gates of carbuncles, and all your wall of precious stones.” (Isa 54:1–3, 11–12 RSV)

Although the second temple, dedicated in 515 B.C.E., was similar in design to the first temple, it was more modest. Perhaps because of the memory of the first temple or because of the expectations raised by prophets like Ezekiel and the successors of Isaiah, at least some of the people were dissatisfied with the second temple. Haggai was commissioned to say to the remnant of the people: Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not in your sight as nothing? (Hag 2:3 RSV [modified])29

But the prophet attempted to transform this disappointment into renewed hope: For thus says the Lord of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts. The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity. (Hag 2:6–9 RSV)

During the Persian period and under the governor Nehemiah, Jerusalem became the administrative and religious capital of Judea. 29. Cf. Ezra 3:12. Busink interprets Hag 2:3 as referring to the ruins of the temple of Solomon (Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2:776).

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

237

During the Hellenistic period, this situation continued, with the temple and the priesthood playing a major role.30 In the crisis related to the Hellenistic reform, which peaked from 169 to 167 B.C.E., Antiochus IV, the Seleucid overlord of Judea, destroyed the walls of Jerusalem and built a citadel for his garrison. He also desecrated the temple by rededicating the altar and the temple as a whole to Ba(l S ]amêm, a Syro-Phoenician deity that the author of 2 Maccabees and Josephus identified with Olympian Zeus (1 Macc 1:20–63; 2 Macc 6:2–5).31 The Jewish priest Mattathias, along with his five sons, led a revolt against the Seleucids. One of his sons, Judas Maccabee, liberated Jerusalem in 164 B.C.E., with the exception of the Akra, as the Seleucid citadel was called. Soon afterward, the temple was purified and rededicated (1 Macc 4:36–58).32 Around 141 B.C.E., his brother Simon expelled the Seleucid garrison from the Akra and cleansed the citadel (1 Macc 13:49–51).33 Thus, he made Judea independent of Seleucid rule. From this time until the conquest by Pompey in 63 B.C.E., Judea was an autonomous entity that included Transjordan, and Jerusalem was its capital.

J ERUSALEM IN THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS Although all of these questions are disputed, it seems likely that at some point in the late second century or early first century B.C.E. a reformist movement crystallized into a sect, and a number of participants, including a leader known only as the “Teacher of Righteousness,” left Jerusalem to found a communal life at Qumran. The primary point of contention was apparently how to establish the calendar and which calendar to follow for the observance of holy days and festivals. This issue had implications for the administration of the temple cult.34 30. King, “Jerusalem,” 757. 31. See also ibid., 758; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 62–63. On the basis of Neh 2:8 and 7:1, Busink suggests that there was a fortification to the north of the temple in Nehemiah’s time that was perhaps even older. Antiochus IV probably destroyed this fortress when he tore down the walls of Jerusalem (Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2:838–39). King notes that scholars do not agree on the location of the citadel built under Antiochus and called “Akra” by Josephus (“Jerusalem,” 758). 32. King, “Jerusalem,” 758. 33. King states that Simon razed the citadel after capturing it (“Jerusalem,” 758). Busink suggests that Simon rebuilt the fortification to the north of the temple (Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2:839). 34. See the discussion and literature cited in John J. Collins, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” ABD 2:85–101, esp. 86, 98–99. See now also Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology:

238

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

An investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a corpus leads to the conclusion that the members of the sect had three distinct but related notions of a “new Jerusalem.” First of all, the community understood itself metaphorically as “Jerusalem” and as the “temple.” The latter idea is implied in the Rule of the Community: When these are in Israel, the Council of the Community shall be established in truth. It shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness [#$dwq tyb] for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron.…It shall be a Most Holy Dwelling for Aaron, with everlasting knowledge of the Covenant of justice, and shall offer up sweet fragrance.…And they shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the Land and determining the judgement of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity.… (1QS 8.4–10) 35 When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall establish the spirit of holiness according to everlasting truth. They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness, that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering. At that time, the men of the Community shall set apart a House of Holiness in order that it may be united to the most holy things and a House of Community for Israel, for those who walk in perfection. (1QS 9.3–6)36

The metaphor of the community as Jerusalem is expressed in the Melchizedek scroll: […] in the judgments of God, as is written about him: Isa 52:7 “Saying to Zion: ‘your God rules.’” [“Zi]on” is [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people. (11QMelch [= 11Q13] 2.23–24)37

It also occurs in the Isaiah Pesher: And I will lay your foundations with sapphires (54.11c). Interpreted, this concerns the Priests and the people who laid the foundations of the Council of the Community…the congregation of His elect (shall sparkle) like a sapphire among stones. Past Perspectives and Future Prospects,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:47–77. 35. Trans. from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Allen Lane, 1997), 109. 36. Ibid., 110. 37. Trans. from Florentino García Martínez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 140.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

239

[And I will make] all your pinnacles [of agate] (54.12a) Interpreted, this concerns the twelve [chief Priests] who shall enlighten by judgement of the Urim and Tummim…which are absent from them, like the sun with all its light, and like the moon… [And all your gates of carbuncles] (54.12b) Interpreted, this concerns the chiefs of the tribes of Israel… (4Q164 lines 1–7)38

Second, the members of the community believed that they had been commanded by God to build a temple in the final period of history, which they called “the end of days” (Mymyh tyrx)). They also referred to this period of time as the “time of refining” (Prcmh t(). They defined it as a time of separation and affliction for the pious, a time of temptation and suffering in which the community had to stand the test. This final period of history included events that, from the point of view of the community, were already past; the present time from the point of view of sectarian works from the oldest to the latest; and events of the future, such as the coming of the Messiahs.39 The temple to be built in this period is probably the one described in the Temple Scroll.40 Three copies of this work have been discovered near Qumran, two copies from Cave 11 and one from Cave 4.41 Although the composition of the work has been dated at various points from the fifth century B.C.E. 38. Trans. from Vermes, Complete DSS, 469. 39. Annette Steudel makes a persuasive case for these conclusions in her article “Mymyh_tyrx) in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16 (1993): 225–46. 40. Some scholars, for example, Hartmut Stegemann and Jacob Milgrom, have doubted that the community actually intended to build this temple; see Stegemann, “Literary Composition,” 144; Milgrom, “The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles,” in in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. G. J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 177. Other scholars describe the design and norms for the temple in the Temple Scroll as a statement about how the first and second temples ought to have been built and administered. The latter point of view is certainly correct. But it is plausible that the community wished such a temple to be built and would have built it, if they had had the authority and the means. Johann Maier argues along these lines, concluding that, although the design is ideal, it is not unrealistic; idem, “The Temple Scroll and Tendencies in the Cultic Architecture of the Second Commonwealth,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSPSup 8; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 67–82, esp. 67–68. 41. 11Q19; 11Q20; and 4Q524. See Florentino García Martínez, “New Perspectives on the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Perspectives on the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism (ed. F. García Martínez and E. Noort; VTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–40.

240

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

to the first century B.C.E., the most likely date is the middle of the second century B.C.E.42 Some scholars argue that the work originated in a context completely independent of the sect, whereas others see it as a typical sectarian composition. Most persuasive is the hypothesis that it originated in the same priestly circles from which the sect later emerged, belonging to the formative period of the Qumran community, a time before its crystallization as a sect and withdrawal to the desert.43 The genre and significance of the work have also been debated. Hartmut Stegemann has argued that it was intended to be a sixth book of the Torah, a new biblical book that would conclude the five books of Moses. Ben Zion Wacholder argued that it was written as a biblical book intended to replace the Mosaic Torah. Yigael Yadin and others have concluded that it is a rewritten Torah intended to unify the five books of Moses and to solve various problems in the biblical text. Florentino García Martínez and others have argued that the Temple Scroll is a work of interpretation, a revealed and normative interpretation not intended to replace the books of Moses, but to be read alongside them as their authoritative and definitive interpretation.44 The first column of the work is missing. The second column quotes or rewrites the words God spoke to Moses in Exodus 34, in the context of the renewal of the covenant after the incident of the golden bull. In this passage, God promises to drive out the Amorites, the Canaanites, and other peoples so that the people of Israel may inhabit the land; God forbids Israel to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. Although the passage refers to the first settlement, it is likely that it had contemporary significance for its author or editor and original audience. They and the sect that eventually emerged from their movement probably did not expect a new settlement of the land, since the exile had ended long before. But the admonitions about not associating with the inhabitants of the land may have meant for them a separation from those who did not agree with their interpretation of the Torah, including both fellow Jews and Gentiles. As the renewal of the covenant in Exodus 34 is followed by plans for the construction of a sanctuary, the tabernacle, in Exodus 35, so also the fragment related to the renewal of the covenant in column 2 of 11QTemplea (= 11Q19) is followed by a fragmentary account in column 42. Ibid., 242–43; Lawrence H. Schiffman dated the work to the second half of the reign of John Hyrcanus, who ruled from 134–104 B.C.E.; idem, “Temple Scroll,” ABD 6:348–50. 43. García Martínez, “New Perspectives,” 243–44. 44. Ibid., 244.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

241

3 of a plan for the construction of a “house” where God will cause the divine name to dwell.45 The passage from column 3 to 13 contains a design or norms for the construction of the temple and the altar. Following a section devoted to the festivals and their sacrifices is another architectural portion, a design or norms for the construction of the courtyards and other buildings within the temple complex as a whole (cols. 30–45). These plans differ in significant ways from the vision of Ezekiel 40–48. As argued above, the program for restoration in Ezekiel is eschatological. The temple of the Temple Scroll, however, is normative and ideal, but not eschatological, since it is not to be the final, definitive temple. Its provisional status is clear from the words of God that occur at the end of the section on the festivals: I shall accept them (the offerings of the children of Israel) and they shall be my people and I shall be for them for ever. I will dwell with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory. I will cause my glory to rest on it until the day of creation, on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel. (11QTemple [= 11Q19–20] 29.6–10)46

Another difference is that, whereas the book of Ezekiel mentions only one city in the whole of the land of Israel, the Temple Scroll refers to numerous cities of Israel.47 As noted above, Ezekiel’s plan separates the city and the temple complex. Although both are situated in the strip of land set apart for the Lord, the hmwrt (consecrated area) in the widest sense, only the temple complex, along with the portions of land associated with the priests and the Levites, is truly sacred (My#$dq #$dq). These portions together are called the #$dqh tmwrt (the sacred area), whereas the ry(h tzx) (the property of the city), along with the property of the prince, is profane.48 The situation envisaged by the Temple Scroll is quite different: The city which I will sanctify, causing my name and [my] sanctuar[y] to abide [in it], shall be holy and pure of all impurity with which they can become impure. Whatever is in it shall be pure. Whatever enters it shall be pure: wine, oil, all food and all moistened (food) shall be clean. No skin of 45. See the translation of col. 3 by Johann Maier in his The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary (in German, 1978; JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 20–21. 46. Trans. modified from Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 200. 47. For example, Temple Scroll (11QTemple = 11Q19) 47.3, 8, 15–17; 48.13–15; 49.4; 55.2, 7–9; 57.5; 58.11. 48. See above and Zimmerli, Ezekiel II, 419, 536, 538.

242

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN clean animals slaughtered in their cities shall be brought there (to the city of the sanctuary).…You shall not profane the city where I cause my name and my sanctuary to abide. (11Q19 47.3–11)49

A further difference is that the vision of Ezekiel 40–41 moves from the outside inward, whereas the direction of movement in the description of the Temple Scroll is from the inside outward.50 In the total plan in Ezekiel 40–41, the numbers twenty-five, fifty and their multiples play a major role.51 The number twenty-five may be favored because of the date associated with the vision, the twenty-fifth year of the exile.52 In the Temple Scroll, however, the number seven and its multiples play an important role.53 Another difference concerns the courtyard(s) of the temple. According to Exodus 25–27, God commanded Moses to instruct the people to make a sanctuary (#$dqm; Exod 25:8), tabernacle (Nk#$m; Exod 26:1), or tent of meeting (d(wm lh); Exod 27:21), so that God could dwell in the midst of the people. This sanctuary was to have a single court (rcx), a sacred enclosure, that was to be 50 cubits wide, 100 cubits long, and 5 cubits high. In feet, these measurements are equivalent to about 75 by 150 by 8 (Exod 27:9–18).54 According to the Priestly writer, the tabernacle and most of the court was an enclosed domain, inaccessible to all nonpriests. There is a gradation of holiness and the related taboo. It is least strong for the court and most strong for the innermost area, which is taboo even for the priests.55 Although 1 Kings 6–7 mentions only three courtyards, the complex on the temple mount during the period of the first temple probably had four courts. Solomon built three: the court of the temple; the great court in which the public buildings were located; and the “other court,” a court west of the Hall of the Throne and south of Solomon’s palace. Later, a new forecourt of the temple, probably to the east of the original court, was built. It is mentioned for the first time in connection with the reign 49. Trans. from Vermes, Complete DSS, 206. 50. See Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (SAOC 49; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 65. 51. Zimmerli, Ezekiel II, 358–59. 52. Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 10. 53. Wise, A Critical Study, 66–70. 54. For a table relating the various types of cubits to meters, see Maier, “Architectural History,” 25. 55. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 175.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

243

of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:5).56 As with the tabernacle and its court, the whole interior of the first temple was held to be more sacred than the area of the court. The common people were barred from the whole area set aside for rituals performed by the priests, including the court.57 The temple complex of Ezekiel 40–48 has an outer court and an inner court (Ezek 40:17–47). The inner court was to have a higher degree of holiness, and only the sons of Zadok were to be allowed to enter it. The common people and the other sons of Levi could enter only the outer court.58 Furthermore, emphatic instructions are given that no foreigner may enter the temple-complex (Ezek 44:5–9). The second temple at first had only one court, like the first temple. At some point during the third century B.C.E., an outer courtyard was added. It is possible that the plan of Ezekiel inspired this addition. But unlike the design and norms of Ezekiel, the custom in the second temple was to allow Gentiles to enter the outer courtyard.59 The Temple Scroll envisages a temple with three courtyards. Only the priests are to have access to the inner courtyard.60 Apparently only men of Israel over the age of twenty are to have access to the second or middle courtyard (11Q19 38.12–39.11). The third courtyard is intended for the women of Israel and a certain category of foreigners (11Q19 40.5–6).61 The temple is to have a terrace or platform around it, outside the third, outer courtyard, with twelve steps leading up to it. Finally, a ditch or trench, more than seven times wider than the terrace, is to separate the temple complex from the city so that no one can rush into the 56. On the courts of Solomon’s temple see Theodor A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes, vol. 1, Der Tempel Salomos (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 143–49 and 160 with Abb. (illustration) 47. See also Maier, “Architectural History,” 29. 57. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 205–6. 58. Ezek 40:44–47; 42:1–14; 43:18–27; 44:10–14, 15–31; 46:1–3, 19–20. 59. The Mishnaic tractate Middot, like Ezekiel 40–48, envisages a temple complex open to Jews only; Gentiles were allowed to enter the outer courtyard of the Herodian temple, as was the case with the second temple of the third century B.C.E. See Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2:834–36. 60. This limitation seems to be implied by Temple Scroll 19.5–6; 32.10–12; 37.8–14. 61. Busink argued that the third, outer courtyard should be interpreted as the city of Jerusalem, not as a courtyard. Its great size, as well as the fact that the middle courtyard has the same measurements as Ezekiel’s outer courtyard, led him to this conclusion. The outer courtyard in Ezekiel (42:20; 45:2) is 500 cubits by 500 cubits, whereas the third, outer courtyard of the Temple Scroll (40.8) is 1600 by 1600 cubits, measured inside the walls; Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2. 1425. According to Maier’s calculations (“Architectural History,” 24), followed by Wise (A Critical Study, 81–82), the outer wall of the third court was to be 1700 by 1700 cubits, measured on the outside.

244

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

sanctuary and defile it. This barrier would sanctify the complex and lead the people to hold it in awe (11Q19 46.5–12). The third vision of a new Jerusalem expressed in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls involves a new temple to be created by God, which would endure forever.62 As noted above, this temple is mentioned in the Temple Scroll: I shall accept them (the offerings of the children of Israel) and they shall be my people and I shall be for them for ever. I will dwell with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory. I will cause my glory to rest on it until the day of creation, on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel.63

The allusion to Gen 28:10–17 suggests that the eschatological temple was prefigured by Jacob’s dream-vision at Bethel, and that the temple would be the site of God’s presence in the world, the “gate of heaven.” Apparently, this temple is also mentioned in Florilegium: …[I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them that they may dwell there and be troubled no more by their] enemies. No son of iniquity [shall afflict them again] as formerly, from the day that [I set judges] over my people Israel (2 Sam. 7:10). This is the House which [He will build for them in the] last days, as it is written in the book of Moses, In the sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever (Exod. 15:17–18). This is the House into which [the unclean shall] never [enter, nor the uncircumcised,] nor the Ammonite, nor the Moabite, nor the half-breed, nor the foreigner, nor the stranger, ever; for there shall my Holy Ones be. [Its glory shall endure] forever; it shall appear above it perpetually. And strangers shall lay it waste no more, as they formerly laid waste the Sanctuary of Israel because of its sin. He has commanded that a Temple of Adam (Md) #$dqm) be built for himself, that there they may send up to him proper sacrifices. And concerning His words to David, And I [will give] you [rest] from all your enemies (2 Sam. 7:11), this means that He will give them rest from all the children of Belial who cause them to stumble so that they may be destroyed [by their errors,] just as they came with a [devilish] plan, to cause the [sons] of light to stumble and to devise against them a wicked plot, that [they might become subject] to Belial in their [wicked] straying. The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House (2 Sam. 7:11c). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam. 7:12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever] (2 Sam. 7:13). 62. A similar expectation of a temple that God will build is expressed in a work closely related to the Dead Sea Scrolls: Jub. 1:17, 27, 29. See James C. VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” in Brooke, Temple Scroll Studies, 232, 236n51.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

245

[I will be] his father and he shall be my son (2 Sam. 7:14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the e]nd of days. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen (Amos 9:11). That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel.64

In this passage the phrases “the sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord,” “the Sanctuary of Israel” and “a Temple of Adam” occur. The latter expression could also be translated “temple made by men,” “temple standing among men,” or “temple consisting of men.”65 Scholars have disagreed on the translation of this phrase and on whether two or three temples are implied by the three terms.66 It seems clear from the citation of Exodus 15:17 in line 3 that “the sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord,” is the temple mentioned in the Temple Scroll that God would establish on the “day of creation,” the definitive, eschatological temple. The “Sanctuary of Israel” represents typologically both the first and the second temples of Israel’s history.67 The “Temple of Adam” seems to be the same as “the Sanctuary of Israel.” The context and the structure of the argument in Florilegium 1.1–13 implies this identification.68 That the community would expect a Temple of Adam is supported by the expectation expressed in the Commentary on Psalms that those who have returned from the wilderness, who will live for a thousand generations, in safety; for them there is all the inheritance of Adam (Md) tlxn) and for his descendants for ever.69 63. Temple Scroll (11Q19) 29.6–10; trans. modified from Vermes, Complete DSS, 200. Note that in Jub. 1:29 also the eschatological temple is expected to appear on the day of the new creation. 64. Florilegium (4QFlor = 4Q174) 1.1–13; trans. from Vermes (Complete DSS, 493–94) with modifications based on the translation of Michael O. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991): 105–6. For a detailed discussion of this text, see George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 65. John J. Collins favors the translation “sanctuary of men”; idem, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 107. But the lack of an article with Md) supports the possibility that the reference is to the proper name “Adam” rather than to humanity. 66. For a summary of research on this passage, see Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 107–10; see also John J. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 107, and the literature cited there. 67. So Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 131. 68. See ibid., 118–21. 69. 4QpPsa (= 4Q171) 3.1–2; trans. from García Martínez, DSS Translated, 204. See also CD 3.18–4.10, esp. 3.20. For discussion, see Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 127–28.

246

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

Another passage in the same work states: Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor [for them is] the inheritance of the whole wor[ld.] They will inherit the high mountain of Israel [and] delight [in his] holy [mou]ntain.…70

The reference to “the high mountain of Israel” recalls Ezek 20:40, cited above, in which the temple mount is described in terms of the mythical mountain of God, the cosmic mountain. In a related oracle, also cited above, God promises to set his sanctuary among them forevermore (Ezek 37:26–28). As noted earlier, the “J” account of creation and the oracle against Tyre in Ezekiel imply a similarity between Zion as the garden of God and the garden of Eden.71 The “high mountain of Israel” is clearly associated with Eden in Ezek 28:11–19, the oracle against Tyre.72 It seems then that the reference to the “Temple of Adam” in Florilegium 1.6 is evidence that the community expected a definitive, eschatological temple to be established on Mount Zion by God and to be associated with or like the garden the Eden.73 A new Jerusalem and a new temple are also described in another work discovered near Qumran, the Description of the New Jerusalem. Fragments of this Aramaic work have been found in Caves 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11.74 The work seems to have been inspired by Ezekiel 40–48. The text is in the first person, narrated by a visionary accompanying an angel who gives him a guided tour. The tour begins outside the city and apparently proceeds inside the city and from there to the temple. It progresses to the interior 70. 4QpPsa 3.10–11; trans. from García Martínez, DSS Translated, 204. 71. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 128–31. 72. Especially Ezek 28:14, 16; for discussion, see Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 128–29. 73. Wise’s contention that the “End of Days” (Mymyh_tyrx)) refers to the near future, not to the past or present (“4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 115), is untenable in light of texts made available in the meantime and Steudel’s study (“Mymyh_tyrx) in the Texts from Qumran”). Thus, I agree with Wise that “the sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord,” which he calls the “Temple of the Lord,” as mentioned in Florilegium (4Q174) 1.3, is the same temple as the “Temple of Adam,” mentioned in 1.6; yet I cannot agree that this temple is to be built by Israel in the first stage of the eschaton, the end of days, and that it will be replaced by the temple that God will create (so Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” 131). Although Wise identifies the “Temple of the Lord,” which is also the “Temple of Adam,” with the temple described in the Temple Scroll, a provisional temple, I am convinced that it is identical with the definitive temple that God will create, as argued above. 74. Other fragments discovered in Cave 4 (4Q232) may belong to a Hebrew form of the work; see Jozef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 59.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

247

of the temple. If this reconstruction is correct, near the work’s beginning the angel shows the visionary the twelve gates of the city, named after the twelve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob (4Q554 frag. 1 1–2). The angel then led the visionary into the city and measured each of the blocks of houses and the widths of the main streets that run from east to west, and the widths of the other streets that run from south to north (4Q554 frag. 1 2.12–22).75 The street that passes to the left (north) of the temple is the widest, 126 cubits. But it is not in the center of the city; the street in that location measures 67 cubits. All the streets of the city are paved with white stone (4Q554 frag. 1 2.18–22).76 Further in the work, in an unfortunately fragmentary and thus unclear context, the speaker makes the following statement: And all the buildings in it are of sapphire and rubies, and the windows (?) (are) of gold, and (have) one thousand [four hundred] and thirty-two towers. (4Q554 frag. 2 2.14–16)77

This passage suggests that the city being described is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 54:11–12. As noted above, this passage was interpreted in the Commentary on Isaiah as a prophecy or figure of the community. In the Description of the New Jerusalem, the allusion to the same passage implies its fulfillment in an actual city.78 Since the text of Isaiah portrays God as saying, “I will make,” it is likely that the city envisaged is the eschatological Jerusalem that, like the eschatological temple, will be created by God himself. This conclusion is supported by the mention of “living waters” and “water from” in another fragmentary context (11Q18 frag. 24 lines 1 and 3).79 These phrases suggest that the text described the fulfillment of the prophecy of Ezekiel 47 that water will come forth from the door of the temple facing east and flow eastward, nourishing living creatures and 75. According to Ezek 48:30–34, the twelve gates, named after the sons of Jacob, are to be the exits of the city. The Temple Scroll specifies that twelve gates shall give entrance to both the outer court and the middle court of the temple. Both sets of gates are to be named after the sons of Jacob; Temple Scroll (11Q19) 38–41. 76. According to 5Q15 lines 6–7, all the streets of the city are paved with white stone; alabaster and onyx are also mentioned. And 11Q18 frag. 22 line 7 mentions ebony. 77. Trans. from García Martínez, DSS Translated, 130–31. See also 2Q24 frag. 3, which mentions a sapphire gate or door. 78. In support of the idea that a passage from Scripture could have two different fulfillments, see Klaus Koch, “Spätisraelitisch-jüdische und urchristliche Danielrezeption vor und nach der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags Odil Hannes Steck (ed. R. G. Kratz and T. Krüger; OBO 153; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 93–123. 79. Trans. from García Martínez, DSS Translated, 135.

248

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

fruit trees and making the Dead Sea live again. Therefore, in spite of the similarities between the Temple Scroll and the Description of the New Jerusalem, it seems that the former describes the ideal or interim Jerusalem and temple, which are provisional, whereas the latter depicts the eschatological city and the definitive, everlasting temple.80

THE ANIMAL APOCALYPSE The “Animal Apocalypse,” 1 Enoch 85-90, is a text that was written before the emergence of the Qumran community, but was read by its members. Aramaic fragments of the work were found in Cave 4 near Qumran.81 It is an allegorical review of history from Adam and Eve to the eschatological new age, in which various kinds of animals represent types or groups of human beings and men represent angels. In the account of the ascent of Enoch, he says that three white men (angels) lifted him up to a lofty place and showed him a tower higher than the earth, and that all the hills were smaller (1 En. 87:3). Since the “lofty place” seems to be distinguished from heaven, it is probably the earthly paradise, which is assimilated here to the mountain of God or the cosmic mountain.82 The high tower is probably the prototype of the earthly temple, since the latter is also described as a tall tower.83 After veiled accounts of the Exodus and the events at Mount Sinai, the text relates that “that sheep” (Moses) built a house for “the owner of the sheep” (God), and he caused all the sheep to stand in that house. Although many commentators have concluded that this “house” refers to the tabernacle, it is more likely that the camp is meant.84 Only the priests were allowed to enter the tabernacle. Thus, the allusion to a place in which “all the sheep” (all the people of Israel) could stand fits the camp 80. For a discussion of the similarities between the two works, see Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll, 66–81. Like the Temple Scroll, the Description of the New Jerusalem emphasizes the number seven and its multiples (ibid., 66–70). 81. See Jozef T. Milik with Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch. 82. See the discussion in Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of “1 Enoch” (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 248–49. 83. 1 En. 89:50; see Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 37. 84. 1 En. 89:36. The Ethiopic reads the equivalent of “house,” the Greek is not extant for this passage, and the Aramaic fragment breaks off after about one-third of the first letter of the word corresponding to the Ethiopic “house.” Milik restored it as Nk#$m (tabernacle), but as Tiller points out, the context of the allegory as a whole speaks against this reconstruction. Tiller proposes rdm (dwelling, compartment) and argues that the reference is to the camp, not the tabernacle (Animal Apocalypse, 40–45, 296).

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

249

better than the tabernacle.85 “The house” in the Animal Apocalypse consistently represents, not a building for cultic activity, but a place for Israel to dwell.86 After the crossing of the Jordan and settlement in the land, “that house” was in the midst of sheep in the pleasant land (1 En. 89:40). This may be understood as an allusion to Josh 18:1: “Then the whole congregation of the people of Israel assembled at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there.” But, in light of the overall context, it is more likely an allusion to Josh 18:9: “Then they came to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh.”87 After a veiled account of the career of David and an allusion to his successor, Solomon, the text reads: And that house became large and spacious, and a tall tower was built for those sheep on that house, and a tall and large tower was built on that house for the owner of the sheep. And that house was lower, but the tower was raised up and became tall, and the owner of the sheep stood upon that tower, and a full table was set before him (1 En. 89:50).88

In this passage, the “house” represents the city of Jerusalem.89 The “sheep” will dwell in it until its destruction (1 En. 89:66–67). The use of the term “house” for the camp and for Jerusalem suggests that the Animal Apocalypse, like a halakic letter from Qumran (4QMMT [= 4Q394–399]), equates the two. In the letter, the equation has implications for the regulations related to purity. The text includes the following remarks: And we think that the temple [is the place of the tent of meeting, and Je]rusalem is the camp; and outside the camp is [outside Jerusalem;] it is the camp of their cities.…90 For Jerusalem is [the sacred camp] and is the place which He has chosen from all the tribes of Israel, for Jerusalem is the head of the camps of Israel.91

85. The camp (hnxm is mentioned in Exod 14:19–20 (RSV: “the host”); 16:13; 19:16 and frequently thereafter in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. 86. Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 42; see also Devorah Dimant, “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in the Light of the Ideology of the Dead Sea Sect”, Shnaton 5–6 (1982): 177–93 [Hebrew]. 87. Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 42, 301. 88. Trans. from Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 305. 89. So Tiller, who cites Tob 1:4; Test. Levi 10:5; and Dimant (“Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse,” 312). 90. Trans. from García Martínez, DSS Translated, 77 (4QMMT [= 4Q394–399] lines 32–34 of his composite text). 91. Trans. from Vermes, Complete DSS, 225; cf. 4QMMT (= 4Q394–399) lines 62–65 of García Martínez’s composite text (idem, DSS Translated, 78).

250

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

The halakic letter also seems to equate “the holy purity,” “the house” and “the camp.”92 Certain regulations in the Temple Scroll also imply the equation of the city of Jerusalem with the camp.93 In 1 En. 89:50, the “house” is Jerusalem and the “tower” is the temple. After the “tower” was burned and the “house” was dug up (89:66–67), two of the “sheep” (Joshua and Zerubbabel) returned and raised up “that tower,” and it was called the tall tower. And they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread that was upon it was polluted, and it was not pure. (1 En. 89:73)

According to the Animal Apocalypse, the present age will culminate in an ideal restoration. The following is a partial account of this fulfillment: And I stood to see until that old house was folded up, and all the pillars were taken out, and every beam and ornament of that house was folded up together with it. And it was taken out and put in a certain place to the south of the land. And I saw until the owner of the sheep brought a house, new and larger and loftier than the former, and he erected it in the place of the former one which had been rolled up. And all of its pillars were new and the ornaments were new and larger than those of the former old one which he had taken out. And all the sheep were in the midst of it. (1 En. 90:28–29)

Tob 1:4; Test. ant (Ibid., s not correcitation by e here or in a

Like the “house” in the time of David and Solomon, this “house” is Jerusalem, in this case a new Jerusalem built or provided by God. It is striking that there is no tower in or on this new “house.” The implication is that the new Jerusalem will have no temple. In contrast to the Temple Scroll, which represents the ideal of the desert camp in terms of a normative temple within a holy and pure city, Jerusalem, the Animal Apocalypse portrays that ideal exclusively in terms of an idealized city. The ideal situation to be restored is not the first temple, the temple of Solomon, but the camp of the people of Israel in the desert.94 The function of the new Jerusalem is the same as that of the camp. As Moses caused all the “sheep” to stand in the “house,” so all the “sheep” will be in the midst of the new “house.”95 92. See 4QMMT (= 4Q394–399) lines 67–71 of García Martínez’s composite text (idem, DSS Translated, 78). 93. Cf. Temple Scroll (= 11Q19) 45.7–18 and 46.16–18 with Num 5:1–4 and Deut 23:9–11. Cf. Temple Scroll (= 11Q19) 46.13–16 with Deut 23:12–14. 94. According to Tobit, the second temple was inferior to the first, but the temple of the new age will be glorious, as was the first (14:3–5). 95. Cf. 1 En. 89:36 with 90:29; the explanation given here for the lack of a temple in the Animal Apocalypse is that of Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 48.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

251

S IBYLLINE ORACLES Book five of the Sibylline Oracles was composed by an Egyptian Jew in the late first or early second century C.E.96 The fifth oracle of this composition, lines 286–433, contains an account of the advent of a saving figure, a man from heaven, holding a scepter given to him by God.97 He will destroy every city and the nations of evildoers. He will make “the city which God desired,” most likely Jerusalem, “more brilliant than stars and sun and moon.” He will beautify the city and make a holy temple and “a great and immense tower over many stadia touching even the clouds and visible to all, so that all faithful and all righteous people could see the glory of the eternal God, a form desired” (Sib. Or. 5:420–27).98 This account is similar to the Animal Apocalypse in its use of the word “tower” for the temple. It differs in having a temple in the new Jerusalem, whereas there is no “tower” in the “house,” the new Jerusalem, of the Animal Apocalypse.

THE BOOK OF REVELATION In the message addressed to “the angel of the congregation in Philadelphia,” the risen Christ makes the following promise to “the one who conquers”: I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall surely never depart from it again, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that is coming down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. (Rev 3:12)

Most of the promises to the “one who conquers” in the seven messages are eschatological: they are to be fulfilled in the thousand-year reign or the new creation.99 The fulfillments of some of them, however, are difficult 96. See John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in OTP 1:390–91. 97. The advent of the savior-figure and his mighty deeds are described in Sib. Or. 5:414–433. 98. Trans. from Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 403. 99. The promise in Rev 2:7 refers to the tree of life in the new Jerusalem; cf. 22:2. The freedom from the second death promised in 2:11 may allude to the first resurrection at the beginning of the thousand-year reign (cf. 20:6) or to the final judgment (cf. 20:14–15; 21:8). The promise of 2:17 involves Christ’s giving the conqueror some of the hidden manna to eat; cf. 2 Bar. 29:8, according to which manna will descend from heaven during the messianic kingdom for the faithful to eat. The promise of 2:26–27, that the conqueror will rule the nations with an iron rod, may allude

252

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN

to locate in time and space. For example, according to Rev 2:17, the one who conquers will receive a white stone upon which a new and secret name will be written. In 2:28, the risen Christ promises to give the conqueror the morning star. If this promise implies astral immortality, the transformation could take place immediately after death. According to 3:5, the one who conquers will be dressed in white garments. In chapter 7, an innumerable multitude is described as “clothed in white garments” and defined as “those who have come out of the great tribulation.”100 In this scene various motifs foreshadow the new Jerusalem.101 But this multitude is also described as serving God “day and night in his temple” (Rev 7:15). According to 21:22, however, there will be no temple in the new Jerusalem, because the almighty God, with the Lamb, is its temple. The promise of 3:12, therefore, that the conqueror will be made a pillar in the temple of God, may be interpreted in either of two ways. It may mean that the one who is faithful unto death will become, metaphorically, a part of the heavenly temple immediately after death.102 A personification of architectural elements of this sort has a precedent in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices from Qumran.103 The other possibility is that, although the new Jerusalem will have no physical temple—there will be no such building in it—the faithful will constitute a metaphorical temple surrounding God and the Lamb. This interpretation is supported by the inscription of the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel on the gates of the city (21:12) and the twelve apostles of the Lamb on the foundations of the wall of the city (21:14). It may well be that both interpretations are valid, one for the time before the return of Christ, and the other for the time of the new Jerusalem. As in the vision of Ezekiel 40–48, the new Jerusalem is to be on a very high mountain, Mount Zion defined as the cosmic mountain.104 Like the either to the thousand-year reign (cf. 20:6b) or to the new Jerusalem (cf. 22:5b) or both. The motif of the book of life in the promise of 3:5 foreshadows the scene of the last judgment (20:12, 15). Like the promise of 2:26–27, that of 3:21, according to which the conqueror will be enthroned with Christ on the throne of God, alludes to the conquerors’ joint reign with Christ as agents of God in the thousand-year reign and the new Jerusalem (20:6b; 22:5b). 100. Rev 7:9–17; citations from vv. 13 and 14. 101. Cf. Rev 7:15c with 21:3b–c; 7:17b with 21:6c; and 7:17c with 21:4. 102. A heavenly temple is mentioned in Rev 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:5–6, 8; 16:1, 17. Mention of an altar in heaven also implies the presence of a heavenly temple: 6:9; 8:3; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7. Also, the temple mentioned in 7:15 is probably the heavenly temple. 103. See, for example, 4Q403 frag. 1 1.30–46, translated by Vermes, Complete DSS, 325–26. Lines 40–45 say that the foundations of the holy of holies, pillars, and corners are praising and singing to God. 104. Cf. Rev 21:10 with Ezek 20:40; 40:2.

ADELA YARBRO COLLINS

253

Description of the New Jerusalem from Qumran, the vision of Revelation 21–22 includes precious stones adorning the city, suggesting the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.105 The guidance of the angel and the measuring in Rev 21:9–10 and 15–17 are modeled on Ezekiel 40–48, as are the same motifs in the description of the new Jerusalem.

DESCRIPTION OF THE N EW J ERUSALEM As noted above, Ezekiel 40–48 de-emphasizes the city and highlights the temple. This physical arrangement corresponds to the subordination of David’s descendant, the “prince,” to the priests, and of royal traditions and concerns to cultic traditions and concerns. In this regard, the vision of the new Jerusalem in the book of Revelation is the polar opposite of Ezekiel’s vision. Revelation emphasizes the city and states that there is no temple in it. This arrangement corresponds to the emphasis in the book as a whole on royal and messianic themes and its reinterpretation of priestly and cultic themes. As recognized above, the gathering of the faithful with God and the Lamb constitutes a metaphorical temple within the city.106 The city itself is also presented as equivalent to the temple.107 The holiness of the city and its equivalence with the temple is brought out vividly by its presentation as a cube in shape. Although the new Jerusalem is larger to an enormous degree, its cubical shape suggests that it plays the role of the holy of holies of the temple of Solomon.108 Finally, the vision of the new Jerusalem in Revelation shares with Ezekiel the idea that the new Jerusalem will also be a new Eden. The trickle of water that emerges under the door of the temple and gradually becomes a mighty river flowing eastward, according to Ezekiel 47, is rewritten as a river of water that comes forth from the throne of God and the Lamb in Rev 22:1. The miraculous trees of Ezek 47:12 are explicitly defined as the tree of life in Rev 22:2. 105. Cf. Rev 21:11, 19–21 with Isa 54:11–12. On the Description of the New Jerusalem, see above. 106. The lack of a temple building and the emphasis on the gathering and dwelling of the people in the city are motifs that the book of Revelation shares with the Animal Apocalypse; see above. 107. See Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (HDR 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 228–29. 108. Cf. Rev 21:16 with 1 Kings 6:20.

254

THE DREAM OF A N EW J ERUSALEM AT QUMRAN CONCLUSION

When Jerusalem became the capital of the Israelite monarchy and the temple was built, the city took on symbolic significance as the cosmic mountain, the meeting place of heaven and earth, and it was equated with the primordial paradise, the garden of Eden. The exile awakened hopes for a restoration even more glorious than the days of David and Solomon. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest three different but related visions or dreams of a new Jerusalem. First, the sectarian community understood itself as a metaphorically restored Jerusalem and as a living temple, offering “sacrifices of the lips.” These ideas are expressed in the Rule of the Community, the Melchizedek scroll, and the Commentary on Isaiah. Second, the community probably composed, and at least read and preserved, a detailed blueprint or set of norms for the ideal temple, namely, the Temple Scroll. This plan was conceived as an alternative to both the first and second temples, a criticism of those temples, and a statement of how they should have been designed and administered. Since this plan was perceived as divinely revealed and commanded, it is likely that the community would have executed it, if they had had the power and the means. They did not understand this temple, however, as the eschatological, definitive, or everlasting temple. Thus 11QTemple 29.6–10 clearly states that it was to last only until the day of creation, on which God would create a new and everlasting temple. This is the third vision of a new Jerusalem, a glorious and everlasting city and temple brought into being by God. This eschatological temple is also mentioned in Florilegium 1.1–13, where it is defined as a temple made by the hands of the Lord and as a Temple of Adam. It is also described, in part as a fulfillment of Isa 54:11–12, in the Description of the New Jerusalem. In spite of the lack of a temple building in the new Jerusalem of the book of Revelation, the city, which takes the place and plays the role of the temple, has many similarities with the eschatological city and temple of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

CHAPTER TEN

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN Loren L. Johns

M ETHODOLOGY IN LITERARY COMPARISON Analysis of the book of Revelation in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls could take several paths methodologically. For instance, one might take a tradition-critical approach, in which one attempts to describe as carefully as possible the form, shape, and evolution of traditions through several eras and communities by way of the literatures and the cultural and religious artifacts they left behind. Or one might approach the task more specifically in terms of the literature, analyzing the various ways in which different communities and literatures related to or used their Scriptures. In the case of the comparative study of Revelation and the Dead Sea Scrolls, such an approach has real possibility, since the communities reflected in both literatures accorded the Hebrew Scriptures significant authority for their own faith and life.1 Still another approach would be to analyze the ways in which these literatures used symbols or constructed their symbolic worlds. Such an approach might focus on one or two of the individual symbols that are in common to the literature. This is a particularly useful approach to take when trying to understand the life and changing values of a given tradition or symbol. All communication, all language, is little more than a set of symbol systems. As such, the literatures represented here are themselves symbols that reflect a certain ordering of reality as envisioned by the authors. I am not referring here to the deep structures of language pursued by structuralists, but rather to the creation of symbolic universes realized in the process of applying ink to leather and apprehended by 1. I do not suggest that the “Hebrew Scriptures” were fixed in either scope or form at the time of the scribal activity at Qumran. Rather, I simply affirm the importance of those Scriptures for both communities.

255

256 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN rhetorical criticism. At this level, a comparison of the symbolism in the Apocalypse with that in the Dead Sea Scrolls is nothing less than a comparison of the theologies, the worldviews, and the understandings of God and of life that characterize these two bodies of literature. This latter, broader focus is the more exciting and more fruitful endeavor for students of early Judaism and students of Christian origins, even if it is the more difficult one. In this essay, I reflect on the nature of the pursuit itself, identifying some challenges to and limitations of such a study, while defending its value. I then briefly survey several attempts to understand Revelation in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.2 Finally, I look briefly at several specific symbols in an attempt to understand how the scrolls can help us understand the New Testament Apocalypse.

LIMITATIONS Comparative analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Revelation entails several inherent problems. The first is the problem of unequal bodies of literature. The Apocalypse of John is one unified piece of literature written near the end of the first century C.E.3 Its rhetorical situation is focused enough to identify—at least to conceptualize. In contrast, the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a library collection of biblical, parabiblical, and nonbiblical writings written over a period of 1000 years and copied over a period of 200 years. We limit our inquiry to what has usually been called the “sectarian” literature, a term used almost universally, even if it is somewhat misleading and imprecise. But even if we begin with what most call “sectarian” at Qumran, we are still dealing with literatures written over a span of many decades, with differing theologies, communities or audiences, genres, and ways of using symbolism.4 2. The comparative value is primarily in one direction: the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for understanding Revelation. There is little value in Revelation for understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, unless obliquely, insofar as Revelation does bear witness to some of the trajectories certain symbols took in the history of early Judaism. 3. Here neither am I attempting to make a case for the compositional unity of this document, nor am I simply assuming it. For a recent review of the various hypotheses offered for the Apocalypse’s composition history, see David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1997), cv–cxxiv. However, regardless of the book’s compositional history or the integrity or artificiality of its present unity, it remains a single literary work, unlike the scrolls. 4. See, e.g., the cautions raised by Carol A. Newsom, “Knowing and Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge at Qumran,” Semeia 59 (1992): 139–53.

LOREN L. JOHNS

257

At the outset a second problem is how we define symbolism. If we focus narrowly on similar signifiers in the texts, we discover at least a few specific symbols that appear in both the Apocalypse of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or we might broaden the focus a bit to ask how these symbols function within the respective literatures: How and to what end are these symbols employed? Are there similarities in the respective roles these symbols play in the literatures? Or we might ask if there are patterns in which these symbols appear or in the ways in which they are employed. There is, for instance, a greater dependence on the symbolism of fauna in the Apocalypse and on flora in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Norman Perrin saw a clear similarity between the symbolism employed in the Apocalypse and that current in Jewish apocalyptic literature generally—especially when contrasted with the symbolism Jesus employed in his parables. Perrin5 painted the symbolism of “Jewish apocalyptic” in broad strokes as flat, referential “steno-symbols” that “bore a one-to-one relationship to that which is depicted.”6 In contrast, the symbolism in Jesus’ parables—especially that of his central symbol, the “kingdom of God”—was “tensive.” But this distinction between steno and tensive symbol is forced, imprecise, and misleading. It also seems to reflect a rather uncritical assumption that whatever pertains to Jesus must somehow be superior to whatever pertains to the early Judaism of which he was a part. In response to criticism, Perrin later modified his approach. In Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, Perrin says: It now seems to me that I have pressed too hard the distinction between a “steno-” and a “tensive” symbol in the case of apocalyptic symbols. It is still a most important distinction, and it is still true that most apocalyptic symbols are steno-symbols. But it is also true that the distinction is not hard and fast, and that…some seers no doubt saw the symbols as steno-symbols while others saw them as tensive.7

5. For an analysis of Perrin’s treatment of the literature of early Judaism, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with Him,” ANRW 25.1: 451–76; see also Calvin R. Mercer, Norman Perrin’s Interpretation of the New Testament: From “Exegetical Method” to “Hermeneutical Process” (StABH 2; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986), 83–89; and John J. Collins, “The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic,” BR 19 (1974): 5–22. 6. Norman Perrin, “Eschatology and Hermeneutics: Reflections on Method in the Interpretation of the New Testament,” JBL 93 (March 1974): 11. 7. Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 31. Perrin clearly saw the steno/tensive categories as an either/or matter.

258 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN The proper implication of the above, according to Perrin, is that “we have to investigate each case on its merits.”8 While there may be some value in conceptualizing symbolism as “steno” or “tensive,” these distinctions are not clean alternatives, but rather two ends of a continuum. The depth with which one understands the meaning of the symbolism is a matter of interpretation and appreciation, and authorial intent is especially elusive at this point. In other words, tensive is in the eye of the beholder, the interpreter, who is attempting to understand and interpret the creative direction the author is taking the reader.9 One further cautionary note may be in order. As Otto Böcher has pointed out in his article on Qumran and the Apocalypse in ANRW, some of the comparisons of the Apocalypse and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the past have been overly enthusiastic and uncritical in their identifications of genetic parallels.10 What has occasionally appeared to be evidence of direct influence of the Qumran writings on the Apocalypse has usually proved to be only comparable parallel material reflecting similar interests. Although various arguments about direct literary dependence by John on the scrolls at this or that point continue to be promoted, I offer no such argument here, but leave the discussion open at this point. Caution about confusing genetic parallels with generic parallels is essential.11 Nevertheless, the search for both kinds of parallels is valid and valuable for understanding the history and literature of the time. Whether we have genetic parallels that can plausibly suggest “direct influence” or only generic parallels that witness to common worldviews, languages, and understandings—in either case those parallels help us to gain a fuller appreciation of the types of symbol systems being used and a broader understanding of religion in the period. 8. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 31. 9. For a fuller discussion of method in symbol analysis, see Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force (WUNT 2.167; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 109–20. 10. Otto Böcher, “Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran,” ANRW 25.5: 3894; cf. also 3896, where Böcher denies that any of the Apocalypse of John parallels provide evidence of any “direct derivation” from the Qumran texts. 11. A good example of the lack of this caution is illustrated in a section from an essay by Barbara Thiering, who lists numerous parallels between Revelation and the Temple Scroll and then concludes that it is “probable” that Revelation “shows dependence on” the Temple Scroll and that “Revelation is consciously altering the Temple Scroll”; Barbara Thiering, “The Date of Composition of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. G. J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 102–3.

LOREN L. JOHNS

259

WHY COMPARE? Given the challenges and necessary limitations just identified, and the useful warning of Samuel Sandmel against “parallelomania,”12 one might legitimately ask whether the enterprise of comparing these literatures is sound in the first place: Why compare these two bodies of literature, uneven as they are, representing communities in different parts of the world, one representing Jewish life in Second Temple Judaism and one representing (Jewish-)Christian perspectives in post–Second Temple early (Jewish) Christianity? Is there enough in common here to warrant a comparison? In his chapter on “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Revelation,” Peter Flint says, Most discussions of the relationship between the Qumran scrolls and the New Testament have placed little emphasis on the book of Revelation.… This is somewhat surprising, in view of the relevance of documents such as the War Scroll and the New Jerusalem Text for our understanding of the New Testament book.… Most studies and commentaries on the book of Revelation have not felt the full impact of the scrolls.13

With these judgments I agree, for several reasons. First, the Apocalypse is clearly Jewish literature.14 The interpretation of the Apocalypse by Christians in the last hundred years has sometimes been distracted by the misdirected question of whether the Apocalypse is Jewish or Christian. A closely related but equally misdirected question is, How Christian is it?15 These questions are misdirected because they are 12. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. 13. Peter W. Flint, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Revelation,” in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (ed. J. C. VanderKam and P. W. Flint; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 362. Here Flint is quoting the comment made earlier by David Aune, upon whom he depends heavily in this chapter: “The fact that little if any emphasis is given to the Revelation of John [in discussions of the influence of the Qumran scrolls on the New Testament] is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of the apparent relevance of the War Scroll (1QM).” David E. Aune, “Qumran and the Book of Revelation,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:622. 14. In making this statement, I do not intend to contrast Jewish with Christian, as if to say Jewish and not Christian. In this regard, I find John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001) more useful for its caution against anachronism regarding “Christianity” than for its denial that the basic context for the Apocalypse lay in the incipient diasporic church. 15. See, among others, Eduard Lohse, “Wie christlich ist die Offenbarung des Johannes?” NTS 34, no. 3 (1988): 321–38; and George R. Beasley-Murray, “How

260 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN based on several false claims or assumptions: first, that Christianity and Judaism were true alternatives, separate religions at the end of the first century C.E.16; second, that apocalyptic thought was essentially Jewish and that Christian thought was basically nonapocalyptic. Furthermore, there has been a subtle anti-Semitism latent in the question, as if the determination that the Apocalypse were Jewish would suggest that its theology were somehow sub-Christian. For instance, Böcher’s 1985 article in ANRW betrays theological discomfort with his own enterprise. At the end of his article he finds it necessary to appeal to Martin Luther and to conclude that “all Jewish hopes are fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.” That historical-critical investigations betray such discomfort witnesses to the fact that the Jewish and Christian communities of interpreters still have a way to go in applying their historical insights to theological categories in impartial ways. Fortunately, the Jewish and Christian communities of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have shown more respect and appreciation for the other in recent years—both for the other’s confessional commitments and for the other’s historical-critical work. Fortunately also, scholarship on the Apocalypse has, for the most part, moved on to issues more fruitful than how Jewish or Christian it is, based on anachronistic assumptions. Second, historical work on the period of early Judaism has suffered from a canonical myopia. Although the Hebrew Bible is shared today by Jews and Christians, students of the New Testament tend to think of the noncanonical material only as “background” for the study of the canonical documents. Whether this is valid for doing theological work is one question. However, for historical work, it is essential to recognize that canons emerge from communities and reflect the life situations of those communities—life situations much broader and more complex than the canons at hand. Historical work knows no canonical boundaries. No students of the New Testament can hope to understand Jesus or the life situation of the Gospels if they do not understand from 1 and 2 Maccabees and other sources the powerful events of the second century B.C.E. that threatened and forever changed the character and questions of early Judaism. And no students of the New Testament can hope to understand Jesus or Christian Is the Book of Revelation?” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday (ed. R. J. Banks; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 275–84. 16. On this point, see also the posthumous publication by Donald H. Juel in this volume (ch. 3). He helpfully proposes that we jettison the word “Christian” for firstcentury texts and social groups, since it is anachronistic and thus misleading.

LOREN L. JOHNS

261

the life situation of the Gospels if they do not understand something of the apocalyptic stream of thought represented by the library we call 1 Enoch. Any student of the New Testament or of Jesus or of early Christianity must also be a student of early Judaism. And the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has afforded the student of early Judaism a wonderful treasure: a new window on the first two centuries B.C.E. and the first century C.E. A third reason for undertaking the comparison is that both the Apocalypse and the Qumran literature are deeply rooted in biblical traditions and theological understandings. Both literatures treat biblical traditions as if they are authoritative for faith and life; both depend heavily on those traditions for their basic categories of thought, their basic worldviews. The Hebrew Scriptures, in whatever forms they existed for these communities, were central to the daily life and thought structures of both communities. As such, these literatures represent attempts to interpret those Scriptures for their own efforts to live faithfully on a daily basis. Both communities found God’s will clearly displayed in sacred Scripture, and both interpreted God’s will through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A fourth reason is that both communities understood themselves as standing directly within the biblical prophetic tradition, both as living in the last days, and both as having a unique revelation from God about how to do so. Both the Qumran community and the author of the Apocalypse saw themselves as engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the forces of darkness—a struggle easily amenable to the symbolism of warfare. Thus, comparison would seem fruitful, though the methodological challenges warrant caution. In short, what is most remarkable about the work that has been done to mine the Dead Sea Scrolls for our understanding of the New Testament is the paucity of comparative work that has been done with regard to the Apocalypse of John.

QUMRAN-I NFORMED EXEGESIS OF REVELATION Among the authors of English-language studies who have brought to their interpretation of Revelation a significant understanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls are David E. Aune,17 Richard Bauckham,18 George Wesley 17. David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 and Revelation 6–16 and Revelation 17–22 (WBC 52A–52C; Dallas: Word Books; Nashville: Nelson, 1997–98). 18. Richard J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).

262 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN Buchanan,19 and J. Massyngberde Ford.20 Buchanan’s commentary is specifically an “intertextual” commentary. A consensus seems to be emerging among scholars of the Apocalypse and of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the two most fruitful points of contact between the two literatures are (1) their understandings of the final eschatological battle and (2) their understandings of the New Jerusalem.21 Any interpreter of Revelation wishing to address the rich traditions inherent in these important themes of the Apocalypse would do well to pay close attention to what the scrolls say. Nevertheless, scholars of the Apocalypse do not always think about the scrolls in their work, and even those scrolls scholars who work in New Testament studies do not always think about the Apocalypse of John in their work.22 Steve Moyise’s dissertation, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, provides the most extensive comparison of the methods of biblical interpretation in Revelation with those in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although it is significant that we see no parallel in Revelation to the formal pesher method of interpretation as what we see in Habakkuk Pesher, there nevertheless are significant parallels in method. Moyise discusses six: (1) identifying an object or character metaphorically, (2) the use of catchwords, (3) the use of abbreviation, (4) applying the attributes of one subject to another, (5) correcting one text by means of another, and (6) the creative reinterpretation of Hebrew roots.23 Similarly, Jan Fekkes III keeps a close eye on the scrolls when seeking quotations, parallels, and allusions to the symbols in Revelation.24 The pursuit of clarification regarding other elements in John’s Revelation in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls continues with regard to specific 19. George Wesley Buchanan, The Book of Revelation: Its Introduction and Prophecy (Mellen Biblical Commentary 22; Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993). 20. Josephine Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (AB 38; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975). 21. The identification of these two themes is common to David Aune, “Qumran and the Book of Revelation”; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Book of Revelation,” EDSS 2:772–74; and Peter W. Flint, “The DSS and the Book of Revelation.” 22. Note, for example, that George J. Brooke can review the history of scholarship on the scrolls and the study of the New Testament without even referring to the Apocalypse of John! See “The Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament,” The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Sections Meetings (ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; SBLEJL 15; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 61–76. 23. Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 24. See Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development (JSNTSup 93; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

LOREN L. JOHNS

263

themes or symbols. The ways in which the many scenes of worship in Revelation may reflect features present in the scrolls is considered by Carol Newsom in her work on the Angelic Liturgy.25 Many other individual pursuits of this type have been done. For instance, is there a connection between the Apocalypse’s figure of the whore of Babylon and the seductress of Dame Folly and Lady Wisdom (4Q184)?26 Many more such studies, in which individual themes or symbols in Revelation are elucidated in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, should appear in the next twenty years. The tendency of the Thanksgiving Hymns to allude frequently to the Hebrew Scriptures without quoting directly, has a strong parallel in Revelation. The following quotation by Wise, Abegg, and Cook is striking for its applicability also to Revelation: “Old Testament vocabulary and phraseology so abound in the Thanksgiving Psalms that readers feel they have entered a virtual mosaic of biblical quotations.…Yet, surprisingly, only one passage can be considered an actual quotation.”27 Claims to revelatory status vary widely among the scrolls. Both the author of the Habakkuk Pesher and the author of Revelation understood their works to be uniquely revelatory. The Temple Scroll also makes an implicit claim to being revelatory literature, in part through the switch from the third-person narration of God’s voice to the first-person narration of God’s voice. However, the Temple Scroll, which probably did not originate at Qumran, does not exhibit anything like the eschatological urgency of the Habakkuk Pesher. The revelatory claims of the author of this work are distinctive because of his conviction that he was living in the latter days and that the unresolved mysteries of earlier revelations were now resolved in this final revelation of God’s will (1QpHab 6.12b–7.8). There are differences here, of course. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza denies any substantial parallel, since the Righteous Teacher28 is specifically said to have been granted interpretive insight. In contrast, John is the 25. Carol A. Newsom, “Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–4Q407, 11Q17, Masada ShirShabb),” in Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (PTSDSSP 4B), 11–12. 26. See, e.g., Joseph M. Baumgarten, “On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184,” RevQ 15 (1991): 133–44. 27. Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 85. 28. Earlier qdch-hrwm was translated “Teacher of Righteousness” and has become a standard in scrolls’ scholarship. However, there is no need to perpetuate this mistranslation. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 28–30, for the history of this discussion.

264 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN receiver of a prophetic revelation.29 Nevertheless, based on their respective eschatological situations, both are granted unique authority to understand the Scriptures.30 Both the scrolls and Revelation are somewhat self-conscious in their use of symbolism. Both use the verb is in a metaphorical sense (CD 6.4–11; 7.14–21; Rev 1:20; 17:9–12, 15, 18). However, in the scrolls, the Scriptures themselves are seen as the symbol that must be identified. In Revelation, both the symbol and its interpretation are part of the revelation, in a manner that is closer to the Temple Scroll.

N EW J ERUSALEM A complex of fragmentary Dead Sea Scrolls refer to or imply knowledge of a “new Jerusalem.”31 These are usually designated New Jerusalem ar and include 1QJN (1Q32); 2QJN (2Q24); 4QJNa and 4QJNb (4Q554–555); 5QJN (5Q15); and 11QJN (11Q18). Most scholars treat these as separate fragments from the same core document, The Description of the New Jerusalem or A Vision of the New Jerusalem. The Temple Scroll also describes a restored Jerusalem, but its literary relationship to New Jerusalem is disputed.32 29. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (2d ed.; Minneapolis, Fortress, 1998), 136. 30. Cf. Moyise, The Old Testament, 98. 31. The literature on the new Jerusalem texts and their potential for understanding Revelation is extensive. Among them are Maurice Baillet, “Fragments Araméens de Qumrân: Description de la Jérusalem Nouvelle,” RB 62 (April 1955): 222–45; Dieter Georgi, “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22,” in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm (ed. D. Luhrmann and G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 351–72; Celia Deutsch, “Transformation of Symbols: The New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:1–22:5,” ZNW 78, no. 1–2 (1987): 106–26; Émile Puech, “A propos de la Jérusalem Nouvelle d’après les manuscrits de la mer Morte,” Sem 43–44 (1996): 87–102; Michael Chyutin, The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction, vol. 25 of The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran (JSPSup 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Johann Maier, Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das “Neue Jerusalem” (Munich: Uni-Taschenbücher, 1987); Florentino García Martínez, “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:431–60. 32. See, e.g., Ben Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (HUCM 8; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983), 96, who declares that New Jerusalem is dependent upon the Temple Scroll; Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (SAOC 49; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 64–86, who declares that the Temple Scroll is dependent upon New Jerusalem; and Florentino García Martínez, “The ‘New Jerusalem’ and the Future

LOREN L. JOHNS

265

The idea of a new or renewed Jerusalem is already present in the Hebrew Bible.33 While the phrase “new Jerusalem” does not itself appear there, the concept does. Ezekiel envisions restoration in terms of a rebuilt temple in a rebuilt Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40–48). This restoration is to be so complete as to warrant a new name for the new city: “The name of the city from that time on shall be, ‘The Lord is There’” (Ezek 48:35 NRSV). Also, in Isa 52:1 and 54:11–17 we see a vision of a restored and rebuilt Jerusalem.34 In Isaiah 60–62 the prophet expands on this vision of a renewed, restored, and rebuilt Jerusalem. There, the renewed city serves as a metaphor for the renewal of all creation under the lordship of the Lord, the Creator God. An understanding of God as Creator and sustainer is essential to the Isaiah tradition.35 Isaiah says: 17For

I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. 18But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. 19I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress. (Isa 65:17–19 NRSV)

This vision of new heavens and a new earth became a stock element in at least some of the eschatological visions of late Second Temple Judaism. For instance, Tobit concludes with an ex eventu review of history Temple of the Manuscripts from Qumran,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (ed. F. García Martínez; STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 180–213, who declares that these manuscripts are independent of each other, while mutually dependent upon Ezekiel 40–48; cf. also Florentino García Martínez, “New Jerusalem,” in EDSS (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:609–10. 33. How astonishing that some commentators have claimed that the conceptual background for the symbol of the new Jerusalem is “essentially Greek!” See, e.g., William Barclay, The Revelation of John (vol. 2; 3d ed.; Daily Study Bible Series; 1959; repr., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 199. 34. Interestingly, when interpreting these passages directly, the Qumran community understood these texts as referring to the establishment of the Qumran community itself, not a literal, restored Jerusalem (see Isaiah Pesher 1 [4Q164] on Isa 54:11). 35. See, e.g., Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

also Florentin “New Jerusalem please supply m ber> 609–10.

266 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN that includes the postexilic rebuilding of the temple and of Jerusalem. But the vision of the Diaspora gathering to Jerusalem shows that this is more than just a review of history: the gathering of the Diaspora in a rebuilt and restored Jerusalem is eschatological. Similarly, the author of the Animal Apocalypse portrays the end times in terms of a restoration of the temple in Jerusalem (1 En. 90:28–29). Jubilees envisions restoration as a rebuilt sanctuary and the marked presence of God: “And I shall build my sanctuary in their midst, and I shall dwell with them. And I shall be their God and they will be my people truly and rightly” (Jub. 1:17; cf. also 1:27–28). Likewise, 2 Esd 7:26 and 10:25–59 portray a new Jerusalem as a symbol of Israel’s glorious restoration (cf. also Sib. Or. 5.420–27; t. Dan 5:12–13; 2 Bar. 4; 32:2–4). Paul’s understanding of the renewal of creation also fits in this stream of eschatological expectation (see, e.g., Rom 8:18–25). The author of 2 Peter likewise says, “In accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home” (3:13 NRSV). In short, the vision of a renewed heaven and earth, and a renewed temple in a renewed Jerusalem, was a stock element in many of the eschatologies of Second Temple Judaism.36 While this so-called new Jerusalem37 is foreseen as a sacred place in sacred time (i.e., the near future), it is also seen as a symbol of the redeemed community itself (1QpHab 12.3–4; 1QS 8.4b–10a; 4Q174 [Florilegium] frags. 1–3 1.6), though in the famous passage from CD 7.14–21, “tabernacle” is equated with the books of the Law, and “king” with the congregation. Here we must take care, since there are at least four different temples to which the scrolls refer. First, there is the temple in Jerusalem. Along with the priests that served there, the temple in Jerusalem was considered hopelessly corrupt and evil. Second, there was an intermediate temple that was to be built sometime in the future in anticipation of the final eschatological temple. Third, God himself would build the final eschatological temple. Fourth, some texts treat the temple metaphorically, as a symbol of the redeemed community itself. New Jerusalem and the Temple Scroll, like Revelation 3:12 and 21:2, bear witness to this common pool of images for the final restoration. Although the scrolls never specifically speak of a “new Jerusalem,” as the Apocalypse does, the vision of a restored Jerusalem is common to both. García Martínez probably goes too far when he calls New Jerusalem “the missing link in…the chain of tradition that ends up in the Apocalypse 36. For additional examples and helpful comment, see M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1989), 213–15, esp. 214. 37. The phrase itself appears in Rev 3:12 and 21:2, but not in the scrolls.

LOREN L. JOHNS

267

of the New Testament.”38 There seems to be little in common between New Jerusalem and Revelation that is not also found in Ezekiel. For instance, all three plans speak of twelve gates in the city wall, with three on each side, named after the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezek 48:30–34; 11QT [11Q19] 39.11–13; 4Q554 frag. 1 1.9–2.10; Rev 21:12–14). There are, however, two possible exceptions to the pattern of common but unconnected dependence upon Ezekiel. First, both New Jerusalem and Revelation expand the size of the city in comparison with Ezekiel. New Jerusalem expands it tenfold and Revelation a thousandfold. Ezekiel’s measurements imply a city circumference of around six miles (48:16, 35). New Jerusalem’s circumference is around sixty miles (4Q554 frag. 1 cols. 1–2).39 However, the new Jerusalem in Revelation (21:16) is about six thousand miles in circumference—nearly as large as Europe—and equally as high! A second difference is that both New Jerusalem and Revelation describe the precious materials used in the building of the city—something we also see in Isa 54:11–12 and Tob 13:16, but not in Ezekiel (cf. also Exod 39:8–14; 1 Pet 2:4–8).40 One important difference between the scrolls and Revelation stands out sharply: the vision in Ezekiel, New Jerusalem, and the Temple Scroll include both a new Jerusalem and a new temple. But the new Jerusalem in John’s vision has no temple, because “its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev 21:22 NRSV). Both communities envisioned an eschaton that would be marked by the intimate presence of God. We see this in Rev 21:3 and in 11QTemple (11Q19) 29.7–9. In Revelation the presence of God vitiates the need for a temple, but in 11QTemple, the eschatological temple will be built by God himself. 38. García Martínez, ““The ‘New Jerusalem’ and the Future Temple,” 186. García Martínez is more judicial and uses slightly more caution in his encyclopedia article: “The description of the city and temple in the New Jerusalem is located midway between Ezekiel’s description of the future Jerusalem and the Heavenly Jerusalem of the New Testament Book of Revelation 21–22.” See García Martínez, “New Jerusalem” in EDSS 609. It may well be one link in a chain with several missing links, but probably not the missing link. A broader understanding of the scope of traditions like the renewed temple in a renewed Jerusalem is useful, such as that reflected in Victor Aptowitzer, The Celestial Temple as Viewed in the Aggadah (ed. J. Dan; Studies in Jewish Thought 2; New York: Praeger, 1989). 39. This figuring is based on measurements of 140 stadia by 100 stadia, as suggested by García Martínez, “New Jerusalem” in EDSS, with each stadium being oneeighth of a mile. 40. Whether the Jerusalem in New Jerusalem is a “heavenly” or earthly Jerusalem is a contested matter. Sometimes readers assume that this Jerusalem is heavenly and interpret New Jerusalem as one of many expressions of “Urbild und Abbild,” but the text itself does not make this clear. See, e.g., García Martínez, “New Jerusalem” in EDSS. That this new Jerusalem is idealized does not necessarily mean that it is celestial.

38. García Ma ““The ‘New Jeru and the Future Te 186<~?~q is th correct work?>

See García “New Jerusalem” <~?~q can yo volume number?

268 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN I shall accept them and they shall be my people and I shall be for them forever. I will dwell with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory. I will cause my glory to rest on it until the day of creation on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob in Bethel.41

ased on measure00 stadia, as sugMartínez, “New ?~q can you supwith each stadium e.

The symbolism of architecture seems to predominate in the scrolls. We see this, for instance, in 1QS 8.4b–10a: “eternal planting…a holy house…the foundation…the most holy dwelling [My#dwq #dwq rwsw]” (cf. Jub. 16:26), temple, holy of holies, a “tested wall, the precious cornerstone” (cf. Isa 28:16), foundation, fortress, a blameless and true house in Israel (cf. Rule of the Community [4Q259 = 4QSe 2.11–16]; Isaiah Pesher [4Q164 frag. 1]). This architectural theme is supplemented in both literatures, probably in dependence upon Isa 54:11–12, showing an interest in precious jewels (4Q164 frag. 1). But inanimate life is not the only key symbol in the scrolls. We find also many references to living water or to the river of life (Rev 22:1; 1QH 16 [= 8 Sukenik].4–11), which flows from the throne. The scrolls are especially apt to envision paradise in terms of trees, lush vegetation, and flowing water (cf. 1QH 16). The eschaton is characterized by a return to the garden of Eden. In both literatures, the redemption of the eschaton is portrayed in terms of the renewal of creation, even a re-creation. The most important feature of the new Jerusalem in the scrolls symbolically is the measuring of that city. Measuring serves as a symbol of God’s order and protection, a symbol of God’s presence and the surety of God’s future blessing (Rev 11:1–2; Temple Scroll; New Jerusalem). In Revelation, three things are measured: the temple, the altar, and those who worship there (11:1).

WORKS Both literatures place great emphasis on “works.”42 Some interpreters, such as Otto Böcher, see in the Apocalypse’s equivalence of pi/stiv and e.g., García e1rgon a theological novelty, perhaps an anti-Pauline polemic. The word “New Jerusalem” e1rga appears in five of the seven letters to the churches in Rev 2–3. Both <~?~q can you Revelation and the scrolls exhibit a vivid concern for a real ethical lume number?>. 41. Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (5th rev. ed.; New York: Penguin, 1997), 200. 42. For “works” in Revelation, see 2:2, 5, 6, 19, 22, 23, 26; 3:1, 2, 8, 15; 9:20; 14:13; 15:3 (God’s works); 16:11; 18:6; 20:12, 13; and 22:12.

LOREN L. JOHNS

269

righteousness conceived in part as maintaining clear boundaries between people groups43 and ultimately understood as keeping the Law as interpreted by the community. Both literatures treat works as the basis of reward and as the basis of punishment, though the scrolls exhibit a stronger theology of grace in some respects.44 Grace is not central to either literature, though it is emphasized in the Thanksgiving Hymns more than in Revelation. Five of the seven prophetic oracles to the churches of the Apocalypse begin with the ambiguous comment, “I know your works.”45 One of the central works in the Apocalypse is keeping the words of this prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 9, 12), which seems to be equivalent to, or at least on par with, keeping “the commandments” (12:17; 14:12). Works are symbolized as clothing.46 At least some of the impetus for this symbolization of clothing as works or righteousness comes from the Hebrew Bible. For instance, in Zech 3:3–5 Joshua is found with dirty clothes on, clothes that represent the guilt of Judah. And Isaiah says, “Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins” (11:5; cf. also Blessings [1QSb = 1Q28b] 5.25–26). The relationship between righteousness and fine clothing is witnessed in several passages in the Hebrew Bible: Isa 59:17; 61:3, 10; 63:1; Job 40:10 (cf. also Ezek 16:8–22). Stephen Goranson has argued that there is a clearly identifiable Essene polemic in the Apocalypse of John. He introduced this thesis in his article “The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4–8 and Essene Polemic Against Pharisees”47 and carried it further in his essay “Essene Polemic in the Apocalypse of John.”48 His argument rests in part on the observation 43. Compare, e.g., Rev 2:2 with the “we,” “you,” and “they” language of 4QMMT (= 4Q394–399), esp. 4Q397 frags. 14–21, lines 7–9. Cf. also the discussion in John Kampen, “4QMMT and New Testament Studies,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 129–44. 44. Compare, e.g., Rev 20:12–13 and 22:12 with 1QH 6.23–27. 45. The divine proclamation “I know your works” becomes the basis for either praise or condemnation. In 2:2, 19 and 3:8, Ephesus, Thyatira, and Philadelphia are praised for their “works.” In 3:1 and 3:15, Sardis and Laodicea are condemned for their “works.” For works in Revelation, see n. 42, above. 46. Cf. Rev 1:13; 3:4–5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13–14; 15:6; 16:15; 17:4; 18:16; 19:8, 13, 16; 22:14. Cf. esp. 7:13–14; 19:8; 22:14. 47. Stephen Goranson, “The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4–8 and Essene Polemic Against Pharisees,” DSD 2, no. 1 (1995): 80–85. 48. Stephen Goranson, “Essene Polemic in the Apocalypse of John,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 453–60.

270 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN that a connection between faith and keeping the commandments (i.e., “works”) is common to both the Apocalypse and the Dead Sea Scrolls— a relationship quite unlike the one we see in Paul. However, such a reading may derive from an overly Augustinian understanding of Paul and an illegitimate—or at least anachronistic— contrast between Judaism and Christianity. Despite Paul’s writings, the strong emphasis on keeping the commandments that we see in the Apocalypse and in the Dead Sea Scrolls would not have been unusual or distinctive within first-century Judaism. Nor are there signs to indicate that the emphasis on works in the Apocalypse is in any way indebted to the halakic interests of the scrolls. It is true that both the scrolls and the Apocalypse emphasize reproof and discipline (cf. Rev 3:19; Rule of the Community [1QS] 5.24–6.1; Damascus Document [CD] 9.2–8; Polemical Fragment [4Q471 frag. 1]; Decrees [4Q477]). Both communities are enjoined to pay close attention to matters of lifestyle and to develop and maintain a clear countercultural consciousness about their identity and way of living (cf. 1QS 1.1–15; 8.16b–9.2), though the method of paraenetic address is more direct in the scrolls.49 There are further differences. The scrolls give more attention to the specifics of covenant faithfulness, to the exact shape of that faithfulness. In Revelation, the rhetoric revolves around the importance of following the commandments generally and the uncompromising allegiance that such commitment entails, rather than the specifics involved, though some specifics are present (such as avoiding food offered to idols: Rev 2:14, 20; cf. 1 Cor 8:1–10; 10:19). Serious commitment to the works of the Law—to a real ethical righteousness—was quite natural and unremarkable in first-century Judaism. It certainly was not unique to Revelation and the scrolls. Emphasis upon “works” was simply one expression of the seriousness with which most Jewish groups took the Torah in Second Temple Judaism: “Torah was one of the major categories which defined Jewish life during the Greco-Roman period.”50 In order to substantiate an alleged anti-Pauline Essene polemic in the Apocalypse, one would have to demonstrate the presence of an argument 49. The paraenesis in the prophetic oracles of Revelation 2–3 represent a partial exception to the general rule that the paraenetic or deliberative rhetoric of the Apocalypse is oblique. 50. John Kampen, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew and the Legal Texts from Qumran,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 461.

LOREN L. JOHNS

271

that specifically envisions a different sort of theology. However, neither literature examines theologically (at least in the way Paul does) the relationship between salvation by grace through faith and salvation by works. There is no anti-Pauline polemic in Revelation with respect to the so-called grace/works dichotomy, though there may be in regard to eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Thus, I find wanting the suggestion that the emphasis on works, which is common to both literatures, is genetically significant.

NAMING AS RHETORICAL STRATEGY It is impossible to compare the rhetorical strategies of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the rhetorical strategy of the Apocalypse with any precision because of the variety of literatures, rhetorical strategies, and historical situations in the scrolls. However, one particular rhetorical strategy has features common to both literatures: the strategy of “naming.” There are few real names in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ostraca have been discovered in the ruins that also mention specific names.51 One of the scrolls also mentions a king Jonathan.52 However, the scrolls are amazingly reticent to mention the people of their own community by name.53 Nevertheless, the scrolls do use naming as a way to characterize both the people in the community and the people outside the community. Some of the symbolic pseudonyms used are positive, such as Sons of Light (rw) ynb; cf. War Scroll [1QM] 1.1; Rule of the Community [1QS] 3.13), 51. See, e.g., Frank Moore Cross and Esther Eshel, “The Missing Link: Does a New Inscription Establish a Connection Between Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls?” BAR 24, no. 2 (March–April 1998): 48–53, 69. 52. Cf. Prayer for King Jonathan (4Q448). Whether this “Jonathan” is Alexander Jannaeus or the Maccabean Jonathan is a matter of debate. For the former view, see Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel, and Ada Yardeni, “A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom,” IEJ 42 (1992): 199–229; for the latter view, see Geza Vermes, “The So-Called King Jonathan Fragment (4Q448),” JJS 44 (1993): 294–300. 53. Only Decrees (4Q477), a record of rebukes brought in disciplinary action, mentions members of the community by name: a Johanan and two Hananiahs. Names of other known people outside the community are only slightly more plentiful. Examples include “[Deme]trius” (4QpNah [= 4Q169] frags. 3–4 1.2); “Antiochus” (4QpNah frags. 3–4 1.3); “Balakros” (Alexander Balas? Pseudo-Daniel ar [4Q243 frag. 21, line 2]). Some of the liturgical calendars also refer to several known historical people, including Hyrcanus (Calendrical Document Ca [4Q322] frag. 2 line 6), Shelamzion (Salome Alexandra; 4Q322 frag. 2 line 4; Calendrical Document Ce [4Q324b] frag. 1 2.7), Amelios (M. Aemilius Scaurus; Calendrical Document Cd [4Q324a] frag. 2 line 8); and a Yoha9 nan (4Q324b frag. 1 1.5).

272 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN Righteous Teacher (qdch hrwm; cf. Damascus Document [CD] 1.5–11), the Poor Ones (Mynwyb); cf. Thanksgiving Hymns [1QH] frag. 16 3.3; Psalm Pesher 2 [4Q171] 3.10), and the Community (dxyh; cf. 1QS 1.1; Habakkuk Pesher [1QpHab] 12.4; Micah Pesher 1 [1QpMic = 1Q14] frags. 8–10 line 8). It is not clear whether “furious young lion” (Nwrxh rypk; Hosea Pesher [4QpHos = 4Q167] frag. 2 line 2; cf. “angry lion”; Alexander Jannaeus?) is appreciative, critical, or neutral in force. The Qumran covenanters saw the lion as a symbol for violent aggression and for royalty.54 The Qumran covenanters did not see the lion as a symbol for the messiah, despite the fact that in 1QSb (1Q28b) 5.29 the destructive force of the messiah is compared to that of the lion, perhaps drawing on Num 23:24 or Mic 5:8. Geza Vermes argues on the basis of 1QSb 5.29; Targum Onqelos on Gen 49:9; 2 Esd 12:31–32; and Rev 5:5 that the symbolic representation of the messiah as a lion was “known in all sectors of Palestinian Judaism…[and] represented a tradition familiar to all.”55 However, there are two significant problems with this conclusion. First, Vermes fails to recognize that the lion in 1QSb 5.29 is not a symbol with a sustained semantic value. Rather, it is a passing simile. This difference is significant for whether a whole tradition of understanding lies behind a concept. The messiah is also compared to a bull in 1QSb 5.27 without any implication that the bull was a well-known symbol for the messiah. Second, the other texts to which Vermes appeals are all relatively late. Among the most common of the negative sobriquets in the scrolls are “seekers after smooth things,” or “flattery-seekers,” as Abegg and Wise translate it.56 Although a debated issue, these “seekers after smooth things” are likely equivalent to “Ephraim,” both of which refer to the Pharisees.57 “Manasseh” is another sobriquet. “Ephraim” and “Manasseh” appear to represent two separate factions that were at one point part of the Qumran community. Other oblique “names” include Wicked Priest (h#rh Nhwkh; 1QpHab 8.8), the Man of the Lie (bzkh #y); CD 20.15), Sons of Darkness (K#wx ynb; 1QM 1.1; 1QS 1.10), and the Kittim (My)ytkh or Myytkh; 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 1QM 1.4). We also see this negative form of naming in Some Works of Torah (4QMMT = 4Q394–399). Thus, naming was one way to create and maintain a way of looking at the world, a symbolic universe, a way of defining reality and maintaining 54. Cf. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d rev. ed.; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 40–43. 55. Ibid., 43. 56. Cf. 4QpNah (4Q169) 2.2; Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls, 218. 57. Cf. esp. 4QpNah (4Q169) frags. 3–4 2.2–10 for an apparent equation of “seekers after smooth things” with “Ephraim.”

LOREN L. JOHNS

273

appropriate boundaries. We see a similar naming strategy in Revelation. Like the scrolls, the Apocalypse is stingy with real names. The names of only three first-century personalities are clearly given: the name of the author, John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), Antipas (2:13), and the name of Jesus (Rev 1:1, 2, 5, 9; 12:17; 14:12; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4; 22:16, 20–21). However, more than three-dozen symbolic pseudonyms express dynamically and functionally the role of Jesus in the believing community. These pseudonyms include the faithful witness (o( ma&rtuv o( pisto&v; 1:5), the firstborn from the dead (o( prwto&tokov tw=n~ nekrw=n; 1:5), and the ruler of the kings of the earth (o( a1rxwn tw=n basile/wn th~v gh~v; 1:5), among many others.58 And like the scrolls, the Apocalypse is full of negative sobriquets. These sobriquets include Nicolaitans (2:6, 15), Jezebel (2:20), Balaamites (2:14), and references to people who “call themselves” one thing (2:2, 9, 20; 3:9) but “are not” (2:2, 9). The author even charges some with blasphemy when they consider themselves part of the believing community (2:9). He refers to some as the synagogue of Satan (2:9; 3:9), as liars (2:2), and as evildoers among the people of God (2:2).59 These references suggest that the author does not share his readers’ assessment of their current sociopolitical situation.60 Naming is a way of attaching praise and blame—a strategy central to the epideictic rhetoric of the book. Alongside Revelation’s use of negative sobriquets, such as Jezebel, there is also the explicit denial of positive sobriquets, such as “Jews” ( I)oudai=oi) in 2:9 and 3:9; apostles (a)po&stoloi) in 2:2; and prophet (profh~thv) in 2:20. So we see the author waging a battle in the Apocalypse by means of the rhetorical strategy of naming. Both literatures connect suffering and faithfulness (1QpHab 8.2; 1QH 17.10; 1QS 8.4–5; Rev 2:19) and conceive of faith (or faithfulness) as a work of loyalty (1QpHab 8.2; Rev 2:19; 13:10; 14:12). Both literatures exhibit a strong sense of inside/outside consciousness, both sociologically and in spatial terms (Rev 2:2; 3:12). Both communities exhibit sectarian attitudes, and strongly and repeatedly enjoin their members to 58. See Johns, Lamb Christology, 217–21. 59. For an excellent analysis of the central role of “naming” in the rhetorical strategy of this seer, consult Edith M. Humphrey, “On Visions, Arguments and Naming: The Rhetoric of Specificity and Mystery in the Apocalypse” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Francisco, 23 November 1997). See also Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes,” ZRGG 46, no. 2 (1994): 143–62. 60. Cf. Leonard L. Thompson, “Mooring the Revelation in the Mediterranean,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1992 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; SBLSP 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 648.

274 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN hate the works of evildoers, though there may be a slight distinction in that the command to hate in Revelation is directed at works rather than at people (2:6). Even in the scrolls, however, the command to hate was not an invitation to hostile acts, but rather an invitation to withdrawal from association.61 The closest parallels in the New Testament to the frequent use of the word “hate” in the scrolls are in the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John. By way of contrast, Jesus said that his disciples are not to “hate” their enemies, but rather to “love” them (Matt. 5:43). Instead of hating their enemies, it is their own families that they are to hate (Luke 14:26). In the New Testament, only Jesus enjoins hatred of people (Luke 14:26).

THE F INAL E SCHATOLOGICAL BATTLE The book of Revelation and the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect strong similarities as well as strong differences with regard to the community’s participation in the eschatological battle.62 In the scrolls we see eschatological judgment both in terms of eternal blessing and eternal damnation and torment (1QS 4.11b–14; 5.12–13). There is also a clear mixing of combat myth and eschatological judgment in 1QH 14.27b–37. This eschatological judgment is portrayed as cosmic cataclysm in both works (1QH 4.13; 11.34–36; Rev 6:12–17; 8:7–12). Here the convulsions of creation normally associated with theophany are transformed (through an association with sacred time) into deeds of judgment associated with the eschaton. Both were messianic communities in that an expectation of God’s messiah or messiahs was central to their theology.63 At Qumran, there is 61. Pheme Perkins, “Apocalyptic Sectarianism and Love Commands: The Johannine Epistles and Revelation,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament (ed. W. M. Swartley; Studies in Peace and Scripture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 288, in ch. 12. 62. Among the better comparisons of Revelation with the Dead Sea Scrolls with regard to the combat myth are those of Josephine Massyngberde Ford, “Shalom in the Johannine Corpus,” HBT 6, no. 2 (December 1984): 67–89; Charles Homer Giblin, The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy (GNS 34; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 25–34; and Bauckham’s chapter, “The Apocalypse as a Christian War Scroll,” in Climax of Prophecy, 210–37 (ch. 8). Matthew Black refers in passing to the Apocalypse of John “as a kind of ‘War Scroll,’” in “‘Not Peace but a Sword’: Matt 10:34ff.; Luke 12:51ff.,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 293, but he does not develop the concept. 63. On the messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New

LOREN L. JOHNS

275

evidence that this expectation shifted over the course of time. Nevertheless, at least three messiahs or at least anointed figures were expected: the royal descendant of David, the high priest, and a prophet like Moses (1QS 9.11; Testimonies [4Q175] lines 5, 12). In Revelation, the Messiah is identified with the figure of Jesus. This must have required some radical shifting of eschatology. Both literatures expect the rise of wicked figures who would serve as counterparts to the righteous figures (4Q175 lines 23b–30; Rev 13:11). Both literatures tend to mix royal and priestly conceptions of the redeemed community: all of the redeemed are priests who reign (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:4, 6; 22:5). In both we see the crown as an eschatological blessing (1QS 4.7; Rev 2:10; 3:11), a symbol of shared kingship, but not one that supplants the royal priority of the one on the throne (4:10). In both literatures we see a strong theology of unique revelation needed for the last days (4Q416). Bauckham has entitled his collection of essays Climax of Prophecy to underscore not only the prophetic self-understanding of John, but also the eschatological nature of the revelation given him. This revelation is unique not only because it is greater, fuller, and more extensive than prior revelations, but also because it comes at the close of the age and the dawning of the new. We see similar claims to unique revelation especially in 1QH (6.25b–27) and 1QpHab and 1Q27 (Book of the Mysteries) frag. 1 1.5–8. Both literatures exhibit a strong purity consciousness, though with important differences. White garments abound in Revelation (3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 19:14; white [leuko/v] does not appear in 19:8, but bright [lampro/n] and pure [kaqaro/n] do). Purity is an ever-present concern in the scrolls.64 Revelation 7:14 and 22:14 mentions the washing of robes. However, here we see an important difference as well. The garments in the Apocalypse are to be washed in the blood of the Lamb, which is a reference not to believing in Jesus as such, or to having one’s sins forgiven,65 but rather to the martyrdom that results from faithful York: Doubleday, 1995); Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, eds., Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); and James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds., Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). 64. Among the many examples of this, see On Excrement (4Q472a), sometimes called Halakah C. 65. Contra David E. Aune, “The Revelation to John (Apocalypse),” in The HarperCollins Study Bible (ed. W. A. Meeks; New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 2319; cf. Rev 7:14; 12:11. Bauckham’s interpretation is more apt: “They ‘have conquered through the blood of the Lamb’ (12:11). In 7:14 John has fused this thought of victory (the white robes of 7:9) with that of purification (they have washed their robes white;

276 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN witness, as Rev 3:21; 12:11; and 19:8 make clear. This washing is a piece of symbolism drawn from the holy war tradition (1QM 14.2–3). However, what in the scrolls is a washing of the robes to remove sinful Gentiles’ blood is in the Apocalypse the (white-)washing of robes in the blood of the Lamb. This explanation “achieves, by its startling paradox, a decisive reinterpretation of the holy war motif.”66 The Qumran scrolls also use garments in a symbolic way (1QS 4.8; cf. 1QM 14.2–3), but not to the same effect. The Angelic Liturgy (4Q400–407; 11Q17) provides some interesting parallels with Revelation. Besides its fragmented view of a heavenly temple, the expressions of praise in the Liturgy are somewhat similar to the expressions of praise in Revelation—especially in chapters 4–5. In both writings the temple itself is animate, and both speak of silence in heaven.67 There are also many “false parallels” between the scrolls and Revelation. For instance, the detailed description of the woman in labor who bears a male child in Revelation 12 may invite consideration of the woman in labor who bears a male child in 1QH 11.7b–18. However, in 1QH the woman and her labor serve as symbols of the writer’s own distress, and the male child plays a rather insignificant role. Nevertheless, both the mother in distress and the child who is born safely through distress serve as symbols of salvation through tribulation.

CONCLUSION There are many points of similarity as well as many points of difference between the scrolls and the Apocalypse of John. The Apocalypse perhaps more consciously creates and develops the symbolic world, and it has the “advantage” of being a single work written or edited in a short period of time. We see such conscious symbolism in the apocalyptic narrative of the throne room scene in Revelation 4–5. There a lion is introduced, but what appears is a standing, slaughtered lamb with seven eyes and seven horns. This lamb then goes to the One seated on the throne and takes out of his right hand a scroll sealed with seven seals. This is all a highly creative and self-conscious use of symbolism in a style seldom approached in the Qumran scrolls, except, perhaps in the Angelic Liturgy. cf. also 19:8). Probably the latter idea is not that their deaths atone for their sins, but that the moral probity of their lives as faithful witnesses is sealed in their martyrdom and is their active participation in the redemption won for them by Christ (1:5b)”; Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 229. 66. Bauckham, ibid., 227.

LOREN L. JOHNS

277

In the end, it is the Christology of the Apocalypse that serves as the prism through which many of the traditional symbol systems come to be refracted and redefined in the Apocalypse. Thus, no comparison of the Apocalypse with the Dead Sea Scrolls can afford to ignore what happens to symbols when one views them in light of understanding Jesus as Messiah. We see this in John’s use of the combat myth: the slaughtered Lamb is the key to the unfolding of history. His death and resurrection represent and embody God’s decisive victory over evil. This Christology is also the key to ethics in the Apocalypse in a way that is unparalleled in the scrolls. The Asian Christians are to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be faithful witnesses unto death. Battle scenes are abortive in Revelation, since the real victory is already in the past. The variety of messianic expectations in the scrolls is more focused in Revelation, since Jesus is identified there as the Messiah who forms a kingdom of priests who reign (1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And the advent of the new Jerusalem is additionally interpreted as a marriage of the Lamb with his bride. The Christology of the Apocalypse has significantly shaped John’s inherited traditions. The rhetorical force of the combat myth is turned nearly upside down by the Lamb Christology. In Bauckham’s words, “Insofar as the Jewish hopes, rooted in [the] Scriptures, were for the victory of God over evil, [Rev] 5:6 draws on other Old Testament Scriptures to show how they have been fulfilled in Jesus.”68 The believers are to conquer in the same way as the Lamb conquered, making use of the combat myth, but ultimately vitiating it. Thus, determining as closely as possible the exact nature, force, and extent of the reinterpretation of symbols and traditions becomes a crucial matter in the interpretation of Revelation.69 Near the beginning of this essay, we mentioned briefly the value of comparing the ways in which these literatures construct their symbolic worlds. While such a task is clearly complex and beyond the scope of this essay, a few preliminary remarks are in order here. At the center of the symbolic universe sketched by the Apocalypse lies the key throne-room scene in Revelation 4–5. And at the center of that scene lies the riveting revelation of the only one in the universe who is found worthy to take 67. See Newsom, “Angelic Liturgy,” 296–97. 68. Bauckham, ibid., 215. 69. On the importance of transference and redefinition in the interpretation of Revelation, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Apocalypse of John: Its Theology and Impact on Subsequent Apocalypses,” in The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on Apocalypses (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Chicago: American Theological Library Association, 1987), 19–51 (pt. 2).

278 THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN the scroll and thus reveal the key to history: the crucified and resurrected Christ, portrayed not as messianic lion, but as a slain but standing Lamb. John Howard Yoder has offered a challenging theological interpretation of the revelation of Jesus as Lamb: John is here saying, not as an inscrutable paradox but as a meaningful affirmation, that the cross and not the sword, suffering and not brute power determines the meaning of history. The key to the obedience of God’s people is not their effectiveness but their patience (13:10). The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and other kinds of power in every human conflict. The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection.70

The crux here is, of course, is not only whether John Howard Yoder’s theological interpretation is true to the Apocalypse, but also whether the vision of John’s Apocalypse is true—whether the death and resurrection of Christ really do constitute the crucial key to unlock the meaning of history, or whether it represents a sad misunderstanding of the cross and its relevance for resistance or accommodation to society. That the symbol of the Lamb is the key to the Christology of the Apocalypse is beyond dispute; it dominates the book. That the book’s Lamb Christology undergirds an ethic of faithful witness is not beyond dispute, but it can be demonstrated through careful exegesis.71 While the question of truth cannot be answered on the basis of empirical investigation, the modern reader cannot completely avoid the challenge of either being drawn into the symbolic universe constructed on that truth on the one hand, or consciously resisting it on the other. The ethics of the scrolls vary from scroll to scroll. Nevertheless, the various rules (e.g., 1QS; CD; and 1QM) and Some Works of Torah (4QMMT = 4Q394–399) all revolve around the creation and maintenance of a community of faith based on strict adherence to the community’s covenant or rule. Near the heart of that community life lies a strong 70. John H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster (1972; 2d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 232. 71. See, e.g., David L. Barr, “Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use of Power, Violence, and Misogyny,” in SBLSP 36 (1997): 358–73. Cf. also Johns, Lamb Christology, 185–202.

LOREN L. JOHNS

279

view of the importance of ritual purity, the significance of legal precision, and of separation from evil—both symbolically and literally. Both the ethical paraenesis of Revelation 2–3 and the visions themselves support the creation and maintenance of communities of faith that are based on an exclusive allegiance to the One who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, and on a repudiation of compromise with GrecoRoman values. Near the heart of that community life lies a strong view of the history-revealing victory won by Jesus in the cross and resurrection, the significance of faithful witness to that Jesus, even to the point of death, and of separation from evil—both symbolically and literally.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

ABOUT THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE: COMMENTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, AND QUMRAN Enno E. Popkes

1. I NTRODUCTION In the middle of the twentieth century, two sensational archaeological discoveries have enriched the research on the New Testament in a special way: on the one hand the discovery of the so-called Nag Hammadi writings in upper Egypt (near today’s village Hamra Dom), and on the other hand the recovery of Jewish scrolls in caves on the northwest shores of the Dead Sea.1 The importance of these findings for New Testament studies, however, is markedly different. The texts from Qumran offer an insight into the variety of early Jewish literature during the time immediately before the composition of most New Testament writings. The texts of the socalled Nag Hammadi library, however, are mainly considerably younger. Even if we assume that some parts of the texts were written as early as the first century, the main parts came into being in the second century or later. These texts thus offer an insight into the controversial phase of the search for a Christian identity of the early church, when the New Testament canon was still in the making.2 1. On the history of discovering and editing the texts from the Dead Sea, see the contribution by Jörg Frey in this volume (ch. 16) or James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 2–3; Adam S. van der Woude, “Fifty Years of Qumran Research,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:1–45. Equally on the Nag Hammadi texts, see James M. Robinson, “The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” BA 42 (1979): 206–24; Birger A. Pearson, “Nag Hammadi,” ABD 4:982–93. 2. This discovery throws new light on early Christian theological views against which authors such as Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others polemicized

281

282 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE The present study demonstrates in what way these discoveries enrich New Testament studies, using two examples: the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas. These two gospels are suited for such a study for two reasons: On the one hand they represent two quite different theological streams in early Christianity. On the other, a sound argument can be made that the groups behind these texts had contact with each other or rivaled each other. An essential difference between these theological concepts can be seen in their approach to the Jewish roots of early Christianity, which can be understood even better than before since the discoveries of the texts from the Dead Sea. Therefore, I first sketch the historical and interpretative questions that readers must face if they attempt to understand them independently of each other (sec. 2). Then I show the relationship between them as well as the way in which they interpret each other (sec. 3). Against this background I can then show how we can grasp the theological profiles of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas comparing them with the writings from Qumran (sec. 4). Finally, I briefly address a further theme that is of central importance for understanding early Christianity: the question of the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas and of the Gospel of John for the so-called quest for the historical Jesus (sec. 5).

2. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS: TWO FASCINATING TESTIMONIES OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY F ULL OF H ISTORICAL P UZZLES The Gospel of John is a literary masterpiece. The author of this document seems to have had a quite high level of education. The Greek language of the Gospel of John is not very difficult. It is much easier to translate the Fourth Gospel than—for instance—the Epistle to the Hebrews. The fascination of this Gospel derives from its narrative art.3 directly or indirectly. This means that now the other side of a theological debate becomes more visible after being previously accessible only via the biased perspective of its opponents. On the dating of the Nag Hammadi writings and their relationship to the New Testament, cf. Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe, eds., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (NTTS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993); Hans-Martin Schenke, “Einführung,” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser for the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Koptische-gnostische Schriften 2; NHC I,1–V,1; GCS NS 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 1–6. 3. A fundamental contribution on this is, e.g., Derek M. H. Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 151, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997); R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF NT 20; Philadelphia: Fortress

E NNO E. POPKES

283

A central characteristic of this phenomenon is that the theological core statement is visualized through narrative. In this presentation, however, the perspectives of the text-external reader and the text-internal figures are fundamentally different. The people who in the text-internal narrative world of the Gospel of John meet Jesus are led to the goal of their quest with the story of their lives and their faith. The text-external reader, who—particularly through the Prologue—has an advantage in knowledge,4 is guided to the right understanding of this Gospel by various means such as comments of the narrator, misunderstandings, irony, symbolic language, and so on. In all this, in the Gospel of John a “phenomenon” of a hermeneutical merging of horizons is more pronounced than in the Synoptic Gospels.5 In the Johannine description of the figure of the earthly Jesus, the risen and exalted Lord is always present; and in the disciples who accompany him, the text-external community after Easter is envisaged (this is particularly apparent in the Johannine farewell speeches). In post-Easter retrospective, the Johannine community and the stylization of the pre-Easter activity of Jesus are projected into each other. By means of this correlation of the temporal levels, the Fourth Gospel challenges its audience to read in double perspective. On this literary basis the Gospel of John develops a world of images, whose fascination and accessibility has not only produced impressive

1983); R. Alan Culpepper and Fernando F. Segovia, eds., The Fourth Gospel from a Literary Perspective (Semeia 53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). 4. On guiding the act of reading by using the Prologue or literary means such as commentaries by the narrator, and on irony and misunderstandings, see Michael Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (NTAbh NS 20; Münster: Aschendorff, 1988), 438; Johanna Rahner, “Missverstehen um zu verstehen: Zur Funktion der Missverständnisse im Johannesevangelium,” BZ (NF) 43, no. 2 (1999): 212–19. See also the contributions on the narrative structure of the Gospel of John in the previous footnote. 5. The term “Horizontverschmelzung” has been coined by the philosopher HansGeorg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 296–98 and has been applied to the exegesis of the Gospel of John by Ferdinand Hahn, “Sehen und Glauben im Johannesevangelium,” Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geshehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament; Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 125–41, esp. 140–41; and his pupil Takashi Onuki, Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismus” (WMANT 56; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 34–36. This phenomenon can be seen particularly in the Johannine view of time and eschatology; cf. Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 3, Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten (WUNT 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 483–86.

284 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE effects on the history of theology but also in other areas, such as the history of art or literature. This phenomenon can be expressed concisely in the lovely expression that the Gospel of John is like “a book in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.”6 This paradoxical image expresses the thought that even readers without a high level of education or an exact knowledge about the origins of Christianity can understand the central message of the Fourth Gospel. By explanations the author thus helps readers without personal experience of the praxis of Jewish life to understand the details of his narrative (cf. John 1:41; 2:6; 4:25; 11:55; 18:20, 28b; 19:40; etc.). The depth of many motifs and argumentations, however, appears to presuppose that the readers know the writings and traditions of the Old Testament as well as a number of elements of the Gospel traditions. It is possible to show this matter briefly with one example. In 8:12 the Johannine Jesus says about himself that he is the Light of the World. Those who follow him will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life. This impressive motif is an equivalent to the Prologue of the Gospel. In speaking about Jesus, the Prologue has already said that the Word of God is the light that came into the darkness—and this light was the life of everyone (1:4–5, 9). Now, in the narrative context of chapter 8, Jesus says about himself what the text-external reader of the Gospel has already known before. It is really easy to understand this central idea of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel on a first and basic level. But it also implies a second level, if someone tries to understand it in the sense of the Gospel of John’s hermeneutics of Scripture. The fundamental importance of the Old Testament for the Gospel of John is already indicated in the paraphrasing interpretation of Gen 1:1–4 in the Prologue, which can be seen as a christological manual for reading the whole Gospel. Accordingly John 5:39 emphasizes that the Scriptures witness to Jesus, and the Prologue culminates in the statement that Jesus is the “exegete of God” ( John 1:18). The

6. On the origins and various uses of this image, see Paul N. Anderson, Navigating the Living Waters of the Gospel of John: On Wading with Children and Swimming with Elephants (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill, 2000), passim; Paul F. Barackman, “The Gospel according to John,” Int 6 (1952): 63; Robert D. Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 6. A corresponding view is put forward by Richard J. Bauckham, “The Audience of the Fourth Gospel,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition (ed. R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 101–11, esp. 111, writing that the Fourth Gospel can be read and understood by a particularly broad readership: “In fact, FG [the Fourth Gospel] may envisage a wider readership than perhaps any other New Testament Text.”

E NNO E. POPKES

285

preexisting Logos manifests himself in the logoi of Scripture, which in turn give witness of Jesus and find their fulfillment in the Logos incarnate.7 Against this background we can also understand John 8:12 as an interpretation of different motifs of light from the Old Testament, for example, the motif from Deutero-Isaiah that the servant of God is the light for the pagans (Isa 49:6) or that the word of God is the light of one’s life (Ps 119:105; etc.).8 This is only one example of many that show the literary fascination of the Gospel of John. Yet it is precisely a passage like this that shows why the Gospel is a literary masterpiece full of historical puzzles. In a fascinating way the Gospel of John leads its readers into its narrative world. However, it only gives a fragmentary insight into the historical contexts from which it derives and the situation into which it wants to communicate. Who is the author of this incomparable work? At what time and in what place was it written? What tradition-historical backgrounds have left their marks on its author? What social circumstances have influenced the development of the Johannine community? For instance, can the scathing polemic against the Jews lead to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel is testimony of a controversy between Judeo-Christians and other Jews? Is the separation from the synagogal congregation mentioned in John 9:22; 12:42–43; 16:2 a mark of the Johannine community at the 7. On the general hermeneutic of Scripture in the Gospel of John, see Andreas Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate (WUNT 2.83; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), passim; Martin Hengel, “Die Schriftauslegung des 4. Evangeliums auf dem Hintergrund der urchristlichen Exegese,” JBTh 4 (1989): 249–88. On particular examples such as the modification of the motif of the iron serpent (Num 21:8–9) or the quotation of Isa 6:9–10 about hardening, cf. Jörg Frey, “‘Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat …’: Zur frühjüdischen Deutung der ‘ehernen Schlange’ und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f.,” in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (ed. M. Hengel and H. Löhr; WUNT 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 153–205, esp. 204–5; James H. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: The Symbolism and Meaning of the Serpent in the Ancient World (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2006; John Painter, “The Quotation of Scripture and Unbelief in John 12.36b–43,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1994), 429–58. 8. On the creation of these direct or indirect associations of motifs, see, e.g., Richard J. Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There a Connection?” in The Scrolls and the Scripture: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 267–79; Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998, 154–45; Jörg Frey, “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder,” in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (ed. R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel; WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 228–68, esp. 256–58.

286 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE time of the composition of the Gospel of John,9 or does it merely hint at an earlier stage in the community’s history?10 Related to this question is whether the Gospel of John was written in a mainly Jewish environment, such as Palestine,11 or rather in Syria12 or Asia Minor?13 Is it possible to distinguish various layers of redaction, which could be attributed to different times and places?14 Furthermore the relationship between the 9. Thus, e.g., Klaus Wengst, Johannesevangelium (THKNT 4.1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 21; J. Louis Martyn, “Glimpses in the History of the Johannine Christianity,” in The Gospel of John in Christian History (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 90–121, esp. 120–21. 10. Thus, e.g., Martin Hengel, Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch; Mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von J. Frey (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 300; Frey, “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder,” 228–68, 231–33; Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3d ed.; Uni-Taschenbücher 1830; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 488–91, etc. 11. These suggestions mainly assume that the controversies between Jewish and Jewish-Christian groups described in the Gospel of John reflect the immediate present of the Johannine community at the time of the composition of the Gospel of John. Furthermore, they indicate a precise knowledge of Jewish customs and geography, which can lead to the conclusion that the author had a Jewish upbringing and education. Such localizations are considered by, e.g., Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, among the Disciples of Jesus and in Early Christianity: A Study in the Origin of the Gospel of John (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1976), 98–99 (particularly Transjordan); Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1:23; idem, Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch über das Johannesevangelium (3d ed.; Munich: C. Kaiser, 1990), 183–84 (particularly northeast of the Jordan, more specifically the regions Gaulanitis or Batanaea); Günter Reim, “Zur Lokalisierung der johanneischen Gemeinde,” BZ 32 (1988): 72–86, 72–75, esp. 85–86 (particularly northeast of the Jordan, more specifically near Bethsaida and Capernaum). 12. Such a setting above all implies contacts, such as controversies with early gnostic movements, whose origins are also assumed to have been in Syria. Cf., e.g., Helmut Koester (= Köster), Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 113–15; idem, History and Literature of Early Christianity (vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament; 2d ed.; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 182–83; Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die apostolischen Väter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 445–50, esp. 460; Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (3d ed.; ÖTK 4.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1991), 178–79. 13. These views are chiefly based on traditions in the ancient church (e.g., via Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyon, et al.), who support a setting of the Johannine school in Ephesus, specifically Asia Minor. Furthermore, in this way we can explain the affinities of the Johannine writings with those other New Testament documents or schools that can also be placed in this geographic region (cf. the links with the Pauline or Deutero-Pauline school, with Revelation, etc.; on these views see, e.g., Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 302–4, etc.; Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 450–51, etc. 14. An early date for first text layers of the Gospel of John is assumed by, e.g., James H. Charlesworth, “The Priority of John? Reflections on the Essenes and the First Edition of John,” in Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums: Symposion in

E NNO E. POPKES

287

Johannine theology, the community, and other early Christian lines of tradition is not clear. Is it a line of development independent of the synoptic tradition?15 Or does the Johannine theology also use and interpret synoptic, Pauline, and deuteropauline traditions?16 Salzburg am 10. März 2000 (ed. P. L. Hofrichter; Theologische Texte und Studien 9; Hildesheim: Olms, 2002), 73–114; Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamoille, Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français, vol. 3, L’Évangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977), passim; Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves und Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (London: Chapman, 1979), passim; however, for the later text they propose mainly a “middle date” between about 95 and 105 C.E.). Against any attempts at reconstructing a history of the Johannine community, see, e.g., Hartwig Thyen, “Johannesevangelium,” TRE 17: 200–225; Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 1, Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus (WUNT 96; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 278–87, esp. 429–32; Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 15–16; however, these authors also argue for a “middle date” for the Johannine writings. Against this, a late date is the view of a small number of outsiders who attempt to bring the views of the Tübingen school back to life (particularly that of Ferdinand C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniss zueinander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung [Tübingen: Fues, 1847], 349–51). This was last attempted by Walter Schmithals, Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse (BZNW 64; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 69–71, esp. 422; even for the supposedly early layers of text, he assumes a middle or late date (between 100 and 140 C.E.) and postulates a Montanist (!) late redaction, which he assumes took place between 160 and 180 C.E. We may count this view, however, among scholarly oddities rather than serious scholarly debate. 15. D. Moody Smith, “Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on Its Character and Delineation,” NTS 21 (1976): 222–48, 237–38; idem, John among the Gospels (2d ed.; RelS; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001), passim; Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), passim; James M. Robinson’s chapter, “Die johanneische Entwicklungslinie,” in Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (ed. J. M. Robinson and H. Köster; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 216–50, esp. 235–36 and 242. 16. Particularly the question of the position of the Gospel of John within the gospel tradition has a central relevance for the overall understanding of Johannine theology. It is now frequently argued that the author of the Fourth Gospel knew the Gospels of Mark and Luke, some say even Matthew. On the highly complex debate and the criteria for a proof of dependence or independence, see, e.g., Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” in L’Évangile de Jean (ed. M. de Jonge; BETL 44; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977), 73–106; idem, “John and the Synoptics, 1975–1990,” in John and the Synoptics (ed. A. Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 3–62; idem, “John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries,” in Evangelica III, 1992–2000: Collected Essays (BETL 150; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 601–15; Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Fourth Gospel and Q,” Jesus in Johannine Tradition (ed. R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 281–90; Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 16; Jörg Frey, “Das vierte Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund der älteren Evangelientradition; Zum Problem: Johannes und die Synoptiker,” in Das Johannesevangelium—Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen (ed. T. Söding; QD 203; Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 60–118, esp. 60, 74; Manfred Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Joh 18–20 vor dem markinischen und lukanischen Hintergrund (FRLANT 182; Göttingen:

288 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE In all these questions the Gospel of John itself does not offer explicit information. Instead, we also have to rely on external evidence. The varying and at times contradictory contributions to the debate are based on differences in the argumentative and methodological presuppositions. At this point the exegete of the Gospel of John must rely on the reconstruction of information not given by the author of the Gospel of John. This fact opens the field for a wide variety of interpretations, the reason for this many-layered debate. At this point we focus the question of how the Gospel of Thomas can help in answering some of these questions. For this purpose it is necessary to turn briefly to the introductory questions of this work. The Gospel of Thomas is the most fascinating and most controversial writing of all the New Testament Apocrypha.17 This prominent position is the result of the following facts: There is evidence for the existence of the Gospel of Thomas as early as the end of the second century C.E., e.g., by Hippolytus, Origen, or Eusebius. However, the only complete copy was not found until 1945 in the Nag Hammadi Writings. As a consequence of this finding, parts of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, which had already been found at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, could be identified as older Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas. Yet even if the only extant versions of the Gospel of Thomas were thus found in Egypt, it is rather obvious that the origins of this tradition are even older. Linguistic evidence Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 11. Even more difficult is the question of the relationship between Pauline and Johannine theology. Although there are marked affinities, there are hardly any explicit references. An affinity between Johannine and Pauline theology would be all the more reasonable if Ephesus is seen as the seat of the Johannine school, insofar as the Pauline school also had its seat there. Cf. Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, A History of the First Christians (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 178; Udo Schnelle, “Paulus und Johannes,” EvT 47 (1987): 212–28, passim; Dieter Zeller, “Paulus und Johannes,” BZ NS (1983): 167–182, 167 17. Helpful overviews on the controversy and scholarly debate on the Gospel of Thomas are given by, e.g., Francis T. Fallon and Regina M. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas. A Forschungsbericht and Analysis,” ANRW 25.6:4195–4251; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 75–127; Bentley Layton and Thomas O. Lambdin, “The Gospel according to Thomas,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, vol. 1, Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons and Indexes (ed. B. Layton; NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 95–128; Stephen J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition: A Forschungsbericht and Critique,” Foundation and Facets Forum 8, nos. 1–2 (1992): 45–97; Gregory J. Riley, “The Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship,” CurBS 2 (1994): 227–52; Christopher M. Tuckett, “Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien,” BTZ 12 (1995): 186–200; Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 122–40.

E NNO E. POPKES

289

as well as the correspondence to other so-called Thomas-writings (above all the Acts of Thomas) indicate that Syria is actually the home of these traditions, which have spread from there in various directions.18 The fascination of the Gospel of Thomas is founded above all in the observation that it appears to have the same genre that had already been reconstructed before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi writings for the sayings source Q. Even if the subscript calls the work the “Gospel according to Thomas,” it does not correspond to the genre of the Synoptic Gospels. Instead, it offers 114 sayings only rarely joined into thematically consistent units. Mostly they are single sayings of Jesus. Even if minor dialogues are initiated by questions of the disciples, the Gospel of Thomas does not offer any geographic, chronological, or narrative context of these words of Jesus. Accordingly, it does not include a passion or resurrection narrative. Various readers have seen these formal aspects as indications that the Gospel of Thomas offers older stages of traditions than the Synoptic Gospels. Some claim that it represents a trajectory of early Christianity19 that is markedly different from the Pauline, synoptic, or Johannine traditions. They say that in this line of development, the suffering, death, and particularly the resurrection of Jesus did not have any central importance. Instead, they say that Jesus showed himself as a teacher of wisdom who above all wanted to transfer self-understanding to his disciples. At times they even claim that in the Gospel of Thomas readers can discern the original intention of Jesus, which had not yet been covered up by later attempts at interpretation, not to mention the restricting formations of a canon and of dogmas. It is evident that these questions gave rise to fundamental controversies. As a point of interest, we can observe that at times there is almost a “continental drift” between North American and European interpretations of the Gospel of Thomas. For instance, various North American approaches regard parts of the Gospel of Thomas as some of the earliest written documents of the gospel tradition, closely connected with the sayings source

18. Concerning the relationship between the so-called “Thomas-writings,” see PaulHubert Poirier, “The Writings Ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition,” in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (ed. J. D. Turner and A. McGuire; NHS 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 295–307. For an overview of the geographical extension of the Thomas traditions, see Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions (London: SCM, 1987), 362–63 19. On the terms and understandings of various “trajectories” in early Christianity, see the fundamental contributions of Helmut Köster and James M. Robinson, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971).

290 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE Q, and to be dated in the first century.20 In opposition to this, other scholars regard the Gospel of Thomas as a relatively late gnostic modification or transformation of the New Testament gospel tradition, and at the earliest date it around the middle of the second century C.E.21 At this point we can demonstrate the importance and complexity of the question, whether the Gospel of Thomas is relevant for understanding the Gospel of John.

3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS At the early stage of research in the Gospel of Thomas, the main question above all was how this document is related to the Synoptic Gospels. Only rather late did scholars recognize that the links between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John are even more complex.22 I explain this 20. Examples of a rather early date for early stages of the text of the Gospel of Thomas are Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (FF Reference Series; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1993), 116–17; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 21; idem, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: Ursprung und Wesen der Mannigfaltigkeit im frühen Christentum,” Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (ed. H. Köster and J. M. Robinson; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 107–46, 126–27; Theodor Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium (NHS 47; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 19–25 and 96–98. 21. Thus, e.g., Wolfgang Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den synoptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964), passim, comes to the conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas can be seen as a gnostic interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. Methodologically more careful are the views by, e.g., Jens Schröter and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser for the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Koptische-gnostische Schriften 2; NHC I,1–V,1; GCS NS 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 151–81, 155: “Eine Datierung des EvThom nicht früher als das 2. Jahrhundert legt sich … zunächst näher, während die hypothetische Zurückführung auf eine weisheitlich geprägte Traditionslinie der Jesusüberlieferung mit zu vielen Unsicherheiten belastet erscheint.” 22. Even if the thematic correspondence between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas has been recognized quite early (cf., e.g., Raymond E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” NTS 9 [1962/63]: 155–77), in-depth research of these relations began considerably later. For the research history, see, e.g., James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 360–89; Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Elaine H. Pagels, Das Geheimnis des fünften Evangeliums: Warum die Bibel nur die halbe Wahrheit sagt (trans. from English, K. Neff; Munich: Beck, 2004), 36–79; April D. De Conick,

E NNO E. POPKES

291

fact on the basis of two aspects, on the one hand the observation of corresponding themes (sec. 3.1), and on the other the statements about Thomas (3.2). Against this background the relationship between these documents can be discussed (3.3–4).

3.1. Thematic Parallels Between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas There are up to forty-four parallels between the Gospel of John and that of Thomas.23 In the following I will focus on only three examples to demonstrate a fact that is important for our question. On the one hand there are motifs or phrases that, strictly speaking, we find only in these two documents. On the other hand, however, these are developed in differing and even at times contradictory ways. Thus, in the first saying of the Gospel of Thomas, we find that he who discovers the meaning of these secret words of Jesus will not taste death. Correspondingly John 8:52 says that he who keeps the words of Jesus will not see death in eternity. This motif corresponds to the strong accent on present eschatology in both documents. Thus, for example, the Johannine Jesus emphasizes in John 5:24 that he who hears his word and believes him has already received eternal life. He does not enter the judgment but has already passed from death into life. The present reception of the resurrection is also expressed in saying 51 of the Gospel of Thomas. Here the disciples ask when the “resurrection,” meaning the eschatological rest of the dead, will occur, and when the “new world” will begin. The answer of Jesus, however, declares that this expectation, oriented toward a future eschatology, is fundamentally wrong. He says that this resurrection, meaning rest, has already arrived. The disciples just do not recognize it.24 Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (JSNTSup 157; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2001), 68–70, esp. 86–87. 23. For a complete collection, see James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in the Agrapha and the Apocryphal Gospels,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans; NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 479–533, esp. 496–98. 24. The lack of traditional apocalyptic expectations in the Gospel of Thomas is not an indication that Jesus’ message was secondarily transformed by traditional eschatological motifs. Rather, the apocalyptic or future-eschatological traits of the message of Jesus and of the synoptic tradition were relativized consistently in the Gospel of Thomas. Cf. Enno E. Popkes, “Von der Eschatologie zur Protologie: Die Transformation apokalyptischer Motive im Thomasevangelium,” in Apokalyptik als bleibende Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie (ed. M. Becker and M. Öhler; WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming), 213–35. For a different point of view, see Dieter

292 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE While the basic theological direction of these parallels appears to be quite comparable, the third example offers an explicit contrast. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas says that he had stood in the midst of the world and had appeared to humankind in the flesh (28a). This statement strikingly reminds us of a central thesis of the Johannine Prologue, where the author, or the group that handed down this tradition, confesses that Jesus, the Word of God, has become flesh, and they have seen his glory ( John 1:14). This motif, however, is developed in both gospels in opposite ways. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus talks about the bodily existence of mankind in an eminently negative way. Thus saying 87 emphasizes that the soul clinging to a body is miserable. Correspondingly, saying 112 says: “Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul. Woe to the soul that depends on the flesh.” Against the background of this statement, it is rather clear that the statement about the incarnation of Jesus in saying 28, also true of 29, has a docetic tendency. All the more impressive that the Gospel of John polemicizes especially against any docetic tendency. This subject is the cause of the schism among the disciples described in 6:60–71. Behind this narrative lies the breakup of the Johannine community, which is more easily visible in the Johannine Epistles. And in these documents, which are the closest aids in our understanding of the Gospel of John, it is particularly clear that the understanding of the incarnation of Jesus was one of the most central points of conflict within the Johannine school. These few hints at the points of contact between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John already give rise to the question of whether these writings are related tradition-historically or even rival each other. This impression is strengthened when we take into account that in both writings the disciple Thomas is given a special relevance.

3.2. The Statements About Thomas in the Gospel of John and in the Gospel of Thomas In no other writing of the New Testament is the disciple Thomas given so much attention as in the Gospel of John. Although the Synoptic Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle; Anhang: Zur weiteren Überlieferung der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 72–75, 94–97; Helmut Koester, “Q and Its Relatives,” in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (ed. J. E. Goehring et al.; ForFasc 1; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990), 49–63.

E NNO E. POPKES

293

Gospels and Acts in lists of disciples/apostles mention him in passing as a member of the Twelve,25 the Fourth Gospel refers to him four times in a pronounced way (the Syriac text tradition sys.a(c) even offers a fifth passage by identifying the Judas of John 14:22 as Thomas). At first sight every single instance of these references has a negative connotation. Already in the first two references the text presents him as a skeptical and dim-witted disciple ( John 11:16; 14:5).26 This can be seen even more pronouncedly in the encounter of the risen Jesus with the disciples (20:24–28). According to the narrative, Thomas was not among the disciples at the first appearance of the risen Jesus. In order to really believe in the resurrection, he insists that he himself must see Jesus and put his fingers into his wounds. Jesus grants this wish and admonishes him that he is to believe even if he does not see Jesus (20:29). Readers have mainly seen this episode as a strong criticism of Thomas. They have taken Thomas to be the paradigm for doubt and a narrative contrast to the beloved disciple, who is particularly close to Jesus and trusts in him implicitly. Yet it is possible to read the references to Thomas in a completely different way. It is the skeptical Thomas, of all people, who finally recognizes the true dignity of Jesus. Thomas, who in the narrative has thus far been seen in such a critical light, in the end confesses that Jesus is his Lord and his God—and this is no more and no less than the highest christological confession in the whole New Testament. For reasons like this, James Charlesworth comes to the conclusion that one of the literary highlights of the Gospel of John lies hidden in the realization that Thomas himself is the favorite disciple.27 25. This corresponds to the lists of disciples in Papias of Hierapolis and in the Epistle to the Apostles (cf. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 79–81). On the general relationship between the statements about Thomas in the Gospel of John and in the Gospel of Thomas, see Ismo Dunderberg, “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple,” in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (ed. R. Uro; Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 65–88; idem, “The Beloved Disciple in John: Ideal Figure in an Early Christian Controversy,” in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity; Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (ed. I. Dunderberg, C. M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni; NovTSup 103; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 243–69; Joseph Pamplaniyil, “The Beloved Disciple and Thomas: The Literary Didymoi of the Fourth Gospel,” Vid 68, no. 8 (2004): 560–78. 26. By comparison the reference in John 21:2 is more neutral. 27. This corresponds to the presentation of Thomas in further writings of the socalled Thomas tradition. Cf. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 377–81, esp. 419; particularly on the Book of Thomas the Contender, see Hans-Martin Schenke, “Das Buch des Thomas (NHC II,7),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser for the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Koptische-gnostische Schriften 2; NHC I,1–V,1; GCS NS 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 279–91, 285.

294 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE Yet even if we cannot unfold this complex question further in this essay, we can maintain the Gospel of John portrays Thomas as a multifaceted figure. By contrast, the Gospel of Thomas presents him in an exclusively positive way. The incipit and first saying (NHC II,2 32.10–14) already mark the Gospel of Thomas as the secret (hidden) words of Jesus, written down by Didymus Judas Thomas, whose meaning is to be searched and realized. Saying 13 explicitly pronounces his special position among the disciples, already mentioned here. In this saying Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is. After Peter and Matthew have given plainly unsatisfactory answers, Thomas replies that his mouth is incapable of uttering who Jesus is. Accordingly, Jesus tells Thomas three secret words, which the other disciples may not know. Correspondingly, the text emphasizes that Thomas does not need Jesus as teacher (13e). These sayings already demonstrate the special position of Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas. His preeminence becomes more apparent as we regard these sayings in relation to the opening of the Gospel of Thomas. Accordingly, the hidden words of Jesus are given only to those who acknowledge the importance of Thomas as the guarantor for the tradition, meaning these words written down by Thomas.28 Now we finally stand before a core question of this essay: What is the relationship between these two early Christian documents, which have such stunning links in subject and which give Thomas such special attention. In the next step I focus this question.

3.3. Different Views on the Relationship of the Two Gospels The relationship between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas has only been discussed intently for less than ten years. There are four basic types or schemes for relating these traditions.29

28. Fittingly, Schröter and Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2),” 151–81, 163. 29. On these categorizations, see Ismo Dunderberg, “John and Thomas in Conflict?” in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years (ed. J. D. Turner and A. McGuire; NHS 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 361–80, esp. 361–63; Enno E. Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht’—Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 641–74, esp. 642–43.

E NNO E. POPKES

295

Approach 1:

The Gospel of John inspired the Gospel of Thomas, either directly30 or by means of a gnostically oriented mediator.31

Approach 2:

The Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas occurred independently from traditions that could derive either from Jewish-Christian, Encratite, or wisdom influences.32

Approach 3:

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John both stem from the same circles and rival each other.33

Approach 4:

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John rival each other, but do not derive from the same circles.34

Even if in this essay I cannot discuss the argumentative bases, strengths, and weaknesses of these approaches in detail, I want to make 30. Cf. e.g., Jesse Sell, “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas,” PRSt 7 (1980): 24–37; Miroslav Markovich, “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas,” JTS 20 (1969): 53–74, esp. 73–74. 31. Cf. e.g., Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” 155–77, esp. 176–77; also similarly Ismo Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (ed. R. Uro; Studies of the New Testament and Its world; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 33–64, esp. 63–64; idem, “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple,” 65–88, esp. 73–76; Harold W. Attridge, “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking,’” From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. W. Meyer; BETL 147; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 295–302, esp. 300–302. 32. On a Jewish-Christian Encratite setting, see, e.g., Gilles Quispel, “‘The Gospel of Thomas’ and the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’” NTS 12 (1965/66): 371–82; idem, “Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity,” John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 137–55, esp. 144–46. On a wisdom setting, see, e.g., Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition,” 45–97; idem, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus; Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium, 101–6, esp. 253–59; however, he does not undertake a uniform interpretation of the character of the Gospel of Thomas. The wisdom or early-gnostic characterizations also vary in Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 113–15, esp. 256–63; idem, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 178–80; idem, “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; SHR 41; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 1:238–61; in both traditions different redaction levels should be distinguished. 33. Cf. e.g., Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 387–89; Stevan L. Davies, “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” JBL 111 (1992): 663–82, esp. 681–82; idem, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983), 116. 34. Cf. e.g., Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 176–77; idem, “The Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship,” 227–52; similarly also April D. De Conick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (VCSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 72–73; idem, Voices of the Mystics, 68–70, 86–88; Pagels, Das Geheimnis des fünften Evangeliums, 36–79, esp. 45; similar approaches in Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 263; Takashi Onuki, “Traditionsgeschichte von Thomasevangelium 17 und ihre christologische Relevanz,” in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 399–415, 410–12.

296 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE a few comments: The first approach argues on the basis that the Gospel of Thomas was written after the Gospel of John and has been influenced by it either directly or indirectly. This approach has its merits, but in my view it suffers from one decisive weakness: How can such an approach explain the critical statements about Thomas in the Gospel of John? According to this view, the author of the Fourth Gospel would have been accidentally using the figure of Thomas in order to develop a paradigm for a development of faith. How is it possible, then, that the Gospel of Thomas, meaning the Thomas tradition, promotes precisely this disciple, who has been criticized so much, as the main guarantor of the tradition. A similar problem also concerns the second approach, according to which the gospels of John and of Thomas independently use common traditions. Such an approach can explain the thematic parallels, yet it cannot satisfactorily answer why Thomas is the one who is held in so differing esteem. For this reason I lean toward the third approach or the fourth one; each of them argues on the basis of a conflict between these traditions. The difference between these approaches consists in whether both gospels are derived from an originally common group, or whether these groups have always been in rivalry with each other. Thus, Stephan Davies and James Charlesworth, for example, argue on the basis that both gospels originally stem from the same intellectual source. However, they have developed this common heritage differently, and now they rival each other.35 By contrast, Gregory John Riley, April De Conick, or Takashi Onuki are exponents of the proposition that the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John are rivals, but that they cannot be traced back to common origins or circles. I myself am still hovering between the third and fourth models. However, I want to hint at an approach that could bring further insights on the question:

3.4. An Impulse to the Debate I explain this impulse to the debate on the basis of the—in my view—clearest parallel between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas: the 35. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 370–72 and 387–89 are correct: he points out that such an explanatory model does not necessarily imply that the Gospel of Thomas must have been written before the Gospel of John. The corresponding developments of the tradition could already have occurred earlier.

E NNO E. POPKES

297

self-predication of Jesus as the light. This famous I-am word is found in John 8:12 as well as in Gos. Thom. 77a. Apart from this literal correspondence, both gospels and the Johannine Epistles contain light metaphors in a pronounced way (1 John 1:5–7; 2:7–11; John 1:4–10; 3:1–21; 9:4–5; 11:9–10; 12:35–36; 12:45–46; Gos. Thom. 11d, 24c, 33, 50, 61e, 83). What relevance does this phenomenon have for determining the relationship between the Johannine writings and the Gospel of Thomas? I have discussed this question in detail in a special essay.36 One central result of this investigation was that the christological and soteriological functions of the light metaphors are fundamentally different in both tradition circles. The Gospel of John has a christological focus of the light metaphors that is directed toward the audience acknowledging Jesus as the light of the world. Corresponding to this, the Gospel of John presents no anthropological motifs of an immanent light, the human capacity for knowledge (cf., e.g., Luke 11:33–36 par. Matt 6:22–23), and certainly no motifs of a saving spark of light in the disciples as they strive back toward their place of origin. This lack of such motifs is all the more striking as we recognize the Gospel of John’s pronounced language of immanence.37 Neither the language of immanence nor the light metaphors propagate the salvatory knowledge of an inner light, but instead the acknowledgment of Jesus as the light of the world. This shows a clear discrepancy to later early-gnostic and gnostic traditions, where the motif of a saving spark of light becomes a fundamental soteriological motif for the gnostics (Gos. Thom. 24c, 61e, 83).38 And such a fundamentally gnostic orientation can also be recognized in the light metaphors of the Gospel of Thomas. The light metaphors of the Gospel of Thomas are based on an anthropology that contradicts Johannine theology. Even if is not possible to characterize the Gospel of Thomas as a typical gnostic document, the light metaphors have affinities to gnostic texts. Even if the Gospel of Thomas 36. Cf. Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht,’” 641–74. 37. Cf. Klaus Scholtissek, In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften (HBS 21; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 1, 33–34, 364, etc. 38. Cf. Michael Fieger, Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Systematik (NTAbh 22; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991), 215 on Gos. Thom. 50, 61e, 77; Fieger claims that the knowledge about their own spark of light enables the gnostics to have a mutual relationship with the fullness of light called Jesus. Similarly Davies, “Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” 663–82, 665–66. Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium, 127–28, correctly sees in this a complete contrast between John 8:14b; 13:33; and 16:28 on the one hand, and Gos. Thom. 49–50 on the other. Interestingly, the only passages of the Gospel of John that hint at a light immanence (11:10; 12:35) are avoided in parts of the Syriac and Coptic verisions (esp. sys.p; sa ac2; pbo [proto-Bohairic]; etc.).

298 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE does not develop an elaborated redemptive myth, parts and tendencies of later gnostics systems are discernible.39 But these results are not the focus of this essay. In the following I merely refer to another result of this study, which in my view opens new levels for the debate. We can see the decisive fact by comparing the Coptic and the Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas.40 A comparison between Gos. Thom. 77 und P.Oxy. 1.23–30 shows that at this point the Greek fragments and the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas differ markedly from each other: The imperatives in Gos. Thom. 77c already occur in P.Oxy. 1.23–30 as the ending of saying 30. The Greek version offers an I-am word, which cannot be found in the Coptic text (“I am with him”; cf. P.Oxy 1.26–27). By contrast, the I-am words of the Coptic version do not occur in the Greek fragments. That means that the clearest light-metaphorical parallel between both gospels occurs only in the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas! Whether it derives from a different sequence in the Greek version remains speculation. Thus between P.Oxy. 1.23–30 and Gos. Thom. 77, there must have been redactional or compilatory revisions. The textual structure of Gos. Thom. 77 supports the conclusion that this redactional reworking has been done only during the translation into Coptic: The Coptic compiler links Gos. Thom. 77c to 77b by means of a keyword connection that exists only in the Coptic language.41 Thus, a coherent connection between Gos. Thom. 77b and 77c is possible only in the Coptic version. Yet what does this mean for the relationship between the Gospel of John and that of Thomas? First, here we find a paradigmatic example of a decisive dilemma in any research on the Gospel of Thomas. The only complete copy extant to us undoubtedly shows signs of redactional work. 39. Various scholars propose that the Gospel of Thomas cannot be seen as a gnostic testimony because it does not contain any detailed gnostic myth. For this discussion see Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 360; Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 370–71. In my view, however, this argument falls short of the truth since we also have to consider the implicit preconditions of the existing motif structures. 40. On the general relationship between the Greek and the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas, cf. Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel according to Thomas; Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, vol. 1, Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons and Indexes (ed. B. Layton; NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 92–128; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Oxyrynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas,” TS 20 (1959): 505–60; Otfried Hofius, “Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrynchus-Papyri Nr. 1, 654 und 655,” EvT 20 (1960): 21–42, esp. 182–92. 41. On these redactional revisions, cf. E. E. Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht,’” 641–74, 655; Tuckett, “Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien,” 186–200, esp. 192.

E NNO E. POPKES

299

However, we do not know how many redactional revisions there were since only relatively few Greek fragments are left to us. We just do not know what the earliest text versions of the Gospel of Thomas looked like. Furthermore, if we ask when these revisions took place, we must recognize a second phenomenon: The self-predication of Jesus as light (Gos. Thom. 77a) also occurs in the document immediately before the Gospel of Thomas in the second codex of the Nag Hammadi library; that document is the long version of the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1 30.33–36; IV,1 47.24–27). In contrast to the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of John refers explicitly to the Johannine writings and according to its self-view is an additional revelation to the Gospel of John.42 The monologue of the pronoia, which only exists in the long version (NHC II,1 30.12–31.25; IV,1 46.23–49.6), does not only offer the I-am saying from Gos. Thom. 77a corresponding to John 8:12, but also complex light metaphors that remind us of motifs in the Gospel of Thomas and in the Johannine writings. The theological direction is directly opposed to that of the Johannine Christology; however, it does correspond to the light metaphors of the Gospel of Thomas. This could indicate that the different versions of the Apocryphon of John represent an increasing Johannine coloration of originally non-Johannine conceptions. The quote of John 8:12, which has been worked into the long version of the Apocryphon of John and into Gos. Thom. 77a, joins the light metaphors of both writings with each other and with the Johannine theology. In this sense the light metaphors of the Apocryphon of John and of the Gospel of Thomas can effect a rereading of corresponding texts of the Fourth Gospel. This finally leads to the question 42. Cf. Titus Nagel, “Zur Gnostisierung der johanneischen Tradition: Das ‘geheime Evangelium nach Johannes’ (Apokryphon Johannis) als gnostische Zusatzoffenbarung zum Evangelium,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 675–94; idem, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 2; Halle: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 385–94. Furthermore, see Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 51–52; Michael Waldstein, “The Providence Monologue in the Apokryphon of John and the Johannine Prologue,” JECS 3 (1995): 369–402; Pieter J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 4; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 110–23. However, this does not prove the gnostic character of the Johannine theology, but it shows the interest of gnostic circles in using gnostic views to transform the Johannine texts. By contrast, Luise Schottroff, Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (WMANT 37; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 236–38, esp. 275, etc., attempts to prove the gnostic character of Johannine theology by recurring to the “Pronoia-monologue” of the long version of the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1 30.11–31, esp. 25; NHC IV,1 46.1–49.6).

300 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE of whether there is a connection between the circles that have revised Gos. Thom. 77 and the circles around the Apocryphon of John. Could they have been the same groups?43 It is possible to point out similar phenomena in other writings of the Nag Hammadi library, particularly in the Gospel of Philip, found immediately after the Gospel of Thomas in NHC II, or in the only other writing in the library of Nag Hammadi that, apart from the Gospel of Thomas, derives its authority from the apostle Thomas: the Book of the Thomas the Contender, NHC II,7. Like the long version of the Apocryphon of John, these other writings contain a large number of thematic hints of links to the Gospel of Thomas as well as the Gospel of John. However, they mostly correspond to the theology of the Gospel of Thomas and contradict to that of John’s Gospel. This phenomenon is also relevant for the main question of this essay, whether the Gospel of Thomas is relevant for understanding the Gospel of John. If we are to adequately describe the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John, we must take into account later lines of developments related to these writings. At the same time we can see that the conflicts did not end with the writing of the Gospel of John. Rather, the movements and groups that were behind the Johannine writings or the writings about Thomas developed further in differing ways. These developments certainly go beyond the definable formations of communities or early school traditions. In different ways they influenced the wide field of the variety of traditions that in the second and third century were rivals to influence the process formating the identity of early Christianity. However, I must emphasize that the Gospel of Thomas only offers an interpretative aid for some and not for all the traits of Johannine theology. The Gospel of John has resulted from clearly definable conflicts and wants to communicate within those. The Gospel of Thomas can help to improve scholars’ grasp of some of these conflict situations (e.g., the anti-Docetic controversies and their relevance for Christology and anthropology). 43. Similarly, Hans-Josef Klauck, Apokryphe Evangelien: Eine Einführung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 226, assumes that the long version of the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1) must be seen as the first part of a reading unit, which was supposed to give a thematic basis to the following Gospel of Thomas. It is equally clear for Hans-Martin Schenke, “Das Evangelium nach Philippus (NHC II,3),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser for the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Koptische-gnostische Schriften 2; NHC I,1–V,1; GCS NS 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 183–213, esp. 188, that the following Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) has a tradition history common with the Gospel of Thomas.

E NNO E. POPKES

301

However, it offers hardly any aids for understanding the parts of the Gospel of John that deal with conflicts between Johannine Christians and Jewish opponents. I discuss this fundamental difference in the next passage, which will also show the importance of a religious-historical comparison with the writings from Qumran for understanding the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John.

4. ABOUT THE DIFFERING APPROACHES TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE 4.1. The Relationship of John and Thomas to Qumran In the previous paragraphs I discussed indicators that argue for the conclusion that the groups behind the Gospel of Thomas and that of John had contact with each other or were rivals. Against this background I can explain a marked difference between these early Christian writings: they address the Old Testament and early Jewish roots of Christianity in a completely different way. Since the discoveries at the Dead Sea have considerably enriched our knowledge of the early Jewish intellectual world at the outset of early Christianity, we need to study them to ascertain how far religious-historical comparisons with the Qumran texts are relevant for interpretating the Johannine writings or the Gospel of Thomas.

4.2. On the Religious-Historical Comparison Between the Texts from Qumran and the Gospel of John The writings from Qumran are a milestone for the religious-historical placement of the Gospel of John. A multitude of pronounced links in language and motifs have caused many scholars to assume the possibility of a direct or indirect contact between the Qumran and the Johannine communities.44 The decisive relevance of the writings from Qumran for 44. On the scholarly debate and on the outline of points of comparison in terms and motifs, see, e.g., James H. Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III:13–IV:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Chapman, 1972), 76–106; idem, “Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John,” BRev 9 (1993): 18–25, 54; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black; Louisville: Westminster John

302 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE Johannine research, however, lies in a different aspect: It is a fundamental insight of the more recent research on Qumran that the texts are not to be regarded as a uniform theological concept, but that texts or groups of texts of varying theological origins should be differentiated. These represent not only genuinely Qumran but also, among others, pre-Essene or Essene concepts.45 The special importance of the writings from Qumran is therefore that they offer an insight into a world of early Jewish texts and thought previously unknown to us. In this sense the texts from Qumran are also immensely relevant for the religious-historical setting of the Johannine theology. I briefly illustrate this fact in three examples that are frequently addressed in the discussion about the relationship between these traditions: the statements about predestination, the concept of the commandment to love, and the motifs of light metaphors. The Johannine writings offer a wide range of statements about predestination (cf. esp. John 3:3, 5–6, 8; 6:44–45, 65; 8:46–47; 9:39; 12:37–41; 1 John 3:7–10; etc.). Sequences such as John 8:44–47; 1 John 3:7–10 present an almost deterministic understanding of sonship to God Knox, 1996), 65–97; Jörg Frey, “Licht aus den Höhlen? Der ‘johanneische Dualismus’ und die Texte von Qumran,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 117–203; idem, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335, esp. 277–78; Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel,” 267–79, 269, 271–72, etc.; David E. Aune, “Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reassessment of the Problem,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (ed. D. E. Aune, T. Seland, and J. H. Torrey; NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 281–303. On attempts at reconstructing a Johannine theology or history of the community and on the assumption of an Essene influence on individual members of the community or the author of the Johannine writings, see also J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 176–77; John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 236–37; Eugen Ruckstuhl, “Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte,” in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (SBAB 3; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 355–95, 393–94; Raymond E. Brown, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” CBQ 17 (1955): 403–19, 559–74; Charlesworth, “The Priority of John?” 73–114. 45. Cf. VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 29–31, 71–73; on criteria for the distinction between pre-Essene, Essene, and genuinely Qumran texts, see Armin Lange, “In Diskussion mit dem Tempel: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998), 113–59, 131–33; idem, Weisheit und Prädestination (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 6–20; Armin Lange and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Qumran,” TRE 28:55–79, esp. 55–56.

E NNO E. POPKES

303

or to the devil. Both texts emphasize that the fundamental ontological situation of a human being influences their capability to gain understanding and manage their behavior. In John 8:42a the Johannine Jesus denies to his opponents the divine sonship they claim for themselves. Only someone who loves Jesus is seen as proving themselves children of God. By contrast, Jesus regards his opponents as children of the devil because they do the works of their father. They are denied the capability to understand the message of Jesus ( John 8:43b, 46–47). A similar argument is the basis of the differentiation between children of God and of the devil in 1 John 3:7–10. Whoever sins is from the devil because the devil sins “from the beginning” (3:8a). By contrast, the epistle sees the children of God as incapable of sinning since the “sperma of God” has its lasting effect in them (3:9a). The fundamental ontological situation of a human being thus determines their individual behavior.46 Because these radical statements do not have any analogues in the New Testament, various scholars have claimed that they could be influenced by Qumran theology, which also shows marked predestinarian traits.47 Thus, for example, according to 1QS 3.15–18 all individual and cosmic processes are determined before the beginning of creation, and human history strictly follows the plan of God: “From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be. Before they existed he established their entire design. And when they have come into being, at their appointed time, they will execute all their works according to his glorious design, without altering anything” (cf. 1QS 3.15–16).48 These 46. In spite of this thematic correspondence, there is a significant difference between these passages in that the anthesis between the children of God and the children of the devil in 1 John 3:7–10 reflects the schism in the community, while in John 8:42–47 the controversy is between Jesus and the Jews. On the correspondence and the tradition-historical background of these birth metaphors, cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief (EKKNT 23.1; Zurich: Benzinger, 1991), 193, esp. 329; similarly J. de Waal Dryden, “The Sense of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9 in Light of Lexical Evidence,” Filología Neotestamentica 11, nos. 21–22 (1998): 85–100, esp. 98–99; Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John (HUT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 70–71, esp. 80–83 47. On the relationship between 1 John 3:7–10 und 1QS 1.3–10; 3.17–88; 1QH 14 (= 6 Sukenik).29–30; etc.; see, e.g., James L. Price, “Light from Qumran upon Some Aspects of Johannine Theology,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Chapman, 1972; repr., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1990) 9–37, esp. 22, etc.; Otto Böcher, Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), 147; Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism,” 76–106, 103–4, etc.; J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 176; Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 212–13; Marie-Émile Boismard, “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 156–65, 164–65.

304 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE words, however, derive from the Doctrine of the Two Spirits, which is a proto-Essene text and thus not a genuinely Qumran concept. It shows the development of predestinarian concepts, which can already be observed in texts such as the Book of the Mysteries (1Q27; 4Q299–301) or the Mûsr le m˜ bîn (Instruction = Sapiential Work A [4Q415–418, 423]).49 Insofar as such tendencies are further propagated and developed in genuine texts from Qumran, they clearly show the central importance of the predestinarian and deterministic worldview for the Qumran community.50 Since these tendencies occur not only in genuine texts from Qumran, the predestinarian traits of the Johannine theology do not necessarily have to be regarded as immediate aftereffects of Qumran theology. The decisive gain of a religious historical comparison between these Qumran and Johannine texts, however, lies in a different aspect: Even if in Johannine and Qumran texts we can find comparable metaphorical patterns and predestinarian statements linked to birth, the fundamental theological intentions are drastically different. We can see this as the predestinarian self-understanding brings consequences for behavior toward outsiders, particularly in the inclusion of the commandment to love. Frequently scholars have claimed that in the Johannine writings the commandment to love is limited in a strictly particular way to the Johannine community itself, since these texts refer only to love within the community. This focus, however, results from the intention of the author.51 By contrast to the commandment to love one’s enemies, 48. Thus, the proposed translation by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:75. 49. Cf. Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 126–32; idem, “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung,” The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 3–30, 12–18, esp. 17 A strictly predestinarian tendency of Essene theology is already mentioned in the outline of Jewish religious parties by Josephus, Ant. 13.172–173. 50. Cf. VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 76–78; Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in den Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 184–86. Comparable phenomena can also be seen in the motifs of the “children of God” or “of the devil.” Contrasts such as the “sons of light” and “sons of darkness” seem to have been fundamental for the self-view of the Qumran community (cf. e.g., 1QS 1.9–10). Similar equivalents such as the antithesis between “children/men of the light” and “children/men of the darkness” occur not only in other genuinely Qumran writings, but also in Essene and pre-Essene documents (Cf. e.g., CD 20.2, 4–5, 7a; 1QM 1.1, 3, 7, 9, 16; 3.6, 9; 13.16; 14.17; 16.11; 1QS 1.9–10; 2.16; 3.13, 24–25; 5.13, 18; 8.17, 20, 23; 9.8; 1QH 6.2; 10.13–14; 1QpHab 7.10; 4Q428 frag. 7 line 1; 4Q491 frags. 8–10 1.14; 4Q496 frag. 3 1.7; 4Q548 frag. 1 lines 10–11; etc.). Also, compare the outline of further dualistic structures in Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 275–335, 277–78.

E NNO E. POPKES

305

already mentioned in the Sayings Source (Matt 5:39–48 par. Luke 6:27–36), the Lukan rephrasing of the commandment to love (Luke 10:25–37), or Pauline statements about refraining from retribution or about the love for one’s enemies (Rom 12:9–21; 1 Cor 4:12–13; 1 Thess 5:15)—the question of the extent of the commandment to love is no immediate problem of the author of the First Epistle of John. Instead, he wants to remind his addressees of their mutual responsibility in the face of the Johannine schism. He does not address the alternative between brotherly love and the love for one’s neighbor but the fundamental contrast between the love and the hatred for one’s brother (cf. e.g., 1 John 2:9–11; 3:14–15). However, it is neither explicitly nor implicitly forbidden to practice the commandment to love also beyond the community’s borders.52 This fact categorically distinguishes the commandment to love in the Johannine writings from the self-view of the Qumran writings, which demands both love for the members of the group as well as hatred for outsiders. Thus, the Rule of the Community requires its audience to love “all the sons of light” (1QS 1.9b) and to hate “all the sons of darkness” (1QS 1.10b).53

51. Appropriately, Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (ZGB; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), 527; similarly, Rudolf K. Bultmann, Die drei Johannesbriefe (7th ed.; KEK 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 35; Georg Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe (KEK 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 263. By contrast, Fernando F. Segovia, Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agape¯/Agapan in I John and the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS 58; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 76, regards the Johannine commandment to love as limited to the group. Similarly James L. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), 36; Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (4th ed.; GNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 317–18, esp. 322; idem (5th ed.; 1989), 322; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 100; Ernst Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (4th ed., repr.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 136; Michael Lattke, Einheit im Wort (SANT 41; Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1975), 24–26; etc. More reconciliatorily, Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72, 71, speaks merely of a “sectarian consciousness” of the Johannine community. 52. More extensively on this, see Enno E. Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Studien zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus (WUNT 2/197; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 53. This request is furthermore included in the opening of a text that can be understood as a constitution of the Qumran community and repeats this several times. Cf. 1QS 1.3–4; 5.23–6.3; 9.15–16, 21–22; and VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 57–58, 76–77. Similarly James H. Charlesworth, “Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Crossroad Christian Origins Library; New York: Crossroad, 1991), 107–36, 114, emphasizes that one of

306 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE Even if the contrast to such a view on the community does not become as apparent as in, for example, Matt 5:43–48 paralleled by Luke 6:27–38; 10:25–37,54 the stark contrast between the version of the commandment to love in the Johannine writings and in genuinely Qumran documents becomes visible.55 Even the warning against a false love for the world (1 John 2:15–17) does not imply any separation from outsiders or a categorical disregard for the material world. Rather, the Johannine commandment to love is embedded in a theological overall view that aims at universal salvation. We explain this on the basis of the third theme that scholars have frequently seen as indicating an immediate tradition-historical link between the Qumran and the Johannine theology: the light metaphors. The antithesis of light and darkness is a central metaphorical paradigm of the Johannine writings.56 Some of these motifs correspond the most marked features of the dualistic traits of the Qumran texts consists in the fact that they serve as the basis of a strict ethical separation of the community. On the range of the presentations of the commandment to love in the specifically Qumran, Essene, and pre-Essene texts, see furthermore 1QH 4.21; 6.10–11, 25–27; 8.18–19; 1QS 3.26–4.1; 4Q258 frag. 2 3.1.; 4Q258 frag. 2 3.6; (4Q266 16–17); CD 6.20–21; 9.2, 7–8; etc.). Generally, on the antithesis between love and hatred in the texts of the Qumran library, see Thomas Söding, “Feindeshass und Bruderliebe: Beobachtungen zur essenischen Ethik,” RevQ 16 (1995): 601–19, 611–12; Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 201, 213, 217–18; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‘Liebe’ in den Handschriften von Qumran,” in Liebe, Macht und Religion: Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Grunddimensionen menschlicher Existenz; Gedenkschrift für Helmut Merklein (ed. M. Gielen and J. Kügler; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003), 43–61, 51–52 54. However, it remains unclear whether Matt 5:43–48; Luke 6:27–38; and 10:25–37 polemicize against genuinely Qumran concepts (corresponding contrasts between hatred and love can be found in the Qumran library in Qumran as well as in Essene and pre-Essene texts). A direct polemic against the Qumran idea of community is assumed, e.g., by Ethelbert Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu: Damals und heute (Dalp-Taschenbücher 333; Bern: Francke, 1959), 128–29; Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 1:17–18; more sceptical, however, Dieter Lührmann, “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27–36/Mt 5,39–48),” ZTK 69 (1972): 412–38, esp. 426; Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2d ed.; EKKNT 1.1; Zurich: Benzinger, 2002), 407–8. Conciliatorily, Söding, “Feindeshass und Bruderliebe, 601–19, esp. 619, concludes that among all the early Jewish texts, the said points of comparison with Qumran offer the most material. 55. Against, e.g., Howard M. Teeple, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel,” in The Composition of John’s Gospel, Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum (compiled by David E. Orton; Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 2; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–20, 12–13, Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, 139. Similarly Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu, 47, claims that late effects of the Qumran community’s self-view as presented in 1QS were responsible for the Johannine school driving out the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth (to love those of other groups). 56. Thus, 29 of the 73 occurrences of fw~v in the New Testament can be found in the Johannine writings. While the two short letters do not offer any light metaphors,

E NNO E. POPKES

307

clearly to aspects of the Qumran writings, such as the reference to “walking in the darkness” or the “sons of light” ( John 12:36; 1 John 2:11b; 1QS 1.9; 2.16; 3.13, 24–25; 1QM 1.1, 3, 9, 11, 13; 4QMidrEschata 3.8–9 [= 4Q174 frags. 1–2 1.8–9]; etc.).57 However, also in this context we must emphasize that the repertoire of light metaphors in the writings from Qumran is limited not only to the genuine writings from Qumran.58 Furthermore, we must consider that central light metaphors of the Johannine writings do not have any equivalent in the Qumran texts (e.g., the terms “the true light” [ John 1:9; 1 John 2:8]) or the “being” and “remaining in the darkness” [1 John 2:9; John 12:46]).59 Above all, however, the intention in the use of the light metaphors is different. Thus, the statements about God being light and the believers walking in the light in 1 John 1:5–7 and 2:7–11 were provoked by arguments within the community. The epistle does not present “walking in the light” as an ideal of Johannine discipleship but reflects it as a problematic claim of the opponents.60 The actual intention of these statements is not light-metaphorical speculation but the call to brotherly love.61 Even more apparent is the difference between the Johannine light metaphors in the Gospel of John and those in Qumran. In the Fourth Gospel the light metaphors are strictly oriented toward Christ and universal salvation (cf. John 1:4–5, 9–10; 8:12; etc.). We can already see the the Gospel of John contains 23, the 1 John has 6; more extensively on this, see Otto Schwankl, Licht und Finsternis: Ein metaphorisches Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften (HBS 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), passim. 57. On these corresponding motifs, see Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism, 76–106, 101–2. For Johann Maier and Kurt Schubert, Die QumranEssener: Texte der Schriftrollen und Lebensbild der Gemeinde (Uni-Taschenbücher 224; Munich: Reinhardt, 1973), 133, the similarities in the light metaphors are noticeable to such a degree that a closer connection cannot be doubted. 58. For an account of light-darkness contrasts in pre-Essene, Essene, and genuinely Qumran texts, see Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 275–335, 277–78. 59. These facts argue against an immediate connection between the groups behind the genuinely Qumran and the Johannine texts. Cf. Frey, “Licht aus den Höhlen?” 117–203, esp. 191–94; Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel,” 267–79, 272–73; Aune, “Dualism in the Fourth Gospel,” 281–303, esp. 288. 60. The few hints do not offer sufficient basis for a precise religious-historical setting of the opponents mentioned. Since light-metaphorical statements occur in highly different lines of tradition, the religious-historical placement of the opponents mentioned in 1 John 1:5–7; 2:7–11 is eminently difficult. 61. Thus, 1 John does not mention the question of the origin of creation either, unlike, e.g., 1QS 3.15–16, 25–26, which can be seen as a consequent development of Isa 45:7; cf. Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel,” 267–79, esp. 276; Franco Manzi, “Il Peccato, la sua universalità e le sue origini negli scritti qumranici,” ScC 126 (1998): 371–405, esp. 382–83.

308 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE basic intention of these motifs in the Prologue: The light came into the darkness, and the darkness could not overcome the light (1:5b, 10a). Instead, the light continues to shine and illuminates every human being (1:5a, 9b).62 John the Baptist also witnesses to this light by which “all” shall come to believe (1:7). The Gospel of John takes up these light-metaphorical motifs of the Prologue and develops them in various narrative contexts (cf., e.g., 3:19–21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:4–5; 11:9–10; 12:35–36, 46). The orientation toward universal salvation becomes particularly visible when Jesus calls himself the “light of the world” (8:12). As mentioned above, it is possible to see 8:12, against the background of the Johannine scriptural hermeneutic, as a rendition of various traditions of the Old Testament and early Judaism. One of these traditions is the predication of the Suffering Servant of God as “light of the nations” (Isa 42:6c), who is to bring justice and salvation until the end of the world (42:1d, 4b; 49:6; 52:13 LXX; 60:3; etc.).63 Thus, the Gospel of John takes up this fundamental theological trait of universal salvation from Deutero-Isaiah and develops it. Furthermore the self-predication of Jesus as the “light of the world” corresponds to the professions of John the Baptist and the Samaritans ( John 1:29; 4:42).64 In these contexts people who had previously been faced 62. Grammatically and in terms of content, it remains open whether John 1:9c refers to Jesus or to “all men”; on the debate, see Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos, 191–92, esp. 232–33; and Otfried Hofius, “Struktur und Gedankengang des Logos-Hymnus in Joh 1:1–18,” in Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (ed. O. Hofius and H.-C. Kammler; WUNT 88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 1–23, esp. 8–9. On the one hand, elsewhere the Gospel of John refers only to the coming of Jesus into the world (6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28; 16:27–28; in 3:19 and 12:46, even in a light-metaphorical context; correctly Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1:56). On the other hand, if “coming into the world” refers to “all men,” it corresponds to the universal statements of John 1:29; 3:16–17; 4:42; 8:12; etc. 63. Cf. e.g., Frey, “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder,” 228–68, esp. 256–58; Hartwig Thyen, “Ich bin das Licht der Welt: Das Ich- und Ich-Bin-Sagen Jesu im Johannesevangelium,” JAC 35 (1992): 19–42, 38; Hartmut Gese, “Der Johannesprolog,” in Zur biblischen Theologie (BEvT: ThAbh 78; Munich, 1977), 152–201, esp. 192–93. 64. These titles, seen in the dramaturgic flow of the Fourth Gospel, are confessions by John the Baptist (1:29) and the Samaritans (4:42). However, the Johannine letters at the same time prove them to be confessions of the Johannine community (cf. 1 John 2:2; 4:14). Furthermore, in the Hellenistic background of the honorary title “savior,” the epiphany of the savior could also be described by light metaphors. Cf. Franz Jung, SWTHR: Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament (NTAbh 39; Münster: Aschendorff, 2002), 140–42.

E NNO E. POPKES

309

with Jesus on a text-internal level now express their view on the person and the work of Jesus. They see him as the “lamb which bears the sin of the world” or “the Savior of the world.” Yet in 8:12 Jesus calls himself the “light of the world.” This narrative structure emphasizes the universal dimension of the work of Jesus. On the one hand the text uses different categories in order to mark the universality of the salvation events. On the other hand it increases the text-internal tension by first presenting professions about Jesus that are then confirmed by his own words. And this fundamental interest in universal salvation is a categorical difference between the Johannine and Qumran writings. Although the lightdarkness metaphors are among the most marked dualistic motifs of Johannine theology, they are not an indication of a Johannine dualism.65 Instead, the christological shape of the light metaphors aims at overcoming such a dualism.66 From the cited examples it is clear that the interpretation of the Johannine writings has been greatly enriched by the findings of the Qumran texts. Whether there were direct contacts between the two groups responsible for these writings or not, the writings from Qumran are some of the closest points of comparison for a religious-historical setting of the Johannine writings. And in precisely those areas where the Qumran and Johannine texts are closest in terms of motifs and language, the difference in content and the fundamental theological orientation become most apparent.

4.3. On the Religious-Historical Comparison Between the Texts from Qumran and the Gospel of Thomas A religious-historical comparison between the Qumran texts and the Gospel of Thomas offers a picture completely different from the religious-historical 65. We can also see this in the detail the Fourth Gospel uses to describe the believers as children of the light, but the text does not build up any antithesis between the “children of the light” and the “children of the darkness,” etc., as in Luke 16:8; 1 Thess 5:5; Eph 5:8. 66. Thus Schwankl, Licht und Finsternis, 360; Hans Weder, “Die Asymmetrie des Rettenden: Überlegungen zu Joh 3,14–21 im Rahmen johanneischer Theologie,” in Einblicke ins Evangelium: Exegetische Beiträge zur neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 435–65, esp. 454; Onuki, Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium, 218; Roman Kühschelm, Verstockung, Gericht und Heil: Exegetische und bibeltheologische Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Dualismus” und “Determinismus” in Joh 12,35–50 (BBB 76; Frankfurt: Hain, 1990), 280; specifically on the dialectic of the dualistic language and the traits of universal salvation of Johannine theology, cf. Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes.

310 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE comparison between the Qumran and the Johannine texts. The author or authors of the Johannine writings attempted to preserve the theological heritage of the Old Testament and the early-Jewish intellectual world and to use them as a foundation for interpreting the words and deeds of Jesus. We can find a large number of points of comparison in terminology and motifs, and yet these are received and modified in the specifically Johannine way. Even if the author of the Gospel of John envisages mainly pagan Christian addressees, to whom he has to explain central aspects of Jewish life and faith (as in 1:41; 2:6; 4:25; 11:55; 18:20, 28c; 19:40), he proves to be an author who is familiar with his Old Testament and earlyJewish predecessors and who knows to treat them in a confident and creatively innovative way. Also, the Gospel of John’s theologically highly problematic polemics against “the Jews” (5:10, 15–16, 18; 6:41; 7:1, 13; 8:44, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:31, 33; 11:8, 54; 18:36; 19:7, 14, 38b; 20:19) has in part resulted from an argument about the correct development of the theological heritage. By contrast, the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas have a completely different orientation. The Gospel of Thomas also contains sayings with a Jewish or Jewish-Christian influence. Sometimes Gos. Thom. 12 is seen as indicating a Jewish-Christian origin of the Gospel of Thomas. Here Jesus calls his brother James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth have been created. He tells the disciples to gather around James after the departure of Jesus.67 This esteem for the Lord’s brother, however, does not have to be seen as indicating any Jewish-Christian origins of the Gospel of Thomas. The Lord’s brother James also plays an important role in gnostic traditions.68 Above all, however, the actual intention of saying 12 is only apparent in saying 13, the next one, which addresses the special position of Thomas, who did not even need Jesus as teacher (13e). Jesus explicitly directs the disciples to James, to whom a leading function is given during Jesus’ absence. But Thomas is the one who has already received the hidden teaching of Jesus and who is presented as the actual guarantor of the tradition (13f).69 67. For similar traditions see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.2–5; Jerome, Vir. ill. 2; Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 114–15; Martin Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder—der erste ‘Papst’?” in Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, Paulus und Jakobus (WUNT 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 549–82, esp. 557. 68. For similar passages, e.g., 1 Apoc. Jas. (NHC V,3) 32.1–3; 2 Apoc. Jas. (NHC V,4) 60.11–13, see Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus, 151–77. 69. Thus Schröter and Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas” (NHC II,2), 151–81, esp. 163. For this reason Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder,” 549–82, 557n31, assumes correctly that Gos. Thom. 12 probably has the original version of

E NNO E. POPKES

311

Furthermore, it is notable that Jewish or Jewish-Christian traditions in the Gospel of Thomas are at times regarded as eminently negative. Thus, for example, in 6a the disciples are presented as asking in what way they are supposed to fast, pray, or give alms, and which food laws they are to observe. The immediate answer of Jesus in Gos. Thom. 6 regards this request as quite negative. Interestingly, a saying that is much later in the textual levels of the Gospel of Thomas offers an answer of Jesus that immediately fits the question in 6a; that is Gos. Thom. 14a–d. Also in this context, Jesus on a fundamental level rejects the practices of fasting or prayer and giving alms (cf. the statement in 14a, according to which the disciples will bring forth sin by fasting). Yet the strongest separation from the Jewish or Jewish-Christian foundations of early Christianity lies in Gos. Thom. 52. In the words of the disciples, this saying claims that the life and work of Jesus was predescribed by the Old Testament traditions or had to be interpreted in these categories (52a).70 Such a view, however, is rigorously rejected by the answer of Jesus. Any attempt to understand the fate of Jesus in these categories is deemed as “searching for the living among the dead” (55b). This idea is more than a sporadic polemic against Jewish cultic practices. Rather, it ends in a fundamental break with tradition, a break that on principle questions any form of christological embrace of the Hebrew Bible. And in this aspect the Gospel of Thomas is categorically different from the Gospel of John, which by contrast describes the words and deeds of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament traditions and hopes ( John 1:18; 5:39; and elsewhere).71 these statements about James, and that the relativization of his position by Gos. Thom. 13 was added later. 70. Cf. Peter Nagel, “‘Vierundzwanzig Propheten sprachen in Israel’ (EvThom 52): Prophetenbild und Prophetenerwartung im Judenchristentum und im Thomasevangelium,” in Auch ein Licht durchbricht die Finsternis: Gelehrsamkeit, Wissenschaftsopposition, Universalismus; Karam Khella zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet (ed. D. Quintern; Hamburg: Theorie-und-Praxis Verlag, 1999), 47–62, esp. 53–54. However, it is inappropriate for Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium, 251, to claim that Gos. Thom. 52 merely completes the set of those sayings in which Jesus refuses a higher position intended for him. 71. Furthermore, a large number of the New Testament’s interpretations of the death of Jesus are based on Old Testament and early-Jewish foundations. That the same do not occur in the Gospel of Thomas does not lead to the conclusion that this tradition belongs to an earlier stage, not yet shaped by the interpretative patterns of early-Christian theological history (thus, e.g., Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium, 54–60). Rather, an understanding of the death of Jesus on the basis of the Old Testament is impossible in the light of Gos. Thom. 52b. Cf. Enno E. Popkes, “Die Umdeutung des Todes Jesu im koptischen Thomasevangelium,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (ed. J. Frey and J. Schröter; WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 513–43.

312 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE Against this background it is also understandable why the Gospel of Thomas hardly contains any passages resembling the Qumran texts in either language or content. A religious historical comparison thus can only show how far the Gospel of Thomas has distanced itself from these early Jewish traditions. All the more notable, precisely the motifs of the Gospel of Thomas without parallel in early Judaism or the New Testament are above all parallel in content to further writings from Nag Hammadi. I briefly explain this fact by using one striking example: In Gos. Thom. 83–84 the reader is abruptly faced with statements about the image-like and paradigm-like quality of human existence. According to Gos. Thom. 83a, human beings can recognize “images” but not the light contained in them. This is “hidden in the image of the light of the Father.” Even if the Father reveals himself, his image is hidden by his light (83b–c). The following saying (84) explains these statements in greater detail. Saying 83 was shaped as an impersonal, general statement; now in 84, Jesus addresses the disciples directly. He promises his disciples that they will be joyous when they “see the images that correspond to them.” The consolation ends with an unanswered question: “But when you will see the images which have come into being before you—neither do they die nor do they appear—how much will you tolerate”? This question presupposes the idea of an immortal, preexistent, and hidden core of being in the human soul.72 Sayings 83 and 84 thus offer partial aspects of a “theology of iconographic representation.”73 At the same time there is nowhere in the Gospel of Thomas an appropriate discussion of the contents of these motifs. Hence, the central question concerns which religious historical premises are at the root of these statements. There are a number of different comparisons to be made in the history of philosophy and of religion, such as the Platonic or Neoplatonic tradition or Syriac ideas of guardian angels.74 Yet it is rather obvious that Old Testament and early Jewish concepts 72. Correctly stated in Richard Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1997), 164. The motifs of the luminous being of God and the preexistence of the disciples are central aspects of the light metaphors in the Gospel of Thomas. Cf. Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht,’” 641–74, esp. 656–63. Particularly on the relationship between Gos. Thom. 83–84 and 50, see also De Conick, Voices of the Mystics, 92; Davies, “Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” 663–82, esp. 668–69. 73. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 162. 74. Cf. e.g., Richard Valantasis, Spiritual Guides of the Third Century (HDR 27; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 35–61; Johannes Leipoldt, Das Evangelium nach Thomas: Koptisch und deutsch (TU 101; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1967), 71; Gilles Quispel, Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 49.

E NNO E. POPKES

313

(and therefore also those of Qumran) are only relevant to a quite limited degree.75 The New Testament writings, strictly speaking, do not contain any comparable data either. Marked theological parallels, however, can be found in the two texts already mentioned, found in the second codex of the Nag Hammadi library immediately before and after the Gospel of Thomas: the long version of the Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of Philip. The basic traits of soteriology and anthropology in the long version of the Apocryphon of John are developed, for example, in a critical midrash on Genesis 1–7 (NHC II,1 13.1–25.3). This passage contains an exegesis of the fundamental statement in the Old Testament about man being in the image of God (Gen 1:27). This proves to be a typical gnostic scriptural exegesis insofar as the actual intention of Gen 1:27 is modified in the sense of a gnostic cosmological myth. Against the background of this myth, those motifs that remain enigmatic in Gos. Thom. 83 and 84, if taken by themselves, receive an appropriate interpretative framework in terms of content. All the more impressive is the fact that the Gospel of Philip, which follows immediately after the Gospel of Thomas, also offers a number of central statements that correspond to each of the previously listed texts about the image-like or paradigm-like quality of human existence (cf., e.g., Gos. Phil. 67, especially NHC II,3 67.9–12 [§72]: “The truth did not enter the world naked, but she came in the paradigms and images. It [the world] cannot receive her in any other way”).76 Even if research on the Nag Hammadi library has not yet adequately described the relationship between the separate texts in terms of religion and composition history,77 at this point an essential aspect can be stated: The Coptic Gospel of Thomas proves to be an early-Christian document, whose essential intellectual sources no longer lie in early Judaism. Its 75. For such a theory of images, the Qumran texts provide no equivalent, although there are a number of direct and indirect references to change to 1:26-27 in preEssene, Essene, and in genuinely Qumran texts (cf. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 126–27 and 168–70; Lichtenberger and Lange, “Qumran,” TRE 28:55–79, esp. 69). 76. Particularly the correspondence of the motifs/paradigms of “light” and “image” lead to the impression that these texts interpret each other or are intended to interpret each other (Gos. Phil. 67, 126c–127b; Gos. Thom. 83–84). Apart from Gos. Thom. 67 [§72], see also Gos. Phil. 106 par. Gos. Thom. 50; cf. H.-M. Schenke, Das Philippusevangelium: Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3 (TU 143; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), 153–54, esp. 467. 77. An important detail is, e.g., that the colophon in 145.20–23 of NHC II does not only end the Book of Thomas the Contender but also the whole of NHC II. Thus, it is possible that the texts of this codex were read as corresponding by subject. Cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Das Buch des Thomas” (NHC II,7), 279–91, esp. 291n22.

314 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE theological profile is more similar to that of other Nag Hammadi writings.78 And we can assume that the groups behind the tradition of various Nag Hammadi writings were also co-responsible for the redactional presentation of the Gospel of Thomas. To determine the early-Jewish traits and roots of earlier textual stages of the Gospel of Thomas on the basis of the texts available at the moment will have to remain speculative.79

5. A THEMATIC S IDE REMARK: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, AND THE SO- CALLED QUESTION OF THE H ISTORICAL J ESUS In the study of the discoveries of Qumran, of the Gospel of John, and of the Gospel of Thomas, one question is always unconsciously involved: How can these texts help us grasp and understand the life, the words, and the deeds of Jesus?80 I briefly discuss this topic in the present study. This 78. Formally, the Gospel of Thomas is close to the Dialogue of the Savior. However, further dialogue gospels, such as the Gospel of Philip, can also be seen as religious-historical points of comparison. Cf. Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 154–56; Martin Krause, “Der Dialog des Sote¯r in Codex III von Nag Hammadi,” in Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 8th–13th, 1975) (ed. M. Krause; NHS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 13–34, esp. 21–22, 33–34; Silke Petersen and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “Der Dialog des Erlösers (NHC III,5),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser; GCS NS 12; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), Pages 381–97, esp., 383. 79. Even the said links of the Gospel of Thomas with the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1), the Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3), and the Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7) can merely be seen as indications of how the Gospel of Thomas was understood among the people behind the Nag Hammadi library. Cf. Schröter and Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2),” 151–81, 161–62. Furthermore, we must recognize that the Nag Hammadi writings do not have a coherent theological concept, nor can we attribute them to a particular gnostic tradition. 80. On the relevance of the findings at the Dead Sea for understanding the circumstances of living and the intellectual environment of Jesus, see, e.g., James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 1–74; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins: General Methodological Considerations,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith: In Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Discovery of Qumran Cave I (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 1–19; Hartmut Stegemann, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu und des frühen Christentums,” BK 48 (1993): 10–19; John J. Collins, “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema;

E NNO E. POPKES

315

question is eminently controversial in terms of theology and of religious history. In some areas of research on the Gospel of Thomas, we can occasionally hear the opinion that this work offers a more immediate access to the original teaching of Jesus than the Synoptic Gospels. Some say that here we can hear the pure words of Jesus, not clothed in a narrative about the life of Jesus, but at times stylized in a literary form, and at other times interpreted theologically. Against this others claim that we must regard the Gospel of John, which is so markedly different even from the Synoptic Gospels in its historical data as well as in its sayings of Jesus, as something akin to a first Jesus-novel. But such a view does not do justice to the Gospel of Thomas. Concerning the theological interpretation of the words and deeds of Jesus, the Gospel of Thomas is not more original than the Gospel of John. And concerning the reconstruction of the historical circumstances of the life of Jesus, the Gospel of John is certainly more helpful. The author of the Fourth Gospel appears to have a highly precise knowledge of Jewish customs and geography, which gives us reason to conclude that he had a Jewish upbringing and education. And on this level the Gospel of John can also be relevant for research on the historical circumstances of the life of Jesus.81 At the same time the Gospel of Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 100–119; Herbert Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu von Nazareth,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962), 86–99. On the equally controversial question of the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas for research on Jesus, see, e.g., Pagels, Das Geheimnis des fünften Evangeliums, 36–38; Bruce D. Chilton, “The Gospel according to Thomas as a Source of Jesus’ Teaching,” The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (ed. D. Wenham; Gospel Perspectives 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 155–75; Marvin W. Meyer and Harold Bloom, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992); Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus; Jean-Marie Sevrin, “Thomas, Q et le Jésus de l’histoire,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (ed. A. Lindemann; BETL 158; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 461–76; Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Gospel of Thomas: Evidence for Jesus?” NTT 52, no. 1 (1998): 17–32; John W. Marshall, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Cynic Jesus,” in Whose Historical Jesus? (ed. W. E. Arnal and M. R. Desjardins; Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme 7; Waterloo, ON: Wilfid Laurier University Press, 1997), 37–60. Concerning the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Jesus of history, see, e.g., Dwight Moody Smith, “John’s Quest for Jesus,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (ed. D. E. Aune, T. Seland, and J. H. Torrey; NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 233–53; Dale C. Allison, “The Continuity between John and Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (2003): 6–27. 81. Cf. e.g., Martin Hengel, “Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des antiken Judentums,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 293–334. Furthermore, there are

316 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL H ERITAGE John shows a combination of precise historical detail and creative reworking of given traditions, which is unique in the context of early-Christian narrative literature. The author of the Fourth Gospel does not aim at a precise biography of Jesus and certainly not an objective one. In accordance with the pneumatology of the Fourth Gospel, his narrative is an anamnesis guided by the Spirit. The evangelist tells the life of Jesus to enable his addressees to obtain a deeper understanding of his words and deeds. In this sense he also dares to reshape the traditions available to him along the lines of his convictions. We can see this in many details, such as the passages about the cleansing of the temple, the temple saying of Jesus, the presentation of contemporary Judaism, the chronology of the way and the passion of Jesus, and so on. This reshaping is particularly apparent in the Johannine transformation of the Gethsemane tradition or the words at the cross. The Johannine Jesus does not ask his Father to spare him the passion (cf. Mark 14:36 et par.). Instead, he who had been with the Father as preexistent and who is of one being with the Father emphasizes publicly that he has come into the world precisely because of this hour ( John 12:27–28). Accordingly, the Johannine Jesus does not lament on the cross, asking why God has forsaken him. Instead, immediately before his death he proclaims that the intention of his sending into the world is accomplished (cf. John 19:30 with Mk 15:34 par.). Compared with this, the Gospel of Thomas has virtually no narrative frame for the words of Jesus. This, however, is no indication that it belongs to an earlier level of tradition. Even the Sayings source—allegedly the oldest collection of sayings of Jesus—offers a rather precise local and chronological setting for the actions of Jesus.82 The fact that the Gospel of also narrative details of the Gospel of John that could be considered to be historically more plausible than the corresponding statements of the synoptic tradition. A notable example is the temple saying of Jesus and the dating of Jesus’ execution. The differences between the Johannine text and the synoptic tradition have frequently been traced back exclusively to the theological intention of the Fourth Evangelist. However, there are also historical arguments for the authenticity of the Johannine statements. On the debate concerning the temple saying of Jesus, see, e.g., Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort Jesu als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2.119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 111–21; Kurt Paesler, Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Tradition von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament (FRLANT 184; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 30–31; on the dating of the execution, esp. on the death of Jesus, see, e.g., Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 152–54, 388–89. 82. The debate on the Sayings Source (Q) and its relationship to the Gospel of Thomas is as controversial as the debate on the Gospel of Thomas. We can frequently trace different views on the Gospel of Thomas back to different preconditions in corresponding

E NNO E. POPKES

317

Thomas has not taken over these aspects is in my view the consequence of a theological concept in which the actual circumstances of the life of Jesus are marginalized. I end this essay with a perhaps slightly provocative statement: At the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John represent two different theological ways of interpreting and of memorizing the life, the words, and the deeds of Jesus. In the search for the historical Jesus, some have often overestimated the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas while underestimating the importance of the Gospel of John.

views on Q. On the range of the debate, see, e.g., James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenburg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Leuven: Peters, 2000), lix; R. Cameron, “On Comparing Q and the Gospel of Thomas,” in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols; Essays in Honor of François Bovon (ed. D. H. Warren, A. Graham Brock, and D. W. Pao; BIS 66; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 59–69; Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 83–85; Bradley H. McLean, “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q,” in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. R. A. Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 321–45; Stephen J. Patterson, “Wisdom in Q and Thomas,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 187–221; James M. Robinson, “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa),” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (ed. C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986), 127–75; J.-M. Sevrin, “Thomas, Q et le Jésus de l’histoire,” 461–76.

CHAPTER TWELVE

ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND NONRETALIATION IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION Gordon M. Zerbe This article takes up two themes pertaining to social morality in the Dead Sea Scrolls—economic justice and nonretaliation—and assesses their significance for understanding early Christian texts. With regard to these topics, both continuities and discontinuities between the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Christian texts have exercised interpreters for the past fifty years. Admittedly, neither the covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls nor Jesus’ followers would have thought of social morality as a separate ethical category. They would have agreed that these topics fall under the heading of obligation to neighbor and belong more generally to keeping God’s commands and to maintaining holiness.1 Nevertheless, these two themes provide a useful framework for investigating the Dead Sea Scrolls and for comparing them with early Christian literature. In this essay, nonretaliation refers to prohibitions against certain forms of responding to injury or injustice—whether in personal, intracommunal situations or in relation to outsiders or even to oppressors—usually marked by some withholding of vengeance, malice, or retaliation (responding in kind). The theme of economic justice refers to expectations for maintaining just relationships with one’s neighbor, particularly in matters pertaining to wealth, money, commerce, or possessions, usually marked on the one hand by prohibitions against wrong patterns (e.g., “unjust wealth”), and on the other hand by expectations to attend to the welfare of one’s neighbor or to engender certain attitudes in relation to possessions and money. There is good reason for treating these two themes together. Most important, in the Dead Sea Scrolls these two themes appear prominently 1. For understanding basic ethical categories in early Judaism, see, e.g., Edward P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 190–95.

319

320

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

and jointly in the central behavioral codes of the two foundational “rules” for governing community life: the Damascus Document (CD) and the Rule of the Community (1QS), which probably represent two sequential or concurrent social expressions (whether idealized or realized) within the Essene movement.2 Furthermore, these two themes also appear as distinctive features of Essenes in the depictions by both Philo and Josephus, including the latter’s listing of the major vows made by initiates.3 In this essay, the central codes from the two rules are termed the Precepts for Covenanters (CD 6.11–7.4) and the Vows of the Initiates (1QS 10.8–11.2). The Precepts for Covenanters in CD presents a summary of central and distinctive obligations for “all who have entered the covenant” (6.11).4 Of the seventeen separate precepts, seven deal specifically with obligation to neighbor: four focus on economic justice (items 4, 10–12), and two on judicial procedure and nonretaliation (items 14–15); other precepts deal with duty to God (items 1, 7–9), general matters of 2. I will proceed with the following assumptions. The “library” of Dead Sea Scrolls is best associated with Qumran, where there was a settlement, from the middle of the second century B.C.E. to 68 C.E., probably of one branch within a broader Essene movement. The documents are of diverse origins, some originating in the movement’s formative years, some imported, and some written during its period of occupation at Qumran; see Devorah Dimant, “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: 1947–1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 170–76. 1QS, itself a composite document, and other documents represent the distinctive life and beliefs of a strongly sectarian community (or communities; 1QS 6.2–6), which can be associated with the Qumran settlement. CD was compiled or redacted at Qumran and remained a popular document there (fragments of seven copies found), yet also was enjoying a broader readership (thus finding its way to the Cairo Genizah). It contains materials that represent an Essene group (or groups) either prior to or distinct from and contemporaneous to the more strongly sectarian Qumran community. For the general lines of this “consensus” opinion, see James H. Charlesworth, “Foreword: Qumran Scrolls and a Critical Consensus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), xxxii–xxxv. 3. This essay takes the position that Josephus remains a relatively good source on some Essenes, but maybe not all; he seems to describe mainly the strongly sectarian (Qumranic) version of Essenism; see Todd S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), who concludes that Josephus is essentially reliable, but that he is prone to exaggeration and to casting his material in Hellenistic forms. Of the seven vows made by initiates that are listed in Josephus’ account (J.W. 2.138–42), five can be found in the Vows of the Initiates in more or less the same order as in Josephus’ account; one pertains to just and proper relationships, including the refusal to wrong another (perhaps, in kind), and one pertains to “stealing” and unclean, “iniquitous gain.” 4. Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 126–27, considers the passage a summary of key aspects of the community’s distinctive Halakah, influenced significantly by the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26).

GORDON M. ZERBE

321

holiness and purity and separation (items 2–3, 5–6, 16–17), and lust (item 15; items cited below). The Vows of the Initiates of 1QS (10.8–11.2), whose original setting along with that of CD was probably a ceremony of initiation or of covenant renewal,5 deals first with piety and worship (10.8–17) and then with social and personal conduct (10.17–11.2). The latter segment, bracketed by the linked themes of nonretaliation and renunciation of wealth (10.17–20; 11.1–2),6 is further divided into three sections. The first section summarizes conduct in relation to different social categories (to all people, nonretaliation and no envy of wealth; to outsiders, temporary restraint; to covenanters, no malice; to apostates, no mercy; and to the disciplined or expelled, no comfort; 10.17–21a); the second summarizes the proper demeanor of the heart and tongue (10.21b–24a); and the third returns to conduct in relation to social categories (concealment from outsiders, support and correction for the troubled and wayward, and subservience in relation to outside oppressors; 10.24b–11.2a). We proceed, then, to investigate these texts and others, reviewing the themes of economic justice and nonretaliation consecutively, first in the two foundational rules (CD, 1QS), and then in other documents. Following this, we review implications for New Testament interpretation.

ECONOMIC J USTICE IN THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS The Damascus Document Themes pertaining to economic justice figure among the core features of CD, both in the Exhortation (A 1–8; B 19–20) and in the Laws (A 15–16, 9–14). In the Exhortation, economic justice appears conspicuously not only in the Precepts for Covenanters (6.11–7.4)7 but also in a corresponding judgment pronouncement upon those not following those precepts 5. See esp. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 29–33; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “La genèse littéraire de la règle de la communauté,” RB 86 (1979): 545–46, builds on Kuhn’s theory, suggesting that 1QS 10.9–11.22 was a hymn reserved for new members during the ceremony of covenant renewal. The conclusion of the Damascus Document refers to a covenant renewal ceremony presumably associated with the Feast of Weeks in the “third month” (4Q266 11.17; 4Q270 frag. 7 2.11). 6. For a similar connection between nonretaliation and renouncing envy of the rich, cf. T. Gad 6:3–7:7; T. Benj. 4:3–4. 7. Fragments from Qumran confirm the text of this passage from the Cairo Genizah: 4Q266 3.2; 6Q15 4.

322

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

(A 8.2c–12a [= B 19.15–24a]). The overall themes of these two texts, including those of economic justice, are anticipated in 4.13–5.15. Four items of the Precepts focus on the theme of economic justice: one entails renunciation (and denunciation) of unjust wealth (6.15b–17a), and three express commitment to communal solidarity and support of the needy (6.20b–7.1a), under the heading of love for brother (6.20b–21a; precept 9). In the corresponding list of sins by the opponents, two condemnations pertain to unjust wealth (8.5, 7), and two pertain to overlooking responsibilities for communal solidarity and for support of the needy (8.6). Most of the precepts after the first one are framed as infinitive clauses, following the introductory formula, “Truly they shall be careful…” (wrm#y )l M)). Precept 4 against unjust wealth in CD 6.15b–17a reads: and to keep themselves from unclean wealth of wickedness (acquired) from a vow or from a devoted thing or from the property of the sanctuary, or by robbing the poor of his people, making widows their prey or the fatherless their victim.8 #dqmh Nwhbw Mrxbw rdnb )m+h h(#rh Nwhm rznhlw wxcry Mymwty t)w Mll# t[w]nml) twyhl wm( yyn( t) lwzglw

Fragments from ran confirm the of this passage the Cairo zah: 4Q266 3 ?~q just want to k on the meanof the numbers is it frag. 3 col. r frag. 3 line 2? mething else?>; 69 4 ii<~?~q want to check on meaning of the bers here: is it 4 col. 2? or frag. e 2? or someelse?>; 6Q15 4.

Two forms of unjust wealth are identified: one from the sacrifices and temple resources in the first half, the other from more general oppression in the second half, a direct citation of Isa 10:2, which in its original context condemns those who make oppressive decrees. This precept, therefore, is an implicit denunciation of the ruling priestly class, though perhaps also directed toward other priests with priestly prerogatives and access to the sacrifices or to the finances of the temple (cf. 16.13–19). The likelihood that this is mainly a denunciation of priestly behavior is indicated by rhetoric elsewhere in CD against improper handling of sacrifices or defilement of the sanctuary (4.17–18; 6.11–13, 20; 11.18–12.1; 16.13–19)9 and by parallel rhetoric in 1 Enoch, Testament of Levi, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, and Testament of Moses.10 8. Translations are my own. Brackets denote textual reconstructions; parentheses indicate words added to elucidate the English translation 9. Space does not permit an extensive discussion of the question of sacrifices (whether and how embezzled by priests and others), including whether the laws of CD (e.g., 6.20; 11.18–12.1) remain on the level of theoretical discussion or pertain to practical observance. CD 16.13–19 warns both priests about accepting as “free-will offerings” (bdn) “vowed” (rdn) to the altar anything obtained unlawfully, and warns worshippers from offering items obtained unlawfully. It also warns against impropriety in “consecrated things” (#dq) and in “devoted things” (Mrx, anathema). Cf. the implicit denunciation of the temple in 1QS 9.3–5. Item 8 of the code (CD 6.20) focuses on proper handling of “consecrated things according to their exact tenor” (Mhy#wrypk My#dq), that is, on the priestly portion of the sacrifices (including those

GORDON M. ZERBE

323

The more general denunciation against unjust wealth, without reference to the sacrifices, is picked up in the corresponding indictments in CD 8.2c–12a (= B 19.15–24a), which originally were probably also directed against the ruling priestly class, although later applied to apostates from the community.11 and they defiled themselves in the ways of lust and in the wealth of iniquity (CD 8.5) h(#r Nwhbw twnwz ykrdn wllwgtyw and they became overbearing for the sake of wealth and gain (CD 8.7) (cblw Nwhl wrbgtyw

This last denunciation is closely paralleled in the condemnation of priests in Jub. 23:21, 12 further indicating the antipriestly character of the rhetoric. In these texts economic injustice is a matter of “uncleanness” and occasioned as a vow or a free-will offering, or as a devoted thing), perhaps also with tithes (cf. Num 8:8–22; Lev 22:1–16; 27:1–25; Deut 12:6–26; 23:19–23; on Nbrq coordinated with rdn and bdn, see, e.g., Lev 22:18; on Mrx, see further Lev 27:21, 28–29; Num 18:14). Cf. the reference to the practice of Nbrq in Josephus, Ant. 4.73 in the context of a discussion of priestly and temple revenues (4.68–75); and cf. the indictment in Mark 7:11. On vows, see further Edward P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 51–57; on Corban, see Albert I. Baumgarten, “Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis,” JANESCU 16–17 (1984–85): 5–17; on criticisms of the priests in general, see Sanders, Judaism, 182–89. 10. According to T. Levi 14:1–6, priests will steal sacrifices, be covetous for gain, fornicate, profane the priesthood, and pollute the sacrifices (cf. 16.1). According to Jub. 23:21 priests in the end times will exalt themselves for gain and will defile the sanctuary. The rhetoric against oppression and pride in wealth of the ruling class is scattered throughout the 1 Enoch (91–107; in 94:6–11; 95:7; 96:4–8; 98:6; 99:13–15; 100:6; 101:5; 102:9; 103:9–15; 104:6; against “unjust wealth,” see 97:8–10; 103:5). Yet there is also a reference to improper practice regarding “devoted things” in 95:4: “Woe to you who pronounce anathemas so that they may be neutralized [lit., loosened]!” (OTP 1:76). On the importance of 1 En. 91–107 for Qumran, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Epistle of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” JJS 33 (1982): 333–48. Ps. Sol. 8 charges the ruling elite with incest, adultery, trading wives, menstrual blood in the sanctuary, and plundering the temple. T. Mos. 6:1 charges the Hasmonean priests with committing “great impiety in the Holy of Holies.” On the rhetoric in the pesharim, see below, including defilement of the temple in 1QpHab 12.8–9. Cf. Mark 11:17, temple as a “den of thieves,” based on Jer 7:11. On criticism of the temple establishment and priests for economic justice in the targumic traditions and in rabbinic literature, see Craig A. Evans, “Opposition to the Temple: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 236–41. 11. For example, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document XIX,33–XX,34,” RB 79 (1972): 562. For the application to apostates, see CD-B 19.16–21. 12. Jub. 23:21: “They will lift themselves up for deceit and wealth so that one shall take everything of his neighbor” (OTP 2:101).

324

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

“defilement” (6.15; 8.5; cf. 3.17–18); that is, social morality is integral to the issue of “purity,” an idea that is heightened in 1QS. These indictments against unjust wealth are anticipated in 4.13–5.15.13 “Property” (or “wealth,” Nwh) along with “lust” and “defilement of the sanctuary” are presented as the “three nets of Belial” unleashed against Israel in the final days (4.17), as predicted by Levi son of Jacob (4.15; cf. T. Levi 14:5–8) and exemplified by the community’s opponents (4.18–20; 5.6–15), presumably the Jerusalem elite in particular. Indeed, wealth itself has an insidious character as one of the ways by which Belial entraps people.14 Finally, the criticism of the community’s primary opponents as “removers of the landmark” (1.16, citing Deut 19:14; 5.20; 8.3 [= B 19.15–16], citing Hos 5:10) may be intended as a double entendre, referring figuratively to their interpretation and practice of the Law (cf. B 20.25) and concretely to their economic injustice.15 Corresponding to this sharp condemnation of unjust wealth in CD is the theme of communal solidarity and support for the needy. In the Precepts for Covenanters we find the following commitments in CD 6.20–7.1: to love each man his brother as himself [item 9] whmk whyx) t) #y) bwh)l 13. The theme of unjust wealth may also be referred to in CD 3.17–18a, where the self-proclamation “This is ours” ()yh wnl), along with general “defilement,” are among the condemned vices exhibited by those “who despise the waters” of community instruction. Although perhaps a “miscellaneous gloss” made sometime in the later textual history of the document (e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, “Literary Analysis,” 563), this text alludes to the unjust amassing or hoarding by the elite class, if not (but less likely) to the mere claim to private ownership. Whether as original or as a gloss, the idea easily merges with the denunciations against amassing property elsewhere in CD. If the phrase refers to a claim to personal property, one might suppose it to be a Qumranic interpolation condemning rival Essene groups for maintaining private ownership of possessions 14. Cf. Robert H. Charles, APOT 2:809 (Zadokite Work 6.11 = CD 4.17), who shows his privileged bias, emending to h(#rh Nwh, “wealth of wickedness,” since otherwise “our author, like a fanatic, makes, not the sinful desire, but the object of desire a sinful thing in itself.” Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (STDJ 40; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 40, observes that here Nwh can also be transcribed as Nyh (“arrogance”), and that this net refers “to a specific kind of arrogance, that associated with the abuse of wealth.” 15. For this idiom of removing the landmark, see also the prologue to the Damascus Document in 4Q266 frag. 1 line 4, and the conclusion in 4Q266 frag. 11 lines 12–13. For occurrences of the idiom (lwbgh gws) elsewhere in the Scripture, see Deut 27:17; Prov 22:28; 23:10. The proverbial use can also be found in 4Q424 frag. 3 lines 8–10. For further rhetoric against the economic injustice of the ruling Hasmonean priestrulers, see below on the pesharim.

GORDON M. ZERBE

325

to support the hand of the afflicted, the poor, and the alien16 [item 10] rgw Nwyb)w yn( dyb qyzxhlw to seek each man the well-being of his brother [item 11] whyx) Mwl# t) #y) #wrdlw not to betray each man the one who is flesh of his flesh [item 12] wr#b r)#b #y) l(my )lw

The parallel denunciations in CD 8.6 read as follows: and each man hated his fellow wh(r t) #y) )wn#w and they hid themselves, each man from him who is flesh of his flesh wr#b r)#b #y) wml(tyw

Although the first items in each cited passage (to love his brother; to hate his fellow) are quite general in reference (cf. Lev 19:17a, 18a), in these passages they introduce more specific injunctions to support the afflicted. Precept 10, whose wording recalls Ezek 16:49,17 uses the same language as the passage in the Laws detailing communal charity (CD 15.13–17): “with the other portion they shall support the hand of the poor and the afflicted” (Nwyb)w yn( dyb wqyzxy wnmm; CD 14.14). The threefold reference to poor, afflicted, and stranger may be inspired in particular by Ezek 22:29, the only other verse in the Scripture besides Deut 24:14 that includes all three.18 The idiom of Precept 12 does not appear in the Scripture, although the phrase wr#b r)#b (“from flesh of his flesh”) occurs only in Lev 18:6 and 25:49. While this item might refer to incest legislation (Leviticus 18),19 it more likely refers to the Jubilee themes of Leviticus 25. The corresponding 16. Since the rg (“alien, stranger”) in CD seems to refer to slaves who had become circumcised according the Law and thus “who have entered the Covenant of Abraham,” adopting the faith of the master (12.10–11; cf. 11.2), it is appropriate to refer them also as “proselytes” (CD 14.5–6; e.g., Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [5th ed.; London: Penguin Books, 1997], 143), although this somewhat obscures their socioeconomic identity as slaves in the community. 17. Ezek 16:49: “And the hand of the afflicted and the poor she did not support” (hqyzxh )l Nwyb)w yn(-dyw). In Leviticus, the only occurrence of the verb qzx is in 25:35, legislating that the kin who becomes dependent should be supported and allowed to live as an “alien” in the community. 18. Otherwise, the general theme derives from, e.g., Lev 19:9–10, 33–34; 23:22; Deut 10:18–19; 24:14–15, 17–22. The importance of Ezekiel 22 (which recalls much of Leviticus 17–26) for this code of distinctive conduct is evident also in the allusion to Ezek 22:7 in CD 6.16–18. See also Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (BZAW 228; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995). 19. For example, Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2, Damascus Documnt, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 29.

326

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

denunciation (“and they hid themselves, each man to him who is flesh of his flesh,” CD 8.6) confirms this. This denunciation directly echoes Isa 58:7: the proper fast is “to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor (Myyn() into your house; when you see the naked to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin” (NRSV; Ml(tt )l Kr#bmw). Moreover, all of the occurrences of the hithpa‘el of Ml( (“to hide oneself”) in the Hebrew Bible refer to the refusal to help someone in need (Deut 22:1, 3–4; Isa 58:7; Ps 55:2 [55:1 ET]; Job 6:16).20 The significance of Isaiah 58 for the moral code of CD is further evident in the reference to the obligation of the “Examiner” in his community to “unloose all the bonds which bind them,” based on Isa 58:6 (CD 13.10, see below). Turning to the Laws of CD (A 15–16, 9–14), we find rules governing economic activity, both in relation to those outside the community and in relation to fellow members. These laws assume personal ownership of property (9.10–16, 22–23; 11.13)21 and personal income (14.12–13)22; they presume the presence of farmers (12.10), herders (11.5), lenders (10.18), employers, wage-earners, slaves, and servants (11.2, 12; 12.10; 14.13). The Laws assume, then, some degree of economic disparity within the community; there is no reference to any property held in common, although there is a sense of the overall “property of the camp” (hnxmh d)m; 9.11).23 Fragmentary copies of CD from Qumran indicate that the Laws also included regulations for gleaning (4Q266 frag. 6 cols. 3–4)24 and for agricultural priestly dues (4Q270 frag. 3 cols. 2–3 = 4Q271 frag. 2 = 4Q269 frag. 8 lines 1–2). 20. Note especially Deut 22:3: “You dare not hide yourself” (Ml(thl lkwt-)l) from the neighbor in need. 21. Note references in CD 9.10–16 to “lost objects” (dbw)h) and their “owners” (Myl(b). 22. Note here the reference to “wages” (rk#) to be handed over to the Examiner, to provide for the “needs, affairs” of the Many and for works of charity; see further below. Nevertheless, some interpreters, attempting to harmonize CD with 1QS, argue that this income is not “private,” but to be understood in the context of communal ownership of property and income. For example, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 256. 23. For d)m (“strength”) as referring to “property,” see also CD 13.11, and possibly 12.10. In numerous Scripture texts, d)m has the connotation of “abundance” or “muchness” (BDB), as in 2 Kings 22–23. See further below, and n33 (below), on the interpretation of 1QS 1.11–13, where “property” may be understood as derived from “strength” in Deut 6:5. 24. On gleaning, see also 4Q284a and 4Q159; the latter regulates the gleanings of the poor.

GORDON M. ZERBE

327

Commercial activity is assumed, but controlled in various ways. (1) It is prohibited on the Sabbath (CD 10.18–19; 11.2, 12, 15).25 (2) It is extensively restricted in relation to Gentiles, particularly on grounds of the purity of potential objects sold (12.8–11).26 (3) In relation to outsiders in general, it is restricted to cash relationships; anything beyond that—such as commercial associations or contracts—must be approved by the Examiner (13.14–16).27 As for economic relationships among members of the community, the following regulations apply. (1) The property (Nwh) of all “those who join the congregation,” along with their “deeds, strength, and power,” will be examined and recorded by the Examiner upon their entry (CD 13.11–13; cf. 1QS 6.13–16). (2) “To take care of all their needs/affairs” (Mhycpx lk Nykhl),28 all among the Many are required to hand over to “the Examiner and the judges” the “wage (rk#) of at least two days a month” (CD 14.12–17). The next sentence clarifies that this fund is primarily for works of charity: “From one portion they shall give to the [orph]ans, from another they shall support the poor and the afflicted” (14.14–17). (3) The Examiner is charged with the responsibility of “loosening all the bonds which bind them (Mhyr#q twbwcrx lk rty) that there may no more be any oppressed or broken (Cwcrw qw#() among the congregation” (13.10). When this rule is seen in the light of (a) the previous two items, (b) the corresponding legislation in the Exhortation (above), (c) the fact that some members were concretely indebted to others (10.18), and (d) its citation of Isa 58:6 and allusion to other prophetic texts,29 the only conclusion to be drawn is that the release refers to the 25. No lending to one’s fellow; no discussion of matters of property (Nwh) or gain ((cb); no talk of work or labor; no requiring an alien slave to work; no irritating a slave, maidservant, or employee; no profaning the Sabbath for property or gain. 26. Not sell to Gentiles: clean beasts and birds, contents of granary or vat, proselyte slaves. On not taking action against Gentiles on economic grounds, see CD 12.6–8, discussed below in connection with nonretaliation. 27. CD 13.14–16: “No member of the covenant of God shall give or receive anything from the sons of the pit except (by paying) from hand to hand. And no man shall form any association for buying or selling (rkmmlw xqml rbd) without informing the Examiner of the camp.” Cf. 1QS 5.16–17. Some scholars suppose that the second sentence refers to associations within the camp. But since it follows a rule on relating to outsiders, and since it simply raises the nature of the interaction to a new level (all associations to be supervised; otherwise, cash transactions tolerated without supervision), it would appear to apply further to relations with outsiders. 28. The same word Cpx is also found in CD 10.20, in reference to one’s commercial “affairs” or “business.” 29. The citation of Isa 58:6 (“to loose the bonds [twbcrx] of injustice, to undo [rth] the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed [Mycwcr] go free”) is not verbatim. The combination of the verbs q#( (oppress) and Ccr (break) is rare in the

328

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

concrete bonds of economic privation, not to some loosening of spiritual bonds of sin. Although this rule does not imply complete community of goods, as reflected in 1QS, the emphasis on communally based and oriented redistribution of resources and support for those in economic need appears central. Further placarding the importance of economic justice in CD are (a) the clarification of the number of witnesses required for adjudicating cases involving “property” (Nwh; 9.22–23), and (b) the placement first in the penal code of penalties for “lying in matters of property (Nwmm)” (14.20–21; cf. 1QS 6.24–25).30 The appearance of Nwmm (“mammon”) in this last text, and elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicates that it was used as a virtual synonym for the more commonly found Nwh for “wealth” or “property.”31

Rule of the Community When we turn to 1QS, we find (1) the extension of the practice of mutual solidarity to complete community of goods, (2) heightened separation from outsiders, (3) invective against the unjust wealth of oppressors, and (4) the theme of renunciation of wealth, including subservience (as a facade behind concealed hatred) in response to wealthy oppressors. Scripture and always refers to concrete oppression. “Oppressed and broken” occurs together in Deut 28:33 and Hos 5:11 to refer to the concrete effect of judgment; reference to those who “oppress and break” appears in 1 Sam 12:3–4 and Amos 4:1. 30. The fragmentary and damaged character of the penal code in CD precludes a determination of the precise penalties. In the parallel item in 1QS 6.24–25, the penalty is one year “separation from the purity” and a “punishment” of one-quarter reduction in food allotment. The reference in CD 14.20–21 to the penalty of “separation” is missing due to manuscript damage, and the “punishment” is identified as “six days.” CD 9.22–23 indicates that two witnesses are required for a sentence of “separation” in cases involving “property” (presumably including not only the problem of lying to the community, but also cases between two members). Thus, it is not possible to determine whether the penalties in CD are milder compared to 1QS, since six days “punishment” (of food rations) cannot be compared to one year “separation” (from the “purity”). On the penal code of 1QS and CD, see further Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 155–90. 31. The parallel to CD 14.20–21 in 1QS 6.25 has Nwh, while 4Q261 frag. 2 line 3 has the variant Nwmm for the reading in 1QS 6.25. For the 1QS reading of Nwmm in 6.2, the scrolls 4Q258 frag. 1 1.3 and 4Q263 frag. 1 line 3 read Nwh. Another occurrence of Nwmm can be found in 1Q27 frag. 1 2.5, also next to Nwh. In the Aramaic Targum on Job (on Job 27:16–17; 11Q10 11.8), Nwmm is the translation for “silver” (Psk); see Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (BibOr 34; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 20.

GORDON M. ZERBE

329

1QS displays a sharp social identity, marked on the one hand by complete separation from outsiders (e.g., 1.10–11; 2.4–18; 2.25–3.12; 5.1–2, 8, 10, 14–20), and on the other hand by measures to facilitate internal social integration (see below on nonretaliation). Fundamental to 1QS is the notion that the congregation is a “community” (dxy)32; to join is “to live in community” (5.6) and “to be converted in common/community (dxyb) to his covenant” (5.22); indeed, “to become a community (twyhl dxyl) with regard to Torah and with regard to property (Nwhb)” (5.2). The preamble indicates that one of the purposes of the rule itself is that voluntary members “may be united in the Council of God” (1.8). All volunteers “shall bring all their understanding and power and property (Nwh) into the Community of God: to purify their understanding in the truth of the precepts of God, and to order their powers according to the perfection of his ways, and all their property according to His righteous Counsel” (1.11–13; cf. 3.2–3). This triad of “understanding, power, and property” appears to draw on the Shema (Deut 6:5), “property” corresponding to “strength,” confirming that for the covenanters the disposition of wealth was a critical mark of covenantal fidelity.33 Practically, this principle meant that a full member was required to “mingle with the property of the Many” (6.17; cf. 6.22), that is, to hand over all possessions to the community. 1QS depicts a community of goods (resources), production, and consumption.34 Ultimate authority in matters of property, as with other community processes, is vested with the priests.35 Moreover, as Catherine Murphy has shown, the community’s practice of giving to a common pool and subjecting assets to communal discipline is construed 32. Also translatable as “union, togetherness, joining, association.” Cf. koinwni/a in the discussion of community of goods in Philo, Hypoth. (Apol.) 11.10–14; Prob. 76–79, 85–86, 91; Josephus refers to to_k_ oinwniko&n (J.W. 2.122; cf. 2.127; Ant. 18.20, 22). 33. See Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: Nelson, 1961), 123, who notes the same interpretation in the targumic version; Murphy, Wealth in the DSS, 117–18, 120–28, highlights also the Deuteronomic character of 1QS. 34. Covenanters are “those who are together” (1QS 6.2). “They shall eat in common, bless in common, and deliberate in common” (6.2–3). The Many must “watch in common for a third of all the nights of the year, to read the Book and study the law and bless in common” (6.7–8). See n46 (below) for the argument that 1QS also legislates for not fully production-communalized groups. 35. The priests retain authority in decreeing in any matter, “whether it concerns Torah, or property, or justice” (1QS 5.2–3; cf. 6.22 for the three items). According to 6.2, “in whatever concerns work or property (Nwmm), the lower shall obey the higher”; in 9.7, “the sons of Aaron alone shall command in matters of justice and property.” Cf. also 5.6, 20–23. On the combination of priestly authority and democracy in 1QS, see, e.g., Sanders, Judaism, 365–66. In Instruction (Sapiential Work), the priest is identified as the “ruler over God’s treasury” (4Q418 frag. 8 line 9).

32. Also transl togetherness, join Cf. koinwni/a in community of g Hypoth. (Apol.)< is this? philo didn ogy, did he? supp delete? see at 11.10–14; Prob. 7 Josephus refers wniko&n (J.W. 2 Ant. 18.20, 22).

330

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

as an offering to God (cf. 1QS 9.3–9); in this way the community redefines the sacrificial system as such.36 The process toward full membership and full “mingling” of one’s property is depicted as a rigorous two-year process (1QS 6.13–23; cf. 7.18–21; 8.16–19).37 The achievement of greater levels of purity entails a greater level of mingling of property. Following an examination before “the Overseer at the head of the Many,” one’s initial case is to be decided by the Many (6.13–17). Then, following a successful examination after a one-year probationary period (postulancy) in which “he shall not mingle in the property of the Many” (6.17), the prospective member can “touch the Purity.” Furthermore, “his property (Nwh) and also his business (wtk)lm, or ‘craft, labor, possessions, earnings’) shall be handed over to the Examiner for the Business of the Many; and he shall register it to his account and he shall not spend it for the Many” (6.19–20).38 Presumably, property was returned to those who quit before attaining full membership. After a successful second probationary year in the community (as novice), the new member may “touch the Drink of the Many” and shall fully “mingle his property” (6.20–22). We assume that among the oaths accompanying full entry into the covenant was a full disclosure of assets.39 This would be the likely backdrop to the penalty of “one year” for the member who “lies in matters of property (Nwhb) intentionally (lit., ‘and he knows [the deception]’)” (6.24–25), the first item in the penal code (6.24–7.25). The penal code also includes penalties when a member “is negligent with the property of the Community, causing its loss.” In that case, he is obligated “to reimburse its original value,”40 and if unable to do so, then he is “punished for sixty days” (7.6–8). Instruction al Work), the identified as the ver God’s treasQ418 frag. 8 s this 8 or 81? cf. w, where it lists 9).

36. Murphy, Wealth in the DSS, 141–53. 37. The process of “mingling” is expressed especially with the hithpa‘el of br(. On this usage, see Black, Scrolls, 32–39. Cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.122, “They have a law that new members on admission to the sect (ai3resin) shall confiscate their property (th_n ou)si/an) to the order …; the individual’s possessions join the common stock (kthma&twn a)namemigme/nwn) and all, like brothers, enjoy a single patrimony” (mi/an a#pasin ou)si/an ei]nai; LCL). Josephus also provides an account of a two-stage admission process (one plus two years), although he does not specifically refer to the stages in the process of “mingling” property (J.W. 2.137–38). 38. Two ostraca discovered at Qumran in 1996 may be records of such a transaction. See Frank M. Cross and Esther Eshel, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumran,” IEJ 47 (1997): 17–28. 39. Josephus, J.W. 2.137–39; cf. CD 15.4–16; 1QS 5.7–11; 1QHa 6.17–21. 40. Precisely how the lost property was to be restored is unclear, since members presumably had already given up their own property. It might be guessed that this rule refers to postulants or novices; or that extra work was assigned.

GORDON M. ZERBE

331

Interaction, including economic interaction, with outsiders (cf. 1QS 2.4–10) and apostates or expelled members (cf. 2.11–18)41 was strictly regulated. In relation to all those outside the covenant (5.11) and marked by impurity (5.13–14; cf. 2.25–3.12), a member must not “join in labor or property” (5.14), and must not “receive anything from their hand unless he pay its price” (5.16–17).42 Indeed, not only are outsiders themselves impure, as are their deeds (5.13–14, 19–20). In addition, “all that is theirs” is to be set apart; “their possessions are wholly unclean” (5.18, 20). The connection of economic separation and purity is further noted in 9.8–9: Concerning the property of the men of holiness who walk in perfection, let their property not be mingled with the property of the men of deceit (hymrh y#n) Nwh) who have not purified their way.

Moreover, “a man of the men of holiness may not mingle with the property or with the counsel” of those who have been expelled (8.23–24)43; and a member who “mingles with (a permanently expelled member), (sharing) his purity or property,” shall likewise be expelled (7.22–27). Another text seems to refer to the initial disengagement of a new member from his former economic assets or associations: he must be willing “to surrender to them (i.e., men of the pit) his property and labor of his hands (Mypk lm(w Nwh wml bwz(l),44 as a slave (db() to his master and as one afflicted (hwn() in the presence of his overlord (hdwrh)” (9.22–23). This disengagement takes place in the framework of his concealed “eternal hatred” of them (9.21–22),45 is motivated by considerations of purity, and is tied to the notion of temporary subservience until the day of vengeance (9.16–17, 23; 10.18–20; 11.1–2; see further below). 41. On procedures for entry and especially on expulsion, see Göran Forkman, The Limits of Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity (trans. P. Sjölander; ConBNT 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1972), ch. 2. 42. On only cash relations with outsiders, cf. CD 13.14–15 (above). Alfred R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 174, reasons that cash payment apparently altered the object’s purity status. Separation also includes the regulation not to “eat nor drink anything of theirs,” or to discuss any matter of Law or ordinance (1QS 5.15–16). 43. Cf. CD-B 20.1–8: “let no man consort with him (an expelled member) in whatever concerns property and labor, for all the Holy Ones of the Most High have cursed him.” This is regarded as a Qumranic addition by Davies (Damascus Covenant) and by Murphy-O’Connor, “Literary Analysis,” 563. Cf. also 1QS 5.14. 44. 4Q258 8.6–7 adds (cbw (“and gain”) after Nwh (“property”). 45. See below on 1QS 1.10–11; 10.19–20; on concealment from outsiders, see also 5.10–11, 15–16; 8.11–12, 18, 23–24; 9.16–17; 10.24–25; cf. CD 15.10–11; Josephus, J.W. 2.141.

332

restrictions on nteraction with marked by sharp nitions, would allow for a regng in of wages pations outside unity, as Philo s the practice = Apol.] <~?~q is this? philo te an apology, supply author te? see at n32 in 0).46

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

These restrictions on economic interaction with outsiders, marked by sharp purity definitions, would seem not to allow for a regular handing in of wages from occupations outside the community, as Philo claims was the practice (Hypoth. [= Apol.] 11.10).46 On the other hand, it is still likely that individual members within the covenanters were permitted to perform acts of charity for outsiders, even though such activity is not presented for regulation in 1QS. The basis for such a conclusion would be (a) Josephus’s reference to charity as assigned to individual discretion (War 2.134), (b) the measures guiding works of charity in CD 14.12–17, and (c) the reference in 1QpHab 12.2–5 (below), indicating some degree of solidarity with the “poor” beyond their own community. If this is true, it means that individuals had some access to community funds (cf. the charge against negligence, 1QS 7.6–8), presumably controlled, however, by the “Examiner of the Business of the Many” (6.19–20). Overall economic separation from outsiders, then, appears considerably sharper than in CD. Finally, in the concluding hymnic segment of 1QS, of obvious importance to the community, the theme of renunciation of wealth, along with the closely associated theme of nonretaliation (subservience; cf. 9.22–23), bracket the entire Vows of the Initiates (1QS 10.17–11.2): I will not envy with a spirit of wickedness and my soul shall not covet the wealth of violence (smx Nwh). (10.18b–19a)47 (I will promise)…to return humility (hwn() to the proud of spirit, and (to respond) with a contrite spirit (hrb#n xwrb) to the men of deviating (h+m y#n)), the pointers of the finger, the speakers of evil, and the acquirers of wealth (Nwh ynqm) (11.1–2)

In both vows, both a stance of renunciation and an indirect denunciation of the ruling class are evident. The phrase “the men of deviating…; speakers of evil” is an indirect citation of Isa 58:9, further indication of the importance of Isaiah 58 in DSS texts (see above). 46. Brian J. Capper, “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Community of Goods,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 330–34, argues that wtk)lm in 6.19–20 and lm( in 9.22 should be translated as “earnings” (also Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 111) and that both texts allude to a regular handing in of wages that paralleled the one-time transfer of assets during initiation. Thus, 1QS would legislate also for communities where production was not fully communalized. Not only do the sharp restrictions seem to exclude such an option, but in addition 1QS 6.19–20 refers unmistakably to the entry process, and 9.22 would leave nothing to be handed in anyway since everything would be “surrendered” to the outside employers. On Capper’s thesis, see further below, n110. 47. Cf. the parallel in Josephus, J.W. 2.141: the member swears “to keep his hands from stealing and his soul pure from unholy gain” (a)nosi/ou ke/rdouj kaqara&n).

GORDON M. ZERBE

333

The basis and motivation for this ideology and practice of community of goods is probably to be found in a combination of factors. (1) One originating or else supporting factor might be the community’s interpretation of the Law, whether an understanding of “strength” in Deut 6:5 as “property,”48 or an extension of the laws on communal solidarity and mutual aid (cf. CD). (2) A more rigorous interpretation of separation and purity, in comparison with CD, must also have been significant. (3) The pooling of assets and the disengagement from former ones would also have been motivated by the practical necessities involved in the founding of the desert community (1QS 8.13–14; 9.19–20; or communities, 6.2–6), particularly if marked by persecution and economic pressure (cf. 1QpHab). (4) While the community was conscious of the impending day of vengeance, in which its claims, including economic ones, would be vindicated, it is doubtful that the motivation for their community of goods can primarily be attributed to eschatological renunciation, “abstaining from everything that fetters man to that which is earthly.”49 Rather, emphasis is on communal life in anticipation of God’s future restoration, not on poverty or ascetic renunciation as such.50 (5) If the birth of the Qumran community was marked by a split in the Essene movement, and if community of goods was, as is likely in that scenario, among the issues occasioning (or at least accompanying) the split, an ongoing warrant for that practice would also have been the distinctive self-understanding of this strongly sectarian wing of the Essene movement over against their Essene cousins.51 48. See above, nn23, 33. 49. Contra Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (trans. E. T. Sander; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 143. 50. Thus Sherman E. Johnson, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper & Bros., 1957), 133, observes correctly that “the emphasis is upon communal life and not on poverty as such.” Similarly Murphy, Wealth in the DSS, 455: “The Qumran community not only idealized its economy or projected its ideal form into the eschatological future, but [also] actually attempted to realize the promised redemption and past covenant in the society they created.” Contra Kurt Schubert, “The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper & Bros., 1957), 127, who proposes that the practice grew out of a “negative attitude toward money.” Cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.122, who characterizes the Essenes as “despisers of wealth” (katafronhtai_ de_ plou&tou). 51. Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes and Their History,” RB 81 (1974): 233–38, notes two suggestions for the primary reason for the split: (a) the insistence of the Teacher of Righteousness to break with the temple (Stegemann), and (b) the Teacher’s proposal to move to Qumran (Murphy-O’Connor), marked by the goal of “insulation from pressure” and concern only “with an elite group,” and a further refinement of “the already stringent rigorism of the movement that had received

334

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION Economic Justice in Other Documents

DSS documents of diverse genre reinforce or supplement the emphases of CD and 1QS in regard to economic justice. Some of these documents are more overtly sectarian in the manner of 1QS, and others less so. The theme of attending to the welfare of the needy can be found in the fragmentary 1Q22 (Sayings of Moses), a text of uncertain provenance that rewrites Moses’ injunctions to the people, combining various passages from the Pentateuch.52 The first main section of injunctions, following the preamble and followed by regulations for the Day of Atonement, pertains to the laws for the sabbatical year (2.11–3.7). The text first paraphrases Lev 25:1–7, within which is added a sentence probably based on Exod 23:10–11 and recalling the legislation on gleaning53: “[And whatever re]mains shall be for the [poor] among [your] brothers who are in [the land]” (1Q22 3.2). Following this is a paraphrase of Deut 15:1–3, on canceling debts in the sabbatical year. Instruction (Sapiential Work) exhibits considerable interest in matters of economics. Of uncertain provenance, less obviously sectarian than other DSS writings, and dating probably to the beginning of the second century B.C.E., this work was nevertheless popular at Qumran, evident from the remaining fragments of at least six manuscripts.54 It is addressed to a specific group with elect status, but yet in varied social circumstances (e.g., farmers, 4Q418 frag. 103 line 2; artisans, 4Q418 frag. 81 line 15). Striking especially is its extensive advice to those in some situation of financial vulnerability (4Q416; 4Q417), referring to the lack of food, indebtedness, servitude, possible liberation from poverty, parental relationships, and marriage when poor. Throughout, eschatological rewards for the faithful elect are identified in economic him” (237). In this connection, his proposal that Josephus and Philo especially describe “the life-style of those Essenes who did not follow the Teacher of Righteousness” (235) seems unlikely, given the primacy of the theme of community of goods in 1QS and in Josephus and Philo (as opposed to CD). That is, no accompanying warrant would be given for the non-Qumranites to practice full community of goods, especially if they are still in locations of greater proximity and interaction with outsiders (as with the presumed pre-Qumranites of CD). 52. For a similar genre, see Emanuel Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16 (1995): 581–600. 53. As in Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–22. 54. See, e.g., Torleif Elgvin, “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A,” RevQ 16 (1995): 559–80; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Murphy, Wealth in the DSS, ch. 4.

GORDON M. ZERBE

335

terms, especially as “reward” (hl(p) or “inheritance” (hlxn), in the context of a view of reality highlighting God’s dominion of all (e.g., 4Q416 frag. 1; 4Q417 frag. 1 col. 1).55 Poor addressees are encouraged to quickly repay any creditor (4Q417 frag. 1 1.17–2.25; 4Q416 frag. 2 col. 2), never to mortgage their inheritance lest their boundary be displaced (4Q417 frag. 1 2.23; 4Q416 frag. 2 2.18; 3.8–9), never to stop pursuing knowledge and the refinement of the heart (4Q416 frag. 2 3.12–15), and not to demean themselves in their poverty: “Do not in your affairs demean your spirit, do not for any money (Nwh) exchange your holy spirit” (4Q417 frag. 1 2.8; 4Q416 frag. 2 2.6–7); “Do not sell your soul for money (Nwh)” (4Q417 frag. 1 2.21; 4Q416 frag. 2 2.17–18); “Do not take pride in your lack when you are poor, lest you despise your life” (4Q417 frag. 1 2.25; 4Q416 frag. 2 2.19–20). Another sapiential text of uncertain provenance (4Q424) similarly gives deference for those of low degree. It advises the reader not to entrust wealth to a man with an “evil eye” who promises high returns: he will surely be proved to be godless in the time of harvest (frag. 1 lines 10–12). Moreover, the text identifies the ideal just man as the “prosecutor/adversary of those who shift boundaries” and as one committed to “righteousness for the poor ones,” “concerned for all who lack wealth” (frag. 3 lines 9–11). The Temple Scroll emphasizes that Israel’s leaders are to be characterized by economic justice. Judges and kings must not “pervert justice” by “accepting a bribe” (11Q19 51.12–13; 57.19–20); kings furthermore must not “crave a field, vineyard, any property, house, or anything valuable in Israel” and act to “seize” it (57.20–21); and chiefs selected by the king must be “enemies of gain” ((cb y)nw#, 57.9). Perhaps the most pervasive theme in regard to economic justice is that of God’s vindication of the elect and humble poor, and judgment against the arrogant wealthy or greedy (or oppressors). In individual thanksgiving songs of the Hodayot, the psalmist identifies himself as “the poor one” (Nwyb), 1QHa 10.32; 11.25; 13.13, 16, 18), the “afflicted one” (yn(, 1QHa 13.20), or as “the poor one and afflicted one” (yn(w Nwyb), 10.34; 13.14) in reference to concrete experience of persecution or calamity, a motif based on the canonical Psalms. The elect, whom God has vindicated (or will vindicate), are identified as the “poor” ([My]nwyb), 1QHa frag. 16 3.3), “those afflicted of spirit (xwr ywn(), those refined by affliction (ynw( yqqwzm), those purified in the crucible” (Prcm yrwrb, 1QHa 6.3–4), and “the afflicted ones (Mywn() in the mud, …; the poor of 55. Murphy, Wealth in the DSS, 166–67.

336

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

kindness” (dsx ynwyb)) whom God intends “to raise together (dxy) from desolation” (1QHa 13.21–22). God is celebrated as the one who “brings down the arrogant spirit without even a remnant” but “raises the poor (Nwyb)) from the dust” (1QHa 26.1–2 [= 4Q427 frag. 7 2.7–8]). In all cases, the characterization of the elect person or group as “poor” in its textual context refers concretely to the experience of persecution or oppression, not merely to spiritual poverty.56 A writing similar to the Hodayot, titled for its opening line “Bless, my soul,” extols God for deliverance of the poor (Nwyb)), the afflicted (yn(), and the deprived (Myld, 4Q434 1.1), while acknowledging the proper disposition as the “contrite heart” (hkdn bl) and “humility” (hwn() that God has provided in the midst of this circumstance (4Q436 frag. 1 1.1; 2.2). Similarly, in an apocryphal hallelujah psalm, God is extolled for ransoming “the afflicted from the hand of oppressors” (4Q488 A; 11Q5 18.17). A fragmentary document that might be termed “The Triumph of Righteousness” (from Book of Mysteries and Mysteries), whether a sermon or an apocalyptic writing, castigates the unjust seizing of wealth by one nation against another (1Q27 frag. 1 1.10–12; 4Q299 frag. 1 lines 1–3), and identifies the loss of wealth as a form of divine judgment (1Q27 frag. 1 col. 2; 4Q299 frag. 2), apparently in regard to transgressions in matters of “property” (4Q300 frag. 5 line 5). Striking in relation to the New Testament is the use of Isa 61:1–2 in two fragmentary texts. One is a hymn from the Hodayot characterizing the ministry of God’s “servant,” appointed “to proclaim to the poor (Mywn( r#bl) the abundance of your compassion,” leading to deliverance “[the bro]ken of spirit, and the mourning to everlasting joy” (1QHa 23 [top] 1.10, 14–15). The other (On Resurrection [= Messianic Apocalypse) celebrates the work of God’s Messiah, whose spirit will hover over the poor (Mywn(), and who will “heal the wounded, revive the dead, and bring good news to the poor (r#by Mywn()” (4Q521 frag. 2 2.6, 12). The theme of God’s vindication of the oppressed poor can also be found in writings of the Roman period, as in the War Scroll and the Commentary on Psalms, in which the “poor” becomes not just a characterization, but nearly a title for the elect community. In 1QM not only will the enemies be delivered “into the hand of the poor” by God’s power; 56. Contra, e.g., Hans-Joachim Kandler, “Die Bedeutung der Armut im Schriftum von Chirbet Qumran,” Jud 13 (1957): 193–209. In an overstatement, Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 18–19, views the Essenes as transforming a socioeconomic notion of poverty into a religious one.

GORDON M. ZERBE

337

they will also be defeated “by the hand of them that are bent in the dust” (1QM 11.8–9, 13–14; cf. 14.7). God’s hand is specially “with the poor” (13.12–14), which characterizes “we in the lot of your truth.” In the Commentary on Psalms the “afflicted” (Mywn() of Ps 37:11 are identified as “the congregation of the poor (Mynwyb)),” who will be delivered from their affliction to experience “everything enjoy[able to] the flesh” (4Q171 2.9–13; 3.8–10).57 Complementing this self-understanding of the community as “poor,” denunciations of economic injustice by the Jerusalem’s ruling class figure prominently in the pesharim. The following is said of the Wicked Priest: “He abandoned God and betrayed the precepts because of property” (Nwh). “He stole and heaped up the wealth (Nwh) of men of injustice.” “He took the property (Nwh) of the peoples” (1QpHab 8.10–12). “He stole the property (Nwh) of the poor” in the towns of Judah (1QpHab 12.9–10). Accordingly, the woe in Hab 2:9–11 on the one “who gets evil gain ((r (cb) for his house” is applied to the Priest’s establishment: “that its stones might be in oppression (q#(b) and the beam of its framework in robbery (lzgb)” (1QpHab 9.12–10.1). And thus, “God will condemn him to destruction even as he himself planned to destroy the poor (Mynwyb))” (12.5–6), and “he will be paid his reward for what he has done to the poor” (Mynwyb)). Here the “poor” are identified both as “the Council of the Community” (dxyh tc(), and as “the simple (y)tp) of Judah who practice the Law,” apparently referring to two separate groups (12.2–5) and implying sympathy for and solidarity with illiterate (but still observant) poor beyond their own community.58 More generally, the commentary on Hab 2:8a refers to “the last Priests of Jerusalem who heap up wealth (Nwh) and gain ((cb) by plundering the peoples” (1QpHab 9.4–7). Similarly, in the Commentary on Nahum, singled out for criticism is “the wealth (Nwh) which [the pries]ts of Jerusalem accu[mulated],” and which will be delivered to the hands of the Kittim (4Q169 frags. 3–4 1.9–12). The Commentary on Psalm 37 (5.20c) denounces “princes [of wickedn]ess who have oppressed (God’s) holy people; they 57. Cf. the reference to the “poor of his flock” in CD-B 19.9, absent in the parallel in CD-A 7.20–21. See also Leander E. Keck, “‘The Poor among the Saints’ in Jewish Christianity and at Qumran,” ZNW 57 (1966): 54–78. 58. This is the natural interpretation of the interpreter’s attempt to identify both “Lebanon” and the “beasts” of Hab 2:17. It is unlikely that the scribes would refer to themselves either as “simple” or in reference to “beasts.” The plundering referred to is generalized, including the “property of the peoples” (cf. 4QpHab 9.4–7, below) in the “towns of Judah” (12.9). On the “simple,” cf. 1Q28a 1.19–22; CD 15.10–11. On the “Council of the Community” as a common title for the group in 1QS, see, e.g., 6.3; 7.22, 24; 8.1, 5.

338

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

will perish like smoke which van[ishes before the wi]nd” (4Q171 3.7–8). And the fragmentary Commentary on Isaiah applies the curses on Judeans for their luxurious living and hoarding from Isa 5:8–14 to “the men of mockery who are in Jerusalem” (4Q162 2.1–10). Finally, in hymnic contexts, we find the attitude of renunciation of the desire for and dependence on wealth, which functions to legitimize and reinforce the practice of community goods. In two hymns the theme is expressed as a confession of loyalty. In one the penitent claims no reliance in “gain” or “wealth” (1QH 18.22–23), and in fact claims to loathe “wealth and gain” ((cbw Nwh), whereas the ungodly are proud in their “possessions and fortune,” “the abundance of luxuries” (18.24–30). The other hymn confesses: “I know that no wealth can compare to your truth” (7.25–26). Finally, in a hymnic vow that closely resembles the concluding hymn of 1QS, we find this vow: I will [not] barter your truth for wealth (Nwh) and all your judgments for a gift/bribe (dxw#). (1QH 6.20)

NONRETALIATION IN THE DEAD S EA SCROLLS The Damascus Document We have already observed the connection between economic and nonretaliatory themes in 1QS 9.22–23 and 11.1–2. Now we turn to examine the theme of nonretaliation further. In CD nonretaliatory themes appear in the central Precepts for Covenanters (6.11–7.4), in the corresponding judgment oracle against the ruling elite (8.2–11), and in the Laws. Precepts 9, 14, and 15, between which precepts on mutual solidarity and support for the needy (items 10–12; CD 6.21–7.1) and on lust (item 13; CD 7.1–2) intervene, read as follows: to love each man his brother as himself (item 9; CD 6.20–21)59 whmk whyx) t) #y) bwh)l to reprove each man his brother according to the commandment (item 14) hwcmk whyx) t) #y) xykwhl and not to bear malice from one day to the next (item 15; 7.2–3) Mwyl Mwym rw+nl )lw 59. This precept functions as an independent item, but also as a heading for the group of items listed (Precepts 9–15; 6.20–7.3). The precept draws on Lev 19:18, but changes “neighbor” to “brother.”

GORDON M. ZERBE

339

The corresponding section in the judgment oracle reads: they took vengeance and bore malice each toward his brother wyx)l #y) rw+ynw Mwqnw and they hated each man his fellow (8.5–6) wh(r t) #y) )wn#w

With some minor variations, all these items restate Lev 19:17–18 (no hate, 19:17a; reproof, 19:17b; no vengeance or malice, 19:18a; love neighbor, 19:18b). In the Laws of CD, Lev 19:17b and 19:18a are applied to relationships within the community, in particular to communal discipline and judicial procedure.60 In the context of rules for judicial procedure (9.1–10.10),61 we find the following ordinance: And concerning the saying, “You shall not take vengeance and shall bear no malice against the sons of your people” (Lev 19:18a): any man from those who have entered the covenant who brings a charge62 against his fellow which is not with reproof before witnesses, or brings it in the heat of anger, or relates it to his elders to dishonor him, he is one who takes vengeance and bears malice. Is it not indeed written, ‘He takes vengeance on his adversaries and bears malice against his enemies’ (Nah 1:2)? (CD 9.2–5)

The next lines further clarify breaches in the proper pattern of “reproof”: “if he keeps silent from day to day (without reproving),63 and accuses him in the heat of anger with a capital offense” (CD 9.6–8).64 The disciplinary procedure presupposed in this passage entails at least 60. On judicial procedure, see Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 23–110; Mathias Delcor, “The Courts of the Church of Corinth and the Courts of Qumran,” in Paul and Qumran (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Chicago: Priory, 1968), 69–84; Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985). According to Josephus (J.W. 2.145), “They are just and scrupulously careful in their trial of cases, never passing sentence in a court of less than a hundred members; the decision thus reached is irrevocable” (LCL). According to 1QS 5.6, members were expected to participate in community, trials (byr), and judgment (+p#m). The practice of communal discipline was the means by which members “would support their steps in the way of God” (CD-B 20.17–28). 61. Cf. also CD 13.5–7; 14.9–12; cf. 1QS 8.16–19; 8.24–9.2. 62. For the language of “bringing a charge” (rbd )yby, CD 9.3), cf. 1QS 6.1, 24. 63. The appearance of the phrase “from day to day” (Mwyl Mwym), probably from Num 30:15 (30:14 ET; e.g., Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 101), in connection with Lev 19:17b–18a in both the Precepts for Covenanters and the Laws illustrates the close relationship between the two texts. 64. On capital crimes, cf. CD 9.1, 16–22; 10.1–2. For this interpretation of twm rbd, taking the phrase with “accusing him in the heat of anger,” see Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 89, 101–2; Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document” (PTSDSSP 2), 43.

340

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

three stages: (1) personal, informal reproof; (2) formal reproof in the presence of witnesses; and (3) bringing formal charges against an offender.65 The focus on dynamics within the community is evident in the identification of “sons of your people” (Lev 19:18a) as “those who have entered the covenant” (9.2–3). CD 9.2–5, then, articulates in specific terms what is proscribed by Lev 19:18a. Whether by an offended party or by a third party, bringing a case without having reproved the offender before witnesses, bringing a case without having overcome anger, or slandering another before “his elders”—these all are tantamount to taking vengeance and to bearing malice. The penal code of the Damascus Document includes items identifying the punishments for “bearing malice unjustly” and for “bearing malice in a capital matter,” presumably without proper reproof.66 And in the fragmentary CD 13.18, “merciful love” (dsx tbh)) is coordinated with “not bearing malice” as the proper behavior with which the Examiner apparently disciplines members.67 Especially significant is the emphatic citation of Nah 1:2b as the counterpart to Lev 19:18a in CD 9.5, highlighting that vengeance is God’s prerogative. Thus, on the other side of the prohibition against revenge is the affirmation that vengeance and malice are to be left to God. Nevertheless, it is also clear that God’s vengeance in cases of injury or offenses within the community can be realized only through the proper procedures of communal reproof and trial. Another precept related to the idea of nonretaliation and closely tied to the previous ordinance can be observed in CD 9.8–10: Regarding the oath. Concerning the saying, You shall not mete out justice (lit., save) for yourself with your own hand (Kl Kdy K(y#wt )l): a man who causes (another) to swear in the open field, and not in the presence of the judges or (on) their command, is one who metes out justice for himself with his own hand. 65. On reproof at Qumran, see esp. Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 89–110; Florentino García Martínez, “Brotherly Rebuke in Qumran and Mt 18:15–17,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (ed. F. García Martínez and J. C. Trebolle Barrera; trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 221–32. For parallel patterns or perspectives for communal reproof and rebuke, cf. Sir 19:17; Matt 18:15–22; Luke 17:3–4; T. Gad 6:3–4; Str-B 1:795–97. 66. The penal code of CD is fragmentary. A reconstruction of CD 14.22 is based on the parallel in 1QS 7.8: “bearing malice unjustly” has a penalty of punishment for one year or six months. In the version of the Damascus Document attested by 4Q266, the penalty for “bearing malice in a capital matter” is expulsion (4Q266 frag. 10 2.1–2); see Baumgarten and Schwartz, ibid., 43. Cf. Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Cave 4 Versions of the Qumran Penal Code [compared to the Community Rule (1QS)],” JJS 43 (1992): 268–76.

GORDON M. ZERBE

341

Parallel in form to the law articulating the meaning of Lev 19:18a (CD 9.2–4), this passage refers to the situation of personal conflict, in which someone accuses another of an offense against the former. The context may indicate that the accusation is about stolen property, or perhaps some sort of defrauding. When such an accusation incites the accused to swear innocence in the “open field” (hd#), where there are no potential witnesses (cf. Deut 22:23–27), and not in the presence of the judges, the accuser is guilty of transgressing the precept against taking justice into one’s own hand. This precept does not appear explicitly in Scripture, but was undoubtedly deduced from the narrative of 1 Sam 25,68 which proscribes seeking violent revenge on one’s own (25:26, 31, 33, 39) and also demonstrates that God is the one to whom vengeance is to be deferred (25:29). A similar precept seems to lie behind the interpretation of Lev 19:18a in the Septuagint, and in turn the ethical code of Philo.69 Similarly to CD 9.2–8, we see 9.8–10 proscribing actions that fall outside the established procedures for gaining redress, reproof, and formal indictment. The swearing of oaths in the situation of personal conflict is appropriate only for court.70 The surviving, fragmentary penal code of the Laws does not include a reference to this precept, although the original form probably once did, since a parallel item on this topic is extant in the penal code of 1QS (6.25–27). No prohibition against retaliation or vengeance in relation to outsiders can be found in CD (in contrast to 1QS). Judicial (avenging) action against Gentiles is implied as permitted in restrictions of such activity. CD 12.6–8 legislates that no killing of Gentiles is permitted for the purpose of increasing (one’s own) “wealth and gain” (cbw Nwh). 67. Cf. 4Q477, which includes either “rebukes by the overseer,” or the “overseer’s record of rebukes”; see Charlotte Hempel, “Who Rebukes in 4Q477?” RevQ 16 (1995): 655–56. 68. Baumgarten and Schwartz, ibid., report that the formula rm) r#) (“concerning the saying,” CD 9.8–9) was used by Qumran exegetes “for things implied or derived from Scripture as well as that what was explicitly stated.” 69. The LXX translation of Lev 19:18a reads: ou)k e0kdika~tai/ sou h( xei/r. On not taking justice “into one’s own hand” (au)toxeiri/a) in Philo, see Spec. 3.91, 96; 4.7–10; cf. Mos. 2.214. And for other references to “saving with one’s own hand,” see Judg 7:2; Deut 8:17. See further Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 61–62. 70. This is the one place that comes close to corroborating the claims of Josephus (J.W. 2.135) and Philo (Prob. 84) that Essenes shunned oaths, from which Josephus himself exempts oaths of initiation (J.W. 2.139, 142). CD shows that in addition to the oath of entry (15.5–16.9), oaths were to be reserved for formal judicial procedures (9.9–16; 15.1–5; 16.10–12), and presumably shunned only in day-to-day relationships.

342

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

Furthermore, any attempt to take (or recover?) possessions of Gentiles to keep them from blasphemy cannot be undertaken personally, but only by “the order of the Council of the Association of Israel.” At least, this is quite different from the posture of 1QS, in which no lawsuits against outsiders are permitted until the day of vengeance (1QS 10.19–20; below), illustrating again that the degree of sectarian posture in CD is more moderate than that of 1QS. On the other hand, however, given the constant reference to avenging agents in CD as divine or else other nations,71 we might assume that some notion of nonretaliation, based on deferment of justice to God (cf. CD 9.5; 1QS 10.17–19), was present in the community presupposed in the Laws of CD. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the elect are nowhere presented as God’s agents of vengeance in history or in the final drama,72 as in 1QS and ideologically related documents; and nowhere in CD do we find a call to “hate” outsiders.73 We might even wonder whether in this circle of Essenes, an attitude of “praying for enemies” was exemplified, as the account in Hippolytus suggests of Essenes.74 71. God’s vengeance is to be achieved “by the hand of all the Angels of Destruction” (CD 2.6; cf. 1 En. 56.1; 1QS 2.6–7). Examples specified are “the avenging sword” in history (CD 1.4, 17–18; 3.10–11; 7.13; 8.1 [= B 19.10]), or when the “Anointed of Aaron and Israel comes” (B 19.10–13 [diff. text in A]); “the hand of Belial” (8.2 [= B 29.14]); “the kings of Greece” (8.11 [= B 19.24); and finally “the Prince of all the congregation” at his coming (7.20–21 [diff. text in B]). See now also 4Q246 (An Aramaic Apocalypse ar), which exhibits similarities to Daniel 7, in which a messianic agent “wages war” for God to bring an “eternal rule” of “peace” and “rest from the sword.” 72. See below, n84. 73. The closest is the call to “reject what God hates” (CD 2.15), but this is quite different from “hating all that God despises” (1QS 1.4). Otherwise, there is reference to God’s anger (e.g., CD 1.21–2.1; 2.5–7, 21; 3.8; 5.16; 7.13 [= B 19.26]; B 20.15–16) and to God’s hatred of some (2.8, 13; 8.18 [=B 19.31]). There is, however, the hope that “curses of the covenant might cling” to certain oppressors or apostates (1.17), which, however, might have come from a Qumranic addition—so Murphy-O’Connor, “Literary Analysis,” 562–63. 74. In the one place where Hippolytus’s account diverges significantly from that of Josephus, Hippolytus reads: They vow “neither to hate one who injures nor an enemy, but to pray for them” (Haer. 9.23); Josephus reads: They vow “to hate always the unjust” (J.W. 2.139). For further discussion of the possible authenticity of Hippolytus’s version, see Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 126–29. In the Genesis Apocryphon, Abram prays for the Egyptian king, a foreign injurer (1QapGen 20.28–29). The text is partially damaged, and one reconstruction suggests the reading: “So I prayed for that [per]secutor, and I laid my hands upon his [he]ad”; see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (2d ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 139. This would support the possibility of “prayer for persecutors” within the Essene movement.

GORDON M. ZERBE

343

The Rule of the Community In 1QS nonretalialiatory themes are applied to relationships both with fellow members and with outsiders, including oppressors. Virtues to be demonstrated “one toward the other” (wh(r M) #y)) are truth, humility, merciful love (dsx tbh), Mic 6:8), justice, righteousness, and circumspect walking (tkl (nch, Mic 6:8; see 1QS 2.24; 5.3–4, 25; 8.2; 10.26). Communal reproof is also emphasized, in continuity with CD, but differently phrased: They shall reprove each other in truth and humility and merciful love one towards the other. Let no man speak to his [brother] with anger, or ill-temper, or disrespect, or impatience, or a spirit of wickedness. And let no man hate him [in the perver]si[ty] of his heart (cf. Lev 19:17a); he shall be reproved on the very same day (cf. CD 7.2–3; 9.6). And thus a man shall not bear a fault because of him (Lev 19:17b). (1QS 5.24–6.1)

The specific prohibition of “bearing malice,” recalling a theme from CD 7.2–3 and 9.2–8, can also be found in a concluding vow in 1QS 10.20: “I will not bear malice with anger towards those that turn from rebellion.” Numerous other writings from Qumran reinforce the proscription against anger in the context of offenses and rebuke.75 In accordance with these precepts, a good portion of the penal code (1QS 6.24–7.25) deals with conduct in relation to fellow members (6.25–27; 7.2–10, 15–18).76 In connection with our particular theme, two items are noteworthy and presuppose legislation of the sort evident in CD 9.2–10. One identifies specific transgressions (anger and insubordination) and the penalty (one year of punishment and separation) for breaching the prohibition against meting out justice for oneself by one’s 75. In Instruction (4Q418 frag. 81 line 10) the priestly teacher is appointed “to turn away anger from the men of pleasure,” and considerable attention is given to the proper manner of “rebuke” while attentive to one’s own sin (4Q417 frag. 1 1.1–16). In Mysteries a–c a particular poison for the just man is “an avenger who keeps angry” (4Q300 frag. 7, line 7). In Bless, Oh My Soul (or Barki Nafshi; 4Q436 frag. 1 2.2–3; 4Q435 frag. 1 1.3–4), God is extolled as the one who turns the supplicant’s “angry rage” (P) P(z) to a “spirit of patience” (Kwr) xwr), and his “stubbornness” to “humility” (hwn(). Josephus ( J.W. 2.135) describes the Essenes as “righteous controllers of anger, restrainers of wrath” (o)rgh~j t _ ami/ai dikai=oi, qumou~ kaqektikoi/). James L. Kugel, Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990), 214–25, argues that Qumranites interpreted Lev 19:17a to mean, Do not let hatred “simmer inside of you.” 76. Other major topics pertain to money (1QS 6.24–25; 7.6–8, 24–25) and to procedures for expulsion (7.18–25; cf. 8.16–9.2). Transgressions against major biblical commands are not included; cf. CD 12.3–6, on Sabbath infractions.

344

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

own hand (1QS 6.25–27); the other identifies the penalty (six months, later emended to one year) for breaching either the prohibition against vengeance or the one against bearing malice (7.8–9). All of these regulations for conduct with fellow members indicate the necessity of measures to diffuse tension and hostility within the holy community. Conduct in relation to outsiders is not discussed until the end of 1QS (9.16–23; 10.17–11.2), except for the general posture of “hatred” (1.10–11), the practice of “cursing” (2.4–18; 5.12), and the expectation of separation, including economic separation (2.25–3.6; 5.1, 10, 13–20; 7.24–25; 9.8–10). Stance toward outsiders is further clarified in the rules for the Maskil: And let him not rebuke the men of the Pit nor dispute with them; let him conceal the maxims of the Law from the midst of the men of perversity. …; Everlasting hatred for all the men of the pit in a spirit of concealment. He shall surrender his property to them and the labor of his hands, as a slave to his master and as a poor man in the presence of his overlord. But he shall be a man full of zeal for the Precept, whose time is for the Day of Vengeance. (1QS 9.16–17, 21–23)

These themes are reaffirmed in the segment of the Vows of the Initiates (1QS 10.8–11.2a) pertaining to social and personal conduct (10.17–11.2). Bracketing this segment are the following vows:

(4Q418 frag. ? cf. n35 above, 0) the priestly to turn away pleasure,” and s given to the ke” while atten4Q417 frag. 1 –c a particular

I will not return to any man the reward of evil ((r lwmg #y)l by#) )wl), with good will I pursue each one (rbg Pdr) bw+b); for judgment of all the living is with God, and it is he who will render to each man his reward. I will not envy in a spirit of wickedness, and my soul shall not covet the wealth of violence. And I will not engage in a legal dispute (byr) against the men of the pit until the Day of Vengeance; and I will not withdraw my wrath from men of perversity, and I will not be pleased until the determination of judgment. (1QS 10.17–20) …; (I will vow)… to return humility (hwn() to the proud of spirit, and (to respond) with a contrite spirit (hrb#n xwrb) to the men of deviating (h+m y#n)), the pointers of the finger, the speakers of evil, and the acquirers of wealth (Nwh ynqm). (11.1–2)

The following salient points must be recognized in the above quotations. First, unique in DSS literature is the prohibition against retaliation,

GORDON M. ZERBE

345

expressed with the phrase “to return… reward” (lwmg bw#). Elsewhere in the scrolls this idiom applies to the avenging activity of God (1QS 2.6–7; CD 7.9 [= B 19.6; 1QM 11.13; 4Q171 4.9; 1QpHab 12.2–3), but sometimes to the avenging activity of the elect in the final battle (1QS 8.5–7; 1QM 6.6). Second, the prohibition is coordinated with a positive counterpart: “I will pursue each man with good.”77 Third, the two-sided vow is universal in application, as evident in the reference to “all life”78 and the usage of #y) (“each man”) in combination with rbg (“fellow”) elsewhere.79 Finally, the vow is grounded in the idea of deferring to God the judgment of all life,80 recalling the theme in CD of deferment to God for establishing vengeance within the community (CD 9.2–8). Nevertheless, this combined expression of nonretaliation, with the coordinating theme of doing good, both grounded in God’s vengeance and vindication, is not unique to 1QS. Indeed, 1QS here appears to affirm a widely known, and biblically based precept.81 What 1QS does, however, is to understand and interpret this precept in a distinctly Qumranic way. Thus, “pursuing with good” is understood as reacting with a facade of “humility” and with subservience,82 as is indicated by 77. 4Q260 frag. 1 4.5 has the variant bw+l, “for good.” This would mean seeking a desired end to the conflict or seeking the opponent’s welfare, not just promoting a means of responding. While this may be a traditional form, it does not appear to reflect the Qumranic attitude. On the phrasing, cf. Ps 34:14; 38:21 (38:20 ET). 78. Cf. 1QS 4.26; 9.12; 10.17–18. 79. 1QS 4.20, 23; for rbg alone for a person in general, cf. 1QHa 11.10; 17.15; 19.20. 80. The l) t),, “to God,” and the emphatic h)whw, “and he” (also 4Q256; 4Q260, )whw), emphasize the exclusive prerogative of God to exact retribution. The transition after the vows in 11.2 (“For as for me, my vindication/righteousness belongs to God,” y+p#m l)l yn) )yk) seems to refer ahead to the next segment, but also backward as the grounding for the previous vows: God is the one who will vindicate. Cf. 1QHa 15.18–19; 17.23–26; 18.22–24; and 1QM for the theme of complete reliance on God. 81. On the biblical background, see Prov 20:22; 24:28–29. For expressions elsewhere with the phrasing “repayment,” see 1 En. 95:5; 2 En. 50:2–4; Jos. Asen. 23:9; 28:5, 10, 14; 29:3; Rom 12:17–21; 1 Thess 5:15; with the phrasing “not imitating evil,” see Ps.-Phoc. 77–78; with the phrasing “not taking vengeance” (Lev 19:18), see, e.g., Sir 27:30–28:7; T. Gad 6:7; with the phrasing “not recalling evil,” see Philo, Ios. 246, 261; T. Sim. 4:4–7; T. Zeb. 8:4–6; for the phrasing “not reckoning evil,” see T. Zeb. 8:5; T. Benj. 3:6; for the response of “good,” see T. Gad 4:2–3; 5:2–3; T. Benj. 8:1–2; Ahiqar, Syr A, 20; for the warrant of deferring to God’s justice, see Sir 19:17; T. Gad 6:7; 7:4–5; Jos. Asen. 28:10–11, 14; 2 En. 50:2–4. For further parallels, see Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 165–67. Some, not all, of these are applied universally to all people. 82. The idea of keeping a facade before oppressors is not unique; cf. Philo, Somn. 78–92, who gives it the pragmatic warrant of “taming” oppressive power.

346

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

9.22–23 and 11.1–2, a facade that covers the “concealed hatred” of the community from its oppressors (9.21–22; 10.19–20).83 And deferment to God’s justice is understood as temporarily withholding their own lawsuits and their own participation with God in the judgment of the wicked (cf. 1QHa 6.4),84 but not at all diminishing their wrath, as is made clear in 9.23 and 10.19–20. In this case, deferment to God does not mean relinquishing their own opportunity to exact vengeance upon the wicked. Fundamental to this interpretation of the precept is the notion that the covenanter “shall walk with every living being according to the arrangement of every time and the weight of every person” (1QS 9.12; cf. 3.13–15; 8.4; 9.18–21; 10.25–26). Social morality is defined and applied in two ways: in terms of the classes of humanity (cf. 9.14–23; 10.17–21; 10.26–11.2; 1QHa 6.8–22) and in terms of the nature of the time (7.15; 9.13–14, 19–21, 23, 25; cf. CD 2.9–10; 12.21–22; 16.2–4). Thus, we read that covenanters must “love all the sons of light, each according to his lot (position) in the Council of God,” and must “hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his fault in the Vengeance of God” (1QS 1.9–11; cf. 5.11–13; 9.16, 21–22; 1QHa 6.19, 21), a notion that they deduced from the Scripture.85 “Now” is the time for separation and subservience with a concealed hatred (1QS 8.12–14; 9.19–23); soon will come the day of vengeance (9.23, 25; 10.19–20), when the community will be agents of God’s vengeance, indeed God’s army (1Q28a 1.21, 26; 1QM).86 83. Thus, Krister Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love: 1QS x,17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21,” HTR 55 (1962): 344, aptly remarks: “To pursue outsiders with good is a special case of ‘the eternal hatred,’ not of love.” 84. For the theme that the elect will be God’s agents of judgment, see, e.g., 1QS 8.6–7, 10; 1QHa 14.18–19, 29–33; 15.22–23; 16.17–20; 1QpHab 5.3–6; 1QM 6.5–6; 13.16–18. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1986 (ed. K. Richards; SBLSP 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 353, traces this belief to the group from which the Essenes derived, as exemplified in 1 En. 91–98. For a discussion of documents in which one finds a synergistic historical or eschatological ideology of human military action by the elect as the method by which God avenges (e.g., 1–2 Maccabees; Judith; Jub. 23; 1 En. 85–90, 91–93) in contrast to other writings in which such an idea is either absent (2 Baruch; 2 Esdras; Sib. Or. 3) or possibly questioned (Wisdom of Solomon; Psalms of Solomon; Daniel; Testament of Moses; Revelation), see Gordon M. Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical Evaluation,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 14; Sheffield, 1993), 65–95. Cf. the idea in Paul that believers will participate in the eschatological judgment of nonbelievers, in 1 Cor 5:12–6:3. 85. See Edmond F. Sutcliffe, “Hatred at Qumran,” RevQ 2 (1960): 345–55; Thomas Söding, “Feindeshass und Bruderliebe: Beobachtungen zur essenischen Ethik,” RevQ 16 (1995): 601–19. 86. On the question of a possible increase in Essene militarism in the first century, which poses a contrast to Philo’s picture of Essenes as pacifistic (Prob. 76–78), see

GORDON M. ZERBE

347

I MPLICATIONS FOR N EW TESTAMENT I NTERPRETATION What, then, are the implications of the forgoing discussion for NT interpretation or Christian origins? I proceed with two methodological guidelines. (1) Both continuity and diversity within DSS texts (and their presumed corresponding Essene communities) must be taken into account when making historical connections and sociological or ideological comparisons. (2) In comparing specific texts or general patterns and in making historical connections, the particular interpretation, ideological framework, and social setting of each side of the comparison must be considered. We thus first summarize our findings. What both CD and the more strongly sectarian documents have in common in regard to the theme of economic justice are these: (a) sharp invective against unjust wealth and the oppression of the ruling priestly class, (b) the notion that wealth itself is insidious, (c) the economic examination of new members, (d) the seriousness of lying in matters of property, (e) restrictions on commerce in relation to outsiders, and (f) probably measures toward charity outside the community. We see chief differences in regard to economic themes: (a) the practice of complete community of goods and the ideology of “community” (dxy, 1QS), as opposed to the practice of a required contribution to take care of communal needs and charity (CD); (b) the framework of apparent egalitarianism and of strict measures for disengagement (divestment) from property and assets (1QS), as opposed to accepted economic disparity and personal ownership of property (CD); (c) a heightened sense of purity in regard to economic activity and property in 1QS, less pronounced in CD; (d) the characterization of the community as “poor,” including the theme of complete renunciation of property in 1QS, absent in CD; and (e) the facade of complete subservience to outside oppressors in matters of property at Qumran, not in CD. In regard to vengeance and nonretaliation, there are several common points: (a) carefully organized judicial procedures for the realization of communal holiness and justice; (b) measures to reduce tensions and hostilities in this intracommunal process, developed in the light of biblical precepts proscribing vengeance, malice, and “saving with one’s own hand” (Lev 19:17–18); and (c) probably similar precepts for nonretaliation against all people. The leading differences in regard to nonretaliation Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 129–34. Apart from the literary evidence (e.g., 1QSa; 1QM; 11QTemplea [= 11Q19] 57–63), the rest of the evidence is inconclusive and insufficient to determine the extent of Essene militarism in the first century.

348

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

are (a) the permission of judicial action against outsiders (Gentiles; and presumably other Jews) in matters of property (CD) in contrast to the complete withholding of judicial action in the present order of time (1QS); (b) a less-strident posture in relation to the Gentiles (proselytes, slaves) in CD; (c) no evidence in CD for “concealed hatred” of outsiders, for the central role of the elect in eschatological vengeance, or for the facade of subservience as the proper attitude in the present. These differences in both themes are significant, adding weight to the supposition that CD and 1QS represent two sociological profiles and situations.87 Using Bryan Wilson’s typology, we can identify the particular sectarianism of 1QS as “introversionist withdrawal”; CD might be classified as a more moderate example.88 That these significant differences— among many others, however—can be found within one general movement is not surprising when compared to other examples of sectarian reaction.89 When we compare the Jesus movement and the previously identified streams represented by the DSS in regard to their overall sociological profile, 87. Sanders, Judaism, 352–64, focusing on food, purity, and the temple, concludes that 1QS is “sectarian,” “fully separate from the rest of Judaism,” whereas CD reflects an “extreme party.” For another survey, see Philip R. Davies, “Communities in the Qumran Scrolls,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 17 (1994): 55–68, who, however, argues that CD; 1QS; and 1QSa project “utopian” situations and do not necessarily reflect actual communities. 88. Bryan R. Wilson, Magic and the Millennium (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 43–48; but his categories of “utopian,” “revolutionist,” and “conversionist” sectarian reaction also fit features of the community envisioned by 1QS. For sociological analyses of Qumran, see John J. Collins, “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 25–51; Jean Duhaime, “Relative Deprivation in New Religious Movements and the Qumran Community,” RevQ 16 (1993): 265–76. In comparison to 1QS, the Laws of CD indicate a greater interaction with the surrounding world, and CD’s dualistic ideology is not as sharp, suggesting that its sense of alienation was not as pronounced. Toward a sociological profile of CD as representing a sect, see Philip R. Davies, “The ‘Damascus’ Sect and Judaism,” in Pursuing the Text (ed. J. Kampen and J. C. Reeves; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 70–84. 89. One cross-cultural parallel (mutatis mutandis) to the case of Essenes is the socalled sectarian Anabaptist movement in turbulent sixteenth-century Europe. Within the broader movement, one finds instances of the notions of temporarily withholding the sword until the eschatological day arrives (Hans Hut) and of using the sword to establish the kingdom of God on earth (Münsterites and Jan of Leyden), both within a wider movement otherwise marked by the absolute rejection of the sword. Moreover, while most communities were committed to mutual solidarity and to charity, some communities eventually practiced complete community of goods (Hutterites). See J. Denny Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1987), 52–70, 83–91.

GORDON M. ZERBE

349

we note one major area of commonality: both are politically and economically marginalized from the ruling class and the temple establishment. In connection with this, we observe a perspective shared by the Jesus movement and the broader Essene movement in the area of economic rhetoric against the ruling class and the temple establishment. Both use Isa 5:1–7 for this purpose (4Q500; Mark 12:1–11).90 The similar attack on the misuse of “vows” and “devoted things” is also noteworthy here (cf. “Corban,” Mark 7:11). Although the Essene movement and the Jesus movement were alienated from the ruling priestly establishment for different reasons and historical causes, the combined rhetoric by these two politically marginalized groups lends considerable support for the presence of a real situation of structural economic injustice in Judea, a prime basis for a widespread perception of structural injustice.91 In this connection, we also note a corresponding self-understanding of the community as “poor” or at least in solidarity with the “poor,” who are God’s special clients.92 Likewise found in both movements is the theme of “preaching to the poor” based on Isaiah 61 as a sign of the dawning kingdom and the arrival of the Messiah.93 Furthermore, in both there is a common suspicion about the insidious character of “property” and “wealth,” a shared attitude of renouncing wealth (Nwh, Nwmm; cf. Matt 6:19–24; 13:22). Indeed, the scrolls have significantly illuminated the very usage of Nwmm (“mammon”) in the first century, whose otherwise first manifestation outside the Gospels is in the Mishnah.94 Nevertheless, whereas in 1QS and CD “wealth” is treated as a major “purity” question among many others, in the Gospels we find the stress on economic matters 90. See Craig A. Evans, “Opposition to the Temple,” 235–53; idem, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumram Cave 4,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 97–99. 91. For example, Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Resistance in Roman Society (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 1–145; Sanders, Judaism, 182–89, tries to exonerate the priests, claiming that the invective represents the rhetoric of religio-political debates, comes from legal disputes, and is based on isolated, specific circumstances. While he correctly cautions not to take all the charges at face value, his discussion focuses on the moral integrity of individual priests and overlooks the structural dimensions of the conflict, even in matters of Law interpretation. 92. See also James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 13–14. The Judean church is designated as “poor” in Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10. 93. On 4Q521, see, e.g., Evans, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumram Cave 4,” 96–97. 94. See above, n31. On the usage of “mammon of unrighteousness” in Luke 16:9–10 and its possible Essene background, see David Flusser, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward: Jesus’ Criticism of the Essenes,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 176–97.

350

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

and social morality in contrast to “purity” questions, or perhaps, taking into account the nature of the rhetoric, as the primary “purity” question (cf. Mark 7:1–23; Matt 23:23–24). When we look at the overall sociological profiles of the two movements, however, some sharp differences come into relief.95 While these differences are sometimes exaggerated, they significantly affect our comparison of the themes of economic justice and nonretaliation, as we shall see. The case of Paul and nonretaliation is a good illustration of the need to take into account the ideological framework in textual comparison. On the one hand, among the closest verbal parallels to Paul’s maxims on nonretaliation (Rom 12:17–20; 1 Thess 5:15)96 are those of 1QS 10.17–20, taking into account all early Jewish or Christian texts. The dependence of Paul on Qumran texts, however, can be ruled out since the basic contents of the moral maxims were widely known in Judaism. Nevertheless, there have been significant attempts to interpret Paul from the paradigm of the Qumranic perspective.97 Indeed, it has become clear that Paul’s ethical injunctions on nonretaliation in relation to outsiders are far more apocalyptically framed and motivated than most Christian interpreters would admit. While the Qumran texts might provide heuristic insight, the actual conclusions can be drawn from Paul’s own letters: his maxims (at least when applied to relations with outside opponents) do not appear overtly as a love ethic aimed at reconciliation with all opponents; they are framed within a context of eschatological vindication and judgment, and are not unrelated to his view that the elect will also participate in the eschatological judgment of outsiders. His exhortation is, however, different from 1QS in significant points: in particular, it includes an explicit prohibition against “cursing” (Rom 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12); and the unilateral quest to be at peace (Rom 12:18) is not presented as a facade to conceal the hatred toward outsiders.98 Moreover, Paul’s conversionist vision, that all outsiders are

95. For major differences in the sociological features of the two, see James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” and Howard C. Kee, “Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 22–30 and 104–22 respectively. 96. For other Pauline texts in the field of nonretaliatory themes, see Rom 12:9, 12, 14; 1 Cor 4:12–13; 6:1–8; 13:4–5; 2 Cor 2:7–10; 6:4, 6; 11:20; Gal 5:20, 22; Phil 4:5; 1 Thess 3:12; 5:13–14. 97. Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love,” 347–55. 98. For detailed argument, see Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 211–69.

GORDON M. ZERBE

351

potential insiders, distinguishes him from the apparently more exclusivist perspective of 1QS. In the case of the maxims on loving and not cursing enemies in the Jesus tradition (Matt 5:43–48 et par.), interpretation usually and understandably takes place in the light of the Qumranic foil of required “hatred” of sinners (outsiders), a theme not necessarily original with Qumran but derived from Scripture.99 While not all interpreters claim that Matt 5:43 directly refers to the Qumranic perspective, most highlight the sharp differences between the two perspectives of enemy love and hatred of outsiders.100 Indeed, the story in Luke 9:51–55 confirms the proscription against “cursing” in the Jesus tradition. Nevertheless, even in the Q tradition the maxims on love of enemies stand in some tension with the pronouncements of judgment for unrepentance or for persecuting Jesus and his followers, just as the vow to do good to all stands in tension with the call to hate outsiders in 1QS.101 Also in the Q tradition we find the notion that the disciples will “bring justice” for (or upon) the tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30), indicating some role for the elect in dispensing justice. But on the other hand, one must also reckon with the possibility that at least some Essenes might have agreed with Jesus’ rejection of cursing and encouragement of prayer for persecutors (cf. 1QapGen 1Q20 20.28–29; Hippolytus, Haer. 9.23). In this connection it is appropriate to recognize that the Jesus movement was also not without its sense of boundaries, which are usually minimized in the contrast with Qumran.102 The boundaries, however, are of a different 99. Sutcliffe, “Hatred at Qumran,” 345–55. 100. For comparisons, see T. Söding, “Feindeshass und Bruderliebe,” 601–19, who highlights their different understandings of God; John Kampen, “A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matthew 5:21–48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990 (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLSP 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 34–59. It should be observed, in any event, that Matt 5:43 is redactional and that Jesus’ words on love of enemies, restricting cursing, and doing good to all were originally framed within the context of local community dynamics (e.g. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 255–73). 101. For lack of repentance, see Matt 10:14–15 par. Luke 10:10–12; Matt 11:21–23 par. Luke 10:13–15; Matt 12:38–42 par. Luke 11:29–32; for persecution, see Matt 23:29–30, 34–36 par. Luke 11:47–48, 49–51; Matt 23:37–39 par. Luke 13:34–35; cf. also the disputed Matt 19:28 par. Luke 22:29–30, which may express the notion of disciples applying judgment to others. On the phenomenon in the Jesus movement of “transference of aggression to God’s agency,” that is, in projecting “their own resentment or counteraggression against their oppressors or enemies into the judgment of God,” see Richard A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 166–70. 102. It is not uncommon to find the generalization that the Jesus movement was “open” but that Qumran was “closed”; for references, see James H. Charlesworth,

352

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

sort. Whereas the boundaries at Qumran, for instance, are marked by sharp purity definitions and introversive withdrawal, the boundaries in the Jesus movement have to do with commitment to God’s reign, in particular to the religio-socio-economic reversals that characterize that reign.103 It represents an ethical intensification of norms in solidarity with the poor and marginalized.104 It is not easy for all to follow or to enter; and while there may not be many restrictions for “getting in,” there are significant ones for “staying in.”105 Thus, just as in “exclusivist” Essene circles, the Jesus movement also eventually developed measures for achieving internal discipline and holiness and for reducing internal conflict,106 and measures for maintaining boundaries, including the possibility of expulsion (e.g., Matt 5:25–26; 18:15–18; Luke 6:37–42; 12:58–59 et par.; 17:3–4), which in both 1QS and Matthew is initially designed to result in repentance and reintegration. Pauline Christianity takes up this matter with even more seriousness, also exhibiting features similar to practices evident in the DSS: righteousness within the community is to be achieved by strict communal discipline, whereas the judgment of outsiders is to be left to God (1 Cor 5:9–13).107 “Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” 22–23. Those making such comparisons usually refer to the most extreme wing of the Essene movement; while there is good reason to identify at least the Qumranic wing with a series of sociological extremes (e.g., closed, exclusive, elitist, esoteric, secretive), one must be cautious not to immediately identify Jesus or the Jesus movement with all the opposite features without some nuances. 103. On solidarity with the poor and social reversals in God’s reign, see Matt 5:3–6, 42; 14:13–21; 15:32–39; 20:16; 22:34–40; 25:34–46; Mark 6:30–44; 10:29–31; Luke 4:16–19; 6:20–26, 30; 7:18–23; 13:30; 14:11–24; 16:19–26; 18:14; 22:24–30. In observing the parallel between Luke 14 and 1QSa, James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus, TableFellowship, and Qumran,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 267, aptly remarks that in Jesus’ ministry “the table of God was open to all the poor, and not least to the disabled, the lame, and the blind— those specifically excluded by the self-styled ‘poor’ of Qumran.” One might add further that Luke 14 does not entail a mere opening of boundaries, which it is on the one hand, but also assumes a tightening by rejecting or excluding hierarchal social arrangements and by implying potentially exclusionary reversals. 104. For example, Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 209–45; idem, Sociology, 121–28, 169. 105. For this twofold feature of “covenantal nomism,” see Sanders, Judaism, 262–78. For the themes in the Gospels of the inability or difficulty for some to enter the reign (or, to follow) and of potential eschatological exclusion, see Matt 5:20; 7:13–23; 8:18–22; 10:38–39; 13:41–43, 49–50; 18:1–5; 19:16–25; 24:45–51; 25:1–46; Mark 8:34–38; 9:47–48; 10:17–27; Luke 6:24–26; 12:32–34; 16:9–13; 18:24–30. 106. Cf. Eph 4:25–26, which seems to draw on a tradition promoting prompt rebuke and curtailing anger; for the parallels to 1QS and to other writings, see Leaney, Rule of Qumran, 178–79. 107. For example, Gal 6:1–5; 1 Cor 5–6; 2 Cor 13:1–2. Cf. Mathias Delcor, “Courts of the Church,” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor and J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1990), 69–84.

GORDON M. ZERBE

353

This leads us, finally, to deal with the question of connections between the Essene movement and the Jesus movement in regard to the practice of community of goods or of mutual aid and charity. There are, indeed, remarkable points of continuity. The presentation of community of goods in Acts (2:44–47; 4:32–5:11; 6:1–6) is first to be interpreted in the light of Luke’s theological and literary agenda, based on Hellenistic literary precedents, as evident in Josephus and Philo.108 Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that some historical practice underlies this presentation, whether that is understood (1) as voluntary redistribution of resources for the purpose of mutual aid and support of the needy, or (2) as a combination of complete community of goods and of mutual aid and charity. In both scenarios, not just common patterns but some historical connection between the DSS and the early church might be argued. In the scenario of mutual aid and of periodic resource redistribution to aid the needy, the closest pattern would be that of CD. The central importance of Isaiah 58 and other biblical texts as warrants for this practice in CD (see above) might also have characterized the Jesus movement (cf. Luke 4:16–19). While some inspiration from the Essene movement might be acknowledged,109 this practice can also be assumed to reach back to the practice and teaching of Jesus himself.110 Brian Capper has articulated the case for the second scenario, while acknowledging some idealizing in Acts based on philosophical topoi (esp. 4:32, 34).111 He concedes that full community of goods was practiced only by one group of “Hebraists” within the larger Jerusalem community (thus accounting for the voluntary character of the sale of property), but argues that it was “probably modelled upon Essene practice.” Evidence for this “ethos of the Palestinian practice of community of goods” is taken from the custom evident in 1QS, harmonized with the descriptions of Essenes by Philo and Josephus. General evidence for the practice by an “inner circle” or “leading section” (cf. Qumran) of believers are the following: the reference to the sale of property, the control of resources by a limited number of officers (Acts 2:44–45; 4:35–37; 5:1–2), the daily meal fellowship (cf. 2:46), and the daily distribution (cf. 6:1).

108. See Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Athletes of Virtue’: Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41–47; 4:32–35; 5:12–16),” JBL 113 (1994): 679–96. 109. For example, Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts,” 244: “One should reckon with an imitation of Qumran practice … even if it is clear that modifications were introduced.” 110. For example, Horsley, Sociology, 124–25. 111. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context,” 324–56.

354

ECONOMIC J USTICE AND NONRETALIATION

Capper also argues for specific parallels to 1QS, both linguistic and organizational. In Acts 2:44 the phrase “they were together” (h}san e0pi\ to_ auto\ ) reflects the Semitic usage of “to become as together” (dxyl twyhl) from 1QS, necessarily then clarified by the epexegetical “they were holding all things in common” (ei]xon a#panta koina_). Peter’s reaction to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3–4, he argues, is best elucidated in terms of the complex procedures for entry known from 1QS 6.13–23. The text assumes that, while the sale of property itself is voluntary, the entire amount of proceeds is supposed to be presented to the apostles (5:2–3). Peter’s comment in Acts 5:4 that the property was “his” before its sale recalls the postulancy stage (first year) of admittance, while his comment that after the sale the property was still “in his power” refers to the novitiate stage (second year), when the proceeds were passed on to the community, but registered to the novitiate’s credit and technically remaining his own. The seriousness of lying in matters of property (1QS 6.24–25) thus also represents a substantive parallel.112 The voluntary nature of the contribution by Ananias does not contradict the practice of community of goods, he argues, since it was practiced only by a select group. To make the parallel with Acts more plausible, Capper also maintains that fully property-sharing Essene groups (1QS) were closely linked and interacting with those only following a pattern of mutual support (CD), and that fully property-sharing Essene groups were not limited to Qumran and were not all production-communalized (cf. Philo); in both cases this would involve daily contact with outsiders, including fully property-sharing groups (331–34). Capper bases the likelihood of the practice by early believers and the impact from Essenes on (a) the widespread awareness and currency of this practice (cf. Josephus; Philo), and (b) the possibility of some historical connection (even “direct conduit”) between Essenes and the earliest Jesus movement.113 Despite some difficulties with this argument,114 it is basically on target, confirming that for 112. It is certainly special pleading to claim that the rule in CD 14.20–21 and 1QS 6.24–25 is not really a parallel to Acts 5 since in Acts the problem is “lying to the Holy Spirit”; contra, e.g., Leaney, Rule of Qumran, 200. Nor should one be surprised at the much greater gravity of the situation in Acts (death) compared to CD and 1QS when the genre of the material is taken into account. 113. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context,” 341–50; the possible proximate presence of the “Essene Quarter” is also significant in his argument. 114. Against his harmonized presentation of the “ethos” of the Palestinian practice of community of goods, the sharp economic separation and purity ideology of 1QS (esp. 5.10–20; 8–9) does not easily harmonize with the arguments (1) of close links with Essene groups not practicing community of goods, (2) of a daily contribution of earnings from outside employers (cf. Philo, Hypoth. 11.10; Josephus, Ant. 18.22; cf. 1QS

GORDON M. ZERBE

355

both Qumran and early Christianity, mainly eschatological (escapist) or ascetic explanations are patently inadequate to explain community of goods.115 More important in both cases would be the experience of external pressure and a new ethical vision of internal solidarity based on the interpretation of Scripture, as articulated by the founder, and anticipating God’s future restoration. Finally, the interpretation of “strength” (d)m) in Deut 6:5 as “property” (Nwh, Nwmm), which provided the exegetical foundations of community of goods at Qumran,116 may bear significance for the New Testament. Perhaps a similar (and widely accepted) interpretation lies behind a juxtaposition in a Markan text. Closely following a twofold citation of Deut 6:5 (to love God with all … one’s “strength,” Mark 12:28–34),117 two illustrations of economic justice themes appear, both in negative terms (the scribes who devour widows’ houses, 12:38–40) and in somewhat ambiguous terms (the widow who divests all for others, giving more than any other; or the widow who is victimized by the temple establishment, 12:41–44). To such an application DSS covenanters of all types would have given assent.

6.19–20; 9.22–23); see above, n46. This does not necessarily invalidate, however, the historicity of some level of community of goods in the earliest Christian community. 115. Contra Leaney, Rule of Qumran, 122, who supposes that “early Christians in Jerusalem practiced voluntary charity to the extent of distributing their capital, no doubt in expectation of an early return of the Lord which would mean the end of the age.” For the asceticism argument, see above, n50. 116. See above, nn23, 33. 117. Here the Markan text has i0sxu&j (“strength”), which departs from the LXX’s du&namij (“power”).

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Paul Garnet

I NTRODUCTION The phrase “to make atonement” in the KJV usually translates a Hebrew word rp=eki = (kipper), which occurs frequently in the sacrifice rules of the Pentateuch. This has given the word its meaning in modern speech (making up for wrong done) and in Protestant theology, where the term is used to describe the saving value of the death of Christ. Catholics usually refer to this as “redemption” rather than as “atonement.” The early church fathers often thought of the death of Christ as a “ransom,” following Mark 10:45: “The Son of Man came…to give his life as a ransom for many.” Speculation arose over the question, “To whom was the ransom paid: to God or to the devil?” The Fathers also put a strong emphasis on the death of Christ as a victory over sin, death, and the devil.1 In the Middle Ages, Anselm taught that the death of Christ was efficacious as a satisfaction given to the Father for the outrage made by sin to the divine honor; Abelard saw it as a demonstration of God’s love. More recently, moral-influence theories have pursued Abelard’s line of thought. Thus, for Socinus, Christ saves by revealing God as Savior by his life and by his death. Anselm’s view is more akin to later views of Christ’s death as substitutionary: he took humanity’s guilt and paid the penalty of sin (Luther, Calvin, Brunner, Berkouwer).2 In discussing the history and the significance of the idea in the biblical period, twentieth-century debate has centered around the question of 1. This has been taken up and strongly emphasized by Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (trans. A. G. Hebert; London: SPCK, 1931). 2. Besides ibid., for the history of the Christian doctrine of atonement, see Robert S. Franks, The Work of Christ in Its Ecclesiastical Development (London: Nelson, 1918); and, more recently, Hugh D. McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ: In Faith, Revelation, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985).

357

358

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

whether atonement is propitiation or expiation. One propitiates the offended person (God), but one expiates one’s sin. In support of propitiation, some have pointed out that atonement brings about an end of the wrath of God. Obviously, the propitiation understanding would give weight to the Anselmian tradition. Supporters of expiation point out that God is never the object of the verb kipper in the OT or of its NT Greek equivalents. No one ever propitiates God, since it is not God but humanity that needs to be reconciled. Only the guilt of sin stands in the way, and this requires expiation. This idea is closely linked to the thought that atonement is really a cleansing.3 Scholars have attempted to make progress in the debate about propitiation/expiation by examining the grammatical usage of the verb kipper in the OT and the DSS. In the middle of the twentieth century, two such inquiries resulted in two opposite conclusions (Leon Morris for propitiation, and Stanislas Lyonnet for expiation).4 Another center of discussion is the question of the origin of the idea of the atoning value of the death of Jesus and in particular of possible roots in Judaism. Do the DSS offer views of a saving, vicarious suffering or death, which may turn out to be an important source of NT atonement ideas? It should be borne in mind, however, that the doctrine of atonement is only a part of any theology of salvation. In the case of the NT, it is a vital part, though much less so in the DSS. There are ways in which the scrolls illuminate NT soteriology, including its atonement doctrine, apart from DSS atonement statements as such. At the end of the article I shall outline two of these, which I have found to be helpful: 1. 2.

Fire imagery and the idea of accepting the punishment, The passing of time and the idea of exilic debt.

First, however, I tackle the two questions of the meaning and origin of NT atonement ideas by the following procedure: 1. 2.

Briefly summarize previous findings on the use of the term kipper and its cognate kôpher (rpewk O ,= bribe, compensation payment, or ransom) in the OT. Analyze the grammar of the use of this term in the DSS.

3. For an outline of some recent lines of interpretation, see Bernhard Lang, TDOT 7:293–94. 4. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale, 1955), 142–52. Stanislas Lyonnet, “De notione expiationis” VD 37 (1959): 36–352; ET, “The Terminology of ‘Expiation’ in the Old Testament,” in Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice (Stanislas Lyonnet and Léopold Sabourin; AnBib 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 120–36.

PAUL GARNET 3.

4.

359

Examine the occurrences of the Greek equivalents of these terms in the NT with a view to finding a link with the OT-DSS. This would give us a port of entry or lead-in from the atonement terminology and thinking of the Jewish background to the NT idea of atonement with its strong emphasis on the death of Christ. After outlining the general character of atonement thinking at Qumran, examine some suggestions as to ways in which NT atonement thinking might have developed from ideas in Judaism as exemplified at Qumran: the community’s sufferings as atoning, DSS messianic figures as atoning.

THE QUESTION OF THE M EANING OF NT ATONEMENT TERMS Usage of Atonement Terms in the OT In 1974 the present writer examined every instance of kipper and kôpher in the OT and the DSS then accessible and concluded that the situation was more complex than either Morris or Lyonnet had proposed.5 I found that, though the denotation of kipper was sometimes propitiation and sometimes expiation, the connotation was almost always the same: the putting away of wrath. I counted thirteen distinct usages in the OT, but there are four major groupings: 1.

2.

3.

Social, where the offended entity is human. In Gen 32:20 (32:21 MT) Jacob plans to propitiate6 the “face” of his offended brother by a gift. Elsewhere the cognate kôpher is used for such a gift, as in Prov 6:35. Socioreligious, where the offended entity is human, but God is openly involved in some way (e.g., 2 Sam 21:1–14; see v. 3, “with what shall I make atonement?”). Levitical, where the prescribed atoning procedure is the means of acceptance by God: the priest makes atonement for the sin of the worshipper, who is bringing an offering. Various Hebrew prepositions might be represented by “for” here, but neither the person atoned for, nor his sin ever appears as the direct object of the verb. God never appears as the direct object of the verb either, whether in the priestly literature or anywhere else in the OT, the whole action being conceived as taking place “before the Lord.” I argue that this rather spiritual language retains overtones of

5. Paul Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974): 131–63, esp. 133–59 for a discussion of individual passages (except the more recently published 4Q400). 6. In the summaries and renderings of Hebrew texts, which follow, the English word in italics represents the verb kipper, while the Hebrew word kôpher will be left untranslated.

360

4.

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT propitiation and thus of averting wrath, without actually denoting the crude idea that God is being appeased by a sacrifice. Prophetic, where God is the subject of the verb, which must therefore be translated “forgive, purge, expiate.” Now this is the opposite of the propitiation model as in Gen 32:20 (Jacob will propitiate the face of Esau by his gift): Propitiation: The offender placates (kipper) the offended. Expiation: The offended forgives (kipper) the offender.

In analyzing these usages I determined to examine each instance (or class of instances for the frequent Levitical formula of atonement), starting with what is generally accepted as early material, and attempting to account for each syntactical usage in terms of the context and earlier usage. This method gave satisfactory results, and we can apply the same method to the DSS.

Usage of Atonement Terms in the DSS Besides continuing the OT usages with minor variations, Qumran developed three usages of its own,7 characterized by the use of the preposition d(b (be (6 ad ), imparting a tone of solemnity8: 1. 2.

3.

The Qumranian usage (God forgives or expiates [be 6(ad ] sin) is found in various leading documents: 1QH 4 (= 17 Sukenik).129; 1QS 11.14; CD 3.18. The Rule usage (the community atones for [be 6(ad ] people or for the land) found in the Rule of the Community and the Rule of the Congregation: 1QS 8.6, 10; 9.4; 1QSa [1Q28a] 1.3. Here, when a means is expressed, it includes judgment of evil. Its root seems to be Num 35:33: atonement for the land by slaying the murderer, with the use of be 6(ad to add a note of solemnity. The Damascus usage (God forgives [be 6(ad ] people) found in the Damascus Document: CD 2.5; 4.6–9; 20.34. This usage clearly depends on 2 Chr 30:18. It is intended to convey a sense of the exceptionally irregular circumstances of Israel and the community.

4Q400 frag. 1 1.14–16 is clear evidence that the propitiation idea was very close to the surface in the Jewish piety of the time. It does not reflect 7. See list in the Appendix to this chapter. 8. In every instance in the OT where be (6 ad is used, either the scope of the atonement is national, or the circumstances are exceptional, or both: Exod 32:30; Lev 9:7; 16:17, 24; 2 Chr 30:18; Ezek 45:17. 9. The first 1QH references are from the system used in Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. W. G. E. Watson; 2d ed.; Leiden, Brill, 1996), as reconstructed by Émile Puech; and the second (in parentheses/brackets) is from Eleazar L. Sukenik’s original system.

PAUL GARNET

361

any of the three distinctive DSS usages (though it is closest to the second). In the OT it comes closest to Gen 32:20, as Carol Newsom has pointed out.10 Formerly much scholarship was inclined to deny a religious propitiatory sense for kipper, but this relatively new text is a clear instance of the idea.

The Search for Equivalent Terms in the NT It might seem desirable to look in the LXX for the link between the root kpr and actual NT atonement vocabulary. Now the favorite LXX verb for kipper is e0cila&skesqai (exilaskesthai), but this word never occurs in the NT! Why not? Here are some possibilities: • •

rejection of the temple system of atonement NT atonement ideas originating before Greek was the dominant language of Christianity

Instead of exilaskesthai we find i9la&skesqai (hilaskesthai), but not frequently. In Luke 18:13 in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee in the temple, it means “be merciful” and God is the subject of the verb: “God, be merciful to me the sinner.” This is probably not a representation of the Hebrew kipper, however, since the closest we find to this usage as a translation of kipper in the Greek OT is in the Psalms, where sins are the object of the verb and God the subject (Ps 65:3 [4 MT]; 78:38), and where the verb clearly means “forgive sins” not “be merciful to sinners.” We find a closer fit in a passage where hilaskesthai translates the verb xls (salah[, forgive) followed by an indirect object “to,” as in 2 Kgs 5:18 (the Lord be merciful to thy servant [Naaman]). Since hilaskesthai renders salah[ more often than it does kipper, the balance of probability is that kipper does not lie behind the wording in this passage of Luke. Now salah[ basically means to forgive, but sometimes the constructions used compel us to render it “be merciful to.” Attempts to insert the atonement idea here by noting the similarity between hilaskesthai and i9lasth&rion (hilaste¯rion, the mercy seat) are too forced. The problem of Luke’s lack of references to the atoning value of the death of Christ cannot be so easily solved. The other instance of hilaskesthai in the NT is in Heb 2:17: “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people,” but here “sins” is the direct object of the verb, so 10. Carol. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 104–5.

362

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

grammatically it would be better translated “to expiate the sins of the people.” There is no exact fit as to the construction in the LXX. Psalm 65:3 (64:4 LXX) has hilaskesthai with sins as the direct object, but there the subject is God, not the high priest. What could be the background of these examples (all exilaskesthai unless otherwise stated)? In 1 Sam 3:14 the iniquity of Eli’s house cannot be expiated by sacrifices, presumably by the high priest. In Isa 6:7 a seraph brings a coal from the altar and tells Isaiah, “By this thy sin is expiated”; but a seraph in a vision is hardly equivalent to the high priest. In CD 14.19 it appears that the Messiah of Aaron and of Israel will expiate (kipper) Israel’s iniquity in the last day. As for the Temple Scroll (11Q19), I cannot find any clear use of kipper with a direct object for sins, and in any case this document tends to reproduce the constructions in the Pentateuch. What follows from all this is that the author of Hebrews, who uses the LXX so much, does not reflect LXX language at this point, though clearly the idea behind the Hebrew verb kipper is what he is intending to express here. The cognate hilaste¯rion usually means the “mercy seat” in the LXX. The exception is in Ezekiel, where it means the altar. This term apparently occurs twice in the NT. In Heb 9:5 it simply means the mercy seat in his sketch of the tabernacle contents. In Rom 3:25 it occurs in the pivotal passage (vv. 23–26): “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being freely justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atonement (hilasterion) through faith, by his blood, in order to demonstrate his righteousness.” It is unlikely, however, that hilasterion means mercy seat here, for the idea is of a demonstration, and the mercy seat was one of the most hidden elements in the tabernacle furniture. Instead, it is probably a form of the adjective i9lasth&rioj (hilasterios), which means “atoning,” as in the phrase “atoning death” in 4 Macc 17:22, referring to the death of the Maccabean martyrs. Here too, then, there is no discernable link with the LXX, though the connection with the thought behind the kpr root is evident. Another cognate i9lasmo&j (hilasmos) occurs in 1 John 2:2 (“and he is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only but also concerning the whole world”) and in 4:10 (“God loved us and sent his Son as a propitiation concerning our sins”). This word twice translates Myrwpk (kippurîm) in the LXX (Lev 25:9; Num 5:8), and in each case it refers to the rituals of the Day of Atonement. It seems safe to take the term, especially in the first Johannine reference, as alluding to the all-encompassing atonement effected on Yom Kippur. In this regard it is perhaps significant that Qumran linked the Day of Atonement in its thinking with the year of Jubilee and the activity of an eschatological

PAUL GARNET

363

Melchizedek (11QMelch [= 11Q13] 2.4–8). This is the strongest link with the kpr root via the LXX that we have thus far discovered. What does provide an even stronger link via the LXX is the word kôpher, which is usually translated by the plural word lu&tra (lytra), ransom payments. The word occurs in the singular in Mark 10:45: “The Son of Man came to serve and to give his life [yuxh&, psyche = #pn, nephesh] as a ransom [lu&tron, lytron] for many.” The vocabulary seems to join Isaiah 43 (by way of contrast) with Isaiah 53 (idea of servant and “the many”). Now the message of Isaiah 43 (as in v. 3), that Gentiles would be the kôpher for Israel at the restoration, was quite welcome at Qumran and in contemporary Judaism as a whole. Mark 10:45, I believe, is the port of entry between the ocean of Judaism, as exemplified at Qumran and elsewhere, and the continent of NT atonement teaching. We might ask in connection with Mark 10:45, “To whom is the ransom paid?” In that case it would surely help to reflect on the appropriateness of the question by trying to ask the same question in connection with Isa 43. To whom did God pay Egypt as a ransom for Israel (presumably at the exodus)? The answer could be “To the Red Sea” or “To the destroying angel.” But when the question is repeated in terms of Prov 21:18 (the wicked is a ransom for the righteous) or of the DSS amalgamation of these two (God has given the wicked as our ransom: 1Q34 frag. 3 1.4–6), we must conclude that the question is not very relevant. These ransom sayings are a metaphor for the thought that the fall of Israel’s enemies is inevitably connected with the rise of Israel. As the enemies go down, Israel comes up. This fits in with the theme in Deuteronomy 28 (vv. 13, 45) of Israel being the head when faithful to the covenant, but the tail when unfaithful, and with Isaiah’s statements about the fall of Babylon (13:1–14:2). What then of the ransom saying of Jesus? Against this background it would mean that the blessing of the many is to be inevitably connected with his death, without the person or thing receiving the ransom being particularly in view. If Isaiah 53 is also being alluded to (in view of the term “the many” and of the servant theme), we might say the kôpher here is not so much a ransom as an atoning sacrifice, and thus offered to God. The idea of inevitability would cohere with the sayings about the necessity of his forthcoming death: “The Son of Man must suffer” (Mark 8:31; 9:12; cf. 10:34, 38). This “must” has usually been interpreted as referring to the necessity of Scripture being fulfilled, but perhaps the necessity is simply inherent in the kôpher idea. This ransom saying is taken up in 1 Tim 2:6 and universalized: “[Christ] gave himself a ransom [a)nti/lutron, antilytron] on behalf of [u(pe&r, hyper] all.” Now the Jesus saying was literally “a ransom [lytron]

364

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

instead of [a)nti/, anti] many” (Mark 10:45), which might have originally referred to the faithful remnant of Israel. The context in 1 Timothy 2, however, is God’s gracious desire to have everyone be saved. If he had said “instead of all,” this would have meant that everyone would inevitably be saved. It should be pointed out, however, that in the Pauline writings hyper is a favorite preposition in connection with the beneficiaries of Christ’s death; but we should not rush to the conclusion that it is a synonym for anti (anti does occur in the Pauline literature, but more rarely and in other contexts). It should also be recognized that a substitutionary flavor is already present in the Timothy text by virtue of the prefix anti in antilytron. Of the six clear instances where the root kpr lies behind NT vocabulary (excluding the reference to the ancient mercy seat) in Heb 2:17, Mark 10:45 and 1 Tim 2:6 the agent of atonement is Christ, but in the other instances the agent is God. In every case except the first, the term for atonement is substantival. Basically, it is Christ as an atonement. It is tempting to see the OT kôpher idea as the background of all five instances. In every case Christ himself is the means of atonement, mostly with specific reference to his death within the near context: “blood” (Rom 3:25; 1 John 1:7), “death” (Heb 2:9, 14), “give his life” (Mark 10:45). The NT gives constant emphasis to repentance, the Holy Spirit, and life in the community, but unlike at Qumran, these are never presented as means of atonement. Who are the beneficiaries? In Heb 2:17 “the people” might suggest Israel, and in Mark 10:45 “the many” may mean the remnant of Israel. Hence, 1 Tim 2:6 and 1 John 4:10 universalize the potential benefit, and Rom 3:25 states that it must be received by faith.

THE ORIGINS OF NT ATONEMENT D OCTRINE In what follows I look at two possible origins in the type of Judaism represented by the DSS: community atonement and messianic atonement. But as a background to this inquiry, we must first summarize the general character of atonement thinking at Qumran.

DSS Atonement: Who? Why? How? In the DSS sometimes God is the subject of the verb kipper or the equivalent kôpher phrase, and sometimes a creature (an angelic priest, human

PAUL GARNET

365

beings in general, Moses, priests, the community, a messianic figure). When God is the subject, the text frequently states or hints at his motive. When a creature is the subject, the scrolls do not state the motive, presumably because it is self-evident. Doubtless, God’s motives in forgiving are not self-evident. They could be a mystery (CD 3.17–18), his essential character (1QH 4 [= 17].12), his goodness (1QS 11.14) including his patience (CD 2.4–5), or his righteousness (hqdc, s[eda q4 â, saving righteousness: 1QH 12 [= 4].37). When a creature is the subject, if the atonement is cultic, the means is the appropriate ritual or sacrifice (e.g., Temple Scroll [= 11Q19] 14.11; 16.14; and probably 4QAhA [= 4Q541] frag. 9 1.2). It is also clear that the claims of God’s justice must be satisfied, whether through the completion of the foretold period of punishment (11QMelch [= 11Q13] 2.4–8), or through a repentant attitude and a spirit of holiness and of conformity to the truth as fostered in the community (1QS 9.3–6). Thus, the life of the community can be thought of as a foundation upon which subsequent members are built as they become influenced by this spirit, so that the community atones for its future members (1QS 8.4–7; 9.3–6; also see 5.5–6), including presumably the masses of Israel who are to join in the last days (1QSa [= 1Q28a] 1.3). An important means of atonement in the service of the divine justice is the human judgment on sin, whether through the reproof and discipline of the community or through the final destruction of the wicked (1QS 8.4–7, 10; 9:3–6; and see 5:5–6). For atonement to be efficacious, it must be well-pleasing and acceptable to God, whether cultic (1QM 2.5) or noncultic (1QS 8.10; 9.3–6). Who are the beneficiaries of atonement? When God is the subject, it could be an individual (1QH 12 [= 4].37; 1QH col. 23 frag. 2 line 13; 1QS 3.6–8) including the community’s leader (1QS 11.14) or its members, whether the original members or those who join later (1QS 5.5–6; CD 2.4–5; 3:17–18; 4:6, 9; 20:34; 1Q34 frag. 3 1.4–6). When a creature is the subject of the atoning act, the beneficiary could be Israel (4QDibHama [= 4Q504] frags. 1–2 2.9–10; 1QM 2.5; 4QAhA [= 4Q541] frag. 9 1.2) or the land of Israel (1QS 8.4–7, 10; 9.3–6; 1QSa [= 1Q28a] 1.3), the Covenanters (CD 14.18–19) or the repentant (4Q400 frag. 1 1.14–16). How does all this compare with the OT? The divine motives for forgiving correspond with OT emphases, especially in the texts having to do with the pardon following the sin involving the golden calf. Clearly the community felt that Israel was once again in a similarly undeserving situation. As for the means of atonement, the teaching is quite similar to the OT, except for the stress on a spirit of holiness within the community as

366

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

a foundation for future members. The punishment of the guilty is probably more prominent than in the OT, though it is not absent even there (Num 25:13; 35:33). The strong emphasis on community members as beneficiaries of the atonement is understandable in the DSS and not to be expected in the OT. It does seem, however, that God’s forgiving individuals receives far more relative prominence in the DSS than in the OT. In the OT cult, man makes atonement through prescribed rituals, and then God forgives (not kipper). In the DSS there is little of cultic atonement, except of course in the Temple Scroll. Another matter that receives far more emphasis in the DSS than in the OT is atonement for the land (Cr), )eres[). It is unfortunate that in many translations this has been obscured by translating )eres[ as “earth” and thus giving a universal, christianized tone to the idea.11 Generally, the Community was to make atonement for the land by slaughtering all the wicked in it. The OT has little to say about atonement for the land, but Num 35:33 (atonement by slaying the murderer) and Deut 32:43 (atonement by victory over Israel’s enemies) are obviously in the background. Clearly, the notion of atonement in the DSS is a development closely related to OT ideas. The differences are due to the community’s situation as a faithful remnant in a nation under divine wrath, which took the form of foreign oppression for sins, including cultic irregularities. This remnant was to be the basis for a future salvation for Israel, as more members were added to the movement and its discipline. The discipline was itself an important part of this basis, as existing and new members were subject to examination, reproof, and penalties. Beyond this lies the ultimate “reward” for the wicked, when they are to be destroyed in the endtimes war.

Qumran Community Atonement? Except for the Temple Scroll, literal, cultic atonement is rare in the DSS. When the term is metaphorical, atonement is usually brought about by a holy spirit from God, a pious influence in the community, the community’s discipline, or the slaying of the wicked. What we do not find in the DSS is a substitutionary or vicarious atonement on the part of the community.12 Their general theology precluded any idea of works of 11. Similarly, for the term gh~ (ge4), I think it is best at least initially to try the translation “land,” in view of contemporary Palestinian Judaism’s preoccupation with the fate of the Holy Land. 12. Paul Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT 2; Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 1977).

PAUL GARNET

367

supererogation or any merit that could be transferred to others. Isaiah 53 was not an important passage for them. Isaiah 43 was more attractive in the Judaism of the time. There was, therefore, no vicariously atoning role for the community in its thinking, and this cannot form the background for the NT conception of the saving efficacy of the death of Christ. The impression that there was such an atoning role had been given by scholars’ tendency to translate the Hebrew phrase (Nww( hcr) ra4s[â (a6wôn by “atone for sin” instead of by “accept the punishment of iniquity.” It is the identical phrase used in Lev 26:41, where it clearly means accepting the punishment of one’s own iniquity. This is laid down as a condition for Israel’s return from exile. It involves a doxology of judgment: acknowledging that God is just in handing out the punishment one receives. Such doxologies are found in the OT after Israel had gone into exile and continue into postOT Judaism, including the DSS. The fact that they continue is evidence that many Jews did not consider that the return under Cyrus in 538 B.C.E. constituted a true “restoration” as foretold by the prophets. The Qumran community had as one of its raisons d’être the desire to fulfill this precondition of return from exile. For an understanding of the origin of NT atonement thought, therefore, we cannot build on the Qumran community or its leaders as vicarious atoners. Instead, we should base our search on the known exilic soteriology of Jesus’ audiences as attested strikingly in the Qumran literature but also in many other Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. An important element in this soteriology was the expectation that God would give the Gentile nations as a kôpher in order to save Israel (Isa 43:3–7; 1Q34 frag. 3 1.4–6). So strong was this idea in the Judaism of the time that it was actually incorporated into Isaiah 53: verse 9 in the LXX reads, “I shall give the wicked for his grave,” while Targum Jonathan has in verse 8, “He will cause the dominion of the Gentiles to pass away from the land of Israel, and transfer to them the sins which my people have committed.”13 This idea reappears in the NT with a different twist. Instead of Isaiah 43 being inserted into Isaiah 53, as in LXX and Targum Jonathan, the terms of Isaiah 43 (love, ransom/redeem, giving life) are used to express the thought of Isaiah 53 as applied to Jesus Christ. This can be accounted for credibly as a development from Mark 10:45, which would confirm our earlier conclusion that this is the “port of entry.” It should also be noted 13. Adolf Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (trans. S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer; New York: Ktav, 1969), 2:2, 6.

o

368

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

that Jesus’ act of giving bread and pouring out wine just before his death clearly pointed to the same idea: giving himself and his life.14

Qumran Messianic Atonement? Certain texts use the term kipper in connection with messianic figures. CD 14.18–19 says: “And this is the clarification of the judgments in which [they shall walk, until there arises the Messi]ah of Aaron and of Israel and he will expiate their iniquities.” The parallel text in 4Q267 frag. 18 3.11–13 confirms that it is the Messiah who is to expiate. The lack of a preposition after kipper points to Dan 9:24–25 as the background, where seventy weeks (of years) are required for Israel and Jerusalem to deal with its sin, “to expiate iniquity … and to anoint the most holy” and sixty-nine weeks for a messiah-prince. It seems that our passage here links the coming of the Messiah with the passage of time required for Israel to receive its exilic punishment. So surely is the coming of the Messiah a sign of Israel’s expiation that the Messiah can be spoken of as the one who effects it. At present I think this the most likely interpretation, but unfortunately the fragmentary nature of both witnesses to the text does not permit certainty. 4QAhA (4Q541) frag. 9 1.2 says: An Aaronic figure of the future “will atone for l( ((al) all the sons of his people.” These fragments seem to be part of a “Testament of Levi,” so the atonement here would probably be cultic. The preposition used after the verb points to the same conclusion. Certain elements in the context are reminiscent of the experiences and activities of the Righteous Teacher, who founded the community: he understands secrets from the Scriptures (4Q541 frag. 2 2.6; frag. 7 1.1–2), he has been forced to flee like a bird from its nest (frag. 2 2.7, cf. 1QH 12 [= 4].8–9), his enemies insult him and lie about him (4Q541 frag. 9 1.5–6). Above all, his teaching activity is emphasized (frag. 7; frag. 9 1.3). The community may well have seen Levi’s prophecy as fulfilled in the work of their founder, perhaps after the pattern of the experiences of Aaron himself (Numbers 16–17). 14. See Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 554–65. Wright emphasizes the significance of Jesus’ acts at the Last Supper and not merely of the words spoken (which have tended to receive almost exclusive attention in scholarly circles). He sees the significance of the acts, however, in terms of a coming conflict and victory leading to Israel’s restoration. This may well be so, but surely the self-giving significance is even more palpable and fundamental.

PAUL GARNET

369

11QMelch (11Q13) 2.4–8 says: The law of the Jubilee release is to be fulfilled when Melchizedek comes and brings back the exiles, freeing them from the debt of their iniquities. This will happen in the first year of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees (alluding to Dan 9:24, where there is a promise of a period of 490 years to atone for Israel’s iniquity). The Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee “in [or ‘by’] [which] atonement will be made for [(al] all the sons of [light] and the men of the lot of Melchizedek.” The preposition used points to cultic atonement of the people as on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:33), but the emphasis on a predetermined period of time as in Dan 9:24 makes me suspect that this cultic atonement language in 11Q13 is also a metaphor for atonement by the passage of time. In the context, Melchizedek is to bring the captives back to their inheritance, proclaim liberty to them to free them from their iniquities “in the first week of the Jubilee after the nine Jubilees.” Then at the end of the tenth Jubilee, atonement will be made, in the “year of favor for Melchizedek,” when he will fulfill Ps 82:1 (amid the gods, God judges), giving righteous judgment among the holy ones against Belial and his spirits and effecting punishment. Thus will begin the time of peace spoken of in Isa 52:7 (“the messenger who announces peace”). This messenger is the anointed of the spirit prophesied in Dan 9:25 (an anointed one/Messiah, a prince).15 It seems tempting to equate this messenger with the Melchizedek who is to “proclaim liberty to the captives.” If so, Melchizedek here is a messianic figure who is called “God” in fulfilling Ps 82:1, who makes atonement in some way for the faithful and defeats Belial. Many, however, reject this equation.16 The term applied to Melchizedek is “Elohim,” not “El,” the usual term for the Supreme Being in the DSS. Furthermore, the identification of this Melchizedek with the messiah/anointed of Dan 9:25 does violence to the chronology of Daniel’s prophecy, where the Messiah appears before the completion of the 490-year period. In the surviving material no connection is made with the Melchizedek of Gen 14:18 or of Ps 110:4, for that matter. One may speculate that Qumran judged Melchizedek to be superhuman, on the ground that no ancestry or progeny is mentioned in the Genesis text, just as Hebrews sees him as a type of the Son of God by a similar reasoning; yet the only certain connection with the OT Melchizedek is the meaning of the name: “king of righteousness.” Though both 11QMelch (11Q13) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:19–20; 10:20; cf. Lev 16:12, inside the veil/curtain) refer to the Day of 15. 11QMelch (11Q13) 2.4–20. 16. See Fred L. Horton, Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 78.

370

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Atonement and present the Melchizedek figure as a superhuman savior, there are many differences. Hebrews makes much of the Melchizedek texts in the OT, of the nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood and its superiority to Aaron’s, of Christ’s offering of himself. 11QMelch (11Q13) has none of these things, but instead concentrates on a coming reign of righteousness and Israel’s liberation from captivity. With regard to atonement, the differences are quite clear. Qumran’s Melchizedek and the NT Christ are both saviors of heavenly origin who bring atonement in the last days, but at Qumran this is either cultic atonement or atonement by the passing of the time foretold. The NT, however, always sees Christ’s atonement as brought about by his suffering and death. The so-called Pierced Messiah Text (4Q285 frag. 5 1.1–6) need not detain us long. This fragment begins by quoting Isa 10:34–11:1, which declares that Yahweh shall bring down the Gentile empires, though they be like the forest of Lebanon, and there shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse. The text then continues, “The branch of David, and they will enter into judgment with […] the Prince of the Congregation shall kill him/they shall kill the Prince of the Congregation the Bran[ch of …] and with wounds (twllwxmbw) and a priest shall command […]” The words above in italics represent alternative translations, according to the choice of pointing. The first alternative is to be preferred.17 Even if we follow the second, in the surviving text there is no hint of any atoning value in the death of this figure. It is better to translate twllwxmbw as “and with wounds” rather than “and with piercings” since the latter might suggest Zech 12:10, “They shall look upon me whom they pierced,” whereas it is a different Hebrew root here. twllwxmbw is derived from a root meaning to smite in battle, though it does occur in Isa 53:5 for the wounding of the Servant. These passages present different types of messianic figures. Any associated atonement, where it is not simply cultic, is a matter of the emergence of the figure in question being a sign that Israel’s exilic punishment is complete. From a NT point of view, it is closer to Bethlehem than to Calvary and not properly an atonement, but a fulfillment.

17. See Geza Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” JJS 43 (1991): 83–94; also Richard J. Bauckham, “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist,” DSD 2 (1995): 202–6.

PAUL GARNET

371

WHERE WE HAVE REACHED AND THE WAY AHEAD Does it follow, then, that the DSS are of only limited usefulness for an understanding of NT atonement doctrine? We have seen nothing in the scrolls that resembles the sacrificial death of Christ in the NT either in the content or the extent and importance of the idea. This should not make us lose sight of what we have seen, or stop us from exploring the potential usefulness of these lines of thought as general soteriological background to the NT doctrine of salvation and atonement.

The Significance of Mark 10:45 We have seen that Mark 10:45 is the main “port of entry” to NT thinking, indicating that the doctrine had its origin in the teaching of Jesus himself. This verse speaks of atonement for “many”—probably a faithful remnant of Israel being gathered by Jesus and his disciples, although the allusion to Isaiah 53 points also to the simple thought of the “many” as in contrast to the “one”: the Son of Man himself.18 There are, indeed, other possible sources for the ideas in Mark 10:45 besides those we have noted. His question, “What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul, for what would a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36–37) surely points forward to an answer such as we find in Mark 10:45. Psalm 49 (48 LXX) forms a credible background for this teaching as well as for many other elements in Jesus’ teaching: Son of Man (o9 ui9oj _ tou= a)nqrw/pou, the singular of oi9 ui9oi _ tw~n a)nqrw/pwn, “sons of men,” as in Ps 48:3 LXX), teaching in parables (cf. 48:5 LXX [49:4 ET]), the question of the ransom (root lutr-) and of giving an atonement (e0ci/lasma) to God for an individual (48:8–9 LXX [49:7–8 ET]). There follows a meditation on the uselessness of riches for one who is dying and the folly of those who trust in riches (48:14, 18 [49:13, 17 ET]; cf. Luke 12:20). Mark 10:45 can be seen as an important source of so much in NT atonement teaching: Christ’s service in his death, Jesus giving himself in death (frequent, leading to the thought of God giving the Son, naturally following from the Gethsemane narrative: it was the Father’s will); the 18. Isaiah 53 ends with the clauses “and he himself bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” Caiaphas’s counsel in John 11:47–53 is evidence that the thought of one person dying for the people was by no means strange in contemporary Judaism.

372

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

thought of a ransom expressed by various terms, including purchase, redemption, and the “loosing from sins by his blood” in Rev 1:5. Our verse does not state from what the many are to be delivered. If it is the faithful remnant of Israel that is the beneficiary, one would think that the deliverance would be from their exilic punishment and thus from the individual and collective sin, which was the object of so many doxologies of judgment (Ezra 9; Nehemiah 9; Daniel 9; Prayer of Azariah; and in the scrolls, 4QDibHam [4Q504–506]). The context shows, however, that the aim of Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:45 was not so much to indicate the precise benefits of the forthcoming ransom, as to point to the attitude of humble service on the part of the Son of Man, which motivated it, as an example for the disciples to follow. The lack of any statement of what they are to be ransomed from leaves this item to be supplied as the doctrine develops in the later NT statements. Christ’s death delivers from death, fear, sin, guilt, uncleanness, alienation, transgressions, the world, the Law, this present evil age, opposing principalities and powers, and the devil himself. There is a great richness in NT statements about the atonement, and this fact seems to point to the need for scholarship to leave behind the tendency to reduce everything in atonement to one dominant concept: substitution, sacrifice, redemption, example, representation, victory, demonstration of love. In the NT atonement passages, there is a place for each of these concepts, yet each text puts things in a specific way. Controversy among systematic theologians over such things as the place of substitution in atonement, or the question of “limited atonement,” should not prevent us from giving due weight to everything that each passage has to offer when understood in its context and against its background, while we carefully consider what each text actually says and implies about such matters as 1. 2.

3.

What is the motive of God or Christ in providing atonement? What is the purpose (not necessarily the same thing as the motive)? In John 3:16 the motive is love, and the purpose is to provide salvation for believers in the Son. Often we meet the same kind of motive in the DSS. What are the logical implications of atonement? In the NT God’s grace calls for a way of thinking and a response: to condemn sin (Rom 8:3), to offer oneself to God (12:1), to die to self (2 Cor 5:14–15), to respond in love (1 John 4:10–11, 19).

Of course, in all this we should be ready for any DSS background that may be relevant, but I can give little hope of much direct applicability in this area. If Mark 10:45 is an important entry point, we can

PAUL GARNET

373

expect an ongoing emphasis in the NT on the idea of Christ’s self-giving. Where do we find self-giving in the OT or the intertestamental literature? There is Samson’s suicide and the death of the Maccabean martyrs, but these are hardly a dominant theological theme. Even Moses’ offer of himself in an attempt to make atonement for Israel after the worship of the golden calf was not accepted (Exod 32:30–33).19 There are areas, however, where the Palestinian-Judaism background as exemplified in the DSS is quite helpful in an approach to NT soteriology, and to this we briefly turn.

Accepting the Punishment We have seen that the Qumran community intended to prepare for the restoration of Israel by fulfilling Lev 26:40–42 through accepting the punishment, each of his own iniquity, and submitting to the community’s reproof and discipline. Their highest ethical value was +p#m, mis ]hpa¯t[: judgment, justice, righteousness. Each member applied this principle to himself through his obedient conduct and to other members through the exercise of reproof. Ultimately the community would apply it to the rest of the world in the final war against the sons of darkness. A fitting symbol for this judgment was fire. Already in the OT this is a symbol for God himself, suggesting his righteous jealousy and power in judgment. This imagery occurs in connection with God’s historical judgment of the enemies of David (Ps 18:7–18) and in prophecies of forthcoming political upheavals and of the endtime judgments (Isa 26:11; 27:4; 30:30; 33:14; 34:9–10; Dan 7:9–10). In the DSS this is taken up in two interesting passages. 1QH 14 (= 6).17–19 tells how the founder of the community had been saved by God from a worthless and violent congregation and introduced to a group who reproved according to justice. This group is destined to universal growth and to be an everlasting light. By the flames of this light all the guilty will be destroyed. In 1QH 11 (= 3).29–36 the writer’s former association with the wicked (24–38) is described in terms of a flood, which becomes a river of fire from heaven which is to destroy the whole universe. It need not surprise us that this fire should sometimes be spoken of as originating in heaven and sometimes from the wicked or even from hell itself. The fire could well symbolize the final conflict between light and darkness, and in any case the 19. In 4QDibHama (4Q504) frags. 1–2 2.9–10 Moses did succeed in effecting this atonement.

<~?~Check: hilast_rion psych_ tsed_q_h mishp_t>

374

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

OT had already given instances of God using the wicked as an instrument of his wrath (e.g., Isa 10:5–27). A likely point for Qumran-type thought to enter the NT is the ministry of John the Baptist. The Baptist said that the coming messianic figure would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He followed this up with the imagery of separating the chaff from the wheat and burning it with unquenchable fire (Luke 3:16–17). It is clear that baptism with fire does not mean enthusiasm, but judgment. Subsequently we have the saying of Jesus in Mark 9:49 that “everyone must be salted with fire,” in a context of dire warning of the danger of hell fire, so it is clear that salt is a symbol of judgment, too. There follows the exhortation, “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another” (9:50). If they would each judge oneself, they would not be quarreling. This leads us to a better understanding of the “salt of the earth” saying in Matt 5:13. This is not an appeal to Christians to make their influence felt in order to halt the corruption in the world. It is a statement of fact about the vocation of the Jewish people to be the “salt,” mishpa¯t, justice, of the Holy Land. They cannot govern the land with justice unless they are just (salty) themselves. This exhortation applies well to the aspirations of the Qumranites and even more to those of the Zealots. The saying that follows, about not hiding one’s light under a bushel (5:14), is even more applicable to Qumran, since they believed they were the source of universal light, yet hid themselves in “the secret chambers” (24:26). If Israel failed to retain its righteous character (saltiness), it could expect only to be “cast out” (exile, Luke 14:34–35) and be “trodden under foot” (military occupation, Matt 5:13). A divine judgment was threatening the people, but this is not the same thing as to say that Jesus was to be the agent of it. He had indeed come to “cast fire upon the land,” as John the Baptist predicted, but this baptism of fire would first turn out to be for himself (Luke 12:49–50), and baptism became a symbol of his coming death (Mark 10:38). This brings us to the atonement: Jesus, who was to have come to judge as Messiah, will himself fall under the divine judgment. John’s baptism was supposed to be a sign of repentance (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:16–17; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–118). Whether the repentance was genuine or not would be revealed by people’s subsequent conduct, so they needed the coming baptism with the Holy Spirit. When the masses of people came to be baptized, it is unlikely that a personal and detailed confession of sins was required. It is more probable that they repeated together in groups some abbreviated form of the collective doxologies of judgment such as found in Ezra 9; Nehemiah 9; or Daniel 9. John was understood to be forming a people for the Lord (Luke 1:17), so a collective

PAUL GARNET

375

confession would be in order. Qumran also had the idea of individuals coming together to form a people for God, but John’s was a mass movement. The repentance called for by John did not involve leaving society, but living the righteous life in the tax office and the barracks (symbols of oppression to Israel) as well as kindness to the needy (3:10–14). To be baptized by John was to justify God, to acknowledge that his condemnation of sin was just, and to accept his “counsel” with regard to oneself (7:29–30). This amounted to a doxology of judgment. We find this attitude enjoined in Jesus’ teaching too (15:18–19; 18:13) and exemplified in the confession of the dying thief (23:40–41). Acceptance of the divine punishment as just was not only a corporate matter at Qumran, the means to fulfill Lev 26:40–42 and thus to hasten the end of the national punishment; it was also a matter of individual piety based on the spiritual pilgrimage of the founder himself and to be exemplified by the lyk#m, mas 8kîl, the Leader (1QH 17 [= 9].9–10, 1QS 10.11–12, 23–24). Those who thus accepted God’s justice found ironically that this justice involved for them a justification (1QS 11.9–15).20 The relevance of this for Paul’s doctrine of justification has been studied long ago,21 but of more direct application to the NT doctrine of atonement is the fact that in Rom 6:10 the death of Christ is presented as an acceptance of God’s judgment against sin: Christ “died to sin once.”

The Passage of Time and the Exilic Debt We have seen that “messianic” atonement at Qumran was largely a matter of the fulfillment of the predetermined time of Israel’s exilic punishment. It does not seem to resemble NT atonement ideas. Yet the widespread expectation that Israel must serve time before being delivered forms an important background to Jesus’ soteriology. His ministry opened with the good news that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God at hand. This was the time in which Israel’s exilic debt was canceled. The idea seems to have been that the year of acceptance had come (Isa 61:2), but this was presented as grace rather than as having been earned by the period of 490 years of suffering. Rather, a huge debt was thought of as having been forgiven. In response, it was appropriate for God’s people 20. Mis ]hpa¯t[ in this passage can variously mean judgment, punishment, justification. See my discussion in Salvation and Atonement, 76–77. 21. Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Form und Überlieferungsgeschichte der Qumrantexte,” ZTK 56 (1959): 155–85.

376

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

to forgive each his brother seventy times seven times (Matt 18:21–22). Jesus follows up this exhortation with the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (18:23–35), which has to do, not with the question of whether an individual’s salvation can be forfeited, but with the appropriate response to the national forgiveness now being proclaimed. The debt of ten thousand talents would be equivalent to the budget of a sizable province. The man who owed that sum in the parable does not represent an individual but the Jewish nation. The hundred-pence debtor represents the individual Israelite. In the context of forgiving seventy times seven times (v. 22) we find the extent of the exilic forgiveness that Jesus was proclaiming. The general fact that Jesus often used the symbol of debt to express his teachings about moral obligation, sin, and its forgiveness is surely significant as background to the atonement saying of Mark 10:45. We have seen already the likely background in Mark 8:36–37 with its commercial imagery: profit, gain, loss, exchange. Though Jesus’ parables about debt breathe the atmosphere of natural sympathy for the predicament of the debtor, the justice of the claims of the creditor is not smothered by sentimentality. After all, if a family of carpenters failed to collect debts from its clients, it could face ruin or even hunger rather soon. To cancel a debt amounts to forgoing the amount remitted. It is equivalent to the creditor paying the debt for the debtor. It costs to forgive, and this idea is important for atonement. In the middle of the twentieth century there was revulsion among theologians against the thought of penal substitution in atonement, leading to impressive attempts to give a coherent picture of the biblical doctrine while excluding this idea. I believe it is futile to try to exclude this element or the related idea of propitiation. Linguistically, we now know that kipper can mean propitiate not only in a social context (Gen 32:20), but also in relation to obtaining divine forgiveness (4Q400 frag. 1 1.14–16). We have also seen that the Second Temple thought background of accepting the exilic punishment and of that punishment being seen as a debt points in the same direction. It by no means follows that the ideas of substitution and propitiation encapsulate the whole of NT atonement thought, since one can find there too the positive elements in opposing theories: victory, expiation, sacrifice, moral influence. A large proportion of atonement sayings are introduced in order to back up some exhortation as to attitude or conduct: thus, Mark 10:45 is in a context of teaching humility and service.

PAUL GARNET

377

S UMMARY An examination of the language of atonement in the OT and the DSS shows that sometimes the verb kipper denotes propitiation and sometimes cleansing or forgiveness. The semantic unity is shown in the fact that almost always the connotation is of the putting away of wrath. The bold idea that God is propitiated is almost never directly expressed, but it is often rather near to the surface. 4Q400 witnesses to the fact that it survives until well after the OT period. The DSS, being in the same language as the OT, strongly manifest the influence of OT expressions and ideas in connection with atonement, though there are some distinctive developments, the most important being the thought that a holy spirit from God, active in the separated community, can be a means of atonement, so that the holiness of present members acts as an atonement for the members who are later to join. The idea of the wicked as a ransom (kôpher) for the righteous is also taken up more and is often connected with the idea of an atonement for the land of Israel. When the evil is judged and the wicked are destroyed, the land will be purified and ready for blessing. Attempts to follow through from the OT atonement vocabulary and usage to the NT via the LXX terms are disappointing. The most promising is the kôpher / lytron terminology, pointing to Mark 10:45 as the leadin point. From there on, the atonement idea in NT Christianity could develop its own life and its own terms, with the death of Christ as its central theme. We saw that Qumran did not suppose that the community or its leader was fulfilling a vicarious role. Instead, terms that seemed to suggest such an idea, when properly understood, meant that they were accepting the punishment of their own iniquity, not bearing the punishment of that of others. All this was in fulfillment of Leviticus 26, so that a restoration from exile could take place. This exile-restoration motif pointed to a link with the ransom saying in Mark 10:45, but by way of contrast with the wicked and the Gentiles as the ransom for Israel. Instead, the Messiah was the ransom, and eventually even the Gentiles could benefit from it. At Qumran, in the few cases where a messianic figure is spoken of in connection with atonement, it seems that it is either a cultic atonement or, more often, the completion of Israel’s exilic punishment being spoken of metaphorically as an atonement. There is an evident contrast between the NT and the DSS: the means of atonement. At Qumran, it is so often the spirit of holiness (a human

378

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

attitude, come from God, not a divine person as such) especially as manifested and fostered within the community. I find none of this in the NT. The means of atonement is always the death of Christ, seen as a gift. The Qumran idea fits in with the OT. The NT presents a new kind of piety, centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. It by no means follows that this detailed knowledge about Palestinian Judaism that we now have from the DSS is useless for understanding NT salvation ideas, including atonement. It is just that little from Qumran atonement ideas can be applied to NT atonement doctrine except by way of contrast. The benefit comes from the grand sweep of Qumran ideas. In the small compass of the closing pages, we were able to explore two of these: accepting the punishment and exilic debt. Returning to the variety of theories that have been propounded about the atoning death of Christ, we can say that the richness of what the NT presents in this area should warn us against excluding any aspect (e.g., propitiation, substitution). Elements of nearly every theory appear in relevant NT passages. What is needed is to weigh what significance is given to each of these and to any others in the context of the message of each passage.

APPENDIX ATONEMENT PASSAGES IN THE DSS • CD 2.4–5: Those who enter the covenant are reminded of God’s great power and wrath as well as of his great mercy. “Long-suffering is with him and a multitude of pardons to forgive (be 6(ad ) those who turn from transgression.” • CD 3.17–18: The covenanters had defiled themselves by taking a possessive attitude toward the revelation they had received, “but God in his wonderful mysteries forgave (be 6(ad ) their iniquity.” • CD 4.6 (promising a list of the members of the righteous remnant, which does not appear in our texts): These are the first men of holiness “whom God forgave (be 6(ad ), and they justified the righteous and condemned the wicked.” • CD 4.9: Those who follow after these first members must follow the same Torah teaching as they did. “According to the covenant which God established with the first members to forgive ((al) their iniquities, so God will forgive (be 6(ad ) them.”

PAUL GARNET

379

• CD 14.18–19: “And this is the clarification of the judgments in which [they shall walk, until there arises the Messi]ah of Aaron and of Israel, and he will expiate their iniquities.” • CD 20.34: Those who follow the Righteous Teacher “will prevail over the sons of the world, and God will forgive (be 6(ad ) them, and they will see his salvation because they trusted in his holy name.” •

1QH 12 (= 4).37 (in a hymn probably composed by the founder of the community): At the time of his former troubles, he had committed the sin of doubting God’s acceptance of him (35), but when he remembered God’s power and his love, he ceased to doubt, “because thou wilt forgive iniquity and cl[eanse a ma]n from guilt in thy righteousness.”

The remaining Hymn passages are from compositions that do not reflect the pilgrimage of any specific individual. •

1QH 7.28 (= 15.24): “Thou dost not take a kôpher for works of wickedness.” • 1QH 4 (= 17).12: “[As thou hast s]aid by the hand of Moses, ‘[pardoning transgression] iniquity and sin and forgiving (be 6(ad ) guilt and rebellion.’” • 1QH col. 23 frag. 2 line 13: “Thou hast sprinkled upon me the spirit of thy holiness to cleanse guilt.” • 1QM 2.5: When the sons of light return to Jerusalem, their priests shall be organized to offer temple sacrifices “for God’s good pleasure to atone for (be 6(ad ) his congregation.” The preposition be 6(ad may indicate that Day of Atonement sacrifices are in view. In any case, it is a national atonement. • 1QS 2.8 (from the curse upon those of the lot of Belial): “May God not be gracious to you when you call upon him, and may he not pardon by expiating your iniquities.” • 1QS 3.6–8 (giving the reason why those whose attitude is not genuinely repentant may not enter the community): “For it is by the spirit of the counsel of the truth of God that the ways of an individual shall be purged, even all his iniquities, so that he may gaze upon the light of life, and it is by the spirit of uprightness and humility that his sin shall be expiated.” • 1QS 5.5–6 (reading M))w [w))m] in line 5 as a cipher for “God of gods and Lord of lords”)22: “God … is ready to” correct attitudes (“circumcise the inclination”) in the community “in order to establish a foundation of truth in Israel for a community of an eternal covenant, to atone for all who freely offer themselves…and who join them for a community, and for suit and for judgment to condemn all who transgress the precept.”

22. Following William H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes (New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951), 19n18, 49–50.

380

ATONEMENT: QUMRAN AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

• 1QS 8.4–7: When the fifteen experts in exilic soteriology exist in Israel, “the Community’s council is established on truth…witnesses of truth unto judgment and the elect of good pleasure to atone for (be 6(ad ) the land and to repay to the wicked their reward.” • 1QS 8.10: “And they shall be for an acceptance to atone for (be 6(ad ) the land and to decide the judgment of wickedness, and there shall be no unrighteousness.” • 1QS 9.3–6: When the community comes into being, organized according to these norms, “as a foundation of the spirit of holiness unto eternal truth to atone for ((al) the guilt of transgression and unfaithfulness and as an acceptance for the land apart from the flesh of burnt offerings and the fat of sacrifices (and the wave offering of the lips unto judgment shall be as a sweetness of righteousness and the perfect of way as a freewill offering of acceptance)—at that time the men of the community shall be separated.…” • 1QS 11.14 (in the hymn that concludes the Rule of the Community): “In the righteousness (s[eda¯qâ) of his truth he has judged me, and in the greatness of his goodness he will forgive (be 6(ad ) all my iniquities.” • 1QSa (1Q28a) 1.3: In the last days the masses of Israel will join the community and obey its leaders and members: “These are the men of his counsel who keep his covenant in the midst of wickedness in order to atone for (be 6(ad ) the land.” • 1Q34 frag. 3 1.4–6 (another copy: 4Q508 frag. 1 1.1): God will pour out blessings on the earth “in order to distinguish [between the righ]teous and the wicked, and thou wilt give the wicked as our kôpher.” God will destroy our enemies and we will praise him forever. • 4Q400 frag. 1 1.14–16: The angelic priests in the heavenly sanctuary do not tolerate any whose way is perverted, “and they propitiate his good pleasure for (be 6(ad ) all who turn from transgression.”23 • 4QDibHama (4Q504) frags. 1–2 2.9–10: “Moses propitiated for (be 6(ad ) Israel’s sin” (cf. Exod 32:30). Here the context is a doxology of judgment, acknowledging that God is just in punishing Israel through the exile and praying for a restoration. • 4QAhA (4Q541) frag. 9 1.2: An Aaronic figure of the future “will atone for ((al) all the sons of his people.” •

11QMelch (11Q13) 2.4–8: See above, pages pages 357, 363–4.

23. For angelic atonement in the OT, see Isa 6:7 and Job 33:23–24.

<~?~tn: these a correct pro pages>

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE” IN 1 ENOCH, QUMRAN, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Gerbern S. Oegema

I NTRODUCTION This essay1 aims at a study of the tradition- and reception-historical context of the expression h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou, “the Coming of the Righteous One,” found in Acts 7:52, the only passage in the New Testament where it is found—by comparing its use in 1 Enoch, in Qumran, especially in 4Q215a and 4Q252, and in other early Jewish writings—to shed light on its origin and meaning. Apart from the expression itself or parts of it as well as its possible equivalents, I also look at the wider context in which we find it: literary, cultic, historical, eschatological, messianic, or other context. I begin with the latter.

1. CONTEXT 1.1. Summaries of the History of Israel The first context or framework, in which the expression h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou appears, is in that of a literary genre. Acts 7:52 is found in one of the two main historical accounts in Luke-Acts, in Acts 7:2b–53, where 1. Paper read at the Third Enoch Seminar in Camaldoli, Italy, June 6–11, 2005, and partly based on a paper presented at the seminar “The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins,” at the annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamentum Societas, Barcelona, Aug. 3–7, 2004. My thanks go to James H. Charlesworth for inviting me to read the first version of the paper, and to him and Gabriele Boccaccini for welcoming me to the Enoch Seminar. I further thank Jim Charlesworth for his many useful suggestions to improve both papers, and I thank my assistant Sara Parks for polishing my English and checking the bibliography.

381

382

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE”

the author in writing to Theophilus takes up the well-known literary genre (or subgenre) of the “summary of the history of biblical Israel,” as it is also found in such texts as 1 Sam 12:8–13; Deut 26:5–10; Ps 105:7–45; Ezek 20:5–29; and 1 En. 85:3–90:38. The frameworks of the most important parallels to Acts 7:52, found in 1 En. 89:52 and 4Q252 5.3, also appear to summarize the history of Israel, as shown below. Joachim Jeska, who has done a study of the genre of the “summary of the history of Israel,” lists in total twenty-seven of these passages from biblical and postbiblical books and divides them into five different genres: speeches, prayers, hymns, visions, and prophetic speeches.2 In his study, Jeska shows that most of the “summaries of the history of Israel” contain actualizations of history rather than historical reports or accounts, whether in the form of evaluative comments on past events or in the form of a continuation or finalization of the past. The purpose is largely to make a connection between Israel’s history and the narrative context of the author’s work, and to interpret the present and future of the author and his audience. Furthermore, as Jeska shows in his treatment of the examples of Deuteronomy 26, Joshua 24, 1 Samuel 12, Judith 5, and Josephus’s J.W. 5 §§ 379–412, there is a wide variety of concepts of history with no predefined model; yet also we can find a certain “canon” of events or narratives in them. Authors seem to be relatively free in choosing from this canon and using various interpretive models. Therefore, portrayals of history are never neutral or without a tendency. History is not simply documented or archived, but actualized and rewritten.3

1.2. The Speeches in Acts 7:2b–53 and 13:17–25 Let us, therefore, turn our attention to Acts 7:2b–53 and 13:17–25, which in the speeches of Stephen and Paul present two summaries of the history of Israel, according to the first and most important early-Christian theologian-historian, Luke-Acts to Theophilus. According to Jeska, we can only partly prove the assumption that one can differentiate between tradition and redaction in both texts, an approach largely based on the

2. See Joachim Jeska, Die Geschichte Israels in der Sicht des Lukas: Apg 7,2b–53 und 13,17–25 im Kontext antik-jüdischer Summarien der Geschichte Israels (FRLANT 195; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001). 3. Ibid., 115–18, 254.

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

383

hypothesis of Ferdinand Hahn4 and Odil H. Steck that Luke has taken over an older and textually fixed tradition.5 Although one can show that the author of Luke-Acts does share a Deuteronomistic understanding of the history of Israel with that of his predecessors retelling Israel’s history, this is far too general a conclusion to serve as an argument for the hypothesis of Hahn and Steck,6 which is based on the assumption of a literary dependence of Luke on earlier sources and be proved in a detailed and methodologically reflective way. On the contrary, both passages (Acts 7 and 13) share with almost all other summaries of the history of Israel an overall (and in the postbiblical Jewish tradition possibly even generally adopted) tendency to structure Israel’s history in such a way that it fits the argumentation of the overall narrative structure and serves to edify the audience. Like his predecessors and his contemporaries, the author of Luke-Acts should, therefore, be understood as a theologically creative and religiously or ecclesiologically concerned person. He is not merely an editor, but also a creative author writing for an interested audience. A comparable and also rather uncommon order of events as that of Acts 7:2b–53, which in recent biblical scholarship mainly served as an argument for Luke’s dependence on and redaction of older material, finds an analogy in 1 Enoch 89 as well as in Josephus’ J.W. 5 §§ 379–412. This means that the order of events in Acts 7:2b–53 no longer needs to be explained as the result of the Lukan editing of older traditions, but can very well be understood as the sovereign creation of the author.7 Also, the actualizations and change of perspective found in the whole of Acts 7 are quite common in other ancient Jewish summaries of the history of Israel, and the author therefore seems to share them with his contemporaries but has not necessarily taken them over. Given this widespread use and popularity of summaries of the history of Israel, it is, indeed, not necessary to argue that Luke would have 4. Ferdinand Hahn says that Luke-Acts builds upon a history of Israel similar to that of the Hellenistic-Jewish community. See F. Hahn, “Der gegenwärtige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte. Kommentare und Aufsatzbände 1980–1985,” ThRv 82 (1982), columns 177–90. 5. Odil H. Steck says that, in addition to Hahn’s hypothesis, Luke-Acts has applied the Palestinian-Jewish tradition of a Deuteronomistic portrayal of history. See Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. (WMANT 23, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlagshaus, 1967). 6. See already the comments on the thesis of Albertus Frederik J. Klijn in Erich Grässer, Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 137; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 103, drawing from Erich Grässer, “Die Apostelgeschichte in der Forschung der Gegenwart,” TRu 26 (1960): 93–167. 7. See Jeska, Geschichte.

384

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE”

adopted and edited an older portrayal of Israel’s history. On the contrary, he has composed his own. What, then, characterizes Luke’s way of portraying the history of biblical Israel as presented in the speeches of Stephen and Paul? How does this relate to the other summaries of the history of Israel in the Second Temple period? And finally, how does “the Coming of the Righteous One” fit in it?

1.3. Acts 7:2b–53 and 1 Enoch 89:10–53 As far as Acts 7 and 1 Enoch 89 are concerned, Luke has used, according to Jeska, the Greek version of 1 En. 89:10–53 as a model for his summary of the history of Israel by adopting its structure and sequence of events and especially by placing the killing of the prophets after the building of the temple, which is found only in 1 En. 89:50–52 and Acts 7:50–52 and not in other contemporaneous writings. Luke, then, has further edited his model in such a way that it fits into the overall theology of his work, especially by replacing Elijah with Jesus. Our main observation is, therefore, to be related to the end of Acts 7, which has parallels to 1 Enoch but no parallels to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B.), the other main parallel to Acts 7,8 although all three passages offer a remarkably similar summary of the history of Israel. The social, religious, and political setting of Pseudo-Philo may explain why it has no eschatological figure at the end of Israel’s history9; the existence and partial similarity of an eschatological figure in Acts and 1 Enoch, however, need further investigation. A possible explanation for Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the “Coming Righteous One” in Acts 7:52 could be that he has replaced the figure of the “Son of Man-Righteous-Enoch” in the Similitudes (as found in 1 Enoch 70–71, but also implied in 89–90, where he could also be identified as Elijah) with Jesus by employing a language with similar linguistic features and common tradition-historical motives.10 Whether such a hypothesis can be argued for at all in the literary, historical, and religious setting at the end of the first century C.E. is investigated in the following. 8. See Eckart Reinmuth, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum “Liber antiquitatum biblicarum” und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanische Doppelwerks (WUNT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 9. See Gerbern S. Oegema, The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSPSup 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), ad loc. 10. Jeska, Geschichte, 274–97, 298–99.

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

385

2. THE “RIGHTEOUS ONE” IN ACTS 7:52 AND 1 E NOCH 89:52 The Greek text of Acts 7:52 reads: ti/na tw=n profhtw=n ou0k e)di/wcan oi( pate/rej u(mw= n; kai\ a)pe/kteinan tou\j prokataggei/lantaj peri\ th=j e)leu/sewj tou= dikai/ou, ou[ nu=n u(mei=j prodo/tai kai\ fonei=j e)ge/nesqe “Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the Coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers” (NRSV, emphasis added). The problem with the expression h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou is that h( e1leusij is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament and that o( di/kaioj occurs more often (as in Acts 22:14, for Jesus). Therefore, the whole expression as a combination of the two parts appears nowhere else in the New Testament.11 If we, therefore, want to look for parallels, we have to look, first of all, for all possible ancient Jewish and Christian parallels of the whole expression h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou outside of the New Testament. According to Matthew Black, the whole verse of Acts 7:52 is an example of one of the many cases of asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts, the lack of a connecting particle between sentences being far more characteristic of Aramaic than of Greek. For this reason, it is mostly found in the sayings and parables of Jesus, as well as here in the speech of Stephen.12 In Aramaic, the phrase “the Coming of the Righteous One” may have been qydch t)yb (and in Syriac, )qydzd htyt)m, although the Aramaic word for “(the) righteous (one)” is +y#q / h+#q (Ethiopic: ¸sadqa). Therefore, we also have to look for parallels to the Aramaic phrase.13 Let us first begin by examining 1 En. 89:52. The Ethiopic version of 89:52 reads in an English translation: “However, one of them was not killed but escaped alive and fled away; he cried aloud to the sheep, and they wanted to kill him, but the Lord of the sheep rescued him from the sheep and caused him to ascend to me and settle down.”14 The “one of them” is Elijah; the “Lord of the sheep” is God; and the “I,” to whom the “one of them” ascends, is Enoch. That “one of them” 11. See BAGD, 195–96. 12. Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; with an appendix on the Son of Man by Geza Vermes; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967; repr. 1979), 55–61. 13. See the Aramaic-Greek-Ethiopic Glossary in Jozef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 392 and 402. 14. Translation according to Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:5–89.

<~?~Ch : _adqa>

386

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE”

can only be identified with Elijah is because (1) the biblical account says that Elijah ascended into heaven, where God and Enoch also are, according to 1 Enoch; and (2) this Elijah is furthermore characterized as one of the prophets, whom (3) the “sheep” (= the people of Israel) wanted to kill, but who (4) could escape alive and flee away, and who (5) cried aloud to the sheep, which tried to kill them, but who (6) is rescued by the Lord. If one compares this narrative account in 1 En. 89:52 with the one in Acts 7:52, it is obvious that the author of Luke-Acts could easily identify this Elijah figure with Jesus, who (1) according to Acts 1:9–11 ascended into heaven, who (2) was inter alia understood to be the last of the prophets (see Luke 7:16–26), whom (3) some of the people of Israel wanted to kill (see Luke 22–23), but who (4) was raised from the dead, (5) spoke to his followers, and (6) ascended to his Father in heaven (see Luke 24). Apart from the fact that 1 Enoch, especially the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 83–90) and the Similitudes (1 Enoch 37–71), offers the largest and most impressive number of parallels to the New Testament15 in a general way, this also holds true in many details. One of the main characteristics and names of the eschatological figure in 1 Enoch is “Son of Man,” and precisely this title is also found in the book of Acts, the only instance outside the Gospels—as far as the Gospels and Acts are concerned—being Acts 7:56, where Stephen reports having had a heavenly vision.16 Therefore, the whole of Acts 7:52–56 should be seen in light of the influence of the Enochic Son of Man with special attention for Jesus’ elevation and enthronement, which Luke, according to Jeska, may well have conceptualized in analogy or competition with 1 Enoch.17 Other expressions possibly as equivalents of or associations with the Righteous One are the Beloved One and, of course, Elijah himself. However, if one looks for parallels in the commentaries on Acts, only a few give a clue of the possible tradition-historical background of Acts 7:52.18 Many do refer to o( di/kaioj in Acts 3:14.19 From there, further 15. For further literature, see Gerbern S. Oegema, Apokalypsen (JSHRZ 6.1.5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), on 1 Enoch; and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (vol. 1, on chs. 1–36, 81–108; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). 16. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (NRSV); cf. the logion in Luke 22:69. See outside of the Gospels and Acts also Rev 1:13; 14:14; Heb 2:6 as well as 1 Enoch. 17. Jeska, Geschichte, 286–92. 18. The commentaries on Acts investigated are Charles K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

387

parallels to the “Holy and Righteous One” (as a well-known biblical and later also messianic title) are easily found, for instance, in Gen 6:9 and 2 Kgs 4:9, as far as the Hebrew Bible (OT) is concerned. From the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the New Testament, one should mention Sir 44:17; Mark 6:20; 1 En. 51:3; 61:5; and 62:7.20 However, references to h( e1leusij or h( e1leusij tou= dikai/ou are almost never mentioned in the commentaries, although they exist in various forms and places, as shown in the following.

2.1. h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou In a much quoted article from 1945, G. D. Kilpatrick gives a number of important parallels to h( e1leusij tou= dikai/ou21 The author has looked for parallels to the Greek word h( e0leu/sij. In the New Testament the expression is found only in Acts 7:52. It is absent from the Septuagint, the other Greek versions of the Old Testament, 1 Enoch in its Greek fragments, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Sedrach. However, early Christian literature frequently uses the expression, as in 1 Clem. 17.1; Pol. Phil. 6.3, Irenaeus, Haer. 1.2; and Acts Phil. 78. We also find it in the Codex Bezae at Luke 21:7 and 23:42, 22 and, not mentioned by Kilpatrick, in the Acts Thom. 28.23 Kilpatrick states his overall conclusion: In all early Christian examples of e0leu/sij the word is used of the messianic coming and in four out of the six instances up to Irenaeus appears as one of a certain group of terms, indicated by spaced letters in the quotations given above, (1) a reference to the prophets, (2) a word denoting 1994–98); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998); Eugène Jacquier, Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1926); and Robert C. Tannehill, Luke (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). The commentary with the promising title by Hilary Le Cornu, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Acts (Jerusalem: Academon, 2003), offers little new material. Barrett, Commentary on the Acts, 377; and Fitzmyer, Acts, 385, both refer to the article of Kilpatrick (see n21, below). 19. In Fitzmyer, Acts, ad loc.; Jacquier, Actes, 234; Le Cornu, Commentary, 368; et al. 20. Jacquier, Actes, 234; and Fitzmyer, Acts, 285–86. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, however, offers neither parallels to nor comments on 1 En. 89:52 and does not mention Acts 7:52. 21. George D. Kilpatrick, “Acts VII.52: Eleusij,” JTS 46 (1945): 136–45. 22. Ibid., 136. 23. Cited by Jacquier, Actes, 234.

<

388

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE” proclamation, usually some form or compound of khru&ssein, (3) khru&ssein in a messianic sense, (4) a messianic title.24

To find an explanation for this phenomenon of an obviously messianic understanding of e0leu/sij in the second century C.E., Kilpatrick rules out the possibilities of the testimonia, suggested by Otto Michel in his book Paulus und seine Bibel (1929),25 and instead looks for another kind of Jewish or Christian source written in Greek and before Acts and 1 Clement. This he finds in two recensions of the Lives of the Prophets, in Epiphanii Recensio Prior (E1) and Dorothei Recensio (D).26 It now is clear where we have to look for parallels of h( e1leusij in the Pseudepigrapha from the period before the beginning of the second century C.E. written or translated in Greek. Kilpatrick mentions the Hebrew and Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah [1:5–6], both of which refer to the coming of the Messiah, as well as the Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:13 and 4 Bar. 3:8, which speak about h( e0c—/sune/leusij tou= a)gaphtou= or tou/ h)gaphme/nou.27 Furthermore, h( e1leusij also appears in the Testament of Abraham (A) 16:7, the Testament of Job (recension M) 29, the Septuagint version (in some MSS) of 2 Sam 15:20 (h( e!ce/leusi/j sou), and the Acts of Philip 137, although in the latter examples without a messianic connotation.28 As far as the possible equivalent of e1leusij is concerned, namely, parousi/a, Kilpatrick mentions T. Jud. 22:3; T. Levi 8:14; T. Abr. (A) 13:4, 6; and T. Sol. (recension C) 13:8; and concludes that the expression is mainly used in Jewish apocalyptic writings written or preserved in Greek and often denotes the advent of the Messiah (see also 2 Bar. [= Syriac Apoc.] 30:1 and 1 Thess 2:19).29 Two additional remarks have to be made here. First, it should be noted that h( e1leusij in general means “the (first) coming (of the Messiah),” whereas h( parousi/a mostly refers to “the (second) coming (of Christ).” Second, assuming that the Hebrew )b and ht) are the Semitic equivalents of the expression h( e1leusij, we may furthermore refer to a number of examples in the Qumran writings (see below). 24. Kilpatrick, “Acts,” 137. 25. Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1929). 26. See also Anna-Maria Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum (SJHRZ 1.7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997). However, the recensions are clearly tendentious and may not reflect the original text of the Lives of the Prophets. Recension E1 contains “durchgehend einen sprachlich verbesserten und christlich redigierten Text,” and recension D is characterized by a “Voranstellung von messianischen Testimonien zu den jeweiligen Schhriftpropheten”; see idem, 540–41. 27. Reference according to Kilpatrick, “Acts,” 140. 28. Ibid., 141. 29. See further below, 2.2.3.

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

389

In total, we can make the following overview of examples in Jewish and Christian noncanonical writings30 of the use of h( e1leusij, h( parousi/a, and )b or ht), in combination with a reference to the coming of a messianic figure, who is called “Righteous One,” which in the New Testament is found only in Acts 7:52.

2.2. Parallels of h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou We need to notice the following parallels to h( e0leu/sij tou/ dikai/ou from the Qumran writings, the works of Josephus, the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha written in Greek or translated into Greek if originally composed in Hebrew, and the early-Christian writings also written in Greek:

2.2.1. The Qumran Writings If one looks for examples of the expression qydc in the sectarian writings found in Qumran, one finds in total 45 passages, namely CD 4.7 and 20.20; 1QpHab 1.13; 5.10; 7.4; 8.3; 9.10; 11.5; as well as many other fragments. In addition, a limited number of Qumran writings use the expression )b or )wb for the coming of an eschatological figure, as in 1QS 9.11 ()ybn )wb) and 4Q252 5.1–7 = 4QPatriarchal Blessings 1.1–3 (qdch xy#m )wb).31 These and other passages in the Qumran writings, such as 4Q161 (4Q pIsa) frags. 8–10 3.11–21 and 4Q174 (4QFlor) frags. 1–3 1.11–12, refer to an expectation among the Qumran Essenes of the coming of one or more messiahs, a royal and a priestly messiah, who is sometimes accompanied by a latter-day prophet and/or Teacher of Righteousness.32 However, the combination of qdchand )wb is found only in 4Q252 5.3 and in 4Q215 frag. 2 2.4–11. Especially 4QPatr 1.1–3, now identified as 4Q252 5.1–7 with a script dating from the Herodian period, is of interest because it contains the three central expressions “coming,” “anointed,” and “righteous.” The passage is part of a longer text that retells parts of Genesis and is, therefore, the beginning of a summary of the history of 30. The term “noncanonical” is used here to include Josephus and Qumran along with the aforementioned Pseudepigrapha. 31. See James H. Charlesworth et al., eds., Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). 32. For this, see Oegema, Anointed, 98.

<~?~q10 pro 4.7?? “20.11” “1qm 18.8” d please fix. vol but as far as resolve.>

390

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE”

Israel. The expression found in 4Q252, qdch hy#m )wb, also has a parallel in the Targum of Gen 49:10, xy#m hklm )wb, which replaces the Masoretic reading hly# )wb-yk d( in Gen 49:10.33 It points to a clear messianic understanding as the tradition-historical context, in which we need to place the expression of “the Coming of the Righteous One.” This also holds true of the text known as 4QTime of Righteousness (4QTNaph = 4Q215 frag. 2 2.4–11), where we read about the coming of righteousness in the following formulation: “The age of peace has arrived, and the laws of truth, and testimony of justice” and “the dominion {of justice} of goodness has arrived” (qdc[h] tdw(tw tm)h yqwxw Mwl#h cq )b and […] h ysk Mryw bw+h qdch l#mm )b )yk). Whereas the copies of 4Q252 date from the Herodian period and the date of 4Q215 is approximately the same (late Hasmonaean, early Herodian),34 1 En. 89:52 as part of 1 Enoch 85–90 is dated by George Nickelsburg between the third century B.C.E. and 163 B.C.E. as its latest possible date.35 We can say little about a possible reception of 1 Enoch 89 in 4Q252 and 4Q215, although the age of righteousness referred to in 4Q215 may well have an analogy in the eighth and ninth week of righteousness +w#$q (wb#$ in 1 En. 91:12–17. Therefore, we can only conclude in a general way that tradition-historical connections between all three writings may exist and that the whole book of 1 Enoch was popular in Qumran, since it was copied and interpreted there. Both observations also hold true for the reception of 1 Enoch in the New Testament. Apart from the question of how 4Q252 5.3; 4Q215 frag. 2 2.4–11; Acts 7:52; and 1 En. 89:52 possibly relate to each other in a historical and literary way, the tradition-historical context of a number of expressions found in 4Q252 can be dated between the second third of the first century B.C.E. and the first third of the first century B.C.E.36 This brings it into close proximity to the Speech of Stephen, assuming the latter to be pre-Lukan. All three passages—4Q252; 4Q215; 1 En. 89:52—predate Acts 7:52 and can well have been part of the tradition-historical background of Acts 7 and therefore influencing it. 33. Ibid., 120–21. 34. See Esther G. Chazon, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: Testament of Naphtali (4Q215) and Time of Righteousness (4Q215a),” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 110–23. 35. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 360–61; Paolo Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 174–80. 36. See Gerbern S. Oegema, “Tradition-Historical Studies on 4Q252,” in QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 165–85, esp. 171.

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

391

2.2.2. The Works of Josephus The works of Josephus offer numerous examples of the use of h( parousi/a, as in Ant. 1.281, 287; 2.20; 15 (cf. 15.88ff.); and 19.339, but only in its noneschatological sense of an ordinary “arrival.” There are no examples of the use of h( e1leusij.37 Flavius Josephus, therefore, does not reflect any reception of the expression h( e0leu/sij tou= dikai/ou, which perfectly fits with his lack of interest in and critique of messianic figures.38

2.2.3. The Jewish (and Christian) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Greek The following Jewish (and Christian) apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in Greek use one of the expressions h( parousi/a, h( e1leusij and o( di/kaioj, and thus give an idea of the early reception of the expression39: • Apocalypse of Elijah 1:5–6: h( e0c / sune/leusij tou= a)gaphtou=; “the coming of the Beloved…” • Martyrdom (Ascension) of Isaiah 3:13: h( e)ce/leusij tou= a)gaph/tou; “the coming of the Beloved One.”40 • 4 Baruch 3:8: h( e0c / sune/leusij tou= h)gaphme/nou; “the coming of the Loved One.” 3:11: h( e)ce/leusij tou= a)gaph/tou; “until the coming of the Beloved One.”41 • Testament of Abraham (A) 16:7: h( e1leusij tou= a)rxagge/lou Mixah/l; “the arrival of the archangel Michael.”42 • Testament of Job (recension M) 29: h) e!leusij au)tw= n; “their arrival”?43 • Testament of Judah 22:2: parousi/a; “the coming of the Lord of Righteousness.”44 • Testament of Levi 8:11: parousi/a; “the Lord who is coming.”45

37. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973–83). 38. See Oegema, Anointed, ad loc. 39. See Kilpatrick, “Acts.” Only one example from the Lives of the Prophets appears in Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancient Testament: Concordance, corpus des texts, indices (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987). 40. OTP 2:160. 41. Ibid., 2:419. 42. Ibid., 1:892. 43. Ibid., 1:852. 44. Ibid., 1:801.

392

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE”

• Testament of Abraham (A) 13:4, 6: parousi/a; “until his great and glorious Parousia.”46 • 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 30:1: parousi/a behind the Syriac of the “Appearance of the Anointed One”?47 • Lives of the Prophets, Epiphanii Recensio Prior (E1): p. 6, lines 10–11: h( e0leu/sij tou= Xristou=; p. 7, line 12–13: th=j tou= kuri/ou parousi_aj or pareleu_sewj; p. 11, lines 18–20: th=j tou= kuri/ou parousi/aj; p. 12, lines 6–7: to_ shmei/on th=j parousi/aj au)tou=; and p. 21, line 22: h( e0leu/sij tou= kuri/ou. • Dorothei Recensio (D): p. 27, line 8 (28:3): th=j e)leu/sewj tou= despo/tou Xristou=); and 35:6: th=j e)leu/sewj Xristou=.48

In the Latin Pseudepigrapha only four examples could be found: • Appendix to the Life of Adam and Eve (51:9): Adventus Christi; the “Coming of Christ.” • Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B.) 23:10: about the “Lord’s” coming, spoken to Joshua. • Testament of Moses 10:12: also about the “Lord’s” coming, spoken to Joshua. • Martyrdom (Ascension) of Isaiah 3:13: about the coming of the “Beloved,” as mentioned above.49

2.2.4. Early Christian Writings The following early-Christian writings use one of the aforementioned expressions: • 1 Clement 17.1 h( e0leu/sij tou= Xristou=. • Polycarp, To the Philippians 6.3: h( e0leu/sij tou= kuri/ou h(mw= n. • Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2: ta\j e)leu/seij. • Acts of Philip 78: h( e0leu/sij tou= Xristou=. • Acts of Thomas 28: h( e0leu/sij (his = second coming of Christ).

Another witness is Codex Bezae of Luke 21:7: ti/ to_ shmei=on th=j sh=j e)leu/sewj and 23:42: e)n th=| h(me/ra| th=j e)leu/sewj sou).

45. Ibid., 1:791. 46. Ibid., 1:890. 47. Ibid., 1:631. 48. For the other examples in the recensions of the Lives of the Prophets, see Kilpatrick, “Acts,” 138–39. References according to Kilpatrick. 49. See Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance latine des pseudépigraphes d’Ancient Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993).

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA

393

Kilpatrick’s final conclusion is that h( e1leusij is a messianic term used in the Pseudepigrapha and “taken over in Christian writings beginning with Acts and employed in the same way as in the Jewish works, and in most cases in literary dependence on them.” It differs from parousi/a, which occurs in Christian writings “for the advent of the Messiah Jesus, who is thus put on a level with God,” but, since Irenaeus, can be used at the same time as parousi/a50

2.3. A Comparison of 1 Enoch 89:52; 4Q215; 4Q252; and Acts 7:52 from a Tradition- and Reception-Historical Perspective In an English translation 1 Enoch 89:52 reads: “However, one of them was not killed but escaped alive and fled away; he cried aloud to the sheep, and they wanted to kill him, but the Lord of the sheep rescued him from the sheep and caused him to ascend to me and settle down.” This is one of many passages in 1 Enoch 1–36 and 81–108 in which a “Righteous One” plays a prominent role in an eschatological context. Other passages identify him with Noah (10:3–4), the sons of men (10:21), Elijah (89:52), someone risen (91:10), Enoch (92:1), the sons of righteousness (93:2), or a witness of righteousness (93:2). In all cases the author(s) speak about the future, or the eschaton, which itself—as eighth and ninth week—is also called the “time of righteousness,” as in 4Q215 frag. 2 2.4–11:

bw+h qdch l#mm )b )yk […] h )sk Mryw This text speaks about the coming of the dominion of justice or goodness, an age, in which “he will raise the throne of … and knowledge,” and so on. We are, therefore, clearly dealing with an ideal period (at the end) of history, called “the age of righteousness,” a concept found in the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible, such as Jeremiah 46–51 and Ezekiel 7; and also in Qumran writings, such as 4Q252 and 4QSapiential Work A (4Q415–418), as well as in 1 Enoch and Jubilees, but as an expression qdch is unparalleled.51

50. Kilpatrick, “Acts,” 144–45. 51. See Chazon, “Case,” 113–21.

394

“THE COMING OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE” 4Q252 5.3–4:

xmc qdch xy#m )wb d( [ ] Mylgdh hmh l)r#y yp[l)w] twrwd d( wm( twklm tyrb hntn w(rzlw wl yk dywd r#) Mlw( In 4Q252 5.3–4 we are dealing with an eschatological setting of the coming of the righteous one, who is furthermore called the Shoot of David. An interesting parallel to the latter is found in 3 (4Q174 frags. 1–3 1.11) and 4QpIsa (4Q161 frags. 8–10 3.11–21) as well as in the formulation “Through it [the Shoot] will arise the rod of righteousness” in T. Jud. 24:5–6. Similarly, Ps. Sol. 17:32 uses the three expressions “righteous,” “king,” and “anointed.”52 For Acts 7:52, see above, under sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3.

3. CONCLUSIONS 3.1. Concluding Remarks In total, we may conclude that, despite the fact that most commentaries on Acts mention few if any parallels of the expression h( e0leu/sij tou/ dikai/ou found in Acts 7:52, the actual parallels are quite astonishing both in number and in character. We may catalog them as follows: Expression

Passage

1a. h( e0leu/sij tou/ dikai/ou

Acts 7:52

1b. qdch xy#m )wb xy#m hklm )wb qdch l#mm )b

4Q252 5.3 Targum of Gen 49:10 4Q215 frag. 2 2.9–10

2a. h( e0c / sune/leusij tou= a)gaphtou= / h)gaphme&nou

Asc. Isa. 3:13 4 Bar. 3:8 4 Bar 3:8 4 Bar. 3:11 Apoc. El. 1:5–6

2b. h( e0leu/sij tou= Xristou=

Lives of the Prophets E1 and D 1 Clem. 17.1 Pol. Phil. 6.3 Acts Phil. 78

52. For details, see Oegema, “Studies,” 170–72.

G ERBERN S. OEGEMA 2c. Adventus Christi 3.

a!nqrwpoj di/kaioj te/leioj kai\ a#gioj

395

L.A.E. 51:9 (in appendix) Gen 6:9 (Noah) Sir 44:17 (Noah) Mark 6:20 (John)

The parallels mentioned here clearly indicate that there was a well attested expectation of the “coming of (the Messiah as) the Righteous One” in the decades before and after Luke wrote his Acts of the Apostles. The expression appears in the earlier and contemporaneous Jewish writings, and also in the contemporaneous and later Christian writings, although the examples mentioned here also display a certain variety in the use of expressions associated to “Righteous One,” such as “Beloved One” and “Anointed One.”

3.2. Date and Provenance of the “Coming of the Righteous One” in Stephen’s Speech Our findings, therefore, open the way for the option to consider the originally clearly nonchristological use of the expression of the “Coming of the Righteous One” tradition-historically seen as closest to the theological reflections on the meaning of Jesus for his earliest followers as found in Q. Thus, this figure is the last one of a series of prophets who had been murdered, as I have argued elsewhere.53 This would make it necessary to argue for an early date of the tradition referred to by Stephen and reported by Luke in Acts 7:52, somewhere between the thirties and the sixties of the first century C.E. There is nothing that speaks against such an early date, although we have little proof for it. The frequent use of the expression h9 e0leu/sij tou/ dikai/ou in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha preserved in Greek and in Acts 7:52, however, is a strong argument for such an early date. Furthermore, the lack of a clear christological interpretation of the “Coming of the Righteous One,” other than that of the last of the persecuted prophets, argues for an early date in the history of the development of early-Christian Christology. Also, since the whole of Stephen’s speech in Acts may have a pre-Lukan origin, there is more that speaks in favor of an early rather than a late date for Acts 7:52. However, this theory requires some further investigation. 53. Gerbern S. Oegema, Das Heil ist aus den Juden: Studien zum historischen Jesus und seiner Rezeption im Urchristentum (Theos 50; Hamburg: Kovacˇ, 2001), 25–38.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

QUMRAN AND SUPERSESSIONISM—AND THE ROAD NOT TAKEN Krister Stendahl The topic that has been assigned to me—Qumran and supersessionism— sends me to reflect not so much about the Qumran material as such, but about how my exposure to the Dead Sea Scrolls from Cave 1—in André Dupont-Sommer’s seminar at l’École pratique des Hautes Études in Paris in the spring of 1951—started me on a lifelong quest for a better way to understand Jewish-Christian interplay, and lack of interplay. From the beginning, through history, and in the present, that interplay to a large extent is actually marked and marred by supersessionism and its replacement mechanisms. The Qumran texts and that whereof they speak can sharpen the analysis needed in a search for better ways. For in those texts one can see with great clarity that the driving force behind supersessionism is the claim to the true, authentic, and only legitimate continuity to the inherited history. At Qumran we see this claim intensified by high-voltage eschatology, with all the habits of demonizing the other that comes with the territory. The heightened standards of purity add weight to the claim as it is buttressed by divinely authorized (re)interpretation, (re)assessment, and (re)adjustment of that tradition to which one claims to be the sole legitimate heir. The claim to exclusive continuity is the very spine of supersessionism. The evidence for the analogous Christian claim to the true, exclusive, authentic, and legitimate continuity is certainly the Christian Bible itself, with its Old and New Testaments. As James A. Sanders already has pointed out so well, the fact that the church’s Bible absorbed the Scriptures of the Jews should not be seen as an act of a positive evolution of Judaism, but as the expression of Christian supersessionism.1 1. James A. Sanders, “The Impact of the Judaean Desert Scrolls on Biblical Studies: Scripture in the first Century,” in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1; North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000), 29–42.

397

398

QUMRAN AND S UPERSESSIONISM

The way most Christian scholars today distinguish between the two Testaments is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon. It has also academicsociological dimensions. Old and New Testament scholars keep different company. Even in the Society of Biblical Literature, they seldom take part in one another’s sessions. For scholarly purposes the Bible of the Christian church is no longer a unified whole. This relatively new development—after all, Julius Wellhausen still found it incumbent on himself to write significant commentaries on the Gospels—has intensified with the well-intentioned term “Hebrew Bible,” which inadvertently feeds into a new form of Marcionism—giving Adolf von Harnack a posthumous victory. Although it affirms the integrity of the Tanak, it also suggests that Christianity = the New Testament. But the Christian Bible has two Testaments, an old and a new; by that very structure it makes its claim to continuity and hence legitimacy: it is exhibit A of Christian supersessionism. In Qumran studies one finds extensive discussions about the status of the sectarian material. I place much of it equal to the early Christian texts that became the New Testament. For these texts are the very material in which and by which the two communities make their respective claims to authentic continuity. In the Christian case, the “sectarian documents” known as the New Testament show both the joy and the strain of a remarkable development. The result could not have been anticipated. Severe suffering preceded the claim to continuity. First appears the Galilean self-evidently Jewish Jesus movement. In a surprisingly short time it turns out to be what we for all practical purposes must see as a predominantly Gentile movement. It becomes the “Christianity” that produced the New Testament and for which it claims legitimate continuity. The “shift” is most stylized in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus forbids his disciples to go beyond the confines of Israel—but the final words of the Gospel send the apostles out to “all the Gentiles.” In this perspective “the parting of the ways” is perhaps best understood in “demographic” terms rather than due to specific questions of doctrine or even praxis. Already some twenty-five years after Jesus’ ministry, Paul is puzzled by the phenomenon that only a small “remnant” of Jews have joined the movement while the Gentiles seem to be in the majority. And already in Paul’s writings—the earliest writings we have— Christ [Messiah] is a name, not a messianic title, and the confession is not “Jesus is the Christ” but “Jesus is Lord.” The operative theological terms

KRISTER STENDAHL

399

are “Lord”2 and “Son of God.” To me, all this points to the ways in which the “Christianity” of the New Testament is a primarily Gentile phenomenon, with its writings all Greek originals. The transition or transmutation must have put strain on the claim to continuity, a strain that could be expected to intensify such a claim. It must have gladdened the heart and mind of Paul when he came to think of how, in the book of Genesis, Abraham’s faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness”—and that occurred while Abraham was still a Gentile, circumcision occurring only “two chapters” later.3 What an exegetical and theological find! He introduced it by writing: “Do we then make Torah obsolete by our understanding the faith of Gentiles. God forbid! We claim to be true to the Torah [the Pentateuch]: see Genesis 15…” (Rom 3:31). The logic of this thinking could actually have opened up a future in which Christianity could have both seen itself and been seen by Israel and the nations as a “Judaism for Gentiles.” But this was one road not taken. In such a model the supersessionism would have been overcome by a benevolent typology: There is a familiar shape to God’s ways with the world, God’s ever-repeated attempts at the mending of what was broken, even restoring the imago Dei in which humanity had been created. Such a benevolent typology would rejoice and marvel in the analogous shape of Passover and Easter, of Aqedah and Golgotha, of Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount. But the supersessionist drive forced typological interpretation into adversary patterns where the younger had to trump and trounce the older. In his study The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, Jon D. Levenson has taken the discussion of supersessionism to a provocatively deeper level. He sees Judaism and Christianity “as two rival midrashic systems, competing for their common biblical legacy.”4 As he further explains, that 2. By “blessed ambiguity” the LXX’s way of using kyrios for YHWH allowed for “high Christology” as Scripture’s words about God were applied to Jesus as deemed appropriate. 3. As usual, Paul quotes the LXX with its common translation dikaiosyne¯ for s[edaqah (Gen 15:6). The JPS translation takes the verse into the continuity of Jewish tradition: “And because he put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit.” 4. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 232.

400

QUMRAN AND S UPERSESSIONISM

competition “reenacts the sibling rivalry at the core of ancient Israel’s account of its own tortured origins.”5 In such a perspective, the strain by which the Jewish Jesus movement became the Gentile church looks less strange. In the final paragraph of his preface, Levenson deepens the agenda most boldly for the relations between Judaism and Christianity: Radically transformed but never uprooted, the sacrifice of the first-born son constitutes a strange and usually overlooked bond between Judaism and Christianity and thus a major but unexplored focus for JewishChristian dialogue. In the past this dialogue has too often centered on the Jewishness of Jesus and, in particular, his putative roles of prophet and sage. In point of fact, however, those roles, even if real, have historically been vastly less important in Christian tradition than Jesus’ identity as sacrificial victim, the son handed over to death by his loving father or the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. This identity, ostensibly so alien to Judaism, was itself constructed from Jewish reflection on the beloved sons of the Hebrew Bible, reflection that long survived the rise of Christianity and has persisted into the post-Holocaust era. The bond between Jewry and the Church that the beloved son constitutes is, however, enormously problematic. For the long-standing claim of the Church that it supersedes the Jews in large measure continues the old narrative pattern in which a lateborn son dislodges his first-born brothers, with varying degrees of success. Nowhere does Christianity betray its indebtedness to Judaism more than in its supersessionism.6

So what else is there? There is Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his older brothers, Israel over Canaan. The pattern continues, not only church over synagogue, but Islam over both Judaism and Christianity, and even Protestants over Catholics in the Reformation. In no case do the two groups choose the option of complementarity or coexistence; there is always the claim to exclusive legitimacy. One of the meaningful events in our Qumran Jubilee event was the lifting up of passages from the writings of that community and using them for timeless reflection and even prayer. The beauty and spiritual insight in these selections and many others found in those caves is awesome. My Lutheran heart is indeed warmed when I make these words my own: But as for me, my justification is with God. In His hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart. He will wipe out my transgression 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., x.

KRISTER STENDAHL

401

through His righteousness. For my light has sprung from the source of His knowledge; my eyes have beheld His marvelous deeds, and the light of my heart, the mystery to come. He that is everlasting is the support of my right hand; the way of my steps is over stout rock which nothing shall shake; for the rock of my steps is the truth of God and His might is the support of my right hand.

1QS 11.2–5 7 Awesome indeed is such a hymn, full of spiritual beauty. But much is awful rather than awesome as Qumran eschatology escalates into apocalyptic hatred of the other, an “everlasting hatred in a spirit of secrecy for the men of perdition” (1QS 9.21–22).8 Such sentiments remind us that we are heirs to traditions that have—it seems—in their very structure the negation if not the demonization of the other. So the serious theological question is this: What are we to do? How shall we counteract the undesirable effects of the supersessionist instinct? Actually, “undesirable” is a pale euphemism when considering the cost in humiliations, sufferings, and lives throughout history. Yet there is irony here in the ways supersessionism has functioned when it was complete and when the reality of the Jewish people was not part of consciousness in Christian piety. I can witness to that from my own experience and that of the vast majority of Christians in the world where I grew up. A much beloved hymn for Holy Week can illustrate what I have in mind. It was written by Johann Heermann (ca. 1630) and represents the spirituality that forms a bridge between medieval and Pietist spirituality: Ah, holy Jesus, how hast thou offended, that man to judge thee hath in hate pretended? By foes derided, by thine own rejected, 7. Translation from Elisha Qimron and James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 1, The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 47. 8. The combination of (secret) hatred and nonretaliation here and in the hymn in 1QS10 has its New Testament parallel in Paul’s famous passage on nonretaliation as a heaping of burning coals on the head of one’s enemy (Rom 12:20). See my article “Hate, Non-retaliation, and Love: Coals of Fire,” HTR 55 (1962): 345–55; reprinted in my Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 137–49.

402

QUMRAN AND S UPERSESSIONISM O most afflicted. Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee? Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee. ’Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee; I crucified thee.

“Herzliebster Jesu, was hast du verbrochen” “It was I, Lord Jesus…I crucified thee.” That is how I remember my stance and mood on Good Friday. And the haunting questions in the refrain of the Reproaches: “O, my people, what have I done to thee? Or in what have I afflicted thee? Answer me!”—those questions likewise were heard as chastising our sins made more grievous in contrast to God’s generous acts—just as such words do when they first occur in the book of the prophet Micah.9 For generations that is how Christians have read their Bible. Generations were taught to apply the rule tua res agitur—“it is your case that is dealt with.” They have read the words of their Old Testament as directed to themselves, be it as human beings in general or as Christians in particular. Especially in their hymns and their liturgies have they spoken of themselves as Zion, as Jerusalem, as the sons (and daughters) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Israel. They have done so without feeling the need to supply “the New” before those glorious self-designations. Yet one should note that there is a difference when this unconscious hermeneutical move applies to New Testament texts. For here the designation “Jews” is locked into the construct Jew = sinner = me qua sinner, including the sin of self-righteousness. The word “Jew” has negative valens. Thus, it is striking when a positive connotation is called for as in the famous words about Nathaniel: “See, there is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile” (John 1:47). That is also consistent with the ways in which the church’s identification with Israel in its reading of the Old Testament oscillates between the pattern of promise and fulfillment and of a more thoroughgoing supersessionism where the texts are read directly as about “the church,” “us,” or “me.” Often the same text can function in both ways simultaneously. The irony with this type of supersessionism is, of course, that it is chemically free from any conscious anti-Judaism, but this is “achieved” by making the Jews and the Jewish community invisible, as if it did not 9. The Reproaches and their precursors, dating back to Melito of Sardes’s second century “Sermon on the Passion,” are patterned after Micah 6:3–4: “O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I wearied you? Answer me! For I brought you up from the land of Egypt…”

KRISTER STENDAHL

403

exist. There is a mental obliteration. To use an anachronistic and heavily laden term, such Christian readings of the Bible are “Judenrein” (cleansed of Jewishness). Here is the ultimate supersessionism. Yet, it is harder to unmask since the subjective experience of its practitioner—and I was brought up to be one10 and must still admit to the spiritual power and beauty of that practice—is one of transcending the very anti-Judaism of which this spirituality is the ultimate expression. Here is irony indeed, or to use Jon Levenson’s words, here is another “enormously problematic” facet of supersessionism. Hence, I place another irony side by side with the irony that Levenson ponders when he speaks of supersessionism as a common bond. It is an enormously problematic bondage.

ROADS NOT TAKEN I think of myself as writing an essay in the original sense of that word. I begin an attempt, trying to ask if there are insights in our traditions that point toward roads not (yet) taken. One such insight comes from Israel’s self-understanding, no doubt intensified by 2000 years of Diaspora. Israel knows itself to be “a light to the nations,” to the other, to be a particular people, faithful to its covenant. Jews have never thought that God’s hottest dream was that all people become Jews. I do believe that such faithful particularity is the key to religious existence in an irreducibly plural world. Since the Enlightenment, however, such particularism, and not least Jewish particularism, has been much maligned for being parochial, tribal, and worse, while Christianity sought glory by claiming New Testament universalism over the particularism of the Old Testament. The Enlightenment loved the universal and the individual but had little patience with anything in between. Recall the famous French dictum: “To the Jew as individual, everything; to the Jews as a people, nothing.” In a plural world, not least a religiously plural world, the universalist instinct and drive must come in for reassessment. To know oneself to be— at best—a light to the world, leaving universalism to God, in whose eyes 10. While I have referred to my own experiences from growing up in Sweden, my work over the years with Christians from Asia and Africa has taught me that the hermeneutics I describe here seemed to be natural where there was no significant Jewish presence. The establishment of the State of Israel is changing all that by giving the Jewish people a presence on the global scene, making Jewish invisibility obsolete also in hermeneutics.

404

QUMRAN AND S UPERSESSIONISM

we are all minorities, is the humility that behooves all who have been touched by God. To believe Matthew’s story, Jesus shared this perspective: “You are the salt of the earth.” But who wants the whole earth to become a salt mine? “You are the light of the world.” All is striking minority language. In Maimonides, the same perspective engenders the vision of Christianity and Islam as bearers of Torah to the Gentile world. A venerable scholar of rabbinic Judaism writes: “In their relations with other nations, most of the sages would have satisfied themselves with the declaration of Micah (4:5): ‘For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.’”11 When the sages of rabbinic Judaism increased the emphasis on covenantal faithfulness to Torah and de facto spurned apocalyptical and even eschatological speculation—the very trait that Qumran and Christianity have most in common—this particularism was affirmed and proved formative for two thousand years of Diaspora living. But when Christianity—and less directly Islam—fell heir to the biblical tradition and coupled their supersessionist claims with universal assertions, the road was open for a mind-set that led to crusades and jihad, pogroms, and worse. In milder climes that same universalism makes it difficult for Christians and Muslims to fathom that Christianization, or Islamization, of the world might not be God’s ultimate goal. It is moving to remember that it is in the writings of Paul the apostle—the missionary to the Gentiles—that one finds an unexpected opening, a door ajar to a road not taken. Toward the end of his ministry in the East, he reflects on how the success of his mission to the Gentiles has made his converts feel superior to the Jews—to Israel, as he says, consciously using the more religious nomenclature. This makes him upset, and he conjures up various metaphors to counteract such Christian hubris. Then he tells them a “mystery, lest you be conceited,” and the mystery is that the salvation of Israel is assured and hence none of their business. “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!…” (Rom 11:11–36). So Paul saw it; he had an inkling of the whole tragic history of Christian supersessionism. Definitely not ashamed of the gospel, he saw what could go wrong, perhaps because he had been burned once. It was out of religious zeal that he had persecuted the followers of Jesus, and he did not want to have it happen again—now in reverse. 11. Efraim E. Urbach, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. E. P. Sanders et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 298. I note with interest that Urbach also renders the Micah text “…and we will walk” not “but we will walk.”

KRISTER STENDAHL

405

Is there a road not taken? Yes, I think there is. For perhaps there is no need for Jews and Christians to legitimize one another, nor to delegitimize one another. Much of Jewish and Christian scholarship during the last fifty years, as it has been vitalized by the Dead Sea Scrolls, has stressed in various ways the Jewishness of Jesus, and we do need to stress again and again that “Christian” is a construct that has not yet been formed in New Testament times.12 The Jesus movement existed once as a Jewish “way” in Palestine and in the Diaspora. But with the problem of supersessionism before our eyes, by stressing the Jewishness of Christianity, the problem with Christian supersessionism is inadvertently intensified. The intra-Jewish tension seems to intensify the search for legitimizing one’s true continuity. Hence, we must say something about the need for disentanglement of the two. In order to break the spine and the spell of supersessionism, we should carefully think about whether that habit of claiming continuity must not be coupled with an awareness that new things do emerge, developments that do not call for the legitimizing or delegitimizing of the other. The road taken—the road of supersessionism—has proven to be a dead end, even a road to death. The road not taken shows some signs within our traditions worth our serious consideration.

12. See Donald Juel’s essay in the present volume, ch. 3.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

THE IMPACT OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ON NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION: PROPOSALS, PROBLEMS, AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES Jörg Frey For biblical scholarship, the Dead Sea Scrolls1 (or better, the “library of Qumran”) are by far the most important documentary finds of the twentieth century. Not only the public interest, but also the amount of scholarly publications the Dead Sea Scrolls have caused go far beyond the impact of other quite sensational finds such as the cuneiform tablets from Ras Shamra (Ugarit) in Northern Syria, discovered in 1929,2 or the thirteen codices of the Coptic Gnostic library found in 1945 in Nag Hammadi in Middle Egypt.3 From the late 1940s up to the present, the library of Qumran has caused a library of its own, consisting of roughly more than twenty thousand publications.4 More than fifty years after the first discoveries, a highly specialized 1. Normally, this term is used to denote the number of about nine hundred manuscripts found in eleven caves near Khirbet Qumran at the NW side of the Dead Sea. Except from some texts discovered at Masada, the other documentary finds from sites near the Dead Sea—such as Wadi Murabba(at, Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Khirbet Mird, and Ketef Jericho—are not related with the texts from Qumran, even if they are sometimes included in the term “Dead Sea Scrolls.” 2. Cf. Marguerite Yon, Dennis Pardee, and Pierre Bordreuil, “Ugarit,” ABD 6:695–721; on the impact on biblical scholarship, see Oswald Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990). 3. Cf. Birger A. Pearson, “Nag Hammadi,” ABD 4:982–93; see the translation of the texts in James M. Robinson and Richard Smith, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English: Translated and Introduced by Members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont, California (4th, rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1996); and for the impact on biblical scholarship, the reference work by Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe, eds., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (NTTS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993). 4. In 1998, Hartmut Stegemann, “Qumran, Qumran—und längst kein Ende,” TRev 94 (1998): 483–88, esp. 483, calculated about 15,000 titles. Adam S. van der Woude, “Fifty Years of Qumran Research,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:1–45, esp. 1, counting “more than 10,000 publications that have been itemized in the bibliographies of Ch. Burchard, W. S. LaSor, B. Jongeling, and F. García Martínez and D. W. Parry.” Cf. Christoph Burchard, Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer (2 vols.; BZAW 76, 89; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957–65); Bastiaan Jongeling, A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958–1969 (STDJ 7; Leiden: Brill,

407

408

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

branch of scholarship is doing research on details of the smallest fragments, using most-refined technological tools such as infrared photography, digital image processing, radiocarbon dating, DNA analysis, and other scientific methodologies5 in order to obtain the most-detailed information on the provenance and content of every single manuscript. However, the public interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls is stimulated most vigorously when their impact on our understanding of Jesus and the origins of Christianity is considered.6 There have always been attempts to put the scrolls in a close relation with Jesus and earliest Christianity, and these attempts have had a strong impact on Qumran research, at least in its early periods.7 To evaluate the state of research, we look briefly at the periods of Qumran research.

1. FOUR P ERIODS OF DISCUSSION The scholarly discussion on the relations between the Qumran texts and the New Testament can be divided into four quite different periods:

a. First Discoveries and Premature Assumptions (1947–ca. 1955) The first discoveries were made in 1947 (or possibly earlier) by Bedouins in the area of Khirbet Qumran. The news about the find of ancient manuscripts

or n

1971); William S. LaSor, Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1948–1957 (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1958); Florentino García Martínez and Donald W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970–1995 (STDJ 19, Leiden: Brill, 1996). Also, see the current bibliography in the Revue de Qumran, and the bibliography of the Orion Institute at the Hebrew University (Jerusalem), online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. 5. Cf. the different technical contributions in Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich, eds., The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 5–43; as well as three essays in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999): Gregory L. Doudna, “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis,” 1:430–71; Gregory H. Bearman, Stephen J. Pfann, and Sheila I. Spiro, “Imaging the Scrolls: Photographic and Direct Digital Acquisition,” 1:472–95; and Donald W. Parry et al., “New Technological Advances: DNA, Electronic Databases, Imaging Radar,” 1:496–515. 6. Cf. James H. Charlesworth’s remarks in his preface to Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), xv. 7. This is obvious in view of the number of inquiries into Qumran messianism and related topics. Somewhat later, with the ongoing publication of the documents from Cave 4 and with the increasing number of Jewish scholars entering Qumran research, other important issues of the texts such as purity and other legal issues have gained more attention. Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), xxiii–xxiv.

JÖRG F REY

409

spread quickly and raised interest among scholars and in public discussion in Europe and North America.8 But from the nine hundred manuscripts (as we can count today), only the scrolls from Cave 1 were edited and translated by 1956,9 so the discussion was based almost exclusively on those few but well-preserved manuscripts, chiefly the Great Isaiah Scroll or Isaiah Scroll A (1QIsaa), the so-called Rule of the Community or Manual of Discipline (1QS), the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), the Thanksgiving Hymns or Hodayot (1QHa), and the War Scroll (1QM). But at that time scholarly research on these texts was only at its very beginning. Based on such narrow evidence, it was impossible even to estimate the wealth of the library and the vast diversity within. Scholars read the scrolls as the heritage of a Jewish sect (which had been identified quite early as the group of Essenes known from ancient authors) and compared their words and motifs with the Hebrew Bible and with later rabbinic sources. The marked difference from both seemingly confirmed the sectarian character of the scrolls and the related group. For the general public, however, the most sensational discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll. The discovery of a biblical scroll that was more than thousand years older than the earliest Masoretic codices10 but witnessed to the complete book of Isaiah with only a few orthographical and textual differences could be interpreted as an impressive evidence for the accuracy of the transmission of the biblical text.11 This was the message 8. The publications of this period (1948–55) are collected most completely in Burchard, Bibliographie, vol. 1. 9. Millar Burrows, John C. Trever, and William H. Brownlee, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. 1, The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, and vol. 2, Plates and Transcriptions of the Manual of Discipline (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950–51). The other scrolls from Cave 1 were edited some years later, between 1954 and 1956. The editions are Eleazar L. Sukenik, Os[ar Ham-megillot Ha-genuzot (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik and The Hebrew University, 1954), ET: The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955); Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956); and Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955). 10. Codex Petropolitanus (previously, Leningradensis B 19A) was copied in 1008–9 C.E., and the Aleppo Codex at about 925 C.E.; some other medieval codices can be dated only a few years earlier. From antiquity, only a single Hebrew fragment of the biblical text was extant, the Papyrus Nash, dating presumably from the second century B.C.E. but containing only a form of the Decalogue and the Shema Jisrael from Deut 6:4. Cf. Eugene C. Ulrich, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 1:79–100, esp. 79; and Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992), 118. 11. The observations concerning the accuracy of the text transmission remain valid, however, even though our view of the earliest textual history of the Hebrew

410

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

for the public in the earliest period after the discoveries. Consequently, the public interest in the scrolls focused primarily on their significance for the Hebrew Bible. In that early period, only a few specialists also noticed the significance of the scrolls for understanding the New Testament. We should mention the French scholar André Dupont-Sommer,12 who saw wide-scale analogies between Jesus and the Righteous Teacher of the Qumran texts,13 and the German Karl Georg Kuhn,14 who suggested that the scrolls revealed the mother soil of Johannine Christianity within a sectarian type of gnostic Judaism.15 From a later viewpoint, most of the early suggestions seem to be crudely overstated. Yet the effect of these publications was that more New Testament specialists began to look at the scrolls and discuss their significance for the understanding of the background and history of early Christianity. Bible has become much more complex since the publication of the bulk of the biblical manuscripts from the Qumran library. On the present state of research, see the concise surveys by Ulrich, ibid., 79–100; James A. Sanders, “The Judaean Desert Scrolls and the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998), 1–18; and the comprehensive work by Tov, ibid. 12. Cf. André Dupont-Sommer, Aperçus préliminaires sur les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (L’orient ancien illustré 4; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1950), ET: The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (trans. E. M. Rowley; Oxford: Blackwell, 1952); idem, Nouveaux aperçus sur les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (L’orient ancien illustré 5; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1953); ET: The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes: New Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (trans. R. D. Barnett; London: Vallentine, Mitchell, 1954). For his later positions, cf. idem, Les écrits Esséniens découverts près de la Mer Morte (Bibliothèque Historique; Paris: Payot, 1959); ET: The Essene Writings from Qumran (trans. G. Vermes; Oxford: Blackwell, 1961). 13. Dupont-Sommer, Aperçus préliminaires, 119–22. On these views, cf. sec. 2 (below). 14. Cf. the articles: Karl Georg Kuhn, “Zur Bedeutung der neuen palästinischen Handschriftenfunde für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” TLZ 75 (1950): 81–86; idem, “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das Neue Testament,” ZTK 47 (1950): 192–211; idem, “Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendmahls und sein Verhältnis zu den Gemeinschaftsmahlen der Sektenschrift (1QS),” EvT 10 (1950/51): 508–27; ET: “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper, 1957), 65–93, notes on 259–65; idem, “Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion,” ZTK 49 (1952): 296–316; idem, “Peirasmo&j—a(marti/a—sa&rc im Neuen Testament und die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen,” ZTK 49 (1952): 200–22; ET: “New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper, 1957), 94–113, notes on 265–70; and idem, “Jesus in Gethsemane,” EvT 12 (1952–53): 279–85. On Karl Georg Kuhn, see the biographical article by his former student Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Kuhn, Karl Georg,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 2:39–40. 15. K. G. Kuhn, “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte,” esp. 209–10.

JÖRG F REY

411

b. The “Qumran Fever” and the Discussion of the Material (ca. 1955–ca. 1970) We can characterize a second period of discussion, from the 1950s till the end of the 1960s, as what many call “Qumran fever.” By 1956, all the scrolls from Cave 1 had been edited, and a larger number of scholars had the opportunity to get acquainted with the documents. Archaeologists had investigated the area of Khirbet Qumran and its ruins,16 and between 1952 and 1956 Bedouins and archaeologists had discovered ten more caves with thousands of fragments. Moreover, some of the ideas of the earliest Qumran research were popularized by scholars such as John Allegro17 and by journalists such as Edmund Wilson. At least the American public took a good part of its knowledge about the significance of Qumran from Wilson’s lengthy article in the New Yorker, which quickly appeared as a book and became the first best seller about Qumran.18 The public discussion, however, was dominated by some rash identifications between the data of the Qumran texts and ideas or even persons known from the New Testament. Capable parties had to critically discuss early overstatements, and so the public dispute on the scrolls also stimulated scholarly efforts. Scholars such as the distinguished American archaeologist William F. Albright19; the coeditor of the first scrolls, Millar 16. See the preliminary reports by Roland de Vaux, “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire,” RB 60 (1953): 83–106; idem, “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne,” RB 61 (1954): 206–36; idem, “Fouilles au Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e campagnes,” RB 63 (1956): 533–77; idem, “Fouilles de Feshkha,” RB 66 (1959): 225–55; idem, L’archéologie et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (Schweich Lectures, 1959; London: Oxford University Press, 1961); ET: Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schweich Lectures 1959; rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). See also idem, the posthumously published Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha (presented by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Alain Chambon; NTOA: Series Archaeologica 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); idem, Die Ausgrabungen von Qumran und En Feschcha, vol. 1A, Die Grabungstagebücher (ed. F. Rohrhirsch and B. Hofmeir; NTOA: Series Archaeologica 1A; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996); and Stephen J. Pfann, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes (ed. J.-B. Humbert and A. Chambon; NTOA: Series Archaeologica 1B; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003). 17. Cf. John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Pelican A376; Baltimore: Penguin, 1956); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity (New York: Criterion Books, 1957). 18. Edmund Wilson, “A Reporter at Large,” The New Yorker 31 (May 14, 1955), 45–121; idem, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1947–1969 (rev., expanded ed.; London: W. H. Allen, 1969). 19. Cf. William F. Albright, “Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of St. John,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 153–71.

412

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Burrows20; the Roman Catholics François-Marie Braun21 and Jean Daniélou22; and the Protestant Oscar Cullmann23—all entered the discussion on the links between Qumran and the New Testament. Young scholars such as Otto Betz,24 Matthew Black,25 Raymond E. Brown,26 20. Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955); idem, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpretations (New York: Viking, 1958), with an extensive survey on the scrolls and the New Testament. 21. Cf. François-Marie Braun, “L’arrière-fond Judaïque du quatrième évangile et la communauté de l’alliance,” RB 62 (1955): 5–44; and other studies by idem, primarily on the relation between John and Qumran. 22. Jean Daniélou, Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte et les origines du Christianisme (Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1957); ET: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (trans. S. Attanasio; Baltimore: Helicon, 1958). 23. Oscar Cullmann, “Die neuentdeckten Qumrantexte und das Judentum der Pseudoklementinen,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag (ed. W. Eltester; BZNW 21, Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), 35–51; idem, “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity,” JBL 74 (1955): 213–26; idem, “Secte de Qumran, Hellénistes des Actes et Quatrième Évangile,” in Les manuscrits de la mer morte: Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 Mai 1955 (Bibliothèque des Centres d’Études supérieures spécialisés; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), 61–74; idem, “L’opposition contre le temple de Jérusalem, motiv commun de la théologie Johannique et du monde ambiant,” NTS 5 (1958–1959): 157–73. 24. Otto Betz, “Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde: Eine Parallele zu Matt 16,17–19 in den Qumranpsalmen,” ZNW 48 (1957): 49–77; idem, “Le ministère cultuel dans la secte de Qumrân et dans le Christianisme primitif,” in La secte de Qumrân et les origines du Christianisme (ed. J. van der Ploeg; RechBib 4; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959), 163–202; idem, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960); idem, Der Paraklet: Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im JohannesEvangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2, Leiden: Brill, 1963). Cf. some of his later articles in idem, Jesus: Der Messias Israels; Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (WUNT 42, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), esp. 39–58: “Rechtfertigung in Qumran,” and 318–32: “Die Bedeutung der Qumranschriften für die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments”; and also several articles in idem, Jesus: Der Herr der Kiche; Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie II (WUNT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990): “Der heilige Dienst in der Qumrangemeinde und bei den ersten Christen,” 3–20; “Die Proselytentaufe der Qumrangemeinde und die Taufe im Neuen Testament,” 21–48; “The Eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai-Tradition in Qumran and in the New Testament,” 66–88; and “Göttliche und menschliche Gerechtigkeit in der Gemeinde von Qumran und ihre Bedeutung für das Neue Testament,” 275–92. Cf. also idem, “Qumran and the New Testament: Forty Years of Research,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part I: General Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, and the New Testament. The Present State of Qumranology (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]. Qumranica Mogilanensia 2; Kraków: Enigma, 1993), 79–100; and idem, “Was bedeuten die neuen Qumranfragmente für die Wahrheit des Neuen Testaments?” QC 2 (1992–1993): 183–90. 25. Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1961); idem, The Essene Problem (London: Dr. William’s Trust, 1961); idem, “The Scrolls and the New Testament,” NTS 13 (1966–1967): 81–89; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Doctrine; A Discussion of

JÖRG F REY

413

James H. Charlesworth,27 Joseph A. Fitzmyer,28 David Flusser,29 and Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn30 began to work with the scrolls at the beginning of their careers and integrated the Qumran documents into a new picture of the background of early Christianity. In that period people discussed almost every aspect of possible relations between Qumran and the New Testament. In the scrolls they sought reflections of New Testament Three Parallels to be Found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sacerdotal Messiah, the Atonement, and Eschatology (Ethel M. Wood Lectures; London: Athlone, 1966). 26. Raymond E. Brown, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” CBQ 17 (1955): 403–19, 559–74; idem, “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion,” Bib 39 (1958): 426–48; idem, “The Messianism of Qumran,” CBQ 19 (1957): 53–82; idem, “Second Thoughts, X: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” ExpTim 78 (1966–1967): 19–23; idem, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Messiah(s),” in The Scrolls and Christianity (ed. M. Black; London: SPCK, 1969), 37–44. 27. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III:13–IV:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Chapman, 1972), 76–106; and since then numerous other articles, e.g., idem, “Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John,” BRev 9 (1993): 18–25, 54; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–74; idem, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers in Light of the Rule of the Community,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 353–75; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years of Discovery and Controversy,” PSB 19, no. 2 (1998): 116–33; idem, “Have the Dead Sea Scrolls Revolutionized Our Understanding of the New Testament?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 116–32. Also, see Charlesworth’s contributions in the present volume (listed in Contents). 28. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites, and their Literature,” TS 16 (1955), 335–72; idem, “4QTestimonia and the New Testament,” TS 18 (1957): 513–37; idem, “A Feature of Qumrân Angelology and the Angels of I Cor. XI.10,” NTS 4 (1957–1958): 48–58; idem, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1960–1961): 297–333; idem, “Qumrân and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6,14–7,1,” CBQ 23 (1961): 271–80; two essays in his collected work, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971): “‘4QTestimonia’ and the New Testament,” 59–89; and “Jewish Christianity in Acts in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” 271–303; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament after Thirty Years,” TD 29 (1981): 351–67; two essays presented in his collection, To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroads, 1981): “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence,” 79–111; and “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” 125–46; idem, “The Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament after Forty Years,” RevQ 13 (1988): 609–20; idem, “A Palestinian Collection of Beatitudes,” in The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 1:309–12; idem, “The Palestinian Background of ‘Son of God’ as a Title for Jesus,” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in

414

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

messianism and eschatology, baptism and the Last Supper, ideas of the Spirit and dualism and predestination, the Christian use of the Scriptures, and the organization of the early church. They interpreted Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, and the Fourth Evangelist on the background of possible Qumran influences.31 Their Textual and Situational Contexts; Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 567–77; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins: General Methodological Considerations,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith: In Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Discovery of Qumran Cave I (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 1–19; idem, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 2:599–621. 29. David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 215–66; idem, “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit,” IEJ 10 (1960): 1–13; cf. idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988). 30. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran, mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966); cf. his later articles, e.g., “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 327–39; idem, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. C. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:339–53; idem, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 169–221; idem, “A Legal Issue in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Qumran,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 489–99; idem, “Qumran und Paulus: Unter traditionsgeschichtlichem Aspekt ausgewählte Parallelen,” in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mell and U. B. Müller; ZNWBeih 100; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 227–46; idem, “Qumran Texts and the Historical Jesus: Parallels in Contrast,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 573–80; idem, “The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World,” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (ed. A. Christophersen et al.; JSNTSup 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 221–48. 31. The discussions of those years are documented in a number of volumes; see Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper, 1957); J. P. M. van der Ploeg, ed., La secte de Qumrân et les origines du Christianisme (RechBib 4; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, ed., Paul and Qumran: Studies

JÖRG F REY

415

The results, however, remained controversial. Some scholars from a rather conservative viewpoint emphasized the relations between the New Testament and Qumran in order to strengthen the deep rootedness of early Christianity within the traditions of Palestinian Judaism.32 Other authors remained skeptical and continued to see the predominant background of, for example, Pauline and Johannine thought in Hellenistic Judaism, paganism, or even Gnosticism. Significantly, the doyens of New Testament interpretation in German and British scholarship, Rudolf Bultmann and Charles H. Dodd, did not alter their general views on the religio-historical background of the New Testament. In the context of the Bultmann school, the detailed report on the scholarly discussion by Herbert Braun in the Theologische Rundschau33 and his comprehensive two-volume study Qumran und das Neue Testament34 presented a rather reserved position. In retrospect, we can see that many of the crucial issues concerning the relations between the Qumran texts and the New Testament could not be answered sufficiently in that period. The discussion was still limited to the texts from Cave 1 and included only a small portion of other Qumran documents. So, scholars could not adequately see that the character and the diversity of the Qumran library could not be seen adequately at that time. Furthermore, most of the scholars viewed the Qumran community as a marginal “sect” in separation from the predominant traditions of contemporary Judaism. On the basis of this view, it was hard to interpret the linguistic and traditio-historical parallels with New Testament texts. The result of the discussion was, then, an impressive collection of more or less convincing parallels. But the historical links in New Testament Exegesis (Chicago: Priory, 1968); Matthew Black, ed., The Scrolls and Christianity (London: SPCK, 1969); James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (London: Chapman, 1972). 32. Cf., e.g., the works on the Fourth Gospel by William F. Albright, “Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of St. John,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 153–71; and F.-M. Braun, “L’arrière-fond Judaïque.” 33. Herbert Braun, “Qumran und das Neue Testament: Ein Bericht über 10 Jahre Forschung (1950–1959),” TRu 28 (1962): 97–234; 29 (1963): 142–76, 189–260; 30 (1964): 1–38, 89–137. 34. Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966); vol. 1 reprints the articles mentioned in n33 (above); vol. 2 presents discussion on several important topics. The study has been most influential since it has the form of a catena, presenting the scholarly views within a convenient arrangement according to the sequence of the New Testament texts. Cf. also two chapters in his Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962): “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu von Nazareth,” 86–99; and “Römer 7,7–25 und das Selbstverständnis des Qumran-Frommen,” 100–19.

416

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

between the Qumran texts and early Christianity could not be specified convincingly at that time.

c. Stagnation (ca. 1970–1991) We can characterize the third period, from the beginning of the 1970s to the end of the 1980s, as the period of stagnation. There were no more new discoveries, and the publication of the thousands of small fragments from Cave 4 proceeded slowly. The bulk of fragments was accessible to only a small group of scholars entrusted with the publication of the fragments. Hence, Qumran scholarship became more and more an area of study of a more or less hermetic circle of specialists who had access to the unpublished material. Even if their work with the fragments continued, the public did not notice it, and many biblical scholars became frustrated and lost their interest in the scrolls. Bible commentators could draw on only the earlier discussions and quote some of the well-known parallels in the texts from Cave 1. But except for some reflections on the significance of the Temple Scroll, edited by Yigael Yadin in 1977,35 there were only few studies on the relations between Qumran and the New Testament.

d. A New “Qumran Springtime” (since 1991) The situation changed rapidly in 1991, when the bulk of previously unknown texts became accessible by the publication of computer-generated reconstructions by Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg,36 by the release of the facsimile and the microfiche edition of photographs of all the scrolls,37 and definitely by the rapid sequence of new Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) editions under the chief editorship of

35. Yigael Yadin, Megillat ham-miqdash—The Temple Scroll (3 vols. + suppl.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977). 36. Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, Jr., eds., A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four (3 fasc.; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991–1995). 37. Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, eds., A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Prepared with an Introduction and Index (2 vols.; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991); and Emanuel Tov, ed., with the collaboration of Stephen J. Pfann, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 1993).

JÖRG F REY

417

Emanuel Tov.38 In 1992, Martin Hengel correctly predicted a new “Qumran springtime.”39 Now, after the turn of the millennium and more than fifty years after the first discoveries, the DJD series of official editions is complete, with few exceptions, and all Qumran texts are accessible at least in a preliminary transcription and translation. For everyone, it is possible now to look at them and to make up one’s own mind about the problems. Moreover, all the important texts are presented together with scholarly tools in electronic databases,40 which provide numerous new possibilities for evaluating the evidence. During the last ten or fifteen years, the situation of Qumran research has changed fundamentally. In contrast to the earlier periods of research, we can now appreciate the real wealth of the Qumran library and the pluriformity of the documents, especially those from Cave 4. Given the publication of previously unknown pseudepigraphic, calendric, and halakic documents, sapiential and liturgical texts, scholars had to rethink all the earlier statements on Qumran and its library, the classification of the texts, and their relations with the different traditions of early Judaism and early Christianity. Contributions in great number from a growing community of scholars provide detailed and thorough analyses of the new documents and a fresh evaluation of the earlier-published texts. Wellknown assumptions on Qumran and its meaning became questionable, and new ideas are about to rise. This is also true for the issue of the relations between Qumran, the Essenes or the Qumran library, and the New Testament or early Christianity, even if the questions prominent in the discussion during the 1950s and 1960s have lost their pivotal position. But the documents published in the 1990s also provide a great number of new terminological and ideological parallels with New Testament texts. Therefore, scholars have started to analyze and evaluate the whole body of material again.41 From the perspective of the new texts, a large 38. On the development since 1989, see the balanced information in Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity (London: HarperCollins, 2002), 390–402. 39. Martin Hengel, “Die Qumranrollen und der Umgang mit der Wahrheit,” TBei 23 (1992): 233–37, esp. 235: “Wir dürfen…so etwas wie einen neuen Qumranfrühling erwarten.” 40. Timothy H. Lim, ed., in consultation with Philip S. Alexander, The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library (computer optical disc 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library (computer optical disc 2; Leiden: Brill, 1999). 41. On messianism, e.g., the important study by Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), provides an extensive

418

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

number of scholarly studies provide fresh insights on the significance of the Qumran documents for the interpretation of the New Testament. On the other hand, earlier assumptions that appear to be overstated in the light of the new evidence can be corrected and modified. However, the discussion has only started, and it will be a lot of work until its results can be summed up. But hopefully in some years we will be able to provide a new evaluated collection of all the material from Qumran that can help us to understand the documents of early Christianity within their context of early Judaism. At the University of Munich, my predecessor, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, has worked on the project of a new “kind of ‘Billerbeck’ on Qumran,”42 a commented collection of the Qumran parallels for New Testament exegetes. The Munich Qumran project then focused on the authentic Letters of Paul. Its results are being preliminarily published in a number of articles, until the book-length publication will appear in due time. The most recent comprehensive discussion of the links between Qumran and the New Testament is the two-volume study by Herbert Braun from 1966, which covers the scholarly literature only from 1950–59. This study is clearly outdated. It is also based on a number of assumptions on early Judaism and on the place of the New Testament within the history of religions that cannot be shared any more.43 So, in view of the progress analysis of the whole material and can replace the former standard monograph by Adam S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (SSN 3; Assen: van Gorcum, 1957). Cf. also James H. Charlesworth, “Challenging the Consensus Communis regarding Qumran Messianism (1QS, 4QS MSS),” in QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 120–34. On the issue of Qumran dualism and its alleged relations with Johannine thought, cf. Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies; Published in Honour of J. M. Baumgarten (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden, New York: Brill, 1997), 275–335; idem, “Licht aus den Höhlen? Der ‘johanneische Dualismus’ und die Texte von Qumran,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religionsund traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle, in collaboration with J. Schlegel; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 117–203, thoroughly questioning the widespread assumptions of a close relationship between Qumran and the Gospel of John. 42. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls,” 327–39, esp. 327. Cf., since then, the articles mentioned in n30 (above). 43. To mention only one example, H. Braun stays fully within the Bultmannian concept when he interprets New Testament predestinational dualism in terms of gnostic syncretism; cf. H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, 2:250. Bultmann himself takes up the Qumran finds only as evidence for a gnostic type of Judaism; cf. Rudolf K. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1951), 361n1.

JÖRG F REY

419

of discussion and, especially, the recently published Qumran texts, we urgently need a new collection and critical evaluation of the Qumran parallels to New Testament texts. In the present paper I would like to discuss some outlines of the problems and perspectives of the issue. At first I will give a critical assessment of four problematical patterns of relating Qumran documents with early Christianity. Then, I will consider a few methodological aspects that are important for the approach in view of the recently published material. Finally, I will present three test cases to show in what way and to what extent the Qumran documents can enrich the interpretation of New Testament texts.

2. FOUR P ROBLEMATICAL PATTERNS Within scholarship and public discussion, the relations between Qumran and the New Testament were described in very different ways. Authors who have seen a close connection between the Qumran library and the New Testament or between the Qumran community and early Christianity make use of a number of patterns that seem to be inadequate or at least questionable. But since some of these patterns are quite popular, I briefly discuss their problems, to advance a more cautious view of the relations between the Qumran library and early-Christian traditions.

a. Pattern 1: The Qumran Community as a “Prototype” of Early Christianity (Dupont-Sommer, Wilson) One of the first patterns of interpretation was inaugurated already by André Dupont-Sommer and then popularized by the journalist Edmund Wilson; eventually Dupont-Sommer himself took back some of his early assumptions. Within this pattern, the Qumran community is seen as a forerunner of early Christianity, and the so-called “Righteous Teacher” as a prototype of the manner in which Jesus acted or was depicted afterward. Even if these views have been completely abandoned in serious scholarship, some of their implications are still influential, chiefly in public discussion. André Dupont-Sommer, professor of Semitic languages and civilizations at the Sorbonne, was one of the first scholars who commented on the documents discovered in Cave 1 from Qumran.44 He was struck by 44. Cf. the publications mentioned in n12 (above).

420

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

the similarities between some features of the community mentioned in the new documents and early Christianity.45 His observation that the community used the term “new covenant”46 as a self-designation inspired him to a wide-scale comparison between this Jewish “new covenant” and the Christian “new covenant”47: Everything in the Jewish New Covenant heralds and prepares the way for the Christian New Covenant. The Galilean Master, as He is presented to us in the writings of the New Testament, appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the Teacher of Righteousness. Like the latter, He preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one’s neighbor, chastity. Like him, He prescribed the observance of the Law of Moses, the Law finished and perfected, thanks to His own revelations. Like him, He was the Elect and the Messiah of God, the Messiah redeemer of the world. Like him, He was the object of the hostility of the priests, the party of the Sadducees. Like him, he was condemned and put to death. Like him, he pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having put Him to death. Like him, at the end of time, He will be the supreme judge. Like him, He founded a Church whose adherents fervently awaited His glorious return. In the Christian Church, just as in the Essene Church, the essential rite is the sacred meal, which is presided over by the priests. Here and there, at the head of each community, there is the overseer, the “bishop.” And the ideal of both Churches is essentially that of unity, communion in love—even going so far as the sharing of common property. All these similarities—and here I only touch upon the subject—taken together, constitute a very impressive whole. The question at once arises, to which of the two sects, the Jewish or the Christian, does the priority belong? Which of the two was able to influence the other? The reply leaves no room for doubt. The Teacher of Righteousness died about 65–53 B.C.E.; Jesus the Nazarene died about 30 C.E. In every case in which the resemblance compels or invites us to think of a borrowing, this was on the part of Christianity. But on the other hand, the appearance of the faith in Jesus—the foundation of the New Church—can scarcely be explained without the real historic activity of a new Prophet, a new Messiah, who has rekindled the flame and concentrated on himself the adoration of men.

45. Dupont-Sommer was also one of the first scholars who identified the community described in the Qumran texts with the group of the Essenes, mentioned by ancient authors such as Josephus, Philo, and Pliny. 46. 1QpHab 2.3; cf. also CD 6.19; 8.21; 19.33–34; 20.12. 47. Cf. Dupont-Sommer, Aperçus préliminaires, 119–22: “La ‘Nouvelle Alliance’ Juive et la ‘Nouvelle Alliance’ Chrétienne”; the following quotation is from the ET: The DSS: A Preliminary Survey, 99–100.

JÖRG F REY

421

These assumptions, published by Dupont-Sommer in 1950, were then picked up and popularized by Edmund Wilson.48 Although he already realized that Dupont-Sommer’s interpretation was overstated,49 he conceptualized the relation of the Qumran community or the Essenes to Jesus and the first Christians as the successive phases of a single movement. Raising the question of why New Testament scholars had not taken up the subject of the scrolls, Wilson expressed the suspicion that the observations from these documents were suppressed because they could be seen as a danger for Christian faith by questioning the uniqueness of Christ. On the other hand, he claimed that liberals saw the scrolls as a danger for their conviction “that the doctrines known as Christian were not really formulated till several generations after Jesus’ death.”50 Therefore, he asked “whether anyone but a secular scholar is really quite free to grapple with the problems of the Dead Sea discoveries.”51 Wilson himself shared the conviction that “it would seem an immense advantage for cultural and social intercourse— that is, for civilization—that the rise of Christianity should, at last, be generally understood as simply an episode of human history rather than propagated as dogma and divine revelation.”52 He thought that “the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls…cannot fail…to conduce to this.”53 Wilson’s view was obviously guided by an antidogmatic attitude, which led him to expect the progress of enlightenment and human civilization from the insight in the historical relativity of Christian claims of uniqueness. Therefore, Dupont-Sommer’s views became so attractive for him, even though he had to admit that the French scholar had gone too far in his alleged analogies between the teacher and Jesus. Written brilliantly, Wilson’s book had a considerable influence on the general public. Hence, it spread the suspicion that there might have been a greater proximity between the scrolls and early Christianity than some Christian scholars were willing to concede, and that the scrolls could be a danger for some doctrines of Christianity so that some circles might be interested in hiding the truth.54 It might be needless to mention that for any learned theologian 48. Wilson quotes the extensive passage in The Scrolls from the Dead Sea; cf. idem, The DSS, 1947–1969 (rev. ed.), 85–86. 49. One can clearly see this from the earliest scholarly discussion of DupontSommer’s views; cf. Walter Baumgartner, “Der palästinensische Handschriftenfund,” TRu 19 (1951): 97–154, esp. 149–50. 50. Wilson, The DSS, 1947–1969, 99. 51. Ibid., 100. 52. Ibid., 107. 53. Ibid. 54. The later discussion has shown that such a suspicion does at least help in selling a book. The idea of “unlocking” the truth on Jesus or early Christianity has made

422

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

or historian, there is nothing new and nothing dangerous in the idea that the teaching of Jesus and the phenomena of early Christianity have analogies in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. So, Wilson’s hope for further enlightenment from the Qumran Scrolls was based on an insufficient view of the state of affairs—at least in exegetical scholarship. On the other hand, the wide-scale analogies drawn by Dupont-Sommer were based on some early misreadings of the Qumran documents. The Righteous Teacher mentioned in the scrolls55 was obviously a prophetic figure: he claimed to interpret the Scriptures by divine inspiration (1QpHab 7.4–5). Moreover, there are good reasons for the view that he was of high-priestly origin (4Q171 = 4QpPsa 3.15) and united different pious opposition groups during the time of the Maccabean wars in the Yah[ad (dxy), the “Essene union.”56 But he did not view himself as the (or a) Messiah, nor the poor story by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (New York: Summit Books, 1991) a best seller, even more so in Germany, where it was published in a translated version that reinforced the widespread suspicions against the Vatican, and with “Jesus” in the title: Verschlußsache Jesus: Die Qumranrollen und die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum (trans. P. S. Dachs and B. Neumeister-Taroni; Munich: Droemer Knaur, 1991). 55. On this figure, cf. the fundamental study by Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963); and also Hartmut Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Habilitationsschrift; privately published; Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1971). Other interpreters are convinced that there was not a single Righteous Teacher at the formative stage of the Qumran community; see, e.g., Adam S. van der Woude, “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priests in the Habakkuk Commentary,” JJS 33 (1982): 349–59; Florentino García Martínez, “The Origins of the Essene Movement and of the Qumran Sect,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs, and Practices (ed. F. García Martínez and J. C. Trebolle Barrera; trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 77–96; cf. Michael A. Knibb, “Teacher of Righteousness,” in EDSS 2.918–21. In my view, we should still prefer the arguments by Jeremias and Stegemann over the so-called Groningen hypothesis advocated by van der Woude and García Martínez, which posits that the Essenes originated before the Maccabean revolt, but the Qumran sect emerged later and eventually broke away from the Essenes, not under the leadership of a sole Righteous Teacher. Cf. the argument of Hartmut Stegemann, “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. C. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:83–166, esp. 100–104). 56. This is the theory developed in Hartmut Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, passim. Cf. see also idem, “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members,” 153–60; idem, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 205–6; ET: The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). On the identification of the Yah[ad with the Essenes mentioned in Philo, Josephus, and Pliny, which is disputed by numerous scholars, see Jörg Frey, “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte:

JÖRG F REY

423

did his followers view him as a messianic figure.57 In fact, most of the passages mentioning the Teacher make a clear distinction between the historical figure that coined the community and the eschatological prophet (cf. Deut 18:15–18) expected for the future (cf. 1QS 9.11).58 There is also evidence that the Righteous Teacher was persecuted by his enemies (1QpHab 11.2–8), but none of the documents attests to a violent death of the Righteous Teacher, let alone crucifixion. This is also correct in view of the recently published fragment (5) of 4Q285, for which such claims were made afresh.59 This small fragment, however, does not mention the Righteous Teacher but a messianic figure, the Prince of the Congregation or “Bud of David” (cf. Isa 11:1), who is said to kill his enemies (4Q285 frag. 5 line 4; cf. 4Q161 frags. 8–10 3.21–22; 1QSb [1Q28b] 5.24–29), as predicted in Isa 11:4b.60 Thus, even though there are some analogies between Jesus and the Righteous Teacher,61 the idea that the fate of Jesus was prefigured in the Ein Beitrag zum Gespräch mit Roland Bergmeier,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 23–56. 57. Thus Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 285: “Nichts wird davon gesagt, daß der historische Lehrer auch der eschatologische Lehrer sein wird.…Nichts identifiziert ihn mit dem Messias.” Cf., more recently, Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran, 455–58. 58. Cf. the early statement of Raymond E. Brown, “The Messianism of Qumrân,” CBQ 19 (1957): 53–82, esp. 73–74. The identification was advocated by van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen, 84. Cf. also Zimmermann, ibid., 456. 59. The New York Times, Nov. 8, 1991; The Times (London), Nov. 8, 1991. The claim was attributed to Michael O. Wise and Robert H. Eisenman, Jesus und die Urchristen: Die Qumran-Rollen entschlüsselt (Munich: Bertelsmann, 1993), 36, suggesting the translation “und sie werden den Führer der Gemeinde töten, den Zwei[g Davids]”; cf. the English original, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Dorset: Element Books, 1992). 60. Even if the translation mentioned in n59 (above) is grammatically possible, it is strongly preferable to translate the phrase hd(h )y#n wtymhw in line 4 differently: “And the Prince of the Congregation, the Bran[ch of David] will kill him.” The reason for this interpretation is the scriptural reference to Isa 10:34–11:1 in lines 1–2 of the same fragment, which makes an interpretation of line 5 in terms of Isa 11:4c–d most probable. Cf. Zimmermann, ibid., 83, 86–87; and, earlier, Markus Bockmuehl, “A Slain Messiah in 4QSerekh Milhamah 9 (4Q285)?” TynBul 43, no. 1 (1992): 155–69, esp. 159; Otto Betz and Rainer Riesner, Jesus, Qumran und der Vatikan (3d ed.; Giessen: Brunnen, 1993), 103–20; ET: Jesus, Qumran and the Vatican: Clarifications (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1994); and John J. Collins, “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 100–119, esp. 105–6. 61. Cf. already Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 319–53; more recently Hartmut Stegemann, “‘The Teacher of Righteousness’ and Jesus: Two Types of Religious Leadership in Judaism at the Turn of the Era,” in Jewish Civilization in the HellenisticRoman Period (ed. S. Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 196–213.

424

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

fate of the Righteous Teacher is completely mistaken. Other analogies between the Qumran community and early Christianity in matters such as purification rites and communal meals, the community of goods, and in some doctrines deserve serious consideration. But Dupont-Sommer’s idea, based on a hypothesis of the nineteenth century author Ernest Renan that Christianity is a kind of Essenism that has become successful,62 cannot be maintained in view of the Qumran texts. The Qumran community is definitely not the prototype of early Christianity.

b. Pattern 2: The Qumran Texts as Reflections of Early Christian History (Eisenman, Thiering) Another popular theory on the relation between the Qumran documents and Early Christianity should be mentioned here, even if it has to be assessed as completely erroneous and misleading: It is the claim of some authors that the Qumran documents are actually documents of the early Christian movement, telling the history of early Christianity in an otherwise unknown or even allegorical manner. Even if these ideas are based only on very superficial textual data, they are a fertile basis for writing novels that can claim to draw a new picture of Jesus and the early Christians which is completely different from all that we know from the New Testament. By means of such works, the theory has become quite popular, and this is the only reason for mentioning it here. One example is the view of Robert Eisenman, also used as the underlying theory of the best seller The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.63 In numerous publications, Eisenman64 has 62. Dupont-Sommer, Aperçus préliminaires, 121: “Le christianisme est un essénisme qui a largement réussi”; cf. Ernest Renan, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 6, Histoire du people d’Israël (ed. H. Psichari; Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1953), 1301. Before the discovery of the Qumran texts, scholars based their views of Essenism only on the evidence from ancient writers, including ecclesiastical authors such as Eusebius. Their views were shaped by a long tradition of linking the Essenes (or the Therapeutae in Philo) with later Christian asceticism or monasticism. On these views, see the study by Siegfried Wagner, Die Essener in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion vom Ausgang des 18. bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (ZAWBeih 79; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960). 63. See n54 (above). On the aspect of truth mentioned in the subtitle of the German version, see Hengel, “Die Qumranrollen und der Umgang mit der Wahrheit,” 233–37. 64. Cf. Robert H. Eisenman, Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins (StPB 34; Leiden: Brill, 1983); idem, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher (Leiden: Brill, 1986); idem, “Playing On and Transmuting Words: Interpreting ‘Abeit-Galuto’ Offered in the Habakkuk-Pesher,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part II: The Teacher of Righteousness.

JÖRG F REY

425

put forward the view that there was a coherent “Zadokite” movement that included Ezra, Judas Maccabaeus, John the Baptist, Jesus, and his brother James. So, Jesus with his followers and the Qumran group are regarded as parts of that movement, which is also identified with Zealotism, the Jewish protest against Rome. Eisenman’s starting point is the superficial similarity between the designation “Righteous Teacher” and the later epithet for “James the Just.” The similarity between both leads Eisenman to the identification of both figures. So, he interprets 1QpHab 11.4–8 as a comment on the persecution of “James the Just” by the high priest Ananus II, as reported in Josephus (Ant. 20.200–203). Consequently, he identifies the “Liar,” another figure mentioned in the Qumran texts as opposed to the Righteous Teacher and his group, with Paul the apostle. So he sees the Qumran documents as mirroring Jewish-Christian-Zealot polemic against Paul, whom he views not only as an apostate from Judaism but also as an agent of the Romans. This quite fantastic theory is based on the assumption that the authors of the Qumran texts used a peculiar method of wordplay to conceal the historical events behind allusions so that the modern interpreter has to use his or her speculative fantasy in order to detect the real meaning behind the words.65 Another and even more fantastic model was developed by the Australian Qumran scholar and novelist Barbara Thiering. Like Eisenman, she defends a late Herodian date of the Dead Sea Scrolls,66 but identifies the Righteous Teacher with John the Baptist, whereas the “Wicked Priest” and the “Liar” (who are most probably two different figures in the Qumran texts) can be nobody else than Jesus himself. The result is a bizarre novel of the “new” life of Jesus, from his birth near Qumran, his education by the Essenes, and his initiation into the Qumran community by John the Baptist—until his marriages with Mary of Magdala and, later, with Lydia of Philippi, and his journey to Rome, Literary Studies. (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]; Qumranica Mogilanensia 3; Kraków: Enigma, 1991), 177–96; idem, “Theory of Judeo-Christian Origins: The Last Column of the Damascus Document,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. M. O. Wise et al.; New York: Academy of Sciences, 1994), 355–70; idem, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1996). 65. Cf. Eisenman, “Playing On and Transmuting Words.” See the critical assessment of the method in Betz and Riesner, Jesus, Qumran und der Vatikan, 97–98; cf. 88–102, with an extensive criticism of Eisenman’s constructions. 66. Cf. Barbara E. Thiering’s early study Redating the Teacher of Righteousness (Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979). She develops her full story in Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992). Cf. the criticism in Betz and Riesner, ibid., 121–38.

426

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

where his traces are lost. This story is constructed not only from the Qumran texts but also from the Gospels, which are read not on the simple literal level but on another level of meaning, as kinds of allegories. The decisive argument that destroys all these constructions is the argument from the dating of the texts. Early palaeographical studies had already excluded a Christian date for the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls.67 But the uncertainties of the palaeographical method were mostly removed by the use of the radiocarbon method, which was applied to an increasing number of fragments from Qumran and has widely confirmed the earlier palaeographical dates.68 The fact that authors like Eisenman and Thiering are forced to neglect or even reject the results of the scientific dating methods show most clearly that their constructions are not compatible with what we can know today. Their stories are novelistic and largely beyond the range of sound scholarship. Even if some of the Qumran manuscripts were written in the first century C.E. (Herodian era), many others were written in Hasmonean times or earlier. The conclusion is inevitable: The Qumran texts are not a reflection of early-Christian history, and none of the figures known from early Christianity are mentioned in the scrolls.

c. Pattern 3: Christian Documents within the Qumran Library: The Problem of the 7Q Documents (O’Callaghan, Thiede) A theory that has been defended chiefly in conservative Christian circles is about the fragments from Qumran Cave 7, some of which were suggested to be fragments of New Testament texts. It is a striking fact that in this cave, only Greek documents were found. Seemingly the cave—probably a working room of one of the inhabitants from Qumran—was already opened in ancient times, so that the excavators who discovered 67. Cf. the fundamental study by Frank M. Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G. E. Wright; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 133–202. 68. Cf. Georges Bonani et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls,” Radiocarbon 34 (1992): 843–49; A. J. Timothy Jull et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert,” Radiocarbon 37 (1995): 11–19; repr. in, Atiqot 28 (1996): 85–91. Most recently, cf. Gregory L. Doudna, “Dating and Radiocarbon Analysis,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:430–65, esp. 463–64, who thinks that even the scrolls with “Herodian” scripts should be dated earlier, in the first century B.C.E. See the comprehensive report in Flint and VanderKam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 20–33.

JÖRG F REY

427

the cave in 1955 could only find what its first visitors had left or lost on the floor.69 Hence, there are no large portions of texts in Cave 7 but only small fragments of twenty manuscripts. Some of them were identified, one (7Q1) as part of a manuscript of the Septuagint of Exodus; another (7Q2) is a copy of the Letter of Jeremiah. The other fragments remained unidentified in the DJD edition;70 the few legible letters did not allow identification with any other previously known text. In 1972, the Spanish papyrologist José O’Callaghan proposed an identification of some of the fragments with New Testament texts, chiefly of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53 and 7Q4 with 1 Tim 3:16–4:3.71 These assumptions proved to be quite explosive: if they were right, this would challenge the usual dates for New Testament texts and require a date before 68 C.E., not only for the Gospel of Mark but also for 1 Timothy, which is commonly viewed as a pseudepigraphic letter from the beginning of the second century C.E. The possible impact on issues of New Testament introduction (authorship, authenticity, and date of New Testament texts) might be the reason why the 7Q documents have caused such a fierce debate. For those who advocate the identification of 7Q5 with a part of Mark, this creates a possibility to date the earliest Gospel about twenty years earlier than usual and to claim a greater historical value for the Gospel tradition. It must be recognized, however, that an earlier date for Mark does not necessarily imply an improved historical reliability. Therefore, the historical or theological consequences of such an earlier date would remain quite uncertain. Another open question would be why and how the text of the Gospel was brought to Qumran, and in what interest somebody might have worked with that text. But there is no need to speculate on this when the identification of the texts cannot be maintained. 69. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes, 111–12, notes that Origen, when he composed his famous Hexapla, used an additional version of the Greek Psalter, which during the time of Antonius, son of Severus (211–217 C.E.), had been found near Jericho, in a jar with other Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. From the ninth century, another report on the discovery of Hebrew books near Jericho is preserved in a letter of the Nestorian patriarch Timothy I (cf. idem). On the information from Origen, cf. Giovanni Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e testi 5; Rome: Tip. vaticana, 1901), 28–60; Henry B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 53–55; on 1 Timothy and his letter, see Oskar Braun, “Der Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9. Jahrhunderts,” OrChr 1 (1901): 299–313; idem, “Der Katholikos Timotheos I und seine Briefe,” OrChr 1 (1901): 138–52. 70. Maurice Baillet, “Grotte 7,” in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le rouleau de cuivre (ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux; DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 142-46, pl. 30. 71. José O’Callaghan, “¿Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân?” Bib 53 (1972): 91–100; cf. more fully in idem, Los papiros griegos de la cueva 7 de Qumrân

428

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Soon after the publication of O’Callaghan’s article, his proposals were rejected by some of the leading scholars in New Testament textual history, papyrology, and Qumranology.72 However, in 1984, Carsten Peter Thiede—a specialist in English literature but an autodidact in papyrological studies—began to defend O’Callaghan’s identification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53.73 His renewal of O’Callaghan’s thesis was discussed in a series of articles74 and in a conference at Eichstätt in 1992.75 Thiede has also utilized new technological tools for improving the legibility of the (BAC 353; Madrid: Editorial católica, 1974); and recently idem, Los primeros testimonios del Nuevo Testamento: Papirología neotestamentaria (Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1995). 72. Kurt Aland, “Neue neutestamentliche Papyri III: (1) Die Papyri aus Höhle 7 von Qumran und ihre Zuschreibung zum Neuen Testament durch J. O’Callaghan,” NTS 20 (1974): 358–76; idem, “Über die Möglichkeit der Identifikation kleiner Fragmente neutestamentlicher Handschriften mit Hilfe des Computers,” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honor of George D. Kilpatrick (ed. J. K. Elliott; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 14–38; Carlo M. Martini, “Note sui papiri della grotta 7 di Qumrân,” Bib 53 (1972): 101–4; cf. the negative comments by the papyrologist Colin H. Roberts, “On Some Presumed Papyrus Fragments of the New Testament from Qumran,” JTS 23 (1972): 446–47; the Qumran scholar Maurice Baillet, “Les manuscrits de la grotte 7 de Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament,” Bib 53 (1972): 508–16; 54 (1973): 340–50; also, the evangelical scholars Colin J. Hemer, “New Testament Fragments at Qumran,” TynBul 23 (1972): 125–28; and Gordon D. Fee, “Some Dissenting Notes on 7Q5 = Mark 6:52–53,” JBL 92 (1973): 109–12. 73. Carsten P. Thiede, “7Q—Eine Rückkehr zu den neutestamentlichen Papyrusfragmenten in der siebten Höhle von Qumran,” Bib 65 (1994): 538–59; cf. idem, Die älteste Evangelien-Handschrift? Das Markusfragment von Qumran und die Anfänge der schriftlichen Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986); idem, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Papyrus 7Q5 and Its Significance for New Testament Studies (London: Paternoster, 1992); most recently, Carsten P. Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1996); German translation: Der Jesus-Papyrus: Die Entdeckung einer Evangelien-Handschrift aus der Zeit der Augenzeugen (2d ed.; Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1997); idem, Carsten P. Thiede, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity (Oxford: Lion, 2000). 74. Cf. Hans-Udo Rosenbaum, “Cave 7Q5! Gegen die erneute Inanspruchnahme des Qumranfragments 7Q5 als Bruchstück der ältesten Evangelien-Handschrift,” BZ 31 (1987): 189–205. Cf. also the articles mentioned in nn75, 77–83 (below). 75. Cf. the discussions in the congress volume, Bernhard Mayer, ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran? (Eichstätter Studien, NS 32; Regensburg: Pustet, 1992): Camille Focant, “7Q5 = Mk 6,52–53: A Questionable and Questioning Identification,” 11–25; and Stuart R. Pickering, “Paleographical Details of the Qumran Fragment 7Q5,” 27–31. 76. Carsten P. Thiede, “Bericht über die kriminaltechnische Untersuchung des Fragments 7Q5 in Jerusalem,” in Christen und Christliches in Qumran? (ed. B. Mayer; Eichstätter Studien, NS 32; Regensburg: Pustet, 1992), 239–45; Carsten P. Thiede and Georg Masuch, “Confocal Laser Scanning and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 895–905.

JÖRG F REY

429

fragment,76 but the better photographs confirmed experts even more in their rejection of the proposed identification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53.77 On the tiny fragment, only ten letters are clearly legible; they are spread on four consecutive lines, and the only certain word is a simple “and” (KAI). The identification with Mark 6:52–53 was first inspired by the sequence of letters NNHS, which could be part of the local name “Gennesaret” (NNHS) or part of a Greek verb form such as egennhsen or something else. If the identification with Mark 6:52–53 were correct, there would be at least three major textual differences from the Gospel text within that small portion of text: The words epi thn ghn (6:53) cannot be placed within the space left; the word diaperasantev (6:53) would have been crudely miswritten, because the fragment reads a t instead of d (TI...), but a form like tiaperasantev is quite improbable.78 Finally, in line 2 the proposed reading au]twnh[kardia is impossible, because the text cannot be transcribed TWN but as TWI with iota subscript (tw|~ ), which makes up a completely different grammatical form.79 Therefore, it is definitely impossible that 7Q5 represents the text of Mark 6:52–53.80 For some other fragments from Cave 7, scholars have proposed alternative identifications with other texts, mainly parts of 1 Enoch.81 For 7Q4, the identification with parts of 1 Timothy is definitely falsified82; and for 77. Cf. Graham N. Stanton, Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels (London: HarperCollins, 1995), 28–29; Gordon D. Fee, in ABW 3 (1995): 24–25; and Rainer Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem: Neue Funde und Quellen (2d ed.; Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 6; Giessen: Brunnen, 1998), 133–34. This is remarkable, because in an earlier publication, Riesner had left the issue open; cf. Betz and Riesner, Jesus, Qumran und der Vatikan, 139–50. 78. Cf. the argument in Rosenbaum, “Cave 7Q5!” esp. 198–202; and further in Marie-Émile Boismard, “A propos de 7Q5 et Mc 6,52–53,” RB 102 (1995): 585–88. 79. Thus already, see Baillet, “Grotte 7” (DJD 3), 144, pl. 30. See now also Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde, 134; and—on the basis of a new microscopic analysis of the fragment—Robert H. Gundry, “No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53,” JBL 118 (1999): 698–707. 80. Cf. also the monograph by Stefan Enste, Kein Markustext in Qumran; Eine Untersuchung der These: Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 = Mk 6,52–53 (NTOA 45; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 2000). 81. G. Wilhelm Nebe, “7Q4—Möglichkeit und Grenze einer Identifikation,” RQ 13 (1988): 629–33; Émile Puech, “Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscript 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105,” RB 103 (1996): 592–600; idem, “Sept fragments de la lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân,” RQ 18 (1997): 313–24; Ernest A. Muro, Jr., “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7,” RQ 18 (1997): 307–12. 82. Cf. Émile Puech, “Des fragments Grecs de la grotte 7 et le Nouveau Testament? 7Q4 et 7Q5 et la Papyrus Magdalen Grec 17 = P64,” RB 102 (1995): 570–84.

430

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

7Q5, alternative identifications with Zech 7:3c-583 and also 1 En. 15:9d–10 were proposed.84 All these texts fit much more within the context of the Qumran library than New Testament texts do. Since the proposed identification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53 is textually impossible, there is reason to abandon the hope of finding New Testament documents at Qumran. O’Callaghan and especially Thiede, however, are not very open to the scholarly criticism of their theories; they pretend that their readings and identifications were definitely proved and certain.85 But the discussion has shown—in my view definitively—that none of the fragments from Qumran can be proved to contain the text of a Gospel or an Epistle from the New Testament. There is no textual bridge between the New Testament and the library of Qumran. Hence, there is no reason to speculate on the presence of Christians or Christian documents at Qumran.

d. Pattern 4: Personal Links Between Essenism and the Primitive Church: The Hypothesis of an Essene Quarter in Jerusalem (Pixner, Riesner) A fourth pattern suggests not textual but local and personal links between the Essene movement and early Christianity. The basic argument is the assumption of an Essene quarter in Jerusalem, which is supposed to be located on the southwestern hill of Jerusalem, today called Mt. Zion, in the area of the Dormition Abbey. Traditionally, the Last Supper and Pentecost are located in this area. So, if the view developed by the Benedictine archaeologist Bargil Pixner and the German New 83. María Vittoria Spottorno, “Una nueva posible identificación de 7Q5,” Sef 52 (1992): 541–43; cf. the revised proposal in idem, “Can Methodological Limits Be Set in the Debate on the Identification of 7Q5?” DSD 6 (1999): 66–77, esp. 72. 84. Cf. Spottorno, “Can Methodological Limits Be Set?” 66–77, esp. 76–77. 85. Cf. the quotations from an interview with José O’Callaghan (in the journal Vida y Espiritualidad), in Spottorno, ibid., 66–77, esp. 66–67nn2–7. Thiede tried to redate a well-known papyrus with text from the Gospel of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64) from 200 C.E. to 50 C.E.; cf. Carsten P. Thiede, “Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64): A Reappraisal,” ZPE 105 (1995): 13–20, and pl. 9; Thiede and D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus; idem, Der Jesus-Papyrus. His arguments, however, have been thoroughly criticized by experts: cf. Stuart R. Pickering, “Controversy Surrounding Fragments of the Gospel of Matthew in Magdalen College, Oxford,” in New Testament Textual Research Update 3 (1995): 22–25; David C. Parker, “Was Matthew Written before 50 C.E.? The Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew,” ExpTim 107 (1996): 40–43; Klaus Wachtel, “P64/67: Fragmente des Matthäusevangeliums aus dem 1. Jahrhundert?” ZPE 107 (1995): 73–80; Rainer Riesner, “Rückfrage nach Jesus,” TBei 30 (1999): 328–41, esp. 337–39.

JÖRG F REY

431

Testament scholar Rainer Riesner86 is correct, this would open up the possibility for major Essene influences on the primitive Christian community and on Christianity in general. The theory of the Essene quarter is based on a few major historical data, some of which are not free from uncertainties. They have to be considered briefly. First, the argument is based on the widespread conviction that the people who inhabited Qumran belonged to the larger group of the Essenes,87 which was not limited to the place in the desert but, according to Josephus,88 was widespread among all the towns of Judea. From the reports of the excavator of Qumran, Roland de Vaux, most scholars have taken the view that there must have been a period when the Qumran site was abandoned. Based on the evidence from the coins found at Qumran and from Josephus’s reports on a massive earthquake in 31 B.C.E.,89 de Vaux conjectured that the period when the settlement was uninhabited was exactly during the time of Herod the Great (37–4 B.C.E.). According to de Vaux’s view, Qumranites had left the settlement probably because of the destructions caused by the earthquake and by a fire, and there was no resettlement before the period of Archelaus (4 B.C.E.–6 C.E.). This view is linked with Josephus’s note that Herod had favored the Essenes.90 Hence, “scholars have raised the possibility that the Essenes inhabited the Holy City during a period when the political climate was in their 86. Cf. Bargil Pixner, “An Essene Quarter on Mount Zion?” in Studia Hierosolymitana: Studi archeologici; In onore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti (directed by Testa Emmanuele et al.; vol. 1; SBF: Collectio major 22; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1976), 245–85; idem, “The History of the ‘Essene Gate’ Area,” ZDPV 105 (1989): 96–104; idem, “Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion,” BAR 16, no. 3 (1990): 16–35, 60; idem, Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche: Jesus und das Judenchristentum im Licht neuer archäologischer Erkenntnisse (ed. R. Riesner; Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 2; Giessen: Brunnen, 1991); idem, “Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway: Where the Community Lived in Jesus’ Time,” BAR 23 (1997): 22–31, 64–66; Rainer Riesner, “Essener und Urkirche in Jerusalem,” BK 40 (1985): 64–76; idem, “Josephus’ ‘Gate of the Essenes’ in Modern Discussion,” ZDPV 105 (1989): 105–9; idem, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 198–234; idem, “Das Jerusalemer Essenerviertel und die Urgemeinde: Josephus, Bellum Judaicum V 145; 11QMiqdash 46, 13–16; Apostelgeschichte 1–6 und die Archäologie,” ANRW 26.2:1775–1992; repr. with addendum in idem, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem. 87. Some scholars question this view, but we cannot discuss their argument here. Cf., however, Armin Lange, “Essener,” DNP 4:141–46; John J. Collins, “Essenes,” ABD 2:619–26; Frey, “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte.” 88. Josephus, J.W. 2.124; cf. Philo, Hypothetica (see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11–12). 89. Josephus, J.W. 1.370–80; Ant. 15.121–47. 90. Josephus, Ant. 15.373–78.

432

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

favor.”91 Riesner points to the fact that after the restoration the Qumran settlement was smaller than during the earlier period.92 So, he asks whether a part of the Essenes might have remained in Jerusalem while another and more-radical wing returned to Qumran.93 This construction, however, is weakened by a more-recent interpretation of the archaeological and numismatic evidence from Qumran, which suggests that the settlement was abandoned—possibly because of a violent destruction—not before 9 or 8 B.C.E., and that it was reoccupied soon thereafter.94 Of course, this does not preclude an Essene presence in Jerusalem during the time of Herod. But the close link between the reign of Herod, his favor for the Essenes (probably corresponding to his conflict with the Sadducean families), and an Essene settlement in Jerusalem—such a link is not as certain as the advocates of the Essene quarter hypothesis think. A second argument is based on Josephus’s mention of a gate in the city wall of Jerusalem named the “gate of the Essenes” (h( )Esshnw~n pu/lh) and of a piece of land nearby called “Bethso” (Bhqsw&) in J.W. 5.145. Pixner identified the gate with a location that had been already discovered by the archaeologist Frederick J. Bliss, who excavated the Herodian gate structure in 1977 and—together with other archeologists—its surroundings between 1979 and 1985.95 But, if the identification is correct, it is uncertain what the name of the gate meant: Was the location of the Essenes outside the town so that they used the gate to go there,96 or was their dwelling inside the city walls so that they used the gate to leave the city? From the Essene position on purity, scholars had concluded that the Essenes might have used a separate gate. Pixner and Riesner interpret the term “Bethso” 91. Riesner, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter,” 198–234, esp. 207. 92. Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem, 9; cf. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 24–27. 93. Ibid., cf. also Riesner, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter,” 198–234, esp. 207. 94. Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1:47–77, esp. 50–53; idem, “The Chronology of the Settlement at Qumran in the Herodian Period,” DSD 2 (1995): 58–65. Cf. the comprehensive study by idem, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 47–72. 95. Cf. Bargil Pixner, “History of the ‘Essene Gate’ Area,” ZDPV 105 (1989): 96–104; Bargil Pixner, Doron Chen, and Schlomo Margalit, “Mount Zion: The ‘Gate of the Essenes’ Re-excavated,” ZDPV 105 (1989): 85–95, with plates 8–16; cf. the extensive report in Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem, 14–18. 96. Thus, e.g., Eckart Otto, Jerusalem—die Geschichte der Heiligen Stadt (UrbanTaschenbücher 380; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 125.

JÖRG F REY

433

as a transcription of the Aramaic h)wc tyb which means a latrine, and they refer to a passage in the Temple Scroll, 11QTemple (11Q19) 46.13–16, where the construction of a latrine outside the city is commanded. So, the “gate of the Essenes” could be the gate used by the Essenes to leave the city to reach their toilets. But even if the philological interpretation of “Bethso” is correct, it is not clear whether or to what extent the laws of the Temple Scroll were obeyed by Essenes in Qumran and elsewhere. Therefore, uncertainties remain regarding the function of the gate and also regarding the place where Essenes possibly lived in Jerusalem. Pixner and Riesner try to solve these problems by use of a third argument, based on the network of ritual baths found on the area of the supposed Essene quarter, including a double bath outside the city wall which might have been used for cleansing after the use of the toilet. At one side of the double bath, the entrance and exit are separated. This is often interpreted as a peculiarity of Essene baths because similar constructions have also been found at Qumran.97 But recent excavations have shown that constructions like that were much more frequent: they were used, for example, near the Temple Mount as well. Thus, they cannot be interpreted as an Essene peculiarity but only as a construction that was useful for public baths or for baths used frequently.98 The Essene character of the ritual baths on the area of Mt. Zion can, therefore, not be ascertained. The fourth pillar of the theory depends on traces of Jewish-Christian presence on the southwestern hill in late Roman times.99 These early remains may at least raise the question whether there were any links between the inhabitants of the area in Herodian times and the later Jewish Christians. The archaeological evidence adduced for an early Jewish-Christian use of the site are a niche in the room known as David’s tomb that is oriented toward the rock of Golgotha, and some graffiti that suggest a Jewish-Christian use of the building.100 But the tradition of the Last Supper’s location in that area is rather late and cannot be traced back without problems.101 97. Cf. Riesner, ibid., 38, and pictures on 183. 98. Cf. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 146–47, and the literature mentioned on 161; cf. further R. Reich, “Miqwa)ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000), 728–31. 99. Cf. Riesner, ibid., 38–55; idem, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter,” 198–234, esp. 198–206. 100. Cf. Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem, 58–62. 101. Cf. the argument in Riesner, ibid., 78–83, 138–41. In favor of a late formation of the tradition from liturgical reasons, cf. Klaus Bieberstein, “Die Hagia Sion in

434

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

The other attempts to fill the lacunae in the argument by some pieces of evidence from New Testament texts are even more questionable: The mention of a man carrying a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13–14) cannot prove that Jesus had the Last Supper in the environment of Essene monks.102 Nor can the reference to the use of the Essene calendar (by Jesus or the evangelists) solve the problem of the different chronologies of the passion when comparing the Synoptics with the Fourth Gospel.103 And the note about the conversion of priests in Acts 6:7 is no valid evidence for the assumption of personal links between Essenism and primitive Christianity.104 Hence, even if it is quite plausible that Essenes lived in Jerusalem,105 there remain a number of problems with the assumption of an Essene quarter, and the links between the Essenes in Jerusalem and the earliest Christian community cannot be established without doubt. There is no undisputable evidence that Jesus and the apostles were in relation with Essene circles or that Essenes joined or even influenced earliest Christianity.106 Therefore, assumptions like that of an Essene quarter Jerusalem,” in Akten des XII. internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22.–28. September 1991 (ed. E. Dassmann and J. Engemann; Studi di antichità cristiana 52; JAC: Ergänzungsband 20; Münster: Aschendorff, 1995), 1:543–51. 102. Thus Pixner, Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche, 219–22. This argument gives too much weight to the idea that the Essenes formed a monastic community of unmarried men. Such a view was prominent in the earliest periods of Qumran research, but it can not be maintained anymore. See below, n118. 103. Cf. Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 2, Das johanneische Zeitverständnis (WUNT 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 183, n130. Eugen Ruckstuhl, “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu,” in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (ed. E. Ruckstuhl; SBAB 3; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 101–84, esp. 130–33. and 180–81, suggests that Jesus held a Passover meal according the Essene calendar, on Tuesday evening in the Passover week. For Ruckstuhl, the Johannine “Beloved Disciple” in John, who has the prominent place at Jesus’ breast (John 13:23), is a monk of the monastic community of the Essenes in Jerusalem. Cf. also Brian J. Capper, “‘With the Oldest Monks …’: Light from Essene History on the Career of the Beloved Disciple,” JTS 49 (1998): 1–55. 104. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 351; Charles K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (vol. 1; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 317: “Theories of influence on the primitive church from Qumran…cannot be built on this verse.” 105. There might be some additional evidence for that in the tombs found at Beit Safafa, which are quite similar to some of the tombs at Qumran; cf. Boaz Zissu, “‘Qumran Type’ Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of the Essene Community?” DSD 5 (1998): 158–71; idem, “Odd Tomb Out: Has Jerusalem’s Essene Cemetery Been Found?” BAR 25 (1999): 50–55, 62; but there are still many questions regarding the cemeteries of Qumran and their context. 106. It is another question whether Essene converts entered Christian circles after the catastrophe of 70 C.E.; cf. Oscar Cullmann, “Ebioniten,” RGG 2:297–98; Karl Georg Kuhn, “Essener,” RGG 2:701–3.

JÖRG F REY

435

cannot provide a historical framework for the interpretation of the relations between New Testament and Qumran texts,

3. SOME M ETHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS a. Twofold Negative Evidence and Numerous Questions To reach an adequate point of departure for relating the Qumran texts with the New Testament, we basically have to consider twofold negative evidence: First, the documents from the Qumran library mention neither Jesus nor any other person known from early Christian texts. And second, the New Testament texts make no mention of Qumran or the group of the Essenes. The last observation is even more astonishing and calls for explanation. Why do New Testament authors mention Pharisees and Sadducees but no “Essenes,” who—according to Josephus—held an equally important position in Palestinian Judaism at that time?107 If Josephus is basically right—and I assume he is108—the Essenes were not only a marginal sect in a remote monastery in the desert, but also had some influence as the third religious party (as the term ai3rhsiv should be translated) in Jewish Palestine. The silence of the New Testament authors and texts is thus even more remarkable. Is it due to a greater distance between earliest “Christianity” and the Qumran group or Essenism as a whole, or can we interpret it as a sign of close relations between the two movements?109 107. Both Josephus, Ant. 18.20, and Philo, Prob. 75, give the number of 4,000 Essenes; Josephus, Ant. 17.41–42, additionally mentions 6,000 Pharisees. 108. According to Berndt Schaller, “4000 Essener—6000 Pharisäer: Zum Hintergrund und Wert antiker Zahlenangaben,” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel; ZNWBeih 97; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 172–82, such numbers are a topos of ancient historiography and cannot claim historical accuracy. Of course, it is possible that these numbers are based not on Philo’s or Josephus’s own calculations but on some kind of source (as Schaller, 174, assumes). For Josephus, however, we should assume that he had some knowledge of the Palestinian Jewish groups and their influence. So we should accept the fact that there were more Pharisees than Essenes, but that both groups had some influence in religion and society during the period before the Jewish War. Cf. the more extensive argument in Frey, “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte,” 55–56. 109. Thus Hans Kosmala, e.g., held the view that the Essenes were the group with which earliest Christianity was related most closely; see his article “Jerusalem,” BHH 2:820–50, esp. 846.

436

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Are the Essenes hidden behind another New Testament term? Were the “Herodians” who are mentioned three times (Mark 3:6; 12:13; Matt 22:16) actually Essenes?110 Did New Testament authors view the Essenes as part of the Pharisees, who gained the leading position in Judaism after 70 C.E.? Or did they view Essenes and Sadducees as one group because of the priestly elements in Essene rules?111

b. The Issue of Historical Relations: Possibilities but Not Probabilities On these issues one can only speculate. The sources—in the New Testament or in the Qumran library—do not provide any safe evidence to give an answer with certainty. In particular, there is no textual evidence to postulate a close personal or historical relationship between the Essenes and Jesus or earliest Christianity. There are many possibilities, but hardly one of them can be made certain. It is, of course, possible that Jesus met Essenes—at least in Jerusalem, where an Essene presence is most likely.112 But in Galilee, where Jesus preached and chose his disciples (Mark 1:16–20), a presence of Essenes cannot be ascertained. It is also possible or even likely that primitive Christianity could have come into contact with some members of the Essene party, especially in Jerusalem. But we should consider that the Qumran Rule of the Community and also Josephus’s account on the Essenes tell us that the members of the community were bound to conceal “the secrets of knowledge” (1QS 4.5–6; cf. 10.24–25; Josephus, J.W. 2.141), and that the instructor should 110. This was suggested by Charles Daniel, “Les ‘Hérodiens’ du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Esséniens?” RevQ 6 (1967): 31–53; idem, “Nouveaux arguments en faveur de l’identification des Hérodiens et des Esséniens,” RevQ 7 (1970): 397–402; Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols. in 4; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:138–39 (with mistaken reference to Mark 8:17); cf. Willi Braun, “Were the New Testament Herodians Essenes? A Critique of an Hypothesis,” RevQ 14 (1989), 75–88. 111. Some scholars attribute the Qumran texts to a Sadducean origin; cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1975); idem, Sectarian Laws in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); idem, “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect,” in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. H. Shanks; New York: Random House, 1992), 35–49; Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977). 112. Independently from the theory of an Essene quarter, this might be confirmed by the recent tomb finds at Beit Zafafa near Jerusalem. Cf. the articles mentioned in n105 (above); and Bonnie Rochman, “The Missing Link? Rare Tombs Could Provide Evidence of Jerusalem Essenes,” BAR 23, no. 4 (1997): 20–21.

JÖRG F REY

437

not “argue with the men of the pit” but “hide the counsel of the law in the midst of the men of injustice” (1QS 9.16–17). Thus, we cannot presuppose that peculiar sectarian insights were open for everybody or even discussed publicly. Nevertheless, Essene influence on the Palestinian Jesus movement cannot be ruled out. But the sources of both groups remain silent, and their silence can be interpreted in various ways. Moreover, not all the parallels adduced can prove an Essene influence: similarities of the community organization, communal meals, the community of goods or some theological issues might also be explained by similarities of the respective groups’ situation, or by the common reception of biblical and postbiblical traditions. It is a question, therefore, of how many of the textual parallels actually allow the assumption of textual or other Essene influences. It is also possible that some Essenes—or former Essenes—became Christians in the period of the Palestinian Jesus movement113 and also in later times, after the destruction of Qumran in 68 C.E. and of the temple in 70 C.E., when the war against Rome ended.114 But in the light of the radical position on the Law and on ritual purity, we can ask whether Essenes could have joined the Palestinian Jesus movement so easily and in such a number to enact a considerable influence on Christian theology after 70 C.E. A conversion of an Essene would have been an even greater miracle than the calling of the Pharisee Paul in his way to Damascus: the development within the early-Christian community, the growing openness for non-Jews, and the liberality toward issues of purity—these should have been even more offending for a member of the Essenes than for a Pharisee. The assumption of a reinforced Essene influence in the New Testament documents of the third generation, the period after the Jewish War, seems to be even more questionable than an influence on Jesus or the Jesus movement in the earliest period. If all these assumptions are only possibilities that cannot be ascertained from explicit textual evidence, the problem of the personal and institutional relations between Essenism and earliest Christianity cannot 113. This was assumed on the basis of Acts 6:7; cf. Riesner, Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem, 85–86; but see the critical statements cited in n104 (above). 114. Such an assumption was frequently made in view of the Fourth Evangelist, who was then interpreted as a former Essene; cf. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 236–37; and with a different reconstruction, Eugen Ruckstuhl, “Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte,” in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (ed. E. Ruckstuhl; SBAB 3; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 355–95, esp. 393–95. Cf. also James H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 65–97, esp. 89.

438

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

yet be solved with certainty. The aporias call for an approach based not on vague speculations but on the texts themselves. The similarities and differences between the documents from the Qumran library and New Testament texts must be analyzed with all sophistication. But the situation is much more complicated than in the early periods of research, if the recent developments in Qumranology are taken into consideration.

c. Diversity Within the Qumran Library One of the most important results of Qumran research that has been widely accepted since the late 1980s115 is the distinction between “sectarian” and “nonsectarian” (or Essene and non-Essene116) documents. During the first decades of Qumran research, scholars viewed the nonbiblical scrolls mostly as documents originating in the Qumran community. Actually, among the scrolls from Cave 1 that were published first, there were some of the most characteristic community texts: the Rule of the Community (1QS), the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa), the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), and the War Scroll (1QM).117 Of course, there are remarkable differences even between these documents. For example, not all the rule texts presuppose unmarried members, and some of them also

115. The first assumptions in that direction were uttered already in 1957 by the German member of the editorial team Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, in a small study on the fragments of the War Scroll; cf. Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milha9 ma aus Höhle 4 von Qumran,” ZAW 69 (1957): 131–51, esp. 149–50; cf. also Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 13–20. 116. In the English language, the terms “sectarian” or “sect” do not have the strongly negative implications of the German terms “Sekte” and “sektiererisch,” which denote a religious splinter group and its behavior in contrast to a normative or mainstream religion. Therefore, in German scholarship the terms “essenisch” and “nicht-essenisch” are much more useful even if they do not take into account the problem identifying the Qumran Yahad 9 with the Essenes. On these problems, see Charlotte Hempel, “Kriterien zur Bestimmung ‘essenischer Verfasserschaft’ von Qumrantexten,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 71–85, esp. 71–75. 117. However, we must assume that the War Scroll is a previously non-Essene text reworked within the community. Cf. Armin Lange and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Qumran,” in TRE 28:45–78, esp. 60–62l; and Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 275–335, esp. 308–10.

JÖRG F REY

439

give rules for married persons.118 From such observations scholars had to conclude that those roles were not obligatory for all members and not at all times, but that we must take into consideration different audiences and diachronic developments.119 The increasing number of documents published since 1991 has demonstrated the great diversity within the Qumran library, which contained texts of quite different language, literary genre,120 and theological position. In view of such a variety, scholarship has discovered significant differences and developed criteria for the identification of Essene (sectarian) authorship.121 Now it is widely accepted that a large number of the nonbiblical texts from the Qumran library were not composed by the group that inhabited Qumran and hid the scrolls in the caves. This is obvious regarding the biblical texts and the well-known Pseudepigrapha such as 1 Enoch or Jubilees. But many of the remaining nonbiblical documents even lack the peculiar reference to the community and in particular the community terminology that is so characteristic, for example, in the Thanksgiving Hymns, the Habakkuk Pesher, or the Rule of the Community.122 Many of these documents take a pan-Israelite, not a particularist and “sectarian” position. Hence, we have to take into consideration that they were composed by authors who did not belong to the Essene Yah[ad but to other Jewish 118. 118. Cf. Hermann Stegemann, “The Qumran Essenes,” 126–34, and most recently Annette Steudel, “Ehelosigkeit bei den Essenern,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 115–24, who concludes that there were married and unmarried Essenes. 119. On the 4QS material, cf. the pioneering study by Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 120. Cf. Armin Lange with Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and Genre,” in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov et al.; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 115–64, distinguishing among texts parabiblical, exegetical, on religious law, calendrical, poetic and liturgical, sapiential, historical and with tales, apocalyptic and eschatological, magical and on divination, documentary, with a treasure list (the Copper Scroll), letters, and/or scribal exercises. 121. Cf. Lange and Lichtenberger, “Qumran,” 45–46; Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 6–20; idem, “Kriterien essenischer Texte,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 59–69; Hempel, “Kriterien zur Bestimmung,” 71–85. 122. On the community terminology, see Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute of Advances Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58; cf. also discussions in the studies mentioned in n121 (above).

440

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

groups, and yet they were studied or even copied by members of the Qumran community. They are, therefore, not significant for the Essene position but give evidence of views held within other Jewish groups of the third to first centuries B.C.E. Probably all the documents written in Aramaic, most of the sapiential texts, the majority of the new parabiblical texts such as previously unknown pseudepigrapha, and even a passage like the well-known Doctrine of the Two Spirits (1QS 3.13–4.26) seem to belong to the literary treasure the Essenes inherited from other Jewish circles, probably from precursor groups. Possibly the texts came into their possession as the property of new members who entered the community; possibly they were deliberately acquired for purpose of study. They were added to the library, studied, copied or at least preserved, and finally hidden in the caves before the attack of the Romans in 68 C.E. In my view, the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical exegesis is based not only on the “sectarian” texts of the Qumran community, but even more on the numerous nonsectarian texts. These documents have opened up a new and broader perspective on the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period: they demonstrate that Judaism at that time was much more pluriform and multifaceted than scholars earlier thought. Before the Qumran finds, there were practically no Hebrew or Aramaic documents from Palestinian Judaism at the turn of the era. Scholars gathered their information only from the books of the Maccabees, from various pseudepigrapha that had been transmitted in secondary translations, from the writings of Josephus and Philo, and from later rabbinic sources. Under the impression of the rabbinic view, scholars spoke of a “normative type” of Palestinian Judaism as a background for Jesus and the Palestinian Jesus movement.123 In view of the variety within the documents from Qumran, this view has completely changed. Now we can see that there was no normativity but rich diversity in Palestinian Judaism before 70 C.E. It is, therefore, possible to describe Jesus and primitive Christianity not only in contrast to some “normative” type of Judaism, but also within the wide matrix of Palestinian Jewish traditions. Many New Testament terms earlier thought to be influenced by non-Jewish, Hellenistic, syncretistic, or gnostic ideas can now be explained from the multitude of Jewish traditions, as evident within the Qumran library. 123. Thus, e.g., George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:3, 236; cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament after Forty Years,” RevQ 13 (1988): 609–20, esp. 609–10.

JÖRG F REY

441

d. A New Set of Questions The type of questions to be asked has therefore changed. Although earlier scholarship primarily asked for “Qumran parallels” and discussed the issue of Qumranian or Essene influence on early Christianity,124 the questions deserve to be asked in a more sophisticated manner and with further distinction.

Description and Classification of Parallels First of all, there is need of a clear description and classification of parallels. In other words, what is parallel between an assumed parallel and the New Testament? Is it a single term or a specific notion of a term? Is it a phrase, an idea, a literary structure, or a feature of the community behind the texts? And what is the “degree” of the parallel? Is there a quite close (or even verbal) correspondence between a text from the Qumran library and a New Testament text, or is there only a loose relation of similarity or analogy? In view of the distinctions between “sectarian” and “nonsectarian” documents, we have to refine the question of parallels. Is the assumed Qumran parallel a peculiarity of “sectarian” (Essene) documents, or does it occur also in other, “nonsectarian” (non-Essene) documents?125 Is it possible to show an internal distinction or development within the documents from the Qumran library? And if there are different types or patterns of the idea within the Qumran library,126 which one comes closest to the New Testament parallel? Only from such a sophisticated inquiry we can ask for the consequences regarding the assumption of possible textual or personal relations between the documents from Qumran or the different Jewish traditions or circles and the Palestinian Jesus movement. This is quite important because, in view of the plurality within the Qumran library and the distinction between “sectarian” and “nonsectarian” texts, parallels can no longer be interpreted automatically as an indication of Essene influence on early Christianity. In many cases, it is more adequate to interpret them as part of the Palestinian-Jewish matrix of early 124. This is the type of discussion in H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament. 125. On these questions, see most recently H.-W. Kuhn, “Qumran und Paulus,” 227–46, esp. 228–29. 126. As examples of such a sophisticated inquiry, cf. Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 275–335; idem, “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90 (1999): 45–77.

442

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Christianity,127 which is shared by Jesus and the Palestinian Jesus movement but also to some extent by Paul, Matthew, and the Fourth Gospel.

Qumran’s Relevance to the New Testament To develop an adequate view of the history of religions, it is also important to keep in mind that the search for Qumran parallels should not lead to a one-sided view of, for example, Paul or the Gospel tradition. Not everything in the New Testament texts can be explained from the matrix of Palestinian Judaism: we must also take into consideration the impact of Hellenistic Judaism, not only in the Diaspora but also in Palestine,128 and—to a lesser extent—the impact of the Gentile world. So, when Qumranic “parallels” are considered, we should be prepared to ask whether other parallels from other traditions can eventually provide a better explanation for the phrases and ideas in the New Testament. Hence, scholars of different specializations must work together and discuss the relevance of their respective traditions for the understanding of the New Testament. This is the only way to establish a sound and balanced view of the religio-historical relations.

Further Insights The issue of Qumran and the New Testament goes far beyond the search for parallels. One of the most important benefits of Qumran research for New Testament scholarship might be the new insights in the process of text production and transmission in contemporary Judaism, in various types of the use and interpretation of Scripture or in the history of numerous literary forms and religious ideas.

127. Cf. Fitzmyer, “The Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament,” 609–20, esp. 610. 128. This is the basic result of the groundbreaking studies of M. Hengel on the Hellenization of Judaism; see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. J. Bowden; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1974); idem, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (in collaboration with Chistoph Markschies; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1989); idem, “Qumran und der Hellenismus,” in Judaica et Hellenistica (WUNT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 258–94; idem, “Jerusalem als jüdische und hellenistische Stadt,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana (WUNT 109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 115–56.

JÖRG F REY

443

The History of Scholarship Last, from the viewpoint of the history of New Testament research, it is interesting to ask: In what way did the Qumran finds and the subsequent waves of publication change our religio-historical views and, as a consequence, also our theological interpretation of New Testament texts? What interpretations were proposed in view of the Qumran parallels, and how many of them were abandoned soon afterward? In which way did the scrolls definitely change our view of the historical Jesus, of Paul, or of the Fourth Gospel? Asking and answering these questions will finally show the real impact of the discovery of the Qumran library on the study of the New Testament.

4. TWO MAJOR TEST CASES a. The Impact of Qumran on the Interpretation of John the Baptizer As a first test case for the discussion of similarities and dissimilarities between the documents from Qumran and the New Testament, I take John the Baptizer. This is the figure from the New Testament that most scholars have considered to be closely related with Qumran or the Essenes.129 In one of the most certain traditions within the New Testament, Jesus was baptized by John and received John’s “baptism of repentance for the 129. The scholarly literature is immense; cf. only the more recent contributions: Otto Betz, “Was John the Baptist an Essene?” BRev 18 (1990): 18–25; Hermann Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist: Reflections on Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 340–46; idem, “Johannes der Täufer und die Texte von Qumran,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part I: General Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, and the New Testament. The Present State of Qumranology (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Mogilany, Poland, 1989]. Qumranica Mogilanensia 2; Kraków: Enigma, 1993), 139–52; idem, “Die Texte von Qumran und das Urchristentum,” Judaica 50 (1994): 68–91; Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, 292–313; Stephen J. Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 337–52; Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers,” 353–75; James I. H. McDonald, “What Did You Go Out to See? John the Baptist, the Scrolls and Late Second Temple Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 53–64; Markus Öhler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” JBL 118 (1999): 461–76. Cf. also Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

444

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4).130 But within early Christian tradition, there is a tendency to veil the fact that Jesus received a baptism of repentance.131 In the Fourth Gospel, the image of the Baptizer is transformed into the image of a pure witness for Jesus’ dignity and salvific mission,132 or even of the first believer in Christ.133 The transformation shows how problematic the figure of the Baptizer was for early Christianity; the problems were caused not only by the rivalry between the growing church and communities who revered the Baptizer as Messiah or salvific figure.134 Even for modern historical-critical interpretation, the figure of the Baptizer was enigmatic. How could we explain his preaching in the desert and his baptism of repentance? They certainly did not fit into any kind of “normative Judaism.” So it is no wonder that scholars began to connect him with Qumran soon after the first discoveries.135 “John seemed an especially fitting candidate for possible contacts with Qumran for several reasons.”136 The rigorous priestly movement in the desert and its purification rites seemed to provide the framework for the interpretation of this enigmatic figure. 130. Cf. Lichtenberger, “The DSS and John the Baptist,” 341: “That Jesus received a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins can hardly have been invented by the early Church.” 131. In Matt 3:14 John tries to refuse to baptize Jesus; the Fourth Gospel omits the record of Jesus’ baptism and tells only that the Spirit came down on him like a dove. But even this only serves as a sign to identify him as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (John 1:32–34). 132. Cf. John 1:26–27, 29–35; 3:27–30. 133. Cf. Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Der Täufer als Zeuge des Offenbarers: Das Täuferbild von Joh 1,19–34 auf dem Hintergrund von Mk 1,2–11,” in The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 3:1963–84. 134. On this rivalry, cf. Hermann Lichtenberger, “Täufergemeinden und frühchristliche Täuferpolemik im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts,” ZTK 84 (1987): 36–57. 135. Cf. the report in H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, 2:1–29; and also the discussions in John Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” RevQ 4 (1963–1964): 483–96; Charles H. H. Scobie, “John the Baptist,” in The Scrolls and Christianity (ed. M. Black; London: SPCK, 1969), 58–69. Even before the Qumran discoveries, based only on the ancient texts on the Essenes, scholars had the idea that John’s immersion rite was linked with the Essenes; cf. Kaufmann Kohler and Samuel Krauss, “Baptism,” JE 2:499–500; Joseph Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (Gembloux: Duculot, 1935), 87. 136. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 168. Cf. basically William H. Brownlee, “John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper, 1957), 71–90; Kurt Schubert, Die Gemeinde vom Toten Meer: Ihre Entstehung und ihre Lehren (Munich: Reinhardt, 1958), 109.

JÖRG F REY

445

According to Luke, the Baptizer was of priestly descent (1:5–25) and lived in the desert until he appeared publicly (1:80). The place where he baptized in the desert, “beyond the Jordan,”137 was probably not too far from Qumran.138 His alleged celibacy (1:15) and his ascetic lifestyle (Mark 1:6) make up a striking similarity, even if we consider that not all members of the Essenes were unmarried. His diet and clothing are signs of radical self-sufficiency or of a life of repentance and have parallels in some texts as characterizing prophets,139 but could also be interpreted as the refusal to take something from others, as commanded by the Essene purity rules (cf. 1QS 5.16–17; Josephus, J.W. 2.143).140 This might be confirmed by the observation that the Baptist’s food, locusts and honey, seems to be in accordance with Essene dietary law.141 John’s message of the impending doom of the final judgment (Luke 3:7–9; Matt 3:7–10) has numerous parallels in the Qumran texts but also in biblical and postbiblical apocalyptic traditions.142 Finally, John’s concern for eschatological purity and his baptism as a rite of purification by living water have close parallels with the Essene purification rites, even though the practice and interpretation of his baptism shows remarkable differences from Essenism. 137. The localization of the places where John baptized is quite difficult. Norbert Krieger, “Fiktive Orte der Johannestaufe,” ZNW 45 (1954): 121–23, wanted to abandon the search because he thought that all the places mentioned in the Gospels were fictive. But this view is certainly too skeptical. One traditional place is located near Jericho (cf. Matt 3:1, “in the Judean desert”) but on the eastern side of the river. John 1:28 also mentions a place called Bethany “beyond the Jordan.” The fact that John was finally arrested and executed by Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, is a good confirmation of the tradition that he baptized on the eastern side of the river Jordan. It is not convincing to theorize that the place mentioned in John 1:28 is located in the north, near the sea of Galilee, or should be identified with the region of Batanaea, as proposed by Pixner, Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche, 166–79; and Rainer Riesner, “Bethany beyond the Jordan [John 1:28]: Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel,” TynBul 38 (1987): 29–63; cf. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, 2:200–201. 138. Hartmut Stegemann, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu und des frühen Christentums,” BK 48 (1993): 10–19, esp. 12, estimates a distance of about 15 km between the two places, taking about five hours to walk. Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers,” 357, estimates “less than three hours’ walk.” 139. Cf. the Mart. Isa. 2:10; Heb 11:37–38; 1 Clem. 17:1; cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 1:81. On John’s diet and its early interpretation, cf. the monograph by James A. Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation (WUNT 176; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 140. Cf. Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers,” 366–67. 141. Cf. ibid., 367–68; CD 12.11–15 seems to permit honey that has been filtered. 142. Cf. the parallels mentioned in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (vol. 1; AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981), 468.

446

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

On the whole, the similarities are remarkable, and in addition, the image of the Baptizer as depicted by Josephus (Ant. 18.116–119) seems to strengthen the relation between John and Essenism.143 But it is unclear why John is presented in Essene terms without being called an Essene. Should the Baptizer be presented as a pious and just personality, despite his political prophecy? Or can we simply assume that Josephus knew the facts: Had John really “at one time been an Essene, but by the time of his public preaching had separated himself from the sect, and could no longer with accuracy be called an Essene?”144 However, the accuracy of Josephus’s accounts is a much-disputed matter,145 and we must always consider his interests as an interpreter of Jewish history. One could assume, then, that his depiction of the Baptizer is inspired by apologetic interests. In the short episodes on the Essene prophets Judas, Menachem, and Simon,146 Josephus wants to conceal the aspect of political prophecy by stressing the piety and virtue of these prophets and of the group to which they belonged, the Essenes. Similarly, in his presentation of the Baptizer, he stresses justice and piety as part of his preaching, depicting him as a “good man” (Ant. 18.116), even though he was put to death by Herod Antipas.147 Thus, if Josephus presents John in Essene terms, this is in good accord with his apologetic interests and should not be taken as an accurate description of the historical reality. Whether John ever had been an Essene or not cannot be deduced from the terms used by Josephus. The striking similarities mentioned above have caused many scholars to assume that the preacher in the desert had once been an Essene before he was expelled or separated himself from the community. Recently, James H. Charlesworth has formulated a more precise hypothesis why 143. As Lichtenberger demonstrates, Josephus presents the Baptizer as an Essene, even if he does not call him an Essene; see Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist,” 340–46, who mentions parallels between Josephus’s note of the Baptizer and his reports on the Essenes concerning purification rites, the contents of his preaching, and his political prophecy. 144. Cf. ibid., 346. 145. Cf. most recently the argument by Roland Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des jüdischen Historiographen (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993). I do not think that Bergmeier’s reconstruction of sources can be established. It must be considered, however, that Josephus’s accounts show a strong tendency of interpretation (which indeed is not uniform), so that his accounts cannot be read uncritically, as if they were historically accurate. Cf. the discussion in Frey, “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte,” 23–56. 146. Cf. the notes on Judas (J.W. 1.78–80; Ant. 13.311–13), Menachem (Ant. 15.373–79), and Simon (J.W. 2.113; Ant. 17.345–48). 147. Cf. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 38.

JÖRG F REY

447

John had left the community.148 He could have “progressed through the early stages of initiation” (cf. 1QS 6.21) and “taken the vows of celibacy and absolute separation from others.”149 John could have been impressed and attracted by many items of Essene theology. But possibly he could not accept the curses on the “men of Belial” that were pronounced in the ritual of the covenantal renewal (1QS 2.4–10, 11–18), so he kept silent when all said “Amen, Amen,” and this was the first step of his segregation from the community.150 From that moment on, John would have been bound by his vows, but cut off from the community. This could be an explanation of his strange diet. But even if the scenario sounds plausible, there is the question whether John’s segregation from the Essenes is reconstructed in a toomodern way. In view of traditions like Luke 3:7 or 3:9, it can be doubted whether the “younger” John should have had difficulties with the curses from the covenantal ceremony. In my opinion, we cannot with certainty reconstruct the reason why John should have left the community; but then, it is also uncertain whether he ever was a member of it. Hermann Lichtenberger states—correctly, in my view—that the assumption that John had first entered and then left the community puts one hypothesis on the other and is, therefore, even less probable than the idea that John was an Essene during the time he preached. Therefore, he concludes that the brothers of John are rather prophetic or eschatological figures than the enigmatic Bannus151 or the Qumranites.152 From the sources we have, it is equally impossible to conjecture a “Life of John the Baptizer” as it is impossible to write a “Life of Jesus.”153 We cannot conclusively answer the question whether John the Baptizer was a former Essene. If we ask questions like that, we can only discuss different possibilities without being able to ascertain them. It is more fruitful to turn the question round and to ask in what way the Qumran texts help us to understand the profile of the Baptizer more precisely. 148. Cf. Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers,” 353–75. See also Charlesworth’s essay on the Baptizer in the present volume (ch. 1). 149. Charlesworth, “John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers,” 361. 150. Ibid., 363–64. 151. Josephus, Life 11. 152. Lichtenberger, “Die Texte von Qumran und das Urchristentum,” 68–82, esp. 77–78. 153. This has been demonstrated by the most-brilliant history of research, published early in the twentieth century: Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906); 2d edition: Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913); ET: The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. J. Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).

448

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

Here, in the analogies, the differences are most instructive. I discuss two important points of comparison: the scriptural quotation from Isa 40:3 and the peculiar character of John’s rite of baptism. One of the striking similarities between the Qumran texts and the reports on John the Baptizer is that they are linked with the same biblical passage, Isa 40:3: “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord.…” The prophetic utterance is quoted in the Rule of the Community (1QS 8.14; cf. 9.19–20) and in the New Testament, when describing the Baptizer’s appearance (Mark 1:3; cf. Matt 3:3; Luke 3:4–6) or giving his self-definition (John 1:23): In Christian view, the prophecy characterizes the Baptizer as the one who prepares the way for the Lord, as the precursor of Christ. But it is a question of whether the quotation is only a later Christian interpretation that summarizes the Baptizer’s function in retrospect. Thus, Isa 40:3 is already alluded to in Mal 3:1, where the messenger to be sent is closely related to (or identified with) Elijah (cf. Mal 3:23 [4:5 ET]). Apart from the Qumran library, Isa 40:1–5 is referred to in numerous traditions of contemporary Judaism.154 Hence, it is quite plausible that the reference to Isa 40:3 comes from the circle of the Baptizer or, possibly, from himself. In relation with Mal 3, the last chapter within the canon of the prophets, this passage provides the key for understanding the appearance and message of the Baptizer.155 This chapter twice presents the image of judgment with fire (Mal 3:2–3, 19 [4:1]; cf. Matt 3:12; Luke 3:9), the message of repentance is prominent (Mal 3:7; 3:24 [4:6]), and Elijah is mentioned as the last warner before the “great and terrible day” of judgment (3:23–24 [4:5–6]). The reference to Elijah seems to have been important also for the place where John acted: According to 2 Kgs 2:6–8, Elijah crossed the river Jordan at the place where Israel had entered the Holy Land under Joshua, and beyond the Jordan, on the eastern side, he was carried away to heaven. In close correspondence with this, John preached and baptized on the eastern side of the river Jordan, possibly near the trade route where Israelites came across and entered the land. Just where Elijah had been carried away, John acted as the last warner, calling for repentance and offering a baptism of forgiveness of sins. Isaiah 40:3, the basic text to which Mal 3:1 refers, includes the notion of the desert, which Mal 3:1 does not repeat. Hence, people could view John’s appearance as a quite verbal fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 40:3: “In the desert prepare a way for the Lord.” 154. Cf. Bar 5:7; Sir 48:24; 1 En. 1:6; As. Mos. (T. Mos.) 10:4; Lev. Rab. on 1:14; Deut. Rab. on 4:11; Pesiq. Rab. 29, 30, 33; see William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (vol. 1; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T Clark, 1988), 294. 155. Cf. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes, 299–301.

JÖRG F REY

449

Completely different is the reference to Isa 40:3 in the Rule of the Community (1QS 8.14–16): “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make level in the desert a highway for our God. This (alludes to) the study of the Torah wh[ic]h he commanded through Moses to do, according to everything that has been revealed (from) time to time, and according to that which the prophets have revealed by his holy spirit.”156 Here, the preparation of the way of the Lord is linked with the communal study of the Torah (hrwth #rdm; cf. Ezra 7:10). The communal attention to sacred Scriptures, so decisive for the Essene community in its formative period, is seen as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.157 If we take into consideration that this part of the Rule of the Community was composed certainly before the Essene settlement at Qumran, we can assume that the idea that the Isaianic prophecy was being fulfilled within communal study of the Torah was an additional reason for the foundation of the settlement “in the desert.” There the Essenes could study the Torah in complete segregation from the world outside, and they saw this as fulfillment of Isa 40:3 (cf. 1QS 8.13–14). Form the comparison, we can see that the Essenes (and later the Qumran Essenes) and John used the same scriptural tradition, but they interpreted and fulfilled it quite differently. For the Baptizer, the fulfillment is linked with the Elijah tradition, which is of no relevance for the Essene understanding of the prophecy. For him, it is linked with the call for repentance from Mal 3:7 and 3:24 (4:6) and with the purifying rite of baptism, whereas the Essene interpretation of Isa 40:3 is not linked with the Essene purification rites. We can see even more striking differences in comparing the different purification rites, even though there are some similarities158: The Essenes were strongly interested in purity, as we can see from a number of texts and also from the water supply arranged for the Qumran settlement. 156. Translation from Elisha Qimron and James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 1), 37. The text is also preserved in 4QSe (4Q259) 3.5–6. The quotation is omitted (but with shortened allusion to the same biblical passage) in 4QSd (4Q258) frag. 2 1.6–7; cf. most recently the edition in DJD: Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, eds., Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yah[ad (DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). 157. Cf. Timothy H. Lim, “Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Roehampton Institute London Papers 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 280–92, esp. 286. 158. These differences should not be diminished by the fact that there are also some general similarities between John’s baptism and the initiation (not the daily purity rites) of the Essenes. These similarities are described by Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony,” 337–52, esp. 347–48.

450

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

The description of the ablution ritual in 1QS 2.25–3.12 links atonement with repentance and with the ritual application of water. Although for the Essenes immersion was a regular or even daily practice, John’s baptism was granted only once.159 The Essenes practiced immersion by themselves; baptism in the Jordan was carried out by the Baptizer. The ablutions of the Essenes were limited to full members, and all who wanted to take part had to pass through the stages of initiation. In contrast, the Baptizer preached and baptized publicly, and in view of the coming day of judgment, there was no time to wait. Thus, the people who came along the trade route and heard his preaching could repent and be immediately baptized. The purification rituals of the Essenes could be carried out at any place where Essenes lived; John baptized in the Jordan, at the place where Israel once had entered the Holy Land and Elijah had been taken up by the heavenly chariot. These differences show that we cannot parallel the eschatological purification ritual of John’s baptism with the purity rites of the Essenes. Even though repentance and forgiveness of sins played a significant role in their understanding of purity, the eschatological purification ritual carried out by the Baptizer is different, and its distinctive character is visible, in contrast to the Essene purity rites.160 So, John’s brothers are not primarily the Essenes nor a figure like Bannus, but the series of eschatological prophets. Likewise, we cannot use the Essene purification rites to explain John’s baptism, nor can we account for the difference between the two by the suggestion that John held a more universalistic view of salvation than the Essenes. Yet it would be impossible to describe John and his appearance—and chiefly the differences from the Essenes—without the texts from Qumran.161 In this respect, the Qumran texts provide the decisive tool for understanding John the Baptizer in the context of his religious environment.

159. This is doubted by Bruce D. Chilton, “John the Purifier,” in Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 1–37, esp. 26–27. Of course, there is no statement that baptism could not be repeated, but its character as a purification before the coming last judgment marks it as differing from all other rites of purification. 160. Cf. Stegemann, ibid., 306–11. 161. Ibid., 311.

JÖRG F REY

451

b. Paul and His Anthropological Terminology: Flesh and Spirit My second example comes from the religio-historical debate on Paul.162 It is well-known that the older, religio-historical school tried to interpret Paul’s terminology and thought chiefly from Hellenistic Judaism,163 or even paganism.164 This is understandable because before the Qumran finds, there was a considerable lack of Hebrew or Aramaic texts from postbiblical Palestinian Judaism before 70 C.E. Especially, scholars could not affirm Paul’s claim to be a former Pharisee (Phil 3:5; cf. Acts 22:3) from contemporary sources without making use of the later rabbinic writings. It is, therefore, a most-important fact that the Qumran finds have brought out a large number of phrases and ideas that are clearly parallel to passages in Paul’s letters. They can show the Palestinian-Jewish roots of Pauline thought or, at least, of some of its elements. In the present context, I can mention only a few examples.165 The expression “works of the law” (e1rga no/mou), quite significant for the Pauline argument in Galatians and Romans,166 was unparalleled before the Qumran finds. Scholars could not find an equivalent for the Greek phrase in either the Hebrew Bible or in the rabbinic writings.167 But now there are significant parallels in the Qumran library. The closest parallel occurs in the early Essene “halakhic” work 4QMMT168 where 162. See the more extensive argument in Jörg Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 45–77; idem, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Poetical, Liturgical, and Sapiential Texts: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo, 1998 (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 197–226; idem, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought: Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and Its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism, and the New Testament (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 367–404. 163. Cf. Egon Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit (WMANT 29; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968); Henning Paulsen, Überlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8 (WMANT 43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974), 45–47. 164. Cf., e.g., the most influential work by Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (2d ed.; FRLANT 21 [NS 4]; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 134. 165. Cf. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the DSS,” 599–621; H.-W. Kuhn, “Qumran und Paulus,” 227–46; cf. also the essay by H.-W. Kuhn in this volume (ch. 6). 166. Cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28. See the contributions in this volume by Dunn and Charlesworth (ch. 7). 167. Cf. Fitzmyer, ibid., 614–15. 168. 4QMMTe (4Q398) frag. 2 2.2–3 (= C26–27).

452

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

the writer affirms: “We have sent you some of the precepts of the Torah…” (hrwth y#&(m).169 This is the only Qumran phrase that completely matches the Pauline phrase.170 Two other passages in the Rule of the Community (1QS 5.21; 6.18) provide a slightly different phrase: “his deeds in the law” (hrwtb wy#&(m). So, even though Some Works of Torah (4QMMTa–f = 4Q394–399) is written about two centuries earlier than the Pauline letters, the parallel shows that the Pauline usage of “works of the law” refers to a discussion within Palestinian Judaism on the deeds prescribed by the Law.171 Another phrase that is quite important in Paul’s teaching on justification is “the righteousness of God” (dikaiosu/nh qeou~), which Paul uses in Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3; and 2 Cor 5:21. Although many passages in the Hebrew Bible call God “righteous” (qdc) or speak of his “righteousness” (hqdc), readers could not find a precise Hebrew equivalent of the cited phrase in the Hebrew Bible.172 But now, in the Qumran texts, we can see equivalents showing that “Paul did not invent the phrase but rather derived it from a genuine Palestinian tradition.”173 Most interesting—especially in view of the Qumran texts—are the dualistic expressions that can also be found in the Pauline Epistles. In 1 Thess 5:5 Christians are called “sons of light” and “sons of the day.” The phrases make use of the Semitic expression “sons of” (ynb) for the designation of “Christians” as a class of human beings.174 Such a bifurcation of humanity is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible but frequent appears in 169. Text and translation according to Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, eds., Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma(ase ha-Torah (ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 62–63, and cf. 39: the passage seems also to be attested in the manuscript 4QMMTf (4Q399) frag. 1 1.10–11 (but with a slight difference in the word sequence). 170. In 4QFlor (4Q174) frags. 1–3 2.1–3 = 4QMidrEschata 3.7, the reading is hdwt y#&(m, not hrwt y#&(m; cf. Anette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werks aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ 13; Brill: Leiden, 1994), 44; H.-W. Kuhn, “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes,” 169–221, esp. 202–13. 171. On the Pauline understanding of the passage, cf. Michael Bachmann, “4QMMT und der Galaterbrief, hrwth y#&(m und ERGA NOMOU,” ZNW 89 (1998): 91–113; and James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” NTS 43 (1997): 147–53, reprinted in this volume (ch. 7). 172. The closest expression is hwhy tqdc (Deut 33:21). Cf. generally Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 102–84. 173. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the DSS,” 615. Cf. l) qdc (1QM 4.6); l) tqdc (1QS 10.25; 11.12). 174. Cf. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the DSS,” 615.

JÖRG F REY

453

the sectarian writings of Qumran, where the members of the community are called “Sons of Light” and all others “Sons of Darkness” (cf. 1QS 1.9–11). Although Paul does not use the phrase “sons of darkness,” his expression “works of the darkness” in Rom 13:12 strongly reminds one of the dualistic opposition between light and darkness, which is prominent in the sectarian texts from Qumran. We can also show theological parallels between Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Chiefly, we can illustrate the Pauline notion of “sinful flesh” and his view of justification by divine grace by citing impressive parallels from the Qumran documents.175 This most clearly appears in the hymn with which the Rule of the Community (in 1QS) is concluded176: However, I belong to evil humankind, to the assembly of unfaithful flesh (lw( r#&b); my failings, my iniquities, my sins with the depravities of my heart let me belong to the assembly of worms and of those who walk in darkness. (1QS 11.9–10)

A few lines after this confession of sins, the author praises the experience of divine grace177: As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my salvation always, and if I fall by the sin of the flesh (r#&b Nww(b), in the justice of God, which endures eternally, shall my judgment be; if my distress commences, he will free my soul from the pit and make my steps steady on the path; he will draw me near in his mercies, and by kindnesses set in motion my judgment; he will judge me in the justice of his truth, and in his plentiful goodness always atone for all my sins; in his justice he will cleanse me from the uncleanness of the human being and from the sin of the sons of man, so that I can give God thanks for his justice and The Highest for his majesty. (1QS 11.11–15)

In this hymn and a number of parallels in the Thanksgiving Hymns, we can see a far-reaching consciousness of sin. The author and the members of the community reciting the hymns know that they are predestined to participate in salvation even though they share the sinful lot of all human beings. In spite of characteristic differences,178 these texts show

175. On the Pauline notion of “flesh” and its background, see the articles mentioned in n161 (above); on justification, cf. ibid., 602. 176. Translation according to Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998), 1:97–99 (modified at the beginning of line 10). 177. Translation, ibid., 99 (modified in line 12). 178. Cf. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the DSS,” 604–5.

454

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

remarkable similarities with Paul’s idea of justification of the ungodly (Rom 3:23–26; 4:5).179 One aspect deserves special consideration. In 1QS 11.9, 12 and also in some other passages in the Thanksgiving Hymns,180 there is the notion of “flesh” (r#&b) as a sphere that is characterized basically by sin and upheaval, or even as a power that provokes and causes evil deeds.181 A similar use of “flesh” (r#&b) is known from the Pauline Epistles, especially in the antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit” (xwr), as in Gal 5:17 or Rom 8:5–9: For the Flesh is actively inclined against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh. Indeed, these two powers constitute a pair of opposites at war with one another, the result being that you do not actually do the very things you wish to do. (Gal 5:17)182 For those who exist in terms of the flesh take the side of the flesh, whereas those who exist in terms of the Spirit take the side of the Spirit. For the flesh’s way of thinking is death, whereas the Spirit’s way of thinking is life and peace. Because the flesh’s way of thinking is hostility toward God, for it does not submit itself to the law of God; for it cannot. And those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. (Rom 8:5–8)183

Such a negative use of “flesh” goes far beyond the range of meanings of r#&b in the Bible. There, r#&b can denote the human body and its physical substance or, generally, the created being in its weakness and mortality.184 But the passages quoted use the Greek term sa/rc with a strong notion of evil and iniquity. It even seems to denote a sphere or power opposed to God and his will. Scholars have, therefore, tried to explain the Pauline antithesis of “flesh” and “spirit” and chiefly the background 179. Cf. also Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Form und Überlieferungsgeschichte der Qumrantexte,” ZTK 56 (1959): 155–85; Jürgen Becker, Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament (SUNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964). 180. Cf. 1QHa 5.30–33 (= 13.13–16 Sukenik), 1QHa 7.34–35 (= 15.21 Sukenik) and especially 1QHa 12.30–31 (= 4.29–30 Sukenik). References to the manuscript 1QHa are quoted according to the counting of columns and lines in H. Stegemann’s reconstruction of the scroll. The reference according to the editio princeps by E. L. Sukenik is given in brackets. 181. Cf. Becker, ibid., 111–12. 182. Translation from J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 479. 183. Translation from James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Waco: Word, 1988), 414. 184. Cf. DCH 2:277; Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1:164; see more extensively Gillis Gerleman, “r#&b f @f; ba¯s a8 ¯r Fleisch,” THAT 1:376–79; and Nicholas P. Bratsiotis, “r#&b f @f,” ThWAT 1:850–67; ET: TDOT 2:317–32.

JÖRG F REY

455

to his negative usage of “flesh” in terms of Hellenistic or gnostic ideas.185 More recently, a Hellenistic Jewish concept of dualistic wisdom was presented as an explanation for the antithesis in Paul.186 But the textual evidence for such a concept is weak. A dualistic antithesis of sa/rc and pneu= ma comparable to the Pauline usage can be found neither in the Wisdom of Solomon nor in the works of Philo, where “flesh” (sa/rc) like “body” (sw~ma) is viewed as a part of the earthly sphere, but not as the reason or occasion for sin,187 nor as a quasi-demonic power with cosmic dimensions. Therefore, summarizing the discussion, Robert Jewett correctly points out that “on the key issue of the precedent for Paul’s cosmic sa/rc usage, the Qumran tradition offers a somewhat closer correlation than Hellenistic Judaism.”188 However, the suggestion that the apostle could have used the terms of the Qumran community189 was too bold to be accepted. It is unlikely that Paul— even when he was a Pharisaic student of the Torah in Jerusalem190—had 185. With regard to Paul’s negative use of “flesh,” during the nineteenth century adherents of the Tübingen school of Ferdinand Christian Baur attributed it to pagan Hellenistic thought. The explanation from Hellenism or Hellenistic syncretism was then continued by the scholars of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, e.g., by Wilhelm Bousset, as in Kyrios Christos, 134; and Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (3d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1927), 86, characterizing Paul as the greatest of all gnostics. The explanation from Gnosticism was also accepted in the influential works of Rudolf Bultmann, as in “Paulus,” RGG (2d ed.; 1930), 4:1019–45, esp. 1035; and his student Ernst Käsemann, in Leib und Leib Christi: Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit (BHT 9; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933), 105. On the history of research see Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Context Settings (AGJU 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 49–94; Alexander Sand, Der Begriff “Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Biblische Untersuchungen, NS 2; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1967), 1–121; Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 45–48. 186. Cf. basically Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist. 187. This holds true for Book of Giantsd ar 29 as well, where “flesh” is said to be “the chief cause for ignorance” (cf. 4Q532 frags. 1–6 2.2–5). But in this Philonic passage, flesh denotes only the duties of daily life, marriage, rearing of children, provision of necessities, and the business of private and public life, which tie the human being to the earthly sphere and hinder the growth of wisdom. 188. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 92–93. 189. Cf. Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden,” 155–85, esp. 184: “kein Zweifel …, daß Paulus die theologischen Anschauungen dieser Sekte gekannt und aufgegriffen hat.” Becker, Das Heil Gottes, 249–50, asserts an indirect Essene influence on the Pauline terminology of sin. Cf. also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Truth: Paul and Qumran,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. J. MurphyO’Connor Chicago: Priory, 1968), 179–230, esp. 179: “That there are traces of Essene influence in the Pauline corpus is now generally admitted.” 190. On the general trustworthiness of the note on Paul’s studies in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), see Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991), 29–34, 40–43.

456

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

the opportunity to read the “sectarian” texts of the Essenes.191 But now, the publication of the new sapiential documents from Qumran Cave 4192 has opened up new perspectives on the semantic and religio-historical issues, because these “nonsectarian” texts help us understand the background of the use of r#&b in the Qumran texts mentioned above. And in my opinion, they confirm the view that the negative use of sa/rc in Paul has its roots not in Hellenism, nor in the theological developments of Hellenistic Judaism, but in Palestinian Jewish sapiential traditions. First of all, these documents provide a great number of new instances for r#&b, most of them within the document 4Q415–418, called Sapiential Work A and also edited under the title 4QInstruction. One other example is from a manuscript of the Mysteries (4QMystc = 4Q301).193 In these texts, there are also passages on the creaturely humility of the human being and on the “spirit of flesh” (or “fleshly spirit,” r#&b xwr). In 4Q418 frag. 81 lines 1–2, the addressee is told: He separated thee from every fleshly spirit, So that thou mightest be separated from everything He hates, And (mightest) hold thyself aloof from all that His soul abominates.194 191. Even if they had contacts with outsiders, Essenes were obliged to hide the peculiar knowledge of the community from them: cf. 1QS 9.16–17; 10.24–25; Josephus, J.W. 2.141. 192. The scholarly breakthrough was Wacholder and Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished DSS, fasc. 2:1–203. The official edition of these documents is in vols. 20 and 34 of the DJD series: Torleif Elgvin et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997); John Strugnell et al., eds., in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2; 4QInstruction (Musar le Mevin): 4Q415ff, with a Reedition of 1Q26 and an Edition of 4Q423 (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). 4QInstruction (Musar le Mevin): 4Q415ff, with a Re-edition of 1Q26 and an Edition of 4Q423 (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). On the character of the texts, cf. generally Daniel J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996); idem, “Ten Reasons Why the Qumran Wisdom Texts Are Important,” DSD 4 (1997): 245–54; John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 112–15; Armin Lange, “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought: Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and Its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism, and the New Testament (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 3–30, and 445–54, with an extensive bibliography. 193. Cf. Armin Lange, “Physiognomie oder Gotteslob? 4Q301 3,” DSD 4 (1997): 282–96, esp. 283, showing that 4Q301 is another manuscript of the Book of Mysteries; but cf. the differing view in Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Mysteries,” in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (ed. T. Elgvin et al.; DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 31–123. 194. Translation from John Strugnell and Daniel J. Harrington, “Instruction,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD 34), 302.

JÖRG F REY

457

This passage links the notion of “flesh” with “everything that God hates.”195 In this, it clearly goes beyond the notion of “flesh” in any text of the Hebrew Bible. Another passage announcing an eschatological judgment reads: “And every spirit of flesh will be destroyed,” while the “sons of Heave[n] s[hall rejoice in the day]” (4Q416 frag. 1 lines 12–13). Here, r#&b is not used in the sense of pure humanity but of sinful humanity, and we can see a dualistic antithesis between two groups of beings, a kind of cosmic and eschatological dualism that is similar to the type of dualism in the doctrine of the two spirits in 1QS 3.13–4.26.196 The great sapiential instruction—possibly dated from the late-third or the first half of the second century B.C.E. and thus roughly contemporary with Ben Sira197—provides the first examples for the use of “flesh” (r#&b) with the notion of sin or hostility against God. In contrast to the biblical usage, “flesh” is not only created and mortal humanity but also characterizes the whole of sinful humanity, which will be destroyed in the final judgment and from which the pious are kept separated. As shown by the number of manuscripts in the Qumran library, these texts were highly esteemed by the Essenes.198 They read and copied

195. Another passage is 4Q417 frag. 1 1.15–18, where the “spirit of flesh” is characterized by the fact that it did not know the difference between good and evil (in preliminary editions, as in García Martínez, The DSS Translated, this was counted as frag. 2 1.15–18; the DJD edition (vol. 34) has changed the numbering). On this text, cf. Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,” 45–77, esp. 62–63; and the extensive interpretation in Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 50–52. 196. Cf. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 275–335, esp. 298–99; cf. also Daniel J. Harrington, “Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom: Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A,” JSP 16 (1997): 25–38, esp. 35: “The world view of Sapiential Work A seems midway between Ben Sira’s timid doctrine of the pairs and the fully fleshed out dualistic schema of 1QS 3–4.” 197. Cf. the most thorough argument in Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 47; idem, “In Diskussion mit dem Tempel: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 113–59, esp. 129–30; idem, “Die Endgestalt des protomasoretischen Psalters,” in Der Psalter im Judentum und Christentum (ed. E. Zenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 101–36, esp. 122; idem, “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran,” 24. For the terminus post quem, Lange proposes linguistic arguments using, e.g., the Persian loanword “mystery” (zr) and other words and constructions that occur only late; the terminus ante quem is given by the fact that the work is cited in the Thanksgiving Hymns, composed within the second half of the second century B.C.E. 198. In the Qumran library, there are at least six (1Q26; 4Q415, 416, 417, 418, 423) or even—if 4Q418a and 4Q418c represent separate copies—eight manuscripts of Instruction (= Sapiential Works) from Caves 1 and 4. They are all written “in the Herodian formal hand of the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E.” Cf. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran, 40.

458

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

them; moreover, they cited passages in their own texts, as in the Thanksgiving Hymns,199 and took up phrases from them, such as the term “the mystery to become” (hyhn zr), which is also used in 1QS 11.3, and the phrase “spirit of flesh” (r#&b xwr), used in the Thanksgiving Hymns.200 From the “new” pre-Essene sapiential documents from the Qumran library, we can see that the notion of “flesh” as a sphere that is sinful and hostile against God is a sapiential tradition developed in Palestine, in the postbiblical period of sapiential discussion. So, when Paul in later times uses the term “flesh” (sa/rc) with the notion of sin and in a clear dualistic opposition against God’s “Spirit,” his usage shows striking similarities with Essene and with non-Essene texts. As we can see now, the Pauline usage does not necessarily call for the assumption of an immediate Essene influence. It is rather to be explained by the fact that he shares traditions of Palestinian Jewish wisdom that might have been discussed in the circles of the sages in Palestine but have been preserved only within the library of Qumran. The religio-historical explanation is also important for theological interpretation. When Paul uses the term “flesh,” this should not be understood from Hellenistic thought, with its dualism of body and soul and derogatory view of the bodily existence, but rather from the biblical and postbiblical sapiential tradition, in which the strife of human beings was seen as inclined toward evil and hostile to God’s will. This could be demonstrated only on the background of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The recently published wisdom texts show, however, that Paul is not immediately dependent on Qumran sectarian thought, but uses terms that were common to a larger tradition of sapiential discussion.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND P ERSPECTIVES FOR F URTHER RESEARCH Within the present context, I could discuss only two test cases.201 More precise studies of verbal and phraseological parallels, similarities in 199. 1QHa 18.29–30 (= 10.27f. Sukenik) cites 4Q418 55 10, and 1QHa 9.28–29 (= 1.26–27 Sukenik) alludes to 4Q417 2 i 8; cf. A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 46. 200. Cf. 1QHa 5.30 (= 13.13 Sukenik); cf. also 4Q301 53. 201. An additional test case could be the relation between the Johannine literature and the library of Qumran. On this, cf. the extensive discussion in J. Frey, “Licht aus den Höhlen?” 117–203; cf. also the shorter English version: idem, “John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and Its Background,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity (ed. E. G. Chazon, R. A. Clements, and D. R. Schwartz; STDJ; Leiden: Brill, 2005, in press).

JÖRG F REY

459

peculiar motifs, and traditio-historical relations are necessary to obtain a full image of the many and diverse relations between the texts from the Qumran library and the New Testament. But we can generalize some of the insights from above, which might provide some perspectives for further research. 1. A change in scholarship. We can demonstrate that the release of the numerous fragments from Cave 4 has changed considerably the context of Qumran and related scholarship, and it will take some time for scholars to notice the changes and adapt their views. The number of documents from Cave 4 has opened up the view that the Qumran library was much more than a collection of purely “sectarian” documents. It rather provides an idea of the diversity within Palestinian Judaism of the two or three centuries before the turn of the era. As a consequence, scholars can no longer concentrate their interest solely on the relation between early Christianity and the Essenes, but must widen their purview toward investigating relations between early Christianity and contemporary Judaism in its many and diverse traditions and groups. For such an inquiry, the Qumran library provides an essential and indispensable treasure of sources. We can recognize its real value only if we take into consideration the views held by New Testament scholars before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. A conspicuous absence of personal references. If we take as a fact that neither John the Baptizer, nor Jesus, nor any member of the primitive church is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that—likewise—the Essenes are not mentioned within New Testament texts, the search for immediate personal links between the larger group of the Essenes—or even more peculiarly, the Qumran Essenes—and earliest Christianity becomes quite speculative. Of course, there are possibilities that cannot be completely ruled out. Relations on the different stages of development of early Christianity are possible, and in some instances, one can sketch a quite plausible scenario. But the constructions remain quite hypothetical, and scholars cannot firmly establish them and thus base other assumptions or interpretations on them. In contrast, it seems to be more promising to capture the impact of the Qumran texts on New Testament interpretation by studying linguistic parallels, traditio-historical relations, and the common use and development of literary forms. 3. A linguistic resource. One of the most obvious points where the Dead Sea Scrolls have been fruitful for New Testament scholarship is in assessing a great number of verbal or phraseological parallels. We can now explain words and phrases in New Testament Greek by citing Hebrew or Aramaic parallels from the library of Qumran. Of course, we cannot

460

DEAD S EA SCROLLS AND THE N EW TESTAMENT

overlook the linguistic differences between the Hebrew or Aramaic of the majority of the Qumran texts and the Greek of the New Testament, and theoretically, Greek texts have to be understood in Greek terms. But “earliest Christianity” is a tradition that goes back to the linguistic milieu of first-century Palestine. The mother tongue of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic, and Paul was familiar with Hebrew and probably also Aramaic. For the authors of the Fourth Gospel, Revelation, and other New Testament texts, the same is quite probably true. Therefore, the Hebrew and Aramaic documents from the time before 70 C.E. provide an important key for understanding the language of the New Testament authors and grasping the concepts behind the words and phrases they use. In any case, it is necessary to determine the proximity of the correspondence and—if possible—the peculiar tradition from which the parallels are taken. Additionally, we must compare the parallels from the Dead Sea Scrolls with other parallels from the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the targumic tradition, the Pseudepigrapha and the early rabbinic traditions, the writings by Josephus and Philo, as well as with parallels from the Hellenistic-Roman world. Only by such a wide range of research is it possible to decide on the derivation and semantic field of a certain New Testament phrase and its underlying concepts. 4. A religious and interpretive reevaluation. The history of scholarship demonstrates that the discovery of the Qumran library was a decisive turning point for the religio-historical classification and interpretation of the New Testament. Before the Qumran finds—or even before the publication of a sufficient amount of texts—many elements of early Christian tradition were viewed as un-Jewish, perhaps resulting from a Hellenistic or syncretistic influence on early Christianity. Based on the earlier view that there was a kind of “normative Judaism” in Palestine before 70 C.E., scholars could assume this for a great number of phrases and concepts to which the Hebrew Bible does not attest, the major pseudepigrapha, and the early rabbinic writings. In the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see that Judaism of that time was characterized by a greater diversity, and that concepts such as the notion of the sinful “flesh,” predestination, or cosmic dualism were developed within preChristian Palestinian Judaism. 5. A rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and early Christianity. The Qumran library has, therefore, changed our view of early Christianity considerably. It has shown its rootedness within contemporary Judaism and its many and diverse traditions. One could say, therefore, that the Qumran texts have served to rediscover the Jewishness of Jesus and early Christianity

JÖRG F REY

461

(including Paul and the Johannine literature). This is perhaps the most important impact of the Qumran finds on New Testament scholarship. Rediscovery of the common threads binding early Christianity to firstcentury Judaism, in all its dynamic diversity, is important in theological terms, as well. The message of Jesus and his disciples did not come overnight, and we are bound to understand them within their historical context. We therefore need to realize that the Christian message is essentially linked with the elements of its Jewish mother soil, even in issues like the view of Christ or the Law, where early Christian positions differ markedly from most of the other positions held within contemporary Judaism. 6. An interreligious effort. An important impact of the Qumran finds is also the fact that Jewish scholars have entered the discussion on early Christian documents and their background. Of course, Qumran scholarship has always been an interdenominational and interreligious endeavor. But more recently, in view of the rediscovery of the Jewishness of early Christianity, a greater number of Jewish scholars have felt encouraged to contribute to New Testament issues from their own specific point of view. 7. A cautionary tale. Finally, the Qumran library has shown how fragmentary our knowledge of the past is. The documents that have been preserved are only a small part of antiquity, and it might be pure chance that they have not been completely lost, rotting in the mud. This knowledge should stimulate our attention to the sources we have, and it can motivate us to study them with all effort in order to obtain a more adequate view of the world in which Christian faith had its beginnings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Josephus. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae on CD-ROM. Version E. Irvine, CA: University of California, 1999. Abba, Raymond. “Name.” Pages 500–508 in vol. 3 of IDB. Edited by George A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness.’” DSD 6 (1999): 139–47. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.’” Pages 203–16 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “For This You Waited 35 Years: MMT as Reconstructed by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell.” BAR 20 (1994): 56–61. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?” DSD 2 (1995): 125–44. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Messianic Hope and 4Q285. A Reassessment.” JBL 113 (1994): 81–91. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and the MMT.” BAR 20 (1994): 52–55, 82. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts: Qumran Text and Grammatical Tags (on CD-ROM. version 2.1 in Accordance 6.3. Alamonte Springs, FL: Oaktree Software, 2004). Abegg, Martin G., Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, in consultation with Emanuel Tov. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. 1 vol., 2 parts. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Abegg, Martin G., Jr., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Abravanel, Isaac. Commentarius in Pentateuchem Mosis. Hanover: Orientali, 1710. Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration. London: SCM Press, 1968. Adler, Cyrus et al., eds. The Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–6. Ådna, Jostein. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort Jesu als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. WUNT Second Series 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account.” Pages 116–30 in On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993.

463

464

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt. “Der Text des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert.” Pages 1–10 in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Wolfgang Schrage. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Albani, Matthias, and Uwe Glessmer. “Un instrument de mesures astronomiques à Qumrân.” RB 104 (1997): 88–115. Albright, William F. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” JBL 56 (1937): 145–76. Albright, William F. “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible.” BASOR 140 (1955): 27–33. Alexander, Philip S. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch (Fifth to Sixth Century C.E.).” Pages 223–315 in vol. 1 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Alexander, Philip S. “Interpretation, History of, Jewish Interpretation.” Pages 305–10 in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Alexander, Philip S. “Physiognomy, Initiation, and Rank in the Qumran Community.” Pages 385–94 in Judentum. Vol. 1 of Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Alexander, Philip S. “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism.” Pages 39–46 in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Andrew D. H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Alexander, Philip S. “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch.” JJS 28 (1977): 159–65. Alexander, Philip S. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yah9ad: A Proposal.” RevQ 17 (1996): 437–56. Alexander, Philip, and Geza Vermes. “Serekh ha-Yah9ad” Pages 1–208 in Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh ha-Yah9ad and Two Related Texts. Edited by Philip Alexander and Geza Vermes. DJD 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Alfrink, Bernardus J. “L’idée de résurrection d’après Dan XII, 1–2.” Biblica 40 (1959): 355–71. Allegro, John M. “Biblical Paraphrase: Genesis, Exodus.” Pages 1–6 in Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). Edited by John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allegro, John M. “Commentary on Psalms (A).” Pages 42–50 in Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). Edited by John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allegro, John M. “Commentary on Zephaniah.” Pages 42–45 in Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). Edited by John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allegro, John M. “Some Unpublished Fragments of Pseudepigraphical Literature from Qumran Fourth Cave.” ALUOS 4 (1964): 3–5, and Plt. I. Allegro, John M. “The Vision of Samuel.” Pages 9–11 in Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). Edited by John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allison, Dale C. “4Q403 Fragm. I, Col. I, 38–46 and the Revelation to John.” RevQ 12 (1986): 409–14.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

465

Allison, Dale C. “The Continuity between John and Jesus.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (2003): 6–27. Alon, Gedalia. Mehkarim be-toldot Yisra)el bi-yeme Bayit sheni uvi-tekufat ha-Mishnah vehaTalmud. 2 vols. Tel-Aviv: HaKibbuttz HaMeuchad, 1957–1958 (Hebrew). ET The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.). Translated and edited by Gershon Levi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Amouretti, Marie-Claire, and Jean-Pierre Brun, eds. La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée. Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1993. Anbar, Moshe. “Deux Cérémonies d’alliances dans Ex. 24 à la lumière des Archives royales de Mari.” UF 30 (1999): 1–4. Andersen, Francis I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 91–100 in vol. 1 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Anderson, George W. “Canonical and Non-Canonical.” Pages 113–59 in From the Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Christopher F. Evans. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Anderson, Jeff S. The Internal Diversification of Second Temple Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002. Anderson, Paul N. Navigating the Living Waters of the Gospel of John: On Wading with Children and Swimming with Elephants. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill, 2000. Aptowitzer, Victor. The Celestial Temple as Viewed in the Aggadah. Edited by Joseph Dan. Studies in Jewish Thought 2. New York: Praeger, 1989. Aptowitzer, Victor. Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur. 5 vols. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1906–15. Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo Letterature giudaica intertestamentaria. Brescia: Paideia, 1998. Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo, Florentino García Martínez, and Miguel Pérez Fernández. Literatura judía intertestamentaria. Introducción al estudio de la Biblia 9. Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1996. Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Atkinson, Kenneth. I Cried to the Lord. A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Atkinson, Kenneth. An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2000. Attridge, Harold W. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Scrolls.” Pages 315–42 in Judaism and Christianity in the Beginning. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Daniel Harrington, and Jacob Neusner. Vol. 2 of When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Daniel Harrington, and Jacob Neusner. JSOTSup 85. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Attridge, Harold W. “God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory.” Pages 197–209 in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Attridge, Harold W. “The Gospel according to Thomas. Appendix: The Greek Fragments.” Pages 92–128 in Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons and Indexes. Edited by Bentley Layton. NHS 20. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

466

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Attridge, Harold W. “The Messiah and the Millennium: The Roots of Two JewishChristian Symbols.” Pages 90–105 in Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America. Edited by Abbas Amanat and Magnus T. Bernhardsson. London: Tauris, 2002. Attridge, Harold W. “New Covenant Christology in an Early Christian Homily.” QR 8 (1988): 89–108 Attridge, Harold W. “On Becoming an Angel: Rival Baptismal Theologies at Colossae.” Pages 481–98 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Edited by Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. NovTSup 74. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Attridge, Harold W. “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo&goj th=j paraklh&sewj).” Semeia 50 (1990): 211–26. Attridge, Harold W. “The Psalms in Hebrews.” Pages 197–212 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. Menken. London: T & T Clark: 2004. Attridge, Harold W. “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking,’ in Q, Thomas, and John.” Pages 295–302 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by Jon Ma Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer. BETL 146. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Audet, Jean-Paul. “A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription.” JTS NS 1 (1950): 135–54. Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement. Translated by Arthur G. Hebert. London: SPCK, 1931. Aune, David E. “Dualism in the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reassessment of the Problem.” Pages 281–303 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl H. Torrey. NovTSup 106. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Aune, David E. “Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations.” Pages 176–92 in Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Aune, David E. “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth.” JBL 110 (1991): 491–93. Aune, David E. “Qumran and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 622–48 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word Books, 1997. Aune, David E. Revelation 6–16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. Aune, David E. Revelation 17–22. WBC 52C. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. Aune, David E. “The Revelation to John (Apocalypse).” Pages 2319–37 in The HarperCollins Study Bible. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Avery-Peck, Alan J., Daniel Harrington, and Jacob Neusner, eds. Judaism and Christianity in the Beginning. Vol. 2 of When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini. 2 vols. JSOTSup 85. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Avigad, Nahman. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Nelson, 1983.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

467

Avigad, Nahman, and Yigael Yadin. A Genesis Apocryphon. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956. Bachmann, Michael. “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, hrwt y#&(m und ERGA NOMOU.” ZNW 89 (1998): 91–113. Repr., pages 33–56 in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. NTOA 40. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999. Bachmann, Michael. “Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus.” TZ 49 (1993): 1–33. Repr., pages 1–31 in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. NTOA 40. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999. Badia, Leonard F. The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980. Baidi, Donato, and Belarmino Bagatti. Saint Jean-Baptiste dans les souvenirs de sa patrie. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1980. Baillet, Maurice. “Un apocryphe de David(?).” Pages 81–82 in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Exploration de la Falaise, les Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le Rouleau de Cuivre. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Un Apocryphe de Moïse” Pages 79–81 in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Exploration de la Falaise, les Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le Rouleau de Cuivre. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Un Apocryphe de Samuel–Rois.” Pages 119–23 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Ecclésiastique (Texte Hébreu).” Pages 75–77 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Empreintes de Papyrus.” Pages 144–45 Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Exode (ii).” Pages 52–55 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Fragment de Calendrier.” Pages 132–33 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Fragments Araméens de Qumrân: Description de la Jérusalem Nouvelle.” RB 62 (April 1955): 222–45. Baillet, Maurice. “Fragments Non Identifiés.” Pages 143–45 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Lettre de Jérémie.” Page 143 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.

468

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Baillet, Maurice. “Une Prophétie Apocryphe.” Pages 96–97 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Psaumes, hymnes, cantiques et prières dans les manuscrits de Qumrân.” Pages 389–405 in Le Psautier: Ses orignes. Ses problèmes littéraires. Son influence. Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 4. Louvain: Université de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. “Un recueil liturgique de Qumrân, grotte 4: ‘Les Paroles des Luminaires.’” RB 68 (1961): 195–250. Baillet, Maurice. “Remarques sur l’édition des Paroles des Luminaires.” RevQ 5 (1964): 23–42. Baillet, Maurice. “Sept fragments grec de la lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (7QHéngr).” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23. Baillet, Maurice. “Textes Liturgiques.” Pages 73–286 in Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). Edited by Maurice Baillet. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Baillet, Maurice, and Edward M. Cook, “4Q489 (4QpapApocalypse ar).” Pages 136–37 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Baldensperger, Wilhelm. Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1898. Balz, Horst R., and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Balzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Bampfylde, Gillian. “The Similitudes of Enoch; Historical Allusions.” JSJ 15 (1984): 9–31. Bar Hebraeus, Gregorius. The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus; Being the First Part of His Political History of the World. Translated and edited by E. A. Wallis Budge. London: Oxford University Press, 1932. Barackman, Paul F. “The Gospel According to John.” Int 6 (1952): 63–78. Barclay, William. The Revelation of John. Vol. 2. 3d ed. Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1959. Repr., 1976. Barker, Margaret. “The Temple Measurements and the Solar Calendar.” Pages 63–66 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Barr, David L. “Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use of Power, Violence, and Misogyny.” Pages 358–73 in the SBL Seminar Papers. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1983. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994–98.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

469

Barrett, Charles K. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Translated by D. Moody Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Notes en marge de publications récentes sur les manuscrits de Qumran.” RB 59 (1952): 187–218. Barthélemy, Dominique. “La qualité du Texte Massorétique de Samuel.” Pages 24–25 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: Proceedings of the Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Vienna, 1980). Edited by Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980. Barthélemy, Dominique, and Jozef T. Milik. “Un apocryphe.” Pages 101–2 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Barthélemy, Dominique, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust, and Emanuel Tov. The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism; Papers of a Joint Research Venture. OBO 73. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Bateman, Herbert W. IV. “Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5–13 and 4QFlor 1.1–19.” JETS 38 (1995): 11–28. Batiffol, Pierre. Le Livre de la Prière d’Aseneth. StPatr 1–2. Paris: Leroux, 1889–90. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Audience of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 101–11 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Bauckham, Richard J. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist.” DSD 2 (1995): 202–6. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John.” Pages 105–15 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Bauckham, Richard J. “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There a Connection?” Pages 267–79 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Bauer, Walter. Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei in Ältesten Christentum. BHT 10. Tübingen: Mohr, 1934. ET: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Baumbach, Günther. Qumran und das Johannesevangelium. AVTRW 6. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1957. Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. JSJSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis.” JANESCU 16–17 (1984–85): 5–17. Baumgarten, Albert I. “The Name of the Pharisees.” JBL 102 (1983): 411–28. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “4Q503 (Daily Prayers) and the Lunar Calendar.” RevQ 12 (1987): 399–407.

470

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Beginning of the Day in the Calendar of Jubilees.” JBL 77 (1958): 355–60. Repr., pages 124–30 in Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees and the Bible.” Tarbiz 32 (1962): 317–28 (Hebrew). Repr., pages 101–14 in Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Calendars of the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll.” VT 37 (1987): 71–78. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Cave 4 Versions of the Qumran Penal Code (compared to the Community Rule [1QS]).” JJS 43 (1992): 268–76. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Cave 4 Versions of the Qumran Penal Code.” JJS 43 (1992): 268–76. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation and the Sanhedrin.” JBL 95 (1976): 59–78. Repr., pages 145–71 in Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Laws of Impurity.” RevQ 6 (1967): 183–93. Repr., Pages 88–97 in Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Exclusion of Netinim and Proselytes in 4QFlorilegium.” RevQ 8 (1972): 87–96. Repr., pages 88–97 in Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of S9edeq in Jewish Apocalyptic.” ANRW 19.1:219–39. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by Hildegarde Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Liquids and Susceptibility to Defilement in New 4Q Texts.” JQR 85 (1994): 91–101. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184.” RevQ 15 (1991): 133–44. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage.” Pages 13–24 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Baumgarten, Joseph M. Studies in Qumran Law. SJLA 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (CD).” Pages 4–57 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document Fragments (4QD, 5QD, 6QD).” Pages 59–79 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Baur, Ferdinand C. Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniss zueinander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung. Tübingen: Fues, 1847.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

471

Beale, Gregory K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of John. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. Beall, Todd S. Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. SNTSMS 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Bearman, Gregory H., Stephen J. Pfann, and Sheila I. Spiro. “Imaging the Scrolls: Photographic and Direct Digital Acquisition.” Pages 472–95 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Beasley-Murray, George R. “How Christian Is the Book of Revelation?” Pages 275–84 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday. Edited by Robert J. Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Becker, Jürgen. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 3d ed. ÖTK 4.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1991. Becker, Jürgen. Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Becker, Michael. “4Q521 und die Gesalbten.” RevQ 18 (1997): 73–96. Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar, Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Pre-history and the Relationship of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes: A Tentative Reconstruction.” RevQ 11 (1982): 3–46. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Solar Calendar of Joseph and Asenath: A Suggestion.” JSJ 15 (1984): 90–111. Bedjan, Paul, ed. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum: E Codd. Mss. Emendatum ac Punctis Vocalibus Adnotationibusque Locupletatum. A Chronicon Syriacum. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1890. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997 Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. Repr., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beer, Georg. “Das Buch Henoch.” Pages 224–26 in vol. 2 of APAT. Translated and edited by Emil F. Kautzsch. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “4QOtot.” Pages 195–244 in Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Calendrical Texts. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon, and Jonathan Ben-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer. DJD 21. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “A Presumed Citation of Esther 3:7 in 4QDb.” DSD 6 (1999): 282–84. Bengtsson, Håkan (Hakan). What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim. Uppsala: University Printers, 2000. Bengtsson, Håkan. What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim. Uppsala: University Printers, 2000. Berger, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984. Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969.

472

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Bergmeier, Roland. “Prädestination II: Judentum.” Pages 102–5 in TRE 27. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. 36 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977–2004. Berlin, Adele. “Parallelism.” Pages 155–62 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bernstein, Moshe J. “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 215–38 in The Idea of Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Interpretation of Scriptures.” Pages 376–83 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Recitation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique.” DSD 1 (1994): 30–70. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions.” Pages 1–26 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon.” DSD 3 (1996): 37–57. Berrin, Shani L. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Berrin, Shani L. “Pesharim.” Pages 644–47 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Berrin, Shani L. “Qumran Pesharim.” Pages 110–33 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Betz, Hans D. “Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis.” JR 74 (1994): 453–75. Betz, Otto. “Die Bedeutung der Qumranschriften für die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments.” BK 40 (1985): 54–64. Repr., pages 318–32 in Jesus, Der Messias Israels. WUNT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Betz, Otto. “Die Geburt der Gemeinde durch den Lehrer (Bemerkungen zum Qumranpsalm 1QH III, 1ff.).” NTS 3 (1957): 314–26. Betz, Otto. Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte. WUNT 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. Betz, Otto. Der Parakiet Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im Johannesevangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften. AGJU 2. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Betz, Otto. “Die Proselytentaufe der Qumransekte und die Taufe im Neuen Testament.” RevQ 1 (1958–59): 213–34. Betz, Otto. “The Servant Tradition of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” JSem 7 (1995): 40–56. Betz, Otto. “Was John the Baptist an Essene?” BRev 18 (1990): 18–25.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

473

Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Ergänzungsband. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. First ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Bieringer, Reimund et al., eds. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Bietenhard, Hans. Die himmlische Welt im Urchrisrentum und Spätjudentum. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951. Black, Matthew. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece: Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graece; una cum historicum et auctorum Judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis collegit et ordinavit Albert-Marie Denis. PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts; with an Appendix on the Son of Man by Geza Vermes. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Repr., 1979. Black, Matthew. “A Bibliography on 1 Enoch in the Eighties.” JSP 5 (1989): 3–16. Black, Matthew. “‘Not Peace but a Sword’: Matt 10:34ff. Luke 12:51ff.” Pages 287–94 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Black, Matthew. “The Origin of the Name Metatron.” VT 1 (1951): 217–19. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: Nelson, 1961. Black, Matthew, James C. VanderKam, and Otto Neugebauer. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch; A New English Edition. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962. Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth, 7 vols. New York: Judaica Press, 1964. Blau, Ludwig. “Amulet.” Page 549 in vol. 1 of JE. Edited by Cyrus Adler et al. 12 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnall, 1901. Blunt, Alfred W. F. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1998. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Configurazione storica della comunità di Qumran.” Paper presented at a meeting of the Italian Biblical Association. L’Aquila, September 14–16, 1995. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “E se l’essenismo fosse il movimento enochiano? Una nuova ipotesi circa il rapporto tra Qumran e gli esseni.” RStB 9, no. 2 (1997): 49–67. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “The Rediscovery of Enochic Judaism and the Enoch Seminar.” Pages 9–13 in The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Turin: Zamorani, 2002. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Texts, Intellectual Movements, and Social Groups.” Pages 417–25 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Boccaccini, Gabriele, ed. Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light from a Forgotten Connection. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Boccaccini, Gabriele, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. The Early Enoch Literature. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

474

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Böcher, Otto. “satana=j.” Page 234 in vol. 3 of EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Böcher, Otto. “Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran.” ANRW 25.5:3894–98. Part 2, Principat, 25.5. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegarde Temporini. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Böcher, Otto. Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965. Bodinger, Martin. “L’énigme de Melkisédeq.” RHR 211 (1994): 297–333. Boismard, Marie-Émile. “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran.” Pages 156–65 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 156–65 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Boismard, Marie-Émile. Moses or Jesus. Translated by Benedict T. Viviano. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Boismard, Marie-Émile, and Arnaud Lamoille. L’Évangile de Jean. Vol. 3 of Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français. 3 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1977. Boling, Robert G. Joshua. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. Bons, Eberhard. “ELPIS comme l’espérance de la vie dans l’au-delà dans la littérature juive hellénistique.” Pages 345–70 in Ce Dieu qui vient: Études sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occassion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire. Edited by Raymond Kuntzmann. LD 159. Paris: Cerf, 1984. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Borgen, Peder. “John and the Synoptics.” Pages 408–37 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. BETL 95. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Borgen, Peder. “Philo’s Against Flaccus as Interpreted History.” Pages 41–57 in A Bouquet of Wisdom. Edited by Karl-Johan Illman et al. Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter 48. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2000. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Borger, Rykle. “Die Beschwörungsserie bit meseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs.” JNES 33 (1974): 192–93. Boring, M. Eugene. Revelation. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989. Bornkamm, Günther. “musthrion, muew.” Pages 802–28 in vol. 4 of TDNT. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Böttcher, Friedrich. Neue exegetisch-kritische Ährenlese zum Alten Testamente. Leipzig: Barth, 1863. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 14 vols. Translated by John T. Willis, David E. Green, and Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Boyce, Mary. “Zoroaster, Zoroastrianism.” Pages 1168–74 in vol. 6 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Brandl, Baruch. “An Israelite Bulla in Phoenician Style from Bethsaida (et-Tell).” Pages 141–64 in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited

B IBLIOGRAPHY

475

by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Bethsaida Excavations Project 1. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1995. Branscomb, Bennett H. The Gospel of Mark. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1937. Braude, William G., trans. The Midrash on Psalms. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Braun, Herbert. “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu von Nazareth.” Pages 86–99 in Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. Braun, Herbert. Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Brenner, Athalya, and Jan Willem van Henten. “Deciphering a Meal.” Pages 69–79 in Myth, Symbol, and Culture. Edited by Clifford Geertz. New York: Norton and Company, 1971. Brenner Athalya, and Jan Willem van Henten. “Our Menu and What is Not On It: An Introduction.” Pages ix–xvi in Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds. Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. Semeia 86. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Brewer, David I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C.E. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Brin, Gershon. Review of Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell, eds. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs 9at Ma(ase ha-Torah. DJD 10. JSS 40 (1995): 341–42. Brooke, George J. “4QTestament of Levid(?) and the Messianic Servant High Priest.” Pages 83–100 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Brooke, George J. “Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 60–73 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Brooke, George J. “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Brooke, George J. “Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran.” Pages 201–20 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Brooke, George J. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 250–69 in The Biblical World. Edited by John Barton. London: Routledge, 2002. Brooke, George J. “E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 107–19 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press 1985. Brooke, George J. “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT.” Pages 67–88 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the

476

B IBLIOGRAPHY

International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Brooke, George J. “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts.” Page 317–37 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Brooke, George J. “Kingship and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 434–55 in Kingship and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Brooke, George J. “The Pesharim and the Origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 339–54 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Brooke, George J. “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” RevQ 54 (1989): 267–92. Brooke, George J. “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre.” RevQ 10 (1979–1980): 483–503. Brooke, George J. “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 67–90 and 84–86 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by George J. Brooke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brooke, George J. “The Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament.” Pages 61–76 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Sections Meetings. Edited by Robert A. Kugler and Eileen M. Schuller. SBLEJL 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Brooke, George J. “The Temple Scroll and the New Testament.” Pages 181–99 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Brooke, George J. “Torah in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 97–120 in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Helmut Merklein et al. Bonn: Anton Hain, 1993. Brooke, George J., and James M. Robinson. “A Further Fragment of 1QSb: The Schøyen Collection MS 1909.” JJS 46 (1995): 120–33. Broshi, Magen. “247. 4QPesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks.” Pages 187–91 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Broshi, Magen. Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. JSPSup 36. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Broshi, Magen, ed. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992. Broshi, Magen. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Reproduction Made from the Original Scrolls Kept in the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem. Edited by Masao Sekine. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1979. Broshi, Magen, and Esther Eshel. “4QHistorical Text A.” Pages 192–200 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

477

Brown, Michelle P. The Lindisfarne Gospels: Society, Spirituality and the Scribe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times. London: Chapman, 1979. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (I–XII). AB 29–29A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–70. Brown, Raymond E. “John, Gospel and Letters of.” Pages 414–17 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brown, Raymond E. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.” CBQ 17 (1955): 403–19, 559–74. Repr., pages 183–203 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Brown, Raymond E. The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament. FBBS 21. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Brownlee, William H. “The Background of Biblical Interpretation at Qumran.” Pages 183–93 in Qumrân: Sa pieté, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978. Brownlee, William H. “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BA 14 (1951): 54–76. Repr., “Twenty-Five Years Ago: William H. Brownlee Demonstrates Thirteen Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture Commentaries from Qumran.” BA 39 (1976): 118–19. Brownlee, William H. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes. BASORSup 10–12. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951. Brownlee, William H. “John the Baptist in the Light of Ancient Scrolls.” Pages 33–53 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper, 1957. Repr., pages 33–53 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible with Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction. SBLMS 24. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Brownlee, William H. The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran. SBLMS 11. Philadelphia: SBL, 1959. Repr., 1978. Brownlee, William H. “Twenty-Five Years Ago: William H. Brownlee Demonstrates Thirteen Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture Commentaries from Qumran.” BA 39 (1976): 118–19. Brownlee, William H. “Whence the Gospel According to John?” Pages 166–94 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 166–94 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Brownlee, William H. “The Wicked Priest, The Man of Lies, and the Righteous Teacher—The Problem of Identity.” JQR 73 (1982): 1–37. Bruce, Frederick F. Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. Exegetica 3.1. Den Haag: van Keulen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

478

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, Frederick F. “Biblical Exposition at Qumran.” Pages 77–98 in Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Edited by Richard T. France and David Wenham. Gospel Perspectives 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Bruce, Frederick F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Bruce, Frederick F. “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts.” Pages 49–55 in Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969. Edited by John MacDonald. ALUOS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Bruce, Frederick F. “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’?” NTS 9 (1963): 217–32. Buber, Salomon. Midrasch Tehillim: oder, Haggadische Erklärung der Psalmen. 2 vols. in 1. Trier: Sigmund Mayer, 1892–93. Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967. Buchanan, George Wesley. The Book of Revelation: Its Introduction and Prophecy. The Mellen Biblical Commentary 22. New Testament Series. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1993. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews. AB 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Bultmann, Rudolf K. Die drei Johannesbriefe. 7th ed. KEK 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. ET The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1971. Bultmann, Rudolf K. The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1971. Burchard, Christoph. Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer. 2 vols. BZAW 76, 89. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957, 1965. Burchard, Christoph. “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth.” DBAT 14 (1979): 2–53; 16 (1982): 37–39. Repr., pages 161–209 in Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth: Berichtigt und ergänzt Herausgegeben mit Unterstützung von Carsten Burfeind. Edited by Christoph Burchard. SVTP 13. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Burchard, Christoph. Joseph und Aseneth kritisch herausgegeben. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Burchard, Christoph. “The Text of Joseph and Aseneth Reconsidered.” JSP: forthcoming. Burchard, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung-Ortsbestimmung. WUNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Burchard, Christoph. “Zum Text von ‘Joseph und Aseneth.’” JSJ 1 (1970): 3–34. Burgmann, Hans. “11QT: The Sadducean Torah.” Pages 257–63 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Burgmann, Hans. “Gerichtsherr und Generalankläger: Jonathan und Simon.” RevQ 9 (1977): 3–72. Burgmann, Hans. “John the Baptist Was an Essene!” Pages 131–37 in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part I: General Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, and the New Testament. The Present State of Qumranology. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Mogilany, Poland, 1989). Qumranica Mogilanensia 2. Kraków: Enigma, 1993. Burkert, Walter. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

479

Burney, Charles F. The Book of Judges. London: Rivingtons, 1918. Repr., The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes, and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. New York: KTAV, 1970. Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Repr., The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes, and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. New York: KTAV, 1970. Burrows, Millar, John C. Trever, and William H. Brownlee, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol. 1. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Busink, Theodor A. Der Tempel Salomos. Vol. 1 of Der Tempel von Jerusalem, von Salomo bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 3. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Busink, Theodor A. Von Ezechiel bis Middot. Vol. 2 of Der Tempel von Jerusalem, von Salomo bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 3. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Caird, George B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Caird, George B. “Predestination: Romans IX–XI.” ET 68 (1956–1957): 324–27. Callaway, Phillip R. “Extending Divine Revelation: Micro-Compositional Strategies in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 149–62 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Callaway, Phillip R. The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation. JSPSup 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Callot, Olivier. Huileries Antiques de Syrie du Nord. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1984. Cameron, Ron. “On Comparing Q and the Gospel of Thomas.” Pages 59–69 in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols; Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Edited by David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao. BIS 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. BZAW 228. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Cappel, Louis. Critica sacra, sive, De variis quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt lectionibus libri sex. Edited by Jean Cappel. Paris: S. Cramoisy & G. Cramoisy, 1650. Capper, Brian J. “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus.” Pages 90–116 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Post-Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James R. Davila. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Capper, Brian J. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Community of Goods.” Pages 323–56 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Book of Acts in its First Century Setting 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995. Caquot, André. “Bref commentaire du ‘Martyre d’Isaïe.’” Sem 23 (1973): 65–93.

480

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Caquot, André. “Le service des anges.” RevQ 13 (1988): 421–29. Carmignac, Jean. “Les affinités qumrâniennes de la onzième Ode de Salomon.” RevQ 3 (1961): 71–102. Carmignac, Jean. “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la ‘Guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres.’” RB 63 (1956): 234–60 and 375–90. Carmignac, Jean. “Le complément d’agent après un verbe passif dans l’hébreux et l’araméen de Qumran.” RevQ 9 (1978): 409–28. Carmignac, Jean. “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisédeq.” RevQ 7 (1969–71): 343–78. Carmignac, Jean. “HRBYM: les ‘Nombreux’ ou les ‘Notables’?” RevQ 7 (1971): 575–86. Carmignac, Jean. Le Mirage de l’Eschatologie: Royauté, Règne et Royaume de Dieu…sans Eschatologie. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979. Carmignac, Jean. “Notes sur les Pesharim.” RevQ 3 (1961–62): 521–26. Carmignac, Jean. La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958. Carmignac, Jean. “Un Qumrânien converti au Christianisme: l’auteur des Odes de Salomon.” Pages 75–108 in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14. Oktober 1961. Edited by Hans Bardtke. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissehschaft 42. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Carmignac, Jean, Edouard Cothenet, and Hubert Lignée. Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotés. 2 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1961–1963. Carson, Donald A. “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” Pages 83–145 in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Edited by Richard T. France and David Wenham. Gospel Perspectives 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Casalini, Nello. Dal simbolo alla realtà: L’ espianzione dall’Antica alla Nuova Alleanza secondo Ebr 9,1–14. Una proposta esegetica. Analecta, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 26. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1989. Case, Shirley J. The Social Origins of Christianity. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1923. Repr., New York: Cooper Square, 1975. Catastini, Alessandro. “4QSama: II. Nahash il ‘Serpente.’” Hen 10 (1988): 24–30. Chadwick, Henry. “Florilegium.” Pages 1131–60 in vol. 7 of RAC. Edited by Theodor Klauser. 20 vols. Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1950– . Chamberlain, John V. “An Ancient Sectarian Interpretation of the Old Testament Prophets: A Study in the Qumran Scrolls and the Damascus Fragments.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1955. Charles, Robert H. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Charles, Robert H. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Charlesworth, James H. “An Allegorical and Autobiographical Poem by the Moreh has[-S9edeq (1QH 8:4–11).” Pages 295–307 in Sha(arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael Fishbane, Emmanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “The Apocalypse of John: Its Theology and Impact on Subsequent Apocalypses.” Pages 19–51 in The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on Apocalypses. Edited by

B IBLIOGRAPHY

481

James H. Charlesworth. Chicago: American Theological Library Association; Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1987. Charlesworth, James H. “Autumnal Rain (hrwmh) for the Faithful Followers of the Moreh (hrwmh): Joel and the Hodayot.” Pages 193–210 in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, Friedrich Avemarie, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Charlesworth, James H. “Bashan, Symbology, Haplography, and Theology in Psalm 68.” Pages 351–72 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts. Edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Charlesworth, James H. “Community Organization in the Rule of the Community.” Pages 133–36 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John.” NTS 15 (1968–69): 389–418. Repr., pages 76–106 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 76–106 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Charlesworth, James H. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch (1 En 37–71).” Hen 20 (1998): 93–98. Charlesworth, James H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Scientific Methodologies.” Pages 266–74 in Proceedings of the OSA/IS&T Conference on Optics and Imaging in the Information Age (Rochester, NY, October 20–24, 1996). Edited by the Society for Imaging Science and Technology. Springfield, VA: Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 1997. Charlesworth, James H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John.” Pages 65–97 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Charlesworth, James H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus.” Pages 1–74 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “Foreword: Qumran Scrolls and a Critical Consensus.” Pages xxxi–xxxvii in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology: Some Caveats and Perspectives.” Pages 225–64 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Charlesworth, James H. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

482

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: The Symbolism and Meaning of the Serpent in the Ancient World. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Charlesworth, James H. “The Gospel of John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus (John 11:54 and 14:6).” Pages 479–513 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique VandecasteeleVanneuville. Jewish and Christian Heritage Series 1. Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2001. Charlesworth, James H. “Greek, Persian, Roman, Syrian, and Egyptian Influences in Early Jewish Theology.” Pages 219–43 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by André Caquot et al. Leuven-Paris: Peeters, 1986. Charlesworth, James H. “Have the Dead Sea Scrolls Revolutionized Our Understanding of the New Testament?” Pages 116–32 The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. “The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with Him.” ANRW 25.1:451–76. Part 2, Principat, 25.1. Edited by Hildegarde Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Charlesworth, James H. “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek Ha-Yahiad.” Pages 197–224 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BibIntS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus’ Jewishness. Shared Ground among Jews and Christians 2. Philadelphia: American Interfaith Institute; New York: Crossroad, 1991. Charlesworth, James H. “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity.” Pages 1–41 in Images of Jesus Today. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver. Faith and Scholarship Colloquies 3. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus within Judaism. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Charlesworth, James H. “Jewish Hymns, Odes, and Prayers.” Pages 411–36 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Vol. 2 of The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Charlesworth, James H. “John the Baptizer, Jesus, and the Essenes.” Pages 75–103 in Caves of Enlightenment. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 1998. Charlesworth, James H., ed. John and Qumran. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

483

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “The Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha.” ANRW 19.1:80–208. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Charlesworth, James H. “Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 21–52 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Charlesworth, James H. The Millennium Guide for Pilgrims to the Holy Land. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. “Les Odes de Salomon et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” RB 77 (1970): 522–49. Charlesworth, James H. The Odes of Solomon: The Syriac Texts. SBLTT 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973. Repr., 1978. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Charlesworth, James H. “The Origins and Subsequent History of the Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four Transitional Phases among the Qumran Essenes.” RevQ 10 (1980): 213–34. Charlesworth, James H. “Paronomasia and Assonance in the Syriac Text of the Odes of Solomon.” Semitics 1 (1970): 12–26. Repr., pages 147–65 in Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of John. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. JSPSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Charlesworth, James H. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Charlesworth, James H. “The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel.” Pages 135–51 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg. SBLSCS 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Charlesworth, James H. “The Priority of John? Reflections on the Essenes and the First Edition of John.” Pages 73–114 in Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums: Symposion in Salzburg am 10. März 2000. Edited by Peter L. Hofrichter. Theologische Texte und Studien 9. Hildesheim: Olms, 2002. Charlesworth, James H. “Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon.” Pages 107–36 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 107–36 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Charlesworth, James H. “A Rare Consensus among Enoch Specialists: The Date of the Earliest Enoch Books.” Hen 24 (2003): 225–34. Charlesworth, James H. “Reflections on the Text of Serek Ha-Yah9ad Found in Cave IV.” RevQ 17 (1996): 403–35.

484

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Charlesworth, James H. “Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John.” BRev 9 (1993): 18–25, 54. Charlesworth, James H. Review of Joachim Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos. JAAR 50 (1982): 292–93. Charlesworth, James H. “The Theologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages ix–xxi in The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rev. ed. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. New York: Crossroad, 1995. Charlesworth, James H. et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community. Philadelphia: American Interfaith Institute/World Alliance, 1996. Charlesworth, James H. et al., eds. Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Charlesworth, James H., and Alan R. Culpepper. “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John.” CBQ 35 (1973): 298–322. Repr., pages 1:232–60 in Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of John. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. JSPSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Charlesworth, James H., and Craig A. Evans. “Jesus in the Agrapha and the Apocryphal Gospels.” Pages 479–533 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Charlesworth, James H., and Loren Johns, eds. Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Charlesworth, James H., and Dennis T. Olson. “Prayers for Festivals (1Q34–1Q34bis; 4Q507–509).” Pages 46–106 in Pseudepigraphic and NonMasoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 4A of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 4A. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Charlesworth, James H., Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds. Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Chazon, Esther G. “4QdibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” RevQ 15 (1991–92): 447–55. Chazon, Esther G. “A Case of Mistaken Identity: Testament of Naphtali (4Q215) and Time of Righteousness (4Q215a).” Pages 110–123 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Chazon, Esther G. “The Function of the Qumran Prayer Texts: An Analysis of the Daily Prayers (4Q503).” Pages 217–25 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Chazon, Esther G. “When Did They Pray? Times for Prayer in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature.” Pages 42–51 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by

B IBLIOGRAPHY

485

Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000. Cherian, Jacob. “Paul, A Mother to his Churches: A Brief Examination of Parental Imagery in 1 Thess 2:1–12 and Galatians 4:19–20.” Dharma Deepika (2001): 35–47. Cherian, Jacob. “The Significance, Function, and Implications of Parental Imagery in Paul’s Pastoral Care.” Th.M. thesis, Regent College, Vancouver, 1996. Chesnutt, Randall D. “‘Bread, Wine, and Oil of Idolaters’: Rabbinic Light on a Crux Interpretum in Joseph and Aseneth.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Anaheim, CA, November, 1989. Chesnutt, Randall D. “The Present State of Research.” Pages 65–93 in From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth. JSPSup 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Chialà, Sabino. Il libro delle Parabole di Enoc. Studi Biblici 117; Brescia: Paideia, 1997. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. London: SCM Press, 1992; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Chilton, Bruce D. “Commenting on the Old Testament (with Particular Reference to the Pesharim, Philo, and the Mekilta).” Pages 122–40 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture; Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Chilton, Bruce D. “The Gospel according to Thomas as a Source of Jesus’ Teaching.” Pages 155–75 in The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels. Edited by David Wenham. Gospel Perspectives 5. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Chilton, Bruce D. Judaic Approaches to the Gospels. University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Chilton, Bruce D. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Chilton, Bruce D., and Jacob Neusner. Judaism in the New Testament. London: Routledge, 1995. Christ, Carol P. “Feminist Liberation Theology and Yahweh as Holy Warrior: An Analysis of Symbol.” Pages 202–12 in Women’s Spirit Bonding. Edited by Janet Kalven and Mary I. Buckley. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Christensen, Duane L. “The March of Conquest in Isaiah X 27c–34.” VT 26 (1976): 385–99. Chyutin, Michael. “The New Jerusalem: Ideal City.” DSD 1 (1994): 71–94. Chyutin, Michael. The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. JSPSup 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Chyutin, Michael. “The Redaction of the Qumranic and the Traditional Book of Psalms as a Calendar.” RevQ 16 (1994): 367–95. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. “Melchizedek or ‘King of Righteousness’.” EvQ 63 (1991): 305–12. Cody, Aelred. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspectives. St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960.

486

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA 55 (1984): 27–53. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Apocalypse (Revelation).” Pages 996–1016 in NJBC. Edited by Raymond E. Brown et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Revelation, Book of.” Pages 772–74 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. Collins, John J. “The Background of the ‘Son of God’ Text.” BBR 7 (1997): 1–12. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Collins, John J. “Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Essenes: Groups and Movements in Judaism in the Early Second Century B.C.E.” Pages 345–50 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Collins, John J. “The Eschatology of Zechariah.” Pages 74–84 in Knowing the End from the Beginning. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London: T & T Clark International, 2003. Collins, John J. “‘He Shall Not Judge by What His Eyes See’: Messianic Authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 2 (1995): 145–64. Collins, John J. “A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1–3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 225–40 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BibIntS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Collins, John J. “Jesus and the Messiahs of Israel.” Pages 287–302 in Frühes Christentum vol. 3 of Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Collins, John J. “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 100–119 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Collins, John J. “The Jewish Apocalypses.” Semeia 14 (1979): 21–60. Collins, John J. “Joseph and Aseneth: Jewish or Christian?” JSP: forthcoming. Collins, John J. “Method in the Study of Messianism.” Pages 213–29 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Collins, John J. “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 9–28 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

487

Collins, John J. “Prayer of Nabonidus.” Pages 83–93 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Collins, John J. “Qumran, Apocalypticism, and the New Testament.” Pages 133–38 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Collins, John J. Review of Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. JQR 91 (2000): 85–90. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Collins, John J. Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. JSJSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Collins, John J. “‘Sibylline Oracles (Second Century B.C.–Seventh Century A.D.).” Pages 223–316 in vol. 1 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. ABRL. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Collins, John J. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” NTS 38 (1992): 448–66. Collins, John J. “The Suffering Servant at Qumran?” BRev 9 (1993): 25–27, 63. Collins, John J. “The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic.” BR 19 (1974): 5–22. Collins, John J. “Teacher and Messiah? The One Who Will Teach Righteousness at the End of Days.” Pages 193–210 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Collins, John J. “Teacher and Servant.” RHPR 80 (2000): 37–50. Collins, John J. “A Throne in Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism.” Pages 43–58 in Death, Ecstasy and Otherworldly Journeys. Edited by John J. Collins and Michael A. Fishbane. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Collins, John J. “Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–20. Collins, John J. “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?” Pages 25–51 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Collins, John J. “The Works of the Messiah.” DSD 1 (1994): 98–112. Collins, John and Peter Flint. “Pseudo-Daniel.” Pages 95–164 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Collins, John J., and Robert A. Kugler, eds. Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Collins, Raymond F. “The Berith-Notion of the Cairo Damascus Document and Its Comparison with the NT.” ETL 39 (1963): 555–94. Colson, Francis H., and George H. Whitaker, trans. Philo. 10 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–53.

488

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Trans. of Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas. BHT 17. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954. Cook, Edward M. “4Q246.” BBR 5 (1995): 43–66. Cook, Edward M. “4Q550–4Q550e (4QPrEsthera–f ar).” Pages 6–13 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cook, Edward M. “4Q551 (4QDanSuz? ar).” Pages 334–35 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cook, Edward M. “4Q556 (4QVisiona ar).” Pages 136–41 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cook, Edward M. “4Q557 (4QVisionc ar).” Pages 140–43 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cook, Edward M. “4Q558 (4QpapVisionb ar).” Pages 142–53 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cook, Edward M. “4QFour Kingdomsa–b ar.” Pages 76–81 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Coppens, Joseph. “Les affinités qumrániennes de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” NRTh 84 (1962): 128–41, 257–82. Coppens, Joseph. Les affinités qumrâniennes de l’Epître aux Hébreux. ALBO 4/1. Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1962. Corbin, Henry. Terre Céleste et Corps de Résurrection: de l’Iran Mazdéen à l’Iran Shi’îte. Paris: Buchet/Chastel, 1960. Cowley, Robert W. “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today.” Ostkirchlichen Studien 23 (1974): 318–23. Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Cross, Frank M. “The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela.” Pages 105–19 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980. Repr., as pages 148–58 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958. Rev. ed. 1961. Repr., 1976. 3d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank M. “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text.” IEJ 16 (1966): 81–95. Repr., pages 334–48 in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Sid Z. Leiman. New York: KTAV, 1974. Repr., pages 278–92 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by

B IBLIOGRAPHY

489

Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1975. Cross, Frank M. “David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3–4.” BASOR 231 (1978): 69–71. Cross, Frank M. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” Pages 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by George Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. Cross, Frank M. “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus.” IEJ 34 (1984): 260–64. Cross, Frank M. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” HTR 57 (1964): 281–99. Cross, Frank M. “Light on the Bible from the Dead Sea Caves.” Pages 156–62 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Hershel Shanks. New York: Random House, 1993. Cross, Frank M. “A New Qumrân Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint.” BASOR 132 (1953): 15–26. Cross, Frank M. “Notes on a Generation of Qumrân Studies.” Pages 176–77 in The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3d ed. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Cross, Frank M. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” JBL 74 (1955): 147–72. Repr., pages 147–76 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Cross, Frank M. “Paleography.” Pages 629–34 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Cross, Frank M. “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies.” Pages 1–21 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Cross, Frank M. “Testimonia [4Q175 = 4QTestimonia = 4QTestim].” Pages 308–27 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Cross, Frank M. “‘Textual Notes’ on 1–2 Samuel.” Pages 342–51 in The New American Bible. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild, 1970. Cross, Frank M., and Donald W. Parry. “A Preliminary Edition of a Fragment of 4QSamb (4Q52).” BASOR 306 (1997): 63–74. Cross, Frank M., and Ester Eshel. “KQOstracon (Plate XXXIII).” Pages 497–507 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Cross, Frank M., and Esther Eshel. “The Missing Link: Does a New Inscription Establish a Connection Between Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls?” BAR 24, no. 2. (March/April 1998): 48–53, 69. Cross, Frank M., and Esther Eshel. “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumran.” IEJ 47 (1997): 17–28.

490

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Cross, Frank M., and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994. Crown, Alan D. Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. TSAJ 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Cullmann, Oscar. “Ebioniten.” Cols. 297–98 in vol. 2 of RGG. 3d ed. Edited by Kurt Galling et al. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–65. Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, among the Disciples of Jesus and in Early Christianity: A Study in the Origin of the Gospel of John. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1976. Cullmann, Oscar. “Die neuentdeckten Qumrantexte und das Judentum der Pseudoklementinen.” Pages 35–51 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August 1954. Edited by Walther Eltester. BZNW 21. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954. Culpepper, Alan R. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. FF: NT 20. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Culpepper, Alan R. The Gospel and Letters of John. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Culpepper, Alan R. The Johannine School. SBLDS 26. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Culpepper, R. Alan, and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. The Fourth Gospel from a Literary Perspective. Semeia 53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. “Hebrews.” Pages 364–68 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol Newsom and Sharon Ringe. London: SPCK; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBLDS 42. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. D’Aragon, Jean-Louis. “The Apocalypse.” Pages 467–93 in vol. 2 of JBC. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. Dahl, Nils A. “History and Eschatology in Light of the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 129–45 in Jesus the Christ. Edited by Donald H. Juel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Daise, Michael A. “Creation Motifs in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 293–305 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Daniélou, Jean. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity. Translated by Salvator Attanasio. Baltimore: Helicon, 1958. Davenport, Gene L. “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17.” Pages 67–92 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1977.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

491

Davies, Philip R. Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. BJS 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Davies, Philip R. “Calendrical Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory.” CBQ 45 (1983): 80–89. Davies, Philip R. “Communities in the Qumran Scrolls.” PIBA17 (1994): 55–68. Davies, Philip R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” JSOTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Davies, Philip R. “The ‘Damascus’ Sect and Judaism.” Pages 70–84 in Pursuing the Text. Edited by John Kampen and John C. Reeves. JSOTSup 184. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Davies, Philip R. “Dualism and Eschatology in the War Scroll.” VT 28 (1978): 28–36. Davies, Philip R. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Douglas A. Knight. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Davies, Phillip R. “Space and Sects in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 81–98 in “Imagining” Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan. Edited by David M. Gunn and Paula M. McNutt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Davies, Philip R. “The Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document.” Pages 201–10 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Davies, Philip R., and Joan E. Taylor. “On the Testimony of Women in 1QSa.” DSD 3 (1996): 223–35. Davies, Stevan L. “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas.” JBL 111(1992): 663–82. Davies, Stevan L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. New York: Seabury, 1983. Davies, Stevan L. “John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth.” NTS 29 (1983): 569–71. Davies, William D. “‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25–30.” HTR 46 (1953): 113–39. Davies, William D. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit.” Pages 157–82 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper, 1957. Repr., pages 157–82, 276–82 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Davies, William D. “Reflections on the Mormon ‘Canon.’” HTR 79 (1986): 44–66. Davies, William D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. ECDSS 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Davila, James R. “New Qumran Readings for Genesis One.” Pages 3–11 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Davila, James R. “The Perils of Parallels.” No pages. Cited 17 January 2005. University of St. Andrews, Scotland, April 2001. Online: http://www.standrews.ac.uk/~wwwsd/parallels.html.

492

B IBLIOGRAPHY

De Conick, April D. Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas. VCSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1996. De Conick, April D. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature. JSNTSup 157. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2001. De Jong, Albert. “Shadow and Resurrection.” Bulletin of the Asian Institute, NS 9 (1995): 215–24. De Jonge, M. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. SVTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003. De Troyer, Kristin. “Qumran Research and Textual Studies: A Different Approach.” RSR 28 (2002): 115–22. Decock, Paul B. “Holy Ones, Sons of God, and the Transcendent Future of the Righteous in 1 Enoch and the New Testament.” Neot 17 (1983): 70–82. Deichgräber, Reinhard. “Fragmente einer Jubiläen-Handschrift aus Höhle 3 von Qumran.” RevQ 5 (1965): 415–22. Delamarter, Steve. “Communities of Faith and Their Bibles: A Sociological Typology.” Paper presented at the West Coast Dead Sea Scrolls Workgroup. Vancouver, Canada, October 2004. Delamarter, Steve. “The Sociology of Ethiopian Scribal Communities: A Preliminary Report.” Paper presented at the international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Groningen, Netherlands, June 2004. Delcor, Mathias. “IV. Littérature de Qumran. C. Littérature essénienne. I. Documents Littéraires. B. La Règle de la Communauté.” Cols. 851–57 in vol. 9 of DBSup. Edited by Louis Pirot, André Robert, and Henri Cazelle. 13 vols. Paris: Létouzey et Ané, 1928. Delcor, Mathias. “V. Doctrines des Esséniens. I. L’Instruction des deux Esprits.” Cols. 960–70 in vol. 9 of DBSup. Edited by L. Pirot, A. Robert, and H. Cazelle. Paris. 13 vols. Paris: Létouzey et Ané, 1928. Delcor, Mathias. “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 409–503 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Delcor, Mathias. “The Courts of the Church of Corinth and the Courts of Qumran.” Pages 69–84 in Paul and Qumran. Edited by J. Murphy-O’Connor. Chicago: Priory, 1968. Delcor, Mathias. “Courts of the Church.” Pages 69–84 in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth. Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Delcor, Mathias. “Is the Temple Scroll a Source of the Herodian Temple?” Pages 67–89 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Delcor, Mathias. “Le Midrash d’Habacuc.” RB 58 (1951): 521–48. Delcor, Mathias. “Le milieu d’origine et le développement de l’apocalyptique juive.” Pages 111–13 in La Littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna. Edited by Willem C. van Unnik. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Delcor, Mathias. Le Testament d’Abraham: Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension grecque longue. SVTP 2. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

493

Della Valle, Pietro. The Pilgrim: The Travels of Pietro Della Valle. Translated and edited by George Bull. London: Hutchinson, 1990. Delling, Gerhard. “Die Kunst des Gestaltens in ‘Joseph und Aseneth.’” NovT 26 (1984): 23. Denis, Albert-Marie. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancient Testament: Concordance, corpus des texts, indices. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste; Leiden: Brill; Leuven: Peeters, 1987. Denis, Albert-Marie. Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “New Creation: Qumran, Paul, the Church, and Jesus.” RevQ 13, nos. 49–52 (1988): 597–608. DeSilva, David A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SBLDS 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. DeSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Destro, Adriana, and Mauro Pesce. Come nasce una religione: Antropologia ed esegesi del Vangelo di Giovanni. Rome: Laterza, 2000. Deutsch, Celia. “Transformation of Symbols: The New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:1–22:5.” ZNW 78, nos. 1–2 (1987): 106–26. Dexinger, Ferdinand. “Die Moses-Terminologie in Tibåt Mårqe (Einige Beobachtungen).” Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrage 25 (1998): 51–62. Díez Macho, Alejandro. Los apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1984. Dimant, Devorah. “4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?” Pages 805–13 in Pomegranates Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Dimant, Devorah. “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah: Introduction.” Pages 91–116 in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Edited by Devorah Dimant. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Dimant, Devorah. “Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran.” Pages 175–91 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Dimant, Devorah. “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran.” DSD 1 (1994): 151–59. Dimant, Devorah. “The Apocryphon of Joshua—4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal.” Pages 179–204 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Dimant, Devorah. “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua.” Pages 105–34 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Devorah Dimant. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Dimant, Devorah. “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives.” Pages 55–73 in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research; Dead Sea

494

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997). Edited by James H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 1998. Dimant, Devorah. “The Fallen Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974. Dimant, Devorah. “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character.” Pages 170–76 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Dimant, Devorah. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 93–103 in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East, Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture. Edited by Adele Berlin. Bethesda, MD: University of Maryland Press, 1996. Dimant, Devorah. “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha— 4Q390.” Pages 405–48 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Dimant, Devorah. “Not ‘the Testament of Judah’ but ‘the Words of Benjamin’: On the Character of 4Q538.” In Studies in Honor of Moshe Bar-Asher. Edited by Yochanan Breuer, Steven E. Fassberg, and Aharon Mama, forthcoming (Hebrew). Dimant, Devorah. “Pesharim, Qumran.” Pages 244–51 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Dimant, Devorah. “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181.” IOS 9 (1979): 77–102. Dimant, Devorah. “Pseudo-Ezekiel.” Pages 7–88 in Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Edited by Devorah Dimant. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–58 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, 1989–90. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Dimant, Devorah. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in JWSTP. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Dimant, Devorah. Review of Émile Puech, ed., Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). DSD 10 (2003): 292–304. Dimant, Devorah. “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: the So-called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of Jubilees in CD XVI, 3–4.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint: Essays Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Dombrowski, Bruno W. “dxyh in 1QS and to/ koino/n: An Instance of Early Greek and Jewish Synthesis.” HTR 59 (1966): 293–307. Dombrowski, Bruno W. “The Meaning of the Qumran Terms T )wdh and Mdh.” RevQ 7 (1971): 567–74.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

495

Dombrowski, Bruno W. W. “A Few Remarks on Recent Papers Concerning the Môreh Has[s[edeq in Dead Sea Scrolls.” QC 3 (1993): 155–68. Donceel, Robert. Synthèse des Observations faites en fouillant les tombes des nécropoles de Khirbet Qumrân et des environs: The Khirbet Qumran Cemeteries: A Synthesis of the Archaeological Data. QC 10. Kraków: Enigma Press, 2002. Donfried, Karl P. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul: Twenty-Five Years Later.” Pages 279–92 in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. London: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Donfried, Karl P. “Paul and Qumran: The Possible Influence of Krs on 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 148–56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Repr., pages 221–31 in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. London: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Donner, Herbert. “Der Feind aus dem Norden: Topographische und archäologische Erwägungen zu Jes 10:27b–34.” ZDPV 84 (1968): 46–54. Doudna, Gregory L. “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis.” Pages 430–71 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. New York: Routledge, 1966. Repr., 2002. Douglas, Michael C. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Downing, Francis Gerald. Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in FirstCentury Tradition. JSOT Manuals 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Downing, Francis Gerald. Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. Draper, Jonathan A. “The Twelve Apostles as Foundation Stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem and the Foundation of the Qumran Community.” Neot 22 (1988): 41–63. Driver, Samuel R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1890. Dryden, J. de Waal. “The Sense of spe/rma in 1 John 3:9 in Light of Lexical Evidence.” Filología Neotestamentica 11, nos. 21–22 (1998): 85–100. Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. “Le Zervanisme et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” Indo-Iranian Journal 1 (1957): 96–99. Duhaime, Jean. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. Duhaime, Jean. “La rédaction de 1QM XIII et l’évolution du dualisme à Qumrân.” RB 84 (1977): 44–46. Duhaime, Jean. “Relative Deprivation in New Religious Movements and the Qumran Community.” RevQ 16 (1993): 265–76. Duhaime, Jean. “Les voies des deux Esprits (1QS iv 2–14): une analyse structurelle.” RevQ 19 (2000): 349–67.

496

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Duhaime, Jean. “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Graeco-Roman Tactical Treatises.” RevQ 13 (1988): 133–51. Duhaime, Jean. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–141 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Duncan, Julie A. “4QDeutj, k1, k2, k3, l, m.” Pages 75–116 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Duncan, Julie A. “Considerations of 4QDtj in Light of the ‘All Souls Deuteronomy’ and Cave 4 Phylactery Texts.” Pages 199–215 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Duncan, Julie A. “Deuteronomy, Book of.” Pages 198–202 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Duncan, Julie A. “Excerpted Texts of Deuteronomy at Qumran.” RevQ 18 (1997): 43–62. Duncan, Julie A., and Brent A. Strawn. Targum on Job, Parabiblical, and Related Documents, forthcoming. Dunderberg, Ismo. “The Beloved Disciple in John: Ideal Figure in an Early Christian Controversy.” Pages 243–69 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity; Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen. Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Dunderberg, Ismo. “John and Thomas in Conflict?” Pages 361–80 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years. Edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire. NHS 44. New York: Brill, 1997. Dunderberg, Ismo. “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple.” Pages 65–88 in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Edited by Risto Uro. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Dunderberg, Ismo. “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John.” Pages 33–64 in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Edited by Risto Uro. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Dunn, James D. G. “4QMMT and Galatians.” NTS 43 (1997): 147–53. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. London: SCM Press, 1980. Dunn, James D. G. Galatians. BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1993. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Dunn, James D. G. “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1.3–4.” JTS 24 (1973): 40–68. Dunn, James D. G. “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran.” Pages 254–72 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

497

Dunn, James D. G. “Let John Be John.” Pages 330–37 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. WUNT 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ET The Gospel and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Dunn, James D. G. “Noch einmal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialog Continues.” Pages 273–90 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Dunn, James D. G. “Once More, PISTIS CHRISTOU.” Pages 730–44 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1991. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Dunn, James D. G. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 105–127 in Caves of Enlightenment. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 1998. Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. Dunn, James D. G. “‘Son of God’ as ‘Son of Man’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” Pages 198–210 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Dunn, James D. G. “Yet Once More: ‘The Works of the Law’: A Response.” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117. Dunnill, John. Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Dupont-Sommer, André. “L’instruction sur les deux Esprits dans le ‘Manuel de Discipline.’” RHR 142 (1952): 5–35. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by Joseph W. Swain. London: Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1915. Durkheim, Émile. Moral Education. Translated by Everett K. Wilson and Herman Schnurer. New York: Free Press; London: Collier, 1961. Efroymsen, David P. “The Patristic Connection.” Pages 98–117 in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity. Edited by Alan T. Davies. New York: Paulist, 1979. Eisenbaum, Pamela M. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Its Literary Context. SBLDS 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Eisenman, Robert H. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1996. Eisenman, Robert H. James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Eisenman, Robert H. Jesus und die Urchristen: Die Qumran-Rollen entschlüsselt. Munich: Bertelsmann, 1993. Eisenman, Robert H. Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Eisenman, Robert H., and James M. Robinson. A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991. Eisenman, Robert H., and Michael O. Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years. Rockport, MA; Shaftesbury, England: Element, 1992.

498

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Eisler, Robert I. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Redisovered “Capture of Jerusalem” and the other Jewish and Christian Sources. London: Methuen, 1931. Eitam, David., and Michael Heltzer, eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period. History and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 7. Padova: Sargon, 1996. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A.” RevQ 16 (1995): 559–80. Elgvin, Torlief, and Emanuel Tov. “Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 417–41 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Elledge, Casey D. “Appendix: A Graphic Index of Citation and Commentary Formulae in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 367–77 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Elledge, Casey D. “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Commentary.” RevQ 21 (2003–4): 165–208. Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakkuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. “Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art.” Pages 27–54 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. WUNT 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ET The Gospel and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Endres, John C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. CBQMS 18; Washington, DC: CBA, 1987. Ephal, Israel. “Mymwdq )bc yxnwm hmk l( twyl)qysql twr(h.” ErIsr (Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume) 20 (1989): 115–19. Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1983–90. Erlandsson, Seth. The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. ConBOT 4. Lund: Gleerup, 1970. Ernst, Josef. Johannes der Täufer. BZNW 53. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Ernst, Josef. “Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth in historischer Sicht.” NTS 43 (1997): 161–83. Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn—A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” HUCA 62 (1991): 117–54. Eshel, Esther and Hanan Eshel. “New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XqpapEnoch.” DSD 12 (2005), 146–155. Eshel, Esther, Hanan Eshel, and Ada Yardeni. “A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom.” IEJ 42 (1992): 199–229. Eshel, Esther. “4QLEVd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and Miqs 9at Ma)ase Ha-Torah.” DSD 2, no. 1 (1995): 1–13.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

499

Eshel, Hanan. “The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Rebuilder of Jericho.” RevQ 15 (1992): 409–20. Eskenazi, Tamara C. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Law.” Pages 119–24 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, August 16–21, 1981; Division A: The Period of the Bible. Edited by David Krone. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982. Eskola, Timo. “Paul, Predestination and ‘Covenantal Nomism’: Re-assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” JSJ 28 (1997): 390–412. Estrada, Carlos Zesati. Hebreos 5,7–8: Estudio histórico-exegético. AnBib 113. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumram Cave 4.” Pages 91–100 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Evans, Craig A. “Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography.” Pages 170–201 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 14. SSEJC 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Evans, Craig A. “Messianic Texts at Qumran.” Pages 83–154 in Jesus and His Contemporaries. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Evans, Craig A. “Opposition to the Temple: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 235–53 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Evans, Craig A. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Evans, Craig A. “‘The Two Sons of Oil’: Early Evidence of Messianic Interpretation of Zechariah 4:14 in 4Q254 4 2.” Pages 566–75 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Evans, Craig A., and Peter W. Flint, eds. Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Evans, Craig A., Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe, eds. Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible. NTTS 18. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ewald, Heinrich. Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus. 7 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1843–69. Fabricius, Johan Alberto. Codex Pseudepigraphicus Veteris Testamenti. 2 vols. Hamburg: Theodor Christoph Felinger, 1713–1723. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung der Qumran-Essener.” Pages 87–96 in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier. Edited by Helmut Merklein, Karlheinz Müller, and Günter Stemberger. Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1993. Fallon, Francis T., and Ron Cameron. “The Gospel of Thomas. A Forschungsbericht and Analysis.” ANRW 25.5:4195–4251. Part 2, Principat, 25.5. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegarde Temporini. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.

500

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Feeley-Harnik, Gillian. The Lord’s Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. Fekkes, Jan, III. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development. JSNTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Feltes, Heinz. Die Gattung des Habakukkommentars von Qumran (1QpHab): Eine Studie zum frühen jüdischen Midrasch. FB 58. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986. Fenn, Richard K. Liturgies and Trials. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982. Fensham, Frank Charles. “Hebrews and Qumran.” Neot 5 (1971): 9–21. Ferreira, Johan. Johannine Ecclesiology. JSNTS 160. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Fieger, Michael. Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Systematik. NTAbh 22. Münster: Aschendorff, 1991. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Fisch, Harold, ed. The Holy Scriptures. The Jerusalem Bible: English and Hebrew. Jerusalem: Koren, 1988. Fishbane, Michael A. “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” Pages 339–77 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling. CRINT 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “4Qhistorical Text D.” Pages 281–86 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. New York: Paulist, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ text from Qumran Cave IV.” CBQ 27 (1965): 348–72. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4.” CBQ 57 (1995): 655–75. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text from Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 163–78 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Edited by Michael O. Wise. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins: General Methodological Considerations.” Pages 1–19 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith: In Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Discovery of Qumran Cave I. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

501

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. Rev. ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Originally published Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays in the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10.” NTS 4 (1957–58): 48–58. Repr., pages 31–47 in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth. Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (1Q20). 2d ed. BibOr 18B. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. 3d ed., 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. AB 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 233–57 in Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Edited by Leander E. Keck and James Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence.” Pages 79–111 in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Oxyrynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas.” TS 20 (1959): 505–60. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 599–621 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Paul’s Jewish Background and the Deeds of the Law.” Pages 18–35 in According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. New York: Paulist, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Qumran Messianism.” Pages 73–110 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament after Forty Years.” RevQ 13, no. 49–52 (1988): 609–20. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Qumran und der eingefügte Abschnitt 2Kor 6,14–7,1.” Pages 385–98 in Qumran. Wege der Forschung 410. Edited by Karl-Erich Grözinger et al. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. ET “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1.” Pages 205–17 (part 1), pages 292–93 (part 2) in The Semitic Background of the New Testament: Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and a Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Paulist, 1992. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Review of Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York Times (Sept. 21, 1997): 26–27. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

502

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Tobit.” Pages 1–76 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” NTS 7 (1960–61): 297–333. Repr., pages 3–58 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Chapman, 1971. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts. BibOr 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Flemming, Johan. Das Buch Henoch; Aethiopischer Text. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The ‘11QPsa-Psalter’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Including the Preliminary Edition of 4QPse.” Pages 173–99 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BibIntS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “‘Apocrypha’, Other Previously-Known Writings, and ‘Pseudepigrapha’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 24–66 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Flint, Peter W. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 384. Flint, Peter W. “The Contribution of the Cave 4 Psalms Scrolls to the Psalms Debate.” DSD 5 (1998): 320–33. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41–60 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 362–78 in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “Methods for Determining Relationships between Manuscripts, with Special Reference to the Psalms Scrolls.” Pages 197–211 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Flint, Peter W. “Noncanonical Writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Apocrypha, Other Previously Known Writings, Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 80–126 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Flint, Peter W. “Of Psalms and Psalters: James Sanders’ Investigation of the Psalms Scrolls.” Pages 65–83 in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and

B IBLIOGRAPHY

503

Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr. JSOTSup 225. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Flint, Peter W. “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited.” RevQ 17 (1996): 111–50. Flusser, David. “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect.” IEJ 3 (1953): 30–47. Flusser, David. “The Baptism of John and the Dead Sea Sect.” Pages 209–33 in Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eleazar L. Suzenik, Chaim Rabin, and Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: Hekhal Ha-sefer, 1961 (Hebrew). Flusser, David. “Die Gesetzeswerke in Qumran und bei Paulus.” Pages 395–403 in Judentum. Vol. 1 of Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Flusser, David. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Flusser, David. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward: Jesus’ Criticism of the Essenes.” Pages 176–97 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Flusser, David. The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect. Tel-Aviv: MOD, 1989. Flusser, David. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 184–86 in vol. 13 of EncJud. Edited by Cecil Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Flusser, David, and Martin Majer. Jesusworte und ihre Uberlieferung. Vol. 1 of Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament. 2 vols. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987. Flusser, David, and R. Stevan Notley. Jesus. 2d rev. and enl. ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997. Foerster, Werner. “Der Heilige Geist im Spätjudentum.” NTS 8 (1961): 129–30. Ford, Josephine Massyngberde. Revelation. AB 38. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. Ford, Josephine Massyngberde. “Shalom in the Johannine Corpus.” HBT 6, no. 2. (December 1984): 67–89. Forkman, Göran. The Limits of Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity. Translated by Pearl Sjölander. ConBNT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1972. Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs. SNTSMS 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. NTOA 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Fowler, Alastair. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Frankel, Raphael. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Frankel, Raphael, Shmuel Avitsur, and Etan Ayalon. History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land. Translated by Jay C. Jacobson. Arlington, VA: Olearius Editions; Tel Aviv, Israel: Eretz Israel Museum, 1994. Frankel, Zacharias. Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrische Hermeutik. Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1851.

504

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Frankenmölle, Hubert. “sunagwgh&.” Pages 293–96 in vol. 3 of EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Franklyn, Paul N. “The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon.” JSJ 18 (1987): 1–17. Franks, Robert S. The Work of Christ in Its Ecclesiastical Development. London: Nelson, 1918. Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Fredriksson, Henning. Yahwe als Krieger: Studien zum alttestamentlichen Gottesbild. Lund: Gleerup, 1945. Freedman, David N. “Canon of the OT.” Pages 130–36 in IDBSup. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Freedman, David N., Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Frey, Jean-Baptiste. “Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament.” Cols. 354–460 in vol. 1 of Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppléments. Edited by Louis Pirot et al. 7 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1928. Frey, Jörg. “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 129–208 in Qumran: Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer. Edited by Michael Fieger, Konrad Schmid, and Peter Schwagmeier. NTOA 47. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Frey, Jörg. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Frey, Jörg. Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten. Vol. 3 of Die johanneische Eschatologie. 3 vols. WUNT 117. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Frey, Jörg. “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder.” Pages 228–68 in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden. Edited by Reinhard Feldmeier and Ulrich Heckel. WUNT 70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Frey, Jörg. Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus. Vol. 1 of Die johanneische Eschatologie. WUNT 96. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Frey, Jörg. “Licht aus den Höhlen? Der ‘johanneische Dualismus’ und die Texte von Qumran.” Pages 117–203 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das Johannesevangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Edited by Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle. WUNT 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Frey, Jörg. “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 197–226 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organizaiton for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Frey, Jörg. “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinischjüdische Weisheitstradition.” ZNW 90 (1999): 45–77. Frey, Jörg. “The Relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the New Testament Interpretation: With a Bibliographical Appendix.” AcT 23 (2003): 86–116. Frey, Jörg. “Das vierte Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund der älteren Evangelientradition. Zum Problem: Johannes und die Synoptiker.” Pages

B IBLIOGRAPHY

505

60–118 in Das Johannesevangelium—Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen. Edited by Thomas Söding. QD 203. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Frey, Jörg. “‘Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat …’: Zur frühjüdischen Deutung der ‘ehernen Schlange’ und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f.” Pages 153–205 in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. Edited by Martin Hengel and Hermut Löhr. WUNT 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Frick, Frank S. “‘Oil from Flinty Rock’ (Deuteronomy 32:13): Olive Cultivation and Olive Oil Processing in the Hebrew Bible—A Socio-Materialist Perspective.” Pages 3–17 in Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds. Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. Semeia 86. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Friedländer, Moritz. Patristische und Talmudische Studien. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1878. Friedländer, Moritz. “La Secte de Melchisédec, et l’Épitre aux Hébreux” (3 Parts). REJ 5 (1882): 1–26, 188–98; REJ 6 (1882): 187–99. Fritsch, Charles T. “The So-called Priestly Messiah of the Essenes.” JEOL 6 (1967): 242–48. Fröhlich, Ida. “Caractères formels des pesharim de Qumrân et la littéraire apocalyptique.” Pages 449–56 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Matthias Augustin and KlausDietrich Schunck. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988. Fröhlich, Ida. “Le genre littéraire des pesharim de Qumrân.” RevQ 12 (1985–87): 383–98. Fröhlich, Ida. “Pesher, Apocalyptical Literature and Qumran.” Pages 295–305 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Fröhlich, Ida. “Time and Times and Half a Time”: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras. JSPSup 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Fuenn, Samuel J. “rcw)h.” Page 422 in A Dictionary of the Language of the Bible and the Mishnah. Warsaw: Ah9i)asaf, 1924 (Hebrew). Fujita, Shozo. “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” JSJ 7:1 (1976): 30–45. Gabrion, Hervé. “L’interprétation de l’Écriture dans la littérature de Qumrân.” ANRW 19.1:779–848. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gall, August F. von. ed. Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. 5 vols. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1914–18. Gammie, John G. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature.” JBL 93 (1974): 381.

506

B IBLIOGRAPHY

García Martínez, Florentino. “4QMes. Aram. y el Libro de Noe.” Pages 195–232 in Escritos de Biblia y Oriente. Edited by Rafael Aguirre and Félix García López. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 38. Salamanca: Casa de Santiago, 1981. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Book of Giants.” Pages 97–115 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. “Brotherly Rebuke in Qumran and Mt 18:15–17.” Pages 221–32 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. García Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. García Martínez, Florentino, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Repr., 2d ed. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. García Martínez, Florentino. “Dos notas sobre4QMMT.” RevQ 16 (1993): 293–97. Garcia Martínez, Florentino. “Escatologización de los Escritos proféticos en Qumrán.” EstBib 44 (1986): 101–16. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246.” Pages 162–79 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. “Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 8 (1993): 171–208. García Martínez, Florentino. “New Jerusalem.” Pages 606–10 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. García Martínez, Florentino. “The ‘New Jerusalem’ and the Future Temple of the Manuscripts from Qumran.” Pages 180–213 in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. “New Perspectives on the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 230–48 in Perspectives on the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Edward Noort. VTSup 73. Leiden: Brill, 1998. García Martínez, Florentino. “El pesher: Interpretación profética de la Escritura.” Salm 26 (1979): 125–39. García Martínez, Florentino. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis.” FO 25 (1988): 113–36. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem.” Pages 431–60 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. García Martínez, Florentino, and Donald W. Parry. A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970–1995. Leiden: Brill, 1996. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

507

García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. “I Enoch and the Figure of Enoch: A Bibliography of Studies 1970–1988.” RevQ 53 (1989): 149–74. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. “The Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) and the Aramaic Fragments from Qumran.” RevQ 53 (1989): 131–46. García Martínez, Florentino, and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera. The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Translated from Los hombres de Qumrán: Literatura, estructura social y concepciones religiosas. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1993. García Martínez, Florentino, and Adam S. van der Woude, “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” Pages 521–41 in The History of the Community. Vol. 3 of The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community: Proceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989). Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Published in RevQ 14, no. 56. Paris: Gabalda, 1990. García Martínez, Florentino, and Adam S. Van der Woude. “A Groningen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” RevQ 14 (1990): 521–41. García Martínez, Florentino, and Adam S. Van der Woude. “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis.” FO 25 (1989): 113–36. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. “11QPsalms b.” Pages 37–47 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. “11QApocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181–205 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. “11QTempleb.” Pages 357–410 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. Van der Woude. “11QTemplec?” Pages 411–418 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez et al. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. “11QJubilees.” Pages 207–20 in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Gardner-Smith, Percival. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938. Garnet, Paul. “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls.” EvQ 46 (1974): 131–63. Garnet, Paul. “Qumran Light on Pauline Soteriology.” Pages 19–32 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murry J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Garnet, Paul. Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977.

508

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Gärtner, Bertil E. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gärtner, Bertil. “The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew.” ST 8 (1954): 1–24. Garuti, Paolo. Alle origini dell’omiletica cristiana: La lettera agli Ebrei; Note di analysi retorica. Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 38. Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1995. Gaventa, Beverly R. “Our Mother St. Paul: Toward Recovery of a Neglected Theme.” PSB 17:1 (1996): 29–44. Geertz, Clifford. “‘From the Native’s Point of View’: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.” Pages 55–70 in Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. 3d ed. Edited by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic, 2000. Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960. Georgi, Dieter. “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22.” Pages 351–72 in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm. Edited by Dieter Luhrmann and Georg Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Gero, Stephen. “The So-Called Ointment Prayer in the Coptic Version of the Didache: A Re-Evaluation.” HTR 70 (1977): 67–84. Gese, Hartmut. Zur biblischen Theologie. BEvT: ThAbh 78. Munich: Kaiser, 1977. Gianotto, Claudio. Melchisedek e la sua tipologia. Brescia: Paideia, 1984. Giblin, Charles Homer. The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy. GNS 34. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909. Glessmer, Uwe. “Investigation of the Otot-text (4Q319) and Questions about Methodology.” Pages 429–40 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Glessmer, Uwe. “The Otot-Texts (4Q319) and the Problem of Intercalations in the Context of the 364-Day Calendar.” Pages 125–64 in Qumranstudien: Vorträge und Beiträge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.–26. Juli 1993. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. Gnilka, Joachim. “2 Kor 6, 14–7, 1 im Lichte der Qumranschriften und der Zwölf Patriarchen - Testamente.” Pages 86–99 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Josef Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner. Regensburg, F. Pustet, 1963. ET, repr., “2 Cor 6:14–7: 1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 48–68 in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth. Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Golb, Norman. “Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?” BA 48 (1985): 68–82.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

509

Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran. New York: Scribners, 1995. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Goldstein, Jonathan A. “The Tale of the Tobiads.” Pages 83–123 in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by Jacob Neusner. STLA 12. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Goodman, Martin. “Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity.” Pages 227–45 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by Phillip R. Davies and Richard T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Goodspeed, Edgar J. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937. Goranson, Stephen. “Essene Polemic in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 453–60 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Goranson, Stephen. “The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4–8 and Essene Polemic Against Pharisees.” DSD 2, no. 1 (1995): 80–85. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction. Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Text 5 (1966): 22–33. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth.” JBL 102 (1983): 365–99. Gottwald, Norman K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in Second Temple Judaism. London: Routledge, 2000. Graetz (Grätz), Heinrich. History of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1893. Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. EKKNT 17. 6 vols. Zürich: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990–1999. Grässer, Erich. “Die Apostelgeschichte in der Forschung der Gegenwart.” TRu 26 (1960): 93–167. Grässer, Erich. Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief zum 65. Geburtstag mit einer Bibliographie des Verfassers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. Grässer, Erich. Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. WUNT 137. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Gray, George B. “The Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 628–30 in vol. 2 of APOT. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975. Grech, Prosper. “Ebrei e christiani ad Efeso: Riflessi nel Vangelo di Giovanni.” Pages 139–46 in IV Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo. Edited by Luigi Padovese. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo Antoniano, 1994. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert.” JAOS 76

510

B IBLIOGRAPHY

(1956): 157–67. Repr., as pages 298–326 in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Sid Z. (Shnayer) Leiman. New York: KTAV, 1974. Also as pages 191–208 in Moshe Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: JPS, 1995), 192. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Unusual Texts at Qumran.” Pages 1*–9* in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht. Edited by Yair Hoffman and Frank M. Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1997. Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15–19.” RevQ 13 (1988): 319–22. Greenfield, Jonas C., and Elisha Qimron. “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII.” Pages 70–77 in Studies in Qumran Aramaic. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka. Louvain: Peeters, 1992. Greenfield, Jonas C., and Michael A. Stone. “The Books and the Traditions of Enoch.” Numen 26 (1979): 89–103. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Every Brother a Supplanter.” Pages 111–27 in When Brothers Dwell Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “The Qumran Fragments of Joshua: Which Puzzle Are They Part of and Where Do They Fit?” Pages 173–74 in Septuagint, Scrolls, and Cognate Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabus Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Greenstein, Edward L. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37. Greenstein, Edward L. “Letters of the Cryptic A Script and Paleo-Hebrew Letters used as Scribal Marks in Some Qumran Scrolls.” DSD 2 (1995): 330–39. Greenstein, Edward L. “Misquotation of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 71–83 in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume. Edited by Barry Walfish. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. Greenstein, Edward L. “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 41–77 in Proceedings of the Judaean Desert Scrolls Conference, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by Donald W. Parry and S. D. Ricks. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Grelot, Pierre. “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales.” RB 65 (1958): 33–69. Grelot, Pierre. “La légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible: Origine et Signification.” RSR 46 (1958): 5–26, 181–210. Grözinger, Karl Erich et al. “Der Beitrag der Qumranfunde zur Erforschung des Bibeltextes.” Pages 365–84 in Qumran. Translated by Elvira Grözinger. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. AGJU 14. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “#wrypw tytrwqyb hrwdhm, ‘l)qzxy-twyw)r.’” Temirin 1 (1972): 101–139 (Hebrew). Grunwald, Max. “Ein Altes Symbol in Neuer Beleuchtung.” Jahrbuch für Judische Geschichte und Literatur 4 (1901): 119–31. Gry, Léon. Review of Nathaniel Schmidt The Original Language of the Parables of Enoch. RB 18 (1909): 462–64. Guilding, Aileen. The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

511

Gundry, Robert H. “No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53.” JBL 118 (1999): 698–707. Gundry, Robert H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis, Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis, Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910. Translated as The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. Translated by William H. Carruth. Repr., New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–94. Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis. NovTSup 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Haenchen, Ernst. John 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Hafemann, Scott J. “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought.” Pages 172–89 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche. Edited by Jostein Ådna et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Hafemann, Scott J. “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought.” Pages 172–89 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jostein Ådna, Scott J. Hafemann, and Otfried Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Hagner, Donald A. “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology.” Pages 101–20 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Sehen und Glauben im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 125–41 in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geshehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament; Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. Halevy, Joseph. “Cainites et Sethites.” REJ 14 (1887): 20–25. Hall, Robert G. Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography. JSPSup 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Hann, Robert R. “The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon.” SR 17 (1988): 169–89. Hanson, Paul D. “Rebellion in Heaven: Azazel and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11.” JBL 97 (1977): 195–233. Haran, Menahem. “11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms.” Pages 193–201 in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Marc Z. Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.

512

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Harding, Gerald Lancester. “Where Christ Himself May Have Studied: A Monastery at Khirbet Qumran.” London Illustrated News (Sept. 3, 1955): 379–81. Harding, Lankester. “Introductory, the Discovery, the Excavation, Minor Finds.” Pages 3–7 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Harkavy, Abraham (Albert) Eliyahu. “Responsen der Gaonen.” Ha-Sarid veha-Palit mi-Sifre ha-Mitsvot ha-Rishonim li-vene Mikra. Likkute Kadmoniot 2; zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der Karaischen Literatur; Studien und Mitteilungen aus der Kaisereisch Offentlich Bibliothek zu Petersburgh; St. Petersburg, Russia: n.p., 1903: nos. 373–372; cf. Isa 63:9. Harrington, Daniel J. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge, 1996. Harrington, Hannah K. The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. SBLDS 143. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Harrington, Hannah K. “Purity.” Pages 724–28 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hayes, Christine. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hays, Richard B. “Pistis and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?” Pages 714–29 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1991. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Heger, Paul. “Comparison and Contrast between the Two Laws of the Altar: Exod 20:25 tpnh Kbrx yk and Deut 27:5 lzrb Mhyl( Pynt-)l in Consideration of Their Historical Setting.” Pages *95–*106 in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997. Division A, The Bible and its World. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. Hegermann, Harald. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988. Heinz-Josef Fabry. “‘Liebe’ in den Handschriften von Qumran.” Pages 43–61 in Liebe, Macht und Religion: Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Grunddimensionen menschlicher Existenz; Gedenkschrift für Helmut Merklein. Edited by Marlies Gielen and Joachim Kügler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003. Hempel, Charlotte. “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures.” Pages 67–92 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1Qsa.” DSD 3 (1996): 253–69. Hempel, Charlotte. “Interpretive Authority in the Community Rule Tradition.” DSD 10 (2003): 59–80.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

513

Hempel, Charlotte. “Kriterien zur Bestimmung ‘essenischer Verfasserschaft’ von Qumrantexten.” Pages 71–85 in Qumran Kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer. Edited by Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann. Einblicke 6. Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003. Hempel, Charlotte. “Who Rebukes in 4Q477?” RevQ 16 (1995): 655–56. Hempel, Johannes. “Die Stellung des Laien in Qumran.” Pages 193–215 in QumranProbleme. Vorträge des leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14. Oktober 1961. Edited by Hans Bardtke. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissehschaft 42. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Hendel, Ronald S. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, forthcoming. Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Hendel, Ronald S. “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men.” Pages 169–72 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Hershel Shanks. New York: Random House, 1992. Hengel, Martin. “Bishop Lightfoot and the Tübingen School on the Gospel of John and the Second Century.” Durham University Journal 84 (January 1992): 23–51. Hengel, Martin. “Jakobus der Herrenbruder—der erste ‘Papst’?” Pages 549–82 in Paulus und Jakobus. WUNT 141. Kleine Schriften 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Hengel, Martin. Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch; Mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von J. Frey. WUNT 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989. Hengel, Martin. “Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des antiken Judentums.” Pages 293–334 in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II. WUNT 109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Martin. Property and Riches in the Early Church. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Martin. “Die Schriftauslegung des 4. Evangeliums auf dem Hintergrund der urchristlichen Exegese.” JBTh 4 (1989): 249–88. Hengel, Martin. “‘Setze dich zu meinem Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110, 1.” Pages 108–94 in Le Trône de Dieu. Edited by Marc Philonenko. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Hengel, Martin, and Helmut Lohr, eds. Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. WUNT 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Henze, Matthias, ed. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Herr, Moshe D. “The Calendar.” Pages 835–64 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by Shemuel Safrai et al. Vol. 1 of Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Edited by Shemuel Safrai et al. Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Higgins, Angus J. B. “Priest and Messiah.” VT 3 (1953): 321–26.

514

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Hindley, J. Clifford. “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch. An Historical Approach.” NTS 14 (1968): 551–65. Hinz, Walther. “Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin.” ZA 58 (1976): 66–96. Hirsch, Eric D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Hobbs, T. Raymond. A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament. OTS 3. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989. Hodder, Ian. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. New York: Pica Press, 1982. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina. “Neuheit bei Paulus: Kommunikative Funktion and theologische Relevanz der paulinischen Aussagen über den Neuen Bund, die Neue Schöpfung und die Neuheit des Lebens und des Geistes.” Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Hoenig, Sidney B. “Oil and Pagan Defilement.” JQR 61 (1970–71): 64–66. Hoffman, Thomas A. “Inspiration, Normativeness, Canonicity, and the Unique Sacred Character of the Bible.” CBQ 44 (1982): 463–65. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. “Oil in Hittite Texts.” BA 58 (1995): 108–14. Hofius, Otfried. “Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrynchus-Papyri Nr. 1, 654 und 655.” EvT 20 (1960): 21–42, 182–92. Hofius, Otfried. “Struktur und Gedankengang des Logos-Hymnus in Joh 1:1–18.” Pages 1–23 in Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums. Edited by Otfried Hofius and Hans-Christian Kammler. WUNT 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Holladay, William L. Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Holmberg, Bengt. Sociology and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. Århus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. “Religiose Poesie des Spatjudentums.” ANRW 19.1:152–86. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1998. Horgan, Maurya P. “The Bible Explained (Prophecies).” Pages 247–53 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Horgan, Maurya P. “Pesharim.” Pages 1–193 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes.” ZRGG 46, no. 2 (1994): 143–62. Horowitz, Wayne. “The 360 and 364 Day Year in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JANES 24 (1997): 35–44.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

515

Horsley, Richard A. “The Covenant Renewal Discourse: Q 6:20–49.” Pages 195–227 in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Horsley, Richard A. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Horsley, Richard A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Horsley, Richard A. “High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine.” JSJ 17 (1986): 23–55. Horsley, Richard A. “Israelite Traditions in Q.” Pages 94–122 in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Edited by Richard A. Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Horsley, Richard A. “The Kingdom of God as the Renewal of Israel,” Pages 260–76 in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Horsley, Richard A. “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus.” CBQ 47 (1985): 435–63. Horsley, Richard A. “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode among the Sicarii—Not Zealot Messianism.” NovT 27 (1985): 334–48. Horsley, Richard A. “The Oral Communication Environment of Q.” Pages 123–49 in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Horsley, Richard A. “Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus.” CBQ 46 (1984): 471–95. Horsley, Richard A. “Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their Principal Features and Social Origins.” JSNT 26 (1986): 3–27. Horsley, Richard A. “The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish Terrorists.” JR 59 (1979): 435–58. Horsley, Richard A. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Horsley, Richard A. “The Zealots: Their Origins, and Relationships, and Importance in the Jewish Revolt.” NovT 27 (1996): 159–92. Horsley, Richard A., and Jonathan A. Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Horton, Fred L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Houlden, James L. Ethics and the New Testament. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973. Hubbard, Moyer. “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol.” JSP 16 (1997): 97–110. Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought. SNTSMS 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hultgård, Anders. L’eschatologie des Testaments des douze patriarches. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia religionum 6–7. 2 vols. Uppsala: Almqwist & Wiksell, 1977–1981.

516

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Hultgren, Arland J. “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul.” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63. Humphrey, Edith M. “On Visions, Arguments and Naming: The Rhetoric of Specificity and Mystery in the Apocalypse.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, November 23, 1997. Huppenbauer, Hans Walter. “Mybr, bwr, br in den Sektenregel.” TZ 13 (1957): 136–37. Hurst, Lincoln D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Insler, Stanley. The Ga4tha4s of Zarathustra. Acta Iranica 8: Troisième série, textes et mémoires 1. Téhéran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi; Leiden: Brill, 1975. Isaac, Benjamin H., and Aharon Oppenheim. “Bar Kokhba.” Pages 598–601 in vol. 1 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Isaacs, Marie E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNT 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jackson, David R. Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Jackson, Howard M., James Brashler, and Douglas M. Parrot. “Plato, Republic 588B–589B (VI, 5).” Pages 318–20 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3d rev. ed. Edited by James M. Robinson. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990. 4th rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jacquier, Eugène. Les Actes des Apôtres. Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1926. Jaffee, Martin S. “Ritual Space and Performance in Early Judaism.” Pages 164–212 in Early Judaism. Edited by Martin S. Jaffee. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. Janah, Jonah Ibn. The Book of Hebrew Roots. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Janzen, John G. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Jas, Michel. “Hénoch et le Fils de l’Homme.” Revue Réformée 30 (1979): 105–19. Jastram, Nathan. “4QNum b.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Jastram, Nathan. “A Comparison of Two ‘Proto-Samaritan’ Texts from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb.” DSD 5 (1998): 264–89. Jastram, Nathan. “Hierarchy at Qumran.” Pages 349–76 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Jastram, Nathan. “The Text of 4QNumb.” Pages 177–98 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Jastro, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim. New York: Pardes, 1950. Jaubert, Annie. “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân. Ses origines bibliques.” VT 3 (1953): 250–64.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

517

Jaubert, Annie. “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine.” VT 7 (1957): 35–61. Jaubert, Annie. The Date of the Last Supper. Translated by Isaac Rafferty. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965. Translation of La Date de la Cène. Calendrier Biblique et Liturgie Chrétienne. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1957. Jellinek, Adolph. Bet ha-Midrash. 6 vols. Leipzig: Fridrikh Nies, 1853. Jeremias, Gert. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. SUNT 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Jeremias, Joachim. Abba. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Jeremias, Joachim. “The Last Supper.” ExpTim 64 (1952): 91–92. Jeremias, Joachim. The Rediscovery of Bethesda, John 5:2. Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966. Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. Jervell, Jacob. The Unknown Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Jeska, Joachim. Die Geschichte Israels in der Sicht des Lukas: Apg 7,2b–53 und 13,17–25 im Kontext antik-jüdischer Summarien der Geschichte Israels. FRLANT 195. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Jewett, Robert. Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Pilgrim, 1981. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Context Settings. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Joel, Manuel. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts. Amsterdam: Philo, 1971. Johns, Loren L. The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force. WUNT Second Series 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Johnson, E. Elizabeth. Romans. Vol. 3 in Pauline Theology. Edited by David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Repr., SBLSymS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2002. Johnson, Luke T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 39. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Johnson, Luke T. Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith. OBT 9. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Johnson, Richard W. Going outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Johnson, Sherman E. “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts.” Repr., pages 129–42, 273–75 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957. Repr., Pages 129–42, 273–75 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Jones, Gwilym. “‘Holy War’ or ‘Yahweh War’?” VT 25 (1975): 642–58. Jongeling, Bastiaan. A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958–1969. STDJ 7. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Juel, Donald H. Messianic Exegesis. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Jucci, Elio. “Interpretazione e storia nei pesharim.” BibOr 154 (1987): 163–70. Jucci, Elio. “Il genere ‘pesher’ e la profezia.” RStB 1 (1989): 151–68. Jucci, Elio. “Il pesher, un ponte fra il passato e il futuro.” Hen 8 (1986): 321–38.

518

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Jull, A. J. Timothy et al. “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linene Fragments from the Judean Desert.” Radiocarbon 37 (1995): 11–19. Repr., Atiqot 28 (1996): 85–91. Jung, Franz. SWTHR: Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament. NTAbh 39. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Kampen, John. “4QMMT and New Testament Studies.” Pages 129–44 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. SBLSymS 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Kampen, John. “The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined.” Pages 149–67 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Kampen, John. “A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matt 5:21–48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 34–59 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990. Edited by David J. Lull. SBLSP 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Kampen, John. “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew and the Legal Texts from Qumran.” Pages 461–87 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kampen, John. “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses within the Social World of the Matthean Community.” DSD 1 (1994): 338–63. Kampen, John, and Moshe J. Bernstein, eds. Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. SBLSymS 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Kandler, Hans-Joachim Kandler. “Die Bedeutung der Armut im Schriftum von Chirbet Qumran.” Jud 13 (1957): 193–209. Kang, Sa-Moon. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Kapera, Zdzislaw J. “A Review of East European Studies on the Temple Scroll.” Pages 275–86 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Käsemann, Ernst. Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus. Translated by Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Kazmierski, Carl R. John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Keck, Leander E. “The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament.” ZNW 56 (1965): 100–29. Keck, Leander E. “‘The Poor among the Saints’ in Jewish Christianity and at Qumran.” ZNW 57 (1966): 54–78. Kee, Howard C. Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1980.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

519

Kee, Howard C. “Membership in the Covenant People at Qumran and in the Teaching of Jesus.” Pages 104–22 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kee, Howard C. “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775–828 in vol. 1 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Keel, Othmar, and Christopf Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Kellermann, Ulrich. “a)fori/zw.” Page 443 in vol. 1 of Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980. Kilpatrick, George D. “Acts VII.52: E 0 leusij.” JTS 46 (1945): 136–145. Kilpatrick, George D. “The Last Supper.” ExpTim 64 (1952): 4–8. Kilpatrick, George D. “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: The Last Supper.” ExpTim 64 (1952): 4–8. Kimelman, Reuven. “A Note on Weinfeld’s ‘Grace After Meals in Qumran.’” JBL 112 (1993): 695–96. King, Philip J. “Jerusalem.” Pages 747–66 in vol. 3 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kister, Menachem. “Newly-Identified Fragments of the Book of Jubilees: Jub. 23:21–23, 30–31.” RevQ 12 (1987): 529–36. Kittel, Rudolf. Über die Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der hebräischen Bibel. Leipzig: Deichert, 1902. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Apokryphe Evangelien: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Der erste Johannesbrief. EKKNT 23.1. Zurich: Benzinger, 1991. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Wettstein, alt und neu.” BZ NS 41 (1997): 89–95. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Klinzing, Georg. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Knibb, Michael A. “Community Organization in Other Texts.” Pages 138–40 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Knibb, Michael A. “Community Organization in the Damascus Document.” Pages 136–38 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Knibb, Michael A. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch; A Critical Review.” NTS 25 (1979): 345–59. Knibb, Michael A. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Knibb, Michael A. “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls.” DSD 2 (1995): 165–84. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Vol. 2 of Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Knohl, Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2000.

520

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchiresa(. CBQMS 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Koch, Klaus. “Spätisraelitisch-jüdische und urchristliche Danielrezeption vor und nach der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels.” Pages 93–123 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Thomas Krüger. OBO 153. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Koenen, Klaus. “lkA#fo.” Pages 782–95 in vol. 7 of ThWAT. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, George W. Anderson, and Helmer Ringgren. 10 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1993. Koester (Köster), Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Koester (Köster), Helmut. “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: Ursprung und Wesen der Mannigfaltigkeit im frühen Christentum.” Pages 107–46 in Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Edited by Helmut Köster and James M. Robinson. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Koester (Köster), Helmut. “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition.” Pages 238–61 in vol. 1 of The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Edited by Bentley Layton. 2 vols. SHR 41. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Koester (Köster), Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. 2d ed. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Koester (Köster), Helmut. “Q and Its Relatives.” Pages 49–63 in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson. Edited by James E. Goehring et al. ForFasc 1. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990. Koester (Köster), Helmut, and James M. Robinson. Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Koester (Köster), Helmut, and James M. Robinson. Trajectories through Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature and the New Testament. CBQMS 22. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kohler, Kaufmann. “Asenath, Life and Confession or Prayer of.” Pages 172–76 in vol. 2 of JE. Edited by Cyrus Adler et al. 12 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnall, 1902. Kosmala, Hans. Hebräer, Essener, Christen. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Kraemer, Ross S. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kraft, Robert A. Barnabas and the Didache. Apostolic Fathers Series 3; New York: Nelson, 1965. Kraft, Robert A. “The Codex and Canon Consciousness.” Pages 229–33 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Kranvig, Helge S. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

521

Krause, Martin. “Der Dialog des Soter in Codex III von Nag Hammadi.” Pages 13–34 in Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 8th–13th, 1975). Edited by Martin Krause. NHS 8. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Kristeva, Julia. Semiotike: Recerches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Tel Quel, 1969. Kruse, Colin G. “Community Functionaries in the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Document: A Test of Chronological Relationships.” RevQ 10 (1981): 543–51. Kugel, James L. “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings.” HTR 86 (1993): 1–64. Kugel, James L. Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990. Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Kugler, Robert A. “A Note on 1QS 9:14: The Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of Zadok.” DSD 3 (1996): 315–20. Kugler, Robert A. “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 90–112 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kugler, Robert A., and James C. VanderKam. “A Note on 4Q225 (4QpseudoJubilees).” RevQ 77 (2001): 109–16. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes. Vorstellung des Münchener Projekts; Qumran und das Neue Testament/The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians. Presentation of the Munich Project on Qumran and the New Testament.” Pages 339–53 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefes: Aus dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament.” Pages 169–221 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill 1994. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die drei wichtigsten Qumranparallelen zum Galaterbrief: Unbekannte Wege der Tradition.” Pages 227–54 in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Rüdinger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger, and Helmut Utzschneider. OBO 126. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

522

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul.” Pages 327–39 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums.” ANRW 25.1:648–793. Part 2, Principat, 25.1. Edited by Hildegarde Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “A Legal Issue in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Qumran.” Pages 489–99 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Das Liebesgebot Jesu als Thora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt.” Pages 194–230 in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Für Joachim Gnilka. Edited by Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World.” Pages 221–48 in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Alf Christophersen et al. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Qumran Texts and the Historical Jesus: Parallels in Contrast.” Pages 573–80 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Qumran und Paulus: Unter traditionsgeschichtlichem Aspekt ausgewählte Parallelen.” Pages 228–46 in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte. Edited by Ulrich Mell and Ulrich B. Müller. BZNW 100. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 Between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism.” Pages 240–253 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organizaiton for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Kuhn, Karl G. “Peirasmo&j—a(marti/a—sa&rc im Neuen Testament und die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen.” ZTK 49 (1952): 200–22. Repr., “New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament.” Pages 94–113 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957. Repr., pages 94–113 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Kuhn, Karl G. “Essener.” Cols. 701–3 in vol. 2 of RGG. 3d ed. Edited by Kurt Galling et al. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–65. Kuhn, Karl G. “Johannesevangelium und Qumrantexte.” Pages 111–22 in Neotestamentica et Patristica. Edited by Willem C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Kuhn, Karl G. “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran.” Pages 65–93 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New

B IBLIOGRAPHY

523

York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Repr., pages 65–93 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Kuhn, Karl G. “Nachträge zur Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten.” RevQ 4 (1963): 163–234. Kuhn, Karl G. “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das Neue Testament.” ZTK 47 (1950): 192–211. Kuhn, Karl G. “Repas cultuel essénien et cène chrétienne.” Pages 75–92 in Les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte: Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 mai 1955. Edited by Jean Daniélou. Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1957. Kuhn, Karl G. “Un roman d’amour d’origine thérapeute: Le Livre de Joseph et Asénath.” BLE 63 (1962): 3–27. Kuhn, Karl G. “Die Sektenschrift [1QS] und die iranische Religion.” ZTK 49 (1952): 296–316. Kuhn, Karl G. “Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendmahles un sein Verhältnis zu den Gemeinschaftmahlen der Sektenschrift.” EvT 10 (1950–51): 508–27. Kühschelm, Roman. Verstockung, Gericht und Heil: Exegetische und bibeltheologische Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Dualismus” und “Determinismus” in Joh 12,35–50. BBB 76. Frankfurt: Hain, 1990. Kysar, Robert D. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Lalleman, Pieter J. The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 4. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Lana, M. “Deuteronomio e angelologia alla luce di una variante qumranica (4Q Dt 32,8).” Hen 5 (1983): 179–207. Lane, William L. Hebrews. WBC 47A–B. Waco, TX: Word, 1991. Lane, William L. “Paul’s Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon.” Concordia Journal 8 (1982): 130–38. Lang, Manfred. Johannes und die Synoptiker: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Joh 18–20 vor dem markinischen und lukanischen Hintergrund. FRLANT 182. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Lange, Armin. “Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung.” Pages 3–30 in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002. Lange, Armin. “In Diskussion mit dem Tempel: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel.” Pages 113–59 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by Antoon Schoors. BETL 136. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. Lange, Armin. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in der Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lange, Armin. “Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 2 (1995): 340–54. Lange, Armin, and Hermann Lichtenberger. “Qumran.” Pages 45–79 in vol. 28 of TRE. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. 36 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977–2004.

524

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie. “Does the Temple Scroll Date from the First or Second Century BCE?” Pages 91–97 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, ed. Qoumrân et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Cerf, 2000. Laplanche, François. L’écriture, le Sacré et L’histoire: Érudits et Politiques Protestants devant la Bible en France au XVIIe Siècle. Amsterdam: Holland University Press, 1986. Larsen, Erik, Lawrence Schiffman, and John Strugnell. “Text Mentioning Zedekiah.” Pages 235–44 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. LaSor, William S. Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1948–1957. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1958. Lattke, Michael. Einheit im Wort. SANT 41. Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1975. Lauterbach, Jacob Z., trans. and ed. Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, Tractate Pish9a. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: JPS, 1933. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. London: SCM Press, 1987. Layton, Bentley, and Thomas O. Lambdin. “The Gospel according to Thomas.” Pages 95–128 in Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons and Indexes. Vol. 1 of Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7. Edited by Bentley Layton. 2 vols. NHS 20. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Le Cornu, Hilary. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Acts. Jerusalem: Academon, 2003. Leaney, Åde R. “The Experience of God in Qumran and in Paul.” BJRL 51 (1969): 432–52. Leaney, Alfred R. C. “The Johannine Paraclete and the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 38–61 John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 38–61 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Leaney, Alfred R. C. The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Lee, Gale A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989. Lehmann, Manfred R. “The Beautiful War Bride (r)t tpy) and Other Halakhoth in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 265–71 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Lehmann, Manfred R. “A Re-interpretation of 4Q Dibrê ham-Me’oroth.” RevQ 5 (1964): 106–10. Lehne, Susanne. The New Covenant in Hebrews. JSNTSup 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976. Leipoldt, Johannes. Das Evangelium nach Thomas: Koptisch und deutsch. TU 101. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

525

Lemaire, André. “L’enseignement essénien et l’école de Qumrân.” Pages 191–203 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud. Leuven: Éditions Peeters, 1986. Lemke, Werner E. “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History.” HTR 58 (1965): 349–63. Leroy, Herbert. Rätsel und Missverständnis. BBB 30. Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1968. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. Levenson, Jon D. “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” HTR 68 (1975): 203–33. Lévêque, Jean. “Le portrait d’Élie dans l’éloge des Pères (Sir 48:1–11).” Pages 215–29 in Ce Dieu qui vient: Études sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occassion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire. Edited by Raymond Kuntzmann. LD 159. Paris: Cerf, 1984. Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levine, Baruch A. “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and Literary Character.” BASOR 232 (1978): 5–23. Lewis, Jack P. “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” JBR 32 (1964): 125–32. Licht, Jacob. J. “Legs as Signs of Election.” Tarbiz 35 (1966): 18–26. Licht, Jacob J. “Solomon, Odes of.” EncJud 15 (1971): 114–15. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Consolations [4Q176 = 4QTanh9].” Pages 329–49 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist: Reflections on Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist.” Pages 340–46 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Lichtenberger, Hermann. Studien zum Menschenbild in den Texten der Qumrangemeinde. SUNT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Täufergemeinden und frühchristliche Täuferpolitik im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts.” ZTK 84 (1987): 36–57. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day: A Sketch.” Pages 7–24 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Lichtenberger, Hermann, and Ekkehard Stegemann. “Zur Theologie des Bundes in Qumran und im Neuen Testament.” Kirche und Israel 6 (1991): 134–46. Lieberman, Saul. “Metatron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions.” Pages 235–41 in Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Edited by Ithamar Gruenwald. AGJU 14. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Lieberman, Saul. Sheki)in. Jerusalem: Bamberger, 1939.

526

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Lieberman, Stephen. “The Discipline in the So-Called Manual of Discipline.” JBL 71 (1952): 203. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Lim, Timothy H. “Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters.” Pages 280–92 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Lim, Timothy H. “Paul, Letters of.” Pages 638–41 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. CQS 3. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Lim, Timothy H. “Studying the Qumran Scrolls and Paul in Their Historical Context.” Pages 135–56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by James R. Davila. STDJ 46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Lim, Timothy H. “The Wicked Priests of the Groningen Hypothesis.” JBL 112 (1993): 415–25. Lim, Timothy H. et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Lind, Millard C. Yahweh Is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1980. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Repr., 1995. Lindars, Barnabas. John. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes. WMANT 53. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Lohse, Eduard. Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch. Mit Masoretischer Punktation. Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1964. Lohse, Eduard. Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch. Mit Masoretischer Punktation. Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen. Vol. 2. Edited by Annette Steudel. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1971. Lohse, Eduard. “Wie christlich ist die Offenbarung des Johannes?” NTS 34, no. 3 (1988): 321–38. Loisy, Alfred F. Le quatrième évangile. Paris: Picard, 1903. Long, Thomas G. Hebrews. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Longman, Tremper, III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Lührmann, Dieter. “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27–36/Mt 5,39–48).” ZTK 69 (1972): 412–38. Lührmann, Dieter. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle; Anhang: Zur weiteren Überlieferung der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Lupieri, Edmondo. Giovanni e Gesù: Storia di un antagonisms. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editori, 1991.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

527

Lupieri, Edmondo. “Halakhah qumranica e halakhah battistica di Giovanni: Due mondi a confronto.” RStB 9, no. 2 (1997): 69–98. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 2d ed. EKKNT 1.1. 4 vols. Zurich: Benzinger, 2002. Lyonnet, Stanislas. “De notione expiationis.” VD 37 (1959): 36–352. ET, “The Terminology of ‘Expiation’ in the Old Testament.” Pages 120–36 in Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice. Edited by Stanislas Lyonnet and Léopold Sabourin. AnBib 48. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Macintosh, Andrew A. Isaiah XXI: A Palimpsest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993. Mack, Burton L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988. Macky, Peter W. The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method of Interpreting the Bible. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1990. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Magness, Jodi. “The Chronology of the Settlement at Qumran in the Herodian Period.” DSD 2 (1995): 58–65. Repr., pages 41–48, in Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 4; Leuven: Peeters, 2004). Maier, Hans. Die christliche Zeitrechnung. Freiburg: Herder, 1991. Maier, Johann. “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 23–62 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Maier, Johann. “Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Literature.” Pages 108–29 in From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 1 Antiquity. Vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Maier, Johann. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. Franz-Delitzsch Vorlesung, 1995. Münster: Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 1996. Maier, Johann. “Messias oder Gesalbter? Zu einem Übersetzungs—und Deutungsproblem in den Qumrantexten.” RevQ 17 (1996): 585–612. Maier, Johann. “Shîrê (ôlat hash-Shabbat. Some Observations on their Calendric Implications and on their Style.” Pages 543–60 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Maier, Johann, ed. and trans. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. JSOTSup 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Trans. of Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer. München: Reinhardt, 1978. Maier, Johann. “The Temple Scroll and Tendencies in the Cultic Architecture of the Second Commonwealth.” Pages 67–82 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by

528

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Maier, Johann. Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das “Neue Jerusalem.” Munich: UniTaschenbücher, 1987. Maier, Johann. “Zum Begriff dxyh in den Texten von Qumran.” Pages 225–48 in Qumran. Edited by Karl-Erich Grözinger. Wege der Forschung 410. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Maier, Johann, and Kurt Schubert. Die Qumran-Essener: Texte der Schriftrollen und Lebensbild der Gemeinde. Uni-Taschenbücher 224. Munich: Reinhardt, 1973. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Magic, Science and Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1948. Manson, Thomas W. “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” BJRL 32 (1949): 109–34. Mansoor, Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. STDJ 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961. Mantovani, Piera Arata. “La stratificazione letteraria della Regola della Comunità di Qumran: a proposito di uno studio recente.” Hen 5 (1983): 69–91. Manzi, Franco. Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’ Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran. Rome: Pontificio Ist. Biblico, 1997. Manzi, Franco. “Il Peccato, la sua universalità e le sue origini negli scritti qumranici.” ScC 126 (1998): 371–405. Marcus, Joel. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. SBLDS 90. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Margalioth, Rachel. Mal’ake ‘Elyon. Jerusalem: Keter, 1945. Marincola, John. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Markovich, Miroslav. “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas.” JTS 20(1969): 53–74. Marshall, Gordon. In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism: An Essay on Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic Thesis. New York: Columbis University Press; London: Hutchinson, 1982. Marshall, John W. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Cynic Jesus.” Pages 37–60 in Whose Historical Jesus? Edited by William E. Arnal and Michel R. Desjardins. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme 7. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997. Marshall, John W. Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse. Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Martin, François et al. Le Livre d’Hénoch: Traduit sur le Texte Éthiopien. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906. Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bibliothèque du Muséon 44–45. 2 vols. Louvain: University of Louvain, 1958. Martyn, J. Louis. “Glimpses in the History of the Johannine Christianity.” Pages 90–121 in The Gospel of John in Christian History. New York: Paulist, 1979. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. Repr., 2003. Marx, Alfred. “Y a-t-il une prédestination à Qumran?” RevQ 6 (1967): 163–81.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

529

Mattingly, David J. “Oil for Export? A Comparison of Lybian, Spanish and Tunisian Olive Oil Production in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 1 (1988): 33–56. May, Herbert G. “Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery.” JBL 82 (1963): 1–14. Mazor, Lea. “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua.” BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29–38. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr., A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Old Testament Text Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. McDonald, Hugh D. The Atonement of the Death of Christ: In Faith, Revelation, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. McLean, Bradley H. “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q.” Pages 321–45 in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ronald A. Piper. NovTSup 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Mearns, Christopher L. “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch.” NTS 25 (1979): 360–69. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Meeks, Wayne A. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72. Meeks, Wayne A. The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1986. Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001. Meiser, Martin. “Gattung, Adressaten und Intention von Philos ‘In Flaccum’.” JSJ 30 (1999): 418–30. Mell, Ulrich. Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie. BZNW 56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Mendels, Doron. “‘Creative History’: The Jewish Case.” JSP 2 (1988): 13–20. Mendels, Doron. “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‘patrios politeia.’” ZAW 95 (1983): 96–110. Mendels, Doron. “A Note on the Tradition of Antiochus IV’s Death.” IEJ 34 (1981): 53–56. Mendels, Doron. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology. JSNTSup 54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

530

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Mercer, Calvin R. Norman Perrin’s Interpretation of the New Testament: From “Exegetical Method” to “Hermeneutical Process.” StABH 2. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. Merrill, Eugene H. Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. STDJ 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Mertens, Alfred. Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer. SBM 12. Stuttgart: Echter KBW, 1971. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, NY: Amphora, 1982. Messel, Nils. Der Menschensohn in den Bilderreden des Henoch. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1922. Metso, Sarianna. “Constitutional Rules at Qumran.” Pages 186–210 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint, and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Metso, Sarianna. “The Primary Results of the Reconstruction of 4QSe.” LLS 44 (1993): 303–8. Metso, Sarianna. “Qumran Community Structure and Terminology as Theological Statement.” RevQ 20 (2002): 429–44. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Metzger, Bruce M., and Roland E. Murphy, eds. New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. 2d ed. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Meyer, Marvin W., and Harold Bloom. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. Meyer, Rudolf. “Bemerkungen zum literargeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Kanontheorie des Josephus.” Pages 285–99 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem Antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag Gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz, Klaus Haaker, and Martin Hengel. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1974. Meyer, Rudolf. “Himmelfahrt und Martyrium des Jesaja.” Cols. 336–37 in vol. 3 of RGG, 3d ed. Edited by Kurt Galling et al. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–65. Michaelis, Wilhelm. “leuko&v, leukai&nw.” Pages 241–50 in vol. 4 of TDNT. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Michel, Otto. Paulus und seine Bibel. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1929. Migne, Jacques-Paul. Dictionnaire des Apocryphes. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1856: 393–513. Milgrom, Jacob. “First Day Ablutions in Qumran.” Pages 561–70 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Milgrom, Jacob. “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2 (4Q174 = 4QFlor).” Pages 248–63 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls:

B IBLIOGRAPHY

531

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milgrom, Jacob. “The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles.” Pages 165–80 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Milgrom, Jacob, and Lidija Novakovic. “Catena A (4Q177 = 4QCata).” Pages 287–303 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 6B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Milik, Jozef T. “1. Deutéronome.” Page 171 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Milik, Jozef T. “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origene.” RB 79 (1972): 77–97. Milik, Jozef T. “Annexes à la règle de la communauté.” Pages 107–18 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Milik, Jozef T. “Daniel et Susanne à Qumran?” Pages 355–59 in De la Tôrah du Messie: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique biblique offertes à Henri Cazelles. Edited by Maurice Carrez et al. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Milik. Jozef T. “Description de la Jérusalem Nouvelle.” Pages 184–89 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Milik, Jozef T. “‘Dires de Moïse.’” Pages 91–97 in Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. Dix ans de découvertes dans le Désert de Juda. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1957. Milik, Jozef T. “Livre des Jubilés.” Pages 82–84 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “‘Livre de Noé.’” Pages 84–86, 152 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “Livres Apocryphes.” Pages 82–106 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resa: dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 95–144. Milik, Jozef T. “Les modèles araméens du Livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân.” RevQ 15 (1992): 385–87. Milik, Jozef T. “La patrie de Tobie.” RB 73 (1966): 522–30.

532

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Milik, Jozef T. “Phylactères A–U (128–48).” Pages 38–80 in Qumrân grotte 4.II (4Q128–4Q157), I: Archaeologie; II: Tefillin Mezuzot et Targums. Edited by Roland de Vaux and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 6. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Milik, Jozef T. “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments araméens de Qumrân 4.” RB 63 (1956): 407–15. Milik, Jozef T. “Recueil des bénédictions.” Page 129 in Qumran Cave I. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “Recueil de prières liturgiques (1Q34bis).” Pages 136, 152–55 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la Grotte 3Q (3Q15).” Pages 201–302 in Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Milik, Jozef T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by John Strugnell. London: SCM Press; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1959. Milik, Jozef T. “Testament de Lévi.” Pages 87–91 in Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1, Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Milik, Jozef T. “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumran.” RB 63 (1956): 60. Milik, Jozef T. “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des géants juif et manichéen.” Pages 117–27 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Edited by Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Milik, Jozef T. et al. “New Jerusalem.” Pages 38–75 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Milik, Jozef T., with Matthew Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Milik, Jozef T., and Edward M. Cook. “4QEnastrc–d ar (4Q210–211).” Pages 538–542 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Milik, Jozef T., and Edward M. Cook. “Book of Watchers.” Pages 454–71 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Milik, Jozef T., and Edward M. Cook. “Letter of Enoch.” Pages 544–63 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Milik, Jozef T., and James C. VanderKam. “4QText with a Citation of Jubilees.” Pages 177–85 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Miller, Patrick D. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Miller, Patrick D. “The Ruler in Zion and the Hope of the Poor: Psalms 9–10 in the Context of the Psalter.” Page 187 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts. Edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

533

Miller, Patrick D. “Sacrifice and Offering in Ancient Israel.” Pages 106–30 in The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: SPCK, 2000. Molé, Marijan. “Culte, mythe et cosmologie de l’Iran ancien: Le problème zoroastrien et la tradition mazdéenne.” Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque Nationale—Paris 69 (1963): 323–28. Moloney, Francis J. “The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History.” NTS 46 (2000): 42–58. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. AB 44; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Moore, Carey A. Tobit. AB 40A. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–1930. Morag, Shelomo. “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” VT 38 (1988): 148–64. Morgan, Robert. Romans. NTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Morisada Rietz, Henry W. “Collapsing of the Heavens and the Earth: Conceptions of time in the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000. Morisada Rietz, Henry W. “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, a case study.” Qumran Studies. Edited by Michael. T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Morisada Rietz, Henry W. “Synchronizing Worship: Jubilees as a Tradition for the Qumran Community.” Pages 111–18 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Morisada Rietz, Henry W. Time in the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale, 1955. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Morrow, Francis James, Jr. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1973. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Translated by George W. Anderson. New York: Abingdon, 1956. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 vols. Translated by David R. Ap-Thomas. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. JSNTSup 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Mueller, James R. “The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts.” RevQ 10 (1980): 247–56. Müller, Christoph G. Gottes Pflanzung, Gottes Bau, Gottes Tempel: Die metaphorische Dimension paulinischer Gemeindetheologie in 1 Kor 3,5–17. Fuldaer Studien 5. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1995. Murphy, Catherine. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community. STDJ 40. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The Essenes and Their History.” RB 81 (1974): 215–44.

534

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “La genèse littéraire de la règle de la communauté.” RB 86 (1979): 528–49. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document XIX,33–XX,34.” RB 79 (1972): 544–64. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The New Covenant in the Letters of Paul and the Essene Documents.” Pages 194–204 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: His Story. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Philo and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1.” RB 95 (1988): 55–69. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Qumran and the New Testament.” Pages 55–71 in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Eldon J. Epp and George W. MacRae. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Teacher of Righteousness.” Pages 340–41 in vol. 6 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, and James H. Charlesworth, eds. Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Murtonen, A “The Figure of Metatron.” VT 3 (1953): 409–11. Nagel, Peter. “‘Vierundzwanzig Propheten sprachen in Israel’ (EvThom 52): Prophetenbild und Prophetenerwartung im Judenchristentum und im Thomasevangelium.” Pages 47–62 in Auch ein Licht durchbricht die Finsternis: Gelehrsamkeit, Wissenschaftsopposition, Universalismus; Karam Khella zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Detlev Quintern. Hamburg: Theorie-und-Praxis Verlag, 1999. Nagel, Titus. “Zur Gnostisierung der johanneischen Tradition: Das ‘geheime Evangelium nach Johannes’ (Apokryphon Johannis) als gnostische Zusatzoffenbarung zum Evangelium.” Pages 675–94 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien. Edited by Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle. WUNT 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Nagel, Titus. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 2. Halle: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. Nauck, Wolfgang. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefs. WUNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Neher, André. “The View of Time and History in Jewish Culture.” Pages 149–67 in Cultures and Time. Paris: Unesco Press, 1976. Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics.” Pages 73–106 in L’Évangile de Jean. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. BETL 44. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977. Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics, 1975–1990.” Pages 3–62 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries.” Pages 601–15 in Evangelica III, 1992–2000: Collected Essays. BETL 150. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Nelson, Richard D. Joshua. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

535

Nemoy, Leon. “Al-Qirqisa4n|4’s Account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity.” HUCA 7 (1930): 317–97. Neubauer, Adolf. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters. Translated by S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer. 2 vols. New York: KTAV, 1969. Neugebauer, Otto E. “The Astronomical Chapters of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (chs. 72–82).” Pages 387–88 in The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. Edited by Matthew Black. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. New York: KTAV, 1979. Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 22 vols. SJLA 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974–77. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scriptualization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Newsom, Carol A. “Admonition on the Flood.” Pages 85–97 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Newsom, Carol A. “Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–4Q407, 11Q17, Masada ShirShabb).” Pages 1–137 in Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, and Carol A. Newsom. Vol. 4B in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 4B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Newsom, Carol A. et al. “Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–4Q407, 11Q17, Mas1k).” Pages 1–189 in Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 4B of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 4B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Newsom, Carol A. “Apocryphon of Joshua.” Pages 237–88 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Newsom, Carol A. “The Case of the Blinking I: Discourse of the Self at Qumran.” Pages 13–23 in Discursive Formations, Ascetic Piety and the Interpretation of Early Christian Literature. Edited by Vincent L. Wimbush. Semeia 57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Newsom, Carol A. “Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” Pages 99–110 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Newsom, Carol A. “‘He Has Established for Himself Priests’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot.” Pages 101–20 in Archaeology and

536

B IBLIOGRAPHY

History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Newsom, Carol A. “Knowing and Doing: The Social Symbolics of Knowledge at Qumran.” Semeia 59 (1992): 139–53. Newsom, Carol A. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in vol. 1 of The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William H. Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David N. Freedman. BJSUCSD 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Newsom, Carol A. “Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William H. Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David N. Freedman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STJD 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Newsom, Carol A. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Newsom, Carol A., and Yigael Yadin. “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (MasShirShabb).” Pages 120–32 in Masada VI, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Jerusalem: IEJ, 1999. Newton, Michael. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. SNTSMS 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Neyrey, Jerome H. An Ideology of Revolt. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1 (on chs. 1–36, 81–108). Vol. 1 of 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins: The State of the Question and Some Prospects for Answers.” Pages 341–60 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1986. Edited by Kent Richards. SBLSP 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Page 89–156 in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Volume 2, Part 2. Section 2 of Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2/2. Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Enoch, First Book of.” Pages 508–16 in vol. 2 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Epistle of Enoch and Qumran Literature.” JJS 33 (1982): 333–48. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Epistle of Enoch and the Qumran Literature.” JJS 33 (1982): 333–48. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Review of J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. CBQ 40 (1978): 411–19.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

537

Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Salvation without and with a Messiah: Developing Beliefs in Writings Ascribed to Enoch.” Pages 49–68 in Judaisms and their Messiahs. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Simon—A Priest with a Reputation for Faithfulness.” BASOR 223 (1976): 67–68. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. Vanderkam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. “4Q 521,2 II—Ein Eschatologischer Psalm.” Pages 151–68 in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Aleksy Klawek. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Kraków-Zakrzówek, Poland, 1995). Qumranica Mogilanensia 15. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1998. Nitzan, Bilha. Megilat Pesher Habakkuk: Mi-megilot Midbar Yehudah. Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1986 (Hebrew). Nitzan, Bilha. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. STDJ 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Noll, Stephen F. “Qumran and Paul.” Pages 777–83 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Nötscher, Friedrich. Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran Texte. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1956. O’Connor, Jerome Murphy. “La génèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76 (1969): 528–49. O’Dell, Jerry. “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon (Re-evaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts).” RevQ 3 (1961): 241–57. O’Neill, John C. “What is Joseph and Aseneth About?” Hen 16 (1994): 194. Obermann, Andreas. Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate. WUNT Second Series 83. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Odeberg, Hugo. “I)eza&bel.” Pages 217–18 in vol. 3 of TDNT. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Odeberg, Hugo. 3 Enoch; or the Hebrew Book of Enoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928. Oegema, Gerbern S. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba. JSPSup 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Oegema, Gerbern S. Apokalypsen. JSHRZ 6.1.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Oegema, Gerbern S. Das Heil ist aus den Juden: Studien zum historischen Jesus und seiner Rezeption im Urchristentum. Theos 50. Hamburg: Kovac], 2001. Oegema, Gerbern S. “Messianic Expectations in the Qumran Writings: Theses on their Development.” Pages 53–82 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

538

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Oegema, Gerbern S. “Tradition-Historical Studies on 4Q252.” Pages 165–85 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1998. Oegema, Gerbern S. Unterweisung in erzählender Form. JSHRZ 6/1.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2004. Oegema, Gerbern S. Zwischen Hoffnung und Gericht: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Apokalyptik im frühen Christentum und Judentum. WMANT 82. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Öhler, Markus. Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im frühen Christentum. BZNW 88. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Olson, Dennis T. Numbers. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Olyan, Saul M. “ParaKings et al.” Pages 363–416 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Olyan, Saul M. “Why an Altar of Unfinished Stones? Some Thoughts on Ex. 20, 25 and Deut. 27:5–6.” ZAW 108 (1996): 1161–71. Onuki, Takashi. Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismus.” WMANT 56. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Onuki, Takashi. “Traditionsgeschichte von Thomasevangelium 17 und ihre christologische Relevanz.” Pages 399–415 in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Henning Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach.” VTSup 7 (1959): 184–92. Orlinksy, Harry M. “Prolegomenon: The Masoretic Text: A Critical Evaluation.” Page xviii in Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Christian D. Ginsburg. New York: KTAV, 1966. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament.” Pages 287–96 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by George Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. Otzen, Benedikt. “Die neugefundenen hebräischen Sektenschriften und die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen.” ST 7 (1954): 135–36. Owen, Elizabeth. “4QDeutn: A Pre-Samaritan Text?” DSD 4 (1997): 162–78. Paesler, Kurt. Das Tempelwort Jesu: Die Tradition von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament. FRLANT 184. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Pagels, Elaine H. Das Geheimnis des fünften Evangeliums: Warum die Bibel nur die halbe Wahrheit sagt. Translated by Kurt Neff. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004. Painter, John. The Quest for the Messiah. 2d ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

539

Painter, John. “The Quotation of Scripture and Unbelief in John 12.36b–43.” Pages 429–58 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Palache, Jehuda L. Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Pamplaniyil, Joseph. “The Beloved Disciple and Thomas: The Literary Didymoi of the Fourth Gospel.” Vid 68, no. 8 (2004): 560–78. Pardee, Dennis. “A Restudy of the Commentary on Psalm 37 from Qumran Cave 4.” RevQ 8 (1972–75): 163–94. Parker, David C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Parker, David C. “Was Matthew Written before 50 C.E.? The Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew.” ExpTim 107 (1996): 40–43. Parry, Donald W. et al. “New Technological Advances: DNA, Electronic Databases, Imaging Radar.” Pages 496–515 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. Exegetical Texts. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. Parry, Donald W., and Emmanuel Tov. Parabiblical Texts. Vol. 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Parry, Donald W., and Eugene C. Ulrich, eds. The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Parsons, Mikeal C. “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews.” EvQ 60 (1988): 195–216. Pate, C. Marvin. Communities of the Last Days: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament and the Story of Israel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Pate, C. Marvin. The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom and the Law. WUNT Second Series 144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Patrich, Joseph, and Benny Arubas. “A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil [?] from a Cave Near Qumran.” IEJ 39 (1989): 43–59. Patterson, Stephen J. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. FF Reference Series. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1993. Patterson, Stephen J. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition: A Forschungsbericht and Critique.” Foundation and Facets Forum 8, nos. 1–2 (1992): 45–97. Patterson, Stephen J. “Wisdom in Q and Thomas.” Pages 187–221 in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard B. Scott, and William J. Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Paul, André. Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte: La voix des esséniens retrouvés. Paris: Bayard, 1997. Pearson, Birger A. “Melchizedek.” Pages 19–85 in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. Edited by Birger A. Pearson. NHS 15. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

540

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Penner, Ken. “Realized and Future Salvation in the Hodayot.” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (2002). No pages. Cited 15 September 2004. Online: http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org. Penner, Todd C. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Emory studies in Early Christianity. New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Perkins, Pheme. “Apocalyptic Sectarianism and Love Commands: The Johannine Epistles and Revelation.” Pages 287–96 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. Studies in Peace and Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Perrin, Norman. “Eschatology and Hermeneutics: Reflections on Method in the Interpretation of the New Testament.” JBL 93 (March 1974): 3–14. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Perrin, Norman. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Peters, Norbert. Die jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebärische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1902. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1984. Petersen, Silke, and Hans-Gebhard Bethge. “Der Dialog des Erlösers (NHC III,5).” Pages 381–97 in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Edited by Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. GCS NS 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews.” SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pfann, Stephen. “4Q298: The Maskîl’s Address to All Sons of Dawn.” JQR 85 (1994): 213. Pfann, Stephen J. “4QDanield (4Q115): A Preliminary Edition with Critical Notes.” RevQ 17, no. 65 (1996): 37–71. Pfann, Stephen J. “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance.” Pages 337–52 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Philolenko, Marc. “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux Esprits: Ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique.” Pages 163–211 in Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien. Edited by Geo Widengren, Anders Hultgard, and Marc Philolenko. Recherches Intertestamentaires 2. Paris: Andrien Maisonneuve, 1995. Philonenko, Marc. “Essénisme et gnose chez le Pseudo-Philon: Le symbolisme de la lumière dans le Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 401–10 in Le Origini dello Gnosticismo. Edited by Ugo Bianchi. SHR 12. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Philonenko, Marc. Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qoumrân. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1960. Philonenko, Marc. “Joseph und Asenath,” Pages 889–90 in vol. 2 of Biblischhistorisches Handwörterbuch: Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur, Literatur.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

541

Edited by Bo Reicke and Leonhard Rost. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Philonenko, Marc. Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, text critique, traduction et notes. StPB 13. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Philonenko, Marc. “Le Martyre d’Ésaïe et l’histoire de la secte de Qoumrân.” Pages 1–10 in Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament et manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Edited by Marc Philonenko et al. Cahiers de la RHPR 41. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967. Philonenko, Marc. “Un paraphrase du cantique d’Anne.” RHPR 42 (1962): 157–68. Philonenko, Marc. “Remarques sur un hymne essénien de caractère gnostique.” Sem 11 (1961): 43–54. Philonenko, Marc. “Le Testament de Job et les Thérapeutes.” Sem 8 (1958): 41–53. Philonenko, Marc. “Le Testament de Job: Introduction, traduction et notes.” Sem 18 (1968): 21–24. Philonenko, Marc, and André Caquot. “Introduction générale.” Pages lxxxviii–xci in La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires. Edited by André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko. Paris Gallimard, 1987. Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Plümacher, Eckhard. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. SUNT 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Poirier, Paul-Hubert. “The Writings Ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition.” Pages 295–307 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Polak, Frank M. “The Covenant of Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari.” Pages 119–34 in The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Edited by Sefer Moshe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Politis, Konstantinos D. “Rescue Excavations in the Nabataean Cemetery at Khirbat Qazone 1996–1997.” ADAJ 42 (1998): 611–14. Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Popkes, Enno E. “‘Ich bin das Licht’—Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik.” Pages 641–74 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Religionsund traditionsgeschichtliche Studien. Edited by Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle. WUNT 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Popkes, Enno E. Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Studien zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus. WUNT Second Series 197. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Popkes, Enno E. “Die Umdeutung des Todes Jesu im koptischen Thomasevangelium.” Pages 513–43 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Popkes, Enno E. “Von der Eschatologie zur Protologie: Die Transformation apokalyptischer Motive im Thomasevangelium.” Pages 213–35 in Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie. Edited by Michael Becker and

542

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Marcus Öhler. WUNT Second Series. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Portier-Young, Anathea. “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb.” JSP, forthcoming. Porton, Gary G. “Sadducees.” Pages 892–95 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Pouilly, Jean. La Règle de la Communauté de Qumrân: Son évolution littéraire. Paris: Gabalda, 1976. Pratscher, Wilhelm. Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition. FRLANT 139. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Price, James L. “Light from Qumran upon Some Aspects of Johannine Theology.” Pages 9–37 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 9–37 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Priest, John F. “Mebaqqer, Paqid, and the Messiah.” JBL 81 (1962): 55–61. Prigent, Pierre. “Psaumes de Salomon.” Pages 945–92 in La Bible: Ecrits Intertestamentaires. Edited by Andre Dupont-Sommer, Marc Philonenko, and Daniel A. Bertrand. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 337. Paris: Gallimard, 1987. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Puech, Émile. “4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar).” Pages 74–75 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Puech, Émile. “4QApocalypse messianique.” Pages 1–38 in Qumran Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hebreux (4Q521–4Q578). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Puech, Émile. “4QRouleau du Temple.” Pages 85–114 in Qumran Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hebreux (4Q521–4Q578). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Puech, Émile. “A propos de la Jérusalem Nouvelle d’après les manuscrits de la mer Morte.” Sem 43–44 (1996): 87–102. Puech, Émile. “Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521).” RevQ 15 (1992): 475–519. Puech, Émile. “Apocryphe de Daniel.” Pages 165–84 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Puech, Émile. “Apocryphe de Levi.” Pages 213–56 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Apropos de la Jérusalem Nouvelle d’apres les manuscripts de la Mer Morte.” Sem 43–44 (1995): 87–102. Puech, Émile. “Ben Sira 48:11 et la résurrection.” Pages 81–90 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. Lanham: New York, 1990.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

543

Puech, Émile. “Ben Sira et Qumrân.” Forthcoming in Il Libro del Siracide: Tradizione, Redazione, Teologia, IV Convegno di Studi Biblici, Palermo 2–3 Áprile 2004. Edited by Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. Studia Biblica 2. Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, forthcoming. Puech, Émile. “La conception de la vie future dans le livre de la Sagesse et les manuscripts de la mer Morte: un aperçu.” RevQ 82 (2003): 209–32. Puech, Émile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien. Ebib 21–22. Paris: Gabalda 1993. Puech, Émile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. Puech, Émile. “La croyance à la résurrection des justes un text de sagesse: 4Q418 69 ii.” Pages 427–44 in Sefer Moshe, The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Einsenbrauns, 2004. Puech, Émile. “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu.’” RB 99 (1992): 98–131. Puech, Émile. “Hodayot.” Pages 365–69 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Puech, Émile. “Les identités en présence dans les scènes du jugement dernier de 4QInstruction (4Q416 1 et 4Q418 69 ii).” (ET: “The Identities Present at the Scenes of the Last Judgment of 4QInstruction (4Q416 1 and 4Q418 69 ii)”). Forthcoming in Proceedings of IOQS Vth Meeting, Groningen 27–28 July, 2004. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Puech, Émile. “L’image de l’arbre en 4Q Deutéro-Ézéchiel (4Q385 2 9–10).” RevQ 16 (1994): 429–40. Puech, Émile. “Il Libro della Sapienza ei Manoscritti del Mar Morto: un Primo Approcio.” Pages 131–55 in Il Libro della Sapienza: Tradizione, Redazione, Teologia. Edited by Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. StudBib 1. Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 2004. Puech, Émile. “Livre des Geants.” Pages 9–115 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology at Qumran and in the New Testament.” Pages 235–56 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Puech, Émile. “Naissance de Noe.” Pages 117–70 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “The Necropolises of Khirbet Qumrân and of Ain el-Guweir, and the Essene Belief in Afterlife.” BASOR 312 (1998): 21–36. Puech, Émile. “Notes sur le manuscrit de 11QMelkîsédeq.” RevQ 12 (1987): 483–513. Puech, Émile. “Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit 7Q4 = Henoch 103 et 105.” RB 103 (1996): 592–600.

544

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Puech, Émile. “Une nouvelle copie du Livre des Jubilés: 4Q484=pap4QJubilésj.” RevQ 19 (1999): 261–264. Puech, Émile. “Paroles de Michel.” Pages 1–8 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Sept fragments grec de la lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (7QHéngr).” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23. Puech, Émile. “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism.” Pages 545–65 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Puech, Émile. “Testament de Jacob.” Pages 171–90 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Testament de Joseph.” Pages 201–11 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Testament de Juda.” Pages 191–99 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Testament de Qahat.” Pages 257–82 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile. “Visions de Amram.” Pages 283–405 in Qumran Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Arameens, Premiere Partie (4Q529–549). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Puech, Émile, and Edward M. Cook. “4QapocrDan ar.” Pages 74–75 in Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Part 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Pulikottil, Paulson. Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa. JSPSup 34. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Pursiful, Darrell J. The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of Hebrews. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1993. Qimron, Elisha. “Additional Textual Observations on 4QMMT.” Pages 201–2 in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah. Edited by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Qimron, Elisha. “Concerning ‘Joshua Cycle’ from Qumran (4Q522).” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 503–8 (Hebrew). Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Qimron, Elisha. “Miqs[at Ma(ase HaTorah.” Pages 843–45 in vol. 4 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Qimron, Elisha. The Temple Scroll. A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press; Jerusalem: IES, 1996. Quispel, Gilles. “‘The Gospel of Thomas’ and the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’” NTS 12 (1965/66): 371–82. Quispel, Gilles. Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

545

Quispel, Gilles. “Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity.” Pages 137–55 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Repr., pages 137–55 in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Rabin, Chaim. Qumran Studies. Scripta Judaica 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957. Rabin, Chaim, ed. and trans. The Zadokite Documents. 2d rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Rad, Gerhard von. Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel. 3d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Rad, Gerhard von. “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh.” JSS 4 (1959): 97–108. Rahner, Johanna. “Missverstehen um zu verstehen: Zur Funktion der Missverständniss im Johannesevangelium.” BZ (NF) 43, no. 2 (1999): 212–19. Rainbow, Paul A. “The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness.” JJS 48 (1997): 30–52. Räisänen, Heikki. The “Messianic Secret” in Mark’s Gospel. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990. Translation of Das ‘Messiasgeheimnis’ im Markusevangelium: Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch. Translated by Christopher Tuckett. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1976. Räisänen, Heikki. “Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research.” Pages 178–206 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Räisänen, Heikki. “Paul’s and Qumran’s Judaism.” Pages 111–39 in Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays 1991–2000. BIS 59. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Rapa, Robert K. The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans. Studies in Biblical Literature 31. New York: Lang, 2001. Rawlinson, Alfred E. J. St. Mark. 6th ed. London: Methuen, 1947. Reddish, Mitchell G. Apocalyptic Literature. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990. Reeves, John C. “The Meaning of Moreh S9edeq in the Light of 11Q Torah.” RevQ 13 (1988): 287–98. Reeves, John C. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Tradition. HUCM 14. Cincinnati: HUCA, 1992. Reich, Ronny. “Miqwa)ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection.” Pages 728–31 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Reicke, Bo. “Nytt ljus över Johannes döparens förkunnelse.” Religion och Bibel 11 (1952): 5–18. Reif, Stefan C. “Dedicated to h9nk.” VT 22 (1972): 495–501. Reim, Günter. “Zur Lokalisierung der johanneischen Gemeinde.” BZ 32 (1988): 72–86.

546

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Reinmuth, Eckart. Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanische Doppelwerks. WUNT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Riaud, Jean. “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetiae: His Originality. His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (9.10–32).” JSP 22 (2000): 31–44. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Translation of Evangelie naar Johannes. Kampen, Netherlands: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1987. Riesner, Rainer. Essener und Urgemeinde in Jerusalem: Neue Funde und Quellen. 2d ed. Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 6. Giessen: Brunnen, 1998. Riesner, Rainer. “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem.” Pages 198–234 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Riesner, Rainer. “Rückfrage nach Jesus.” TBei 30 (1999): 328–41. Riessler, Paul. Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bible. Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1928. Repr., Heidelberg: Kerle, 1966. Riessler, Paul. “Joseph und Asenath: Eine altjüdische Erzählung.” TQ 103 (1922): 1–22, 145–83 Rietz, Henry W. Morisada. “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, a Case Study.” In Qumran Studies. Edited by Michael T. Davis and Bruce A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Riley, Gregory J. “The Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship.” CurBS 2 (1994): 227–52. Riley, Gregory J. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963. Rev. and expanded ed. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Crossroad Christian Origins Library. New York: Crossroad, 1995. Rissi, Mathias. Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser. WUNT 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Roberts, J. J. M. “Double Entendre in First Isaiah.” CBQ 54 (1992): 39–48. Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah 2 and the Prophet’s Message to the North.” JQR 75 (1985): 301–2. Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah and His Children.” Pages 193–203 in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations.” Pages 39–51 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Roberts, J. J. M. “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa 28,16).” JBL 106 (1987): 27–45. Robinson, James M. “The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices.” BA 42 (1979): 206–24.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

547

Robinson, James M. “Die johanneische Entwicklungslinie.” Pages 216–50 in Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums. Edited by James M. Robinson and Helmut Köster. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Robinson, James M. “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa).” Pages 127–75 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenburg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Robinson, John A. T. “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community: Testing a Hypothesis.” HTR 50 (1957): 175–91. Repr., pages 11–27 in Twelve New Testament Studies. SBT 14. London: SCM Press; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1962. Rofé, Alexander. “4QMidrash Samuel?—Observations Concerning the Character of 4QSama.” Textus 19 (1998): 63–74. Rofé, Alexander. “The Acts of Nahash according to 4QSama.” IEJ 32 (1982): 129–33. Rofé, Alexander. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha.” Pages 73–80 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Rofé, Alexander. “Fragments from an additional Manuscript of the Book of Jubilees in Cave 3 of Qumran.” Tarbiz 34 (1965): 333–36 (Hebrew). Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to Deuteronomy. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1986. Rofé, Alexander. “The Onset of Sects in Judaism: Neglected Evidence from the Septuagint, Trito—Isaiah, Ben Sira and Malachi.” Pages 39–49 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Röhser, Günter. “Prädestination: I. Biblisch.” Cols. 1524–26 in vol. 6 of RGG, 4th ed. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz et al. 8 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Röhser, Günter. Prädestination und Verstockung: Untersuchungen zur frühjüdischen, paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie. TANZ 14. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. Roloff, Jürgen. “Der johanneische ‘Lieblingsjünger’ und der ‘Lehrer der Gerechligkeit.’” NTS 15 (1968–69): 129–51. Roo, Jacqueline C. R. de. “The Concept of ‘Works of the Law’ in Jewish and Christian Literature.” Pages 116–47 in Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. R. Pearson. JSNTS 192. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rosen, Debra, and Alison Salvensen. “A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll 56.15–18 and Psalm of Solomon 17.33.” JJS 38 (1987): 98–101. Rost, Leonhard. Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon: An Introduction to the Documents. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Rostovtzeff, Michael I. “Syria and the East.” Pages 155–96 in The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome. Edited by Stanley A. Cook, Frank E. Adcock, and Martin P. Charlesworth. Vol. 7 of CAH. 1st ed. Edited by John B. Bury et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954.

548

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Roth, Cecil et al., eds. Encyclopedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Encyclopedia Judaica; New York: Macmillan, 1972. Rowley, Harold H. “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect.” Pages 218–29 in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893–1958. Edited by Angus J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. Rowley, Harold H. Jewish Apocalyptic and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Athlone, 1957. Rowley, Harold H. “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BJRL 40 (1957): 114–46. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. “Zur Antithese Idiolekt-Soziolekt im johanneischen Schrifttum.” Pages 219–64 in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu, I.” SNTU [Linz] 10 (1985): 27–61. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu, II.” SNTU [Linz] 11 (1986): 97–129. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. “Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte.” Pages 355–95 in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien. SBAB 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Ruckstuhl, Eugen, and Peter Dschulnigg. Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium. NTOA 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Ryle, Herbert E. The Canon of the Old Testament. London: Macmillan, 1892. Ryle, Herbert E., and Montague R. James. “Yalmoi\ Solomw=ntoj”: Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Sacchi, Paolo. Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento. 5 vols. Volumes 1–2 published in Classici delle religioni 38/2. Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 1981–1989. Volumes 3–5 published in Biblica, Testi e studi 5, 7–8. Brescia: Paideia editrice, 1997–2000. Sacchi, Paolo. “The Devil in Jewish Traditions of the Second Temple Period (c. 500 B.C.E.–100 C.E.).” Pages 211–32 in Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Edited by Paolo Sacchi. Translated by William J. Short. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Sacchi, Paolo. “Gesù davanti all’impuro e alla Legge.” Ricerche Storico-bibliche 11 (1999): 43–64. Sacchi, Paolo. “History of the Earliest Enochic Texts.” Pages 401–7 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Sacchi, Paolo. The History of the Second Temple Period. JSOTSup 285. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Sacchi, Paolo. History of the Second Temple Period. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Sacchi, Paolo. “Ideologia e varianti della tradizione ebraica: Deut 27,4 e Is 52,14.” Pages 13–32 in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60 Geburtstag. Edited by Helmut Merklein, Karlheinz Müller, and Günter Stemberger. Athenäums Monografien, Theologie 88. Frankfurt: Hain, 1993.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

549

Sacchi, Paolo. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Translated by William J. Short. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Sacchi, Paolo. “Il problema degli apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento.” Hen 21 (1999): 97–130. Sacchi, Paolo. “Qumran e Gesù.” RStB 9 (1997): 99–116. Sacchi, Paolo. “Qumran e la datazione del Libro delle Parabole di Enoc.” Hen 25 (2003): 149–66. Sacchi, Paolo. “Riflessioni sull’essenza dell’apocalittica: pecccato d’origine e libertà dell’uomo.” Hen 5 (1983): 31–61. Sacchi, Paolo. Storia del Secondo Tempio: Israele tra sesto secolo a.c. e primo secolo d.c. Turin: SEI, 1994. Saldarini, Anthony J. “Pharisees.” Pages 289–303 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC 32. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. Wisdom as Nourisher: A Study of an Old Testament Theme, Its Development Within Early Judaism, and Its Impact on Early Christianity. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Series A, Humaniora 64/3. Åbo: Åbo Akademie, 1986. Sanders, Edward P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York, London: Penguin, 1993. Sanders, Edward P. “How do We Know what We Know about Jesus?” Pages 38–61 in Jesus Two Thousand Years Later. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver. Faith and Scholarship Colloquies. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Sanders, Edward P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sanders, Edward P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Sanders, Edward P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. Sanders, Edward P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press, 1977. German translation: Paulus und das palästinische Judentum: Ein Vergleich zweier Religionsstrukturen. SUNT 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Sanders, Jack T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Sanders, James. A. “Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon.” USQR 32 (Fall 1976): 157–65. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Sanders, James A. “Canon as Dialogue.” Pages 7–26 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Tae Hun Kim. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Repr., pages 151–67 in Häresein: Religionshermeneutisch Studien zur Konstruktion von Norm und Abweichung. Edited by Irene Pieper, Michael Schimmelpfennig, and Joachim von Soosten. Reihe Kulte/Kulturen. Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag, 2003. Sanders, James A. “Canon, Hebrew Bible.” Pages 837–52 in vol. 1 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

550

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Sanders, James A. “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon.” McCQ 21 (1968): 1–15, 284–98. Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Sanders, James A. “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable.” Pages 245–71 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, in Memoriam. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis. New York: KTAV, 1974. Repr., pages 106–20 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Sanders, James. A. “Hermeneutics of Text Criticism.” Text 18 (1995): 1–16, 22–26. Sanders, James A. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” Pages 76–106 in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by Jacob Neusner. STLA 12. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Repr., pages 46–69 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Sanders, James A. “The Impact of the Scrolls on Biblical Studies.” Pages 47–57 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Sanders, James A. “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process.” Pages 252–63 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Sanders, James A. “Psalm 154 Revisited.” Pages 296–306 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel für Norbert Lohfink S.J. Edited by Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean E. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Sanders, James A. “The Qumran Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed.” Pages 79–99 in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. Edited by Matthew Black and William A. Smalley. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Sanders, James A. Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megilloth. No pages. Published online at Review of Biblical Literature, 29 May 2005. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4725&CodePage=4725. Sanders, James A. Review of Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Galen Marquis, eds. The Hebrew University Bible. The Book of Ezekiel. No pages. Published online at Review of Biblical Literature, 12 February 2005. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4662&CodePage=2965,4 662,4306,4169,4597,4144,2227,4502,4270,2030. Sanders, James A. Review of Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. DSD 6 (1999): 84–89. Sanders, James A. “Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times.” BTB 25 (1995): 56–63. Sanders, James. A. “Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon.” Pages 203–17 in Tradition of the text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano. OBO 109. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Sanders, James A. “The Stabilization of the Tanak.” Pages 235–52 in The Ancient Period. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

551

Sanders, James A. “The Task of Text Criticism.” Pages 315–27 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Sanders, James A. “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method.” JBL 98 (1979): 5–29. Sanders, James A. “Text and Canon: Old Testament and New.” Pages 373–94 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Études bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Edited by Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1981. Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sanders, James A. “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).” HTR 59 (1966): 83–94. Sanders, James A., and Astrid B. Beck. “The Leningrad Codex: Rediscovering the Oldest Complete Hebrew Bible.” BR 13, no. 4 (1997): 32–41, 46. Sanderson, Judith E. “4QExod d.” Pages 127–28 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Sanderson, Judith E. “4QEzek a.” Page 210 in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Sänger, Dieter. Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien: Religiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. WUNT Second Series 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Sänger, Dieter. “Bekehrung und Exodus: Zum jüdischen Traditionshintergrund von ‘Joseph und Aseneth.’” JSJ 10 (1979): 29–30. Sarason, Richard. “The ‘Intersections’ of Qumran and Rabbinic Judaism: The Case of Prayer Texts and Liturgies.” DSD (2001): 169–81. Scanlin, Harold P. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993. Schechter, Solomon. Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schein, Bruce E. Following the Way: The Setting of John’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Schein, Bruce E. “Our Father Abraham.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1972. Schenke, Hans-Martin. “Das Buch des Thomas (NHC II,7).” Pages 279–91 in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Edited by Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. GCS NS 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Schenke, Hans-Martin. “Einführung.” Pages 1–6 in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Edited by Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. GCS NS 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Schenke, Hans-Martin. “Das Evangelium nach Philippus (NHC II,3).” Pages 183–213 in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Edited by Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. GCS NS 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

552

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Schenke, Hans-Martin. “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism.” Pages 588–616 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Edited by Bentley Layton. SHR 41. New York: Brill, 1981. Schenke, Hans-Martin. Das Philippusevangelium: Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3. TU 143. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1997. Schenker, Adrian. “Eine Neuausgabe der Biblia Hebraica.” ZAH 9 (1996): 58–61. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Communal Meals at Qumran.” RevQ 10 (1979): 45–56. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early History of Jewish Liturgy.” Pages 33–48 in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987. Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation. SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary.” HAR 9 (1985): 315–17. Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Halakhah at Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Law, Custom and Messianism in the Dead Sea Sect. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for the History of Israel, 1993 (Hebrew). Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Merkavah Speculation at Qumran: The 4QSerekh Shirot (Olat ha-Shabbat.” Pages 15–47 in Mystics, Philosophers, and Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander Altmann. Edited by Jehuda Reiharz, Daniel Swetschinski, and Kalman P. Bland. Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5. Durham: Duke University Press, 1982. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 116–29 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Miqtsat Ma(asei Ha-Torah.” Pages 558–60 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Mysteries.” Pages 31–123 in Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1. Edited by Torleif Elgvin et al. DJD 20. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Ordinances and Rules.” Pages 145–75 in The Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. PTSDSSP 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts.” Page 82 in Reading 4QMMT. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Phylacteries and Mezuzot.” Pages 675–77 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 552–71 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Philadelphia: Jewish

B IBLIOGRAPHY

553

Publication Society, 1994. Repr. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Significance of the Scrolls for Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 160–68 in Archaeology and Society in the Twenty-First Century: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Cases. Edited by Neil A. Silberman and Ernest S. Frerichs. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code. BJS 33. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 239–55 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Temple Scroll in Literary and Philological Perspective.” Pages 143–58 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism II. Edited by William S. Green. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Schlatter, Adolf von. Johannes der Täufer. Edited by Wilhelm Michaelis. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1956. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Epheser: Ein Kommentar. 2d ed. Düsseldorf: PatmosVerlag, 1958. Schmidt, Francis. “Astrologie juive ancienne. Essai d’interpretation de 4QCriptique (4Q186).” RevQ 18 (1995): 97–113. Schmidt, Francis. “Le Testament d’Abraham: Introduction, édition de la recension courte, traduction et notes.” Ph.D. diss., University of Strasbourg, 1971. Schmithals, Walter. Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse. BZNW 64. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Das Brot des Lebens.” Pages 328–42 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65ten Geburtstag. Edited by Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1968–87. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Schneider, Georg. “Die Idee der Neuschöpfung beim Apostel Paulus und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund.” TTZ 68 (1959): 257–70. Schnelle, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 3d ed. Uni-Taschenbücher 1830. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Schnelle, Udo. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. THKNT 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. Schniedewind, William M. Society and the Promise to David. The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Schniedewind, William M. “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” JBL 118 (1999): 247. Scholar, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Scholem, Gershom G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkebah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965. Scholem, Gershom G. Kabbalah. Jerusalem: Keter, 1974.

554

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Scholem, Gershom G. “Metatron.” Pages 1443–46 in vol. 11 of EncJud. Edited by Cecil Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. Scholtissek, Klaus. In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften. HBS 21. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Schottroff, Luise. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. WMANT 37. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Schrage, Wolfgang. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. 4th ed. GNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Repr., 5th ed., 1989. Schrage, Wolfgang. Das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den synoptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung. BZNW 29. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964. Schröger, Friedrich. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Schröter, Jens, and Hans-Gebhard Bethge. “Das Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2).” Pages 151–81 in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften. Edited by Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. NHC I,1–V,1. GCS NS 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Schubert, Kurt. “The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts.” Pages 118–28 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957. Repr., pages 118–28 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Schuller, Eileen M. “Petitionary Prayer and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 29–45 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Schuller, Eileen M. “Prayer, Hymnic, and Liturgical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 153–74 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Schuller, Eileen M., and Moshe J. Bernstein. “4QNarrative and Poetic Composition (a–c).” Pages 151–204 in Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Douglas M. Gropp et al. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Schuller, Eileen M., and Lorenzo DiTommaso. “A Bibliography of the Hodayot, 1948–1996.” DSD 4:1 (1997): 55–101. Schulz, Siegfried. Neutestamentliche Ethik. ZGB. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. Schulz, Siegfried. “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Form und Überlieferungsgeschichte der Qumrantexte.” ZTK 56 (1959): 155–85. Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Solomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. ALGHZ 7. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

555

Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973. Revised, edited, and translated by Geza Vermes et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–1987. Translated from Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Vol. 3. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1898. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Rev. ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993. Schwally, Friedrich. Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1901. Schwankl, Otto. Licht und Finsternis: Ein metaphorisches Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften. HBS 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Schwartz, Daniel R. “On Quirinius, John the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Qumran and Ephesus.” Pages 635–46 in Mémorial Jean Carmignac: Études Qumrániennes. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Émile Puech. Published in RevQ 13. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Schweitzer, Frederick M. “The Teacher of Righteousness.” Pages 53–97 in vol. 2 of Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part II: The Teacher of Righteousness. Literary Studies. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Mogilany, Poland, 1989). Qumranica Mogilanensia 3. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1991. Schweizer, Eduard. Ego Eimi. 2d ed. FRLANT 56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Schweizer, Eduard. “Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, spätjüdischen Gruppen, Gnostikern und den Zeugen des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 159–64 in Neotestamentica. Edited by Eduard Schweizer. Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1963. Reprinted from The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatolog: Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd. Edited by William D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Schwemer, Anna-Maria. Vitae Prophetarum. SJHRZ 1.7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997. Scobie, Charles H. H. John the Baptist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Scott, James M. “‘For as Many as Are of Works of the Law Are Under a Curse’ (Galatians 3.10).” Pages 187–221 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTS 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Scott, James M. “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition.” JBL 112 (1993): 645–65. Seebass, Horst. Herrscherverheissungen im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992. Sefa-Dapaah, Daniel. “An Investigation into the Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth: A Socio-Historical Study.” Ph.D. diss., Coventry University, 1995. Segal, Alan F. “Conversion and Messianism: Outline for a New Approach.” Pages 296–340 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

556

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Segal, Alan F. “Matthew’s Jewish Voice.” Pages 3–37 in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches. Edited by David L. Balch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Segal, Alan F. Rebecca’s Children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. Segal, Alan F. “Romans 7 and Jewish Dietary Laws.” Pages 167–94 in The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan F. Segal. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–99 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Segert, Stanislav. “Die Sprachen-Fragen in der Qumrangemeindschaft.” Pages 315–19 in Qumran-Probleme: Vorträge des leipziger Symposions über Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14. Oktober 1961. Edited by Hans Bardtke. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissehschaft 42. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Segovia, Fernando F. Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agape /4 Agapan in I John and the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS 58. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Seitz, Otto. “Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” NTS 6 (1959): 82–95. Sekki, Arthur E. The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Sell, Jesse. “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas.” PRSt 7(1980): 24–37. Sevrin, Jean-Marie. Le dossier baptismal séthien. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986. Sevrin, Jean-Marie. “Thomas, Q et le Jésus de l’histoire.” Pages 461–76 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Shaked, Shaul. “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.” Pages 308–25 in Introduction, the Persian Period. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987. Shavit, Yaacov. “The ‘Qumran Library’ in the Light of the Attitude toward Books and Libraries in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 299–317 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

557

Shemesh, Aharon. “‘The Holy Angels are in their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature.” DSD 4 (1997): 179–206. Sheres, Ita, and Anne Kohn Blau. The Truth about the Virgin: Sex and Ritual in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Continuum, 1995. Siewert, Peter. Der Eid von Plataiai. München: Beck, 1972. Silberman, Lou H. “The Two ‘Messiahs’ of the Manual of Discipline.” VT 5 (1955): 77–82. Sinding, M. “After Definitions: Genre, Categories, and Cognitive Science.” Genre 35 (2002): 181–220. Sirat, Colette. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Sjöberg, Erik K T. “Neuschöpfung in den Toten-Meer-Rollen.” ST 11 (1955): 131–37. Sjöberg, Erik K. T. Der Menschensohn in dem äthiopischen Henochbuch. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946. Skehan, Patrick W. “IV. Littérature de Qumran: A. Textes biblique.” Page 805–28 in vol. 9 of DBSup. Edited by L. Pirot, A. Robert, and H. Cazelle. Paris. 13 vols. Paris: Létouzey et Ané, 1928. Skehan, Patrick W. “Apocryphs de l’Ancien Testament.” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9 (1978): 822–28. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint.” BIOSCS 13 (1980): 14–44. Skehan, Patrick W. “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran.” JBL 74 (1955): 435–40. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran.” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” CBQ 35 (1973): 195–205. Skehan, Patrick W. “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism.” Pages 163–82 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978. Skehan, Patrick W. “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text.” JBL 78 (1959): 21–25. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (32:1–43).” CBQ 13 (1951): 157–59. Skehan, Patrick W. et al. “88. 4QPsf.” Pages 85–106 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Skehan, Patrick, and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene C. Ulrich, and Peter W. Flint. “4QPsn.” Pages 135–39 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene C. Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. “4QpaleoExodus m.” Pages 53–130 in Qumran Cave 4.IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Edited by Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Slater, Thomas B. “One like a Son of Man in First-Century C.E. Judaism.” NTS 41 (1995): 183–98.

558

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Slomovic, Elieser. “Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” RevQ 7 (1969–71): 3–15. Smalley, Stephen S. John—Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Smelik, Klaas A. D. Writings from Ancient Israel: A Handbook of Historical and Religious Documents. Translated by Graham I. Davies. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Smith, Dwight Moody. First, Second, and Third John. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Smith, Dwight Moody. “Historical Issues and the Problem of John and the Synoptics.” Pages 252–67 in From Jesus to John. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Smith, Dwight Moody. Johannine Christianity. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984. Smith, Dwight Moody. “Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on Its Character and Delineation.” NTS 21 (1976): 222–48. Smith, Dwight Moody. John among the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. 2d ed. RelS. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001. Smith, Dwight Moody. “John and the Synoptics: Historical Tradition and the Passion Narrative.” Pages 77–91 in Light in a Spotless Mirror: Reflections on Jewish Traditions in Dialogue. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Michael A. Daise. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Smith, Dwight Moody. “John’s Quest for Jesus.” Pages 233–53 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl H. Torrey. NovTSup 106. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Smith, Dwight Moody. “The Problem of John and the Synoptics in Light of the Relation between Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.” Pages 147–62 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Smith, Jonathan Z. “Birth Upside Down or Right Side Up?” HR 9 (1969–70): 281–303. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Smith, Jonathan Z. “A Place on Which to Stand: Symbols and Social Change.” Worship 44 (1970): 457–74. Smith, Mark. “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa.” Pages 181–88 in Archaeology and the History of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSS 8; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Smith, Mark. “Pseudo-Ezekiel.” Pages 153–93 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Smith, Morton. “Two Ascended to Heaven—Jesus and the Author of 4Q491.” Pages 290–301 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40.1–5 and Their Adaptation in the New Testament.” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45. Repr., pages

B IBLIOGRAPHY

559

149–68 in New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. The Biblical Seminar 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Söding, Thomas. “Feindeshass und Bruderliebe: Beobachtungen zur essenischen Ethik.” RevQ 16 (1995): 601–19. Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Sokoloff, Michael. Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003. Sparks, Hedley F. D. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Speiser, Ephraim A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–53. Spicq, Ceslas. “L’Épître aux Hébreux: Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran.” RevQ 1 (1958–59): 36–55. Stallman, Richard C. “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” JSP 10 (1992): 163–89. Stamm, Johann J. Beiträge zur hebräischen und altorientalische Namenkunde. OBO 30. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1980. Standhartinger, Angela. Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von “Joseph und Aseneth.” AGAJU 26. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Stanley, Cristopher D. “The Importance of 4QTanh9Qumim (4Q176).” RevQ 15 (1992): 569–82. Stanley, Cristopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stanton, Graham N. “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount.” Pages 181–92 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Starcky, Jean. “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân.” RB 63 (1956): 49–67. Stauffer, Ethelbert. Die Botschaft Jesu: Damals und heute. Dalp-Taschenbücher 333. Bern: Francke, 1959. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu und des frühen Christentums.” BK 48 (1993): 10–19. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Das Gesetzeskorpus der ‘Damaskusschrift’ (CD IX–XVI).” RevQ 14, no. 55 (1990): 409–34. Stegemann, Hartmut. “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and its Status at Qumran.” Pages 123–48 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Stegemann, Hartmut. “The Number of Psalms in 1QHodayota and Some of Their Sections.” Pages 191–234 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Der Pe s]er Psalm 37 aus Höhle 4 von Qumran (4QpPs37).” RevQ 4 (1963–64): 235–70.

560

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Stegemann, Hartmut. “Some Aspects of Eschatology in Texts from the Qumran Community and in the Teachings of Jesus.” Pages 408–26 in Biblical Archaeology Today. Edited by Janet Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. Stegemann, Hartmut. “The ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and Jesus: Two Types of Religious Leadership in Judaism at the Turn of the Era.” Pages 196–213 in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Weitere Stücke von 4QpPsalm 37, von 4Q Patriarchal Blessings und Hinweis auf eine unedierte Handschrift aus Höhle 4Q mit Exzerpten aus dem Deuteronomium.” RevQ 6 (1967): 193–227. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von 1QS III, 13–IV, 26.” RevQ 13 (1988): 96–100. Steinmann, Jean. Saint John the Baptist and the Desert Tradition. Translated by Michael Boyes. New York: Harper, 1958. Stemberger, Günter. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Stendahl, Krister. “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love: 1QS x,17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21.” HTR 55 (1962): 343–55. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU 20. Lund: Gleerup, 1954. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Stendahl, Krister, and James H. Charlesworth, eds. The Scrolls and the New Testament. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Sterling, Gregory E. “‘Athletes of Virtue’: Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41–47. 4:32–35. 5:12–16).” JBL 113 (1994): 679–96. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Stern, Menahem. “The Death of Onias III.” Zion 25 (1960): 1–16. (Hebrew) Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community. A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century B.C.E.–Tenth Century C.E. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Steudel, Annette. “Mymyh tyrx) in the Texts from Qumran.” RevQ 16 (1993): 225–46. Steudel, Annette. “4Q408: A Liturgy on Morning and Evening Prayer Preliminary Edition.” RevQ 16 (1994): 313–34. Steudel, Annette. “4QApocryphon of Mosesc?” Pages in 298–315 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Steudel, Annette. “4QMidrEschat: ‘A Midrash on Eschatology’ (4Q174 + 4Q177).” Pages 531–41 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata–b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q117 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. STDJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

561

Steudel, Annette. “Testimonia.” Pages 936–38 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Steudel, Annette. “Vision and Interpretation.” Pages 316–19 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Stoebe, Hans J. Das erste Buch Samuelis. KAT 8.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973. Stone, Micheal E. “4Q215 (4QNaph [previously TNaph]).” Pages 562–63 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stone, Michael E. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.” CBQ 40 (1978): 479–92. Repr., pages 61–75 in Emerging Judaism: Studies on the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E. Edited by Michael E. Stone and David Satran. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Stone, Michael E. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha.” DSD 3 (1996): 270–95. Stone, Micheal E. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha.” DSD 3 (1996): 270–95. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stone, Michael E. “Judaism at the Time of Christ.” Scientific American 288 (January 1973): 80–87. Stone, Michael E. “La patrie de Tobie.” RB 73 (1966): 522–30. Stone, Michael E. Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolt. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Stone, Michael E. “Testament of Naphtali.” Pages 73–82 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Stone, Michael E. “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumran.” RB 63 (1956): 60. Stone, Michael E., and Esther Eshel. “An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b).” Le Muséon 105 (1992): 243–63. Stone, Michael E., and Jonas C. Greenfield. “Levi Aramaic Document.” Pages 1–72 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Stowers, Stanley K. “The Social Sciences and the Study of Early Christianity.” Pages 149–81 in Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context. Vol. 5 of Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by William S. Green. BJS 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961. Strawn, Brent A. “Is 4QSd an Excerpted ‘Non-Biblical’ Scroll?” in Qumran Studies. Edited by Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Strawn, Brent A. “Keep/Observe/Do—Carefully—Today! The Rhetoric of Repetition in Deuteronomy.” Pages 215–40 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament

562

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Brent A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Strawn, Brent A. Review of Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Koinonia 11.1 (Spring 1999): 145–49. Strecker, Georg. “Die Anfänge der Johanneishchen Schule.” NTS 32 (1986): 31–47. Strecker, Georg. Die Johannesbriefe. KEK 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Strecker, Georg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. Vol. 2 of Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Strugnell, John. “Additional Observations on 4QMMT.” Pages 203–6 in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah. Edited by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Strugnell, John. “Apocryphon of Moses.” Pages 111–36 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Strugnell, John. “MMT: Second Thoughts on a Forthcoming Edition.” Pages 57–73 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Strugnell, John. “Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean desert of Jordan.” RevQ 7 (1970): 163–276. Strugnell, John. “Le Travail d’edition: des Fragments Manuscripts de Qumran.” RB 63 (1956): 49–67. Stuart, Geert H. C. The Struggle in Man between Good and Evil. Kampen: Kok, 1984. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “4QEnocha.” Pages 3–94 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Book of Giants from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Commentary. TSAJ 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 368–86 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Early Traditions Related to 1 Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Overview and Assessment.” Forthcoming in The Early Enoch Literature. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 318–38 in Die Dämonen: die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Throne-Theophany of the Book of Giants: Some New Light on the Background of Daniel 7.” Pages 211–20 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

563

Evans. JSPSup 26. Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Émile Puech, and Edward M. Cook. “Book of Giants.” Pages 472–514 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–2002. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Significance of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for the Understanding of Jesus and Christology.” Pages 1–15 in The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective: The Place of the Late Writings of the Old Testament among the Biblical Writings and Their Significance in the Eastern and Western Church Traditions. Edited by Siegfried Meurer. Translated by Paul Ellingworth. United Bible Societies Monograph Series 6. Reading, UK; New York: United Bible Societies, 1991. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Zum Thema: Das Evangelium und die Evangelien.” Pages 1–26 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. WUNT 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ET The Gospel and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Sukenik, Eleazar L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Edited by Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955. (Hebrew) Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. The Old Testament of the Early Church. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Sussmann, Ya(akov. “Appendix 1: The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 179–200 in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs9at Ma(ase ha-Torah. Edited by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Sutcliffe, Edmond F. “Hatred at Qumran.” RevQ 2 (1960): 345–55. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. “Baptism and Baptismal Rites at Qumran.” HeyJ 1 (1960): 179–88. Suter, David W. “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16.” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35. Suter, David W. Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Syreeni, Kari. “Separation and Identity: Aspects of the Symbolic World of Matt 6:1–18.” NTS 40 (1994): 522–41. Tabor, James D. Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in Its Greco-Roman, Judaic and Early Christian Contexts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Reading the New Testament. New York: Crossroad, 1997. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “4QCalendrical Document D (Re-edition).” Pages 157–66 in Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Calendrical Texts. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon, and Jonathan Ben-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer. DJD 21. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

564

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Anti-Lunar Calendar Polemics in Covenanters’ Writings.” Pages 29–40 in Das Ende der Tage und die Gegenwart des Heils. Begegennungen mit dem Neuen Testement und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift für H.-W. Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Michael Becker and Wolfgang Fenske. AGJU 44. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Between the Bible and the Mishna.” Pages 11–52 in The World of Qumran From Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Repr., pages 214–57 in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. JSPSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism: The Case of the ‘Community of the Renewed Covenant.’” Pages 379–95 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Calendars and Mishmarot.” Pages 108–17 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 162–99 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. ScrHier 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958; 2d ed. 1965. Repr., rev. ed., as “The Calendar of the Covenanters of the Judean Desert.” Pages 147–85 in The World of Qumran From Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 3–24 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Concept of ma4s i] ah9 and Messianism in Early Judaism.” Pages 79–115 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Covenanters’ Calendar of Holy Seasons According to the List of King David’s Compositions in the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11 (11QPsaXXVII).” Pages 204–19 in Fifty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht. Edited by Gershon Brin and Bilha Nitzan. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2002 (Hebrew). Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 5–20 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah.” VT 8 (1958): 48–74. Repr., “The Cult and Calendar Reform of Jeroboam I.” Pages 113–39 in King Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah.” ASTI 1 (1962): 62–72. Repr., pages 116–26 in Qumran and the History of

B IBLIOGRAPHY

565

the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in the Light of Qumran Literature.” Pages 265–84 in Qumrân: Sa Piété, sa Théologie et son Milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978. Repr., pages 200–43 in The World of Qumran From Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Essential ‘Community of the Renewed Covenant’: How Should Qumran Studies Proceed?” Pages 323–52 in Geschichte—Tradition— Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Die Gemeinde des Erneuerten Bundes von Qumran zwischen rabbinischen Judentum und Christentum.” Pages 295–312 in Zion: Ort der Begegnung. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn et al. BBB 90. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan.” JAOS 83 (1963): 89–112. Repr., pages 177–87 in King Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Talmon, Shemaryahu. Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1993. Talmon, Shemaryahu. Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavation, 1963–1965. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Old Testament Text.” Pages 159–99 in From the Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Christopher F. Evans. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Christopher F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Repr., pages 1–41 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 121–58 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Pisqah Be)emsa( Pasuq and 11QPsa.” Text 5 (1966): 11–21. Talmon, Shemaryahu.“The Reckoning of the Day in the Biblical and the Early PostBiblical Period: From Morning or From Evening?” Pages 109–29 in The Bible in the Light of its Interpreters. Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume. Edited by Sarah Japhet. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994 (Hebrew). Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Sectarian dxy: A Biblical Noun.” VT 3 (1953): 133–40. Repr., as “The Qumran dxy—A Biblical Noun.” Pages 53–60 in The World of Qumran From Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook.” Pages 321–400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Waiting for the Messiah—The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters.” Pages 111–37 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Repr., rev. ed. as

566

B IBLIOGRAPHY

“Waiting for the Messiah—The Conceptual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters.” Pages 273–300 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu. The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu.“Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?” DSD 2 (1995): 249–67. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Yom Hakippurim in the Habakkuk Scroll.” Biblica 32 (1951): 549–63. Repr., pages 186–99 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu et al. Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Talmon, Shemaryahu, and Israel Knohl. “A Calendrical Scroll from a Qumran Cave: Mis ]ma4rôt B 4Q321.” Pages 267–301 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells. Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual Law and Literature in Honor of J. Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Tantlevskij, Igor R. The Two Wicked Priests in the Qumran Commentary of Habakkuk. Kraków: Enigma, 1995. Tatum, W. Barnes. John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1994. Tawney, Richard H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1926. Repr., 1972. Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Teeple, Howard M. The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957. Teeple, Howard M. “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 1–20 in The Composition of John’s Gospel, Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Compiled by David E. Orton. Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Testuz, Michel. Les idées religieuses du livre des Jubilés. Geneva: Druz, 1960. Testuz, Michel, ed. Papyrus Bodmer X–XII. Cologne: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959. Theissen, Gerd. “The Political Dimension of Jesus’ Activities.” Pages 225–50 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Theissen, Gerd. Studien zür Soziologie des Urchristentums. 3d ed. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Theissen, Gerd. “Zur forschungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung.” Pages 3–34 in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 2d ed. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Translated from Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Repr., 3d ed., 2001. Thenius, Otto. Die Bücher Samuels, erklärt. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1842. Repr., 2d ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1864.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

567

Theobald, Michael. Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh. NTAbh NS 20. Münster: Aschendorff, 1988. Thiede, Carsten P. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Oxford: Lion, 2000. Thiering, Barbara E. “The Date of Composition of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 99–120 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Thiering, Barbara E. The Gospels and Qumran: A New Hypothesis. Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1981. Thiering, Barbara E. Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story. San Francisco: Harper, 1992. Thiering, Barbara E. The Qumran Origins of the Christian Church. Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1983. Thiering, Barbara E. Redating the Teacher of Righteousness. Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979. Thomas, Joseph. Le movement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (150 av. J.-C.–300 ap. J.-C.). Gembloux: Ducolot, 1935. Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982. Thompson, Leonard L. “Mooring the Revelation in the Mediterranean.” Pages 635–53 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1992. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Thompson, Marianne M. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Thrall, Margaret E. “The Problem of II Cor. VI. 14–VII. 1 in Some Recent Discussion.” NTS 24 (1978): 132–48. Thyen, Hartwig. “Ich bin das Licht der Welt: Das Ich- und Ich-Bin-Sagen Jesu im Johannesevangelium.” JAC 35 (1992): 19–42. Thyen, Hartwig. “Johannesevangelium.” Pages 200–25 in vol. 17 of TRE. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. 36 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “4QHistorical Text H?” Pages 125–28 in Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Douglas M. Gropp et al. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “On the Unidentified Fragments of DJD XXXIII and PAM 43.680: A New Manuscript of 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition, and Fragments of 4Q13, 4Q269, 4Q525 and 4QSb (?).” RevQ 21/3 (2004): 477–85. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. STDJ 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. et al. “Enastr.” Pages 514–43 in Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

568

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., and Florentino García Martínez. “4QAstronomical Enocha–b ar.” Pages 95–171 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann and Philip Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tiller, Patrick A. “The ‘Eternal Planting’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 4 (1997): 312–35. Tov, Emanuel. “4QDeut j.” Pages 75–92 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Tov, Emanuel. “4QReworked Pentateuch b–e: Introduction.” Pages 187–97 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Tov, Emanuel. “4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of its Contents.” RevQ 16 (1995): 647–53. Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert—An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts.” Pages 139–66 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod.” Pages 111–34 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Tov, Emanuel. “A Categorized List of All the ‘Biblical Texts’ Found in the Judaean Desert.” DSD 8 (2001): 67–84. Tov, Emanuel, ed. Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition. 2d rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tov, Emanuel. “Canticles.” Page 195–220 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Tov, Emanuel. “Copying of a Biblical Scroll.” JRH 26 (2002): 189–210. Tov, Emanuel. “D. The Biblical Lists from the Judaean Desert: 1. Categorized List of the ‘Biblical Texts.’” Pages 165–83 in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov et al. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Tov, Emanuel, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Tov, Emanuel. “The Dimensions of the Qumran Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 69–91. Tov, Emanuel. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.” RevQ 16 (1995): 581–600. Tov, Emanuel. “Foreword.” Pages ix–x in The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection I). Edited by Emanuel Tov, Robert Kraft, and Peter J. Parsons. DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, Emanuel. “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School.” Pages 199–216 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman,

B IBLIOGRAPHY

569

Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Tov, Emanuel. “Greek Texts.” Pages 215–16 in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov et al. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” Pages 85–102 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. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tov, Emanuel. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37. Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–29. Tov, Emanuel. “The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of These Scrolls.” Text 13 (1986): 31–57. Tov, Emanuel. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” DSD 5 (1998): 334–54. Tov, Emanuel. “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada.” Pages 233–56 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “Scribal Practices and Physical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 9–33 in The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition. Edited by John L. Sharpe and Kimberly Van Kampen. London: The British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 1998. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Tov, Emanuel. “Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and Their Ramifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible.” JNSL 13 (1987): 150–60. Tov, Emanuel. “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon.” Pages 234–51 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. “Tefillin of Different Origin from Qumran?” Page 46* in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht. Edited by Yair Hoffman and Frank M. Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981. 2d ed. 1997. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. 2d rev. ed., 2001. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Status of 4Q364–367 (4QPP).” Pages 43–82 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead

570

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Tov, Emanuel. “Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 46 (1995): 88–111. Tov, Emanuel. “The Writing of Ancient Biblical Texts, with Special Attention to the Judean Desert Scrolls.” Pages 445–58 in Sefer Moshe, The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Tov, Emanuel, and Stephen J. Pfann. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie A. White Crawford. “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 187–351 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Tovey, Derek M. H. Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 151. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997. Trafton, Joseph L. “The Psalms of Solomon: New Light from the Syriac Version?” JBL 105 (1986): 227–37. Trafton, Joseph L. Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Commentary Series. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Trafton, Joseph L. “Research on the Psalms of Solomon Since 1977.” JSP 12 (1994): 3–19. Trafton, Joseph L. “Solomon, Psalms of.” Pages 115–17 in vol. 6 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Trafton, Joseph L. The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Evaluation. SBLSCS 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “4QJudg a.” Pages 161–64 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “Apocryphe d’Élisée.” Pages 305–9 in Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran.” Pages 95–110 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “Biblia e interpretación bíblica en Qumrán.” Pages 121–44 in Los hombres de Qumrán: Literatura, estructura social y concepciones religiosas. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1993. ET, “The Bible and Biblical Interpretation in Qumran.” Pages 99–121 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices. Translated by Wildred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:23–35).” Text 11 (1984): 17–36.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

571

Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “A Preliminary Edition of 4QKings (4Q54).” Pages 229–46 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges.” Pages 229–45 in Biblical Texts. Vol. 1 of The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community: Proceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989). Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Published in RevQ 14/2, nos. 54–55. Paris: Gabalda, 1989. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. “The Qumran Texts and the New Testament.” Pages 201–20 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Trever, John C. “The Book of Daniel and the Origin of the Qumran Community.” BA 48 (1985): 89–102. Trever, John C. “Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments from Qumran Cave I.” RevQ 5, no. 19 (1965): 323–44. Treves, Marco. “The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community.” RevQ 3 (1961): 449–52. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Translated by Olive Wyon. 2 Vols. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Translation of Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912. Trudinger, Peter L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple. VTSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. HUT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Tuckett, Christopher M. “A Cynic Q?” Bib 70 (1989): 349–76. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Fourth Gospel and Q.” Pages 281–290 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Gospel of Thomas: Evidence for Jesus?” NTT 52, no. 1 (1998): 17–32. Tuckett, Christopher M., ed. The Messianic Secret. IRT 1. London: SPCK, 1983. Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien.” BTZ 12 (1995): 186–200. Turner, Victor W. Process, Performance, and Pilgrimage: A Study in Comparative Symbology. Ranchi Anthropology Series 1. New Delhi: Concept, 1979. Turner, Victor W. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Repr., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Tyree, E. Loeta, and Evangelia Stefanoudaki. “The Olive Pit and Roman Oil Making.” BA 59 (1996): 171–78. Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5.6. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984. Ulfgård, Håken. “L’Apocalypse entre Judaisme et Christianisme: Précisions sur le monde spirituel et intellectuel de Jean de Patmos.” RHPR 79 (1999): 31–50.

572

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Ulrich, Eugene C. “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” Pages 89–104 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene C. “4QSama and Septuagintal Research.” BIOSCS 8 (1975): 24–39. Ulrich, Eugene C. “4QSamuelc: A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 14–15 from the Scribe of the Serek Hay-yahad (1QS).” BASOR 235 (1979): 1–25. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran.” Pages 179–95 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Agreement of Josephus with 4Qsama.” Pages 165–91 in The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. HSM 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Repr., pages 17–33 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” Pages 267–91 in Sha(arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” Pages 267–91 in Sha(arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael Fishbane, Emmanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Repr., pages 51–78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures.” Pages 327–42 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BibIntS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran: Part 1” BASOR 268 (1987): 17–37. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran: Part 2.” BASOR 274 (1989): 3–26. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Daniel.” Pages 239–90 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining the Form to Be Translated.” Pages 101–16 in Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Walter J. Harrelson. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. PRSt 15. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

573

Ulrich, Eugene C. “From Literature to Scripture: Reflections on the Growth of a Text’s Authoritativeness.” DSD 10 (2003): 3–25. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Greek Manuscripts.” Pages 219–42 in Qumran Cave 4.IV: PaleoHebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Edited by Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene C. Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Horizons of Old Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniversary of Qumran Cave 4.” CBQ 46 (1984): 613–36. Ulrich, Eugene C. “An Index of the Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Genesis-Kings).” DSD 1 (1994): 113–29. Ulrich, Eugene C. “An Index of the Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Part 2: Isaiah-Chronicles).” DSD 2 (1995): 86–107. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Jewish, Christian, and Empirical Perspectives on the Text of Our Scriptures.” Pages 69–85 in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying the Bible in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Roger Brooks and John J. Collins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Josephus’ Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel.” Pages 81–96 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Repr., pages 184–201 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text.” Pages 78–105 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT.” CBQ 65 (2003): 202–14. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 121–65 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980. Repr., pages 233–74 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Orthography and Text in 4QDana and 4QDanb and in the Received Masoretic Text.” Pages 29–42 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” CBQ 66 (2004): 13. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon.” Pages 23–41 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls—the Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 67–87 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament.” Pages 57–80 in Biblical Canons. Edited by Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk J. de Jonge.

574

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. BETL 163. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 51–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. HSM 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Septuagint Manuscripts.” Pages 161–97 in Qumran Cave 4.IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Edited by Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene C. Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages 85–108 in Congress Volume: Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene C., and Catherine M. Murphy. “4QRuthb.” Pages 191–94 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene C., and Curt Niccum. “4QDand.” Pages 279–86 in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Ulrichsen, Jarl H. Die Grundschrift der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen: Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprünglichen Schrift. Uppsala: Almqwist & Wiksell, 1991. Urbach, Efraim E. The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975. Repr., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Vaage, Leif E. Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers according to Q. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. Vaage, Leif E. “Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity.” Pages 199–229 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ronald A. Piper. NovTSup 75. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Valantasis, Richard. The Gospel of Thomas. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1997. Valantasis, Richard. Spiritual Guides of the Third Century. HDR 27. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Van der Ploeg, Johannes P. M. “Les manuscrits du désert de Juda: Études et découvertes récentes (Planches IV–V).” BO 11 (1954): 154–55. Van der Ploeg, Johannes P. M. Le rouleau de la guerre. STJD 2. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Van Goudoeuer, Jan. Biblical Calendars. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. VanderKam, James C. “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 33–101 in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Edited by James C. VanderKam and William Adler. CRINT 3.4. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

575

VanderKam, James C. “2 Maccabees 6, 7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem.” JSJ 12 (1981): 52–74. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402. VanderKam, James C. “The Aqedah, Jubilees, and PseudoJubilees.” Pages 241–61 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BibIntS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. CSCO 510–11. Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VanderKam, James C. “The Calendar, 4Q327, and 4Q394.” Pages 179–94 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. VanderKam, James C. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1998. VanderKam, James C. “Calendrical Texts and the Origins of the Dead Sea Community.” Pages 371–88 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. VanderKam, James C. Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1995. VanderKam, James C. “Identity and History of the Community.” Pages 487–533 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. VanderKam, James C. “The Jubilee Fragments from Qumran Cave 4.” Page 635–48 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. VanderKam, James C. “Messianism in the Scrolls.” Pages 211–34 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1993). Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. VanderKam, James C. “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypotheses.” CBQ 41 (1979): 390–411. VanderKam, James C. “Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypothesis.” CBQ 41 (1979): 391–99.

576

B IBLIOGRAPHY

VanderKam, James C. “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71.” Pages 169–91 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. VanderKam, James C. “The Scrolls, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha.” HS 34 (1993): 35–47. VanderKam, James C. “Sinai Revisited.” Pages 44–60 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. VanderKam, James C. “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of 1 Enoch.” Maarav 3 (1982): 85–97. Vanderkam, James C. “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 211–36 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. VanderKam, James C., and William Adler, eds. The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. CRINT 3.4. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. VanderKam, James C., and Monica L. Brady. “4QApocryphal Pentateuch A.” Pages 131–49 in Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Douglas M. Gropp et al. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. VanderKam, James C., and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. VanderKam, James C., and Jozef T. Milik. “Jubilees.” Pages 1–140 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold W. Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Vaux, Roland de. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Schweich Lectures 1959. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Vaux, Roland de. The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Alain Chambon. Translated by Stephen J. Pfann. NTOA: Series Archaeologica 1B. Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Vaux, Roland de. “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân.” RB 63 (1956): 552–53, 558–59. Vermes, Geza. “Bible Interpretation at Qumran.” ErIsr 20 (1989): 184–91. Vermes, Geza. “Bible Interpretation.” Pages 420–51 in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by Emil Schürer. Rev. ed. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Vermes, Geza. “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature.” JSS 34 (1989): 493–508. Vermes, Geza, ed. and trans. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 5th rev. ed. New York, London: Penguin, 1997.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

577

Vermes, Geza, ed. and trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 1st ed. Baltimore, London: Penguin, 1962. 4th ed., 1995. Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. Cleveland, London: Collins World, 1978. Repr., London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Repr., 1994. Vermes, Geza. “Interpretation, History of: At Qumran and in the Targums.” Pages 438–43 in IDBSup. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Vermes, Geza. “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285).” JJS 43 (1991): 83–94. Vermes, Geza. Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Vermes, Geza. “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 42 (1991): 250–55. Vermes, Geza. “The Qumran Community, the Essenes, and Nascent Christianity.” Pages 581–86 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 2000. Vermes, Geza. “The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in Its Historical Setting.” Pages 85–97 in Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969. Edited by John MacDonald. ALUOS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Repr., pages 37–49 in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. STLA 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. 2d rev. ed. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Repr., 1983. Vermes, Geza. “Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah in the Damascus Rule.” JJS 25 (1974): 197–202. Repr., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, 50–56. Vermes, Geza. “Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah in the Damascus Rule.” JJS 25 (1974): 197–202. Repr., pages 50–56 in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. SJLA 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Vermes, Geza. “The So-Called King Jonathan Fragment (4Q448).” JJS 44 (1993): 294–300. Vermes, Geza. “The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition.” JTS 9 (1958): 1–12. Via, Dan O. “Revelation, Atonement, and the Scope of Faith: A Deconstructive and Reader-Response Interpretation.” BibInt 11 (2003): 515–30. Vielhauer, Philipp. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die apostolischen Väter. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975. Vivian, Angelo. “I movimenti che si oppongono al Tempio: il problema del sacerdozio di Melchisedeq.” Hen 14 (1992): 97–112. Vogel, Manuel. Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum. TANZ 18. Tübingen: Francke, 1996. Vogt, Ernst. “‘Myste4ria’ in Textibus Qumran.” Bib 37 (1956): 247–57. Von der Osten-Sacken, Peter. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Von Soden, Wolfram. “Eine babylonische Volksüberlieferung von Nabonid in den Danielerzählungen.” ZAW 53 (1935): 81–89. Vööbus, Arthur. Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1968.

578

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Vouga, François. Le cadre historique et l’intention théologique de Jean. Beauchesne Religions. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms.” Pages 193–201 in “Minhiah le-Nahiam”: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Marc Zvi Brettler and Michael A. Fishbane. JSOTSup 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles during the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period.” HUCA 44 (1973): 153–96. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “David’s Eschatological Psalter: 11Q Psalmsa.” HUCA 59 (1988): 23–72. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. HUCM 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. Wahlde, Urban C. von. The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel. Wilmington DE: Glazier, 1989. Waldstein, Michael. “The Providence Monologue in the Apokryphon of John and the Johannine Prologue.” JECS 3 (1995): 369–402. Walter, Nikolaus. “Judisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philo von Alexandrien (unter Ausschluss der Historiker).” ANRW 20.1:68–120. Part 2, Principat, 20.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegarde Temporini. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Walter, Nikolaus. “The Social Setting and Purpose of Joseph and Aseneth.” JSP 2 (1988): 21–48. Walton, Brian. The Considerator Considered: Or, A Brief View of Certain Considerations Upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena and Appendix Thereof. London: Roycroft, 1659. Repr., in vol. 2 of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Right Rev. Brian Walton. Edited by Henry J. Todd. 2 vols. London: Rivington, 1821. Weaver, J. Denny. Becoming Anabaptist. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1987. Webb, Robert L. “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus.” Pages 179–229 in Studying the Historical Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Webb, Robert L. “John the Baptist.” Pages 418–21 in vol. 1 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology. Translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth and Charles Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1905. Repr., 1922. Weber, Max. Social and Economic Organization. Translated by Alexander M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan, 1947. Weber, Max. The Sociology of Religion. 4th ed. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff. Boston: Beacon, 1956. Webster, Bruce “J. Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 351–446 in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov et al. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

579

Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. A History of the First Christians. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Weder, Hans. “Die Asymmetrie des Rettenden: Überlegungen zu Joh 3,14–21 im Rahmen johanneischer Theologie.” Pages 435–65 in Einblicke ins Evangelium: Exegetische Beiträge zur neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World.” Pages 175–91 in I Trattati Nel Mondo Antico: Forma Ideologia Funzione. Edited by Luciano Canfora, Mario Lieverani, and Carlo Zaeagnini. Saggi di storia antica 2. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement.” Pages 76–98 in Das Deuteronomium, Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by Norbert Lohfink. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Grace After Meals in Qumran.” JBL 111 (1992): 427–28. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Initiation of Political Friendship in Ebla and its later developments.” Pages 345–48 in Wirtschaft un Gesellschaft von Ebla. Edited by Col. Harald Hauptman and Hartmut Waetzoldt. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1988. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Loyalty oath in the Ancient Near East.” UF 8 (1976): 379–414. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period. NTOA 2. Edtiones Universitai res Friburg Suisse. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. NTOA 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law.” Immanuel 8 (1975): 7–18. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect.” Pages 240–58 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Weiss, Johannes. Das Urchristentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. Wellhausen, Julius. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871. Wengst, Klaus. Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch über das Johannesevangelium. 3d ed. Munich: C. Kaiser, 1990. Wengst, Klaus. Johannesevangelium. THKNT 4.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. Werman, Cana. “What Is the Book of Hagu?” Pages 125–40 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May, 2001. Edited by John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wernberg-Møller, Preben. The Manual of Discipline Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. STDJ 1. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

580

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Wernberg-Møller, Preben. “The Nature of the Yah9ad according to the Manual of Discipline and Related Documents.” Pages 56–81 in Dead Sea Scroll Studies 1969. Edited by John MacDonald. ALUOS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Wernberg-Møller, Preben. “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (I Q Serek III 13–IV 26).” RevQ 3 (1961): 419–441. Wertheimer, Solomon A. Sefer Zerubbabel. Pages 495–505 in vol. 2 of Batei Midrashot. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1950–53. (Hebrew) Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Wevers, John W. Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy. Abhandlung der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Histroische Klasse, Dritte Folge 106; MSU 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Whitacre, Rodney A. Johannine Polemic. SBLDS 67. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “4Q364 and 365: A Preliminary Report.” Pages 217–28 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “The All Souls Deuteronomy and the Decalogue.” JBL 109 (1991): 193–206. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “4QDtn: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?” Pages 13–20 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “A Response to Elizabeth Owen’s ‘4QDeutn: A PreSamaritan Text?’” DSD 5 (1998): 94. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 775–77 in vol. 2 of EDSS. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “Temple Scroll.” Pages 626–27 in Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. Edited by Jacob Neusner and William S. Green. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996. White Crawford, Sidnie A. “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and Their Relationship to the Temple Scroll.” JQR 85 (1994): 259–73. Wibbing, Siegfried. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte. BZNW 25. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1959. Wieser, Friedrich E. Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 317. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987. Wildavsky, Aaron. The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1984. Wildberger, Hans. “Der Dualismus in den Qumranschriften.” Asiatische Studien 8 (1954): 163–77. Williamson, Robert, Jr. “Qumran Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre,” forthcoming.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

581

Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. ALGHJ 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Wilson, Bryan R. Magic and the Millenium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest among Tribal and Third-world Peoples. London: Heinemann; New York: Harper, 1973. Repr. St Albans, England: Paladin, 1975. Wilson, Bryan R. The Noble Savages: The Primitive Origins of Charisma and Its Contemporary Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Wilson, Bryan R. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 78. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–88. Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42. Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1995. Winter, Paul. “Twenty-six Priestly Courses.” VT 6 (1956): 215–17. Wintermute, Orval S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Wise, Michael O. “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam.” RevQ 15 (1991): 103–32. Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990. Wise, Michael O. “The Dating of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement.” JBL 122 (2003): 53-87. Wise, Michael O. The First Messiah. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999. Wise, Michael O. “A Note on 4Q196 (papTob Ara) and Tobit I 22.” VT 43 (1993): 566. Wise, Michael O. “Second Thoughts on qwd and the Qumran Synchronistic Calendar.” Pages 98–120 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of B. Z. Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by John C. Reeves and John Kampen. JSOTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Wise, Michael O. “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches.” RevQ 14 (1990): 587–613. Wise, Michael O. “The Temple Scroll and the Teacher of Righteousness.” Pages 121–47 in vol. 2 of Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part II: The Teacher of Righteousness. Literary Studies. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Mogilany, Poland, 1989). Qumranica Mogilanensia 3. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1991.

582

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Wise, Michael O. Thunder in Gemini: And Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine. JSPSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Wise, Michael O., and James D. Tabor. “The Messiah at Qumran.” BAR vol. 18 (November 1992): 60–61, 65. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Witherington, Ben. “John the Baptist.” Pages 383–91 in DJG. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Fragmente des Buches Jubiläen aus Qumran Höhle XI (11 Q Jub).” Pages 141–46 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Edited by Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” OtSt 14 (1965): 354–73, and pl. 1. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Fifty Years of Qumran Research.” Pages 1–45 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, in collaboration with Andrea E. Alvarez. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Once Again: The Wicked Priests in the Habakkuk Pesher from Cave 1 of Qumran.” RevQ 17 (1996): 375–84. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament.” Pages 151–69 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martínez. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary.” JJS 33 (1982): 349–59. Wray, Judith Hoch. Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest. SBLDS 166. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Wrede, William. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. ET The Messianic Secret. Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971. Wright, Nicholas T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Wright, Nicholas T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992. Wright, Nicholas T. “Paul and Qumran: When Paul Shuns the ‘Works of the Law,’ Is He Referring to the Very Works Commended by the Dead Sea Scroll Known as MMT?” BRev 14, no. 5 (1998): 18, 54. Wright, Robert B. “Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 639–70 in vol. 2 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

583

Wright, Robert B. “The Psalms of Solomon, the Pharisees and the Essenes.” Pages 136–54 in 1972 Proceedings: International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar. Edited by Robert A. Kraft. SCS 2. Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972. Wyatt, Nick. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Quman Library. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Yadin, Yigael. The Book of Ben Sira. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. Yadin, Yigael. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yadin, Yigael, ed. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. (Hebrew) Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect. New York: Random House, 1985. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by Ernest J. Revell. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980. Yoder, John H. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. 2d ed. 1994. Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. Leipzig: Deichert, 1905. Zecchi, Marco. “On the Offering of Honey in the Graeco-Roman Temples.” Aegyptus 77 (1997): 71–83. Zeller, Dieter. “Paulus und Johannes.” BZ NS (1983): 167–182. Zerbe, Gordon M. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Zerbe, Gordon M. “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical Evaluation.” Pages 65–95 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Zias, Joseph E. “The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?” DSD 7 (2000): 220–53. Ziesler, John A. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Edited by Frank M. Cross, Klaus Baltzer, and Leonard Jay Greenspoon. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel II: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Edited by Leonard Jay Greenspoon and Paul D. Hanson. Translated by James D. Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Zimmermann, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT Second Series 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Zöckler, Theodor. Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium. NHS 47. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

AUTHOR INDEX

Abba, Raymond 1:186 Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 1:181, 2:72, 2:84, 2:154, 2:485, 3:78, 3:87, 3:155, 3:173, 3:188, 3:195, 3:200, 3:263, 3:416 Ackroyd, Peter R. 1:43, 1:68 Ådna, Jostein 3:316 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 1:82, 1:95 Aland, Kurt 3:101 Albani, Matthias 2:32 Albright, William F. 1:33, 1:67, 1:89, 1:90, 1:106, 1:163, 1:173, 2:108, 2:135, 2:136, 2:365, 2:482, 3:411, 3:415 Alexander, Philip S. 1:102, 1:290, 1:300, 2:26, 2:40, 2:237, 2:238, 2:239, 2:284, 2:367, 2:368, 2:369, 2:370, 2:372, 2:374, 2:485, 3:156 Alfrink, Bernardus J. 2:253, 2:274 Allegro, John M. 1:88, 1:122, 1:140, 1:203, 2:21, 2:134, 2:215, 2:216, 2:217, 2:238, 2:319, 2:453, 2:454, 2:486, 3:411 Allison, Dale C. 3:315 Alon, Gedalia 2:97, 2:99 Altmann, Alexander 2:224 Amouretti, Marie-Claire 2:415

Anbar, Moshe 2:61 Andersen, Francis I. 3:221 Anderson, Arnold A. 1:88, 1:122, 1:140, 1:295, 2:21, 2:134, 2:216, 2:217, 2:319 Anderson, George W. 1:56, 1:68 Anderson, Jeff S. 1:60 Anderson, Paul N. 3:284 Aptowitzer, Victor 1:170, 3:267 Arubas, Benny 2:416 Ashton, John 1:22, 3:102, 3:147, 3:302 Attridge, Harold W. 1:88, 1:94, 1:135, 1:136, 1:139, 1:140, 1:143, 1:152, 2:53, 2:134, 2:212, 2:240, 2:250, 2:486, 3:203, 3:205, 3:206, 3:207, 3:209, 3:211, 3:212, 3:213, 3:215, 3:217, 3:219, 3:221, 3:223, 3:225, 3:227, 3:229, 3:230, 3:295, 3:298 Audet, Jean-Paul 1:70 Aulén, Gustaf 3:357 Aune, David E. 1:69, 3:75, 3:256, 3:259, 3:261, 3:262, 3:275, 3:302 Avigad, Nahman 1:80, 1:145, 3:105 Avitsur, Shmuel 2:415 Ayalon, Etan 2:415

585

Bachmann, Michael 3:176, 3:193, 3:194, 3:452 Badia, Leonard F. 2:103 Bagatti, Belarmino 3:4 Baidi, Donato 3:4 Baigent, Michael 3:422 Baillet, Maurice 1:121, 1:226, 1:274, 2:38, 2:41, 2:47, 2:104, 2:161, 2:162, 2:164, 2:233, 2:301, 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:311, 2:450, 2:451, 2:453, 2:454, 2:456, 2:459, 2:474, 2:475, 2:479, 2:480, 2:486, 2:490, 3:212, 3:213, 3:264, 3:427, 3:428 Baldensperger, Wilhelm 3:124 Balzer, Klaus 3:43 Bampfylde, Gillian 2:381, 2:385 Barackman, Paul F. 3:284 Barclay, William 3:265 Barr, David L. 3:278 Barr, James 1:97, 2:352 Barrett, Charles K. 3:101 Barthélemy, Dominique 1:31, 1:79, 1:80, 1:121, 1:179, 1:274, 1:311, 2:205, 2:265, 2:305, 2:416 Bateman, Herbert W. 3:207 Batiffol, Pierre 2:407

586 Bauckham, Richard J. 2:461, 3:106, 3:111, 3:136, 3:261, 3:284, 3:285, 3:332, 3:370 Bauer, Walter 3:63 Baumgarten, Albert I. 2:22, 2:211, 2:218, 3:40, 3:323 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 1:125, 1:297, 1:301, 1:302, 1:304, 1:305, 1:306, 1:309, 2:26, 2:39, 2:50, 2:93, 2:96, 2:206, 2:211, 2:227, 2:229, 2:230, 2:284, 2:287, 2:302, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 2:406, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:419, 3:26, 3:87, 3:263, 3:269, 3:270, 3:283, 3:302, 3:325, 3:340 Baumgartner, Walter 2:297, 3:421, 3:454 Baur, Ferdinand C. 3:99, 3:287, 3:455 Beale, Gregory K. 1:128 Beall, Todd S. 2:261, 3:320 Beck, Astrid B. 1:33 Becker, Jürgen 3:119, 3:286, 3:302, 3:303 Becker, Michael 2:36, 2:90, 3:291 Beckwith, Roger T. 1:30, 2:22, 2:209, 2:210, 2:211, 2:403, 2:407, 2:408 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 2:476 Ben-Dov, Jonathan 2:26, 2:37, 2:45, 2:57, 2:309 Bengtsson, Håkan (Hakan) 1:183, 1:208, 2:326 Benoit, Pierre 1:274, 2:479, 3:133 Berger, Peter L. 2:343

AUTHOR I NDEX Bergmeier, Roland 3:171, 3:423, 3:446 Berlin, Adele 2:405, 2:442 Bernstein, Moshe J. 1:291, 1:296, 1:300, 1:302, 1:308, 2:206, 2:207, 2:283, 2:448, 2:456, 2:461, 3:87, 3:156, 3:187, 3:189, 3:229, 3:269, 3:270, 3:302, 3:414, 3:418 Berrin, Shani L. 1:291, 1:292, 2:323 Bethge, H.-G. 3:282, 3:290, 3:293, 3:300, 3:314 Betz, Otto 1:68, 1:291, 1:312, 2:186, 2:188, 2:189, 2:191, 2:192, 2:194, 3:9, 3:17, 3:75, 3:84, 3:137, 3:412, 3:423, 3:443 Beyer, Klaus 1:104, 1:107, 1:114, 1:116, 1:117, 1:119, 1:120, 1:121, 2:459, 2:470, 2:473 Bietenhard, Hans 2:369, 3:209 Billerbeck, Paul 3:154 Black, Matthew 1:43, 2:79, 2:153, 2:321, 2:367, 2:385, 2:481, 3:248, 3:274, 3:329, 3:385, 3:412, 3:413, 3:415, 3:444 Black, Max 2:352 Blau, Anne Kohn 2:403 Blau, Ludwig 2:366, 2:367, 2:372 Bloom, Harold 3:315 Blount, Brian K. 2:203 Blunt, Alfred W. F. 3:77 Boccaccini, Gabriele 1:37, 1:44, 1:59, 1:60, 1:61, 1:64, 1:65, 1:102, 1:103, 2:205, 2:377, 2:386, 2:390

Böcher, Otto 1:206, 3:120, 3:258, 3:268, 3:303 Bodinger, Martin 3:218 Boismard, Marie-Émile 2:479, 3:133, 3:142 Boling, Robert G. 3:231 Bonani, Georges 3:426 Bons, Eberhard 2:258 Borgen, Peder 3:68, 3:106, 3:127, 3:302, 3:315 Borger, Rykle 2:365 Boring, M. Eugene 3:266 Böttcher, Friedrich 1:172 Bousset, Charles 1:206 Bousset, Wilhelm 3:451, 3:455 Boyarin, Daniel 1:30, 1:60 Brady, Monica L. 2:453 Brandenburger, Egon 3:451 Branscomb, Bennett H. 3:77 Bratsiotis, Nicholas P. 3:454 Braun, François-Marie 3:412, 3:415 Braun, Herbert 2:243, 3:207, 3:306, 3:315, 3:415, 3:418, 3:441, 3:444 Braun, Oskar 3:427 Braun, Willi 3:436 Brenner, Athalya 2:414, 2:415 Brewer, David I. 1:290 Brin, Gershon 1:302, 2:28 Brooke, George J. 1:86, 1:105, 1:113, 1:117, 1:134, 1:138, 1:147, 1:157, 1:158, 1:246, 1:287, 1:291, 1:294, 1:302, 1:303, 1:304, 1:309, 1:310, 1:312, 1:313, 1:316, 2:72,

AUTHOR I NDEX 2:109, 2:116, 2:123, 2:126, 2:127, 2:128, 2:144, 2:149, 2:158, 2:161, 2:164, 2:329, 2:485, 3:88, 3:175, 3:194, 3:203, 3:217, 3:224, 3:235, 3:239, 3:245, 3:258, 3:262 Broshi, Magen 1:143, 2:198, 2:235, 2:457, 2:470, 3:18, 3:134, 3:171 Brown, Michelle P. 2:145 Brown, Raymond E. 1:22, 3:70, 3:81, 3:119, 3:120, 3:121, 3:128, 3:147, 3:150, 3:287, 3:290, 3:302, 3:412 Brownlee, William H. 1:80, 1:171, 1:184, 1:192, 1:193, 1:195, 1:197, 1:199, 1:201, 1:289, 1:290, 1:291, 1:295, 1:298, 1:303, 1:313, 2:17, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:217, 2:235, 2:294, 3:3, 3:145, 3:379, 3:409, 3:444 Bruce, Frederick F. 1:290, 1:291, 2:6, 3:102 Brun, Jean-Pierre 2:415 Buchanan, George W. 3:150, 3:227, 3:261, 3:262 Bultmann, Rudolf K. 3:124, 3:305, 3:412, 3:415, 3:418, 3:455 Burchard, Christoph 2:400, 2:402, 2:403, 2:407, 2:409, 2:410, 2:414 Burfeind, Carsten 2:400 Burgmann, Hans 2:398, 3:4 Burkert, Walter 2:345 Burney, Charles F. 1:88

Burrows, Millar 1:80, 1:274, 3:409, 3:411, 3:412 Busink, Theodor A. 3:232, 3:243 Caird, George B. 2:243, 2:245, 2:246, 2:352 Callaway, Phillip R. 1:184 Callot, Olivier 2:415 Cameron, Regina M. 3:288 Cameron, Ron 3:317 Campbell, Jonathan G. 1:300, 3:325 Cappel, Louis 1:149, 1:151, 1:164 Capper, Brian J. 3:222, 3:332, 3:353 Caquot, André 2:398, 2:399, 3:209 Carmignac, Jean 1:128, 1:183, 1:192, 1:225, 1:292, 2:17, 2:215, 2:295, 2:319, 2:327, 2:351, 2:353, 2:360, 2:387, 2:399, 3:4, 3:17, 3:57, 3:126 Carson, Donald A. 3:81, 3:105 Casalini, Nello 3:204 Case, Shirley J. 3:31 Catastini, Alessandro 1:161 Chadwick, Henry 2:150 Chamberlain, John V. 1:314 Chambon, Alain 3:411 Charles, Richard H. 2:39, 2:379, 2:448 Charles, Robert H. 1:38, 2:40, 2:377, 2:379, 2:448, 3:324 Charlesworth, James H. 1:1, 1:37, 1:38, 1:56, 1:61, 1:63, 1:125, 1:192, 1:226, 1:276, 1:287, 1:290, 1:304, 2:5, 2:13, 2:14, 2:16, 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:80,

587 2:107, 2:129, 2:159, 2:179, 2:203, 2:204, 2:206, 2:208, 2:212, 2:213, 2:215, 2:216, 2:224, 2:225, 2:226, 2:227, 2:228, 2:231, 2:232, 2:237, 2:283, 2:304, 2:307, 2:317, 2:318, 2:319, 2:323, 2:325, 2:327, 2:330, 2:331, 2:333, 2:341, 2:345, 2:346, 2:347, 2:354, 2:355, 2:357, 2:360, 2:377, 2:378, 2:379, 2:380, 2:382, 2:386, 2:399, 2:404, 2:407, 2:417, 2:418, 2:424, 2:430, 2:431, 2:441, 2:442, 2:443, 2:444, 2:480, 3:1, 3:3, 3:5, 3:7, 3:9, 3:11, 3:13, 3:15, 3:17, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:23, 3:25, 3:27, 3:29, 3:31, 3:33, 3:35, 3:38, 3:51, 3:69, 3:75, 3:89, 3:92, 3:97, 3:99, 3:101, 3:102, 3:103, 3:105, 3:106, 3:107, 3:108, 3:109, 3:110, 3:111, 3:112, 3:113, 3:115, 3:116, 3:117, 3:119, 3:121, 3:123, 3:125, 3:126, 3:127, 3:129, 3:130, 3:131, 3:133, 3:134, 3:135, 3:136, 3:137, 3:138, 3:139, 3:141, 3:143, 3:144, 3:145, 3:147, 3:149, 3:150, 3:151, 3:164, 3:165, 3:174, 3:187, 3:189, 3:191, 3:193, 3:195, 3:197, 3:199, 3:201, 3:212, 3:213, 3:229, 3:257, 3:263, 3:275, 3:277, 3:285, 3:286, 3:290, 3:291, 3:293, 3:295, 3:296, 3:301, 3:303, 3:305, 3:314, 3:320, 3:323, 3:346, 3:349, 3:350, 3:351,

588 3:352, 3:397, 3:413, 3:446 Chazon, Esther G. 2:303, 2:304, 2:308, 2:310, 2:448, 2:454, 2:461, 3:156 Cherian, Jacob 2:351, 2:360 Chilton, Bruce D. 1:33, 2:102, 2:103, 3:2, 3:15, 3:27, 3:81, 3:106, 3:291, 3:315 Christ, Carol P. 1:222 Christensen, Duane L. 1:284 Chyutin, Michael 2:206, 3:264 Clements, Ronald E. 1:285, 1:295, 3:233 Clifford, Richard J. 2:381, 3:232 Cockerill, Gareth L. 3:218 Cody, Aelred 3:209 Cohen, Chaim 1:29, 2:197, 2:201, 2:266, 2:322 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1:29 Collins, Adela Y. 1:56, 1:61, 1:65, 1:113, 1:114, 1:115, 1:116, 1:119, 1:124, 1:127, 1:206, 1:207, 2:75, 2:76, 2:83, 2:90, 2:91, 2:237, 2:377, 2:386, 2:387, 2:404, 2:411, 2:415, 2:437, 2:440 Collins, John J. 1:41, 1:49, 1:56, 1:65, 1:94, 1:101, 1:105, 1:113, 1:115, 1:117, 1:119, 1:152, 1:219, 1:288, 1:295, 2:71, 2:72, 2:75, 2:77, 2:78, 2:79, 2:86, 2:88, 2:89, 2:92, 2:224, 2:250, 2:330, 2:331, 2:346, 2:380, 2:386, 2:400, 2:404, 2:406, 2:435, 2:437, 2:448, 2:458, 2:459,

AUTHOR I NDEX 3:56, 3:141, 3:212, 3:213, 3:217, 3:237, 3:245, 3:251, 3:257, 3:274, 3:314, 3:348, 3:423, 3:431, 3:456 Collins, Raymond F. 3:222 Conzelmann, Hans 3:77 Cook, Edward M. 2:86, 2:451, 2:459, 2:460, 2:485, 3:78, 3:263 Coppens, Joseph 3:207 Corbin, Henry 2:270 Cothenet, Edouard 2:17 Cowley, Robert W. 1:169 Craigie, Peter C. 1:221 Crenshaw, James L. 1:242 Crossan, John D. 3:37 Crown, Alan D. 2:145 Cullmann, Oscar 3:283, 3:286, 3:412, 3:434 Culpepper, R. Alan 3:98, 3:301 Cushman, Robert E. 3:100 D’Ancona, Matthew 3:428 Dahl, Nils A. 3:66 Dahmen, Ulrich 1:248 Daise, Michael A. 3:106, 3:136 Daniélou, Jean 3:4, 3:412 Davenport, Gene L. 2:79 Davies, Alan T. 1:26 Davies, Graham I. 2:108 Davies, Philip R. 1:47, 1:49, 1:61, 1:63, 1:184, 1:209, 1:225, 1:301, 1:305, 2:152, 2:156, 2:211, 2:284, 2:337, 2:421, 3:57, 3:320, 3:348 Davies, Stevan L. 3:4, 3:17, 3:295

Davies, William D. 1:169, 2:94, 2:96, 3:85, 3:110, 3:134, 3:411, 3:415, 3:448 Davila, James R. 1:151, 1:152, 2:332, 2:334, 3:154, 3:166, 3:222 Davis, Michael T. 2:159, 2:204 Decock, Paul B. 2:407 DeConick, April 3:296 Deichgräber, Reinhard 2:451 Deines, Roland 3:455 Delamarter, Steve 2:107, 2:145 Delcor, Mathias 1:245, 1:289, 2:17, 2:294, 2:398, 2:399, 2:402, 2:408, 2:409, 3:314, 3:339, 3:352 Delling, Gerhard 2:411 Denis, Albert-Marie 2:380 DeSilva, David A. 3:204 Destro, Adriana 3:129 Deutsch, Celia 2:293, 3:264 Dexinger, Ferdinand 3:152 Di Lella, Alexander A. 2:20, 2:477 Dimant, Devorah 1:37, 1:39, 1:40, 1:112, 1:126, 1:290, 2:36, 2:118, 2:121, 2:151, 2:152, 2:203, 2:216, 2:218, 2:219, 2:220, 2:244, 2:264, 2:304, 2:321, 2:324, 2:405, 2:447, 2:450, 2:454, 2:455, 2:457, 2:460, 2:461, 2:464, 2:481, 3:4, 3:117, 3:153, 3:164, 3:191, 3:229, 3:249, 3:302, 3:315, 3:320 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 2:353

AUTHOR I NDEX Dombrowski, Bruno W. 2:217, 2:285, 2:353 Donceel, Robert 2:279 Donner, Herbert 1:284 Doudna, Gregory L. 3:408, 3:426 Douglas, Mary C. 2:345, 2:346, 2:348, 2:414, 3:11 Driver, Samuel R. 1:172, 1:173, 1:176, 1:179, 3:367 Dschulnigg, Peter 3:125 Duhaime, Jean 1:51, 1:128, 1:129, 1:226, 2:228, 2:231, 2:232, 2:417, 3:348 Duncan, Julie A. 1:155, 2:108, 2:109, 2:110, 2:112, 2:113, 2:115, 2:116, 2:117, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:122, 2:130, 2:131, 2:132, 2:148, 2:149, 2:150, 2:160 Dunderberg, Ismo 3:176, 3:194, 3:293, 3:294, 3:295 Dunn, James D. G. 1:117, 1:118, 1:119, 3:187 Dunnill, John 3:205 Dupont-Sommer, André 2:17, 2:172, 2:173, 2:174, 2:175, 2:176, 2:179, 2:180, 2:182, 2:184, 2:185, 2:194, 2:293, 2:379, 2:398, 2:399, 2:432, 3:9, 3:397, 3:410, 3:419 Durkheim, Emile 2:28, 2:346, 2:347, 2:348 Efroymsen, David P. 1:26 Eisenbaum, Pamela M. 3:206 Eisenman, Robert H. 1:107, 1:116, 1:119, 1:120, 2:206, 2:372, 2:398, 2:470, 2:485, 3:189, 3:424

Eisler, Robert I. 3:34 Eitam, David 2:415 Elgvin, Torleif 2:265, 2:453, 3:158, 3:334, 3:456 Elledge, Casey D. 1:313, 2:152, 2:216, 2:323 Elliger, Habermann 1:190, 1:192 Elliger, Karl 1:34, 1:192, 1:290 Ellingworth, Paul 3:203 Ellis, E. Earle 3:84, 3:143 Emmanuele, Testa 3:431 Endres, John C. 2:487 Enste, Stefan 3:429 Epstein, Jacob 2:99, 2:421 Erlandsson, Seth 1:282 Ernst, Josef 1:67, 3:15, 3:19 Eshel, Esther 1:61, 2:115, 2:119, 2:131, 2:149, 2:216, 2:451, 2:457, 2:465, 3:6, 3:188, 3:271, 3:330 Eshel, Hanan 2:82, 2:451, 3:271 Evans, Christopher F. 1:68 Evans, Craig A. 1:90, 1:105, 1:106, 1:117, 1:299, 1:303, 2:72, 2:84, 2:89, 2:154, 2:461, 2:488, 3:6, 3:7, 3:16, 3:27, 3:75, 3:77, 3:79, 3:81, 3:83, 3:85, 3:87, 3:89, 3:91, 3:92, 3:93, 3:94, 3:95, 3:107, 3:191, 3:275, 3:282, 3:285, 3:291, 3:323, 3:346, 3:349 Ewald, Heinrich 1:172 Fabricius, Johan Alberto 2:379 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 1:291, 2:207, 2:285, 2:286, 2:287

589 Fallon, Francis T. 3:288 Fee, Gordon D. 3:428, 3:429 Feeley-Harnik, Gillian 2:413, 2:414 Fekkes, Jan 3:262 Feldman, Louis H. 1:28, 1:79, 2:102 Feltes, Heinz 1:291 Fenn, Richard K. 2:332 Fensham, Frank C. 3:214 Ferreira, Johan 3:139 Fieger, Michael 3:297 Fink, Uta B. 1:29, 2:400 Fishbane, Michael A. 1:86, 1:167, 1:246, 1:288, 1:295, 1:296, 1:297, 1:302, 1:305, 1:315, 2:77, 2:154, 2:330, 2:355, 3:138, 3:212, 3:228 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1:25, 1:143, 1:145, 1:146, 1:289, 1:299, 2:40, 2:75, 2:154, 2:227, 2:242, 2:243, 2:244, 2:246, 2:450, 2:457, 2:459, 2:470, 2:471, 2:472, 2:473, 2:474, 3:17, 3:19, 3:44, 3:98, 3:114, 3:131, 3:164, 3:212, 3:298, 3:314, 3:326, 3:328, 3:342, 3:387 Flanagan, James W. 2:337 Flemming, Johan 2:379 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. 2:405, 3:212 Flint, Peter W. 1:29, 1:32, 1:88, 1:105, 1:113, 1:114, 1:115, 1:116, 1:117, 1:121, 1:122, 1:181, 1:233, 1:236, 1:240, 1:248, 1:249, 1:252, 2:114, 2:132, 2:135, 2:136, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:151, 2:152, 2:153,

590 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:158, 2:159, 2:160, 2:167, 2:206, 2:283, 2:284, 2:320, 2:321, 2:322, 2:332, 2:449, 2:450, 2:454, 2:458, 2:469, 3:108, 3:173, 3:188, 3:238, 3:259, 3:264, 3:281, 3:349, 3:407, 3:408, 3:409, 3:414, 3:417, 3:426, 3:432 Flusser, David 1:53, 1:55, 2:33, 2:101, 2:102, 2:235, 2:236, 2:244, 2:398 Ford, J. Massyngberde 3:262, 3:274 Forkman, Göran 3:331 Fortna, Robert T. 3:102, 3:284, 3:287 Fossum, Jarl E. 3:212 Fowler, Alastair 2:322 Frankel, Raphael 2:415 Frankel, Zacharias 2:365 Frankemölle, Hubert 1:206, 3:183 Franklyn, Paul N. 2:399 Franks, Robert S. 3:357 Fredriksen, Paula 3:105, 3:106 Fredriksson, Henning 1:216, 1:218 Freedman, David N. 1:30, 1:33, 1:39, 2:17, 2:50, 2:204, 2:208, 2:306, 2:467 Frerichs, Ernest S. 1:56, 2:71, 2:78, 2:83, 2:215, 2:441 Frey, Jean-Baptiste 2:380 Frey, Jörg 1:xxvi, 2:461, 3:138, 3:156, 3:164, 3:178, 3:281, 3:283, 3:285, 3:286, 3:287, 3:294, 3:299, 3:302, 3:311, 3:407,

AUTHOR I NDEX 3:418, 3:423, 3:438, 3:439, 3:458 Frick, Frank S. 2:415 Friedlander, Moriz 2:365, 2:367 Friedrich, Johannes 1:67, 2:65 Fritsch, Charles T. 3:214 Fröhlich, Ida 1:104, 1:291 Fujita, Shozo 2:356 Gabrion, Hervé 1:290, 1:293, 1:294 Gager, John G. 1:26 Gall, August von 1:149 Gammie, John G. 2:183, 2:194, 3:317 García Martínez, Florentino 1:38, 1:39, 1:50, 1:51, 1:61, 1:64, 1:87, 1:93, 1:103, 1:107, 1:114, 1:117, 1:135, 1:147, 1:186, 1:258, 1:259, 1:260, 1:276, 1:279, 1:289, 1:296, 1:302, 2:17, 2:47, 2:72, 2:154, 2:206, 2:240, 2:283, 2:386, 2:390, 2:431, 2:449, 2:451, 2:452, 2:455, 2:459, 2:461, 2:481, 2:485, 2:487, 2:488, 3:240 Garnet, Paul 3:115, 3:359, 3:361, 3:363, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:369, 3:371, 3:373, 3:375, 3:377, 3:379 Gärtner, Bertil E. 1:201, 3:89 Garuti, Paolo 3:204 Gaventa, Beverly R. 2:360 Geertz, Clifford C. 2:137, 2:147, 2:414 Georgi, Dieter 3:211, 3:264 Gerleman, Gillis 3:454 Gero, Stephen 2:423 Gese, Hartmut 3:308

Gianotto, Claudio 2:387 Giblin, Charles H. 3:274 Ginsburg, Christian D. 1:170 Ginzberg, Louis 2:369 Glessmer, Uwe 2:26, 2:32, 2:37, 2:45, 2:57, 2:207, 2:309, 3:177 Gnilka, Joachim 3:165, 3:183 Golb, Norman 2:203 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 2:23 Gooding, David W. 1:79 Goodman, Martin 2:421, 3:46 Goodspeed, Edgar J. 3:100 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. 1:32, 1:33, 1:74, 1:88, 1:150, 1:164, 1:170, 1:245, 1:250, 2:154, 2:156 Gottwald, Norman K. 2:335, 2:336 Grabbe, Lester L. 1:60, 1:61, 2:77 Graetz, Heinrich 3:1, 3:2 Gray, George B. 2:429 Grech, Prosper 3:151 Green, David E. 2:398 Green, William S. 1:56, 1:135, 2:71, 2:78, 2:83, 2:215, 2:441, 3:3, 3:211, 3:224 Greenberg, Moshe 1:171 Greenfield, Jonas C. 1:301, 2:240, 2:381, 2:449, 2:452, 2:457, 2:485, 2:490 Greenspahn, Frederick E. 2:335 Greenspoon, Leonard J. 1:158, 3:233 Grelot, Pierre 1:43, 2:365

AUTHOR I NDEX Guilding, Aileen 3:121 Gundry, Robert H. 3:88 Gunkel, Hermann 2:364, 2:365 Guthrie, George H. 3:204, 3:228 Haenchen, Ernst 3:115 Hagner, Donald A. 3:84 Hahn, Ferdinand 1:34, 3:283, 3:295, 3:383 Halevy, Joseph 2:363, 2:365 Hall, Robert G. 2:326 Hann, Robert R. 2:399, 2:432 Hanson, Paul D. 1:42, 1:219, 1:220, 3:233 Haran, Menahem 2:154, 3:242 Harding, Gerald L. 1:173, 2:416, 3:3 Harrelson, Walter J. 1:242 Harrington, Daniel J. 2:265, 2:463, 3:203, 3:328 Harrington, Hannah K. 3:10, 3:141 Hartley, John E. 1:41 Hartman, David 1:35 Hay, David M. 2:243, 3:218 Hayes, Christine 3:208 Hays, Richard B. 3:197, 3:226 Hayward, Robert 3:187 Headlam, Arthur C. 2:246 Heger, Paul 2:60 Hegermann, Harald 3:203 Helfmeyer, Franz-Josef 2:289 Heltzer, Michael 2:415 Hempel, Charlotte 1:304, 2:152, 2:283, 2:291, 2:297, 2:298, 3:304, 3:341

Hempel, Johannes 2:293 Hendel, Ronald S. 1:75, 1:149, 1:151, 1:152, 1:155, 1:156, 1:164, 1:165 Hengel, Martin 1:68, 1:101, 1:213, 2:27, 2:92, 2:238, 3:93, 3:99, 3:101, 3:118, 3:218, 3:228, 3:285, 3:286, 3:310, 3:315, 3:336, 3:417, 3:442 Henten, Jan Willem van 2:414, 2:415 Henze, Matthias 1:300, 1:316, 2:285, 2:323 Herr, Moshe D. 2:33, 2:39 Heschel, Abraham 2:338 Himmelfarb, Martha 1:61 Hindley, J. Clifford 2:381, 2:382 Hobbs, T. Raymond 1:221 Hodder, Ian 2:335 Hoenig, Sidney B. 2:419 Hoffman, Thomas A. 1:167 Hoffman, Yair 2:240, 2:449 Hoffmann, Paul 3:317 Hoffner, Harry A. 2:415 Hofius, Otfried 3:298, 3:308 Holladay, William L. 1:276 Hollenbach, Paul W. 3:9, 3:21 Holm-Nielsen, Svend 1:300, 1:311, 2:354, 2:355, 2:442 Holmberg, Bengt 2:335, 3:3 Horbury, William 2:77 Horgan, Maurya P. 1:184, 1:192, 1:195,

591 1:201, 1:276, 1:277, 1:278, 1:279, 1:290, 1:291, 2:212, 2:216, 2:319, 2:323, 2:331, 3:31, 3:65, 3:225 Horn, Friedrich W. 3:273 Horowitz, Wayne 2:35 Horsley, Richard A. 3:37, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:43, 3:45, 3:46, 3:47, 3:49, 3:51, 3:53, 3:55, 3:57, 3:59, 3:349, 3:351 Horton, Fred L. 3:220, 3:369 Houlden, James L. 3:305 Hubbard, Moyer V. 2:412, 3:159 Hultgård, Anders 1:53 Hultgren, Arland J. 3:226 Humphrey, Edith M. 3:273 Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno 2:301 Huppenbauer, Hans W. 2:295 Hurst, Lincoln D. 2:245, 3:204 Isaac, Benjamin H. 1:187 Isaac, Ephraim 2:209, 2:363, 2:377, 2:392 Isaacs, Marie E. 3:204 Jackson, David R. 1:61 Jaffee, Martin S. 1:41 James, Montague R. 2:428, 2:429 Janzen, John G. 1:84 Jas, Michel 2:384 Jastram, Nathan 1:73, 1:83, 1:155, 2:283 Jastro, Marcus 3:34 Jaubert, Annie 2:205, 2:211, 2:310 Jellinek, Adolph 2:366, 2:368, 2:370, 2:371

592 Jeremias, Gert 1:107, 2:353, 2:358, 2:424, 2:487, 3:422 Jeremias, Joachim 1:183, 2:354, 2:360, 2:414, 3:104 Jervell, Jacob 3:62 Jeska, Joachim 3:382 Jewett, Robert 3:208, 3:455 Joel, Manuel 2:371 Johns, Loren L. 3:75, 3:130, 3:255, 3:257, 3:258, 3:259, 3:261, 3:263, 3:265, 3:267, 3:269, 3:271, 3:273, 3:275, 3:277, 3:279 Johnson, Elizabeth 2:243, 3:333 Johnson, Luke T. 3:93 Johnson, Richard W. 3:204 Jones, Gwilym 1:218 Jong, Albert de 2:270 Jongeling, Bastiaan 1:289, 3:131 Jucci, Elio 1:291 Juel, Donald H. 1:xxix, 2:203, 3:61, 3:63, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:69, 3:71, 3:73, 3:260 Jull, A. J. Timothy 2:241, 2:451, 3:426 Jung, Franz 3:308 Kahle, Paul 1:32, 1:33 Kampen, John 1:82, 1:93, 1:302, 2:50, 2:206, 2:207, 2:283, 3:87, 3:88, 3:156, 3:187, 3:189, 3:269, 3:270, 3:302, 3:348, 3:351 Kampen, Kimberly Van 2:145 Kang, Sa-Moon 1:218 Käsemann, Ernst 3:123, 3:305, 3:455 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 2:236 Kautzsch, Emil F. 1:40, 2:379

AUTHOR I NDEX Kazmierski, Carl R. 3:4 Keck, Leander E. 3:93, 3:326, 3:337 Kee, Howard C. 2:241, 2:243, 3:31 Keel, Othmar 1:31, 2:360 Kellermann, Ulrich 3:190 Kennicott, Benjamin 1:67 Kenyon, Kathleen M. 2:347 Kilpatrick, George D. 2:401, 3:387, 3:428 King, Philip J. 3:232 Kister, Menachem 2:199, 2:452 Kittel, Rudolf 1:163, 1:164 Klawans, Jonathan 3:208 Klinzing, Georg 3:162 Kloppenburg, John S. 3:317 Knibb, Michael A. 1:61, 2:53, 2:72, 2:283, 2:291, 2:293, 2:294, 2:297, 2:313, 2:314, 2:379, 2:384, 2:385, 3:422 Knohl, Israel 2:50, 2:89, 2:208 Kobelski, Paul J. 3:215 Koch, Klaus 1:61, 3:247 Koehler, Ludwig 3:454 Koenen, Klaus 2:293 Koester, Craig R. 3:204, 3:210 Kohler, Kaufmann 2:401 Kosmala, Hans 3:207, 3:435 Köster (Koester), Helmut 3:63, 3:286, 3:287, 3:290, 3:292 Kraemer, Ross S. 2:400 Kraft, Robert A. 1:28, 1:31, 1:61, 1:93, 1:290, 2:331, 2:423, 2:431, 2:442

Kranvig, Helge S. 1:43 Krause, Martin 3:314 Kruse, Colin G. 2:295 Kugler, Robert A. 1:54, 2:298, 2:331, 2:488, 2:490, 3:203, 3:262 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 1:107, 2:36, 2:185, 2:189, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:233, 2:244, 2:245, 2:272, 2:424, 2:487, 3:153, 3:413, 3:418 Kuhn, Karl G. 2:172, 2:173, 2:174, 2:175, 2:176, 2:177, 2:179, 2:180, 2:182, 2:184, 2:185, 2:189, 2:194, 2:235, 2:239, 2:302, 2:401, 2:402, 2:424, 3:107, 3:147 Kühschelm, Roman 3:309 Kvanvig, Helge 1:61 Kyle, Peter 1:150, 1:161, 1:174 Kysar, Robert D. 3:284 Lagarde, Paul de 1:32, 1:67 Lalleman, Pieter J. 3:299 Lambdin, Thomas O. 3:288 Lamouille, Arnaud 3:101 Lane, William L. 2:432, 2:434, 3:203 Lang, Bernhard 1:291, 3:358 Lang, Manfred 3:287 Lange, Armin 1:111, 1:304, 2:207, 2:217, 2:218, 2:219, 2:238, 2:239, 2:240, 2:245, 3:18, 3:156, 3:171, 3:302, 3:304, 3:451, 3:456, 3:458 Laplanche, François 1:149 Larsen, Erik 2:454

AUTHOR I NDEX LaSor, William S. 1:289, 3:407, 3:408 Lattke, Michael 3:305 Layton, Bentley 3:15, 3:288, 3:289, 3:295, 3:298 Leaney, Alfred R. C. 2:183, 2:194 Lehmann, Manfred R. 2:302, 2:303 Lehne, Susanne 3:222 Leigh, Richard 3:424 Leiman, Sid Z. 1:30, 1:69, 1:171 Leipoldt, Johannes 3:312 Lemaire, André 1:295, 2:135 Leroy, Herbert 3:129 Levenson, Jon D. 1:156, 3:232, 3:399, 3:403 Levey, Samson H. 2:83 Levin, Christoph 3:222 Levine, Baruch A. 1:72, 2:99, 2:302, 2:321, 3:224 Lewis, Jack P. 1:29, 1:30, 1:69 Licht, Jacob 2:28, 2:235, 2:238, 2:240, 2:449, 3:126 Lichtenberger, Hermann 1:111, 1:304, 2:27, 2:71, 2:73, 2:183, 2:194, 2:207, 2:355, 3:2, 3:4, 3:141, 3:166, 3:175, 3:179, 3:200, 3:275, 3:302, 3:304, 3:314, 3:418, 3:423, 3:447, 3:451, 3:456 Lieberman, Saul 2:367, 2:369 Lieberman, Stephen 2:418 Lignée, Hubert 2:17 Lim, Timothy H. 1:290, 1:295, 1:299, 2:17, 2:135, 2:144, 2:320, 3:98, 3:166, 3:417, 3:443, 3:449

Lind, Millard C. 1:217, 1:218 Lindars, Barnabas 1:158, 3:81, 3:117, 3:118, 3:204 Lohr, Helmut 3:228 Lohse, Eduard 1:190, 1:195, 1:203, 2:293, 3:259 Loisy, Alfred F. 3:99, 3:100 Long, Thomas G. 3:204 Longman, Tremper III 1:222 Loretz, Oswald 3:407 Luckmann, Thomas 2:343, 3:29, 3:30 Lührmann, Dieter 2:41, 3:264, 3:306 Lupieri, Edmondo 3:4 Lust, Johan 1:79 Luz, Ulrich 3:306 Lyonnet, Stanislas 3:358 Lyons, John 1:189 Macintosh, Andrew A. 1:282 Mack, Burton L. 3:75 Macky, Peter W. 2:352 Magness, Jodi 1:287, 2:23, 3:237, 3:432 Maier, Hans 2:29 Maier, Johann 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 2:73, 2:74, 2:75, 2:76, 2:81, 2:85, 2:86, 2:87, 2:88, 2:90, 2:91, 2:92, 2:224, 3:139, 3:235, 3:239, 3:241, 3:264, 3:307 Malinowski, Bronislaw 2:321 Manson, Thomas W. 3:208 Mansoor, Menahem 2:354, 2:355, 3:9 Mantovani, Piera A. 2:391 Manzi, Franco 2:387, 3:307

593 Marcus, Joel 3:81 Marcus, Ralph 2:420 Margalioth, Rachel 2:369 Marincola, John 2:326 Markovich, Miroslav 3:295 Marshall, Gordon 2:246 Marshall, John W. 3:259, 3:315 Martin, François 2:377, 2:379 Martin, Malachi 2:145, 3:125 Martyn, J. Louis 3:326 Masuch, Georg 3:428 Mattingly, David J. 2:415 May, Herbert G. 2:176, 2:179 Mazor, Lea 1:96 McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. 2:155 McCarter, P. Kyle 1:33, 1:75, 1:150, 1:154, 1:161, 1:173, 1:174, 1:178, 1:180 McDonald, Hugh D. 3:357, 3:443 McDonald, Lee M. 1:27, 1:28, 2:141 McKenzie, Steven L. 1:162 McLean, Bradley H. 3:317 McSpadden, James D. 2:317 Mearns, Christopher L. 2:381 Mechelz, Otto 1:68 Meeks, Wayne A. 2:335, 3:121, 3:128, 3:150, 3:275, 3:305 Meier, John P. 2:430, 2:433, 3:15, 3:37, 3:106 Meiser, Martin 3:106 Mell, Ulrich 3:153, 3:159, 3:414

594 Mendels, Doron 1:45, 1:106, 1:214, 3:106 Menzies, Robert P. 3:134 Mercati, Giovanni 3:427 Mercer, Calvin R. 3:257 Merrill, Eugene H. 2:245, 3:170 Mertens, Alfred 1:116, 1:122, 1:123, 1:124, 1:128 Merz, Annette 3:106, 3:316 Meshorer, Ya‘akov 1:214 Messel, Nils 2:380 Metso, Sarianna 1:94, 2:207, 2:240, 2:283, 2:284, 2:295, 3:156 Metzger, Bruce M. 1:97, 1:290 Meyer, Marvin W. 3:295, 3:315 Meyer, Rudolf 1:68, 2:398 Michaelis, Wilhelm 2:407, 3:2 Michel, Otto 3:388 Migne, Jacques-Paul 2:379 Milgrom, Jacob 1:41, 1:47, 1:304, 2:50, 2:208, 2:286, 2:287, 2:288, 2:467, 3:11, 3:239 Milik, Jozef T. 1:40, 1:80, 1:102, 1:104, 1:107, 1:110, 1:112, 1:113, 1:115, 1:116, 1:121, 1:126, 1:139, 1:143, 1:274, 1:310, 1:311, 2:41, 2:47, 2:50, 2:53, 2:58, 2:112, 2:161, 2:162, 2:205, 2:211, 2:212, 2:215, 2:216, 2:218, 2:219, 2:220, 2:228, 2:240, 2:265, 2:294, 2:304, 2:305, 2:331,

AUTHOR I NDEX 2:332, 2:368, 2:372, 2:373, 2:374, 2:382, 2:383, 2:384, 2:385, 2:416, 2:448, 2:451, 2:452, 2:453, 2:454, 2:457, 2:458, 2:459, 2:460, 2:469, 2:470, 2:472, 2:473, 2:474, 2:480, 2:481, 2:482, 2:483, 2:484, 2:485, 2:486, 2:487, 2:488, 2:489, 3:104 Miller, Patrick D. 1:219, 2:308, 2:333, 3:20 Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike 2:355 Moloney, Francis J. 3:105 Moore, Carey A. 1:143, 2:471, 2:472, 2:474, 2:480 Moore, George F. 1:33, 3:93, 3:440 Morag, Shelomo 1:160 Morin, Jean 1:149 Morisada Rietz, Henry W. 2:5, 2:13, 2:16 Morris, Leon 3:102, 3:260, 3:358 Morrow, Francis J. 1:275 Mowinckel, Sigmund 1:56, 2:333 Moyise, Steve 3:230, 3:262 Mueller, James R. 3:44 Müller, Christoph G. 1:291, 3:163 Muro, Ernest A., Jr. 3:429 Murphy, Catherine M. 2:165, 2:285, 3:324, 3:329 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 2:227, 2:333, 2:351, 2:391, 2:434 Nauck, Wolfgang 2:402 Neher, André 2:338 Neirynck, Frans 3:287, 3:413, 3:444

Nelson, Richard D. 1:158, 2:423 Nemoy, Leon 2:30 Neubauer, Adolf 3:367 Neugebauer, Otto E. 1:43 Neusner, Jacob 1:33, 1:56, 1:135, 2:23, 2:71, 2:78, 2:83, 2:215, 2:241, 2:243, 2:414, 2:417, 2:441, 3:203, 3:211 Newman, Judith 2:311 Newsom, Carol A. 1:39, 2:37, 2:107, 2:121, 2:144, 2:145, 2:153, 2:204, 2:208, 2:209, 2:217, 2:224, 2:225, 2:226, 2:293, 2:306, 2:322, 2:340, 2:454, 2:456, 3:107, 3:203, 3:209, 3:256, 3:263, 3:361 Newton, Michael 3:53, 3:339 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1:43, 1:51, 1:60, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:139, 1:143, 1:146, 1:290, 2:78, 2:79, 2:224, 2:331, 2:346, 2:377, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:398, 2:405, 2:442, 2:481, 3:390 Niditch, Susan 3:53 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 2:90 Nitzan, Bilhah 2:17, 2:28, 2:38, 2:302, 2:303, 2:306 Noll, Stephen F. 2:359 Nongbri, Brent 3:101 Nordhofen, Jacob 3:153 Nötscher (Noetscher), Friedrich 2:175, 2:176, 2:203, 2:217, 2:218, 2:235 O’Callaghan, José 3:427 O’Neill, John C. 2:403, 2:407

AUTHOR I NDEX Obermann, Andreas 3:285 Odeberg, Hugo 1:207, 2:369 Oegema, Gerbern S. 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:355, 2:435, 3:141, 3:275, 3:314, 3:381 Öhler, Marcus 3:291 Ollenburger, Ben C. 3:265 Olson, Dennis T. 2:203, 2:301, 2:304, 2:307, 2:358 Olyan, Saul M. 2:60, 2:454 Onuki, Takashi 3:283, 3:295, 3:296 Oppenheim, Aharon 1:187 Orlinsky, Harry M. 1:170, 1:171, 1:173 Orton, David E. 3:306 Osten-Sacken, Peter von der 1:225 Otto, Eckart 3:432 Otto, Rudolf 2:243 Otzen, Benedikt 2:182, 2:194 Paesler, Kurt 3:316 Pagels, Elaine H. 3:290 Painter, John 3:120, 3:129, 3:285 Palache, Jehuda L. 2:197 Pamplaniyil, Joseph 3:293 Pardee, Dennis 2:319 Parker, David C. 2:145 Parry, Donald W. 1:35, 1:94, 1:134, 1:167, 1:173, 1:250, 1:289, 2:28, 2:32, 2:84, 2:86, 2:332, 2:347, 2:451, 2:452, 2:458, 2:459, 2:460, 3:1, 3:131 Parsons, Mikeal C. 3:205 Parsons, Peter J. 1:70, 1:93 Parsons, Talcott 2:341

Patrich, Joseph 2:416 Paul, André 2:360, 3:99 Paulsen, Henning 3:295, 3:451 Pearson, Birger A. 3:221, 3:281 Penner, Ken 3:160 Perkins, Pheme 3:274 Perrin, Norman 2:388, 3:257 Pesce, Mauro 3:129 Pesch, Rudolf 3:445 Peters, Norbert 2:366 Petersen, David L. 2:77 Pfann, Stephen J. 1:102, 1:107, 1:121, 2:40, 2:101, 2:116, 2:125, 2:149, 2:164, 2:165, 2:284, 2:470, 2:485, 3:408, 3:411, 3:416, 3:443 Philonenko, Marc 1:53, 2:379, 2:398, 2:399, 2:400, 2:402, 2:403, 2:407, 2:410, 2:411, 3:218 Pickering, Stuart R. 3:428, 3:430 Pisano, Stephen 1:180 Pixner, Bargil 3:430 Ploeg, Johannes P. M. van der 1:192, 1:225, 2:398 Polak, Frank M. 2:60, 2:240, 2:449 Politis, Konstantinos D. 2:279 Pomykala, Kenneth E. 2:76, 2:77, 2:79 Pope, Marvin H. 2:286 Popkes, Enno E. 3:281, 3:283, 3:285, 3:287, 3:289, 3:291, 3:293, 3:294, 3:295, 3:297, 3:298, 3:299, 3:301, 3:303, 3:305, 3:307, 3:309, 3:311, 3:313, 3:315, 3:317 Porter, Stanley E. 1:106, 1:117, 1:299, 2:461

595 Porton, Gary G. 2:22, 2:433 Pouilly, Jean 2:391 Pratscher, Wilhelm 3:310 Price, James L. 3:303 Priest, John F. 2:294 Prigent, Pierre 2:399 Pritchard, James B. 1:104 Pryke, John 3:444 Przybylski, Benno 3:86 Puech, Émile 1:103, 1:106, 1:113, 1:114, 1:116, 1:117, 1:119, 1:120, 1:123, 1:135, 2:72, 2:85, 2:90, 2:91, 2:154, 2:240, 2:248, 2:249, 2:250, 2:251, 2:253, 2:259, 2:263, 2:264, 2:265, 2:266, 2:268, 2:271, 2:272, 2:276, 2:277, 2:353, 2:387, 2:451, 2:452, 2:454, 2:456, 2:457, 2:458, 2:459, 2:461, 2:466, 3:360, 3:429 Pursiful, Darrell J. 3:209 Qimron, Elisha 1:71, 1:136, 1:203, 1:302, 2:19, 2:22, 2:37, 2:44, 2:56, 2:195, 2:206, 2:207, 2:213, 2:214, 2:217, 2:454, 2:457, 2:463, 3:175, 3:190, 3:401, 3:449, 3:452 Quispel, Gilles 3:295, 3:312 Rabin, Batya 2:48, 2:208 Rabin, Chaim 2:48, 2:229, 2:276, 2:417, 3:26, 3:144 Rad, Gerhard von 1:216, 1:217, 1:218 Rahner, Johanna 3:283 Rainbow, Paul A. 2:20, 2:24 Räisänen, Heikki 2:243, 3:76, 3:194, 3:293

596 Rappaport, Uriel 2:244, 2:304, 2:321, 3:4, 3:153, 3:191, 3:414, 3:443 Reddish, Mitchell G. 2:385 Reeves, John C. 1:107, 2:50, 2:358, 3:88, 3:348 Reid, Daniel G. 1:222 Reif, Stefan C. 2:363 Reim, Günter 3:286 Renan, Ernest 3:424 Rengstorf, Karl H. 3:391 Ridderbos, Herman N. 3:124 Riesner, Rainer 3:110, 3:431 Riessler, Paul 1:38, 2:379, 2:401 Riley, Gregory J. 3:288, 3:290 Ringgren, Helmer 1:37, 1:192, 2:236, 3:117, 3:333 Rissi, Mathias 3:211 Roberts, J. J. M. 1:273, 1:276, 1:282, 1:285, 2:80, 2:215, 2:216, 2:218, 2:220, 2:221, 2:333 Roberts, Kathryn L. 2:333 Robinson, James A. T. 2:103 Robinson, James M. 1:107, 1:310, 2:485, 3:63, 3:281, 3:287, 3:289, 3:290, 3:292, 3:295, 3:317 Rofé, Alexander 1:158, 1:161, 1:177, 1:180, 2:64, 2:139, 2:241, 2:451 Röhser, Günter 2:245, 3:170 Roloff, Jürgen 3:143 Rosen, Debra 2:399 Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo de 1:67

AUTHOR I NDEX Rost, Leonhard 2:398 Rostovtzeff, Michael I. 2:420 Rowley, Harold H. 1:40, 2:24, 3:15 Ruckstuhl, Eugen 3:124, 3:125, 3:148, 3:302, 3:434, 3:437 Ryle, Herbert E. 1:29, 2:428, 2:429, 2:432, 2:440 Sabourin, Léopold 3:358 Sacchi, Paolo 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:53, 1:60, 1:61, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:303, 2:377, 2:379, 2:380, 2:383, 2:389, 2:390, 2:393, 3:390 Saldarini, Anthony J. 2:430, 3:40, 3:203 Saley, Richard J. 1:173 Salvesen, Alison 2:399 Sanday, William 2:246 Sanders, Edward P. 2:236, 2:243, 3:37, 3:49, 3:88, 3:103, 3:108, 3:176, 3:319, 3:323, 3:404 Sanders, Jack T. 3:305 Sanders, James A. 1:25, 1:27, 1:28, 1:29, 1:31, 1:32, 1:33, 1:34, 1:35, 1:36, 1:88, 1:90, 1:132, 1:167, 1:168, 1:171, 1:177, 1:239, 1:241, 1:242, 1:246, 1:249, 1:250, 1:251, 1:255, 1:256, 1:257, 1:258, 1:260, 1:261, 1:262, 1:263, 2:89, 2:141, 2:153, 2:154, 2:205, 2:321, 2:329, 2:450, 2:455, 2:476, 2:477, 2:478, 2:479, 2:488, 3:7, 3:89, 3:94, 3:191, 3:397 Sanderson, Judith E. 1:81, 2:113, 2:127, 2:148

Sandmel, Samuel 1:30, 2:404, 3:14, 3:154, 3:259 Sarason, Richard 2:315 Scanlin, Harold P. 1:181 Schechter, Solomon 1:38, 2:30, 2:417 Schein, Bruce E. 3:70 Schenker, Adrian 1:31, 1:164 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1:37, 1:47, 1:61, 1:140, 1:142, 1:292, 1:297, 1:304, 2:121, 2:152, 2:207, 2:224, 2:227, 2:228, 2:233, 2:287, 2:302, 2:314, 2:321, 2:404, 2:405, 2:418, 2:453, 2:454, 2:463, 3:4, 3:16, 3:23, 3:52, 3:53, 3:106, 3:108, 3:125, 3:136, 3:141, 3:144, 3:158, 3:160, 3:188, 3:190, 3:209, 3:224, 3:229, 3:239, 3:240, 3:265, 3:320, 3:328, 3:348 Schlier, Heinrich 2:402 Schmidt, Francis 2:238, 2:398 Schmithals, Walter 3:287 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 2:424, 3:117, 3:123, 3:132 Schnelle, Udo 3:154, 3:164, 3:285, 3:286, 3:288, 3:294, 3:299, 3:302, 3:418 Schniedewind, William M. 2:76 Scholar, John M. 3:204 Scholem, Gershom 2:94, 2:236, 2:369, 2:370, 2:372, 2:373 Scholtissek, Klaus 3:297 Schottroff, Luise 3:299 Schrage, Wolfgang 3:101, 3:290, 3:305

AUTHOR I NDEX Schröger, Friedrich 3:228 Schröter, Jens 3:288, 3:290, 3:311 Schubert, Kurt 3:110, 3:307, 3:333 Schuller, Eileen M. 2:148, 2:155, 2:156, 2:321, 2:331, 2:353, 2:456, 3:178, 3:203, 3:262 Schulz, Siegfried 3:305, 3:375, 3:454 Schüpphaus, Joachim 2:431, 2:432 Schürer, Emil 1:8, 1:292, 2:79, 2:103, 2:262, 2:308, 2:313, 2:430, 2:433, 3:190 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 1:208, 3:263, 3:264 Schwally, Friedrich 1:216 Schwankl, Otto 3:307 Schwartz, Daniel R. 1:125, 1:304, 1:305, 1:306, 2:227, 2:229, 2:416, 2:417, 3:17, 3:26, 3:325 Schweitzer, Frederick W. 2:327, 2:353 Schweizer, Eduard 2:182, 2:183, 2:194, 3:125 Scott, James M. 3:191 Seebass, Horst 2:80 Sefa-Dapaah, Daniel 3:17 Segal, Alan F. 2:414, 2:423, 2:424, 2:453, 3:31, 3:69, 3:72, 3:84 Segal, Michael 1:89, 1:140, 2:453 Segert, I. Stanislav 2:241 Segovia, Fernando F. 3:283, 3:305 Seitz, Otto 2:172, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:185, 2:194

Sekki, Arthur E. 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:194, 3:42 Sell, Jesse 3:295 Shaked, Shaul 2:239 Shalom, Samuel 2:365 Shanks, Hershel 1:155 Shanks, Michael 3:29 Sharpe, John L. 2:145 Shavit, Yaacov 1:37 Shemesh, Aharon 2:227 Sheres, Ita 2:403 Silberman, Lou H. 3:214 Sirat, Colette 2:145 Sjöberg, Erik K. T. 2:188, 2:380, 2:382 Skeat, Theodore C. 1:70 Skehan, Patrick W. 1:75, 1:81, 1:88, 1:155, 1:156, 1:245, 1:246, 1:261, 1:262, 1:275, 2:20, 2:109, 2:110, 2:113, 2:114, 2:154, 2:156, 2:447, 2:455, 2:477 Slater, Thomas B. 2:386, 2:389 Slomovic, Elieser 1:300 Smalley, Stephen S. 2:153, 2:321, 3:113 Smelik, Klaas A. D. 2:108, 2:142 Smith, D. Moody 3:101, 3:106, 3:123, 3:127, 3:315 Smith, Dennis E. 2:414 Smith, Jonathan Z. 2:146, 2:147, 3:128 Smith, Mark 2:233, 2:455 Smith, Morton 2:23, 3:213 Smith, William R. 2:346 Snodgrass, Klyne R. 3:6 Soden, Wolfram von 1:104

597 Söding, Thomas 3:287, 3:306, 3:346, 3:351 Soggin, J. Alberto 1:160 Sokoloff, Michael 3:34 Speiser, Ephraim A. 3:231 Spicq, Ceslas 3:205 Stallman, Richard C. 3:109 Stamm, Johann J. 1:187 Standhartinger, Angela 2:400, 3:211 Stanley, Cristopher D. 2:146 Stanton, Graham N. 3:84, 3:429 Starcky, Jean 2:303, 2:305, 2:459 Stauffer, Ethelbert 3:306 Steck, Odil H. 3:383 Stefanoudaki, Evangelia 2:415 Stegemann, Ekkehard 3:166 Stegemann, Hartmut 1:107, 1:138, 1:144, 2:82, 2:103, 2:108, 2:110, 2:113, 2:117, 2:118, 2:121, 2:140, 2:161, 2:228, 2:240, 2:319, 2:333, 2:336, 2:424, 2:487, 3:53, 3:57, 3:98, 3:156, 3:166, 3:235, 3:239, 3:240, 3:314, 3:423, 3:438, 3:439 Steinmann, Jean 3:17 Stemberger, Günter 1:4, 1:291, 2:430, 2:433, 3:279 Stendahl, Krister 2:96, 2:401, 3:3, 3:39, 3:43, 3:88, 3:99, 3:110, 3:134, 3:145, 3:177, 3:333, 3:346, 3:397, 3:399, 3:401, 3:403, 3:405 Sterling, Gregory E. 1:295, 3:353

598 Stern, Menahem 2:20, 2:33, 2:55, 2:58 Stern, Sacha 2:52, 2:53, 2:55 Steudel, Annette 1:294, 2:111, 2:150, 2:161, 2:215, 2:228, 2:310, 2:453, 2:457, 3:155, 3:239 Stoebe, Hans J. 1:180 Stone, Michael E. 1:33, 1:39, 1:43, 1:61, 1:139, 2:216, 2:441, 2:448, 2:452, 2:454, 2:465, 2:469, 2:485, 2:490, 3:229 Strack, Hermann L. 3:154 Strange, James 3:6 Strawn, Bruce A. 2:107, 2:119, 2:130, 2:153, 2:159, 2:204, 2:231 Strecker, Georg 3:124, 3:154, 3:264, 3:305 Strugnell, John 1:71, 1:94, 1:136, 1:144, 1:152, 1:302, 2:19, 2:22, 2:37, 2:50, 2:56, 2:206, 2:207, 2:214, 2:216, 2:219, 2:221, 2:250, 2:265, 2:305, 2:324, 2:331, 2:453, 2:454, 2:463, 3:39, 3:155, 3:175, 3:188, 3:189, 3:190, 3:205, 3:452, 3:456 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1:61, 1:101, 1:102, 1:103, 1:111, 1:112, 1:115, 2:227, 2:458, 3:187 Stuhlmacher, Peter 2:245, 3:125, 3:143, 3:152, 3:452 Sukenik, Eleazar L. 1:80, 1:274, 1:275, 1:294, 2:217, 2:222, 2:351, 2:354, 3:156, 3:409 Sundberg, Albert C. 1:171

AUTHOR I NDEX Sutcliffe, Edmund F. 3:15 Suter, David W. 1:43, 1:61, 2:384 Swanson, Dwight D. 1:137, 3:224 Swete, Henry B. 3:427 Syreeni, Kari 1:190, 3:176, 3:194, 3:293 Tabor, James D. 3:212, 3:214 Talbert, Charles H. 3:93 Talmon, Shemaryahu 1:xxv, 1:32, 1:33, 1:34, 1:85, 1:86, 1:88, 1:89, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:133, 1:167, 1:173, 1:198, 1:245, 1:288, 1:301, 1:316, 2:21, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 2:28, 2:31, 2:33, 2:36, 2:37, 2:38, 2:39, 2:40, 2:42, 2:45, 2:47, 2:50, 2:51, 2:54, 2:57, 2:83, 2:89, 2:136, 2:139, 2:143, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:159, 2:208, 2:213, 2:214, 2:215, 2:218, 2:228, 2:285, 2:308, 2:309, 2:314, 2:318, 2:322, 2:335, 2:339, 2:345, 2:355, 2:454, 2:488, 3:7, 3:27, 3:57, 3:89, 3:144, 3:177 Tannehill, Robert C. 3:387 Tantlevskij, Igor R. 1:200, 2:17 Tawney, Richard H. 2:246 Taylor, Joan E. 2:30, 2:284, 3:12, 3:443 Teeple, Howard M. 2:90, 3:306 Testuz, Michel 1:46, 1:125, 3:126 Thackeray, Henry 1:68, 1:79, 2:429

Theissen, Gerd 2:335, 2:336, 3:3, 3:106, 3:316 Thenius, Otto 1:172 Theobald, Michael 3:283 Thiede, Carsten P. 3:99 Thiering, Barbara E. 2:397, 2:398, 3:258, 3:425 Thompson, James W. 3:205 Thompson, Leonard L. 3:273 Thompson, Marianne M. 3:123 Thrall, Margaret E. 3:165 Thyen, Hartwig 3:287, 3:308 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1:156 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 1:103, 1:135, 2:40, 2:47, 2:154, 2:451, 2:452, 2:455, 2:456, 2:459, 2:481, 2:485, 2:487 Tiller, Patrick A. 2:78, 2:356, 3:248 Tilley, Christopher 3:29 Tov, Emanuel 1:31, 1:33, 1:70, 1:78, 1:79, 1:80, 1:84, 1:86, 1:88, 1:91, 1:92, 1:93, 1:95, 1:107, 1:133, 1:134, 1:136, 1:140, 1:141, 1:142, 1:150, 1:151, 1:154, 1:155, 1:158, 1:159, 1:161, 1:162, 1:164, 1:167, 1:170, 1:173, 1:174, 1:176, 1:179, 1:249, 1:250, 1:288, 1:304, 1:315, 2:4, 2:107, 2:108, 2:109, 2:110, 2:111, 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:115, 2:116, 2:117, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:124, 2:125, 2:126, 2:127, 2:130, 2:131, 2:132,

AUTHOR I NDEX 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:141, 2:142, 2:143, 2:144, 2:145, 2:146, 2:147, 2:148, 2:149, 2:150, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:157, 2:158, 2:160, 2:161, 2:164, 2:165, 2:166, 2:167, 2:308, 2:322, 2:324, 2:329, 2:332, 2:347, 2:355, 2:451, 2:452, 2:453, 2:454, 2:458, 2:459, 2:460, 2:466, 2:470, 2:484, 2:485, 3:16, 3:53, 3:106, 3:125, 3:136, 3:138, 3:144, 3:156, 3:334, 3:409, 3:416, 3:417, 3:1603:320 Trafton, Joseph L. 2:427 Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1:39, 1:50, 1:73, 1:78, 1:87, 1:91, 1:138, 1:155, 1:160, 1:162, 1:163, 1:169, 1:176, 1:186, 1:242, 1:288, 1:291, 1:296, 2:36, 2:109, 2:111, 2:116, 2:134, 2:136, 2:139, 2:224, 2:454 Trever, John C. 1:80, 1:101, 2:305, 3:165 Troeltsch, Ernst 3:30 Troyer, Kristin de 2:135 Trudinger, Peter L. 2:155 Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 3:303 Tuckett, Christopher M. 3:75, 3:76, 3:176, 3:194, 3:287, 3:288, 3:293, 3:315 Turner, Victor W. 2:339, 3:29, 3:128 Uehlinger, Christopf 2:360 Uhlig, Siegbert 2:379 Ullendorf, Edward 2:379

Ulrich, Eugene C. 1:35, 1:73, 1:77, 1:78, 1:79, 1:81, 1:83, 1:84, 1:85, 1:86, 1:87, 1:88, 1:89, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:94, 1:95, 1:98, 1:114, 1:121, 1:122, 1:133, 1:141, 1:142, 1:150, 1:154, 1:157, 1:160, 1:161, 1:162, 1:167, 1:168, 1:169, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:177, 1:179, 1:181, 1:242, 1:250, 1:273, 1:274, 1:288, 1:289, 1:302, 1:316, 2:25, 2:28, 2:32, 2:72, 2:84, 2:86, 2:88, 2:107, 2:108, 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:125, 2:126, 2:127, 2:132, 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:141, 2:142, 2:143, 2:144, 2:146, 2:147, 2:148, 2:151, 2:153, 2:154, 2:156, 2:158, 2:160, 2:164, 2:165, 2:321, 2:330, 2:454, 2:460, 2:466, 2:467, 3:1, 3:53, 3:141, 3:212, 3:229, 3:408, 3:409 Ulrichsen, Jarl H. 1:53 Urbach, Ephraim 1:72, 2:245, 2:369, 3:20, 3:404 Vaage, Leif E. 3:75 Valantasis, Richard 3:312 VanderKam, James C. 1:42, 1:43, 1:55, 1:61, 1:63, 1:86, 1:114, 1:133, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:142, 1:143, 1:147, 1:198, 1:292, 1:302, 1:304, 1:316, 2:25, 2:50, 2:52, 2:53, 2:72, 2:88, 2:132, 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:148, 2:151, 2:152,

599 2:153, 2:154, 2:159, 2:161, 2:167, 2:205, 2:206, 2:207, 2:209, 2:211, 2:212, 2:223, 2:224, 2:240, 2:283, 2:284, 2:285, 2:308, 2:317, 2:321, 2:329, 2:330, 2:364, 2:434, 2:448, 2:449, 2:452, 2:453, 2:454, 2:460, 2:469, 2:481, 2:486, 2:487, 2:488, 2:489, 3:5, 3:16, 3:53, 3:98, 3:106, 3:108, 3:125, 3:134, 3:135, 3:136, 3:141, 3:144, 3:160, 3:212, 3:229, 3:238, 3:244, 3:259, 3:264, 3:265, 3:281, 3:320, 3:407, 3:408, 3:409, 3:413, 3:414, 3:426, 3:432, 3:433 Vattioni, Francesco 2:476 Vaux, Roland de 1:173, 1:274, 2:23, 2:41, 2:47, 2:112, 2:161, 2:162, 2:203, 2:347, 2:416, 2:474, 2:480, 2:486 Vermes, Geza 1:25, 1:38, 1:131, 1:183, 1:191, 1:201, 1:279, 1:292, 1:293, 1:298, 1:299, 1:303, 1:305, 1:307, 2:18, 2:19, 2:26, 2:79, 2:83, 2:197, 2:200, 2:237, 2:241, 2:294, 2:295, 2:297, 2:298, 2:404, 2:421, 2:430, 2:432, 2:448, 3:9, 3:16, 3:156, 3:189, 3:190, 3:238, 3:268, 3:271, 3:272, 3:325, 3:370, 3:449 Vielhauer, Philipp 3:286 Vivian, Angelo 2:387 Viviano, Benedict T. 3:113, 3:150 Vogel, Manuel 3:166

600 Vogt, Ernst 3:81 Vööbus, Arthur 2:423 Vouga, François 3:129 Waal Dryden, J. de 3:303 Wacholder, Ben Z. 1:144, 1:246, 2:50, 2:308, 2:341, 3:240, 3:264, 3:416 Wagner, Siegfried 3:424 Waldstein, Michael 3:299 Walter, Nikolaus 2:406 Walton, Brian (Bishop) 1:150 Watson, Duane F. 1:31 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1:38, 1:39, 1:147, 1:186, 2:44, 2:431, 2:485 Webb, Robert L. 2:100, 3:16, 3:27, 3:282, 3:407, 3:446 Weber, Max 2:246, 2:335, 2:340, 2:341, 2:342, 2:348, 3:33 Webster, Brian 2:135, 2:160, 2:466 Weder, Hans 3:309 Weidner, Ernst F. 2:65 Weinfeld, Moshe 1:158, 1:161, 1:174, 2:59, 2:60, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63, 2:65, 2:66, 2:67, 2:118, 2:149, 2:266, 2:285, 2:321, 2:322, 2:347, 3:23 Weiss, Johannes 3:100 Wellhausen, Julius 1:88, 1:151, 1:172, 1:179, 1:216, 3:398 Wengst, Klaus 3:286 Werman, Cana 1:295 Wernberg-Møller, Preben 2:172, 2:177, 2:178, 2:179, 2:180, 2:182, 2:184, 2:185, 2:186, 2:188, 2:194 Westermann, Claus 2:364

AUTHOR I NDEX Whitacre, Rodney A. 3:123 White Crawford, Sidnie A. 1:131, 1:135, 2:108, 2:109, 2:110, 2:113, 2:114, 2:115, 2:118, 2:119, 2:131, 2:132, 2:134, 2:135, 2:139, 2:148, 2:453 Wiebe, Richard A. 3:282 Williamson, Ronald 3:205 Wills, Lawrence M. 1:118 Wilson, Bryan R. 2:335, 2:341, 2:343, 3:30, 3:348 Wilson, Edmund 1:4, 3:419, 3:421 Wilson, Everett K. 2:348 Wilson, Gerald H. 1:240, 1:246, 1:247, 1:249 Wink, Walter 3:21 Winninge, Mikael 2:427, 2:432, 2:433, 2:434 Winter, Paul 2:208 Wintermute, Orval S. 1:47, 1:139 Wise, Michael O. 1:37, 1:47, 1:116, 1:137, 1:144, 1:291, 1:298, 2:50, 2:75, 2:88, 2:89, 2:154, 2:205, 2:206, 2:207, 2:351, 2:372, 2:398, 2:470, 2:471, 2:473, 2:485, 3:57, 3:78, 3:114, 3:189, 3:214, 3:242, 3:245, 3:263, 3:264, 3:423, 3:425 Witherington, Ben 3:8, 3:75 Woude, Adam S. van der 1:50, 1:93, 1:122, 1:135, 1:183, 1:186, 1:192, 1:194, 1:200, 1:202, 2:17, 2:19, 2:47,

2:372, 2:386, 2:452, 2:455, 2:456, 2:487 Wray, Judith Hoch 3:220 Wrede, William 3:76 Wright, Benjamin 1:61 Wright, David P. 2:50, 2:208, 2:467 Wright, G. Ernest 1:67, 1:106, 1:173, 2:482 Wright, Nicholas T. 3:191, 3:195, 3:368 Wright, Robert B. 2:427, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432 Xeravits, Géza G. 2:73 Yadin, Yigael 1:29, 1:80, 1:135, 1:137, 1:138, 1:144, 1:145, 1:225, 2:37, 2:48, 2:156, 2:201, 2:208, 2:231, 2:232, 2:233, 2:416, 2:450, 2:454, 2:456, 3:104, 3:144, 3:155, 3:206, 3:209, 3:239, 3:240, 3:409, 3:414, 3:416, 3:436 Yardeni, Ada 3:271 Yee, Gale A. 3:122 Yeivin, Israel 1:171 Yoder, John H. 3:278 Zahn, Theodor 3:190 Zecchi, Marco 2:412 Zeller, Dieter 3:288 Zerbe, Gordon M. 3:319, 3:321, 3:323, 3:325, 3:327, 3:329, 3:331, 3:333, 3:335, 3:337, 3:339, 3:341, 3:343, 3:345, 3:346, 3:347, 3:349, 3:351, 3:353, 3:355 Zias, Joseph E. 2:278, 2:318, 3:9 Ziesler, John A. 2:242 Zimmerli, Walther 3:233 Zimmermann, Johannes 2:72 Zöckler, Theodor 3:290 Zuckerman, Bruce 1:33

SUBJECT INDEX

Aaron 1:78, 1:81, 1:82, 1:135, 1:155, 3:19, 3:43, 3:47, 3:57, 3:162, 3:214, 3:223, 3:238, 3:362, 3:368, 3:370, 3:379 Abihu 1:213, 1:228 Abraham 1:xxv, 1:26, 1:45, 1:126, 1:139, 1:146, 1:306, 3:31, 3:55, 3:72, 3:73, 3:93, 3:172, 3:173, 3:174, 3:192, 3:196, 3:231, 3:399, 3:402 Abram 1:139, 1:146, 1:147, 3:342 Abravanel, Isaac 2:369 abstinence 3:66 ACOR. See American Center of Oriental Research. Adam 1:115, 2:78, 2:154, 2:171, 2:218, 2:220, 2:270, 2:271, 2:273, 2:274, 2:276, 2:277, 2:279, 2:280, 2:363, 2:364, 2:370, 2:371, 2:405, 2:480, 3:42, 3:234, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:248, 3:254, 3:392 adultery 1:207, 3:323 affliction, time of the 3:239 afterlife 1:127 age 1:17, 1:39, 1:42, 1:96, 1:126, 1:231, 1:292, 2:1, 2:38, 2:52, 2:88, 2:93, 2:97, 2:98, 2:147, 2:188, 2:215, 2:228, 2:247, 2:286,

2:365, 2:368, 2:474, 2:489, 3:42, 3:43, 3:44, 3:55, 3:86, 3:100, 3:128, 3:214, 3:222, 3:225, 3:234, 3:235, 3:243, 3:248, 3:250, 3:275, 3:390, 3:393 Ahura Mazda 1:214 Alexander Balas 1:113, 3:271 Alexander Jannaeus 1:183, 1:185, 1:186, 1:194, 1:200, 2:17, 2:79, 2:82, 2:429, 3:45, 3:173, 3:174, 3:271, 3:272 Alexander the Great 1:xxix Alexandria 1:69, 3:106 allusion(s) 1:50, 1:116, 1:117, 1:124, 1:129, 1:187, 1:192, 1:194, 1:198, 1:199, 1:200, 1:201, 1:203, 1:249, 1:273, 1:275, 1:278, 1:279, 1:281, 1:285, 1:301, 1:306, 1:307, 1:310, 1:311, 1:312, 3:49, 3:55, 3:191, 3:194, 3:205, 3:210, 3:216, 3:220, 3:229, 3:244, 3:247, 3:248, 3:249, 3:262, 3:327, 3:371, 3:425 alphabet 1:237 altar 1:82, 1:86, 1:87, 1:143, 1:157, 1:158, 1:257, 1:261, 2:31, 2:57, 2:60, 2:79, 2:87, 2:88, 2:199, 2:205,

601

2:213, 2:313, 2:314, 2:414, 3:47, 3:122, 3:215, 3:226, 3:232, 3:237, 3:241, 3:268, 3:362 American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) 1:1 American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) 1:274, 3:117, 3:164, 3:239, 3:379, 3:409, 3:410 Ananus, high priest 3:425 Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center 1:33 angel(s) 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:17, 1:20, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:45, 1:46, 1:49, 1:51, 1:52, 1:54, 1:55, 1:57, 1:61, 1:62, 1:108, 1:112, 1:127, 1:128, 1:156, 1:159, 1:193, 1:211, 1:227, 1:259, 1:260, 1:262, 2:226, 2:368, 2:405, 3:20, 3:29, 3:81, 3:82, 3:86, 3:91, 3:107, 3:137, 3:145, 3:206, 3:207, 3:208, 3:209, 3:210, 3:211, 3:215, 3:220, 3:221, 3:226, 3:227, 3:233, 3:246, 3:247, 3:248, 3:251, 3:253, 3:312, 3:363 Angel of Darkness 1:51, 1:223, 2:179, 2:226, 2:391, 3:11,

602 3:41, 3:69, 3:111, 3:116 Angel of Light 3:11, 3:116, 3:132 Angel of the Presence 1:139 angels, heavenly 2:310. See also angel(s) animal(s) 1:19, 1:20, 1:105, 1:111, 1:211, 2:69, 2:313, 2:393, 2:422, 2:479, 3:27, 3:47, 3:242, 3:248 Animal Apocalypse 1:44, 1:102, 1:112, 1:115, 1:117, 1:118, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:251, 3:253, 3:266, 3:386 anointing 2:74, 2:407, 2:410, 2:411, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:416, 2:417, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424 Antioch 3:63, 3:150, 3:190, 3:197, 3:198, 3:201 Antiochus III 2:420 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 2:191, 2:280 Antipas, Herod 3:13, 3:52, 3:273, 3:445, 3:446 apocalyptic texts 1:124, 1:220, 2:370, 2:460 apocalypticism 1:41, 1:49, 1:56, 1:65, 1:101, 1:113, 1:124, 1:127, 2:86, 2:241 apocrypha 1:1, 1:30, 1:33, 1:38, 1:74, 1:131, 1:139, 3:97, 3:109, 3:111, 3:387, 3:389, 3:391 apostle 1:3, 2:424, 2:432, 3:99, 3:100, 3:101, 3:162, 3:175, 3:182, 3:195, 3:300, 3:404, 3:425, 3:455 appointed time 2:35, 2:55, 2:56, 2:90,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:170, 2:171, 2:173, 2:191, 2:226, 2:233, 2:265, 2:348, 2:391, 3:112, 3:225, 3:303 Arabia 1:104 Aram 1:104, 1:105, 1:119, 1:142, 3:113 Aramaic language 2:471 Aramaic texts 1:51, 1:107, 1:114, 1:147, 2:240, 2:447, 2:449, 2:463, 2:464, 2:465, 2:466, 2:471, 2:473 Aramean 1:91, 1:142 Archaeology 1:xxiv, 1:3, 1:9, 1:18, 1:287, 2:23, 2:203, 2:233, 2:287, 2:415, 2:485, 3:9, 3:29 archangel Michael 1:128, 2:78, 2:363, 2:367, 2:368, 2:369, 2:370, 2:372, 2:375, 3:213, 3:391 archangels 1:xxvii, 2:342, 2:366, 3:234, 3:268 Archon 1:69 Aristobulus 2:78 Aristobulus II 2:335, 2:429 Ark 1:213, 1:304, 1:308, 1:309, 3:224 Ark of the Covenant 1:213 armor 3:183 army(ies) 1:7, 1:214, 1:215, 1:231, 1:284, 2:231, 2:275, 2:307 army(ies), Roman 1:23, 1:224, 1:281 arrowheads 1:22 Artaxerxes 1:68 artifact(s) 1:288, 3:61, 3:255 ascent 1:44, 1:252, 2:248, 2:250, 2:365, 3:213, 3:248 asceticism 3:355

ASOR. See American Schools of Oriental Research assembly 1:262, 2:229, 2:321, 2:432 association(s) 1:43, 1:59, 1:70, 1:114, 1:127, 1:184, 1:186, 1:187, 1:188, 1:276, 1:281, 1:291, 3:23, 3:85, 3:211, 3:235, 3:274, 3:285, 3:327, 3:331, 3:342, 3:373, 3:386 Assyria 1:223, 1:280, 1:281, 1:282, 1:283 astrology 2:239 atonement 1:58, 1:193, 2:87, 2:98, 2:104, 2:278, 2:305, 2:313, 2:314, 3:27, 3:180, 3:205, 3:219, 3:220, 3:226, 3:357, 3:358, 3:359, 3:360, 3:361, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373, 3:374, 3:375, 3:376, 3:377, 3:378, 3:379, 3:450 atonement, Qumran 3:366, 3:378 authority 1:10, 1:28, 1:34, 1:35, 1:50, 1:54, 1:68, 1:74, 1:75, 1:97, 1:98, 1:128, 1:133, 1:134, 1:137, 1:139, 1:142, 1:145, 1:155, 1:168, 1:182, 1:207, 1:208, 1:221, 1:222, 1:232, 1:291, 1:295, 1:296, 1:301, 1:302, 1:305, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 1:317, 1:318, 2:74, 2:152, 2:326, 2:330, 3:23, 3:53, 3:85, 3:255, 3:264, 3:300, 3:329 Azazel 1:42, 1:126

S UBJECT I NDEX Babylon 1:27, 1:72, 1:73, 1:89, 1:104, 1:105, 1:115, 1:120, 1:207, 1:223, 1:280, 1:281, 1:282, 3:45, 3:232, 3:235, 3:263, 3:363 Babylonian exile 1:281, 1:282 Babylonian Talmud 1:72, 2:374, 2:421, 2:423 Balakros 3:271 Bannus 3:2, 3:33, 3:34, 3:450 baptism 1:12, 2:101, 2:102, 2:103, 2:104, 3:8, 3:31, 3:33, 3:34, 3:91, 3:374, 3:414, 3:443, 3:444, 3:445, 3:448, 3:449, 3:450 Bar Kokhba 1:34, 1:67, 1:187 Baruch (person) 3:223 bath(s) 2:102, 3:11, 3:433 battle 1:128, 1:210, 1:211, 1:215, 1:217, 1:218, 1:219, 1:223, 1:224, 1:225, 1:227, 1:228, 1:229, 1:284, 2:21, 2:47, 2:62, 2:66, 2:176, 2:183, 2:191, 2:192, 2:275, 2:439, 3:262, 3:273, 3:274, 3:277, 3:370 Beatitudes, the 3:84, 3:86 bee(s) 3:26 Beit-Mashiko 1:197 Belial 1:49, 1:54, 1:58, 1:128, 1:129, 1:223, 1:225, 1:226, 1:228, 1:229, 1:258, 2:81, 2:86, 2:191, 2:195, 2:196, 2:197, 2:231, 2:270, 2:271, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:279, 2:326, 2:372, 3:9, 3:11, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, 3:41, 3:92, 3:128,

3:177, 3:199, 3:219, 3:244, 3:324, 3:369, 3:379, 3:447 benediction 3:167, 3:168 Benjamin 1:144, 1:152, 1:153, 1:211, 2:231, 2:452, 2:457, 3:234 Bethel 1:284, 3:241, 3:244, 3:268 Bethesda 3:103, 3:104 Bethlehem 3:370 Bible 1:xxiii, 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:8, 1:13, 1:15, 1:23, 1:26, 1:31, 1:32, 1:33, 1:35, 1:36, 1:38, 1:43, 1:67, 1:68, 1:72, 1:74, 1:75, 1:77, 1:78, 1:79, 1:85, 1:86, 1:95, 1:97, 1:98, 1:106, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:137, 1:139, 1:146, 1:149, 1:158, 1:161, 1:164, 1:167, 1:168, 1:170, 1:171, 1:172, 1:173, 1:174, 1:181, 1:207, 1:210, 1:215, 1:219, 1:221, 1:222, 1:232, 1:288, 1:289, 1:290, 1:292, 1:293, 1:296, 1:300, 1:303, 1:309, 2:27, 2:39, 2:60, 2:67, 2:68, 2:83, 2:109, 2:121, 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:138, 2:142, 2:145, 2:151, 2:154, 2:201, 2:211, 2:235, 2:236, 2:240, 2:245, 2:247, 2:266, 2:281, 2:313, 2:322, 2:331, 2:335, 2:352, 2:355, 2:363, 2:364, 2:365, 2:379, 2:380, 2:385, 2:398, 2:399, 2:427, 2:430, 2:442, 2:448, 2:449, 2:450, 2:451, 2:452, 2:456, 2:457, 2:461, 2:462, 2:463, 2:464, 2:482, 3:172, 3:174,

603 3:397, 3:398, 3:402, 3:403, 3:416, 3:454 biblical Hebrew. See Hebrew, language (biblical) biblical period 1:124, 1:135, 3:357 biblical text(s) 1:xxvi, 1:23, 1:31, 1:36, 1:37, 1:67, 1:73, 1:75, 1:77, 1:79, 1:80, 1:83, 1:85, 1:87, 1:88, 1:89, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:94, 1:95, 1:96, 1:99, 1:103, 1:106, 1:112, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:141, 1:142, 1:143, 1:149, 1:150, 1:154, 1:160, 1:163, 1:165, 1:169, 1:172, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:176, 1:242, 1:250, 1:275, 1:276, 1:277, 1:278, 1:279, 1:280, 1:281, 1:285, 1:289, 1:303, 1:313, 1:316, 1:317, 1:319, 3:229, 3:240, 3:353, 3:409, 3:439. bibliographies 1:289 Bilhah 1:313 birds 3:327, 3:368 birth 1:xxix, 1:21, 1:35, 1:63, 1:68, 3:46, 3:121, 3:128, 3:159, 3:160, 3:170, 3:199, 3:200, 3:303, 3:304, 3:333, 3:425 bishop 3:420 blasphemy 3:273, 3:342 blessing(s) 1:xxvii, 1:227, 1:229, 1:260, 1:307, 1:310, 1:311, 1:312, 1:313, 1:318, 2:59, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63, 2:171, 2:252, 2:268, 2:276, 2:294, 2:302, 2:307, 2:309, 2:312, 2:314, 2:332, 2:405, 2:412, 2:413, 3:21,

604 3:22, 3:44, 3:95, 3:115, 3:174, 3:176, 3:191, 3:192, 3:201, 3:210, 3:224, 3:268, 3:269, 3:274, 3:275, 3:363, 3:377, 3:389. blindness 1:116, 1:117, 1:125, 3:133 Boethusians 1:7 bones 1:263, 2:248, 2:250, 2:264, 2:278, 2:432, 3:148 book(s) 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:3, 1:5, 1:13, 1:15, 1:19, 1:25, 1:26, 1:28, 1:29, 1:32, 1:37, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:51, 1:57, 1:61, 1:63, 1:68, 1:69, 1:70, 1:72, 1:73, 1:74, 1:75, 1:77, 1:79, 1:80, 1:81, 1:83, 1:85, 1:87, 1:88, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:93, 1:94, 1:95, 1:96, 1:97, 1:98, 1:99, 1:101, 1:102, 1:103, 1:106, 1:107, 1:108, 1:109, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112, 1:113, 1:114, 1:115, 1:117, 1:120, 1:121, 1:122, 1:123, 1:124, 1:125, 1:126, 1:129, 1:130, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:139, 1:142, 1:145, 1:146, 1:147, 1:151, 1:156, 1:157, 1:158, 1:160, 1:164, 1:165, 1:167, 1:168, 1:169, 1:170, 1:171, 1:172, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:177, 1:180, 1:182, 1:184, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:215, 1:217, 1:223, 1:224, 1:227, 1:229, 1:231, 1:232, 1:233, 1:236, 1:238, 1:239, 1:241, 1:242, 1:243, 1:244, 1:245, 1:246,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:247, 1:248, 1:249, 1:251, 1:252, 1:273, 1:274, 1:275, 1:276, 1:277, 1:278, 1:279, 1:282, 1:283, 1:288, 1:290, 1:291, 1:292, 1:293, 1:295, 1:296, 1:297, 1:301, 1:302, 1:303, 1:307, 1:308, 1:309, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 2:26, 2:39, 2:40, 2:54, 2:84, 2:100, 2:112, 2:114, 2:134, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:152, 2:155, 2:159, 2:240, 2:241, 2:246, 2:262, 2:263, 2:266, 2:270, 2:275, 2:277, 2:312, 2:321, 2:329, 2:364, 2:365, 2:371, 2:380, 2:383, 2:420, 2:447, 2:462, 2:463, 2:469, 2:472, 2:477, 2:481, 2:484, 2:487, 3:2, 3:15, 3:18, 3:23, 3:37, 3:42, 3:43, 3:49, 3:54, 3:67, 3:72, 3:82, 3:89, 3:90, 3:97, 3:98, 3:101, 3:107, 3:109, 3:111, 3:131, 3:141, 3:144, 3:158, 3:191, 3:220, 3:235, 3:240, 3:241, 3:244, 3:251, 3:253, 3:259, 3:266, 3:273, 3:275, 3:278, 3:284, 3:300, 3:304, 3:336, 3:382, 3:386, 3:388, 3:390, 3:399, 3:402, 3:409, 3:411, 3:418, 3:421, 3:440 bow(s) 1:205, 1:206, 1:220, 3:89 bowls 2:373, 2:374, 3:122 branch 1:16, 1:59, 2:75, 2:77, 2:80, 2:87, 2:367, 2:436, 2:437, 3:408 branch of David 3:207, 3:245, 3:370 bridge 3:401, 3:430

Bruce, James 2:379 building(s) 1:48, 1:125, 1:158, 1:196, 1:201, 1:210, 3:48, 3:85, 3:100, 3:103, 3:104, 3:108, 3:161, 3:162, 3:208, 3:217, 3:231, 3:232, 3:241, 3:242, 3:247, 3:249, 3:252, 3:267, 3:384, 3:433 burial 2:277, 2:278, 2:279 burnt offering(s) 1:140, 1:141, 1:143, 1:257, 3:380 Caesarea 1:18, 2:420, 3:51 calendar(s) 1:71, 1:136, 1:137, 1:198, 1:224, 1:309, 2:26, 2:50, 2:52, 3:31, 3:144, 3:148, 3:197, 3:237, 3:434 calendar, Jewish 1:197. See also calendar(s) calendrical documents 2:25, 2:26, 2:37, 2:41, 2:45, 2:50, 2:56, 2:58, 2:205. Caligula 2:385 camp(s) 1:47, 1:50, 1:136, 1:210, 1:211, 1:213, 1:216, 1:227, 1:284, 2:227, 2:233, 2:238, 2:239, 2:289, 2:292, 2:294, 3:227, 3:228, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:326 Canaanites 1:210, 1:211, 3:240 canon(s) 1:xxvi, 1:13, 1:25, 1:26, 1:27, 1:28, 1:29, 1:30, 1:31, 1:32, 1:34, 1:67, 1:68, 1:69, 1:70, 1:71, 1:72, 1:73, 1:74, 1:77, 1:91, 1:94, 1:97, 1:98, 1:99, 1:103, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:167, 1:168, 1:169, 1:170, 1:171, 1:173, 1:182, 1:209,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:238, 1:239, 1:242, 1:245, 1:248, 1:251, 1:298, 1:300, 1:301, 1:302, 1:319, 3:1, 3:2, 3:4, 3:6, 3:8, 3:10, 3:12, 3:93, 3:121, 3:260, 3:289, 3:382, 3:448 canon, New Testament 3:281 capital offense 3:339 caravan(s) 1:7, 1:8 Catena 1:234, 1:238, 1:243, 1:247, 1:254, 1:261, 1:269, 1:294, 3:207, 3:212, 3:213 Catholic(s/ism), Roman 1:xxiii, 1:26, 1:35, 1:75, 1:168, 3:98, 3:412 Cave(s), Qumran 1:xxiii, 1:xxiv, 1:xxx, 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:13, 1:15, 1:16, 1:22, 1:23, 1:29, 1:32, 1:40, 1:47, 1:72, 1:80, 1:81, 1:83, 1:84, 1:86, 1:87, 1:88, 1:92, 1:102, 1:105, 1:113, 1:117, 1:119, 1:121, 1:122, 1:124, 1:134, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:143, 1:144, 1:145, 1:150, 1:160, 1:162, 1:170, 1:171, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:178, 1:223, 1:226, 1:229, 1:233, 1:235, 1:236, 1:238, 1:239, 1:246, 1:261, 1:262, 1:273, 1:274, 1:277, 1:287, 1:288, 1:297, 1:298, 1:301, 1:302, 1:309, 1:310, 1:311, 3:104, 3:155, 3:187, 3:201, 3:239, 3:248, 3:397, 3:409, 3:411, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:419, 3:426, 3:427, 3:429, 3:438, 3:456, 3:459

caves 1:xxiii, 1:xxvi, 1:2, 1:4, 1:6, 1:31, 1:38, 1:67, 1:72, 1:101, 1:131, 1:138, 1:147, 1:150, 1:161, 1:233, 1:235, 1:274, 1:288, 2:7, 2:203, 2:204, 2:261, 2:263, 2:276, 2:278, 2:279, 2:320, 2:321, 2:381, 2:383, 2:463, 2:480, 2:482, 2:486, 2:487, 2:488, 2:490, 3:61, 3:97, 3:127, 3:128, 3:231, 3:246, 3:281, 3:400, 3:411, 3:439, 3:440 celibacy 3:19, 3:445, 3:447 cemeteries 2:277 ceremony(ies) 1:295, 2:59, 3:21, 3:22, 3:24, 3:43, 3:122, 3:321 chaos 1:215, 1:219, 1:221, 1:231, 1:290, 3:9, 3:97, 3:174, 3:229, 3:263 chariot 3:210 charity 3:325, 3:326, 3:327, 3:332, 3:347, 3:348, 3:353, 3:355 chastisement 1:193 children 1:14, 1:45, 1:46, 1:50, 1:51, 1:54, 1:55, 1:56, 1:114, 1:141, 1:154, 1:157, 1:207, 1:208, 1:210, 1:214, 1:227, 1:229, 1:230, 1:282, 1:283, 2:35, 2:62, 2:84, 2:87, 2:90, 2:94, 2:97, 2:174, 2:176, 2:179, 2:181, 2:183, 2:186, 2:188, 2:191, 2:212, 2:242, 2:257, 2:279, 2:292, 2:359, 2:361, 2:366, 2:371, 2:408, 2:435, 3:31, 3:49, 3:66, 3:67, 3:69, 3:72, 3:135, 3:164, 3:183, 3:196,

605 3:236, 3:241, 3:244, 3:303 Children of Darkness 1:223, 1:226, 1:229, 3:67, 3:69, 3:70, 3:105, 3:163 Children of Light 1:226, 1:227, 2:239, 3:67, 3:105, 3:117, 3:156, 3:161, 3:163, 3:164, 3:185 chosen people 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:48, 1:212, 1:228, 1:315 Christ 1:27, 1:33, 1:34, 1:35, 1:74, 1:98, 3:3, 3:63, 3:66, 3:71, 3:75, 3:121, 3:123, 3:124, 3:135, 3:142, 3:145, 3:158, 3:166, 3:172, 3:173, 3:174, 3:178, 3:190, 3:197, 3:199, 3:205, 3:206, 3:207, 3:208, 3:211, 3:214, 3:216, 3:217, 3:220, 3:221, 3:224, 3:225, 3:226, 3:227, 3:230, 3:251, 3:252, 3:276, 3:278, 3:307, 3:357, 3:359, 3:361, 3:363, 3:364, 3:367, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373, 3:375, 3:377, 3:378, 3:388, 3:392, 3:398, 3:421, 3:444, 3:448, 3:357. See also Jesus Christ, Messiah, Messiah Jesus Christ Jesus. See Christ, Jesus Christ, Messiah, Messiah Jesus Christian(s) 1:xxiii, 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:1, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 1:17, 1:18, 1:25, 1:26, 1:27, 1:28, 1:29, 1:33, 1:34, 1:35, 1:56, 1:60, 1:63, 1:92, 1:94, 1:103, 1:111, 1:152, 1:167, 1:169, 1:206, 1:207,

606 1:216, 1:221, 1:230, 1:237, 1:273, 1:288, 1:303, 1:312, 1:319, 2:71, 2:73, 2:74, 2:75, 2:87, 2:91, 2:92, 2:97, 2:100, 2:102, 2:183, 2:193, 2:245, 2:246, 2:260, 2:301, 2:312, 2:335, 2:359, 2:360, 2:363, 2:364, 2:378, 2:379, 2:380, 2:381, 2:383, 2:384, 2:386, 2:388, 2:389, 2:394, 2:397, 2:398, 2:400, 2:401, 2:427, 2:434, 2:435, 2:447, 2:448, 2:464, 2:482, 2:491, 3:2, 3:14, 3:37, 3:39, 3:48, 3:51, 3:53, 3:57, 3:61, 3:62, 3:63, 3:64, 3:66, 3:70, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:91, 3:92, 3:94, 3:98, 3:99, 3:101, 3:109, 3:112, 3:121, 3:126, 3:128, 3:129, 3:130, 3:133, 3:142, 3:143, 3:146, 3:147, 3:154, 3:159, 3:162, 3:164, 3:168, 3:172, 3:183, 3:187, 3:188, 3:190, 3:191, 3:195, 3:203, 3:205, 3:207, 3:208, 3:212, 3:216, 3:221, 3:222, 3:224, 3:226, 3:227, 3:230, 3:256, 3:259, 3:260, 3:277, 3:281, 3:287, 3:288, 3:294, 3:301, 3:310, 3:313, 3:316, 3:319, 3:347, 3:350, 3:355, 3:374, 3:382, 3:385, 3:387, 3:388, 3:389, 3:391, 3:392, 3:393, 3:395, 3:397, 3:398, 3:400, 3:401, 3:402, 3:403, 3:404, 3:405, 3:414, 3:419, 3:420, 3:421, 3:424, 3:426, 3:430, 3:431, 3:434, 3:435, 3:437, 3:444, 3:448, 3:452,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:460, 3:461, 3:488, 3:503, 3:535, 3:585 Christian Jews See Jewish Christianity Christian literature 1:25, 1:111, 2:340, 2:421, 3:37, 3:64, 3:162, 3:319, 3:387 Christianity 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:1, 1:3, 1:5, 1:8, 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:25, 1:26, 1:28, 1:29, 1:31, 1:34, 1:35, 1:56, 1:59, 1:60, 1:77, 1:86, 1:99, 1:114, 1:168, 1:169, 1:182, 1:222, 1:288, 1:316, 1:318, 2:23, 2:25, 2:28, 2:73, 2:74, 2:75, 2:85, 2:90, 2:92, 2:97, 2:103, 2:121, 2:138, 2:139, 2:193, 2:235, 2:236, 2:241, 2:242, 2:243, 2:244, 2:310, 2:313, 2:315, 2:330, 2:331, 2:364, 2:378, 2:387, 2:398, 2:399, 2:401, 2:410, 2:412, 2:414, 2:424, 2:427, 3:38, 3:63, 3:64, 3:72, 3:73, 3:92, 3:98, 3:100, 3:113, 3:151, 3:207, 3:259, 3:260, 3:270, 3:284, 3:301, 3:352, 3:361, 3:377, 3:398, 3:399, 3:400, 3:403, 3:404, 3:405, 3:408, 3:410, 3:420, 3:421, 3:424, 3:431, 3:434, 3:435, 3:436, 3:440, 3:459, 3:460 Christianity, Jewish 1:7, 1:26, 1:69, 2:360, 2:420, 2:434, 2:435, 3:93, 3:122, 3:184, 3:190, 3:197, 3:198. 3:285 3:286, 3:259, 3:285, 3:286, 3:295,

3:310, 3:311, 3:397, 3:425, 3:433. church(es) 1:xxxi, 1:4, 1:26, 1:27, 1:28, 1:30, 1:35, 1:73, 1:74, 1:169, 1:171, 1:183, 1:204, 1:205, 1:206, 1:207, 1:208, 1:221, 3:48, 3:92, 3:93, 3:268, 3:269, 3:281, 3:353, 3:357, 3:397, 3:398, 3:400, 3:402, 3:414, 3:420, 3:430, 3:459 circumcision 1:46, 2:196, 2:224, 3:66, 3:194, 3:399 cisterns 3:7, 3:141 citation(s) 1:31, 1:103, 1:122, 1:123, 1:128, 1:139, 1:145, 1:170, 1:273, 1:275, 1:277, 1:278, 1:291, 1:295, 1:300, 1:305, 1:307, 1:313, 1:315, 3:89, 3:90, 3:172, 3:191, 3:207, 3:208, 3:214, 3:245, 3:252, 3:322, 3:327, 3:332, 3:340, 3:355 clay 3:82 climate 3:431 clothes/clothing 1:19, 1:84, 1:85, 1:109, 1:228, 2:438, 3:22, 3:27, 3:32, 3:100, 3:216, 3:269, 3:445 code 1:5, 1:47, 1:227, 1:281, 1:297, 1:301, 1:304, 3:12, 3:13, 3:23, 3:53, 3:320, 3:326, 3:328, 3:330, 3:340, 3:341, 3:343 coins 2:78 collection(s) 1:xxiv, 1:xxvi, 1:2, 1:6, 1:13, 1:29, 1:32, 1:37, 1:38, 1:62, 1:67, 1:78, 1:80, 1:81, 1:82, 1:84, 1:91, 1:92, 1:93, 1:99, 1:107, 1:117, 1:131,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:135, 1:142, 1:145, 1:147, 1:167, 1:233, 1:235, 1:238, 1:239, 1:240, 1:242, 1:243, 1:244, 1:245, 1:247, 1:248, 1:249, 1:250, 1:252, 1:282, 1:288, 1:292, 1:297, 1:302, 1:308, 1:310, 1:311, 3:62, 3:97, 3:110, 3:137, 3:153, 3:154, 3:208, 3:256, 3:275, 3:316, 3:415, 3:418, 3:419, 3:459 commentary(ies) 1:xxvii, 1:3, 1:61, 1:75, 1:102, 1:126, 1:132, 1:133, 1:138, 1:139, 1:145, 1:156, 1:160, 1:164, 1:173, 1:174, 1:191, 1:192, 1:193, 1:195, 1:196, 1:199, 1:200, 1:202, 1:225, 1:226, 1:273, 1:276, 1:277, 1:280, 1:289, 1:291, 1:295, 1:299, 1:303, 1:304, 1:308, 1:312, 1:313, 3:31, 3:65, 3:69, 3:83, 3:89, 3:102, 3:110, 3:124, 3:135, 3:138, 3:203, 3:245, 3:247, 3:254, 3:259, 3:262, 3:283, 3:287, 3:336, 3:337, 3:338, 3:386, 3:387, 3:394, 3:398 commerce 3:319, 3:347 communal life 3:237, 3:333 communal meal(s) 2:404, 3:43, 3:424, 3:437. See also communion, Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Qumran Meal communion 3:420. See also communal meal(s), Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Qumran Meal

community of goods 3:328, 3:329, 3:332, 3:333, 3:334, 3:347, 3:348, 3:353, 3:354, 3:355, 3:424, 3:437 community of the Renewed Covenant 1:86, 1:114, 1:316 community organization 2:283, 2:286, 2:296, 3:437 community song(s) 3:158, 3:159, 3:161, 3:170, 3:179, 3:180. See also Hodayot concordance 3:155 confession 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:73, 1:74, 3:20, 3:21, 3:79, 3:161, 3:207, 3:293, 3:338, 3:374, 3:375, 3:398, 3:453 congregation of the poor 3:246, 3:337 conquest, Roman 3:32, 3:41 consecration 3:8 consonantal text 1:170, 1:171 contracts 2:30, 3:327 cosmetics 1:22 cosmology 3:152 council 1:28, 1:29, 1:69, 1:71, 1:167, 1:185, 1:195, 1:219, 2:66, 2:67, 2:88, 2:267, 2:277, 2:287, 2:290, 2:296, 2:297, 2:299, 2:428, 2:430, 3:59, 3:159, 3:160, 3:161, 3:329, 3:342, 3:346, 3:380 Council of the Community 1:200, 1:201, 3:23, 3:208, 3:238, 3:337 court 1:27, 1:42, 1:109, 1:111, 1:113, 1:114, 1:115, 1:118, 1:120, 1:122, 1:132, 1:147, 2:33, 2:62, 2:258,

607 2:369, 2:421, 2:462, 2:463, 3:70, 3:233, 3:242, 3:243, 3:341 covenant 1:16, 1:44, 1:49, 1:58, 1:135, 1:136, 1:185, 1:216, 1:219, 1:226, 1:227, 1:228, 1:255, 1:256, 1:295, 1:316, 2:27, 2:36, 2:38, 2:57, 2:59, 2:60, 2:61, 2:63, 2:64, 2:65, 2:66, 2:82, 2:87, 2:99, 2:171, 2:188, 2:195, 2:196, 2:199, 2:213, 2:229, 2:230, 2:231, 2:247, 2:256, 2:289, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:296, 2:297, 2:298, 2:299, 2:303, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:309, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 2:344, 2:355, 2:357, 2:358, 2:436, 2:489, 3:10, 3:20, 3:22, 3:24, 3:30, 3:32, 3:43, 3:44, 3:47, 3:51, 3:52, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60, 3:67, 3:68, 3:85, 3:91, 3:95, 3:156, 3:161, 3:165, 3:166, 3:167, 3:196, 3:205, 3:206, 3:214, 3:216, 3:217, 3:219, 3:220, 3:221, 3:222, 3:223, 3:224, 3:227, 3:230, 3:238, 3:240, 3:241, 3:244, 3:268, 3:270, 3:278, 3:320, 3:321, 3:329, 3:330, 3:331, 3:339, 3:340, 3:363, 3:378, 3:379, 3:380, 3:403, 3:420 covenant sacrifice 3:166 covenant, Mosaic. See Mosaic covenant covenant, Qumran 3:25 covenantal ceremony 3:447 craft 3:330 creation 1:21, 1:23, 1:27, 1:40, 1:41, 1:44,

608 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:48, 1:54, 1:75, 1:125, 1:139, 1:171, 1:214, 1:215, 1:218, 1:219, 1:230, 1:295, 1:304, 1:314, 2:4, 2:28, 2:47, 2:54, 2:178, 2:183, 2:184, 2:186, 2:188, 2:189, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:219, 2:223, 2:224, 2:248, 2:256, 2:258, 2:264, 2:269, 2:271, 2:273, 2:281, 2:303, 2:307, 2:310, 2:314, 2:333, 2:356, 2:412, 3:18, 3:22, 3:42, 3:63, 3:67, 3:135, 3:136, 3:156, 3:158, 3:159, 3:160, 3:232, 3:234, 3:241, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:251, 3:254, 3:255, 3:265, 3:266, 3:268, 3:274, 3:278, 3:279, 3:303, 3:383 crippled 3:94 crucifixion 1:xxix, 3:106, 3:157, 3:173, 3:174, 3:184, 3:423 culture, Greco-Roman. See Greco-Roman culture cuneiform 1:161, 1:174, 3:407 curse(s) 1:52, 1:86, 1:228, 1:259, 1:307, 1:312, 1:318, 2:59, 2:60, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63, 2:64, 2:65, 2:294, 2:312, 3:21, 3:22, 3:23, 3:24, 3:28, 3:163, 3:164, 3:173, 3:174, 3:176, 3:191, 3:192, 3:201, 3:224, 3:338, 3:379, 3:447 Cynics 3:59, 3:75 Cyprus 3:110 Cyrus II 3:232 daily life 1:16, 2:61, 2:96, 2:104, 2:337, 2:409, 2:421, 3:261

S UBJECT I NDEX daily prayers 2:302 Damascus 1:16, 1:20, 1:21, 1:38, 1:49, 1:50, 1:52, 1:53, 1:57, 1:63, 1:117, 1:124, 1:125, 1:129, 1:136, 1:139, 1:149, 1:226, 1:252, 1:282, 1:283, 1:297, 1:300, 1:301, 1:304, 1:305, 1:306, 1:307, 1:314, 2:18, 2:26, 2:37, 2:38, 2:52, 2:56, 2:57, 2:66, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:84, 2:85, 2:94, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:198, 2:204, 2:205, 2:206, 2:215, 2:227, 2:228, 2:229, 2:235, 2:276, 2:283, 2:284, 2:288, 2:289, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:293, 2:294, 2:295, 2:296, 2:357, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:486, 2:488, 3:13, 3:26, 3:88, 3:90, 3:94, 3:97, 3:131, 3:156, 3:158, 3:165, 3:166, 3:206, 3:215, 3:217, 3:222, 3:223, 3:270, 3:272, 3:320, 3:321, 3:338, 3:340, 3:360, 3:437 Damascus Covenant 1:49, 3:57, 3:320, 3:331 Dan (place name) 1:xxxi, 3:234 Dan, the Patriarch 1:144 Daniel 1:123, 3:81, 3:219, 3:369 darkness 1:12, 1:40, 1:55, 1:171, 1:223, 1:224, 1:226, 1:258, 1:259, 1:262, 2:34, 2:66, 2:169, 2:170, 2:171, 2:175, 2:176, 2:178, 2:179, 2:181, 2:183, 2:185, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:195,

2:208, 2:226, 2:238, 2:258, 2:263, 2:270, 2:271, 2:276, 2:307, 2:309, 2:310, 2:346, 2:391, 2:407, 2:461, 3:18, 3:22, 3:24, 3:25, 3:69, 3:73, 3:87, 3:107, 3:111, 3:112, 3:115, 3:116, 3:117, 3:118, 3:119, 3:132, 3:133, 3:135, 3:163, 3:164, 3:165, 3:183, 3:261, 3:284, 3:307, 3:308, 3:309, 3:453 dates 1:30, 1:145, 2:18, 2:29, 2:30, 2:32, 2:42, 2:45, 2:46, 2:47, 2:50, 2:51, 2:57, 2:135, 2:158, 2:160, 2:211, 2:252, 2:265, 2:271, 2:272, 2:276, 2:303, 2:304, 2:320, 2:323, 2:386, 2:403, 2:420, 2:428, 2:472, 2:475, 2:480, 2:482, 2:485, 3:101, 3:102, 3:187, 3:198, 3:426, 3:427 dating 1:31, 1:67, 1:97, 1:160, 1:220, 1:253, 2:23, 2:53, 2:55, 2:255, 2:260, 2:263, 2:264, 2:268, 2:302, 2:305, 2:306, 2:320, 2:347, 2:373, 2:378, 2:380, 2:382, 2:383, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:387, 2:390, 2:400, 2:423, 2:482, 2:483, 2:489, 3:334, 3:426 David 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:9, 1:90, 1:116, 1:132, 1:162, 1:178, 1:179, 1:211, 1:212, 1:217, 1:234, 1:235, 1:238, 1:245, 1:246, 1:248, 1:249, 1:254, 1:255, 1:256, 1:258, 1:259, 1:262, 1:271, 1:302, 1:307, 2:28, 2:31, 2:47, 2:75, 2:76, 2:77, 2:79, 2:81, 2:85,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:87, 2:91, 2:92, 2:98, 2:205, 2:206, 2:321, 2:329, 2:333, 2:397, 2:435, 2:436, 2:437, 2:438, 2:439, 2:448, 2:455, 2:456, 2:478, 2:479, 3:10, 3:56, 3:65, 3:131, 3:199, 3:200, 3:216, 3:231, 3:232, 3:235, 3:244, 3:245, 3:249, 3:250, 3:253, 3:254, 3:261, 3:275, 3:373, 3:394, 3:413, 3:423, 3:433 David and Goliath 1:79, 1:242 Davidic messiah. 3:169. See also messiah, Davidic Day of Atonement 1:196, 1:198, 1:262, 1:303, 2:21, 2:23, 2:33, 2:38, 2:42, 2:43, 2:45, 2:49, 2:50, 2:55, 2:57, 2:213, 2:301, 2:304, 2:306, 2:315, 3:31, 3:225, 3:334, 3:362, 3:369, 3:379 Day of Judgment 1:xxx, 1:19, 1:313, 2:195, 2:197, 2:199, 2:392, 3:8, 3:27, 3:31, 3:35, 3:450 Day of the Lord 1:217, 1:305, 3:165 Day of Vengeance 1:xxx, 3:95, 3:331, 3:333, 3:342, 3:344, 3:346 deacons 3:94 Dead Sea 1:xxiii, 1:xxvi, 1:2, 1:23, 1:29, 1:32, 1:88, 1:102, 1:103, 1:105, 1:114, 1:117, 1:124, 1:128, 1:129, 1:150, 1:161, 1:236, 1:239, 1:248, 1:252, 1:255, 1:256, 1:257, 1:258, 1:260, 1:261, 1:262, 1:263, 2:18, 2:20,

2:23, 2:53, 2:73, 2:75, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:85, 2:88, 2:91, 2:153, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:160, 2:205, 2:206, 2:217, 2:235, 2:236, 2:237, 2:260, 2:294, 2:317, 2:318, 2:320, 2:321, 2:322, 2:330, 2:332, 2:336, 2:337, 2:349, 2:379, 2:381, 2:398, 2:450, 3:6, 3:19, 3:31, 3:65, 3:71, 3:97, 3:102, 3:152, 3:248, 3:281, 3:282, 3:301, 3:407 Dead Sea Discoveries 1:104, 3:421 Dead Sea Scrolls 1:xxiii, 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 1:9, 1:12, 1:13, 1:15, 1:16, 1:23, 1:25, 1:33, 1:35, 1:37, 1:38, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41, 1:47, 1:51, 1:53, 1:56, 1:57, 1:63, 1:65, 1:72, 1:73, 1:77, 1:78, 1:79, 1:80, 1:86, 1:87, 1:89, 1:91, 1:94, 1:101, 1:102, 1:103, 1:105, 1:107, 1:111, 1:113, 1:114, 1:115, 1:116, 1:117, 1:121, 1:123, 1:125, 1:130, 1:133, 1:134, 1:138, 1:140, 1:142, 1:147, 1:155, 1:161, 1:163, 1:168, 1:169, 1:176, 1:181, 1:184, 1:186, 1:191, 1:192, 1:198, 1:226, 1:233, 1:234, 1:238, 1:242, 1:249, 1:250, 1:252, 1:258, 1:259, 1:260, 1:273, 1:274, 1:276, 1:279, 1:287, 1:289, 1:291, 1:295, 1:296, 1:297, 1:300, 1:301, 1:302, 1:303,

609 1:304, 1:307, 1:309, 1:312, 1:316, 1:318, 2:1, 2:3, 2:4, 2:6, 2:17, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 2:23, 2:24, 2:25, 2:28, 2:32, 2:36, 2:39, 2:44, 2:50, 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:74, 2:75, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:86, 2:88, 2:89, 2:92, 2:93, 2:96, 2:109, 2:111, 2:116, 2:118, 2:120, 2:121, 2:124, 2:128, 2:129, 2:132, 2:133, 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:144, 2:145, 2:146, 2:148, 2:151, 2:152, 2:154, 2:156, 2:157, 2:158, 2:159, 2:167, 2:186, 2:191, 2:193, 2:195, 2:196, 2:197, 2:200, 2:201, 2:202, 2:203, 2:204, 2:205, 2:206, 2:207, 2:208, 2:212, 2:213, 2:215, 2:216, 2:217, 2:218, 2:224, 2:225, 2:226, 2:227, 2:228, 2:229, 2:233, 2:235, 2:236, 2:237, 2:238, 2:240, 2:241, 2:244, 2:245, 2:261, 2:283, 2:284, 2:286, 2:287, 2:295, 2:302, 2:304, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 2:314, 2:317, 2:319, 2:321, 2:323, 2:327, 2:329, 2:330, 2:331, 2:332, 2:347, 2:351, 2:353, 2:354, 2:356, 2:357, 2:360, 2:363, 2:372, 2:397, 2:398, 2:399, 2:400, 2:401, 2:403, 2:404, 2:405, 2:410, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:425, 2:427, 2:428, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:435, 2:447, 2:448, 2:449, 2:451, 2:452, 2:453, 2:454, 2:455, 2:458,

610 2:459, 2:460, 2:469, 2:470, 2:471, 2:485, 2:487, 2:488, 3:1, 3:4, 3:5, 3:6, 3:8, 3:9, 3:16, 3:23, 3:25, 3:37, 3:39, 3:49, 3:57, 3:59, 3:61, 3:62, 3:63, 3:64, 3:66, 3:67, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:75, 3:76, 3:77, 3:80, 3:81, 3:82, 3:83, 3:87, 3:88, 3:89, 3:95, 3:97, 3:98, 3:99, 3:101, 3:102, 3:104, 3:106, 3:111, 3:113, 3:115, 3:120, 3:126, 3:128, 3:132, 3:133, 3:134, 3:139, 3:140, 3:143, 3:145, 3:146, 3:149, 3:150, 3:152, 3:187, 3:193, 3:203, 3:206, 3:230, 3:237, 3:238, 3:244, 3:254, 3:255, 3:256, 3:257, 3:258, 3:259, 3:260, 3:261, 3:262, 3:263, 3:264, 3:270, 3:271, 3:274, 3:277, 3:319, 3:321, 3:328, 3:338, 3:397, 3:405, 3:407, 3:408, 3:421, 3:424, 3:425, 3:426, 3:440, 3:453, 3:458, 3:459, 3:460. See also Desert Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls, research and analysis of 1:xxxi, 3:5, 3:130, 3:132 Dead Sea Sect 1:55, 1:138, 1:297, 3:131, 3:171 Dead Sea wilderness 3:51 death 1:9, 1:21, 1:68, 1:106, 1:116, 1:125, 1:142, 1:155, 1:194, 1:195, 1:202, 1:207, 1:211, 1:246, 1:263, 1:285, 2:20, 2:21, 2:53, 2:69, 2:79, 2:82, 2:98, 2:174, 2:212,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:247, 2:248, 2:249, 2:250, 2:251, 2:253, 2:254, 2:255, 2:256, 2:257, 2:258, 2:259, 2:260, 2:261, 2:262, 2:263, 2:264, 2:266, 2:268, 2:269, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272, 2:274, 2:275, 2:277, 2:280, 2:281, 2:339, 2:342, 2:364, 2:365, 2:366, 2:367, 2:370, 2:406, 2:407, 2:411, 2:428, 2:429, 2:430, 2:483, 3:76, 3:91, 3:109, 3:118, 3:125, 3:129, 3:133, 3:166, 3:167, 3:173, 3:180, 3:204, 3:205, 3:212, 3:218, 3:224, 3:252, 3:261, 3:277, 3:278, 3:279, 3:289, 3:291, 3:316, 3:357, 3:358, 3:359, 3:361, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364, 3:367, 3:368, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373, 3:374, 3:375, 3:377, 3:378, 3:399, 3:400, 3:405, 3:420, 3:421, 3:423, 3:446, 3:454 Deborah, Song of. See Song of Deborah debt 3:100, 3:219, 3:358, 3:369, 3:375, 3:376, 3:378 Decapolis 3:51 deceit 1:51, 1:54, 3:7, 3:24, 3:69, 3:132, 3:323, 3:331 deeds 1:45, 1:52, 1:55, 1:108, 1:188, 1:189, 1:192, 1:194, 1:195, 1:199, 1:201, 1:202, 1:204, 1:207, 1:208, 1:237, 1:255, 1:257, 1:258, 1:260, 1:263, 2:35, 2:51, 2:95, 2:189, 2:218, 2:219, 2:221, 2:242, 2:244,

2:251, 2:266, 2:338, 2:444 deeds, good 3:86 defecation 1:135 demons 1:111, 1:114, 1:234, 1:258, 1:259, 2:74, 2:182, 2:187, 2:241, 2:422, 2:455, 2:474, 3:41, 3:76, 3:119. See also desert demons desert 1:xxvi, 1:4, 1:5, 1:44, 1:51, 1:59, 1:88, 1:89, 1:93, 1:107, 1:150, 1:175, 1:176, 1:249, 1:289, 2:18, 2:27, 2:216, 2:289, 2:314, 2:317, 2:318, 2:339, 2:432, 3:13, 3:34, 3:92, 3:224, 3:225, 3:228, 3:240, 3:250, 3:333, 3:416, 3:431, 3:435, 3:444, 3:445, 3:446, 3:448, 3:449 desert camp 3:250 desert demons 1:1 Desert Scrolls 1:25, 1:28, 1:29. See also Dead Sea Scrolls destiny 1:62, 1:194, 1:200, 1:319, 3:18, 3:137 determinism 1:52, 2:215, 2:407, 3:18, 3:34 Devil 1:42, 1:54, 1:205, 3:68, 3:90, 3:128, 3:135, 3:303, 3:357, 3:372 Diaspora 3:12, 3:72, 3:266, 3:405, 3:442 digital imaging 1:xxvi Dio Chrysostom 1:65 disabled 3:352 disciples 1:xxx, 1:7, 1:21, 3:12, 3:48, 3:52, 3:57, 3:76, 3:79, 3:81, 3:83, 3:91, 3:93, 3:108, 3:125, 3:126, 3:130, 3:136, 3:142,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:147, 3:151, 3:274, 3:283, 3:286, 3:289, 3:291, 3:292, 3:293, 3:294, 3:297, 3:310, 3:311, 3:312, 3:351, 3:371, 3:372, 3:398, 3:436, 3:460, 3:461 disease 1:44, 1:45, 1:193, 1:202, 2:62 divine 1:34, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:47, 1:58, 1:59, 1:63, 1:74, 1:110, 1:111, 1:156, 1:195, 1:200, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:215, 1:216, 1:217, 1:218, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:222, 1:223, 1:226, 1:227, 1:228, 1:231, 1:246, 1:286, 1:307, 1:314, 1:315, 1:xxix , 2:18, 2:38, 2:53, 2:65, 2:78, 2:81, 2:98, 2:100, 2:101, 2:174, 2:187, 2:190, 2:222, 2:225, 2:230, 2:231, 2:233, 2:236, 2:238, 2:247, 2:251, 2:255, 2:256, 2:257, 2:264, 2:267, 2:268, 2:270, 2:272, 2:277, 2:278, 2:280, 2:288, 2:307, 2:311, 2:312, 2:329, 2:330, 2:336, 2:338, 2:340, 2:368, 2:370, 2:372, 2:384, 2:393, 2:429, 2:430, 3:33, 3:41, 3:42, 3:79, 3:82, 3:134, 3:145, 3:169, 3:170, 3:206, 3:209, 3:210, 3:218, 3:220, 3:226, 3:235, 3:241, 3:303, 3:342, 3:365, 3:366, 3:378, 3:422 divine forgiveness. See forgiveness, divine divine grace. See grace, divine divine honor. See honor, divine

divine judgment. See judgment, divine divine punishment. See punishment, divine divine revelation. See revelation, divine divine Spirit. See Spirit, divine divine warrior. See warrior, divine divorce 1:305, 3:44, 3:45, 3:88, 3:413 documentation 3:5 dream vision(s) 1:112 dualism 1:9, 1:12, 1:21, 1:22, 1:49, 1:51, 1:52, 1:55, 1:136, 1:223, 1:225, 1:226, 2:173, 2:175, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:181, 2:182, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:197, 2:226, 2:312, 2:407, 2:461, 3:23, 3:100, 3:102, 3:106, 3:107, 3:110, 3:111, 3:112, 3:113, 3:114, 3:115, 3:117, 3:118, 3:119, 3:120, 3:132, 3:133, 3:134, 3:135, 3:145, 3:148, 3:151, 3:154, 3:157, 3:181, 3:309, 3:414, 3:457, 3:458, 3:460 dualism, Qumran 1:225, 3:115, 3:119, 3:133, 3:181, 3:183 dust 3:159, 3:160, 3:161, 3:336, 3:337 Early Christian writings 2:363, 2:364, 3:183, 3:301, 3:392 Early Christianity 1:295, 1:317, 3:3, 3:39, 3:62, 3:63, 3:75, 3:109, 3:166, 3:176, 3:194, 3:218, 3:229, 3:261, 3:282, 3:286, 3:289, 3:293, 3:295, 3:300, 3:301, 3:311, 3:314, 3:317, 3:355,

611 3:410, 3:413, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:418, 3:419, 3:420, 3:421, 3:422, 3:424, 3:425, 3:426, 3:430, 3:444, 3:458, 3:459, 3:460, 3:461 Ebionites 3:2, 3:19 economic life 3:38 Eden, garden of. See garden of Eden education 1:60, 1:214, 3:282, 3:284, 3:286, 3:315, 3:425 Egypt 1:xxvii, 1:44, 1:62, 1:73, 1:87, 1:89, 1:129, 1:146, 1:152, 1:153, 1:156, 1:159, 1:162, 1:213, 1:223, 1:250, 1:281, 2:20, 2:27, 2:41, 2:79, 2:304, 2:402, 2:427, 2:428, 3:45, 3:58, 3:122, 3:234, 3:281, 3:288, 3:363, 3:407 Egyptian(s) 1:9, 1:159, 2:410 Elchasai 3:15 elders 3:55, 3:206, 3:339, 3:340 Elect 1:22, 1:44, 1:55, 1:56, 1:114, 1:126, 1:127, 3:7, 3:142, 3:335, 3:336, 3:342, 3:345, 3:348, 3:350, 3:351, 3:380, 3:420 Elect of God 2:312, 2:459, 3:113 Eli 3:362 Elijah 3:44, 3:55, 3:124, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:388, 3:391, 3:393, 3:443, 3:448, 3:449, 3:450 Elijah, Qumran 3:124 Elisha 3:155, 3:160, 3:175, 3:188, 3:189, 3:199, 3:401, 3:449, 3:452 Empire, Roman. See Roman Empire

612 empire, Seleucid. See Seleucid Empire end of days 1:47, 1:307, 1:315, 2:87, 2:88, 2:91, 2:95, 2:228, 2:255, 2:264, 2:265, 2:277, 2:278, 2:330, 2:404, 3:57, 3:191, 3:217, 3:239, 3:246 enemies 1:14, 1:62, 1:162, 1:195, 1:204, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:217, 1:219, 1:227, 1:260, 1:281, 1:286, 1:303, 3:45, 3:51, 3:95, 3:142, 3:177, 3:192, 3:214, 3:244, 3:274, 3:304, 3:305, 3:335, 3:336, 3:339, 3:342, 3:351, 3:363, 3:366, 3:368, 3:373, 3:380, 3:423 Enoch 1:43, 1:45, 1:61, 1:63, 1:114, 1:115, 2:52, 2:53, 2:268, 2:363, 2:364, 2:365, 2:366, 2:367, 2:368, 2:369, 2:370, 2:371, 2:372, 2:373, 2:374, 2:375, 2:377, 2:378, 2:379, 2:380, 2:381, 2:382, 2:383, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:387, 2:390, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393, 2:394, 2:448, 3:248, 3:385, 3:386, Enoch group(s) 1:7, 1:12, 1:37, 1:38, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:48, 1:49, 1:50, 1:51, 1:52, 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:60, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 3:15, 3:98, 3:123, 3:143 Enochians. See Enoch group(s) Enochic corpus. See Enoch, Books of

S UBJECT I NDEX Enochic Judaism. See Enoch group(s) Enochic literature. See Enoch, Books of Enochic tradition. See Enoch group(s) Ephraim 1:185, 1:194, 1:282, 2:30, 2:31, 2:245, 2:326, 2:344, 3:130, 3:269, 3:272 Epiphanius 1:69 Eschatological Hymn 1:234, 1:262, 1:271 eschatological prophet. See prophet(s), eschatological eschatology 1:56, 1:57, 1:105, 1:114, 1:117, 1:225, 2:71, 2:75, 2:87, 2:91, 2:175, 2:189, 2:203, 2:215, 2:253, 2:257, 2:258, 2:259, 2:264, 2:265, 2:268, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:277, 2:279, 2:280, 2:281, 2:364, 3:29, 3:35, 3:39, 3:65, 3:119, 3:126, 3:137, 3:138, 3:156, 3:157, 3:160, 3:191, 3:192, 3:217, 3:220, 3:275, 3:291, 3:397, 3:414 eschatology, Qumran 3:401 Essene Gate 3:110 Essenes 1:7, 1:15, 1:16, 1:17, 1:19, 1:20, 1:21, 1:22, 1:47, 1:48, 1:49, 1:60, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 1:69, 1:101, 1:184, 1:201, 1:287, 1:301, 1:305, 2:22, 2:25, 2:69, 2:94, 2:100, 2:102, 2:103, 2:236, 2:237, 2:238, 2:239, 2:242, 2:243, 2:245, 2:260, 2:261, 2:262, 2:264, 2:268, 2:278, 2:279, 2:280, 2:281, 2:289, 2:364,

2:398, 2:400, 2:402, 2:404, 2:408, 2:409, 2:415, 2:416, 2:419, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:433, 2:434, 3:1, 3:6, 3:11, 3:12, 3:13, 3:14, 3:15, 3:16, 3:17, 3:19, 3:26, 3:32, 3:34, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:42, 3:47, 3:50, 3:51, 3:52, 3:57, 3:70, 3:97, 3:103, 3:108, 3:109, 3:110, 3:112, 3:117, 3:118, 3:123, 3:124, 3:127, 3:129, 3:131, 3:132, 3:133, 3:134, 3:136, 3:137, 3:140, 3:142, 3:143, 3:144, 3:145, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 3:151, 3:171, 3:207, 3:231, 3:320, 3:342, 3:351, 3:353, 3:354, 3:389, 3:409, 3:417, 3:421, 3:425, 3:431, 3:432, 3:433, 3:434, 3:435, 3:436, 3:437, 3:440, 3:443, 3:445, 3:446, 3:447, 3:449, 3:450, 3:456, 3:457, 3:459 eternal life 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:22, 1:116, 3:52, 3:86, 3:112, 3:115, 3:117, 3:139, 3:291 eternal planting 1:17, 3:82, 3:268 ethics 1:299, 3:183, 3:277, 3:278 Eucharist 3:144, 3:168. See also communal meal(s), Lord’s Supper, Qumran Meal, communion Eusebius 3:288, 3:310, 3:424, 3:431 Eve 3:248, 3:392 everlasting life 1:129, 3:115, 3:116 evil 1:11, 1:20, 1:21, 1:22, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:42, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:49, 1:51, 1:52, 1:53, 1:54, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:105, 1:108, 1:124, 1:127, 1:129, 1:160, 1:185, 1:186, 1:193, 1:199, 1:200, 1:204, 1:207, 1:208, 1:215, 1:222, 1:223, 1:227, 1:230, 1:231, 1:232, 1:257, 1:258, 1:259, 1:263, 1:275, 2:36, 2:64, 2:66, 2:171, 2:172, 2:173, 2:175, 2:176, 2:177, 2:179, 2:180, 2:181, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:187, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:210, 2:228, 2:229, 2:233, 2:236, 2:241, 2:242, 2:253, 2:254, 2:258, 2:265, 2:266, 2:269, 2:270, 2:271, 2:273, 2:275, 2:294, 2:312, 2:338, 2:344, 2:348, 2:363, 2:366, 2:391, 2:393, 2:429, 2:430, 2:432, 2:441, 2:445, 2:485, 3:21, 3:24, 3:41, 3:42, 3:81, 3:91, 3:112, 3:114, 3:117, 3:118, 3:119, 3:120, 3:132, 3:148, 3:183, 3:184, 3:199, 3:266, 3:277, 3:279, 3:332, 3:335, 3:337, 3:344, 3:360, 3:377, 3:453, 3:454, 3:458 evil age 3:372 evil Spirit 3:41, 3:132 Examiner 3:327, 3:330, 3:340 exclusion 1:47, 1:63, 1:69, 1:127, 1:168, 3:3, 3:22, 3:121, 3:269, 3:352 exegesis 1:26, 1:30, 1:134, 1:188, 1:189, 1:190, 1:191, 1:200, 1:201, 1:228, 1:279,

1:280, 1:289, 1:290, 1:291, 1:292, 1:293, 1:294, 1:295, 1:296, 1:299, 1:300, 1:303, 1:308, 1:312, 1:313, 1:314, 1:315, 1:317, 1:318, 3:12, 3:13, 3:14, 3:18, 3:19, 3:26, 3:65, 3:87, 3:89, 3:99, 3:191, 3:217, 3:228, 3:245, 3:261, 3:278, 3:283, 3:313, 3:415, 3:440, 3:455 exile 1:43, 1:113, 1:114, 1:196, 1:197, 2:20, 2:27, 2:40, 2:52, 2:55, 2:76, 2:94, 2:213, 2:248, 2:272, 2:433, 2:465, 2:491, 3:67, 3:191, 3:232, 3:233, 3:235, 3:240, 3:242, 3:254, 3:367, 3:374, 3:377, 3:380 Exodus (event) 1:44, 1:95, 1:217, 1:218, 3:47, 3:58, 3:122, 3:248, 3:363 exorcism 3:41 expulsion 1:17, 2:201, 3:3, 3:10, 3:24, 3:27, 3:28, 3:123, 3:352 facsimile edition 1:33, 1:107 false messiah. See messiah, false falsehood 1:260, 2:171, 2:176, 2:198, 3:41, 3:223 family life 2:94 famine 3:234 fasting 1:49, 1:196, 2:38, 2:213, 2:402, 2:409, 3:222, 3:311 fate 1:213, 1:214, 2:197, 2:200, 2:236, 2:239, 2:249, 2:252, 2:253, 2:254, 2:257, 2:263, 2:265, 2:266, 2:267, 2:276, 2:363, 2:430, 2:431, 3:311, 3:423, 3:424

613 fauna 3:257 fear 1:xxv, 1:6, 1:83, 1:161, 1:205, 1:210, 1:216, 1:217, 1:255, 1:259, 1:262, 1:310, 3:11, 3:121, 3:154, 3:372 Feast of Tabernacles 2:31, 2:437, 3:121, 3:122 Feast of Weeks 2:34, 2:42, 2:46, 2:49, 2:304. See also Shavuot feasts 1:135, 1:261, 2:42, 2:45, 2:46, 2:49, 2:51, 2:54, 2:308, 3:122, 3:197, 3:198 festival(s) 1:49, 1:70, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:141, 1:143, 1:146, 1:147, 1:301, 1:303, 2:28, 2:30, 2:31, 2:32, 2:34, 2:38, 2:39, 2:41, 2:45, 2:46, 2:49, 2:50, 2:104, 2:206, 2:209, 2:212, 2:214, 2:305, 2:306, 2:313, 2:314, 2:315, 2:333, 2:403, 2:408, 2:413, 2:486, 3:121, 3:122, 3:144, 3:165, 3:222, 3:237, 3:241 festival, Passover. See Passover fidelity 3:65, 3:203, 3:204, 3:206, 3:217, 3:222, 3:225, 3:226, 3:329 final battle 3:22, 3:345 final judgment 1:52, 2:261, 2:274, 2:275, 2:279, 2:280, 2:281, 2:330, 2:366, 2:378, 2:441, 3:9, 3:20, 3:115, 3:176, 3:445, 3:457 fire 1:xxx, 1:44, 1:109, 1:141, 1:196, 1:211, 1:220, 1:255, 1:282,

614 3:12, 3:22, 3:25, 3:26, 3:33, 3:115, 3:210, 3:373, 3:374, 3:401, 3:431, 3:448 fire imagery 3:358 first Jewish Revolt. See Jewish revolt, first First Temple 2:18, 2:333 Flood 1:115, 1:132, 1:308, 1:309, 2:456, 2:485, 2:489 food 1:19, 1:207, 1:208, 1:262, 2:187, 2:239, 2:366, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:409, 2:410, 2:411, 2:412, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:421, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424, 2:425, 2:467, 3:13, 3:25, 3:26, 3:32, 3:35, 3:94, 3:241, 3:270, 3:311, 3:334, 3:445 forgiveness 3:8, 3:18, 3:20, 3:24, 3:34, 3:50, 3:160, 3:169, 3:170, 3:376, 3:377, 3:444, 3:448, 3:450 forgiveness, divine 3:376 fornication 1:49, 1:299 fort 3:152 Four Songs for Making Music over the Stricken 1:249 Fourth Philosophy 3:40 free will 1:49, 3:18 fruit 1:210, 1:262, 2:41, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63, 2:210, 2:281, 2:432, 3:248 fruit, good 3:12, 3:33 furniture 3:362 Gabriel 1:xxx, 2:231 Galilee 1:12, 1:224, 2:419, 2:437, 3:27, 3:39, 3:40, 3:45, 3:51, 3:54, 3:55, 3:59, 3:60, 3:151, 3:436 Galilee, Roman 3:51 Gamala 1:18

S UBJECT I NDEX garden of Eden 3:233, 3:234, 3:246, 3:254, 3:268 garment(s) 1:11, 1:178, 1:201, 3:12, 3:23, 3:252, 3:275, 3:276 gates 1:257, 1:259, 1:280, 2:236, 2:309, 2:444, 3:234, 3:235, 3:236, 3:239, 3:247, 3:252, 3:267 gentiles 1:45, 1:47, 1:58, 1:203, 2:51, 2:406, 2:421, 2:422, 3:48, 3:66, 3:69, 3:70, 3:72, 3:95, 3:192, 3:195, 3:199, 3:240, 3:243, 3:276, 3:327, 3:341, 3:342, 3:348, 3:363, 3:367, 3:377, 3:398, 3:399, 3:404 geographical names 1:202 giant(s) 1:41, 1:72, 1:102, 1:103, 1:106, 1:107, 1:108, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112, 1:115, 3:82 glassware 1:22 gnosticism 3:164, 3:415 goat(s) 1:141, 1:223, 1:257, 2:99, 3:228 God 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:4, 1:7, 1:11, 1:13, 1:17, 1:19, 1:20, 1:21, 1:23, 1:26, 1:27, 1:29, 1:34, 1:35, 1:36, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:48, 1:49, 1:50, 1:51, 1:52, 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:68, 1:73, 1:74, 1:82, 1:83, 1:87, 1:105, 1:108, 1:111, 1:112, 1:114, 1:118, 1:119, 1:123, 1:126, 1:127, 1:128, 1:132, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:145, 1:147,

1:152, 1:155, 1:156, 1:159, 1:191, 1:193, 1:195, 1:196, 1:199, 1:201, 1:202, 1:203, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:216, 1:218, 1:219, 1:222, 1:223, 1:227, 1:228, 1:229, 1:230, 1:231, 1:237, 1:255, 1:256, 1:258, 1:261, 1:275, 1:280, 1:281, 1:282, 1:283, 1:284, 1:285, 1:286, 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 1:306, 1:308, 1:310, 1:313, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 1:317, 2:18, 2:27, 2:34, 2:35, 2:42, 2:48, 2:52, 2:57, 2:59, 2:60, 2:61, 2:64, 2:66, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:72, 2:74, 2:76, 2:79, 2:80, 2:81, 2:82, 2:85, 2:86, 2:87, 2:88, 2:89, 2:90, 2:93, 2:94, 2:95, 2:98, 2:99, 2:100, 2:101, 2:102, 2:119, 2:142, 2:151, 2:170, 2:171, 2:172, 2:174, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:183, 2:184, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:195, 2:196, 2:197, 2:199, 2:200, 2:201, 2:208, 2:209, 2:210, 2:211, 2:213, 2:214, 2:215, 2:217, 2:218, 2:219, 2:220, 2:221, 2:222, 2:224, 2:225, 2:226, 2:227, 2:231, 2:232, 2:233, 2:234, 2:236, 2:237, 2:238, 2:239, 2:242, 2:243, 2:247, 2:248, 2:249, 2:250, 2:251, 2:252, 2:253, 2:255, 2:256, 2:258, 2:259, 2:260, 2:264, 2:266, 2:268, 2:269, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:278, 2:279, 2:280, 2:281, 2:284, 2:286, 2:287, 2:290, 2:293, 2:299, 2:302, 2:303, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 2:311, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 2:318, 2:321, 2:327, 2:328, 2:329, 2:330, 2:333, 2:338, 2:339, 2:340, 2:341, 2:342, 2:343, 2:344, 2:345, 2:347, 2:348, 2:349, 2:351, 2:354, 2:355, 2:356, 2:357, 2:358, 2:359, 2:360, 2:361, 2:365, 2:366, 2:367, 2:368, 2:369, 2:370, 2:371, 2:373, 2:374, 2:387, 2:389, 2:391, 2:393, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:407, 2:409, 2:411, 2:412, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:424, 2:429, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:435, 2:436, 2:438, 2:439, 2:441, 2:442, 2:443, 2:444, 2:445, 2:446, 2:478, 2:479, 2:488, 3:6, 3:8, 3:9, 3:18, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, 3:24, 3:25, 3:26, 3:27, 3:28, 3:31, 3:32, 3:33, 3:34, 3:41, 3:42, 3:43, 3:44, 3:47, 3:48, 3:49, 3:52, 3:55, 3:60, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:68, 3:69, 3:70, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:78, 3:79, 3:80, 3:81, 3:82, 3:83, 3:85, 3:87, 3:90, 3:91, 3:92, 3:93, 3:95, 3:103, 3:107, 3:108, 3:112, 3:113, 3:114, 3:115, 3:116, 3:119, 3:123, 3:124, 3:126, 3:128, 3:129, 3:133, 3:134, 3:135, 3:136, 3:140, 3:152, 3:156, 3:157, 3:158,

3:160, 3:161, 3:162, 3:166, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:172, 3:173, 3:177, 3:179, 3:180, 3:183, 3:184, 3:185, 3:192, 3:196, 3:201, 3:205, 3:206, 3:210, 3:211, 3:213, 3:214, 3:215, 3:217, 3:219, 3:220, 3:223, 3:225, 3:226, 3:227, 3:229, 3:230, 3:231, 3:232, 3:233, 3:238, 3:239, 3:240, 3:241, 3:242, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:247, 3:248, 3:250, 3:251, 3:252, 3:253, 3:254, 3:256, 3:261, 3:263, 3:265, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:273, 3:274, 3:277, 3:278, 3:284, 3:285, 3:292, 3:293, 3:302, 3:303, 3:307, 3:308, 3:313, 3:316, 3:319, 3:320, 3:329, 3:330, 3:333, 3:335, 3:336, 3:337, 3:340, 3:341, 3:342, 3:344, 3:345, 3:346, 3:349, 3:352, 3:355, 3:357, 3:358, 3:359, 3:360, 3:361, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:369, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373, 3:374, 3:375, 3:377, 3:378, 3:379, 3:380, 3:385, 3:386, 3:393, 3:399, 3:400, 3:401, 3:402, 3:403, 3:404, 3:420, 3:449, 3:452, 3:453, 3:454, 3:457, 3:458 God rules 3:219, 3:238 God, Lord 1:256, 3:81, 3:267 gods 1:159, 1:209, 1:215, 1:219, 3:210, 3:212, 3:213, 3:214, 3:219, 3:369

615 gold 1:84, 1:85, 1:313, 3:236, 3:247 good 1:12, 1:20, 1:22, 1:40, 1:41, 1:43, 1:46, 1:54, 1:55, 1:59, 1:62, 1:67, 1:73, 1:104, 1:134, 1:164, 1:188, 1:192, 1:194, 1:232, 1:256, 1:257, 1:261, 1:262, 1:314, 3:8, 3:21, 3:39, 3:58, 3:62, 3:73, 3:85, 3:106, 3:172, 3:184, 3:194, 3:196, 3:199, 3:219, 3:220, 3:278, 3:319, 3:336, 3:343, 3:344, 3:345, 3:350, 3:351, 3:353, 3:375, 3:379, 3:380, 3:402, 3:411, 3:422, 3:446 good deeds. See deeds, good good fruit. See fruit, good good man. See man, good goods 1:8, 2:279, 3:22, 3:51, 3:93, 3:338 government 1:47 grace 1:262, 3:67, 3:133, 3:157, 3:171, 3:176, 3:179, 3:180, 3:269, 3:271, 3:362, 3:372, 3:375 grace, divine 3:176, 3:453 grain 2:49, 2:305, 2:313, 2:413, 2:415, 2:422 grapes 1:256 graves 2:97, 2:248, 2:279 Greco-Roman culture 1:28, 1:31, 1:35, 1:226, 3:72, 3:95, 3:111, 3:167, 3:168, 3:279, 3:460. See also Hellenism Greco-Roman period 1:213, 1:226, 1:315, 3:27, 3:57, 3:162,

616 3:270, 3:404, 3:414, 3:423 Greece 1:xxvii, 1:128, 1:188, 1:209, 1:212, 3:342 Greek(s) 1:xxx, 1:7, 1:9 Greek fragments 3:288, 3:298, 3:299, 3:387 Greek translation 1:13, 1:149, 3:226 Greek translations 1:26, 1:28, 1:31 Groningen hypothesis 1:50, 1:64, 1:186, 1:191, 3:422 group(s) 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxxi, 1:2, 1:7, 1:8, 1:10, 1:12, 1:15, 1:16, 1:20, 1:33, 1:37, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:44, 1:47, 1:48, 1:49, 1:50, 1:51, 1:53, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:60, 1:61, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 1:73, 1:91, 1:92, 1:95, 1:98, 1:101, 1:102, 1:114, 1:125, 1:131, 1:139, 1:147, 1:168, 1:169, 1:181, 1:183, 1:185, 1:186, 1:189, 1:193, 1:205, 1:206, 1:230, 1:242, 1:251, 1:275, 1:276, 1:277, 1:298, 1:301, 1:302, 1:304, 1:307, 1:317, 3:2, 3:3, 3:11, 3:12, 3:13, 3:15, 3:27, 3:28, 3:30, 3:31, 3:34, 3:37, 3:39, 3:40, 3:53, 3:63, 3:64, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:69, 3:70, 3:84, 3:85, 3:97, 3:98, 3:108, 3:109, 3:110, 3:111, 3:112, 3:115, 3:120, 3:121, 3:123, 3:124, 3:127, 3:128, 3:129, 3:130, 3:131, 3:134, 3:141, 3:144, 3:145, 3:146, 3:148, 3:162, 3:166, 3:170, 3:176, 3:187, 3:190, 3:223,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:224, 3:248, 3:260, 3:270, 3:282, 3:286, 3:292, 3:296, 3:300, 3:301, 3:302, 3:305, 3:306, 3:307, 3:309, 3:314, 3:320, 3:324, 3:329, 3:334, 3:336, 3:337, 3:349, 3:353, 3:354, 3:373, 3:374, 3:387, 3:400, 3:409, 3:416, 3:422, 3:425, 3:431, 3:435, 3:436, 3:437, 3:439, 3:440, 3:446, 3:457, 3:459 Guard 1:305 guardian 1:156, 1:258, 3:312 guild 1:36, 1:174 Hahyah 1:108 hair 1:22, 1:109, 1:256, 3:27 Ham 3:409, 3:416 hammers 1:84, 1:85 Hanukkah 1:xxviii Haran 2:156 harbors 2:243 Hasideans 1:101 Hasmonean(s) 1:48, 1:71, 1:101, 1:121, 1:186, 1:194, 1:213, 1:218, 1:226, 1:230, 1:236, 1:253, 2:19, 2:78, 2:79, 2:81, 2:82, 2:327, 2:335, 2:381, 2:421, 2:431, 2:433, 2:437, 3:41, 3:45, 3:46, 3:54, 3:58, 3:216, 3:426 Hasmonean high priest 3:47 Hasmonean Judea. See Judea, Hasmonean Hasmonean Period 1:39, 1:71, 2:78 Hazor 3:234 healing 1:234, 1:258, 2:171, 2:174, 2:268, 2:409, 3:42, 3:51, 3:82, 3:103, 3:104 heaven 1:2, 1:41, 1:42, 1:45, 1:55, 1:110,

1:127, 1:151, 1:156, 1:215, 1:223, 1:259, 1:306, 2:34, 2:47, 2:53, 2:54, 2:68, 2:78, 2:87, 2:89, 2:92, 2:171, 2:210, 2:218, 2:220, 2:223, 2:247, 2:250, 2:256, 2:260, 2:270, 2:271, 2:274, 2:331, 2:365, 2:367, 2:370, 2:388, 2:411, 2:412, 3:29, 3:60, 3:67, 3:68, 3:78, 3:79, 3:80, 3:81, 3:82, 3:84, 3:85, 3:210, 3:213, 3:215, 3:232, 3:244, 3:248, 3:251, 3:254, 3:266, 3:276, 3:310, 3:373, 3:386, 3:448 heavenly angels. See angels, heavenly heavenly tablets 1:45, 1:46, 1:126, 2:209, 2:422, 3:82 heavenly temple. See temple, heavenly Hebrew Bible 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:xxxi, 1:13, 1:25, 1:28, 1:32, 1:33, 1:38, 1:39, 1:67, 1:69, 1:75, 1:77, 1:79, 1:80, 1:85, 1:86, 1:89, 1:91, 1:93, 1:94, 1:102, 1:121, 1:131, 1:132, 1:134, 1:149, 1:150, 1:151, 1:152, 1:163, 1:164, 1:165, 1:167, 1:168, 1:169, 1:170, 1:171, 1:172, 1:173, 1:207, 1:209, 1:210, 1:214, 1:215, 1:216, 1:218, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:222, 1:223, 1:231, 1:242, 1:249, 1:288, 1:295, 1:296, 1:319, 2:107, 2:108, 2:109, 2:121, 2:136, 2:138, 2:139, 2:141, 2:142, 2:145, 2:161, 2:173, 2:190, 2:204, 2:236, 2:250, 2:253,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:284, 2:285, 2:288, 2:289, 2:297, 2:299, 2:301, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:313, 2:330, 2:339, 2:356, 2:363, 2:364, 2:414, 2:415, 2:451, 2:454, 2:462, 2:463, 2:464, 2:479, 2:487, 3:27, 3:54, 3:158, 3:170, 3:175, 3:177, 3:179, 3:231, 3:260, 3:265, 3:269, 3:311, 3:326, 3:387, 3:393, 3:398, 3:400, 3:409, 3:410, 3:451, 3:452, 3:457, 3:460 Hebrew canon 1:13 Hebrew noun 3:139, 3:188, 3:189 Hebrew Scriptures 1:xxiii, 1:xxix, 1:3, 1:13, 1:15, 1:69, 1:77, 1:97, 1:98, 1:99, 1:126, 2:135, 2:136, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:144, 2:146, 2:152, 2:160, 2:177, 3:97, 3:107, 3:109, 3:113, 3:137, 3:255, 3:261, 3:263 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1:40 Hebrew, language 1:274, 2:450 Hebrew, language (biblical) 1:160, 2:25, 2:217, 2:310, 3:139 Hebrew texts 1:13 Hebron 1:146, 3:231 Hecataeus of Abdera 1:214 Hellenism 1:101, 1:213, 3:100, 3:456 Hellenistic period 1:xxix, 1:61, 1:114, 2:78, 2:81, 2:278, 2:377, 2:399, 3:237 Hellenistic-Roman period. See GrecoRoman period

Herod Antipas. See Antipas, Herod Herod the Great 2:335, 2:380, 2:381, 2:428, 3:6, 3:45, 3:105, 3:118, 3:431 Herodian(s) 1:236, 1:253, 1:254, 3:39, 3:45, 3:51, 3:52, 3:390, 3:425, 3:426, 3:432, 3:433, 3:436 Herodian Jericho. See Jericho, Herodian Herodian period 1:71, 1:83, 1:106, 1:135, 1:287, 2:323, 3:389, 3:390 Herodian script 1:117, 3:201 Hexapla 1:26 Hezekiah 1:9 hidden law 1:138 hidden things 1:294, 1:316, 3:77 high priest(s) 1:10, 1:62, 1:136, 1:186, 1:187, 1:190, 1:192, 1:194, 1:312, 2:17, 2:19, 2:75, 2:225, 2:327, 3:47, 3:55, 3:109, 3:125, 3:135, 3:148, 3:173, 3:176, 3:203, 3:211, 3:214, 3:216, 3:218, 3:220, 3:224, 3:225, 3:275, 3:361, 3:362 Hippolytus 2:261, 2:262, 2:274, 2:279, 2:280, 2:416, 3:288, 3:342, 3:351 holiness 1:41, 1:210, 1:215, 1:223, 2:100, 2:103, 2:184, 2:198, 2:200, 2:223, 2:224, 2:229, 2:267, 2:287, 2:305, 2:313, 2:435, 3:47, 3:59, 3:82, 3:85, 3:208, 3:222, 3:228, 3:238, 3:242, 3:243, 3:253, 3:319, 3:321, 3:331, 3:347, 3:352,

617 3:365, 3:377, 3:378, 3:379, 3:380 Holiness Code 3:320 holy books 1:98 Holy of Holies 1:41, 1:216, 3:210, 3:233, 3:252, 3:253, 3:268, 3:323 holy one 1:108, 1:110, 1:111, 1:230, 1:278 holy spirit 1:xxvii, 1:xxx, 1:74, 3:8, 3:27, 3:28, 3:35, 3:42, 3:132, 3:136, 3:137, 3:180, 3:261, 3:272, 3:335, 3:364, 3:366, 3:374, 3:377, 3:449 honor 1:29, 1:32, 1:36, 1:67, 1:90, 1:106, 1:173, 1:212, 1:239, 1:242, 1:258, 1:305, 3:148, 3:168 honor, divine 3:357 house of Absalom 1:185 house of Hillel 1:75 house of Holiness 2:343, 3:28, 3:29, 3:47, 3:162, 3:238 house of Judah 1:194, 3:65, 3:171, 3:225 house of Peleg 1:185 houses 1:56, 1:135, 1:210, 1:223, 3:50, 3:247, 3:355 hymn(s) 1:9, 1:10, 1:23, 1:68, 1:226, 1:228, 1:229, 1:275, 1:311, 1:312, 2:96, 2:190, 2:237, 2:273, 2:294, 2:321, 2:325, 2:351, 2:353, 2:354, 2:360, 2:409, 2:442, 2:445, 2:446, 3:9, 3:27, 3:102, 3:126, 3:210, 3:213, 3:336, 3:338, 3:379, 3:380, 3:382, 3:401, 3:402, 3:453 Hymn to the Creator 1:234, 1:238, 1:244, 1:262, 1:271

618 Hypothetica 3:431 ideology, Greek. See Greco-Roman culture ideology, Roman. See Greco-Roman culture idol(s) 1:207, 3:24, 3:66, 3:270, 3:271 illness 1:105, 1:200 imagery 1:56, 1:120, 1:214, 1:219, 1:231, 1:275, 1:282, 2:5, 2:7, 2:186, 2:213, 2:231, 2:232, 2:276, 2:278, 2:295, 2:322, 2:351, 2:352, 2:355, 2:356, 2:357, 2:358, 2:359, 2:361, 2:407, 2:479, 3:210, 3:213, 3:214, 3:220, 3:227, 3:373, 3:374, 3:376 immortality 2:255, 2:258, 2:259, 2:261, 2:268, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272, 2:274, 2:275, 2:279, 2:281, 2:404, 2:410, 2:411, 2:412, 2:413, 3:252 import 3:79 impurity 1:11, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:51, 1:58, 1:61, 3:11, 3:52, 3:157, 3:182, 3:189, 3:228, 3:241, 3:331 incense 3:47 incest 3:13, 3:323 incest legislation 3:325 industry 2:3, 2:4, 2:169, 3:37 iniquity 1:191, 1:195, 1:199, 1:260, 1:263, 3:22, 3:24, 3:81, 3:238, 3:244, 3:323, 3:362, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:373, 3:377, 3:378, 3:379, 3:454 initiation 1:295, 2:229, 2:317, 2:404, 2:407, 2:411, 2:413, 3:19, 3:26, 3:33, 3:35,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:129, 3:321, 3:425, 3:447, 3:450 ink 3:97, 3:255 inscription(s) 1:71, 1:104, 1:105, 1:109, 1:158, 2:41, 2:260, 3:252 Instruction on the Two Spirits 3:156, 3:163, 3:169, 3:181, 3:182 interpretation of scriptures 1:300, 3:228 Interpreter of the Law 2:87, 2:88, 2:90, 2:436, 3:217, 3:245 Intersacerdotium 3:57 Irenaeus 3:281, 3:286, 3:387, 3:392, 3:393, 3:451 Isaac 1:142, 2:218, 2:242, 2:330, 2:387, 2:393, 2:488, 3:400, 3:402 Isaac Abravanel. See Abravanel, Isaac Israel 1:xxiv, 1:xxxi, 1:3, 1:14, 1:26, 1:27, 1:35, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:48, 1:49, 1:50, 1:60, 1:61, 1:72, 1:82, 1:87, 1:90, 1:94, 1:98, 1:105, 1:113, 1:114, 1:126, 1:127, 1:128, 1:141, 1:154, 1:155, 1:156, 1:157, 1:159, 1:161, 1:162, 1:172, 1:177, 1:185, 1:186, 1:191, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:215, 1:216, 1:217, 1:218, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:223, 1:225, 1:226, 1:227, 1:228, 1:229, 1:230, 1:231, 1:255, 1:258, 1:278, 1:280, 1:281, 1:282, 1:283, 1:284, 1:285, 1:293, 1:294, 1:297, 1:307, 1:316, 1:318, 1:319, 2:18, 2:24, 2:26, 2:27, 2:29,

2:31, 2:32, 2:35, 2:37, 2:38, 2:40, 2:51, 2:63, 2:66, 2:67, 2:72, 2:74, 2:75, 2:76, 2:77, 2:79, 2:81, 2:84, 2:85, 2:86, 2:87, 2:89, 2:91, 2:92, 2:94, 2:95, 2:96, 2:97, 2:99, 2:101, 2:103, 2:104, 2:105, 2:108, 2:142, 2:152, 2:156, 2:170, 2:174, 2:178, 2:191, 2:192, 2:195, 2:198, 2:201, 2:210, 2:214, 2:220, 2:224, 2:228, 2:230, 2:231, 2:232, 2:236, 2:242, 2:243, 2:247, 2:248, 2:251, 2:264, 2:278, 2:286, 2:287, 2:288, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:298, 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:310, 2:311, 2:312, 2:314, 2:318, 2:329, 2:330, 2:333, 2:342, 2:344, 2:345, 2:358, 2:360, 2:361, 2:369, 2:370, 2:371, 2:405, 2:408, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:416, 2:432, 2:435, 2:436, 2:438, 2:441, 2:445, 2:449, 2:450, 2:453, 2:454, 2:456, 2:465, 2:488, 3:10, 3:12, 3:16, 3:18, 3:20, 3:24, 3:27, 3:32, 3:34, 3:39, 3:42, 3:43, 3:47, 3:48, 3:49, 3:50, 3:51, 3:52, 3:59, 3:60, 3:61, 3:66, 3:67, 3:69, 3:70, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:90, 3:92, 3:95, 3:112, 3:162, 3:166, 3:168, 3:190, 3:191, 3:192, 3:196, 3:199, 3:200, 3:214, 3:215, 3:222, 3:223, 3:224, 3:227, 3:231, 3:233, 3:238, 3:239, 3:240, 3:241, 3:243, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:324, 3:335, 3:342, 3:351, 3:360, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373, 3:374, 3:375, 3:377, 3:379, 3:380, 3:381, 3:382, 3:383, 3:384, 3:386, 3:390, 3:398, 3:399, 3:400, 3:402, 3:403, 3:404, 3:448, 3:450 Israel Exploration Society 1:29, 1:89, 1:135, 1:140, 1:142, 1:304, 3:53, 3:104, 3:125, 3:136, 3:144, 3:160, 3:320, 3:413, 3:414, 3:416, 3:428, 3:433, 3:436 Jacob 1:45, 1:132, 1:142, 1:152, 1:153, 1:186, 1:187, 1:228, 1:255, 1:257, 1:275, 1:283, 1:301, 1:312, 1:313, 2:30, 2:31, 2:87, 2:90, 2:240, 2:243, 2:330, 2:442, 2:449, 2:458, 2:487, 2:491 James the Just 3:310, 3:425 Jason 2:17, 2:20, 2:21 Jehoshaphat 1:212, 3:243 Jericho 1:xxv, 1:8, 1:23, 2:82, 3:6, 3:27, 3:58, 3:127 Jericho, Herodian 3:141 Jerome 1:25, 1:26, 1:27, 1:68, 1:70, 1:75, 3:99, 3:129, 3:165, 3:310, 3:321, 3:323, 3:333, 3:414, 3:455 Jerusalem 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxx, 1:2, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:10, 1:15, 1:16, 1:18, 1:20,

1:23, 1:28, 1:29, 1:32, 1:33, 1:35, 1:37, 1:41, 1:47, 1:50, 1:71, 1:72, 1:73, 1:78, 1:80, 1:82, 1:89, 1:91, 1:92, 1:94, 1:98, 1:124, 1:125, 1:134, 1:135, 1:140, 1:142, 1:145, 1:151, 1:161, 1:162, 1:164, 1:174, 1:179, 1:185, 1:193, 1:194, 1:195, 1:198, 1:201, 1:202, 1:212, 1:223, 1:224, 1:239, 1:250, 1:273, 1:274, 1:275, 1:278, 1:279, 1:280, 1:281, 1:283, 1:284, 1:285, 1:286, 1:291, 1:297, 1:304, 1:307, 1:316, 1:317, 2:4, 2:7, 2:17, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:24, 2:27, 2:28, 2:29, 2:31, 2:32, 2:33, 2:37, 2:38, 2:39, 2:40, 2:44, 2:47, 2:55, 2:58, 2:60, 2:64, 2:76, 2:77, 2:79, 2:80, 2:81, 2:88, 2:92, 2:95, 2:97, 2:99, 2:102, 2:109, 2:121, 2:143, 2:152, 2:156, 2:198, 2:203, 2:208, 2:211, 2:212, 2:213, 2:214, 2:215, 2:217, 2:223, 2:224, 2:227, 2:233, 2:236, 2:240, 2:278, 2:280, 2:285, 2:307, 2:308, 2:309, 2:312, 2:314, 2:318, 2:328, 2:329, 2:335, 2:339, 2:340, 2:344, 2:369, 2:370, 2:372, 2:382, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:394, 2:406, 2:411, 2:415, 2:416, 2:427, 2:428, 2:435, 2:440, 2:444, 2:449, 2:450, 2:453, 2:454, 2:456, 2:459, 2:465, 2:472, 3:5, 3:7, 3:12, 3:16, 3:26, 3:27, 3:31, 3:38, 3:40, 3:46, 3:47,

619 3:48, 3:49, 3:51, 3:52, 3:54, 3:55, 3:58, 3:79, 3:90, 3:97, 3:98, 3:103, 3:104, 3:108, 3:109, 3:110, 3:118, 3:122, 3:127, 3:128, 3:130, 3:131, 3:141, 3:144, 3:148, 3:149, 3:151, 3:152, 3:174, 3:187, 3:204, 3:209, 3:226, 3:227, 3:228, 3:231, 3:232, 3:233, 3:234, 3:235, 3:236, 3:237, 3:238, 3:247, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:251, 3:254, 3:264, 3:265, 3:266, 3:324, 3:337, 3:338, 3:353, 3:368, 3:379, 3:402, 3:420, 3:430, 3:432, 3:433, 3:434, 3:436 Jerusalem Bible 1:74 Jerusalem Temple 1:xxiii, 1:41, 3:45, 3:47, 3:48, 3:54, 3:187, 3:227 Jesus 1:xxiii, 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:1, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:10, 1:11, 1:12, 1:13, 1:19, 1:20, 1:21, 1:34, 1:65, 1:98, 1:117, 1:132, 1:312, 2:17, 2:28, 2:54, 2:71, 2:72, 2:79, 2:82, 2:83, 2:85, 2:86, 2:89, 2:90, 2:91, 2:92, 2:103, 2:121, 2:135, 2:228, 2:245, 2:251, 2:269, 2:281, 2:308, 2:311, 2:336, 2:342, 2:366, 2:378, 2:380, 2:384, 2:388, 2:389, 2:394, 2:395, 2:397, 2:398, 2:420, 2:430, 2:434, 2:436, 2:437, 2:438, 2:440, 2:474, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:27, 3:37, 3:38, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:42, 3:43, 3:44, 3:45, 3:46, 3:48,

620 3:49, 3:50, 3:51, 3:52, 3:53, 3:54, 3:55, 3:56, 3:57, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60, 3:61, 3:63, 3:64, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:68, 3:69, 3:70, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:76, 3:77, 3:78, 3:79, 3:83, 3:84, 3:85, 3:86, 3:88, 3:89, 3:90, 3:91, 3:92, 3:93, 3:94, 3:95, 3:97, 3:98, 3:99, 3:101, 3:102, 3:104, 3:105, 3:106, 3:108, 3:109, 3:111, 3:112, 3:113, 3:114, 3:115, 3:118, 3:119, 3:120, 3:121, 3:122, 3:123, 3:124, 3:125, 3:126, 3:128, 3:129, 3:130, 3:132, 3:135, 3:136, 3:137, 3:139, 3:141, 3:142, 3:143, 3:144, 3:145, 3:146, 3:147, 3:148, 3:149, 3:151, 3:152, 3:204, 3:212, 3:214, 3:216, 3:217, 3:218, 3:220, 3:221, 3:227, 3:229, 3:257, 3:260, 3:261, 3:273, 3:274, 3:275, 3:277, 3:278, 3:279, 3:282, 3:283, 3:284, 3:285, 3:289, 3:291, 3:292, 3:293, 3:294, 3:297, 3:299, 3:303, 3:308, 3:309, 3:310, 3:311, 3:312, 3:314, 3:315, 3:316, 3:317, 3:319, 3:348, 3:349, 3:351, 3:352, 3:353, 3:354, 3:358, 3:363, 3:367, 3:368, 3:371, 3:372, 3:374, 3:375, 3:376, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:395, 3:398, 3:400, 3:401, 3:402, 3:404, 3:405, 3:408, 3:410, 3:414, 3:419, 3:420, 3:421, 3:422, 3:423, 3:424, 3:425, 3:434, 3:435, 3:436, 3:437,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:440, 3:441, 3:442, 3:443, 3:444, 3:447, 3:459, 3:460, 3:461 Jesus, high priest 2:87 Jesus, Lord 3:167, 3:172, 3:402 Jesus, prophet 3:45 Jesus Christ 1:8, 1:27, 1:292, 3:67, 3:172, 3:180, 3:196, 3:197, 3:199, 3:203, 3:362, 3:367, 3:378 Jesus group 3:109, 3:110, 3:131. See also Christian(s), Jesus sect Jesus sect 1:23. See also Christian(s), Jesus group Jewish Christian(s)/Jewish Christianity See Christianity, Jewish Jewish calendar. See calendar, Jewish Jewish law 3:154 Jewish literature 1:30, 1:104, 1:167, 1:229, 1:300, 1:304, 1:309, 3:57, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:138, 3:142, 3:143, 3:190, 3:209, 3:259, 3:281, 3:440 Jewish revolt(s) 1:28, 1:33, 1:43, 1:99, 1:187 Jewish revolt, first 1:23, 1:94, 1:97, 1:99, 1:224 Jewish script(s) 1:67, 1:71, 1:106, 2:482, 3:426 Jewish sect(s) 1:34, 3:14, 3:64, 3:128, 3:409 Joab 1:180 Johanan 1:xxv, 2:34, 2:414 Johannes der Täufer. See John the Baptist

Johannine writings 3:132, 3:151, 3:286, 3:287, 3:297, 3:299, 3:300, 3:301, 3:302, 3:304, 3:305, 3:306, 3:307, 3:309, 3:310 John the Baptist 2:82, 2:91, 2:103, 2:104, 2:228, 2:397, 3:1, 3:4, 3:5, 3:8, 3:12, 3:40, 3:43, 3:90, 3:93, 3:308, 3:374, 3:414, 3:425 John the Essene 3:4 Jonathan 2:17, 2:19, 2:68, 2:79, 2:82, 2:398, 2:412 Jonathan Maccabee 1:183 Jordan 3:6, 3:155, 3:286 Joseph, husband of Mary 3:105 Joseph, Maccabean army leader 1:213 Joseph, the Patriarch 1:114, 1:144, 1:152, 1:153, 2:407, 2:408, 2:410, 2:411, 2:412, 3:82, 3:400 Josiah 1:217 Judah 1:26, 1:72, 1:94, 1:132, 1:144, 1:200, 1:201, 1:202, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:215, 1:216, 1:218, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:223, 1:224, 1:234, 1:261, 1:271, 1:280, 1:283, 1:285, 1:289, 1:307, 2:27, 2:31, 2:32, 2:56, 2:66, 2:76, 2:77, 2:231, 2:344, 2:357, 2:358, 2:421, 2:436, 2:437, 2:438, 2:444, 2:452, 2:455, 2:457, 2:464, 2:490, 3:231, 3:234, 3:269, 3:337, 3:391 Judaism 1:xxiii, 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:xxxi, 1:1,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:3, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, 1:10, 1:12, 1:25, 1:26, 1:27, 1:28, 1:29, 1:30, 1:31, 1:33, 1:34, 1:35, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:48, 1:52, 1:53, 1:55, 1:56, 1:58, 1:59, 1:60, 1:61, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 1:72, 1:77, 1:81, 1:84, 1:86, 1:93, 1:94, 1:98, 1:101, 1:102, 1:114, 1:135, 1:152, 1:168, 1:169, 1:182, 1:213, 1:222, 1:250, 1:273, 1:280, 1:288, 1:290, 1:293, 1:295, 1:300, 1:308, 1:316, 1:317, 1:318, 2:23, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 2:28, 2:29, 2:38, 2:39, 2:43, 2:45, 2:54, 2:55, 2:56, 2:57, 2:58, 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:74, 2:75, 2:76, 2:79, 2:84, 2:88, 2:90, 2:91, 2:92, 2:96, 2:103, 2:109, 2:121, 2:135, 2:138, 2:139, 2:143, 2:144, 2:146, 2:158, 2:185, 2:193, 2:207, 2:224, 2:235, 2:236, 2:238, 2:239, 2:241, 2:243, 2:245, 2:250, 2:258, 2:260, 2:266, 2:309, 2:310, 2:311, 2:313, 2:315, 2:317, 2:321, 2:322, 2:330, 2:331, 2:336, 2:339, 2:346, 2:363, 2:364, 2:377, 2:386, 2:387, 2:390, 2:397, 2:398, 2:399, 2:404, 2:406, 2:410, 2:412, 2:414, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424, 2:427, 2:428, 2:431, 2:434, 2:437, 2:442, 2:448, 2:460, 2:480, 2:487, 3:2, 3:3, 3:9, 3:14, 3:15, 3:18, 3:31, 3:38, 3:40, 3:51, 3:53, 3:61, 3:63, 3:64,

3:73, 3:87, 3:92, 3:98, 3:99, 3:100, 3:101, 3:103, 3:107, 3:114, 3:117, 3:120, 3:127, 3:128, 3:129, 3:132, 3:134, 3:140, 3:143, 3:144, 3:151, 3:152, 3:158, 3:164, 3:170, 3:175, 3:179, 3:196, 3:200, 3:227, 3:230, 3:256, 3:257, 3:260, 3:261, 3:270, 3:308, 3:312, 3:313, 3:316, 3:350, 3:358, 3:359, 3:363, 3:364, 3:367, 3:373, 3:397, 3:399, 3:400, 3:402, 3:403, 3:404, 3:410, 3:415, 3:417, 3:418, 3:422, 3:425, 3:436, 3:440, 3:442, 3:444, 3:448, 3:451, 3:455, 3:456, 3:459, 3:460, 3:461 Judea 1:224, 2:50, 2:102, 2:331, 3:19, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:45, 3:54, 3:55, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60, 3:151, 3:236, 3:237, 3:349, 3:431 Judea, Hasmonean 3:51 Judea, Roman 3:51, 3:53 Judea, Seleucid 3:51 Judean Desert 1:67, 1:75, 1:77, 1:79, 1:94, 1:113, 1:121, 1:134, 1:171, 1:174, 1:233, 1:240, 1:250, 1:251, 1:252, 2:39, 2:102, 2:121, 2:145, 2:146, 2:167, 2:241, 2:309, 2:322, 2:397, 2:451 Judeo-Christians. See Jewish Christian(s)/Jewish Christianity judgment 1:1, 1:2, 1:7, 1:20, 1:44, 1:57, 1:61, 1:75, 1:81, 1:107, 1:108, 1:109, 1:111, 1:112, 1:125, 1:126,

621 1:156, 1:168, 1:194, 1:196, 1:202, 1:220, 1:250, 1:260, 1:275, 1:279, 1:280, 1:281, 1:282, 1:305, 2:33, 2:59, 2:60, 2:122, 2:132, 2:133, 2:139, 2:144, 2:155, 2:161, 2:171, 2:174, 2:175, 2:178, 2:189, 2:200, 2:228, 2:232, 2:251, 2:255, 2:256, 2:258, 2:259, 2:260, 2:263, 2:264, 2:265, 2:266, 2:267, 2:268, 2:269, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:277, 2:280, 2:281, 2:287, 2:312, 2:323, 2:332, 2:346, 2:348, 2:354, 2:357, 2:378, 2:387, 2:388, 2:389, 2:393, 2:394, 2:399, 2:400, 2:431, 3:18, 3:19, 3:24, 3:48, 3:65, 3:85, 3:92, 3:95, 3:99, 3:111, 3:112, 3:116, 3:117, 3:146, 3:151, 3:166, 3:171, 3:179, 3:183, 3:184, 3:215, 3:219, 3:220, 3:223, 3:225, 3:226, 3:227, 3:274, 3:291, 3:321, 3:335, 3:338, 3:339, 3:344, 3:345, 3:346, 3:350, 3:351, 3:352, 3:360, 3:365, 3:367, 3:369, 3:370, 3:372, 3:373, 3:374, 3:375, 3:379, 3:380, 3:420, 3:448, 3:453, 3:457 judgment, divine 1:107, 1:110, 1:111, 1:124, 3:336, 3:374 judicial procedures 3:347 key 1:16, 1:34, 1:40, 1:54, 1:56, 1:143, 1:217, 1:231, 1:243, 1:244, 1:295, 1:300,

622 3:11, 3:13, 3:18, 3:34, 3:35, 3:48, 3:73, 3:115, 3:128, 3:142, 3:228, 3:230, 3:268, 3:277, 3:278, 3:403, 3:448, 3:455, 3:460 Khirbet Qumran 1:37, 1:72, 1:101, 1:131, 1:291, 2:75, 2:154, 2:203, 2:205, 2:207, 2:279, 2:400, 3:3, 3:6, 3:97, 3:114, 3:231, 3:330, 3:408, 3:411 Kidron 3:125 king(s) 1:xxvi, 1:14, 1:68, 1:104, 1:105, 1:113, 1:115, 1:118, 1:120, 1:136, 1:161, 1:177, 1:178, 1:188, 1:207, 1:209, 1:212, 1:214, 1:220, 1:229, 1:280, 1:284, 1:307, 2:61, 2:252, 2:363, 2:393, 2:429, 2:433, 2:444, 3:45, 3:49, 3:52, 3:55, 3:78, 3:80, 3:81, 3:106, 3:114, 3:173, 3:200, 3:209, 3:212, 3:213, 3:214, 3:231, 3:232, 3:242, 3:266, 3:271, 3:273, 3:335, 3:369, 3:394 King Nebuchadnezzar 3:80, 3:232 Kingdom of God 3:42, 3:43, 3:52, 3:76, 3:79, 3:80, 3:81, 3:83, 3:86, 3:257, 3:348, 3:375 kingship 2:81, 2:82, 2:91, 2:388, 2:428, 3:275 Kittim 1:129, 1:183, 1:185, 1:193, 1:194, 1:223, 1:226, 1:227, 1:229, 1:281, 2:384, 3:41, 3:272, 3:337 knowledge 1:xxvii, 1:1, 1:2, 1:15, 1:41, 1:68, 1:77, 1:79, 1:80, 1:82, 1:92, 1:114, 1:164, 1:174, 1:232, 1:262,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:263, 1:293, 1:310, 1:317, 2:5, 2:39, 2:53, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:80, 2:82, 2:95, 2:133, 2:134, 2:137, 2:138, 2:140, 2:141, 2:143, 2:147, 2:150, 2:170, 2:171, 2:172, 2:217, 2:225, 2:254, 2:266, 2:267, 2:301, 2:307, 2:312, 2:319, 2:321, 2:330, 2:340, 2:343, 2:348, 2:353, 2:354, 2:356, 2:363, 2:367, 2:388, 2:391, 2:393, 2:431, 2:437, 2:439, 2:449, 2:464, 2:488, 2:489, 3:21, 3:39, 3:42, 3:78, 3:82, 3:83, 3:84, 3:91, 3:92, 3:93, 3:103, 3:105, 3:107, 3:108, 3:114, 3:117, 3:124, 3:125, 3:128, 3:129, 3:135, 3:138, 3:145, 3:185, 3:198, 3:199, 3:210, 3:238, 3:264, 3:283, 3:284, 3:297, 3:301, 3:303, 3:315, 3:335, 3:378, 3:393, 3:401, 3:404, 3:411, 3:436, 3:461 labor 2:359, 3:276, 3:330, 3:331, 3:344 lamb 1:140, 3:124, 3:252, 3:253, 3:258, 3:267, 3:275, 3:276, 3:277, 3:278, 3:279, 3:400 lame 3:94, 3:208, 3:352 Lamech 1:145 land 1:xxv, 1:2, 1:5, 1:8, 1:16, 1:40, 1:49, 1:86, 1:87, 1:143, 1:151, 1:157, 1:159, 1:162, 1:201, 1:211, 1:212, 1:217, 1:224, 1:227, 1:228, 1:255, 1:281, 1:306, 2:21, 2:27, 2:31, 2:38, 2:62, 2:63, 2:65, 2:76, 2:79, 2:82, 2:86, 2:221,

2:247, 2:248, 2:249, 2:252, 2:253, 2:290, 2:305, 2:306, 2:330, 2:338, 2:339, 2:358, 2:368, 2:382, 2:422, 2:435, 2:444, 2:465, 3:12, 3:27, 3:47, 3:54, 3:56, 3:84, 3:97, 3:115, 3:165, 3:166, 3:215, 3:222, 3:223, 3:233, 3:234, 3:236, 3:238, 3:240, 3:241, 3:249, 3:250, 3:334, 3:360, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:374, 3:377, 3:380, 3:432, 3:448, 3:450 languages 1:9, 1:25, 1:169, 2:73, 2:240, 2:373, 2:383, 2:413, 2:464, 3:258, 3:419 last days 1:193, 1:194, 1:279, 1:294, 3:87, 3:174, 3:204, 3:207, 3:234, 3:244, 3:261, 3:275, 3:365, 3:370, 3:380 Last Supper 3:144, 3:148, 3:222, 3:368, 3:414, 3:430, 3:433, 3:434 Last Words of David 1:255 Latin 1:14, 1:25, 1:77, 1:78, 1:87, 1:169, 1:187, 1:254, 2:367, 2:368, 2:371, 2:373, 2:470, 2:471, 2:474, 3:392 latter days 1:xxx, 3:68, 3:80, 3:138, 3:152, 3:228, 3:263 law(s) 3:2, 3:155, 3:184, 3:193 law of Moses 1:98. 2:37, 2:96, 2:196, 2:200, 2:256, 2:261, 3:66, 3:420. See also law(s), Mosaic Torah, Torah. law of the king 1:135, 1:136

S UBJECT I NDEX law, works of the 1:xxviii, 3:47, 3:87, 3:155, 3:157, 3:172, 3:173, 3:174, 3:175, 3:176, 3:184, 3:185, 3:188, 3:191, 3:193, 3:194, 3:195, 3:197, 3:198, 3:199, 3:200, 3:201, 3:270, 3:451, 3:452 leadership 1:50, 1:51, 1:58, 1:62, 1:211, 3:216, 3:227 learned 1:xxviii, 1:6, 1:12, 1:33, 1:83, 1:88, 1:232, 1:293, 3:2, 3:9, 3:26, 3:28, 3:29, 3:31, 3:32, 3:62, 3:64, 3:81, 3:221, 3:421 legal documents/works 2:284 legion(s), Roman 1:xxxi. See also army(ies), Roman, soldiers legislation 1:211, 1:227, 1:304, 3:24, 3:145, 3:327, 3:334, 3:343 letter 1:18, 1:57, 1:64, 1:131, 1:152, 1:178, 1:203, 1:205, 1:206, 1:207, 1:208, 1:242, 1:303, 1:317, 3:110, 3:158, 3:159, 3:165, 3:176, 3:187, 3:188, 3:211, 3:228, 3:249, 3:250, 3:427 letters 1:xxviii, 1:10, 1:84, 1:107, 1:161, 1:171, 1:204, 1:213, 1:237, 1:274, 1:303, 1:314, 2:45, 2:125, 2:152, 2:206, 2:359, 2:371, 2:377, 2:450, 2:475, 2:476, 2:477, 2:480, 3:90, 3:99, 3:154, 3:268, 3:350, 3:387, 3:427, 3:429, 3:451 letters of Paul. See Paul, letters of

Levi 1:45, 1:54, 1:57, 1:132, 1:144, 1:301, 1:312, 2:81, 2:87, 2:100, 2:231, 2:240, 2:311, 2:366, 2:401, 2:406, 2:423, 2:447, 2:449, 2:452, 2:458, 2:464, 2:485, 2:487, 2:490, 3:47, 3:196, 3:215, 3:243, 3:322, 3:324, 3:368, 3:388, 3:392 Levites 1:xxvii, 1:5, 1:226, 1:228, 2:59, 2:63, 2:99, 2:287, 2:289, 2:291, 2:293, 2:294, 2:333, 2:337, 2:349, 3:7, 3:14, 3:21, 3:24, 3:94, 3:109, 3:234, 3:241 Liar 1:185, 1:203 library 3:2, 3:97, 3:407 life 1:xxiii, 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:4, 1:16, 1:18, 1:22, 1:63, 1:68, 1:74, 1:127, 1:146, 1:150, 1:182, 1:192, 1:199, 1:210, 1:221, 1:227, 1:249, 1:286, 1:287, 1:306, 1:308, 1:311, 1:313, 1:319, 2:23, 2:28, 2:29, 2:32, 2:33, 2:38, 2:57, 2:58, 2:67, 2:69, 2:77, 2:89, 2:95, 2:101, 2:171, 2:174, 2:187, 2:198, 2:221, 2:222, 2:229, 2:239, 2:247, 2:248, 2:249, 2:250, 2:251, 2:252, 2:253, 2:254, 2:255, 2:256, 2:257, 2:258, 2:259, 2:260, 2:261, 2:262, 2:263, 2:264, 2:265, 2:266, 2:267, 2:268, 2:270, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:276, 2:277, 2:278, 2:279, 2:304, 2:308, 2:311, 2:314, 2:315, 2:317, 2:318, 2:319, 2:321, 2:322, 2:326,

623 2:327, 2:328, 2:330, 2:334, 2:336, 2:337, 2:339, 2:342, 2:343, 2:344, 2:345, 2:346, 2:348, 2:357, 2:363, 2:364, 2:366, 2:367, 2:389, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:407, 2:408, 2:409, 2:410, 2:411, 2:412, 2:413, 2:414, 2:424, 2:425, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:443, 3:4, 3:7, 3:8, 3:12, 3:13, 3:17, 3:18, 3:28, 3:29, 3:31, 3:33, 3:35, 3:41, 3:44, 3:54, 3:55, 3:59, 3:66, 3:71, 3:89, 3:92, 3:98, 3:99, 3:105, 3:119, 3:123, 3:129, 3:132, 3:133, 3:139, 3:144, 3:148, 3:171, 3:180, 3:217, 3:222, 3:224, 3:253, 3:255, 3:256, 3:259, 3:260, 3:261, 3:268, 3:270, 3:278, 3:279, 3:284, 3:285, 3:291, 3:310, 3:311, 3:314, 3:315, 3:316, 3:317, 3:320, 3:335, 3:345, 3:357, 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:367, 3:368, 3:375, 3:377, 3:379, 3:392, 3:425, 3:445, 3:447, 3:454 light 1:xxv, 1:1, 1:8, 1:12, 1:21, 1:22, 1:37, 1:40, 1:55, 1:58, 1:60, 1:64, 1:65, 1:72, 1:74, 1:80, 1:88, 1:89, 1:96, 1:97, 1:102, 1:106, 1:107, 1:116, 1:128, 1:130, 1:150, 1:151, 1:156, 1:158, 1:161, 1:163, 1:171, 1:175, 1:223, 1:226, 1:229, 1:252, 1:255, 1:258, 1:259, 1:261, 1:262, 1:275, 1:279, 1:289, 1:295, 1:296, 1:311, 1:314, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3,

624 2:5, 2:7, 2:8, 2:10, 2:18, 2:24, 2:29, 2:30, 2:34, 2:55, 2:66, 2:92, 2:136, 2:140, 2:142, 2:145, 2:147, 2:149, 2:154, 2:157, 2:170, 2:171, 2:174, 2:175, 2:176, 2:179, 2:181, 2:183, 2:185, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:195, 2:208, 2:226, 2:238, 2:250, 2:254, 2:255, 2:260, 2:262, 2:263, 2:267, 2:271, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:278, 2:302, 2:307, 2:309, 2:310, 2:311, 2:321, 2:322, 2:333, 2:346, 2:379, 2:390, 2:391, 2:397, 2:399, 2:401, 2:403, 2:407, 2:410, 2:425, 2:428, 2:432, 2:448, 2:461, 2:462, 2:463, 2:484, 3:2, 3:5, 3:8, 3:12, 3:16, 3:18, 3:20, 3:22, 3:24, 3:25, 3:27, 3:30, 3:32, 3:54, 3:65, 3:69, 3:70, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:75, 3:77, 3:82, 3:83, 3:98, 3:104, 3:107, 3:108, 3:109, 3:111, 3:112, 3:113, 3:115, 3:116, 3:117, 3:118, 3:119, 3:121, 3:122, 3:123, 3:126, 3:132, 3:133, 3:135, 3:138, 3:140, 3:142, 3:145, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 3:164, 3:165, 3:180, 3:183, 3:225, 3:239, 3:244, 3:249, 3:255, 3:256, 3:262, 3:263, 3:277, 3:284, 3:285, 3:293, 3:297, 3:298, 3:299, 3:302, 3:306, 3:307, 3:308, 3:309, 3:312, 3:327, 3:347, 3:351, 3:353, 3:369, 3:373, 3:374, 3:379, 3:381,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:386, 3:401, 3:403, 3:404, 3:418, 3:437, 3:460 light and darkness 1:22, 1:55, 1:221, 1:223, 1:225, 1:226, 1:229, 2:391, 3:18, 3:112, 3:116, 3:118, 3:306, 3:373, 3:453 Lion of Wrath 1:185, 1:194 literature 1:29, 1:30, 1:31, 1:37, 1:38, 1:39, 1:40, 1:42, 1:45, 1:47, 1:50, 1:54, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 1:101, 1:102, 1:130, 1:131, 1:132, 1:136, 1:138, 1:140, 1:160, 1:163, 1:170, 1:183, 1:212, 1:217, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:225, 1:230, 1:231, 1:232, 1:273, 1:293, 1:294, 1:300, 1:301, 1:312, 1:319, 2:22, 2:25, 2:39, 2:54, 2:55, 2:67, 2:68, 2:71, 2:72, 2:76, 2:84, 2:85, 2:96, 2:100, 2:108, 2:109, 2:119, 2:124, 2:129, 2:146, 2:150, 2:151, 2:152, 2:153, 2:154, 2:157, 2:159, 2:184, 2:237, 2:239, 2:240, 2:241, 2:244, 2:247, 2:260, 2:262, 2:265, 2:270, 2:272, 2:276, 2:288, 2:293, 2:311, 2:313, 2:331, 2:361, 2:363, 2:364, 2:366, 2:367, 2:368, 2:369, 2:372, 2:374, 2:375, 2:397, 2:435, 2:448, 2:449, 2:454, 2:460, 2:461, 2:462, 2:463, 2:464, 2:466, 2:467, 2:481, 2:482, 2:485, 2:486

liturgical texts 3:313, 3:417 liturgy(ies) 1:7, 1:228, 1:230, 2:22, 2:104, 2:107, 2:157, 2:159, 2:224, 2:275, 2:277, 2:301, 2:310, 2:311, 2:313, 2:314, 2:321, 2:331, 2:332, 2:334, 2:337, 2:348, 3:10, 3:11, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, 3:24, 3:65, 3:145, 3:213, 3:402 livestock 1:210 looms 3:144, 3:149 Lord 1:19, 1:44, 1:55, 1:56, 1:78, 1:81, 1:82, 1:83, 1:87, 1:112, 1:146, 1:199, 1:206, 1:210, 1:220, 1:255, 1:257, 1:258, 1:261, 1:262, 1:263, 1:303, 1:310, 1:313, 1:314, 3:6, 3:7, 3:19, 3:21, 3:43, 3:47, 3:60, 3:78, 3:81, 3:85, 3:89, 3:90, 3:91, 3:92, 3:123, 3:124, 3:133, 3:135, 3:145, 3:167, 3:169, 3:173, 3:184, 3:192, 3:196, 3:212, 3:233, 3:234, 3:235, 3:236, 3:241, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:254, 3:265, 3:283, 3:293, 3:303, 3:305, 3:306, 3:307, 3:308, 3:310, 3:311, 3:313, 3:355, 3:359, 3:361, 3:374, 3:379, 3:385, 3:386, 3:391, 3:392, 3:393, 3:398, 3:399, 3:404, 3:448, 3:449 Lord God. See God, Lord Lord Jesus. See Jesus, Lord Lord’s Supper 3:43, 3:44, 3:154, 3:165, 3:166, 3:168. See also communal meal(s),

S UBJECT I NDEX Eucharist, Qumran Meal, communion lot 1:116, 1:128, 3:11, 3:20, 3:21, 3:24, 3:25, 3:112, 3:128, 3:169, 3:177, 3:219, 3:337, 3:346, 3:369, 3:379, 3:418, 3:453 love 1:55, 1:261, 1:263, 1:303, 3:19, 3:20, 3:32, 3:51, 3:77, 3:92, 3:117, 3:128, 3:129, 3:142, 3:157, 3:183, 3:184, 3:222, 3:274, 3:302, 3:304, 3:305, 3:306, 3:307, 3:313, 3:322, 3:324, 3:325, 3:338, 3:339, 3:340, 3:343, 3:346, 3:350, 3:351, 3:355, 3:357, 3:367, 3:372, 3:379, 3:420 lunar 3:144 lunar calendar 1:250 lying 3:12, 3:93, 3:328, 3:347, 3:354 Maccabean period 2:78 Maccabean revolt 1:45, 1:57, 1:58, 2:77, 2:78 Maccabee, Jonathan 2:79 Maccabee, Judah. See Maccabeus, Judas Maccabee, Simon 2:79 Maccabees 1:18, 2:79 Maccabeus, Judas (Judah Maccabee) 1:xxv, 1:212 Macedonians 1:124 malice 3:319, 3:321, 3:338, 3:339, 3:340, 3:343, 3:344, 3:347 man 1:42, 1:55, 1:68, 1:74, 1:125, 1:136, 1:156, 1:161, 1:171, 1:183, 1:187, 1:192, 1:255, 1:256, 1:257, 1:258, 1:259, 1:260, 1:261, 1:305, 1:307, 3:26, 3:29, 3:32, 3:34, 3:68, 3:87, 3:91, 3:92,

3:93, 3:94, 3:107, 3:121, 3:128, 3:135, 3:157, 3:159, 3:171, 3:173, 3:178, 3:180, 3:184, 3:199, 3:200, 3:227, 3:251, 3:272, 3:305, 3:313, 3:324, 3:325, 3:326, 3:327, 3:331, 3:333, 3:335, 3:338, 3:339, 3:340, 3:343, 3:344, 3:345, 3:366, 3:371, 3:376, 3:385, 3:386, 3:401, 3:434, 3:453 Man of Lies 3:142 man, good 3:22, 3:446 Manasseh 1:185, 2:202, 2:326, 2:344 Manichaean 1:107 many, the 1:58, 1:79, 1:95, 1:220, 1:226, 1:312, 2:4, 2:69, 2:252, 2:254, 2:332, 2:346, 2:347, 2:363, 2:405, 2:408, 2:488, 3:19, 3:23, 3:24, 3:29, 3:33, 3:126, 3:263, 3:327, 3:329, 3:330, 3:332, 3:363, 3:364, 3:372, 3:385, 3:459 Marduk 1:104, 1:214 marriage 1:136, 1:292, 1:304, 2:30, 2:403, 2:408, 2:412, 3:45, 3:52, 3:277, 3:334 Masada 1:31, 1:67, 1:233, 1:243, 1:246, 1:251, 2:37, 2:155, 2:156, 2:450, 2:454, 2:475, 3:149 maskil 2:293, 2:294, 2:295, 2:298, 2:299, 2:346, 2:347, 3:28, 3:120, 3:163, 3:344 Masoretic Text 1:77, 1:94, 1:149, 1:155, 1:170, 1:171, 1:175, 1:234, 1:236, 1:241, 1:302, 2:77, 2:141 Master 2:82, 2:169, 2:170, 2:209, 2:224,

625 3:28, 3:107, 3:109, 3:112, 3:120, 3:148, 3:164, 3:223 meal(s) 1:257, 2:196, 2:403, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:410, 2:414, 2:425, 3:43, 3:94, 3:148, 3:156, 3:157, 3:161, 3:167, 3:168, 3:169, 3:353, 3:420 meat 3:66, 3:177, 3:271 Megillot 1:32, 1:70, 3:409 Melchizedek 1:xxx, 1:123, 2:73, 2:75, 2:89, 2:276, 2:372, 2:387, 2:394, 2:403, 2:407, 3:95, 3:163, 3:164, 3:205, 3:211, 3:215, 3:216, 3:218, 3:219, 3:220, 3:221. See 11Q13 Melchizedek texts 3:370 Men of Truth 1:185, 3:225 Menelaus 1:44 mercenaries 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:217 Messiah 1:xxx, 1:11, 1:12, 1:17, 1:19, 1:27, 1:35, 1:56, 1:57, 1:59, 1:60, 1:228, 1:231, 2:27, 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:74, 2:78, 2:80, 2:83, 2:84, 2:85, 2:86, 2:87, 2:89, 2:90, 2:91, 2:92, 2:96, 2:215, 2:228, 2:280, 2:294, 2:342, 2:389, 2:394, 2:424, 2:435, 2:437, 2:440, 2:441, 2:442, 3:1, 3:28, 3:33, 3:43, 3:55, 3:56, 3:57, 3:59, 3:62, 3:65, 3:112, 3:114, 3:120, 3:123, 3:141, 3:142, 3:152, 3:168, 3:169, 3:206, 3:211, 3:212, 3:214, 3:215, 3:216, 3:217, 3:218, 3:221, 3:223, 3:224, 3:227, 3:272, 3:274,

626 3:275, 3:277, 3:336, 3:349, 3:362, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:374, 3:377, 3:388, 3:389, 3:395, 3:398, 3:420, 3:422, 3:444 Messiah Jesus 3:393. See also Jesus Christ messiah, Davidic 2:76, 2:77, 2:78, 2:81, 2:83, 2:85, 2:86, 2:90, 2:92, 2:429, 2:431, 2:435, 2:437, 2:441, 3:214 messiah, false 1:187 messiahs 1:56, 1:117, 1:291, 2:81, 2:84, 2:87, 2:89, 2:91, 2:228, 2:287, 3:43, 3:57, 3:124, 3:214, 3:239, 3:274, 3:275, 3:389 Messianic Apocalypse 2:72, 2:268, 2:280, 2:456, 3:336 messianic interpretation 3:370 Messianic Rule 3:215 messianism 1:105, 1:114, 1:117, 1:297, 3:40, 3:109, 3:141, 3:211, 3:212, 3:214, 3:215, 3:216, 3:274, 3:275, 3:314, 3:349, 3:390, 3:408, 3:413, 3:417, 3:418, 3:423 messianism, New Testament 3:413 messianism, Qumran 3:141 Michael, archangel 1:41, 1:128, 1:178, 1:220, 1:221, 1:223, 1:227, 1:229, 1:231, 3:220, 3:424 microfiche 1:107, 3:416 Middle Ages 1:296, 3:357 Midrash on Eschatology 3:163, 3:164 midrashim 1:292, 3:69

S UBJECT I NDEX military 1:161, 1:209, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:217, 1:219, 1:220, 1:222, 1:224, 1:226, 1:227, 1:230, 1:232, 2:191, 2:286, 2:287, 2:289, 2:373, 2:435, 3:45, 3:234, 3:235, 3:374 military, Seleucid 3:41 Minor Prophets 1:31, 1:67, 1:70, 1:93 miracle(s) 1:7, 1:20, 2:388, 3:44, 3:77, 3:437 Miriam, Song of. See Song of Miriam mirror 1:6, 1:16, 3:122 Mishnah 1:7, 1:12, 1:18, 1:136, 2:27, 2:68, 2:97, 2:201, 2:261, 2:385, 2:398, 2:417, 2:421, 3:63, 3:131, 3:177, 3:349 monasticism 3:424 month(s) 1:1, 1:14, 1:15, 1:160, 1:161, 1:308, 1:309, 2:34, 2:40, 2:41, 2:42, 2:49, 2:52, 2:53, 2:54, 2:58, 2:212, 2:305, 2:308, 2:489, 3:327, 3:344 moon 1:xxv, 2:32, 2:33, 2:34, 2:35, 2:37, 2:38, 2:42, 2:47, 2:50, 2:51, 2:54, 2:55, 2:210, 2:211, 2:212, 2:241, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 3:198, 3:239, 3:251 morphology 1:95, 3:125 Mosaic commandments 3:41 Mosaic covenant 1:43, 3:43, 3:44, 3:52, 3:55 Mosaic revelation 1:46 Mosaic Torah 1:44, 1:45, 1:46, 1:54, 1:58, 1:62, 3:240 Mosaic traditions 1:45

Mosaic-prophetic script 3:59 Moses 1:xxv, 1:44, 1:45, 1:68, 1:70, 1:78, 1:79, 1:81, 1:82, 1:83, 1:86, 1:115, 1:132, 1:133, 1:135, 1:136, 1:139, 1:141, 1:142, 1:145, 1:154, 1:155, 1:156, 1:157, 1:158, 1:159, 1:213, 1:248, 1:296, 1:302, 1:307, 1:314, 2:31, 2:36, 2:37, 2:52, 2:53, 2:54, 2:81, 2:87, 2:89, 2:90, 2:95, 2:99, 2:229, 2:230, 2:262, 2:286, 2:307, 2:311, 2:318, 2:351, 2:358, 2:361, 2:369, 2:370, 2:371, 2:393, 2:453, 2:483, 2:484, 2:488, 3:43, 3:44, 3:46, 3:49, 3:55, 3:56, 3:57, 3:58, 3:59, 3:65, 3:67, 3:68, 3:72, 3:151, 3:191, 3:216, 3:217, 3:240, 3:242, 3:244, 3:248, 3:250, 3:275, 3:322, 3:334, 3:365, 3:373, 3:379, 3:380, 3:392, 3:449 Moses, Song of. See Song of Moses Mount Ebal 1:86, 1:87, 1:92 Mount Gerizim 1:71, 1:82, 1:87, 1:92, 2:59, 2:142 Mount Sinai 1:44, 1:213, 3:165, 3:248 Mount Zion 1:285, 3:232, 3:233, 3:246, 3:252 mystery(ies) 1:xxviii, 1:34, 1:55, 1:63, 1:229, 1:279, 1:298, 2:210, 2:266, 2:390, 2:410, 3:31, 3:42, 3:60, 3:62, 3:69, 3:76, 3:77, 3:79, 3:80, 3:81, 3:82, 3:83, 3:92,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:100, 3:108, 3:112, 3:158, 3:213, 3:215, 3:221, 3:225, 3:263, 3:275, 3:304, 3:327, 3:336, 3:338, 3:341, 3:343, 3:365, 3:378, 3:401, 3:404, 3:456, 3:458. mystery religion(s), Greco-Roman 1:xxviii, 3:77 mystery religion(s), Persian 1:xxviii mysticism 1:18, 2:371, 3:65 myths, Greek and Roman 1:xxix Nabatean(s) 1:8, 1:9 Nabonidus 1:104, 1:105, 1:106, 1:132, 1:147 Nadab 1:213, 1:228 Nag Hammadi texts 3:281, 3:282 Nahash the Ammonite 1:14 narratives 1:217, 1:218, 1:232, 1:242, 3:69, 3:382 Nathan, prophet 1:xxvi, 3:65 nation(s) 1:19, 1:46, 1:47, 1:73, 1:78, 1:81, 1:82, 1:84, 1:85, 1:91, 1:128, 1:156, 1:202, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:216, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:222, 1:223, 1:225, 1:227, 1:228, 1:229, 1:231, 1:313, 2:24, 2:65, 2:79, 2:80, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:86, 2:92, 2:191, 2:192, 2:221, 2:223, 2:308, 2:330, 2:333, 2:417, 2:435, 2:438, 2:440, 2:441, 2:444, 3:1, 3:94, 3:166, 3:177, 3:178, 3:236, 3:251, 3:308, 3:336, 3:342, 3:366,

3:367, 3:376, 3:399, 3:403, 3:404 Nebuchadnezzar 1:104, 1:105, 1:106, 1:115, 1:120, 1:223 New Jerusalem 2:18, 2:58, 2:278, 2:328, 2:459, 2:472, 3:226, 3:227, 3:231, 3:238, 3:244, 3:246, 3:247, 3:248, 3:250, 3:251, 3:252, 3:253, 3:254, 3:262, 3:264, 3:265, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:277. New Testament 1:xxviii, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:3, 1:6, 1:8, 1:9, 1:11, 1:18, 1:21, 2:68, 2:75, 2:85, 2:92, 2:96, 2:99, 2:103, 2:116, 2:126, 2:127, 2:146, 2:164, 2:243, 2:244, 2:245, 2:246, 2:260, 2:281, 2:329, 2:335, 2:336, 2:366, 2:378, 2:379, 2:388, 2:389, 2:395, 2:397, 2:401, 2:407, 2:429, 2:438, 2:441, 3:2, 3:6, 3:37, 3:38, 3:39, 3:61, 3:63, 3:64, 3:65, 3:66, 3:67, 3:71, 3:72, 3:73, 3:77, 3:79, 3:80, 3:99, 3:100, 3:117, 3:131, 3:137, 3:138, 3:142, 3:144, 3:149, 3:151, 3:153, 3:154, 3:155, 3:188, 3:203, 3:220, 3:256, 3:259, 3:260, 3:261, 3:262, 3:267, 3:274, 3:281, 3:282, 3:290, 3:292, 3:293, 3:303, 3:312, 3:313, 3:319, 3:321, 3:336, 3:347, 3:355, 3:357, 3:381, 3:385, 3:387, 3:389, 3:390, 3:398, 3:399, 3:402, 3:403, 3:405, 3:407, 3:408, 3:410, 3:411, 3:412,

627 3:413, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:418, 3:419, 3:420, 3:421, 3:424, 3:426, 3:427, 3:428, 3:430, 3:434, 3:435, 3:436, 3:437, 3:438, 3:440, 3:441, 3:442, 3:443, 3:448, 3:459, 3:460, 3:461 New Testament Apocrypha 3:288 nicknames 1:187 Nicodemus 3:129 Noah 1:45, 1:115, 1:304, 1:305, 1:306, 1:308, 1:309, 2:35, 2:57, 2:218, 2:368, 2:390, 2:452, 2:454, 2:459, 2:484, 2:486, 3:393 novices 2:27, 2:419 oath(s) 1:258, 2:62, 2:63, 2:229, 3:25, 3:26, 3:330, 3:340, 3:341 offenses 3:340, 3:343 offering(s) 1:23, 1:140, 1:141, 1:143, 1:209, 1:218, 1:249, 1:257, 1:261, 1:262, 2:46, 2:104, 2:305, 2:306, 2:314, 2:443, 3:44, 3:46, 3:47, 3:175, 3:233, 3:238, 3:241, 3:244, 3:254, 3:330, 3:359, 3:370, 3:380, 3:448 Ohyah 1:108, 1:110, 1:111 oil 1:136, 1:143, 1:147, 1:256, 2:45, 2:46, 2:77, 2:84, 2:305, 2:314, 2:403, 2:407, 2:410, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:419, 2:420, 2:421, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424, 2:425, 3:241 Old Testament 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:3, 1:9, 1:13, 1:25, 1:26, 1:28, 1:29,

628 1:30, 1:31, 1:38, 1:56, 1:70, 1:73, 1:74, 1:79, 1:92, 1:93, 1:150, 1:171, 1:173, 1:181, 1:211, 1:216, 1:217, 1:218, 1:221, 1:222, 1:245, 1:288, 1:289, 1:291, 1:296, 1:299, 1:300, 1:312, 1:314, 3:27, 3:80, 3:90, 3:97, 3:107, 3:109, 3:113, 3:140, 3:262, 3:263, 3:277, 3:284, 3:285, 3:301, 3:308, 3:310, 3:311, 3:312, 3:313, 3:387, 3:402, 3:403 Old Testament Apocrypha 1:37, 3:27, 3:103, 3:136, 3:137 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. See Pseudepigrapha Old Testament texts 1:32, 1:33, 1:91, 1:92, 1:155 Onias IV 2:20 oracles 1:91, 1:124, 1:217, 1:220, 1:273, 1:286, 3:15, 3:48, 3:233, 3:251, 3:269, 3:270 oral laws 1:314 ordinances 1:193, 1:257, 1:306 Origen 1:26, 1:70, 3:288 original sin 1:38, 1:41 Orion Center 1:295 orphans 3:222 orthography 1:73, 1:80, 1:94, 1:95, 1:174, 1:175, 1:176, 1:249, 1:250, 1:274, 1:302, 1:317, 3:125 ostraca 2:15, 3:271 Overseer 3:330, 3:420 pagan(s) 1:35, 3:170, 3:177, 3:285, 3:310 palaces 2:444 paleography 1:3, 1:174, 1:274

S UBJECT I NDEX Paleo-Hebrew 1:70, 1:71, 2:324, 3:125 Palestine 1:5, 1:7, 1:18, 1:42, 1:69, 1:89, 1:94, 1:98, 1:171, 1:174, 1:250, 3:2, 3:38, 3:40, 3:41, 3:46, 3:53, 3:75, 3:76, 3:83, 3:95, 3:102, 3:127, 3:131, 3:146, 3:147, 3:149, 3:174, 3:222, 3:286, 3:405, 3:435, 3:442, 3:458, 3:460 Palestinian Judaism 1:25, 1:72, 3:88, 3:114, 3:159, 3:176, 3:272, 3:378, 3:415, 3:435, 3:440, 3:442, 3:451, 3:452, 3:459, 3:460 palimpsest 1:282 palms 1:146, 1:257 Papias 3:286, 3:293 papyrus 1:xxiii, 1:122, 1:173, 1:274, 1:277, 2:451, 2:466, 2:467, 2:479, 3:101 parabiblical texts 1:88, 1:105, 1:113, 1:117, 1:134, 1:135, 1:136, 1:139, 1:140, 1:143, 1:309, 3:440 parables 1:60, 1:63, 1:64, 3:76, 3:77, 3:78, 3:79, 3:80, 3:257, 3:371, 3:376, 3:385 Paraclete 3:132, 3:136, 3:137 paradise 3:145, 3:212, 3:221, 3:248, 3:254, 3:268, 3:404, 3:412, 3:423 parallelism 3:181 paraphrasing 3:83, 3:284 parchment 1:288, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3, 2:7, 2:8, 2:9, 2:10, 2:12, 2:14, 2:55 parents 1:50, 1:51, 1:59, 1:65, 1:84, 3:20, 3:28, 3:121

Parthian(s) 1:9 Passover 1:xxviii, 1:11, 1:143, 2:34, 2:42, 2:401, 2:414, 3:58, 3:148, 3:399 patriarch(s) 1:55, 1:68, 1:139, 2:52, 2:263, 2:363, 2:407, 2:413, 2:465, 3:178, 3:247, 3:427 Paul, letters of 1:295, 1:299, 3:53, 3:153, 3:154, 3:155, 3:164, 3:170, 3:181, 3:339, 3:418, 3:449, 3:452 Paul, Saint 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:10, 1:11, 1:21, 1:34, 1:221, 2:94, 2:96, 2:227, 2:236, 2:242, 2:243, 2:244, 2:245, 2:246, 2:266, 2:322, 2:356, 2:358, 2:359, 2:360, 2:361, 2:389, 2:398, 2:415, 2:422, 2:424, 2:427, 2:432, 2:434, 2:438, 2:454, 3:38, 3:63, 3:65, 3:66, 3:73, 3:79, 3:84, 3:90, 3:99, 3:109, 3:110, 3:113, 3:138, 3:149, 3:154, 3:155, 3:157, 3:158, 3:159, 3:161, 3:162, 3:163, 3:164, 3:165, 3:166, 3:167, 3:168, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:172, 3:173, 3:174, 3:175, 3:176, 3:177, 3:178, 3:179, 3:180, 3:181, 3:182, 3:183, 3:184, 3:185, 3:187, 3:188, 3:190, 3:192, 3:193, 3:194, 3:196, 3:197, 3:198, 3:199, 3:200, 3:201, 3:211, 3:221, 3:226, 3:266, 3:270, 3:271, 3:350, 3:357, 3:375, 3:382, 3:384, 3:398, 3:399, 3:404, 3:414, 3:425, 3:437, 3:442,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:443, 3:451, 3:452, 3:453, 3:454, 3:455, 3:456, 3:458, 3:460, 3:461 Pauline letters. See Paul, letters of peace 1:55, 1:118, 1:119, 1:141, 1:142, 1:143, 1:227, 1:260, 3:21, 3:22, 3:24, 3:79, 3:114, 3:184, 3:191, 3:214, 3:223, 3:224, 3:274, 3:342, 3:350, 3:369, 3:374, 3:390, 3:454 penalties 3:328, 3:330, 3:366 Pentateuch 1:28, 1:70, 1:71, 1:72, 1:88, 1:89, 1:96, 1:121, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:136, 1:140, 1:141, 1:142, 1:143, 1:145, 1:147, 1:149, 1:219, 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 2:88, 2:114, 2:118, 2:134, 2:135, 2:139, 2:140, 2:160, 2:211, 2:223, 2:290, 2:295, 2:381, 2:383, 2:384, 2:452, 2:453, 2:462, 2:483, 2:484, 3:165, 3:334, 3:357, 3:362, 3:399 Pentecost 1:xxviii, 3:430 persecution 1:10, 1:102, 1:197, 1:201, 1:312, 2:255, 2:272, 3:125, 3:145, 3:225, 3:226, 3:333, 3:335, 3:336, 3:425 Persian(s) 1:7 perversity 3:92, 3:116, 3:344 pesharim 1:xxvii, 1:50, 1:183, 1:184, 1:186, 1:187, 1:188, 1:189, 1:192, 1:194, 1:195, 1:201, 1:203, 1:204, 1:208, 1:234, 1:276, 1:277, 1:278, 1:279,

1:281, 1:290, 1:291, 1:292, 1:293, 1:295, 1:299, 1:300, 1:312, 1:315, 2:111, 2:123, 2:128, 2:129, 2:151, 2:152, 2:216, 2:317, 2:319, 2:322, 2:323, 2:324, 2:325, 2:326, 2:331, 2:332, 2:338, 2:339, 2:340, 2:341, 2:345, 2:347, 2:348. 3:54, 3:89, 3:135, 3:138, 3:156, 3:229, 3:337. pesharim, Qumran 1:291, 3:89 Peshitta 1:14, 1:77 Peter 3:79, 3:145, 3:190, 3:197, 3:198, 3:294, 3:354 Peter, Saint 1:xxv Pharaoh 1:139, 1:146, 3:58 Pharisees 1:xxviii, 1:7, 1:29, 1:101, 1:185, 1:194, 1:250, 2:22, 2:82, 2:83, 2:95, 2:236, 2:260, 2:264, 2:280, 2:281, 2:309, 2:414, 2:428, 2:429, 2:430, 2:431, 2:433, 2:434, 2:440, 3:9, 3:40, 3:44, 3:45, 3:52, 3:53, 3:54, 3:55, 3:85, 3:97, 3:98, 3:129, 3:130, 3:134, 3:141, 3:189, 3:190, 3:269, 3:272, 3:435, 3:436 Philadelphia 1:205, 1:206, 3:269 Philistines 1:14, 1:162 Philo Judaeus 2:193 photographs/photography 1:33, 1:106, 1:107, 1:122, 2:1, 2:2, 2:9, 2:10, 2:11, 2:13, 2:15, 2:470, 2:484, 2:485, 3:155, 3:408, 3:416, 3:429 phylacteries 1:248, 2:112, 2:114, 2:116,

629 2:117, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:130, 2:131, 2:133, 2:149 piety 1:307, 3:8, 3:20, 3:63, 3:81, 3:122, 3:208, 3:209, 3:213, 3:229, 3:321, 3:360, 3:375, 3:378, 3:401, 3:446 pilgrimage 1:11, 1:284, 3:45, 3:122, 3:375, 3:379 pit 1:49, 3:92, 3:222, 3:327, 3:331, 3:344, 3:437, 3:453 pitcher 3:434 plague 1:45 Pliny the Elder 1:65, 2:261 poetry 1:10, 1:91, 1:219, 1:220, 1:301, 1:310, 2:333, 2:334, 2:442 polygamy 1:136 Pompey 2:79, 2:427, 2:428, 3:237 pools 1:2, 3:103, 3:104, 3:122, 3:266, 3:329 poor 1:xxx, 1:10, 1:52, 1:53, 1:55, 1:185, 1:200, 1:201, 1:202, 2:80, 2:89, 2:220, 2:268, 2:326, 2:330, 2:333, 2:340, 2:344, 2:428, 2:437, 2:443, 3:44, 3:47, 3:52, 3:93, 3:94, 3:160, 3:222, 3:272, 3:322, 3:325, 3:327, 3:335, 3:336, 3:337, 3:349, 3:352 Poor Ones 1:xxx, 1:455, 2:326, 2:330, 2:337, 2:340, 2:344, 3:272 ports 3:359, 3:363, 3:367, 3:371 pottery 1:1, 1:2, 2:15, 2:279, 3:104 poverty 1:205, 2:408, 2:409, 3:44, 3:333,

630 3:334, 3:335, 3:336, 3:420 praise 1:23, 1:105, 1:235, 1:260, 1:261, 1:262, 1:263, 2:35, 2:79, 2:224, 2:225, 2:273, 2:303, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 2:325, 2:478, 2:479, 3:93, 3:169, 3:209, 3:210, 3:223, 3:273, 3:276, 3:380 prayer(s) 1:10, 1:105, 1:132, 1:147, 1:235, 1:271, 2:41, 2:231, 2:232, 2:237, 2:266, 2:301, 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 2:311, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 2:315, 2:367, 2:407, 2:430, 2:442, 2:445, 3:20, 3:48, 3:78, 3:131, 3:165, 3:177, 3:233, 3:238, 3:311, 3:351, 3:382, 3:400 predestination 1:19, 1:21, 1:51, 1:52, 1:53, 1:55, 1:56, 1:59, 1:136, 2:192, 2:193, 2:217, 2:219, 2:235, 2:236, 2:237, 2:238, 2:239, 2:240, 2:242, 2:243, 2:245, 2:246, 2:431, 2:433, 2:434, 3:18, 3:22, 3:25, 3:35, 3:102, 3:134, 3:135, 3:142, 3:156, 3:157, 3:161, 3:163, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:185, 3:302, 3:414, 3:460 preexistence 1:57, 3:312 pregnancy 3:20 priest(s) 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:5, 1:10, 1:19, 1:21, 1:29, 1:43, 1:47, 1:54, 1:104, 1:116, 1:154, 1:155, 1:183, 1:185, 1:186, 1:188, 1:189,

S UBJECT I NDEX 1:190, 1:191, 1:193, 1:194, 1:195, 1:196, 1:197, 1:198, 1:199, 1:200, 1:201, 1:202, 1:204, 1:210, 1:227, 1:228, 1:229, 1:297, 1:300, 2:17, 2:19, 2:31, 2:47, 2:48, 2:50, 2:58, 2:59, 2:63, 2:69, 2:84, 2:87, 2:88, 2:153, 2:225, 2:233, 2:251, 2:289, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:294, 2:295, 2:297, 2:298, 2:309, 2:311, 2:312, 2:327, 2:333, 2:337, 2:341, 2:347, 2:349, 2:351, 2:417, 2:433, 2:438, 2:446, 3:7, 3:14, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:24, 3:26, 3:47, 3:51, 3:52, 3:55, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60, 3:68, 3:94, 3:108, 3:109, 3:122, 3:130, 3:133, 3:141, 3:145, 3:148, 3:152, 3:167, 3:168, 3:187, 3:188, 3:209, 3:211, 3:215, 3:216, 3:217, 3:218, 3:220, 3:224, 3:226, 3:231, 3:234, 3:237, 3:238, 3:239, 3:241, 3:242, 3:243, 3:248, 3:253, 3:266, 3:275, 3:277, 3:322, 3:323, 3:329, 3:337, 3:359, 3:364, 3:365, 3:370, 3:379, 3:380, 3:420, 3:434 priest, eschatological 3:213, 3:216, 3:219 priestly families 3:45, 3:46, 3:58 Prince of Darkness 3:52 Prince of Light 1:51, 1:128, 1:228, 1:229, 2:391, 3:41 Prince of the congregation 1:227, 1:228, 1:310, 2:82, 2:83,

2:294, 2:439, 3:370, 3:423 procreation 1:54 property 1:210, 1:211, 2:63, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:196, 2:197, 2:198, 2:200, 2:294, 3:25, 3:93, 3:241, 3:322, 3:324, 3:326, 3:327, 3:328, 3:329, 3:330, 3:331, 3:333, 3:335, 3:336, 3:337, 3:341, 3:344, 3:347, 3:348, 3:349, 3:353, 3:354, 3:355, 3:420, 3:440 prophecy 1:33, 1:113, 1:187, 1:249, 1:262, 1:279, 1:282, 1:286, 1:292, 1:314, 2:30, 2:77, 2:79, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:87, 2:100, 2:102, 2:320, 2:322, 2:325, 2:328, 2:329, 2:330, 2:331, 2:335, 2:338, 2:343, 3:6, 3:32, 3:43, 3:55, 3:65, 3:84, 3:133, 3:218, 3:223, 3:226, 3:247, 3:253, 3:269, 3:275, 3:368, 3:369, 3:446, 3:448, 3:449 prophet(s) 1:xxvii, 1:12, 1:20, 1:26, 1:27, 1:28, 1:30, 1:34, 1:64, 1:68, 1:70, 1:84, 1:87, 1:91, 1:98, 1:108, 1:123, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:159, 1:160, 1:167, 1:207, 1:212, 1:255, 1:256, 1:260, 1:273, 1:274, 1:283, 1:285, 1:286, 1:288, 1:290, 1:292, 1:296, 1:298, 1:302, 1:307, 1:314, 1:317, 1:318, 2:30, 2:91, 2:95, 2:100, 2:101, 2:185, 2:247, 2:248, 2:250, 2:318, 2:322, 2:327, 2:340, 2:363, 3:7, 3:10, 3:31, 3:40, 3:42, 3:45, 3:49,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:55, 3:56, 3:57, 3:58, 3:59, 3:65, 3:68, 3:78, 3:81, 3:83, 3:86, 3:89, 3:91, 3:124, 3:157, 3:216, 3:217, 3:225, 3:233, 3:236, 3:265, 3:273, 3:275, 3:367, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:387, 3:388, 3:389, 3:391, 3:392, 3:394, 3:395, 3:400, 3:402, 3:420, 3:445, 3:446, 3:448, 3:449 prophet(s), eschatological 3:27, 3:56, 3:57, 3:217, 3:423, 3:450 prophet Jesus. See Jesus, prophet proselytes 3:325, 3:348 psalm(s) 1:233, 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:240, 1:241, 1:242, 1:247, 1:250, 1:252, 1:254, 1:255, 1:256, 1:257, 1:258, 1:259, 1:264, 1:271, 1:301, 1:303 Psalm titles or superscriptions 1:235 Psalms manuscripts. See Psalms scroll(s) Psalms of Joshua. See 4Q378 Psalms scroll(s) 1:233, 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:238, 1:240, 1:242, 1:244 Psalter 1:240. See also Psalms, Book of Pseudepigrapha 1:1, 1:30, 1:33, 1:37, 1:38, 1:131, 1:139, 1:170, 3:27, 3:97, 3:103, 3:109, 3:111, 3:130, 3:136, 3:381, 3:387, 3:388, 3:389, 3:391, 3:392, 3:393, 3:395, 3:439, 3:440, 3:447, 3:448, 3:449, 3:450, 3:451, 3:452, 3:454, 3:455, 3:456, 3:458,

3:460, 3:461, 3:462, 3:464, 3:466 pseudepigraphic works 2:363, 2:447, 2:449, 2:461, 2:465, 2:469 punishment 1:41, 1:108, 1:111, 1:114, 1:125, 1:126, 1:162, 1:193, 1:195, 1:203, 1:208, 1:259, 2:63, 2:171, 2:178, 2:201, 2:222, 2:258, 2:259, 2:260, 2:261, 2:265, 2:273, 2:276, 2:279, 2:281, 2:383, 2:392, 2:429, 3:21, 3:67, 3:86, 3:116, 3:225, 3:269, 3:343, 3:358, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:372, 3:373, 3:375, 3:376, 3:377, 3:378 punishment, divine 3:95, 3:375 purification rites 3:424, 3:444, 3:445, 3:449, 3:450 Purim 1:301 purity 1:11, 1:20, 1:41, 1:43, 1:46, 1:47, 1:71, 1:78, 1:135, 1:136, 1:211, 1:298, 1:299, 2:93, 2:94, 2:95, 2:96, 2:97, 2:98, 2:100, 2:102, 2:103, 2:104, 2:171, 2:257, 2:278, 2:314, 2:346, 2:348, 2:393, 2:406, 2:416, 2:417, 2:419, 2:420, 2:421, 2:422, 2:424, 3:3, 3:7, 3:8, 3:10, 3:11, 3:34, 3:50, 3:52, 3:53, 3:140, 3:141, 3:188, 3:189, 3:190, 3:194, 3:196, 3:198, 3:208, 3:249, 3:250, 3:275, 3:321, 3:324, 3:327, 3:330, 3:331, 3:332, 3:333, 3:347, 3:349, 3:350, 3:352,

631 3:397, 3:432, 3:437, 3:445, 3:449, 3:450 purity code 3:47, 3:52 purity rites 3:450 purity rules 3:190, 3:445 purity, ritual. See ritual purity Qahat 1:116, 1:132, 3:215, 3:458 quislings, Roman 1:7 Qumran 1:xxv, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:6, 1:8, 1:12, 1:13, 1:14, 1:15, 1:16, 1:19, 1:20, 1:22, 1:28, 1:29, 1:30, 1:31, 1:32, 1:34, 1:37, 1:38, 1:39, 1:40, 1:46, 1:47, 1:49, 1:50, 1:51, 1:52, 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:59, 1:60, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:66, 1:67, 1:69, 1:71, 1:72, 1:73, 1:74, 1:75, 1:77, 1:78, 1:80, 1:81, 1:83, 1:84, 1:85, 1:86, 1:87, 1:88, 1:89, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:93, 1:94, 1:97, 1:98, 1:99, 1:101, 1:102, 1:103, 1:105, 1:106, 1:107, 1:113, 1:114, 1:117, 1:120, 1:121, 1:122, 1:123, 1:128, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:142, 1:143, 1:144, 1:145, 1:147, 1:149, 1:150, 1:151, 1:152, 1:153, 1:155, 1:157, 1:158, 1:160, 1:162, 1:163, 1:165, 1:167, 1:169, 1:170, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:176, 1:178, 1:181, 1:184, 1:192, 1:195, 1:198, 1:200, 1:201, 1:218, 1:222, 1:223, 1:225, 1:226, 1:230,

632 1:233, 1:238, 1:239, 1:240, 1:241, 1:243, 1:244, 1:245, 1:246, 1:248, 1:249, 1:250, 1:251, 1:252, 1:261, 1:262, 1:273, 1:274, 1:275, 1:276, 1:277, 1:278, 1:279, 1:280, 1:281, 1:285, 1:287, 1:288, 1:289, 1:290, 1:291, 1:292, 1:293, 1:294, 1:295, 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 1:299, 1:300, 1:301, 1:302, 1:303, 1:304, 1:305, 1:308, 1:309, 1:310, 1:311, 1:312, 1:313, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 1:317, 1:318, 2:4, 2:7, 2:17, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:23, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 2:32, 2:33, 2:36, 2:37, 2:38, 2:39, 2:40, 2:42, 2:45, 2:46, 2:47, 2:50, 2:52, 2:53, 2:54, 2:55, 2:56, 2:57, 2:59, 2:61, 2:64, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:71, 2:72, 2:73, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:85, 2:86, 2:87, 2:88, 2:90, 2:91, 2:93, 2:94, 2:95, 2:96, 2:97, 2:98, 2:99, 2:100, 2:101, 2:102, 2:103, 2:104, 2:105, 2:107, 2:108, 2:109, 2:110, 2:111, 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:115, 2:116, 2:117, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:123, 2:124, 2:125, 2:126, 2:127, 2:128, 2:129, 2:130, 2:131, 2:134, 2:135, 2:136, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:141, 2:142, 2:143, 2:144, 2:145, 2:146, 2:147, 2:148, 2:149, 2:150, 2:151, 2:152, 2:153, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:157,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:158, 2:159, 2:160, 2:161, 2:164, 2:165, 2:167, 2:169, 2:170, 2:172, 2:173, 2:175, 2:176, 2:178, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:189, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:194, 2:203, 2:204, 2:205, 2:206, 2:207, 2:208, 2:209, 2:210, 2:211, 2:212, 2:213, 2:214, 2:215, 2:216, 2:217, 2:218, 2:224, 2:226, 2:227, 2:228, 2:230, 2:233, 2:234, 2:235, 2:236, 2:237, 2:238, 2:240, 2:241, 2:244, 2:245, 2:261, 2:262, 2:263, 2:264, 2:265, 2:266, 2:269, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:276, 2:277, 2:278, 2:279, 2:280, 2:283, 2:284, 2:285, 2:286, 2:287, 2:289, 2:291, 2:293, 2:294, 2:295, 2:297, 2:299, 2:301, 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:309, 2:310, 2:311, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 2:315, 2:318, 2:319, 2:320, 2:321, 2:322, 2:323, 2:324, 2:325, 2:326, 2:327, 2:328, 2:329, 2:330, 2:331, 2:332, 2:333, 2:334, 2:335, 2:336, 2:337, 2:338, 2:339, 2:340, 2:341, 2:342, 2:343, 2:345, 2:346, 2:347, 2:348, 2:349, 2:351, 2:352, 2:353, 2:354, 2:355, 2:357, 2:358, 2:359, 2:360, 2:361, 2:363, 2:368, 2:372, 2:377, 2:381, 2:382, 2:383, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:387, 2:390, 2:391,

2:394, 2:397, 2:398, 2:399, 2:400, 2:401, 2:402, 2:403, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:407, 2:408, 2:409, 2:410, 2:415, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:419, 2:422, 2:425, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:434, 2:447, 2:448, 2:449, 2:450, 2:451, 2:452, 2:453, 2:454, 2:455, 2:456, 2:457, 2:458, 2:459, 2:460, 2:461, 2:462, 2:463, 2:464, 2:465, 2:466, 2:467, 2:469, 2:470, 2:471, 2:472, 2:473, 2:474, 2:476, 2:480, 2:481, 2:482, 2:484, 2:485, 2:486, 2:487, 2:488, 2:489, 2:490, 2:491, 3:1, 3:2, 3:3, 3:4, 3:5, 3:6, 3:7, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:11, 3:12, 3:13, 3:15, 3:16, 3:17, 3:18, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, 3:23, 3:25, 3:26, 3:27, 3:28, 3:29, 3:30, 3:31, 3:32, 3:33, 3:34, 3:35, 3:38, 3:40, 3:41, 3:42, 3:43, 3:44, 3:45, 3:47, 3:50, 3:51, 3:53, 3:59, 3:60, 3:61, 3:66, 3:67, 3:69, 3:71, 3:83, 3:84, 3:87, 3:88, 3:89, 3:90, 3:93, 3:94, 3:97, 3:99, 3:100, 3:101, 3:102, 3:104, 3:110, 3:113, 3:114, 3:115, 3:116, 3:117, 3:118, 3:119, 3:120, 3:122, 3:123, 3:124, 3:125, 3:126, 3:127, 3:128, 3:129, 3:131, 3:132, 3:133, 3:134, 3:135, 3:136, 3:137, 3:138, 3:139, 3:140, 3:141, 3:142, 3:143, 3:145, 3:146, 3:147, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 3:151, 3:153, 3:154,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:155, 3:156, 3:157, 3:158, 3:159, 3:160, 3:161, 3:162, 3:163, 3:164, 3:165, 3:166, 3:167, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:172, 3:173, 3:174, 3:175, 3:176, 3:177, 3:178, 3:179, 3:180, 3:181, 3:182, 3:183, 3:184, 3:185, 3:187, 3:188, 3:189, 3:192, 3:198, 3:200, 3:201, 3:214, 3:216, 3:220, 3:227, 3:229, 3:231, 3:237, 3:239, 3:246, 3:248, 3:249, 3:252, 3:253, 3:256, 3:258, 3:261, 3:263, 3:272, 3:274, 3:281, 3:282, 3:301, 3:302, 3:303, 3:304, 3:305, 3:306, 3:307, 3:309, 3:310, 3:313, 3:314, 3:326, 3:334, 3:343, 3:347, 3:351, 3:352, 3:353, 3:354, 3:355, 3:357, 3:359, 3:360, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:374, 3:375, 3:377, 3:378, 3:381, 3:388, 3:389, 3:390, 3:393, 3:397, 3:398, 3:400, 3:404, 3:407, 3:408, 3:411, 3:412, 3:413, 3:414, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:418, 3:419, 3:422, 3:424, 3:425, 3:426, 3:427, 3:430, 3:431, 3:432, 3:433, 3:435, 3:436, 3:437, 3:438, 3:439, 3:440, 3:441, 3:442, 3:443, 3:444, 3:445, 3:448, 3:449, 3:450, 3:451, 3:452, 3:453, 3:455, 3:456, 3:457, 3:458, 3:459, 3:460, 3:461 Qumran caves 1:xxx, 1:102, 1:103, 1:121,

1:131, 1:288, 1:301, 1:307, 3:125, 3:131, 3:136 Qumran Cave 1 3:155 Qumran Cave 2 2:453, 2:486 Qumran Cave 3 3:104 Qumran Cave 4 1:140, 1:150, 1:170, 1:173, 2:96, 2:301, 2:447, 2:469, 2:481, 3:155, 3:156, 3:158, 3:162, 3:167, 3:170, 3:173, 3:175, 3:178, 3:179, 3:182 Qumran Cave 5 1:274, 3:107 Qumran Cave 7 3:426, 3:427, 3:429 Qumran Cave 11 1:xxiii, 1:29, 1:32, 1:134, 1:135, 1:171, 1:233, 1:235, 1:237, 1:238, 1:246, 2:47, 2:156, 2:476, 2:477, 2:478, 2:479, 2:486, 2:487, 3:239 Qumran community 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:4, 1:12, 1:19, 1:34, 1:37, 1:40, 1:42, 1:49, 1:51, 1:56, 1:58, 1:62, 1:64, 1:65, 1:92, 1:94, 1:101, 1:127, 1:129, 1:133, 1:136, 1:138, 1:145, 1:168, 1:183, 1:184, 1:188, 1:189, 1:197, 1:201, 1:208, 1:233, 1:239, 1:250, 1:273, 1:275, 1:276, 1:278, 1:279, 1:281, 1:287, 1:292, 1:299, 1:301, 1:302, 1:306, 1:312, 1:317, 1:318, 1:319, 3:1, 3:3, 3:4, 3:5, 3:6, 3:10, 3:12, 3:13, 3:15, 3:16, 3:17, 3:18, 3:19, 3:27, 3:28, 3:29, 3:30, 3:31, 3:32, 3:33, 3:35, 3:38, 3:40, 3:41, 3:44,

633 3:45, 3:47, 3:48, 3:50, 3:51, 3:52, 3:53, 3:59, 3:66, 3:71, 3:94, 3:97, 3:98, 3:107, 3:114, 3:116, 3:120, 3:124, 3:128, 3:129, 3:131, 3:132, 3:133, 3:140, 3:146, 3:148, 3:151, 3:156, 3:166, 3:176, 3:182, 3:185, 3:240, 3:248, 3:261, 3:272, 3:304, 3:333, 3:367, 3:373, 3:415, 3:419, 3:421, 3:424, 3:425, 3:438, 3:440 Qumran Elijah. See Elijah, Qumran Qumran Essenes. See Essenes Qumran group 1:63, 1:65, 1:127, 1:186, 3:425, 3:435 Qumran Meal 3:154, 3:168, 3:169. See also communal meal(s), Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, communion Qumran Psalms Hypothesis 1:233, 1:239ñ52 Qumran Scroll(s) 1:xxiii, 1:xxix, 1:1, 1:2, 1:37, 1:73, 1:75, 1:89, 1:142, 1:150, 1:171, 1:224, 1:226, 1:251, 1:289, 1:290, 1:292, 1:296, 1:299, 1:300, 1:304, 1:308, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 1:318, 1:319, 3:61, 3:64, 3:66, 3:67, 3:71, 3:99, 3:102, 3:109, 3:113, 3:114, 3:117, 3:120, 3:131, 3:132, 3:135, 3:136, 3:137, 3:138, 3:141, 3:142, 3:143, 3:145, 3:146, 3:147, 3:150, 3:151, 3:152, 3:259, 3:276, 3:422

634 Qumran sect 1:61, 3:5, 3:15, 3:23, 3:107, 3:109, 3:112, 3:115, 3:120, 3:143, 3:331 Qumran text(s) 1:14, 1:15, 1:38, 1:79, 1:86, 1:93, 1:103, 1:104, 1:124, 1:126, 1:127, 1:136, 1:147, 1:157, 1:158, 1:160, 1:161, 1:164, 1:174, 1:175, 1:177, 1:179, 1:183, 1:186, 1:198, 1:201, 1:226, 1:275, 1:287, 1:290, 1:297, 1:299, 1:304, 1:308, 1:316, 3:120, 3:123, 3:153, 3:154, 3:155, 3:158, 3:159, 3:162, 3:164, 3:165, 3:170, 3:172, 3:174, 3:175, 3:179, 3:182, 3:183, 3:185, 3:301, 3:304, 3:307, 3:309, 3:312, 3:350, 3:397, 3:408, 3:410, 3:411, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:419, 3:424, 3:425, 3:426, 3:435, 3:445, 3:447, 3:448, 3:450, 3:452, 3:456, 3:459, 3:460, 3:214. See also Qumran Scroll(s) rabbinic texts 1:67, 1:70, 1:71 rabbinic tradition 1:70, 2:45, 2:51, 2:68, 2:372, 2:416, 2:418, 3:69 Rachel 1:xxv radiocarbon dating 3:408, 3:451 raz 3:83 Rebecca 1:xxv, 1:142, 2:242, 3:72 Rechabites 1:9 reconciliation 1:74, 3:350 Red cow ritual 2:97, 2:98, 2:99 Red Sea 3:363

S UBJECT I NDEX redemption 1:48, 1:126, 3:20, 3:268, 3:276, 3:333, 3:357, 3:358, 3:362, 3:372 rejection 1:51, 1:71, 1:160, 3:23, 3:125, 3:140, 3:348, 3:351, 3:361, 3:429 religion 1:6, 1:8, 1:10, 1:60, 1:94, 1:152, 1:181, 1:209, 1:213, 1:216, 1:219, 1:232, 1:287, 2:75, 2:92, 2:93, 2:147, 2:173, 2:177, 2:270, 2:335, 2:364, 2:394, 3:38, 3:45, 3:53, 3:100, 3:101, 3:115, 3:144, 3:224, 3:258, 3:312, 3:313 religious laws 3:195, 3:198, 3:201 remarriage. See marriage repentance 1:55, 1:199, 2:101, 2:102, 2:103, 2:236, 2:238, 2:305, 2:365, 2:366, 3:8, 3:18, 3:22, 3:28, 3:32, 3:34, 3:352, 3:364, 3:374, 3:375, 3:443, 3:444, 3:445, 3:448, 3:449, 3:450 resurrection 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:114, 1:116, 2:248, 2:249, 2:250, 2:251, 2:252, 2:253, 2:254, 2:255, 2:256, 2:257, 2:259, 2:260, 2:261, 2:263, 2:264, 2:270, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:277, 2:278, 2:279, 2:280, 2:281, 2:429, 2:430, 2:431 retribution 3:305, 3:345 Reuben 1:14, 1:144, 1:161, 1:174, 1:312, 1:313 revelation(s) 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxx, 1:4, 1:33, 1:34, 1:45, 1:46,

1:48, 1:128, 1:135, 1:136, 1:165, 1:183, 1:184, 1:187, 1:204, 1:206, 1:207, 1:208, 1:279, 1:291, 1:314, 1:315, 1:316, 1:318, 2:366, 2:377, 2:391, 2:393, 3:76, 3:77, 3:79, 3:83, 3:99, 3:110, 3:138, 3:151, 3:156, 3:157, 3:184, 3:261, 3:263, 3:264, 3:275, 3:277, 3:278, 3:299, 3:357, 3:378, 3:420, 3:421 revelation, divine 1:317, 3:79, 3:82, 3:421 revolt 1:8, 1:45, 1:57, 1:58, 1:94, 1:99, 1:213, 2:77, 2:78, 2:83, 2:203, 2:241, 3:40, 3:128, 3:237 revolt, Maccabean. See Maccabean revolt reward(s) 1:17, 1:22, 1:23, 1:200, 1:202, 1:227, 1:256, 1:257, 3:81, 3:85, 3:181, 3:183, 3:184, 3:226, 3:269, 3:334, 3:335, 3:337, 3:344, 3:345, 3:366, 3:380 Rewritten Bible 1:xxvi, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:134, 1:145, 1:290, 1:309, 2:134, 2:161, 2:454, 2:460, 2:462, 2:466, 2:487 righteousness 1:22, 1:48, 1:51, 1:127, 1:139, 1:260, 1:262, 1:263, 1:310, 2:21, 2:54, 2:76, 2:80, 2:82, 2:88, 2:95, 2:170, 2:177, 2:179, 2:181, 2:192, 2:236, 2:257, 2:260, 2:267, 2:354, 2:355, 2:356, 2:387, 2:393, 2:435, 2:437, 2:438, 3:20, 3:47, 3:76, 3:82, 3:83, 3:84,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:85, 3:86, 3:87, 3:88, 3:90, 3:91, 3:156, 3:157, 3:158, 3:163, 3:171, 3:172, 3:173, 3:175, 3:176, 3:182, 3:184, 3:195, 3:196, 3:197, 3:199, 3:200, 3:201, 3:214, 3:225, 3:226, 3:237, 3:238, 3:266, 3:269, 3:270, 3:335, 3:336, 3:343, 3:352, 3:362, 3:365, 3:369, 3:370, 3:373, 3:379, 3:380, 3:389, 3:390, 3:391, 3:393, 3:394, 3:399, 3:401, 3:402, 3:420, 3:452 ring(s) 1:14, 3:26, 3:140 rites 1:11, 1:22, 3:28, 3:103, 3:104, 3:141 ritual(s) 1:41, 1:47, 1:209, 1:210, 1:211, 1:213, 1:227, 2:99, 2:101, 2:314, 3:7, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:11, 3:20, 3:29, 3:34, 3:53, 3:205, 3:224, 3:243, 3:362, 3:365, 3:366, 3:447, 3:450 ritual baths 3:7, 3:141, 3:433 ritual purity 1:11, 3:141, 3:279, 3:437 road 1:xxv, 1:284, 1:285, 3:397, 3:399, 3:403, 3:404, 3:405 rock(s) 1:1, 1:4, 1:22, 1:255, 3:82, 3:401, 3:433 Rockefeller Museum 3:33 Roman(s) 1:xxx, 1:5, 1:7, 1:9, 1:223, 1:224, 1:226, 1:281, 3:41, 3:45, 3:52, 3:131, 3:420, 3:425, 3:440 Roman army(ies). See army(ies), Roman Roman Catholic(s). See Catholic(s/ism), Roman

Roman conquest. See conquest, Roman Roman Empire 1:31, 1:223, 3:38, 3:39, 3:40, 3:45, 3:46, 3:51, 3:53, 3:55, 3:58 Roman Galilee. See Galilee, Roman Roman imperial domination. See Roman Empire Roman Judea. See Judea, Roman Roman legion(s). See legion(s), Roman Roman period 1:xxix, 1:71, 1:72, 2:83, 2:278, 2:285, 3:162, 3:336, 3:433 Roman quislings. See quislings, Roman Roman rule. See rule, Roman Roman soldiers. See army(ies), Roman; legion(s), Roman; soldiers, Roman Roman warfare. See warfare, Roman Rome 1:xxvii, 1:15, 1:27, 1:28, 1:33, 1:35, 1:68, 1:69, 1:99, 1:145, 1:224, 1:225, 1:230, 1:281, 3:129, 3:151, 3:204, 3:328, 3:342, 3:358, 3:425, 3:427, 3:437 rule, Roman 3:58, 3:60 rules 1:11, 1:17, 1:18, 1:23, 1:136, 1:167, 1:172, 1:185, 1:193, 1:210, 1:211, 1:213, 1:255, 1:258, 1:296, 1:297, 1:299, 1:304, 1:305, 2:59, 2:95, 2:96, 2:103, 2:186, 2:187, 2:228, 2:291, 2:294, 2:318, 2:325, 2:332, 2:346, 2:348, 2:359, 2:393, 2:405, 2:414, 2:416, 2:424.

635 3:2, 3:3, 3:11, 3:25, 3:29, 3:52, 3:69, 3:87, 3:97, 3:111, 3:145, 3:162, 3:175, 3:176, 3:195, 3:197, 3:198, 3:238, 3:278, 3:320, 3:321, 3:326, 3:339, 3:344, 3:388, 3:436, 3:439. Sabbath 1:11, 1:18, 1:20, 1:49, 1:196, 1:198, 1:224, 1:249, 1:305, 2:30, 2:35, 2:37, 2:38, 2:43, 2:44, 2:45, 2:46, 2:55, 2:57, 2:94, 2:204, 2:208, 2:209, 2:212, 2:213, 2:217, 2:223, 2:224, 2:225, 2:226, 2:293, 2:403, 3:52, 3:222, 3:252, 3:327 sabbatical year 3:334 sacrifice 1:xxiii, 1:18, 2:29, 2:44, 2:60, 2:61, 2:67, 2:213, 2:224, 2:257, 2:305, 2:313, 2:314, 2:344, 2:415, 2:488, 3:205, 3:206, 3:209, 3:211, 3:216, 3:218, 3:224, 3:238, 3:360, 3:363, 3:365, 3:372, 3:376, 3:399, 3:400 sacrifice, rules 3:357. See also covenant sacrifice Sadducees 1:xxviii, 1:7, 1:250, 2:22, 2:201, 2:236, 2:245, 2:260, 2:261, 2:262, 2:428, 2:429, 2:430, 2:433, 3:9, 3:40, 3:98, 3:108, 3:109, 3:129, 3:130, 3:134, 3:141, 3:420, 3:435, 3:436 sages 1:72, 3:27, 3:55, 3:404, 3:458 sale 3:353, 3:354 Salem 3:218, 3:231 Salome Alexandra 3:271

636 salt 3:374, 3:404 salvation 1:44, 1:46, 1:47, 1:53, 1:54, 1:58, 1:59, 1:257, 1:260, 2:73, 2:76, 2:78, 2:237, 2:249, 2:252, 2:264, 2:272, 2:274, 2:277, 2:312, 2:326, 2:337, 2:393, 2:406, 3:34, 3:42, 3:89, 3:90, 3:91, 3:115, 3:121, 3:133, 3:138, 3:140, 3:145, 3:156, 3:157, 3:158, 3:161, 3:169, 3:170, 3:172, 3:184, 3:200, 3:271, 3:276, 3:306, 3:307, 3:308, 3:309, 3:358, 3:366, 3:371, 3:372, 3:376, 3:378, 3:379, 3:404, 3:450, 3:453 Samaria 1:71, 2:31, 2:40, 2:65, 3:40, 3:45, 3:58 Samaritan(s) 1:7, 1:10, 1:22, 1:42, 1:71, 1:72, 1:73, 1:81, 1:82, 1:83, 1:84, 1:87, 1:90, 1:92, 1:93, 1:140, 1:141, 1:230, 3:14, 3:29, 3:98, 3:103, 3:121, 3:128, 3:142, 3:150, 3:151, 3:308 Samaritan papyri 1:xxviii Samaritan Pentateuch 1:13, 1:71, 1:77, 1:149, 1:302, 1:313 Samaritan sects 1:69 Samson 1:14, 1:162, 1:211, 3:373 sanctuary 1:44, 1:47, 1:87, 2:38, 2:44, 2:57, 2:79, 2:87, 2:369, 2:372, 2:422, 2:442, 3:47, 3:48, 3:209, 3:210, 3:233, 3:234, 3:240, 3:241, 3:242, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:266, 3:268, 3:322, 3:324, 3:380

S UBJECT I NDEX sandals 1:22 Sarah 1:26, 1:139, 2:39 Sarai 1:139, 1:146, 1:147 Satan 1:42, 1:58, 1:59, 1:183, 1:184, 1:204, 1:205, 1:206, 1:263, 3:41, 3:90, 3:273. See also Devil. Saul 1:160, 1:161, 1:178, 1:211, 3:56 scepter(s) 1:56, 1:117, 1:119, 1:310, 3:251 scoffers 1:278 scribes 1:30, 1:83, 1:94, 1:96, 1:135, 1:140, 1:152, 1:170, 1:174, 1:176, 1:180, 1:182, 1:302, 1:312, 1:317, 2:91, 2:277, 2:321, 2:324, 2:482, 3:41, 3:51, 3:52, 3:53, 3:54, 3:55, 3:58, 3:60, 3:85, 3:95, 3:97, 3:149, 3:355 script(s) 1:5, 1:67, 1:71, 1:107, 1:121, 1:230, 2:206, 3:39, 3:55, 3:56, 3:57, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60 script, dating 3:389 scriptorium 3:17 Scriptures 1:2, 1:3, 1:33, 1:43, 1:68, 1:74, 1:86, 1:90, 1:91, 1:92, 1:94, 1:95, 1:98, 1:99, 1:102, 1:106, 1:117, 1:123, 1:182, 1:221, 1:224, 1:288, 1:294, 1:295, 1:298, 1:299, 1:302, 1:312, 1:316, 2:185, 3:62, 3:66, 3:67, 3:71, 3:73, 3:82, 3:83, 3:95, 3:100, 3:138, 3:204, 3:217, 3:255, 3:261, 3:264, 3:277, 3:284, 3:368, 3:397, 3:414, 3:422, 3:449 Scroll(s) 1:xxiii, 1:xxiv, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii,

1:xxviii, 1:xxx, 1:2, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, 1:22, 1:25, 1:29, 1:30, 1:31, 1:32, 1:33, 1:35, 1:39, 1:49, 1:51, 1:61, 1:62, 1:65, 1:67, 1:70, 1:71, 1:72, 1:74, 1:75, 1:77, 1:78, 1:79, 1:81, 1:82, 1:83, 1:85, 1:88, 1:91, 1:93, 1:94, 1:97, 1:98, 1:102, 1:103, 1:104, 1:106, 1:107, 1:117, 1:125, 1:127, 1:129, 1:130, 1:131, 1:134, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:150, 1:151, 1:152, 1:158, 1:168, 1:171, 1:173, 1:175, 1:176, 1:181, 1:198, 1:201, 1:218, 1:221, 1:222, 1:223, 1:224, 1:225, 1:226, 1:227, 1:229, 1:230, 1:231, 1:233, 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:238, 1:239, 1:240, 1:242, 1:243, 1:244, 1:245, 1:246, 1:248, 1:249, 1:250, 1:251, 1:252, 1:253, 1:254, 1:255, 1:256, 1:257, 1:258, 1:260, 1:261, 1:262, 1:263, 1:264, 1:273, 1:274, 1:276, 1:288, 1:289, 1:291, 1:293, 1:295, 1:299, 1:302, 1:303, 1:304, 1:305, 1:307, 1:316, 1:317, 1:319, 2:1, 2:7, 2:9, 2:15, 2:16, 2:26, 2:41, 2:55, 2:57, 2:67, 2:69, 2:83, 2:84, 2:110, 2:111, 2:114, 2:115, 2:116, 2:118, 2:119, 2:125, 2:126, 2:127, 2:130, 2:131, 2:137, 2:138, 2:139, 2:142, 2:143, 2:144, 2:145, 2:146, 2:147, 2:149, 2:151, 2:153, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:157, 2:158, 2:159, 2:165, 2:169, 2:183, 2:193, 2:203, 2:235, 2:237, 2:244, 2:245, 2:271, 2:276, 2:320, 2:322, 2:347, 2:349, 2:353, 2:397, 2:398, 2:400, 2:404, 2:406, 2:407, 2:410, 2:431, 2:447, 2:449, 2:451, 2:467, 2:469, 2:474, 2:480, 2:485, 3:37, 3:38, 3:39, 3:44, 3:45, 3:47, 3:50, 3:52, 3:53, 3:54, 3:56, 3:57, 3:58, 3:59, 3:60, 3:61, 3:62, 3:65, 3:69, 3:71, 3:72, 3:75, 3:77, 3:82, 3:85, 3:88, 3:89, 3:91, 3:93, 3:95, 3:97, 3:98, 3:100, 3:104, 3:105, 3:107, 3:111, 3:128, 3:133, 3:136, 3:138, 3:139, 3:143, 3:146, 3:149, 3:151, 3:188, 3:189, 3:203, 3:206, 3:207, 3:208, 3:209, 3:210, 3:211, 3:213, 3:214, 3:215, 3:216, 3:217, 3:218, 3:220, 3:221, 3:222, 3:223, 3:224, 3:226, 3:227, 3:228, 3:229, 3:230, 3:238, 3:254, 3:256, 3:258, 3:259, 3:262, 3:263, 3:264, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:269, 3:270, 3:271, 3:272, 3:273, 3:274, 3:275, 3:276, 3:277, 3:278, 3:281, 3:336, 3:345, 3:349, 3:358, 3:365, 3:371, 3:372, 3:408, 3:409, 3:410, 3:411, 3:413, 3:416, 3:421, 3:426, 3:438, 3:439, 3:443 scroll, Qumran. See Qumran Scroll(s) Scrolls research 3:206 Sea of Reeds 1:228

season(s) 1:23, 1:29, 1:36, 1:256, 1:262, 1:23, 3:78, 3:87 Second Revolt 1:97, 1:98, 1:99 Second Temple 1:4, 1:9, 1:21, 1:43, 1:60, 1:62, 1:169, 3:12, 3:26, 3:32, 3:34, 3:36, 3:39, 3:47, 3:50, 3:52, 3:53, 3:54, 3:56, 3:57, 3:117, 3:208, 3:225, 3:229, 3:232, 3:236, 3:243, 3:250, 3:259, 3:376, 3:390 Second Temple Judaism 1:xxiii, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:xxxi, 1:4, 1:6, 1:8, 1:10, 1:23, 1:40, 1:59, 1:60, 1:82, 1:145, 3:2, 3:9, 3:12, 3:14, 3:15, 3:16, 3:97, 3:98, 3:108, 3:113, 3:117, 3:131, 3:140, 3:197, 3:259, 3:265, 3:266, 3:270 Second Temple Period 1:7, 1:34, 1:37, 1:39, 1:42, 1:60, 1:81, 1:84, 1:88, 1:90, 1:92, 1:93, 1:94, 1:98, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:139, 1:147, 1:220, 1:231, 1:238, 1:251, 1:297, 1:299, 1:310, 3:209, 3:211, 3:230, 3:367, 3:384, 3:440 secrecy 3:76, 3:77, 3:401 sect 1:xxiii, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:xxxi, 1:7, 1:8, 1:10, 1:29, 1:33, 1:43, 1:56, 1:71, 1:98, 1:167, 1:223, 1:230, 1:250, 1:251, 1:279, 2:72, 2:394, 3:4, 3:30, 3:31, 3:40, 3:63, 3:91, 3:97, 3:107, 3:108, 3:112, 3:116, 3:117, 3:128,

637 3:129, 3:130, 3:131, 3:140, 3:143, 3:144, 3:222, 3:223, 3:237, 3:238, 3:240, 3:415, 3:420, 3:435, 3:446 sectarianism 1:29, 1:71, 3:55, 3:128, 3:348 seed 1:87, 1:259, 3:244 Seekers after Smooth Things 2:95, 3:272 seer(s) 1:110, 1:118, 1:120, 3:217, 3:257 Seiyal collection 1:31, 1:93 Seleucid(s) 1:185, 1:188, 1:223, 1:281, 2:421, 3:39, 3:45, 3:51, 3:52, 3:237 Seleucid Empire 3:39 Seleucid Judea. See Judea, Seleucid Seleucid military. See military, Seleucid semen 1:136 Sennacherib 1:282, 1:283, 1:284, 1:285, 1:286 Septuagint 1:9, 1:13, 1:25, 1:27, 1:28, 1:70, 1:75, 1:77, 1:82, 1:91, 1:92, 1:93, 1:96, 1:149, 1:151, 1:158, 1:163, 1:173, 1:174, 1:179, 1:206, 1:237, 1:246, 2:68, 2:83, 2:180, 2:241, 2:383, 2:412, 2:431, 2:450, 2:454, 2:461, 2:466, 3:6, 3:80, 3:92, 3:109, 3:177, 3:179, 3:183, 3:341, 3:387, 3:388, 3:427, 3:460 Sermon on the Mount 3:84, 3:110, 3:333, 3:399 serpent 1:9, 1:214 servant(s) 1:52, 1:207, 1:212, 1:298, 1:303, 1:311, 1:312, 1:317, 3:42, 3:68, 3:81, 3:83, 3:91, 3:157, 3:182,

638 3:209, 3:223, 3:225, 3:285, 3:326, 3:336, 3:361, 3:363, 3:370, 3:376 seventh month 2:42, 2:45, 2:50, 2:489 sexual intercourse 1:136, 2:94, 2:403 sharing 1:39, 1:57, 1:181, 3:12, 3:51, 3:93, 3:331, 3:354, 3:420 Shavuot 2:304, 2:305, 2:306 sheep 1:20, 1:44, 1:112, 1:117, 1:220, 2:63, 3:51, 3:103, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:385, 3:386, 3:393 shekels 3:49 Shemihazah 1:41, 1:108 Shephelah 1:284 shepherd(s) 1:44, 1:255 shield(s) 1:220, 1:227 Shrine of the Book 3:16, 3:18, 3:107, 3:125, 3:136, 3:144, 3:160, 3:413, 3:414, 3:428, 3:433 Sicarii 1:7 siege 1:210, 1:285 silk 1:7 silver 1:215, 1:313, 2:279, 2:441, 2:444, 3:236 Simeon 1:144, 1:187, 3:196 Simon 1:116, 1:183, 1:200, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:79, 2:88, 2:335, 2:398 sin(s) 1:xxvi, 1:38, 1:42, 1:44, 1:46, 1:49, 1:50, 1:52, 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:63, 1:104, 1:113, 1:114, 1:140, 1:141, 1:210, 1:259, 1:263, 2:54, 2:64, 2:80, 2:81, 2:87, 2:97, 2:98, 2:100, 2:102, 2:103, 2:170, 2:176,

S UBJECT I NDEX 2:179, 2:181, 2:184, 2:186, 2:187, 2:196, 2:210, 2:220, 2:236, 2:256, 2:259, 2:265, 2:267, 2:268, 2:270, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:277, 2:281, 2:303, 2:305, 2:307, 2:312, 2:314, 2:338, 2:344, 2:366, 2:371, 2:378, 2:388, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393, 2:394, 2:402, 2:406, 2:432, 2:435, 2:488, 3:7, 3:8, 3:20, 3:27, 3:34, 3:41, 3:50, 3:92, 3:112, 3:124, 3:157, 3:160, 3:171, 3:177, 3:180, 3:200, 3:205, 3:208, 3:209, 3:234, 3:238, 3:244, 3:275, 3:276, 3:303, 3:309, 3:311, 3:322, 3:328, 3:343, 3:357, 3:358, 3:359, 3:360, 3:361, 3:362, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:368, 3:371, 3:372, 3:374, 3:375, 3:376, 3:379, 3:380, 3:400, 3:402, 3:410, 3:444, 3:448, 3:450, 3:453, 3:454, 3:455, 3:457, 3:458 sinner(s) 1:48, 1:52, 1:55, 1:56, 2:54, 2:79, 2:80, 2:210, 2:252, 2:253, 2:254, 2:258, 2:260, 2:263, 2:266, 2:392, 2:393, 2:428, 2:435, 2:440, 3:199, 3:209, 3:220, 3:351, 3:361, 3:402 skin disease 1:105, 3:94 slander 1:205 slaughtering 3:366 slavery/slaves 1:87, 1:221, 3:55, 3:182, 3:326, 3:348 Smyrna 1:205, 1:206 social movements 1:101, 3:40

social relations 3:39, 3:44 solar 3:144, 3:197. See also solar calendar(s) solar calendar(s) 1:138, 1:139, 1:146, 1:147, 1:198, 1:249, 1:250, 1:251, 1:252, 1:309, 1:xxvii,1:136, 2:309 soldiers, Roman 1:15, 3:97, 3:104, 3:108 solitude 3:13 Solomon 1:xxv, 1:8, 1:9, 1:10, 1:26, 1:44, 1:116, 1:171, 1:217, 1:258, 1:307, 2:31, 2:71, 2:79, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:86, 2:93, 2:260, 2:307, 2:321, 2:333, 2:352, 2:357, 2:359, 2:360, 2:385, 2:399, 2:427, 2:429, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:433, 2:434, 2:448, 2:455, 3:15, 3:40, 3:46, 3:49, 3:55, 3:59, 3:81, 3:123, 3:126, 3:127, 3:141, 3:150, 3:232, 3:234, 3:242, 3:249, 3:250, 3:253, 3:254, 3:322, 3:387, 3:455 Son of God 1:xxix, 1:xxx, 1:12, 1:117, 1:118, 1:119, 3:71, 3:112, 3:113, 3:114, 3:124, 3:152, 3:213, 3:369, 3:399 Son of Man 1:11, 1:43, 1:56, 1:57, 1:60, 1:111, 1:112, 1:117, 1:118, 1:119, 1:127, 3:113, 3:221, 3:357, 3:363, 3:371, 3:372, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386 song(s) 1:18, 1:69, 1:70, 1:127, 1:133, 1:137, 1:225, 1:234, 1:235, 1:249, 1:257, 1:261, 1:262, 3:158, 3:159, 3:160, 3:163, 3:164,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:170, 3:209, 3:210, 3:223, 3:252. See also community song(s), Book of, Four Songs for Making Music over the Stricken, Song of Miriam, Song of Moses, Song of Songs, Song of the Sea, Songs against Demons, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Song of Deborah 1:214, 1:219 Song of Miriam 1:141, 3:47 Song of Moses 1:155, 1:156, 3:49 Song of the Sea 1:214, 1:218, 1:219 Songs against Demons 1:234 sons of Aaron 1:xxvii, 1:5, 1:192 Sons of Darkness 1:xxvii, 1:xxx, 1:12, 1:128, 2:48, 2:208, 2:230, 2:231, 3:10, 3:11, 3:21, 3:22, 3:25, 3:34, 3:35, 3:42, 3:107, 3:116, 3:128, 3:142, 3:272, 3:305, 3:346, 3:373, 3:453 Sons of Deceit 3:69, 3:111 sons of Israel 1:152, 1:155, 1:156, 3:20, 3:252 Sons of Light 1:xxvii, 1:xxx, 1:12, 1:20, 1:21, 1:127, 1:128, 1:129, 1:201, 2:48, 2:169, 2:208, 2:230, 2:231, 2:337, 2:343, 3:11, 3:24, 3:25, 3:32, 3:42, 3:107, 3:111, 3:112, 3:115, 3:116, 3:118, 3:128, 3:132, 3:135, 3:142, 3:271, 3:305, 3:307, 3:346, 3:379, 3:452, 3:453

Sons of Oil 2:84 Sons of Righteousness 2:226, 2:298, 2:307, 2:391, 3:69, 3:87, 3:111, 3:112, 3:116, 3:393 Sons of Truth 3:116 Sons of Zadok 1:62, 1:63, 3:243 Sparta 1:213 spears 1:220 spices 1:7 spirit(s) 1:12, 1:35, 1:41, 1:54, 1:55, 1:56, 1:72, 1:123, 1:142, 1:211, 1:216, 1:222, 1:223, 1:228, 1:255, 1:260, 1:261, 1:263, 1:306, 1:308, 1:310, 1:313, 2:169, 2:170, 2:171, 2:172, 2:173, 2:174, 2:175, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:179, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:187, 2:188, 2:191, 2:193, 2:194, 2:231, 2:232, 2:237, 2:261, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:275, 2:294, 2:295, 2:321, 2:387, 2:390, 2:391, 2:393, 2:407, 3:8, 3:10, 3:24, 3:32, 3:41, 3:43, 3:68, 3:82, 3:91, 3:92, 3:100, 3:109, 3:112, 3:116, 3:132, 3:134, 3:136, 3:157, 3:160, 3:180, 3:181, 3:183, 3:199, 3:200, 3:210, 3:219, 3:233, 3:238, 3:304, 3:316, 3:332, 3:335, 3:336, 3:343, 3:344, 3:365, 3:369, 3:377, 3:379, 3:380, 3:401, 3:414, 3:440, 3:451, 3:454, 3:456, 3:457, 3:458 spirit dualism 3:134 Spirit of Falsehood 2:237

639 Spirit of Truth 1:xxx, 1:54, 3:52, 3:132, 3:136, 3:137 Spirit, divine 3:132, 3:233 Spouter of Lies 1:185, 1:191, 1:203 spring(s) 1:2, 1:23, 3:69, 3:116, 3:397 spring water 3:1. See also spring(s) Stephen 3:33, 3:113, 3:269, 3:288, 3:290, 3:317, 3:382, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:390, 3:395, 3:408, 3:411, 3:416, 3:443 study 1:xxiii, 1:xxv, 1:xxviii, 1:xxix, 1:1, 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:25, 1:28, 1:29, 1:31, 1:32, 1:33, 1:36, 1:47, 1:61, 1:70, 1:73, 1:89, 1:95, 1:103, 1:107, 1:122, 1:124, 1:130, 1:132, 1:137, 1:144, 1:150, 1:163, 1:164, 1:165, 1:173, 1:174, 1:180, 1:184, 1:201, 1:208, 1:216, 1:218, 1:221, 1:233, 1:282, 1:289, 1:290, 1:291, 1:292, 1:293, 1:294, 1:295, 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 1:299, 1:300, 1:301, 1:302, 1:308, 1:314, 1:316, 2:1, 2:15, 2:25, 2:71, 2:72, 2:75, 2:79, 2:93, 2:100, 2:102, 2:108, 2:109, 2:119, 2:123, 2:141, 2:145, 2:147, 2:148, 2:157, 2:159, 2:170, 2:172, 2:178, 2:188, 2:192, 2:193, 2:194, 2:203, 2:215, 2:233, 2:235, 2:245, 2:250, 2:284, 2:308, 2:309, 2:315, 2:318, 2:326, 2:331, 2:336, 2:342, 2:343, 2:348, 2:353, 2:354,

640 2:358, 2:360, 2:378, 2:397, 2:399, 2:400, 2:401, 2:402, 2:403, 2:421, 2:422, 2:432, 2:434, 2:447, 2:456, 2:461, 2:462, 2:467, 2:469, 2:473, 2:474, 2:481, 3:1, 3:2, 3:39, 3:75, 3:76, 3:87, 3:97, 3:98, 3:100, 3:101, 3:102, 3:105, 3:106, 3:121, 3:128, 3:133, 3:148, 3:152, 3:154, 3:155, 3:188, 3:230, 3:255, 3:256, 3:260, 3:282, 3:298, 3:301, 3:314, 3:381, 3:382, 3:399, 3:415, 3:416, 3:418, 3:421, 3:440, 3:443, 3:449, 3:461 succession 1:68, 1:94, 1:223, 3:93 suffering 1:212, 3:24, 3:41, 3:62, 3:76, 3:112, 3:120, 3:206, 3:213, 3:239, 3:273, 3:278, 3:289, 3:358, 3:370, 3:375, 3:378, 3:398 Suffering Servant 3:308 sun 1:xxv, 1:32, 1:229, 1:255, 1:259, 1:261, 3:85, 3:86, 3:198, 3:239, 3:251 synagogues 1:4, 1:10, 1:74, 3:90, 3:122 Synoptic Gospels 3:49, 3:75, 3:76, 3:77, 3:78, 3:80, 3:82, 3:84, 3:86, 3:88, 3:90, 3:92, 3:94, 3:95, 3:127, 3:221, 3:283, 3:287, 3:289, 3:290, 3:292, 3:315 Syria 1:73, 1:213, 1:223, 1:282, 1:283, 1:284, 1:285, 2:419, 2:420, 3:289, 3:407 Syriac text 3:293 Syrian(s) 1:9 tables 1:175 Talmud 1:12, 1:18, 3:63

S UBJECT I NDEX Tamar 3:199 targumim 1:14, 1:75 tax collectors 3:93 teacher(s) 1:xxv, 1:5, 1:30, 1:50, 1:190, 1:197, 1:256, 1:293, 1:297, 1:298, 1:300, 1:317, 2:17, 2:21, 2:55, 2:56, 2:57, 2:88, 2:89, 2:190, 2:212, 2:272, 2:277, 2:321, 2:325, 2:326, 2:327, 2:328, 2:329, 2:330, 2:333, 2:337, 2:339, 2:340, 2:341, 2:342, 2:343, 2:344, 2:347, 2:348, 2:351, 2:353, 2:354, 2:355, 2:356, 2:357, 2:358, 2:361, 3:38, 3:42, 3:55, 3:57, 3:59, 3:62, 3:67, 3:82, 3:85, 3:87, 3:88, 3:90, 3:146, 3:213, 3:217, 3:219, 3:220, 3:223, 3:225, 3:226, 3:237, 3:272, 3:289, 3:294, 3:310, 3:389, 3:419, 3:420, 3:421, 3:423, 3:425 Teacher of Righteousness 2:18, 2:20, 2:21, 2:24, 2:33, 2:55, 2:88, 2:89, 2:185, 2:327, 2:351, 2:353, 2:358, 2:397, 2:398, 2:403 temple 1:xxiii, 1:xxvi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxxi, 1:9, 1:10, 1:11, 1:18, 1:29, 1:33, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:44, 1:47, 1:49, 1:50, 1:61, 1:62, 1:71, 1:105, 1:106, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:201, 1:202, 1:212, 1:223, 1:224, 1:227, 1:246, 1:287, 1:298, 1:314, 2:20, 2:38, 2:39, 2:47, 2:49, 2:60, 2:71, 2:203, 2:224, 2:225, 2:278, 2:307, 2:414, 2:416, 2:465, 3:19,

3:20, 3:28, 3:29, 3:30, 3:31, 3:40, 3:45, 3:46, 3:47, 3:48, 3:49, 3:50, 3:51, 3:52, 3:53, 3:55, 3:71, 3:98, 3:104, 3:105, 3:122, 3:123, 3:125, 3:128, 3:133, 3:141, 3:145, 3:152, 3:156, 3:161, 3:162, 3:185, 3:187, 3:194, 3:195, 3:198, 3:206, 3:211, 3:222, 3:224, 3:228, 3:232, 3:233, 3:234, 3:236, 3:237, 3:238, 3:239, 3:241, 3:242, 3:243, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:247, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:251, 3:252, 3:253, 3:254, 3:265, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:276, 3:316, 3:322, 3:349, 3:355, 3:361, 3:379, 3:384, 3:437 temple building 1:135, 3:48, 3:254 Temple ceremony 3:122 Temple cult 2:58, 2:333, 2:433 Temple Mount 1:10, 3:232, 3:233, 3:235, 3:242, 3:246, 3:433 temple, heavenly 2:225, 2:372 tent(s) 1:29, 1:213, 1:261, 3:228, 3:236, 3:242, 3:245, 3:249 Testament(s) 1:25, 1:26, 1:28, 1:40, 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:128, 1:132, 3:46, 3:101, 3:117, 3:178, 3:322, 3:368, 3:388, 3:391, 3:392, 3:397, 3:398, 3:412, 3:415, 3:418, 3:428 Testimonies 3:275, 3:282 Tetragrammaton 1:295, 2:216, 2:324, 2:368, 2:369, 3:125 thanksgiving 1:17, 3:175

S UBJECT I NDEX thanksgiving psalms 3:263 thanksgiving songs 3:335. See also Hodayot, Thanksgiving Hymns Theodotion 1:31 Therapeutae 1:65, 2:399, 2:402, 2:407, 2:408, 2:409, 2:410 Theudas 3:58 throne 1:55, 1:106, 1:107, 1:109, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112, 1:214, 1:262, 2:278, 2:374, 3:210, 3:212, 3:213, 3:214, 3:242, 3:244, 3:253, 3:268, 3:275, 3:276, 3:277, 3:279, 3:393 throne of glory 2:438 thunder 1:214 time 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:xxx, 1:1, 1:4, 1:5, 1:8, 1:11, 1:12, 1:13, 1:14, 1:16, 1:17, 1:18, 1:19, 1:20, 1:22, 1:23, 1:26, 1:28, 1:29, 1:30, 1:33, 1:34, 1:37, 1:43, 1:44, 1:45, 1:47, 1:48, 1:50, 1:53, 1:56, 1:57, 1:59, 1:61, 1:63, 1:67, 1:68, 1:71, 1:73, 1:79, 1:82, 1:90, 1:97, 1:98, 1:104, 1:110, 1:114, 1:115, 1:116, 1:119, 1:123, 1:124, 1:125, 1:126, 1:129, 1:132, 1:145, 1:146, 1:149, 1:150, 1:151, 1:156, 1:164, 1:170, 1:174, 1:182, 1:196, 1:197, 1:207, 1:211, 1:214, 1:217, 1:221, 1:224, 1:227, 1:239, 1:241, 1:257, 1:259, 1:279, 1:281, 1:282, 1:283, 1:284, 1:286, 1:291, 1:292, 1:308, 2:79, 2:121, 2:135, 2:151, 2:154, 2:203, 2:338,

3:2, 3:3, 3:4, 3:6, 3:13, 3:18, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:24, 3:26, 3:28, 3:29, 3:33, 3:35, 3:41, 3:54, 3:55, 3:56, 3:58, 3:59, 3:65, 3:70, 3:78, 3:84, 3:90, 3:91, 3:92, 3:97, 3:98, 3:102, 3:105, 3:109, 3:110, 3:115, 3:122, 3:128, 3:129, 3:130, 3:138, 3:144, 3:148, 3:170, 3:176, 3:182, 3:190, 3:192, 3:195, 3:199, 3:201, 3:205, 3:216, 3:219, 3:225, 3:233, 3:237, 3:238, 3:239, 3:240, 3:241, 3:242, 3:244, 3:250, 3:252, 3:258, 3:265, 3:266, 3:268, 3:274, 3:275, 3:276, 3:281, 3:285, 3:286, 3:300, 3:303, 3:312, 3:315, 3:335, 3:344, 3:346, 3:348, 3:358, 3:360, 3:367, 3:368, 3:369, 3:370, 3:375, 3:379, 3:380, 3:393, 3:398, 3:409, 3:415, 3:416, 3:418, 3:420, 3:422, 3:431, 3:432, 3:435, 3:440, 3:446, 3:447, 3:449, 3:450, 3:459, 3:460 tithing/tithes 2:422, 3:46 Tobias 1:143 tomb(s) 1:9, 2:250, 2:269, 2:270, 2:277, 2:278, 2:279, 3:433 tool(s) 1:172, 1:280, 1:285, 1:289, 3:131, 3:408, 3:417, 3:428, 3:450 Torah 1:xxviii, 1:7, 1:11, 1:18, 1:20, 1:28, 1:29, 1:30, 1:34, 1:35, 1:41, 1:45, 1:46, 1:48, 1:61, 1:72, 1:91, 1:114, 1:115, 1:123, 1:125, 1:133, 1:134,

641 1:136, 1:137, 1:139, 1:140, 1:142, 1:144, 1:147, 1:156, 1:157, 1:158, 1:167, 1:171, 1:198, 1:288, 1:296, 1:297, 1:298, 1:301, 1:302, 1:305, 1:314, 1:315, 2:19, 2:37, 2:52, 2:74, 2:75, 2:90, 2:94, 2:95, 2:96, 2:109, 2:139, 2:155, 2:161, 2:182, 2:185, 2:197, 2:198, 2:200, 2:204, 2:206, 2:207, 2:212, 2:214, 2:215, 2:229, 2:230, 2:233, 2:235, 2:314, 2:318, 2:325, 2:337, 2:338, 2:344, 2:348, 2:358, 2:369, 2:371, 2:398, 2:418, 2:422, 2:433, 2:462, 2:463, 2:466, 3:11, 3:13, 3:14, 3:26, 3:45, 3:53, 3:54, 3:58, 3:65, 3:72, 3:84, 3:85, 3:141, 3:157, 3:165, 3:171, 3:173, 3:174, 3:176, 3:187, 3:188, 3:190, 3:192, 3:193, 3:194, 3:198, 3:199, 3:200, 3:201, 3:224, 3:226, 3:227, 3:240, 3:270, 3:272, 3:278, 3:329, 3:378, 3:399, 3:404, 3:449, 3:452, 3:455. See also Mosaic Torah Torah of Moses. See Mosaic Torah tower(s) 1:115, 1:310, 3:131, 3:234, 3:247, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250, 3:251 Tower of Babel 1:115 trade 2:415, 3:448, 3:450 Trajan 2:382 Transjordan 1:224, 3:149, 3:234, 3:237, 3:286

642 translation(s) 1:xxiii, 1:13, 1:15, 1:25, 1:26, 1:63, 1:68, 1:70, 1:71, 1:77, 1:78, 1:79, 1:82, 1:84, 1:95, 1:96, 1:102, 1:104, 1:107, 1:118, 1:125, 1:139, 1:145, 1:147, 1:149, 1:156, 1:164, 1:169, 1:173, 1:174, 1:181, 1:191, 1:192, 1:195, 1:197, 1:203, 1:226, 1:233, 1:234, 1:239, 1:249, 1:254, 1:276, 1:277, 1:289, 1:295, 1:302, 1:304, 1:307, 3:107, 3:112, 3:172, 3:175, 3:179, 3:193, 3:194, 3:196, 3:199, 3:209, 3:245, 3:298, 3:317, 3:322, 3:361, 3:366, 3:370, 3:385, 3:393, 3:417, 3:440 trees 1:120, 1:210, 1:255, 1:262, 1:280, 1:285, 2:327, 2:348, 2:479, 3:12, 3:33, 3:233, 3:248, 3:253, 3:268 trumpet(s) 1:216, 1:224, 1:227, 1:230, 3:122 truth 1:36, 1:45, 1:48, 1:58, 1:74, 1:118, 1:149, 1:191, 1:192, 1:193, 1:200, 1:228, 1:257, 1:262, 2:19, 2:67, 2:86, 2:96, 2:98, 2:100, 2:101, 2:170, 2:171, 2:172, 2:173, 2:174, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:179, 2:181, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:187, 2:188, 2:193, 2:226, 2:229, 2:234, 2:266, 2:267, 2:277, 2:286, 2:297, 2:298, 2:322, 2:325, 2:330, 2:343, 2:355, 2:356, 2:366, 2:374, 2:391, 3:7, 3:8, 3:30, 3:31,

S UBJECT I NDEX 3:33, 3:42, 3:67, 3:68, 3:69, 3:72, 3:78, 3:81, 3:82, 3:86, 3:90, 3:92, 3:93, 3:112, 3:116, 3:117, 3:119, 3:129, 3:132, 3:135, 3:162, 3:214, 3:225, 3:238, 3:278, 3:313, 3:329, 3:337, 3:338, 3:343, 3:365, 3:379, 3:380, 3:390, 3:401, 3:421, 3:453 Twelve Minor Prophets 1:312 unclean 1:42, 1:49, 1:127, 1:191, 1:210, 1:263, 3:104, 3:222, 3:228, 3:244, 3:320, 3:331 unclean animal 3:26. See also unclean unclean wealth 3:322. See also unclean Uriah 1:212 Uzziah 1:285 values, Greco-Roman. See Greco-Roman culture Vatican 3:422, 3:423 versification 1:171, 1:256 vessel(s) 1:xxv, 1:11, 1:22, 1:227, 3:82, 3:104, 3:105, 3:141, 3:169 vineyard(s) 1:207, 1:210, 3:335 virgins 1:207 vision(s) 1:33, 1:43, 1:101, 1:108, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112, 1:117, 1:118, 1:119, 1:120, 1:132, 1:208, 1:212, 1:214, 1:226, 1:251, 1:260, 2:18, 2:363, 2:372, 2:391, 2:464, 2:465, 3:9, 3:78, 3:80, 3:164, 3:204, 3:210, 3:213, 3:215, 3:225, 3:226, 3:230, 3:233, 3:234, 3:235, 3:241,

3:242, 3:244, 3:252, 3:253, 3:254, 3:264, 3:265, 3:266, 3:267, 3:278, 3:279, 3:350, 3:355, 3:362, 3:382, 3:386, 3:404 Vorlage 1:30, 1:72, 1:75, 1:95, 1:174, 1:175 vow(s) 1:19, 1:261, 3:19, 3:25, 3:26, 3:28, 3:32, 3:34, 3:222, 3:320, 3:321, 3:322, 3:323, 3:332, 3:338, 3:343, 3:344, 3:345, 3:349, 3:351, 3:447 vowel(s) 1:161, 1:171, 1:274, 1:303, 3:68 wall(s) 1:xxx, 1:49, 1:283, 2:235, 3:236, 3:237, 3:252, 3:267, 3:268, 3:432, 3:433 warfare 1:xxvi, 1:209, 1:210, 1:211, 1:212, 1:213, 1:214, 1:215, 1:216, 1:217, 1:218, 1:219, 1:220, 1:221, 1:222, 1:223, 1:224, 1:225, 1:231, 1:232, 1:285, 3:41, 3:180, 3:261 warfare, Roman 1:225, 3:131 warrior, divine 1:214, 1:218, 1:219, 1:221, 1:226, 1:231 water 1:11, 1:40, 1:215, 1:312, 2:7, 2:18, 2:97, 2:98, 2:99, 2:100, 2:101, 2:102, 2:103, 2:104, 2:186, 2:237, 2:406, 2:416, 2:418, 2:419, 3:7, 3:8, 3:26, 3:33, 3:35, 3:53, 3:82, 3:104, 3:119, 3:122, 3:138, 3:139, 3:247, 3:253, 3:268, 3:434, 3:445, 3:449, 3:450 way of life 1:48, 1:49, 1:298, 3:41, 3:88

S UBJECT I NDEX wealth 1:49, 1:191, 1:193, 1:194, 1:250, 1:305, 3:47, 3:75, 3:93, 3:169, 3:222, 3:319, 3:321, 3:322, 3:323, 3:324, 3:328, 3:329, 3:330, 3:332, 3:333, 3:334, 3:335, 3:336, 3:337, 3:338, 3:341, 3:344, 3:347, 3:349, 3:409, 3:417 weapons 1:218, 1:220, 1:224, 1:227, 1:230 weeks 2:35, 2:37, 2:39, 2:40, 2:46, 2:48, 2:52, 2:54, 2:208, 2:209, 2:219, 2:230 Wicked Priest 1:183, 1:184, 1:185, 1:186, 1:187, 1:188, 1:189, 1:190, 1:191, 1:192, 1:193, 1:194, 1:195, 1:196, 1:197, 1:198, 1:199, 1:200, 1:201, 1:202, 1:203, 1:204, 1:208, 2:17, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:23, 2:24, 2:33, 2:55, 2:212, 2:213, 2:312, 2:326, 2:327, 2:328, 2:337, 2:347, 2:351, 2:397, 3:31, 3:47, 3:67, 3:85, 3:87, 3:113, 3:142, 3:272, 3:337, 3:425 wickedness 1:55, 1:193, 1:195, 1:221, 2:101, 2:171, 2:188, 2:220, 2:221, 2:222, 2:267, 2:337, 3:52, 3:183, 3:222, 3:238, 3:322, 3:332, 3:343, 3:344, 3:379, 3:380

widow(s) 3:94, 3:222, 3:322, 3:355 wilderness 1:xxvii, 1:17, 1:47, 1:62, 1:72, 1:95, 1:185, 1:213, 1:226, 1:281, 1:191:37, 2:231, 2:286, 2:290, 2:292, 2:295, 2:299, 2:304, 2:317, 2:318, 2:328, 2:330, 2:337, 2:338, 2:339, 2:343, 2:348, 2:369, 2:432, 2:433, 3:6, 3:7, 3:10, 3:14, 3:19, 3:28, 3:32, 3:33, 3:35, 3:43, 3:44, 3:56, 3:58, 3:59, 3:89, 3:92, 3:115, 3:122, 3:130, 3:131, 3:133, 3:149, 3:152, 3:245, 3:448, 3:449 wine 1:136, 1:141, 2:45, 2:46, 2:60, 2:61, 2:69, 2:305, 2:314, 2:403, 2:405, 2:409, 2:410, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:416, 2:421, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424, 2:425, 3:104, 3:167, 3:168, 3:241, 3:368 wisdom 1:48, 1:56, 1:61, 1:98, 1:132, 1:228, 1:257, 1:262, 1:295, 2:5, 2:26, 2:52, 2:53, 2:80, 2:81, 2:170, 2:171, 2:174, 2:179, 2:226, 2:238, 2:250, 2:258, 2:265, 2:266, 2:267, 2:268, 2:311, 2:338, 2:339, 2:347, 2:356, 2:390, 2:393, 2:408, 2:410, 2:412, 2:430, 2:437, 2:438, 2:484, 3:60, 3:78, 3:80, 3:81, 3:82,

643 3:91, 3:132, 3:140, 3:289, 3:295, 3:404, 3:455, 3:458 wisdom imagery 3:67 wisdom texts 1:304, 3:458 witnesses 1:23, 1:48, 1:78, 1:89, 1:96, 1:98, 1:169, 1:170, 1:172, 1:175, 1:177, 1:179, 1:181, 1:240, 3:2, 3:102, 3:221, 3:260, 3:276, 3:277, 3:295, 3:308, 3:328, 3:339, 3:340, 3:341, 3:368, 3:377, 3:380 women 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:41, 1:50, 1:157, 1:206, 1:207, 1:210, 1:221, 1:222, 1:227, 2:30, 2:62, 2:97, 2:105, 2:279, 2:292, 2:363, 2:402, 2:408, 2:485, 3:81, 3:90, 3:91, 3:93, 3:243 Wood Festival 1:136, 1:143, 1:144, 1:147. See also festival(s) wool 1:109 works of the law. See law, works of the world, Greco-Roman. See Greco-Roman culture worship 1:xxiii, 1:xxv, 1:7, 1:11, 1:46, 1:86, 1:111, 1:127, 1:159, 1:212, 1:313, 2:69, 2:205, 2:314, 2:333, 3:20, 3:66, 3:121, 3:123, 3:209, 3:210, 3:211, 3:226, 3:263, 3:268, 3:321, 3:373 writing materials 1:174

BIBLICAL INDEX

OLD TESTAMENT 4:8 1:13 4:17 2:364 4:23–24 2:364 5:18–24 2:363 5:21–24 2:52 5:22–24 2:363 5:24 2:364, 2:365, 2:366, 2:368 5:28 1:145 6 2:86, 2:384 6:1–4 1:61, 1:156, 2:205, 2:363 6:1–8 1:306 6:3 1:308 6:4 1:108 6:5 2:68 6:9 3:387, 3:389, 3:397 7:10 1:308 7:11 1:308 7:12 1:308 7:24 1:308 8:3 1:308, 1:309 8:3–4 2:489 8:4 1:308, 2:40 8:5 1:308, 1:309 8:6 1:309 8:13 2:40 8:14 2:40 8:21 2:68 10:2 1:188 12:1–7 1:26 12:3 3:192 12:10 2:337 12:10–20 1:139, 1:146 12:12–13 1:146 13:10 2:217 13:11–13 1:146

Genesis 1:xviii, 1:6, 1:13, 1:26, 1:38, 1:41, 1:83, 1:88, 1:90, 1:114, 1:115, 1:121, 1:132, 1:134, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:143, 1:145, 1:146, 1:147, 1:150, 1:151, 1:152, 1:153, 1:154, 1:274, 1:294, 1:301, 1:306, 1:307, 1:308, 1:309, 2:4, 2:47, 2:83, 2:86, 2:113, 2:114, 2:134, 2:135, 2:138, 2:139, 2:150, 2:167, 2:186, 2:208, 2:219, 2:310, 2:338, 2:363, 2:364, 2:365, 2:384, 2:453, 2:457, 2:464, 2:465, 2:486, 2:487, 2:488, 2:489, 3:135, 3:136, 3:192, 3:221, 3:231, 3:342, 3:369, 3:389, 3:399, 3:409 1 1:115, 1:138, 2:186, 2:219, 2:310, 3:67 1:1 2:219 1:1–2:4 1:40, 1:314 1:1–4 3:284 1:7 2:219 1:9 1:151, 1:152 1:10 1:152 1:14 2:34 1:14–16 2:311 1:14–19 2:34, 2:42, 2:209, 2:211 1:16 2:219 1:25 2:219 1:27 1:304, 3:313 1:31 1:40 1–7 3:313 1–11 1:41, 1:151, 2:364 2 2:186 2:1–4 2:223 2:2 3:204 2:7 2:178 4 1:13

645

646

B IBLICAL I NDEX

14 3:218, 3:231 14:8 2:372 14:18 3:369, 3:371 14:18–20 2:403 15 2:487, 3:399 15:1–4 1:146 15:6 2:95, 3:87, 3:172, 3:173, 3:176, 3:196, 3:399 18:20–21 2:216 23:18 2:62 26:1 2:337 27:36 1:186 27:45 1:143 28:5 1:142 28:6 1:142 28:10–17 3:244 28:10–22 2:31 32:20 3:359, 3:360, 3:361, 3:362, 3:363, 3:376, 3:378 32:21 3:359, 3:361 34:24 2:62 35:1–8 2:31 39–41 1:114 41:57 2:337 46 1:153 46:8–27 1:152 46:19 1:152 46:19–22 1:153 46:27 1:152 49 2:83, 3:65 49:3–4 1:312, 1:313 49:6 2:345 49:9 3:272 49:10 3:390, 3:392, 3:394, 3:396 Exodus 1:81, 1:82, 1:90, 1:95, 1:96, 1:139, 1:248, 1:281, 1:301, 2:27, 2:112, 2:119, 2:122, 2:132, 2:138, 2:156, 2:162, 2:167, 2:290, 2:299, 2:487, 3:43, 3:44, 3:56, 3:58, 3:59, 3:233, 3:236 1 1:153 1:1 1:152, 1:156 1:3 1:152 1:4 1:153 1:5 1:152, 1:153, 1:156 3:16 2:297 4:21–24 2:236 4:22–23 2:86 12 1:138, 2:112, 2:132 12:2 2:40

12:3 2:286, 2:290 12:6 2:286 12:16 2:45 12:19 2:286 12:42 2:112 12:43–13:5 2:112, 2:162 12:47 2:286, 2:290 13 2:132 13:1–10 2:116 13:3–5 2:162 13:7 2:218 13:11–16 2:116 13:15–16 2:113, 2:161 13:17–22 2:113 13:17–14:31 2:161 14 2:113 14:19–20 3:249 15 1:214, 1:219 15:1 2:113, 2:161 15:8–12 1:214 15:17 3:245 15:17–18 3:47, 3:244 15:17b–18 2:128 15:21 1:141 16 2:412 16:13 3:249 16:13–14 2:412 16:31 2:412 17 2:487 18 2:87 18:20 3:193 18:21 2:292 18:21–22 2:295 19 2:161 19:8 2:285 19:9 2:161 19:16 3:249 20 1:115, 2:60, 3:43 20:6 2:199 20:11 2:119, 2:162 20:17 1:82 20:17b 1:82 20:21 2:81, 2:160, 2:162 20:21b 2:160, 2:162 20:22 2:60 20:25 2:60 23:10–11 3:334 23:16 2:304 23:20 2:369 23:20–33 2:63, 2:232 23:21 2:368

B IBLICAL I NDEX 23:22 2:66 23:25–26 2:62 24 2:61, 2:99 24:1 2:369, 2:371 24:3–8 2:60 24:9–11 2:60 24:14 2:297 25 2:60 25–27 3:242 25:8 3:242 26:1 3:242 27:9–18 3:242 27:21 3:242 29:38–42 3:225 32:10 1:81 32:10–11 1:78 32:11 1:78, 1:81, 1:82 32:30 3:362, 3:380, 3:382 32:30–33 3:373, 3:375 33:7 2:289 34 2:161, 3:240 34:10 2:161 34:29–35 2:311 35 3:240 35–39 1:82, 1:95 35:3 2:30 38:25 2:286 39:8–14 3:267 Leviticus 1:xvi, 1:6, 1:41, 1:137, 1:154, 1:301, 2:135, 2:167, 3:249, 3:325 1–7 2:313 1–16 1:41, 2:288 4 1:193 4:3 3:216 4:5 3:216 4:13 2:286, 2:290 4:15 2:297 4:16 3:216 6 1:193 6:20 3:216 6:22 3:216 9:7 3:225, 3:362 11:34–38 2:417 11:43 2:187 12 2:489 13 1:47 15:18 1:47 16:6–17 3:225 16:12 3:369, 3:371 16:17 3:362

647

16:24 3:362 16:31 2:43 16:33 3:369, 3:371 17–26 3:320, 3:325 17:3 3:227 17:10 1:154 17:13 1:154 18 3:325 18:6 3:325 18:16 3:13 19:1–4 3:142 19:9–10 3:325, 3:334 19:17 3:325, 3:339, 3:343 19:17a 3:343 19:17b 3:339 19:17–18 3:339, 3:347 19:18 3:142, 3:325, 3:338, 3:339, 3:340, 3:341, 3:345 19:18a 3:341 19:33–34 3:325 19:34 3:142 20:2 1:154 20:21 3:13 21 1:193, 3:94 21:17–20 1:47 21:17–23 3:94 22:1–16 3:323 22:18 1:153, 1:154, 3:323 23 2:40 23:8 2:45 23:22 3:325, 3:334 23:24 2:42 23:32 2:43 23:34–43 1:141 23:36 2:45 23:38 2:213 23:42 2:291 24:2 1:143 25 3:325 25:1–7 3:334 25:9 3:362, 3:364 25:9–13 3:218 25:13 3:218 25:22 2:218 25:49 3:325 26 3:377, 3:379 26:40–42 3:373, 3:375, 3:377 26:41 1:199, 3:367, 3:369 27:1–25 3:323 27:21 3:323 27:28–29 3:323

648

B IBLICAL I NDEX

Numbers 1:xviii, 1:83, 1:90, 1:96, 1:106, 1:107, 1:112, 1:121, 1:137, 1:150, 1:154, 1:175, 1:213, 1:228, 1:231, 1:274, 1:275, 2:8, 2:18, 2:40, 2:42, 2:48, 2:113, 2:135, 2:138, 2:167, 2:348, 2:351, 2:354, 2:358, 2:475, 2:482, 2:484, 2:487, 2:488, 3:110, 3:148, 3:183, 3:242, 3:249, 3:322, 3:380, 3:435 1–20 2:99 1:1–10:10 1:227 1:20 2:286 1:53 2:289 2:2 2:289 3:2 1:213 3:4 1:213 5 1:47 5:1–4 3:250 5:5–7 2:196 5:8 3:362, 3:364 5:13 2:197 6 2:142 6:22–27 2:311 6:24–26 1:295, 3:21 6:25 2:311 7:48 3:77 8:7 2:99 8:8–22 3:323 8:12 2:306 10:35 1:213 11:7–9 2:412 11:12 2:352, 2:355, 2:358 11:16 3:77 15:39 2:68 16 1:213 16–17 3:368, 3:370 16:3 1:206, 2:288 18:12 2:46 18:14 3:323 19 2:97, 2:99 19:6 2:99 19:17 2:98 20:4 1:206, 2:288 20:28 1:155 21:8–9 3:285 22:4 2:288 23:9 2:221 23:24 3:272 24 2:83 24:15–17 2:160, 2:162, 3:216, 3:217

24:17 1:187, 1:228, 1:228, 3:65 24:25–27 2:81 25:13 3:366, 3:368 26:60–61 1:213 27:2 1:155 27:17 1:206, 2:62 27:23–28:1 1:83 28:1 1:83 28:3–8 3:225 28:25 2:45 29:32–30:1 1:140 29:35 2:45 30:1 1:141 30:14 3:339 30:15 3:339 31:16 1:206 31:26 2:295 32:4 2:286 35:33 3:360, 3:362, 3:366, 3:368 36 1:155 36:1 1:154, 1:155 Deuteronomy 1:xviii, 1:78, 1:86, 1:87, 1:137, 1:140, 1:144, 1:150, 1:156, 1:157, 1:158, 1:160, 1:162, 1:210, 1:215, 1:217, 1:227, 1:229, 1:248, 1:274, 1:301, 1:305, 1:314, 2:61, 2:62, 2:64, 2:68, 2:69, 2:87, 2:162, 2:167, 2:288, 2:483, 2:487, 3:191, 3:192, 3:216 1:15 2:292 1:15–16 2:295 2:30 2:236 3:10 3:192 3:13 3:192 3:21–22 1:83 4 1:156, 1:303 4:19–20 1:156 4:30–31 2:236 5 2:132 5–6 2:60, 2:112 5:1 2:116 5:1–11 2:162 5:1–6:1 2:113, 2:114, 2:162 5:1–6:3 2:112, 2:117 5:10 2:199 5:12 1:305 5:12–13 2:119 5:13–15 2:162 5:15 2:162

B IBLICAL I NDEX 5:20 3:324 5:21–6:3 2:162 5:28–29 2:81, 3:216 5:28b–29 2:160, 2:162 5:28–31 2:112 5:28–32 2:162 6 2:67, 2:68, 2:132 6:4 3:409 6:4–9 2:116 6:5 2:68, 2:69, 2:69, 3:326, 3:329, 3:333, 3:355 7:9 2:199 7:13 2:413 7:13–26 2:63 7:15–24 2:162 7:21 2:232 8 1:155, 2:116, 2:132 8:3 3:324 8:5–10 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:116, 2:117, 2:123, 2:149, 2:162 8:5–9:2 2:162 8:17 3:341 9:20 1:78, 1:81 9:25 2:218 10:16 1:199, 3:83 10:18–19 3:325 11 2:112, 2:132 11:6–13 2:112, 2:116, 2:162 11:13–21 2:116 11:14 2:413 11:21 2:112, 2:162 12–26 1:137 12–26:15 1:137 12:5 2:142 12:6–26 3:323 12:17 2:306, 2:413 13 2:62 14:23 2:142, 2:306, 2:413 15:1–3 3:334 15:2 1:305, 3:218 16:2 2:142 16:8 2:45 16:13 1:141 16:13–14 1:140 17 2:84 17:2 1:305 17:8 1:305, 2:142 17:8–9 2:88 17:17 1:304 18 2:90

649

18:4 2:46, 2:306, 2:413 18:6 2:142 18:13 3:85 18:15 2:87 18:15–18 3:423 18:18 3:216 18:18–19 2:81, 2:160, 2:162 19:12 2:297 19:14 3:324 20 1:210, 1:228 20:2–4 1:210, 2:232 20:5–8 1:210 20:9 1:210 20:10–15 1:210 20:16–18 1:210 20:19–20 1:210 21 3:191 21:3 2:297 21:22–23 3:173, 3:174 21:23 3:173, 3:174, 3:192 22:1 3:326 22:3 3:326 22:3–4 3:326 22:11 3:173 22:23–27 3:341 23 1:47, 1:210 23:9–11 3:250 23:9–14 1:210 23:10 2:289 23:10–15 2:232 23:12–14 3:250 23:14 1:210 23:19–23 3:323 24:1–4 3:44 24:14 3:325 24:14–15 3:325 24:17–22 3:325 24:19–22 3:334 26 3:382, 3:384 26–28 2:236 26:2 2:142 26:5–10 3:382, 3:384 27 1:158, 1:303, 2:59, 2:60 27–28 2:61 27–30 3:191, 3:192 27–30:22 3:191 27:1–3 2:60 27:1–8 1:86, 1:158 27:2 1:86, 2:59 27:2–3 1:158 27:2–8 1:158

650

B IBLICAL I NDEX 27:4 1:86, 1:87, 1:158, 2:142 27:4–5 1:157 27:5 2:60 27:5–7 1:158 27:6–7 2:60 27:8 1:158, 2:60 27:11–13 2:62 27:11–26 2:60 27:11–28:14 2:27 27:14–26 2:61, 2:62, 2:63 27:17 3:324 27:18 1:117 27:26 3:173, 3:192 28 3:363, 3:365 28:1–19 2:60 28:3–6 2:61, 2:62, 2:63 28:6 2:62 28:7–14 2:62, 2:63 28:13 3:363, 3:365 28:16–19 2:61, 2:62, 2:63 28:19 2:62 28:20–68 2:62, 2:63 28:28–29 1:117 28:33 3:328 28:45 3:363, 3:365 28:51 2:413 28:69–29:28 2:63 29 2:487 29:1–3 3:83 29:17 2:62 29:18 2:64 29:18–20 2:64 29:19 2:65 29:21–28 2:65 30:1 3:191, 3:192 30:1–2 1:307 30:6 1:199 30:7 3:192 31:1–13 2:53 31:24–30 2:53 31:28 2:297 32 1:155, 1:156, 2:109, 2:113, 2:118, 2:119, 2:123, 2:132, 2:162 32–33 2:162 32:1–43 1:156, 2:109 32:6 2:356 32:7–8 2:112, 2:162 32:8 1:155, 1:156 32:8–9 1:156 32:9 2:220

32:9–10 2:162 32:11 2:356, 3:49 32:12 2:356 32:13 2:415 32:14–20 2:109 32:17–18 2:112, 2:162 32:18 2:356, 2:358 32:22–23 2:112, 2:162 32:25–27 2:112, 2:162 32:32–33 2:109 32:35 3:184 32:36 2:256 32:37–43 2:113, 2:162 32:43 2:278, 3:208, 3:366, 3:368 32:47 1:305 33 2:81, 2:87 33:2–3 1:219 33:5 2:285 33:8–11 2:81, 2:160, 2:162, 3:216 33:8–9 2:128 33:10 3:217 33:21 3:452 34 2:484 34:6 2:370 34:9 2:483 Joshua 1:xviii, 1:78, 1:86, 1:87, 1:96, 1:121, 1:132, 1:133, 1:150, 1:156, 1:157, 1:158, 1:159, 1:160, 1:162, 1:210, 1:211, 1:213, 1:216, 1:229, 2:27, 2:32, 2:33, 2:55, 2:61, 2:77, 2:81, 2:82, 2:84, 2:112, 2:138, 2:167, 2:454, 2:461, 2:483, 3:43, 3:56, 3:58, 3:137, 3:231, 3:249, 3:250, 3:269, 3:382, 3:392, 3:448 2 1:121 5 1:157 5:1 1:157 6:26 2:81, 2:160, 2:162 7 1:211 7:1 2:197 8 1:157 8:23–24 2:27 8:29–9:1 1:157 8:30–35 1:157, 1:158, 1:165, 1:165, 2:27 8:31–35 2:59 8:34–35 1:157 9 1:157 9:7–8 1:157

B IBLICAL I NDEX 10 1:229 11:20 2:236 14:11 2:62 15 3:231 15:8–9 3:231 15:63 3:231 18:1 3:249 18:9 3:249 20:4 2:297 22:18 2:286, 2:290 22:20 2:286 22:22 2:197 24 3:43, 3:382, 3:384 24:1 1:87 24:24 2:61 24:25–26 1:87, 2:61 24:26 2:61 Judges 1:xvi, 1:xviii, 1:6, 1:70, 1:86, 1:87, 1:88, 1:121, 1:150, 1:156, 1:157, 1:160, 1:162, 1:211, 1:213, 1:216, 1:259, 2:63, 2:87, 2:112, 2:139, 2:167, 2:232, 2:250, 2:287, 2:295, 2:372, 2:438, 2:441, 3:12, 3:94, 3:140, 3:217, 3:244, 3:327, 3:335, 3:340, 3:341, 3:369 3 1:121 5 1:214, 1:215, 1:219 5:4–5 1:215 5:19–21 1:215 6 1:160 6:2–6 1:87 6:6 1:87, 1:159 6:6–11 1:159, 1:165 6:7 1:87, 1:159 6:7–10 1:87, 1:88, 1:160 6:8 1:87 6:9–10 1:160 6:10 1:87 6:11 1:87 6:11–13 1:87 7:2 3:341 7:10 2:289 16:21 1:14 17–18 2:31 17:1–13 2:31 18:2 2:31 18:13 2:31 18:30–31 2:31 20–21 1:211 20:23 1:211 20:26–28 1:211

651

20:35 1:211 20:48 1:211 Ruth 1:xvi, 1:26, 1:70, 1:121, 1:210, 2:167 4 1:121 4:7 2:217 1 Samuel 1:14, 1:15, 1:175, 2:138, 2:167 2:6 2:247 2:8 3:160 2:16 1:176 2:24 1:176 2:34 1:176 3:14 3:362, 3:364 4:10 1:177 5:9 1:176 6:2 1:176 8:20 1:211 9:15 2:217 10:26 1:160 10:27 1:160, 1:177 10:27–11:1 1:176, 1:177 10 1:79 11 1:14, 1:161, 1:174 11:1 1:14, 1:15, 1:177 12 3:382, 3:384 12:3–4 3:328 12:8–13 3:382, 3:384 14:14 1:177 14:30 1:177 14:47 1:178 15:27 1:178 15:29 1:176 16:1 2:185 16:1–13 2:478 16:14 2:172, 2:180, 2:182, 2:185, 2:194 17–18 1:242 17:4 1:178 18:16 2:62 24:6 2:78 24:13 1:178 24:14 1:178 25 3:341 25:5 1:175 25:25 1:186 25:26 3:341 25:29 3:341 25:31 3:341 25:33 3:341 25:39 3:341

652

B IBLICAL I NDEX

28:3 1:175 28:23 1:175 29:6 2:62 2 Samuel 1:xviii, 1:137, 1:168, 1:169, 1:172, 1:173, 1:174, 1:175, 1:178, 2:128 2:8–11 1:187 3:29 1:176 5:1–10 3:231 5:6 3:233 5:8 1:179 5:9 3:232 5:23–24 1:211 6:3 1:179 6:13 2:213 7 2:83, 3:65 7:1–17 2:76 7:10 3:244 7:10b–11a 2:128 7:11 3:207, 3:244 7:11–14 2:128 7:12 3:244 7:12–14 3:207 7:12–16 2:76, 2:435 7:13 2:85, 3:244 7:13–14 2:436 7:14 2:356, 3:207, 3:245 8:3 1:178 8:5 1:178 8:12 1:178 10:5 1:179 10:6 1:176 11–12 1:xxvi 11:16 1:179 12:17 1:180 12:20 1:175, 2:180 14–15 1:173 15:20 3:388, 3:390 19:6 2:66 21:1 2:337 21:1–14 3:359, 3:361 21:3 3:359, 3:361 23:1–7 1:234, 1:254, 1:255 23:7 1:254, 1:271 1 Kings 3:253 6–7 3:242 6:20 3:253 8:5 2:286, 2:290 8:16 1:162, 1:165 8:56 2:307 10 1:26

11:23 1:178 12:25–33 2:31 12:27–30 2:31 12:28–32 2:31 12:31–32 2:31 12:32–33 2:31 13:33 2:31 16:14 2:180 17:17–24 2:250 17:22 2:249 18:4 1:207 18:13 1:207 20:7 2:297 21 1:207 22:19–23 2:223 22:21–23 2:180 2 Kings 1:26, 3:326 2:6–8 3:448 4:9 3:387, 3:389 4:35 2:251 5:18 3:361, 3:363 8:4–5 2:251 8:19 3:233 9:11–13 3:55 9:22 1:207 9:30–37 1:207 10:23–35 1:78 13:20–21 2:251 16:5 1:284 19:35 1:211 22–23 3:326 23:1 2:297 23:25 2:68 25:8–12 3:232 25:27–30 1:212 1 Chronicles 3:16–19 2:76 8:33 1:187 9:18 2:289 9:39 1:187 12:8 2:285 16:37 2:310 18:3 1:178 18:5 1:178 18:9 1:178 19:5 1:179 21:1 1:42 23:14 2:19 24:1–18 2:208 24:7–18 2:153 24:7–19 2:48

B IBLICAL I NDEX 24:7–31 2:47 25:9–31 2:208 27:1 2:310 28:6 2:356 29:18 2:68 2 Chronicles 1:137, 1:162 6:5–6 1:162 7:9 2:45 13:8–9 2:31 13:22 2:310 19:2 2:66 20 1:212 20:5 3:243 28:15 2:413 30:1 2:53 30:1–27 2:31 30:10 2:53 30:18 3:360, 3:362 30:22 2:294 31:5 2:306, 2:413 32:8 2:413 34–35 2:31 34:6–7 2:31 34:33 2:31 35:17–19 2:31 36:22–23 3:232 Ezra (See also 1 Esdras) 1:xxv, 1:8, 1:26, 1:33, 1:34, 1:43, 1:70, 1:72, 1:98, 1:132, 1:137, 1:160, 2:62, 2:68, 2:71, 2:83, 2:84, 2:86, 2:211, 2:313, 2:331, 2:365, 2:440, 2:441, 2:480, 3:232, 3:236, 3:374, 3:425, 3:449 1:1 2:53 1:1–4 3:232 2:61 2:19 3:4 2:310 3:7 2:413 3:12 3:236 6 1:121 6:15–18 3:232 7 2:86 7:10 3:449 9 3:372, 3:374, 3:376 13:9–11 2:441 1 Esdras (See also Ezra) 3–4 2:462 Nehemiah (See also 2 Esdras) 1:26, 1:34, 1:43, 1:68, 1:131, 1:137, 1:160, 2:211, 2:331, 3:236, 3:331, 3:372, 3:374 2:1 2:40

653

2:8 3:237 5:11 2:413 6:1–9 2:53 7:1 3:237 7:63 2:19 8:6 2:313 8:18 2:45 9 2:312, 3:372, 3:374, 3:376 10:35–40 2:46 10:39 2:413 10:40 2:306 13:1 2:288 13:5 2:306, 2:413 13:12 2:306 2 Esdras (See also Nehemiah) 7:26 3:266 7:68 3:179 10:25–59 3:266 12:31–32 3:272 13 2:441, 3:123 14:23–48 1:132 14:44–46 1:70 Tobit 1:26, 1:98, 1:131, 1:143, 1:147, 2:152, 2:397, 2:421, 3:250, 3:265 1:4 3:249 1:10–11 2:421 1:19–20 2:475 1:22 2:474 5:17–20 1:143 6:14–15 2:475 13:4 2:356 13:16 3:267 14:1 2:474 14:3 2:473, 2:474 14:3–5 3:250 14:5–6 3:46 Judith 1:xviii, 1:26, 1:81, 2:419, 2:421, 2:422, 3:107, 3:220, 3:346 5 3:382, 3:384 10:5 2:413, 2:419, 2:422 12:1–4 2:421 12:19 2:421 13 3:336 14 2:384 14–15 2:366 15:4 1:55 18:1 2:366 19:4 3:179 20:1–2 1:54 24:5–6 3:396

654

B IBLICAL I NDEX

Esther 1:xviii, 1:xix, 1:26, 1:69, 1:70, 1:114, 1:131, 1:132, 1:133, 1:288, 1:301, 2:45, 2:53, 2:421, 2:459, 2:460, 2:464, 2:478, 2:480, 3:188, 3:271, 3:330, 3:390 2:6 3:34 2:9 2:421 3:7 2:40, 2:45 3:13 2:40 4:17 2:421 1 Maccabees 1:212, 1:220, 2:79 1:11 1:213 1:20–63 3:237 1:62 2:414, 2:422 2 3:196 2:42 1:101, 2:22 2:52 3:173, 3:196 4:36–58 3:237 4:46 2:88, 2:199 5:1 1:213 5:5 1:213 5:46–54 1:213 5:62 1:213 7:12–13 2:22 7:13 1:101 12:1–23 1:213 13:36–40 2:18 13:48 2:289 13:49–51 3:237 14 2:327 14:4 2:79 14:12 2:79 14:41 2:88, 3:56 16:16 1:200 2 Maccabees 1:106, 1:184, 1:200, 2:255, 2:280, 3:237, 3:260, 3:346 2:13 1:123 3–4 2:24 4:7–8 2:20 4:7–22 2:20 4:33–34 2:20 5:7–10 2:20 6 2:211 6:2–5 3:237 6:18–31 2:256 7 2:211, 2:256 7:5 2:256 7:9 2:256 7:14 2:256 7:29 2:256 9:5–27 1:106

12:38–45 2:257, 2:266 12:40 2:257 12:44–45 2:257 14:6 1:101, 2:22 14:46 2:256 15:12–16 2:257 3 Maccabees 3:4 2:414 5:7 2:356 6:3 2:356 6:8 2:356 4 Maccabees 2:480 17:22 3:362, 3:364 Job 1:xvii, 1:50, 1:70, 1:71, 1:98, 1:121, 1:133, 2:130, 2:139, 2:147, 2:167, 2:249, 2:250, 2:322, 2:398, 2:402, 2:462, 3:164, 3:328, 3:380, 3:388, 3:391 1:6 1:156 1:6–12 1:42 2:1 1:156 2:1–7 1:42 3 1:121 4:19 2:259 5:1 1:126 6:16 3:326 10:10 2:264 15:15 1:126 19:25–27 2:249 27:16–17 3:328 33:23–24 3:382 38:7 1:156 40:10 3:269 43:6 3:164 Psalms 1:xvii, 1:xviii, 1:xx, 1:xxix, 1:32, 1:121, 1:233, 1:237, 1:238, 1:240, 1:243, 2:vi, 2:28, 2:71, 2:79, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:84, 2:86, 2:98, 2:162, 2:167, 2:205, 2:206, 2:260, 2:304, 2:313, 2:354, 2:355, 2:385, 2:397, 2:399, 2:427, 2:428, 2:429, 2:430, 2:431, 2:432, 2:433, 2:434, 2:436, 2:438, 2:440, 2:442, 2:444, 2:446, 2:448, 2:450, 2:455, 2:462, 2:463, 2:476, 2:477, 2:478, 2:479, 2:487, 3:59, 3:113, 3:156, 3:196, 3:205, 3:207, 3:214, 3:218, 3:221, 3:229, 3:230, 3:232, 3:263, 3:272, 3:336, 3:337, 3:346, 3:362, 3:371 1 1:241, 1:242, 1:244, 1:258, 1:264, 1:271, 2:155, 3:218

B IBLICAL I NDEX 1–2 2:128 1–41 1:241 1–89 1:234, 1:237, 1:238, 1:239, 1:240, 1:241, 1:242, 1:243, 1:243, 1–150 1:240, 1:245, 1:252, 2:320 1:1 1:264, 2:128 2 1:xxix, 1:244, 1:258, 1:271, 2:81, 2:85, 2:450, 3:113, 3:207, 3:232 2:1 1:264, 3:207 2:1–2 2:128 2:1–8 1:264 2:2 1:254, 2:78 2:6 3:232 2:6–7 1:253, 1:264 2:7 3:207 2:9 2:81, 2:439, 2:440 2:25 3:207 3 1:259, 1:271, 2:450 3–4 1:234 5:8 1:253 5:9 1:253 5:10 1:264 6:1 1:264 6:2 1:264 6:2–4 1:264 6:2–5 1:264, 1:265 6:4 1:264 6:6 1:264, 1:265 7:8–9 1:264, 1:265, 3:219 7:13 1:254 8:1 1:264, 1:265 8:3–4 2:35 8:4–10 1:265 8:5 2:236 8:6 2:368 9–10 2:333 9:3–6 1:264, 1:265 9:3–7 1:264, 1:265 10 1:214 10:1–6 1:264, 1:265 10:8–9 1:264, 1:265 10:18 1:264, 1:265 11:1–2 1:265 11:1–4 1:265 12:1 1:265 12:1–9 1:253 12:7 1:265 13:1–3 1:265

13:2–3 1:265 13:3 3:178, 3:179 13:5 1:265 13:5–6 1:265 14:1–6 1:265 14:3 1:265, 3:178, 3:179 15 3:233 15:1–5 1:265 16:1 1:265 16:7 1:253 16:7–9 1:265 16:9–10 2:248 17:1 1:265 17:5 1:254 17:5–9 1:265 17:9–15 1:265 17:14 1:265 18:1–12 1:265 18:3–14 1:265 18:6–11 1:265 18:6–9 1:265 18:7–18 3:373, 3:375 18:10–13 1:265 18:13 1:254 18:15–17 1:265 18:16–17 1:265 18:18–36 1:265 18:26–29 1:265 18:32–36 1:265 18:38–43 1:265 18:39–42 1:265 18:50 2:436 19:3 1:265, 1:267 19:4–8 1:265 19:10 2:412 20 2:442 20–21 1:234 20:1 2:442, 2:443 20:2 2:442, 2:443 20:3 2:443 20:4 2:443 20:5 2:443 20:6 2:443 20:7 2:443 20:8 2:443 20:9 2:443 21:17 1:237 22:4–9 1:265 22:15 1:253 22:15–17 1:237, 1:265 22:15–21 1:265

655

656

B IBLICAL I NDEX 22:16 1:236, 1:237 22:17 1:236, 1:237 23:2–6 1:265 23:5 2:415 24 1:214, 3:233 24:1–2 1:265 25 2:476 25:2–7 1:265, 1:266 25:4–6 1:265, 1:266 25:15 1:265, 1:266 26:7 1:253 26:7–12 1:265, 1:266 27:1 1:265, 1:266 27:12–14 1:265, 1:266 28:1–4 1:265, 1:266 28:5 2:51 29:1 1:156 29:1–2 1:265, 1:266 30:13 1:253 31 1:236 31:3–22 1:266 31:22 1:244, 1:254 31:23–24 1:266 31:24 1:253 32 1:234, 2:155 33:1–7 1:266 33:2 1:266 33:4 1:266 33:6 1:266 33:8 1:266 33:10 1:266 33:12 1:266 34 2:476 34:14 3:345 34:22 1:266 35:2 1:266 35:4–5 1:266 35:8 1:266 35:10 1:266 35:12 1:266 35:13–18 1:266 35:14–15 1:266 35:20 1:253, 1:266 35:26–27 1:266 35:27–28 1:266 36 2:487 36:1 1:266 36:3 1:266 36:5–7 1:266 36:9 1:266 36:13 1:254

1:197, 1:203, 1:234, 2:88, 2:319, 2:323, 2:325, 2:329, 2:333, 2:334, 2:349, 3:337 37:1–4 1:266 37:1–6 2:325 37:2 1:266 37:7 1:266 37:7–40 2:324 37:8–19 1:266 37:11 2:330, 3:337 37:14–15 1:197 37:18–19 1:266 37:20 1:303, 2:324 37:20b–c 2:324 37:21–22 2:339 37:23–24 1:188 37:26 1:266 37:28–40 1:266 37:32–33 1:202, 1:203 38:2 1:266 38:4–6 1:266 38:8–10 1:266 38:12 1:266 38:16–23 1:266 38:20 3:345 38:21 3:345 39:13 1:254 40:1 1:266 41 1:234 41:14 2:313 42–72 1:241 42:5 1:253, 1:266 43:1–3 1:266 44 1:214, 3:214 44:3 1:253 44:3–5 1:266 44:7 1:266 44:8–9 1:266 44:9 1:266 44:23–24 1:266 44:25 1:253, 1:266 45 3:214 45:1–2 1:266 45:6–7 1:266 45:8–11 1:266 46 1:234 46:4–7 3:233 47 1:214 47:2 1:266 48 3:232 48:1 1:253 37

B IBLICAL I NDEX 48:1–2 3:232 48:1–3 1:266 48:3 2:278, 3:371, 3:373 48:5 1:266, 3:373 48:7 1:266 48:8–9 3:373 48:14 3:373 48:18 3:373 49 1:240, 3:371, 3:373 49–50 1:240 49:1–17 1:266 49:4 3:371, 3:373 49:6 1:266, 1:267 49:7–8 3:371, 3:373 49:9–12 1:266, 1:267 49:10–16 2:248 49:13 3:371, 3:373 49:15 1:266, 1:267 49:15–16 2:248 49:17 1:266, 1:267, 3:371, 3:373 50 1:240 50:3–7 1:266, 1:267 50:14–23 1:266, 1:267 51:1–5 1:266, 1:267 51:3–5 1:266, 1:267 51:9 2:98 51:10 2:177 51:12–14 2:177 51:19 2:177 52:4 3:178, 3:179 53:1 1:244, 1:253, 1:266, 1:267 53:2 1:266, 1:267 53:3 3:178, 3:179 53:4–5 1:266, 1:267 53:5 1:253 53:7 1:267 54:2–3 1:266, 1:267 54:5–6 1:266, 1:267 55 1:234 55:1 3:326 55:2 3:326 56:4 1:267 57:1 1:267 57:4 1:267 58 1:234 58:3 1:117 58:4 1:117 59:5–6 1:267 59:8 1:267

657

60:8–9 1:267, 1:268, 1:269 60:9 1:265, 1:267 61 1:234 61:3 1:311 61:4 1:311 63:2 1:267 63:4 1:267 64–65 1:234 64:4 3:362, 3:364 65:3 3:361, 3:362, 3:363, 3:364 65:4 3:361, 3:363 66:16 1:267 66:18–20 1:267 67:1–2 1:267 67:4–8 1:267 68 2:333 68:1–5 1:267 68:13 1:267 68:14–18 1:267 68:26–27 1:267 68:30–31 1:267 68:49 2:333 69:1–19 1:267 70 1:234 71:1–14 1:267 71:14 1:253 72 1:243 72–75 1:234 72:19 2:313 73 2:248 73–89 1:241 74:14 1:214 76:2 3:231 76:3 3:231 76:10 1:253 76:10–12 1:243, 1:267 77:1 1:243, 1:267 77:2 3:78 77:18–21 1:243 78:1 1:243, 1:254, 1:267 78:2 3:78 78:5–12 1:267 78:6–7 1:243, 1:267 78:25 2:412 78:31–33 1:243, 1:267 78:36–37 1:253, 1:254, 1:267 78:38 3:361, 3:363 79:1 1:264, 1:267 79:2–3 1:264, 1:267 79:3 2:129

658

B IBLICAL I NDEX 80 1:234 81:1 1:254 81:2–3 1:243, 1:267 81:4–9 1:267 81:5–17 1:267 81:10 1:254 82:1 1:267, 3:208, 3:218, 3:219, 3:369, 3:371 82:1–8 1:267 82:2 1:267 85:1–6 1:267 85:6 1:254 85:11–14 2:176 86:5 1:253 86:5–6 1:267, 1:268 86:8 1:267, 1:268 86:10–11 1:243, 1:267, 1:268 86:11–14 1:267, 1:268 86:14 1:254 87 1:234 88:1–5 1:243, 1:267, 1:268 88:15–17 1:267, 1:268 88:17 1:253 89 1:241, 1:242, 1:243, 1:244 89:7 1:156 89:20 1:253 89:20–22 1:267, 1:268, 2:163 89:23 1:267, 1:268, 2:163 89:26 1:267, 1:268, 2:163, 2:356 89:27 2:356 89:27–28 1:267, 1:268, 2:163 89:31 1:253, 1:267, 1:268, 2:163 89:44–48 1:243, 1:267, 1:268 89:50–53 1:243, 1:268 89:52 2:313 89:90–150 1:237, 1:238, 1:240 90 1:234, 1:239, 1:240, 1:241, 2:489 90–106 1:241 90–150 1:234, 1:237, 1:239, 1:240, 1:241, 1:245, 1:251, 1:241, 91 1:244 91–94 2:163 91:1 1:254 91:1–14 1:267, 1:268 91:5 1:253 91:5–8 1:267, 1:268 91:12–15 1:267, 1:268

91:16 1:254, 1:267, 1:268 92:4–8 1:268 92:12–14 1:268 92:13–15 1:268 93 1:238 93:1 1:254 93:1–3 1:268 93:3 1:253 93:3–5 1:268 93:5 1:268 94:1–4 1:268 94:8–14 1:268 94:16 1:268 94:17–18 1:268 94:21–22 1:268 95:3–7 1:268 95:11 1:268, 3:204, 3:229 96 2:163 96:1–2 1:268 96:2 1:268 97:6–9 1:268 98:4 1:268 98:4–8 1:268 98:8 1:253 98–100 2:163 99:1 1:253, 1:268 99:1–2 1:264, 1:268 99:1–5 1:244 99:5 1:268 99:5–6 1:268 100:1–2 1:268 101 1:238, 3:214 101:1–8 1:268 102 1:238, 3:214 102–103 2:163 102:1–2 1:268 102:5 1:268 102:10–29 1:268 102:18 3:160 102:18–29 1:268 102:19 3:160 103 1:238, 1:240, 1:244 103–112 1:240, 1:244 103:1 1:268 103:1–6 1:268 103:2 1:253, 1:268 103:4 3:208 103:4–6 1:268 103:7 3:208 103:8–11 1:268 103:9–14 1:268

B IBLICAL I NDEX 103:20–21 1:268 104 1:238, 1:243, 1:244, 1:247 104–106 1:247 104–111 1:244, 2:163 104:1 1:253 104:1–3 1:268 104:1–5 1:268 104:1–6 1:268 104:3 1:253 104:3–5 1:268 104:4 3:204, 3:208 104:6 1:268 104:8–11 1:268 104:8–9 1:268 104:11 1:253, 1:268 104:11–12 1:268 104:12 1:253 104:14–15 1:268 104:15 2:413, 2:415 104:19 2:35, 2:51 104:20–22 1:268 104:21–35 1:268 105 1:238, 1:243, 1:246, 1:247, 1:268, 1:269 105:1–11 1:268, 1:269 105:1–3 1:268, 1:269 105:7–45 3:382, 3:384 105:23–25 1:268, 1:269 105:25–26 1:268, 1:269 105:28–29 1:268, 1:269 105:34–35 1:268, 1:269 105:36–45 1:268, 1:269 106 1:114, 1:244, 1:246, 1:247, 3:196 106:31 3:172, 3:173, 3:196 106:37 1:114 106:40 1:114 106:48 1:268, 1:269 107 1:244 107–150 1:241 107:2–5 1:268, 1:269 107:8–16 1:268, 1:269 107:18–19 1:268, 1:269 108 1:234, 1:244 108:8–9 1:267, 1:268, 1:269 109 1:238, 1:240, 1:244 109:1 1:268, 1:269, 3:214 109:3–4 1:269 109:4–6 1:269 109:8 1:268, 1:269 109:13 1:268, 1:269

659

109:21–22 1:269 109:22 2:98 109:24–28 1:269 109:24–31 1:269 109:28 1:253 110 1:234, 3:205, 3:218, 3:221, 3:229 110:1 3:205, 3:211, 3:214 110:4 2:372, 3:369, 3:371 111 1:234 112 1:240, 1:244 112–113 2:163 112:1–9 1:253 112:4–5 1:269 113:1 1:269 113:3 2:308 113:7 3:160 114:5 1:269 114:7 1:253, 1:269 115–118 2:163 115:1–2 1:269 115:2–3 1:269 115:4 1:269 115:15–18 1:269 115:16–18 1:269 116:1 1:269 116:1–3 1:269 116:5 1:269 116:7–10 1:269 116:10 1:253 116:17–19 1:269 117 1:234 118 1:234, 1:237, 1:238, 1:243, 1:247, Ps 118 118:1 1:254, 1:269 118:1–3 1:269 118:6–10 1:269 118:8 1:269 118:9 1:269 118:12 1:269 118:15 1:269 118:16 1:269 118:18–20 1:269 118:20 1:269 118:24 2:308 118:25–29 1:269 118:26 1:269 118:27 1:269 118:29 1:253, 1:269

660

B IBLICAL I NDEX 119 1:235, 1:237, 1:238, 2:113, 2:118, 2:123, 2:127, 2:155, 2:163 119:1–6 1:269 119:10–21 1:253, 2:163 119:15–28 1:269 119:31–34 1:269 119:37 1:253 119:37–43 1:269, 1:270 119:37–49 1:269 119:37–92 2:163 119:42 1:253 119:43–48 1:269 119:44–46 1:269, 1:270 119:49–50 1:269, 1:270 119:59–73 1:269 119:77–80 1:269 119:80 1:253 119:82–96 1:269 119:92 1:253 119:99 1:253 119:99–101 1:269, 1:270 119:103 2:412 119:104 1:269, 1:270 119:105 3:285 119:105–120 1:269 119:113–120 1:269, 1:270, 2:163 119:128–142 1:269 119:138–142 1:269, 1:270, 2:163 119:150–164 1:269 119:163–65 1:269, 1:270 119:171–176 1:269 119:176 1:117 120 1:238 120:6–7 1:269, 1:270 121 1:238 121:1–8 1:269, 1:270 122 1:238, 1:244 122:1 1:253 122:1–9 1:269, 1:270 122:3 2:345 122:9 1:253 123 1:235, 1:238 123:1–2 1:269, 1:270 124 1:238 124:7–8 1:269, 1:270 125 1:238, 1:243 125–130 1:243 125:1–5 1:269, 1:270

125:2–5 1:270 126 1:238, 1:243 126:1–5 1:270 126:1–6 1:270 126:6 1:244, 1:253, 1:270 127 1:238, 1:243 127:1 1:270 127:1–5 1:244, 1:270 127:2–3 1:270 127:5 1:270 128 1:238, 1:243 128:3 1:244, 1:253, 1:270 128:3–6 1:270 129 1:238, 1:243 129:1–8 1:270 129:7–8 1:270 129:8 1:270 130 1:238, 1:243 130:1–3 1:270 130:1–8 1:270 130:6 1:270 131 1:238 131:1 1:270 132 1:238 132:8–18 1:270 133 1:238, 1:243 133:1–3 1:270 134 1:238 134:1–3 1:270, 2:478 135 1:238 135:1–12 2:114 135:1–6 1:270 135:6 1:253 135:6–8 1:270, 2:113, 2:163 135:6–16 1:244 135:7 1:270 135:9 1:270 135:10–13 1:270 135:11–12 1:244, 1:270, 1:270, 2:113, 2:163 135:15–16 1:270 135:16 1:253 135:17–21 1:270 136 1:234, 1:238, 1:255, 22–23 136:1–7 1:270 136:8–16 1:270 136:22–23 1:244 136:22–24 1:270 136:23 1:253 136:23–24 2:113, 2:163

B IBLICAL I NDEX 136:23–26 2:114 136:26 1:270 137 1:238 137:1 1:270 137:9 1:270 138 1:238, 2:476 138:1–8 1:270 139 1:238 139:8–24 1:270 139:20 3:183, 3:184 139:21 3:183, 3:184 139:21–22 2:66, 3:183, 3:184 140 1:238 140:1–5 1:270 141 1:238, 1:243 141:5–10 1:270, 1:271 141:10 1:270, 1:271 142 1:238 142:2 3:179 143 1:238 143:1–8 1:270, 1:271 143:2 3:179 143:3 1:253 143:3–4 1:270, 1:271 143:6–8 1:270, 1:271 143:8 1:253 144 1:238, 1:243 144:1–2 1:270, 1:271 144:1–7 1:270, 1:271 144:2 1:254 144:15 1:270, 1:271 145 1:235, 1:237, 1:238 145:1–7 1:270, 1:271 145:13 1:264, 1:270, 1:271 145:14–21 1:264, 1:270, 1:271 146 1:238, 1:243, 1:247 146:1 1:253, 1:270, 1:271 146:6–7 3:42, 3:43 146:7 2:94 146:9 1:270, 1:271 146:10 1:270, 1:271 146–150 1:247 147 1:238, 1:243, 1:244, 1:247 147:1–2 1:270, 1:271 147:1–4 1:271 147:3 1:270, 1:271 147:13–17 1:271 147:18–19 1:271 147:18–20 1:270, 1:271 147:20 1:253, 1:271 148 1:238, 1:247

661

148:1–12 1:271 149 1:238, 1:247 149:7–9 1:271 150 1:238, 1:241, 1:244, 1:247, 1:264, 2:156, 2:478 150:1–6 1:254, 1:271 150:6 1:254 151 1:9, 1:131, 1:234, 1:238, 1:252, 1:254, 1:255, 1:256, 2:151, 2:152, 2:477, 2:478, 2:479 151A–B 2:450 151:1–5 2:478, 2:479 151:2–3 2:479 151:3–4 2:479 151:4 2:479 151:5 2:479 151:6–7 2:479 151–155 2:320, 2:321 154 1:250, 1:252, 2:152, 3:271 154:3–19 1:257, 2:450 154–155 1:254 155 1:9, 1:238, 1:252, 2:152 155:1–18 1:257 155:1–19 2:450 Proverbs 1:xvii, 1:91, 1:98, 1:121, 1:133, 2:69, 2:138, 2:167, 2:265, 2:462, 3:183 2 1:121 3:4 3:184 3:9 2:69 6:35 3:359, 3:361 7:25 1:117 12:28 2:248 14:32 2:248 15:24 2:248 18:10–11 1:311 20:22 3:345 21:18 3:363, 3:365 22:28 3:324 23:10 3:324 24:13–14 2:412 24:28–29 3:345 25:21–22 3:183 Ecclesiastes 1:133, 2:167, 2:462 2:23 2:420 7:20 3:178, 3:179 8:10 3:160 Qoheleth 2:167, 2:462. See also Ecclesiastes

662

B IBLICAL I NDEX

Song of Songs 1:69, 1:70, 1:133, 1:137, 2:142, 2:162, 2:167 1 2:209, 2:225 2:9–3:5 2:163 3:4–4:7 2:163 3:9–4:3 2:163 4 1:121, 1:142 4:7 2:125 4:8–5:1 2:163 5 2:225, 2:226 6:11 2:125 6:11(?)–7:7 2:163 7 2:224, 2:225 8:12 3:47 Canticles (See also Song of Songs) 1:121, 2:110, 2:125, 2:126, 2:138, 2:139, 2:140, 2:150, 2:158, 2:167 Wisdom of Solomon, the 3:346 1:4 2:258 1:15 2:258 2:1–3 2:258 2:13 2:86 2:16 2:86, 2:258, 2:356 2:22 2:258, 3:81 2:22–24 2:258 2:23 2:258 2:24 2:258 2:24b 2:258 3:1 2:259 3:1–9 2:258 3:1–12 2:258 3:3 2:259 3:7 2:258, 2:259 3:8 2:258 3:13 2:258 4:1 2:258 4:10 2:258, 2:366 4:10–14 2:365 4:13–14 2:258 4:17 2:258 4:19–5:16 2:258, 2:259 4:20–5:5 2:258 5:5 2:258 5:15–16 2:258 5:16 2:258 9:15 2:259 11:10 2:356 14:3 2:356 16:13–14 2:259 16:20 2:259, 2:412 16:22–23 2:259

Ecclesiasticus (See also Sirach) 1:69, 1:98, 2:20, 2:69, 2:77, 2:90, 2:241, 2:250, 2:251, 2:252, 2:257, 2:265, 2:448, 2:450, 2:462, 2:463, 2:474, 2:476, 2:477, 3:457 Sirach 2:397, 2:450 3:1 2:356 3:6–8 2:356 6:20–31 2:475 6:22 2:475 6:23 2:475 6:24 2:475 6:25 2:476 6:26 2:476 7:30–31 2:69 19:17 3:340, 3:345 24:19–20 2:412 24:23 3:67 27:30–28 3:345 42:17 1:126 43:6–7 2:309 43:6–8 2:35 44–49 2:250 44:16 2:365, 2:366 44:17 3:389, 3:397 45:17 2:311 46:12 2:250, 2:252 47:1–11 2:77 48:1–11 2:250 48:10 2:90 48:10–11 2:269 48:10–14 2:252 48:11 2:251, 2:252, 2:253 48:12–14 2:251 48:24 3:448 49:10 2:250, 2:252 49:14 2:366 49:16 2:366 51 1:238, 2:450, 2:476 51:1–11 1:271 51:10 2:356 51:13 1:256, 2:477 51:13–18 2:477 51:13–20 1:271, 2:476 51:13–20b 2:476 51:13–23 1:256, 2:450 51:13–30 1:234, 1:254, 2:152 51:14 1:256, 2:477 51:15 1:256 51:16 1:256 51:17 1:256

B IBLICAL I NDEX 51:18 1:256, 2:477 51:19 1:256 51:20 1:256 51:21 1:256 51:22 1:256 51:23 1:256, 1:271, 2:356 51:30 1:256, 1:271, 2:450, 2:476 51:30b 2:476 Isaiah 1:xii, 1:xvi, 1:xvii, 1:xix, 1:xxiii, 1:xxv, 1:3, 1:6, 1:13, 1:17, 1:32, 1:38, 1:80, 1:91, 1:121, 1:133, 1:137, 1:164, 1:294, 1:301, 1:303, 1:310, 1:311, 1:312, 2:78, 2:128, 2:143, 2:150, 2:167, 2:241, 2:248, 2:250, 2:254, 2:255, 2:289, 2:322, 2:348, 2:398, 2:475, 2:487, 3:6, 3:7, 3:42, 3:43, 3:72, 3:81, 3:89, 3:94, 3:95, 3:124, 3:145, 3:235, 3:236, 3:238, 3:247, 3:254, 3:262, 3:265, 3:269, 3:285, 3:308, 3:338, 3:362, 3:367, 3:371, 3:391, 3:392, 3:409 1–39 1:282, 1:285 1:1–2 1:277 1:4–14 1:274 2 1:285 2:2–4 3:234 2:10 3:445 2:12–13 1:285 2:22 3:25 3:13 3:396 4:3 2:264 5 1:278 5:1–7 3:349 5:5–30 1:277 5:8–14 3:338 5:11–14 1:278, 1:279 5:12–24 1:279 5:14 1:278 5:24 1:278, 1:279, 2:95 5:25 1:278 6 2:223 6:7 3:362, 3:364, 3:382 6:9–10 3:81, 3:83, 3:285 7 1:283 7:1–9 1:284 7:3 1:283 7:14 1:283 8 1:283 8:1 1:286 8:3 1:283

663

8:8–10 1:283 8:11 2:128 8:16 1:286, 2:217 8:18 1:285 8:20 2:217 9:5 2:356 9:6 2:356 9:7 2:436 9:17 1:285 9:18 1:282, 1:285 9:21 2:368, 2:371 10 1:280, 1:281, 1:284 10:2 3:322 10:5 1:280 10:5–15 1:280, 1:282, 1:285 10:5–27 3:374, 3:376 10:5–34 1:280, 1:282 10:12 1:280 10:15 1:285 10:16 1:282 10:16–19 1:280, 1:282, 1:285 10:16–24 1:283 10:16–34 1:285 10:18 1:282 10:19 1:280 10:20–21 1:283 10:20–22 1:280 10:20–23 1:283 10:20–24 1:282 10:20–27 1:280 10:22 1:283 10:22–11:5 1:277 10:24 1:280, 1:283 10:24–27 1:281, 1:282, 1:283, 1:285 10:27–32 1:283 10:27–34 1:280, 1:283 10:28 1:284 10:32 1:285 10:33–34 1:285 10:34 3:372 10:34–11:1 2:439, 3:370, 3:372, 3:423 11 1:277, 2:81, 2:83, 2:431, 2:440, 3:65 11:1 2:438, 2:439, 2:439, 3:423 11:1–3 2:438 11:1–4 2:80, 2:82

664

B IBLICAL I NDEX 11:1–5 1:311, 2:435, 2:437, 2:438, 2:439, 2:440, 2:440, 3:216 11:1–16 1:275 11:2 1:310, 2:82, 2:438, 2:439 11:2–5 1:310 11:3 2:84, 2:438, 2:439 11:4 1:310, 2:82, 2:438, 2:439, 2:440, 2:441, 2:442, 2:442, 3:423 11:4c 3:423 11:5 1:310, 2:82, 2:438, 2:439, 2:439, 3:269 11:9 2:441 11:10 2:441 11:11 2:441 13 1:282 13:1–14:2 3:363, 3:365 13:2–14:23 1:282 13:9–11 2:441 14 1:277, 1:303 14:13–14 2:278 14:20 2:345 15 1:277 17:1–6 1:282 17:4 1:282 21 1:277, 1:282, 2:487 21:9 1:282 25 2:281 25:6–8 2:249 25:8 2:281 25:10–12 2:249 26 2:248, 2:252, 2:253, 2:255, 2:263, 2:264, 2:280, 2:281 26:3 1:275 26:9–14 2:249 26:11 3:373, 3:375 26:14 1:116, 2:248, 2:249 26:15–19 2:249 26:19 1:116, 2:249, 2:251, 2:252 27:4 3:373, 3:375 28 1:276 28:14 1:275, 1:278, 1:279 28:16 1:275, 1:276, 1:276, 3:47, 3:268 29:1–8 3:233 29:17 2:221 29:18–19 3:42 30:8 1:286 30:13 1:311

30:27–33 1:280 30:30 3:373, 3:375 30:31 1:280 32 1:277 32:15 2:221 33:14 3:373, 3:375 34:9–10 3:373, 3:375 35 2:269 35:5–6 3:42 38:12 2:259 40 1:277 40–55 1:281 40f 2:128 40:1–5 3:6, 3:448 40:1–5a 2:128 40:3 1:xxvii, 1:17, 1:19, 1:19, 2:18, 2:95, 2:318, 2:318, 3:6, 3:7, 3:14, 3:18, 3:19, 3:33, 3:35, 3:89, 3:90, 3:92, 3:133, 3:448, 3:449 40:5 3:89 40:16 1:274 40:18–19 1:274 41:8–9 2:128 41:20 2:219 42:1 3:308 42:4 3:308 42:6 2:289, 3:308 42:14 2:358 42:16 2:310 43 3:363, 3:365, 3:367, 3:369 43:1–2 2:128 43:3 3:363, 3:365 43:3–7 3:367, 3:369 43:4–6 2:128 43:7 2:219 44:3 2:184 44:28 3:232 45:1 1:220, 2:78 45:7 2:219, 3:307 45:12 2:219 45:18 2:219 49:2 2:440, 2:441 49:6 3:285, 3:308 49:7d 2:128 49:13–17 2:128 51:8[?] 2:129 51:9 1:214 51:10–11 3:235 51:17 1:199 51:22 1:199

B IBLICAL I NDEX 51:22–23a 2:129 52 1:303 52:1 2:129, 3:265 52:1c–2a 2:129 52:1–3 2:129 52:2 3:160 52:7 1:123, 2:89, 2:89, 3:219, 3:238, 3:369, 3:371 52:13 2:254, 3:308 52:13–53:12 1:311 52:14 1:303 53 2:252, 3:363, 3:365, 3:367, 3:369, 3:371, 3:373 53:3 1:311 53:5 3:370, 3:372 53:6 1:117 53:8–11 2:250 53:9 3:367, 3:369 53:10 2:250 53:11 1:311, 2:254 54:1–3 3:236 54:4–10a 2:129 54:11 3:265 54:11–12 1:277, 3:236, 3:247, 3:253, 3:254, 3:267, 3:268 54:11–17 3:265 54:13 3:68 56:1 3:158 58 3:326, 3:332, 3:353 58:6 3:326, 3:327 58:7 3:326 58:9 3:332 58:13 1:305 59:10 1:117 59:17 3:269 59:20 1:275 60–62 3:265 60:3 3:308 60:16 2:358 61 2:89, 2:269, 3:94, 3:95, 3:349 61:1 2:89, 3:42, 3:43, 3:218 61:1–2 3:336 61:1–3 2:89 61:2 3:95, 3:375, 3:377 61:2–3 3:219 61:3 3:269 61:10 3:269 63:1 3:269 63:9 2:368 63:16 2:356

665

64:7 2:356 64:8 2:356 65:17–19 3:265 65:22–23 2:128 66 2:252, 2:253 66:4 2:250 66:7–9 2:358 66:11 2:356, 2:358 66:13 2:356, 2:358 66:15–16 2:253 66:22–24 2:253 66:24 2:252, 2:253 Jeremiah 1:xvi, 1:xxv, 1:13, 1:32, 1:70, 1:72, 1:73, 1:84, 1:85, 1:90, 1:96, 1:121, 1:124, 1:131, 1:244, 1:248, 1:274, 1:278, 2:27, 2:138, 2:140, 2:152, 2:167, 2:257, 2:455, 2:478, 2:480, 3:49, 3:55, 3:65, 3:146, 3:205, 3:206, 3:221, 3:222, 3:223, 3:233, 3:393, 3:427 3:4 2:356 3:19 2:356 4:4 1:199 5:21 3:83 6 1:121 7:1–15 3:233 7:11 3:323 9:22–10:22 1:84 9:26 1:199 10:2 1:85 10:2–13 1:84, 1:85 10:4 1:84, 1:85 10:5 1:84, 1:85 10:6 1:84 10:6–8 1:85 10:7 1:84 10:8 1:84 10:9 1:85 10:10 1:85 10:11 1:85 10:13 1:85 17:13 2:105 19 3:49 23 2:77 23:5 2:436 23:5–6 2:76 25:10–11 1:124 27–28 3:49 29–52 1:70 29:10 1:124 30:9 2:436

666

B IBLICAL I NDEX

31 3:222 31:9 2:356 31:12 2:413 31:29–30 2:248 31:31 2:290, 3:166 31:31–33 2:27 31:31–34 3:229 31:32 3:166 33 3:65 33:14–16 2:77 33:15 2:436 38:31 3:166 38:32 3:166 41:5 3:232 46–51 3:393, 3:395 Lamentations 1:xvii, 1:70, 1:121, 2:139, 2:167 4 1:121 4:14 1:117 Baruch (See also Epistle of Jeremiah) 1:xvii, 1:9, 1:70, 2:71, 2:83, 2:84, 2:193, 2:381, 2:394, 2:480, 3:15, 3:210, 3:224, 3:346, 3:370 1:1–3:8 1:70 3:8 3:388, 3:396 3:11 3:396 4 3:266 4:2–6 3:210 5:7 3:448 32:2–4 3:266 57:2 3:175, 3:194 Epistle of Jeremiah (See also Baruch) 2:397 43b–44 2:480 Ezekiel 1:xviii, 1:32, 1:60, 1:81, 1:121, 1:125, 1:132, 1:137, 1:212, 1:281, 2:18, 2:78, 2:83, 2:116, 2:126, 2:127, 2:138, 2:162, 2:164, 2:167, 2:211, 2:264, 2:269, 2:280, 2:288, 2:465, 2:491, 3:2, 3:131, 3:233, 3:234, 3:235, 3:236, 3:241, 3:242, 3:243, 3:246, 3:253, 3:265, 3:267, 3:325, 3:362 1 1:111, 3:210 4:4–7 1:125 4:5 2:18 4:9 2:18 5:5 3:232 7 3:393, 3:395 8:11 2:297 10:5–15 2:126, 2:163

10:17–11:11 2:126, 2:163 12:1–2 3:83 14:6 2:236 14:11 1:117 14:14 2:363 14:20 2:363 16:8–22 3:269 16:49 3:325 17:1–24 1:120 18 2:248 18:5–9 3:12 20:5–29 3:382, 3:384 20:33–38 3:233 20:35 1:281 20:36 1:281 20:37 1:281 20:40 3:233, 3:234, 3:246, 3:252 22 3:325 22:7 3:325 22:29 3:325 23:14–15 2:126, 2:163 23:17–18 2:126, 2:163 23:44–47 2:126, 2:163 25:35 3:325 27 2:68 27:12 2:68 27:18 2:68 27:27 2:68, 2:69 28:3 2:363 28:11–19 3:246 28:14 3:246 28:16 3:246 31:1–14 1:120 33 2:248 34:24 2:436 36:22–38 3:234 36:25–27 2:177, 2:184 37 2:248, 2:264, 2:280 37:1–14 2:248 37:12–14 2:248 37:23 2:128 37:24 2:436 37:26–28 3:233, 3:246 38–39 1:212, 1:228, 1:228, 2:176 38:12 3:232 38:21–22 1:220 39:9 1:220 40–41 3:242

B IBLICAL I NDEX 40–48 2:18, 2:83, 2:465, 2:465, 3:233, 3:234, 3:235, 3:241, 3:243, 3:246, 3:252, 3:253, 3:265 40:1–37 3:233 40:2 3:233, 3:234, 3:252 40:17–47 3:243 40:44–47 3:243 40:47–49 3:233 41:1–4 3:233 41:3–6 2:126, 2:163 41:5–15a 3:233 42:1–14 3:243 42:15–20 3:233 42:20 3:243 43:18–27 3:243 44–45 2:19 44:5–9 3:243 44:9 1:199 44:10 1:117 44:10–14 3:243 44:15 1:117 44:15–31 3:243 45:2 3:243 45:17 3:362 46:1–3 3:243 46:13–15 3:225 46:19–20 3:243 47 3:247, 3:253 47:1–12 2:18 47:12 3:253 47:13–48 3:234 47:13–48:29 3:234 48:11 1:117 48:15 3:235 48:16 3:267 48:30–34 3:247, 3:267 48:30–35 3:235 48:35 3:235, 3:265, 3:267 Daniel (See also Additions to Daniel) 1:xi, 1:xv, 1:6, 1:20, 1:27, 1:34, 1:44, 1:60, 1:70, 1:73, 1:90, 1:96, 1:98, 1:221, 1:223, 1:224, 1:227, 1:229, 1:244, 1:299, 1:313, 2:30, 2:72, 2:74, 2:78, 2:89, 2:90, 2:138, 2:152, 2:164, 2:167, 2:215, 2:253, 2:254, 2:255, 2:260, 2:264, 2:268, 2:275, 2:276, 2:277, 2:293, 2:331, 2:380, 2:386, 2:388, 2:395, 2:421, 2:449, 2:458, 2:459, 2:460, 2:465, 2:469, 2:478, 2:480, 3:17, 3:26, 3:78, 3:79, 3:80,

667

3:81, 3:109, 3:113, 3:203, 3:237, 3:247, 3:271, 3:325, 3:328, 3:342, 3:346, 3:436, 3:456, 3:457 1–6 2:462 1–11 1:121 1:8 2:421 1:17 3:78 2 1:120, 1:124, 3:266 2–6 1:113 2:2–6 1:121 2:19 3:80 2:21 3:78 2:26–45 1:113, 1:118 2:28–30 3:80 2:36–45 1:120 2:39–40 1:122 2:41 2:202 2:47 3:81 3 1:104 4 1:104, 1:105, 1:106, 1:120 4:3 1:118, 2:323 4:10–15 1:120 4:13 1:306 4:17 1:306 4:19–27 1:118 4:20–23 1:120 4:22–37 1:105, 1:106 4:23 1:105, 1:306 4:25 1:105 4:25b 1:105 4:31 1:105 4:34 1:105, 1:118 4:34–35 1:105 4:34–37 1:105 4:49–53 1:124 5 1:120 5:1–2 1:113 5:2 1:104 5:6 2:366 5:9 1:113 5:12 2:323 5:12–13 3:266 5:17–31 1:118 5:22 1:113 5:29–30 1:113 6 1:121 6:10–11 3:233 7 1:106, 1:107, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112, 1:115, 1:118, 1:119, 1:124, 1:126, 1:127, 2:223, 2:255, 2:386, 3:342

668

B IBLICAL I NDEX 7–8 1:121, 1:129 7–12 1:101 7:3–8 1:113 7:4–8 1:120 7:7 1:118 7:9 1:108, 1:109, 1:110, 1:111 7:9a 1:108 7:9b 1:108, 1:110 7:9c 1:108, 1:110 7:9d 1:108 7:9d–e 1:111 7:9e 1:108 7:9f 1:108 7:9f–10b 1:111 7:9g 1:108 7:9–10 1:107, 1:108, 1:109, 1:111, 1:122, 3:373, 3:375 7:10 1:109, 1:110, 1:111, 1:112 7:10a 1:108 7:10b 1:108 7:10c 1:108, 1:110 7:10c–d 1:111, 1:112 7:10d 1:108, 1:110 7:10e 1:109 7:10e–f 1:111 7:10f 1:109, 1:110 7:11–12 1:111 7:13 1:110, 1:119, 2:78, 2:388 7:13–14 1:112, 2:388 7:14 1:118, 1:127 7:15–27 1:113, 1:118 7:17–24 1:113 7:18 1:118, 1:126 7:18–29 1:126 7:19 1:118 7:20–25 1:129 7:21 1:118, 1:119, 1:126 7:22 1:110, 1:118, 1:122, 1:126 7:23 1:118 7:25 1:118, 1:126 7:25–8:5 1:121 7:27 1:118, 1:126 7:28 1:108, 1:109, 1:110 8:9–12 1:129 8:10 2:255 8:10–12 1:129 8:11–12 1:106 8:25 1:113

1:121, 1:122, 1:123, 1:125, 1:126, 2:74, 3:372, 3:374, 3:376 9:1–27 1:124 9:2 1:113, 1:124 9:3–19 2:312 9:4–19 1:113 9:4b–19? 2:164 9:11 1:114 9:12–14 1:122 9:12–17 2:164 9:15–16 1:122 9:17 1:122 9:20–27 1:113 9:24 1:124, 3:369, 3:371 9:24–25 3:368, 3:370 9:24–27 1:113 9:25 1:123, 2:89, 3:219, 3:369, 3:371 9:26 1:123, 2:89 9:26–27 1:106 10–11 1:121 10–12 1:129, 2:275 10:10–12:3 1:128 10:13 1:128, 2:371 10:20 1:128, 1:188 10:21 1:128, 2:371 11:2 1:188 11:11 1:128 11:14–15 1:128 11:25 1:128 11:30 1:129 11:31 1:106 11:32 1:123, 2:128, 2:231 11:33 2:254, 2:293 11:33–35 1:101 11:35 1:123, 2:254, 2:277 11:40 1:128, 2:275 11:40–12:3 1:113 11:42 1:129 11:42–43 1:129 11:44 1:128 11:44–45 1:129 12 1:121, 1:122, 1:127, 1:220, 1:224, 2:252, 2:253, 2:254, 2:256, 2:257, 2:263, 2:264, 2:269, 2:270, 2:274, 2:275, 2:276, 2:280, 2:281, 3:109 12:1 1:128, 1:129, 2:252, 2:253, 2:275, 2:370, 2:371 9

B IBLICAL I NDEX 12:1–2 2:252, 2:253, 2:274, 2:276 12:1–3 1:116, 1:127 12:2 1:116, 1:127, 2:252, 2:253, 2:256, 2:258, 2:271 12:2–4 2:268 12:3 1:101, 1:127, 1:129, 2:254, 2:274, 2:293 12:4 2:275 12:10 1:122, 1:123, 2:254, 2:277 12:11 1:106 12:13 2:255, 2:278 Additions to Daniel (See also Daniel) 1:70 Hosea 1:81, 1:278, 1:294, 2:323 2:8 2:413 2:22 2:413 4:16 1:117 5:10 3:324 5:11 3:328 5:14 1:194 6:1–3 2:248 9:7 2:178 11:1 2:86 14:6–8 2:250 Joel 1:xvii, 1:137, 1:294, 2:355, 3:81 2:19 2:413 2:24 2:413 3:1 2:101, 2:184 Amos 2:128, 3:81, 3:328 3:7 3:81 4:1 3:328 4:13 2:219 7:1–3 2:40 8:1–2 2:40 9:11 2:128, 2:436, 3:245 Obadiah 1:212 Jonah 2:201 1 3:115, 3:124, 3:444 1–20 3:102 1:1–18 3:102, 3:126, 3:308 1:1–8 3:129 1:4 3:69 1:4–5 3:284, 3:307 1:4–10 3:297 1:5 3:308 1:7 3:308 1:9 3:284, 3:307, 3:308 1:9–10 3:307 1:10 3:308

669

1:12–13 3:135 1:14 3:67, 3:126, 3:133, 3:140, 3:292 1:17 3:67 1:18 3:284, 3:311 1:19–23 3:124 1:23 3:6, 3:7, 3:14, 3:124, 3:448 1:26–27 3:29, 3:444 1:28 3:445 1:29 3:124, 3:308 1:29–35 3:444 1:32–34 3:444 1:34 3:124 1:41 3:142, 3:284, 3:310 1:47 3:402 2:1–11 3:104 2:6 1:11, 3:104, 3:141, 3:284, 3:310 2:19 3:48 3 3:115, 3:309 3:1–21 3:297 3:3 3:302 3:5–6 3:302 3:6 3:134 3:8 3:302 3:16 3:112, 3:114, 3:115, 3:372, 3:374 3:16–17 3:308 3:16–21 3:112, 3:115, 3:135 3:19 3:117, 3:308 3:19–21 3:308 3:20 3:114 3:21 3:119 3:23 3:7, 3:12 3:25 3:141 3:27–30 3:444 3:28 3:33 3:31 3:135 3:36 3:115, 3:133 4 3:115, 3:123 4:2 3:124 4:10–11 3:138 4:10–14 3:119 4:22 3:121 4:24 3:136 4:25 3:142, 3:284, 3:310 4:25–26 3:120 4:26 3:142 4:42 3:308 5:2 3:104

670

B IBLICAL I NDEX 5:10 3:310 5:15–16 3:310 5:18 3:310 5:24 3:291 5:26–27 2:389 5:35 3:308 5:39 3:284, 3:311 6 3:67, 3:144 6:14 3:308 6:28 3:133 6:41 3:310 6:44 3:135 6:44–45 3:302 6:45 3:68, 3:135 6:60–71 3:292 6:65 3:302 7 3:121, 3:122 7:1 3:310 7:2 3:121 7:10 3:122 7:13 3:310 7:14 3:122 7:37–38 3:122 7:37–39 2:437 7:40–42 2:437 7:42 2:437 7:53–8:11 1:3, 3:102 7:53–8 3:102 8 3:121, 3:122, 3:284 8:3 3:133 8:12 3:119, 3:122, 3:132, 3:284, 3:285, 3:297, 3:299, 3:307, 3:308, 3:309 8:14b 3:297 8:23 3:135 8:32 3:119 8:42 3:303 8:42–47 3:303 8:43 3:303 8:43–47 3:68 8:44 3:135, 3:310 8:44–47 3:302 8:46–47 3:302, 3:303 8:47 3:135 8:48 3:310 8:52 3:291, 3:310 8:57 3:310 9 3:121 9:3 3:119, 3:133 9:4–5 3:297, 3:308 9:5 3:132

9:18 3:310 9:22 1:6, 3:70, 3:121, 3:285, 3:310 9:39 3:302, 3:308 9:39–41 3:135 10:21 3:133 10:22–39 1:xxviii 10:31 3:310 10:33 3:310 11 3:123 11:8 3:310 11:9–10 3:297, 3:308 11:10 3:297 11:16 3:293 11:27 3:308 11:47–53 3:373 11:54 3:130, 3:310 11:55 3:284, 3:310 11:57 3:130 12 3:70, 3:309 12:15 2:324 12:20–23 3:70 12:27–28 3:316 12:35 3:132, 3:297 12:35–36 3:111, 3:118, 3:297, 3:308 12:36 3:132, 3:285, 3:307 12:37–41 3:302 12:40 3:135 12:42 1:6, 3:121 12:42–43 3:285 12:45–46 3:297 12:46 3:307, 3:308 13:23 3:434 13:33 3:297 13:34 3:142, 3:145 14 3:125 14:5 3:293 14:6 2:342, 3:109, 3:130 14:8–11 3:137 14:17 3:132, 3:136 14:22 3:293 14:26 3:132, 3:136 14:31 3:125 15 3:125, 3:126 15–17 3:124, 3:125, 3:126, 3:139 15:26 3:132, 3:136 16:2 1:6, 3:121, 3:125, 3:285 16:12–15 3:68 16:13 3:132, 3:136

B IBLICAL I NDEX 16:27–28 3:308 16:28 3:297, 3:308 17 3:126, 3:140 17:20 3:126 17:20–23 3:140 18 3:125 18–20 3:287 18:1 3:125 18:15–17 3:148 18:20 3:284, 3:310 18:28 3:284, 3:310 18:31–33 3:101 18:36 3:310 18:37 3:135 18:37–38 3:101 19:7 3:310 19:14 3:310 19:30 3:316 19:35 3:148, 3:152 19:38 3:310 19:40 3:284, 3:310 20:19 3:310 20:22 3:132, 3:136 20:24–28 3:293 20:29 3:293 20:31 3:112 21 3:102, 3:124, 3:145 21:2 3:293 21:24 3:148, 3:152 Micah 2:323, 3:402, 3:404 4:1–4 3:234 4:4 2:79 4:5 3:404 4:13 1:311 5:8 3:272 6:3–4 3:402 6:8 3:343 7:10 1:311 Nahum 1:132, 1:136, 1:188, 1:194, 1:212, 1:246, 1:291, 2:154, 2:235, 2:323, 3:174, 3:323, 3:337 1:2 3:339, 3:340 2:13 3:173 Habakkuk 1:34, 1:132, 1:184, 1:192, 1:193, 1:197, 1:198, 1:199, 1:200, 1:201, 1:202, 1:203, 1:219, 1:278, 1:289, 1:290, 1:295, 1:303, 1:313, 1:314, 1:316, 2:33, 2:213, 2:323, 2:398, 3:47, 3:65, 3:68, 3:83, 3:89, 3:171, 3:172, 3:262, 3:263, 3:272, 3:409, 3:422, 3:424, 3:438, 3:439

671

1:4 1:190, 3:87 2:2 3:225 2:3 3:225, 3:226 2:3–4 3:225 2:4 2:357, 3:65, 3:154, 3:171, 3:172, 3:173, 3:184, 3:225, 3:226 2:5–6 1:191 2:7–8 1:193 2:8 1:193, 1:195, 1:195, 3:337 2:9–11 1:196, 3:337 2:10 1:196 2:11 1:196 2:15 1:196, 1:198, 1:303 2:16 1:199 2:17 1:197, 1:200, 3:337 2:19–20 1:313 3 1:219 Zephaniah 2:21, 2:323 1:17 1:117 Haggai 2:76, 2:77, 2:211, 3:236 1:1 2:40 1:11 2:413 2:3 3:236 2:6–9 3:236 2:21–24 2:76 3:4 2:420, 2:423 3:30–32 2:420, 2:423 12b 2:372 15a 2:368, 2:370, 2:374 25a 2:420, 2:423 Zechariah 1:212, 1:278, 2:76, 2:77, 2:83, 2:84, 2:211 1–8 2:77 1:1 2:40 1:7 2:40 3–4 2:27 3:1–2 1:42 3:3–5 3:269 3:8 2:77 4:14 2:77, 2:84 6 3:65 6:11–12 2:77 7:3 3:430 7:3–5 3:430 9–10 1:212 9:9 3:55 9:9–17 2:77 12:10 3:370, 3:372 13:9 2:129 14 1:215

672

B IBLICAL I NDEX

14:5 1:126 Malachi 1:133, 2:199, 2:241, 2:394, 3:125 1:6 2:356 1:10 1:292, 2:38 1:11 2:308 2:10 2:356 3 3:448 3:1 3:90, 3:448 3:2–3 3:448

3:7 3:448, 3:449 3:18 2:199 3:20 2:278 3:23 3:448 3:23–24 2:250, 2:269 3:24 3:449 4:1 3:448 4:5 2:89, 2:90, 2:90, 3:448 4:5–6 3:448 4:6 3:448, 3:449

B IBLICAL I NDEX NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:20, 1:21, 1:34, 2:90, 3:8, 3:9, 3:28, 3:35, 3:44, 3:76, 3:79, 3:84, 3:85, 3:86, 3:87, 3:88, 3:89, 3:99, 3:105, 3:110, 3:114, 3:127, 3:137, 3:139, 3:149, 3:151, 3:222, 3:248, 3:270, 3:274, 3:287, 3:294, 3:317, 3:329, 3:351, 3:352, 3:385, 3:412, 3:415, 3:428, 3:430, 3:442, 3:448 1:1 2:436 1:3 3:199 1:6 2:436 1:17 2:436 1:18–25 3:82 1:20 2:436 3:1 3:445 3:1–3 3:6 3:1–12 3:14 3:2 3:34 3:3 3:43, 3:448 3:4 3:27 3:5 3:6, 3:34 3:7 3:9 3:7–10 3:7, 3:33, 3:34, 3:445 3:7–12 3:29 3:10 3:9 3:11 3:28 3:12 3:448 3:14 3:444 3:15 3:84 5 3:44, 3:306 5:3–6 3:352 5:6 3:84, 3:86 5:10 3:84 5:13 3:374, 3:376 5:14 2:311, 3:374, 3:376 5:20 3:85, 3:352 5:21–48 3:84, 3:88, 3:351 5:25–26 3:352 5:39–48 3:305 5:42 3:352 5:43 2:66, 3:274, 3:351 5:43–48 3:306, 3:351 5:44 3:142, 3:183, 3:184 5:45 3:85 5:48 3:85 6:1 3:85 6:1–18 1:190

6:19–24 3:349 6:22–23 3:297 6:33 3:86 7:13–23 3:352 8:18–22 3:352 9:27 2:436 10:14–15 3:351 10:26 3:77 10:34 3:274 10:38–39 3:352 11:2–5 3:220 11:3–6 2:269 11:10 3:90 11:21–23 3:351 11:25 3:78, 3:79 11:25–30 3:85 11:27 3:78 12:11 1:20 12:18–21 3:220 12:23 2:436 12:37 3:86 12:38–42 3:351 13:11 3:79 13:11–13 3:80 13:17 3:86 13:22 3:349 13:35 3:78 13:41–43 3:352 13:43 3:86 13:49 3:86 13:49–50 3:352 13:52 1:34 14:13–21 3:352 15:22 2:436 15:32–39 3:352 16 3:412 16:17 3:79 17:10 2:91 17:24–27 3:49 18:1–5 3:352 18:4 3:78 18:15–17 3:340 18:15–18 3:352 18:15–22 3:340 18:21–22 3:376, 3:378 18:22 3:376, 3:378 18:23–35 3:376, 3:378 19:16–25 3:352

673

674

B IBLICAL I NDEX

19:28 2:270, 3:351 20:16 3:352 20:30–31 2:436 21:9 2:436 21:15 2:436 21:32 3:86 22:1–14 3:94 22:16 3:436 22:30 2:270 22:34–40 3:352 22:37 2:68 22:41–45 2:436 23:12 3:78 23:23–24 3:350 23:28 3:86 23:29–30 3:351 23:34–36 3:351 23:37 2:356 23:37–39 3:351 24:26 3:374, 3:376 24:45–51 3:352 25:1–46 3:352 25:31–46 2:270, 3:220, 3:221 25:34–46 3:352 25:46 3:86 26:28 3:222 Mark 1:xv, 1:xvi, 1:xvii, 1:29, 1:181, 2:35, 2:52, 2:68, 2:123, 2:158, 2:226, 2:252, 2:309, 2:313, 2:388, 2:389, 3:8, 3:41, 3:44, 3:50, 3:75, 3:76, 3:77, 3:84, 3:90, 3:149, 3:198, 3:222, 3:285, 3:287, 3:294, 3:309, 3:317, 3:323, 3:329, 3:352, 3:427, 3:428, 3:429, 3:436 1 3:444 1:2 3:90 1:2–3 3:6, 3:90 1:2–8 3:14 1:3 3:43, 3:89, 3:448 1:4 3:8, 3:34, 3:374, 3:376, 3:444 1:5 2:102, 3:6, 3:34 1:5–6 2:101 1:6 3:27, 3:445 1:7–8 3:29 1:8 3:28 1:15 3:8 1:16–20 3:436 2:1–12 2:388 2:9–11 2:388 2:17 3:84

3:6 3:436 3:23 1:206 3:26 1:206 4–8 3:44 4–9 3:42 4:11 3:79 4:11–12 3:79, 3:81, 3:82, 3:83 4:22 3:77 4:35–8:26 3:55 4:35–8 3:55 6 3:428, 3:429 6:1–6 3:95 6:7–13 3:50 6:15 2:91 6:17–18 3:13 6:20 3:84, 3:387, 3:389, 3:395, 3:397 6:30–44 3:352 6:52–53 3:427, 3:428, 3:429, 3:430 6:53 3:429 7:1–13 3:55 7:1–23 3:350 7:6 3:83 7:11 3:323, 3:349 8:17 3:436 8:27 2:91 8:29 2:342 8:31 3:363, 3:365 8:34–38 3:352 8:36–37 3:371, 3:373, 3:376, 3:378 9:1 2:251, 3:65 9:11 2:91 9:12 3:363, 3:365 9:12–13 3:83 9:47–48 3:352 9:49 3:374, 3:376 9:50 3:374, 3:376 10 3:44, 3:60 10:2–9 3:44 10:17–25 3:52 10:17–27 3:352 10:17–31 3:50 10:29–31 3:352 10:34 3:363, 3:365 10:38 3:365, 3:374, 3:376 10:45 3:357, 3:359, 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:366, 3:367, 3:369, 3:371, 3:372, 3:373,

B IBLICAL I NDEX 3:374, 3:376, 3:377, 3:378, 3:379 10:47 2:436 10:48 2:436 11:2–8 3:55 11:15–17 3:49, 3:55 11:17 3:48, 3:323 12:1–11 3:349 12:13 3:436 12:13–17 3:90 12:18 2:430 12:28–34 3:355 12:30 2:68 12:33 2:68 12:35–37 2:436 12:38–40 3:355 12:41–44 3:355 13:1–2 3:49 13:24–27 3:220 13:30 3:65 14:13–14 3:434 14:21 3:83 14:24 3:44, 3:222 14:25 3:43 14:36 3:316 14:58 3:49 14:62 2:388 15:29–30 3:49 15:34 3:316 Luke 1:xvi, 1:xxx, 1:11, 1:19, 1:20, 1:34, 2:244, 3:8, 3:9, 3:12, 3:13, 3:19, 3:22, 3:27, 3:32, 3:48, 3:62, 3:76, 3:77, 3:79, 3:84, 3:90, 3:92, 3:93, 3:94, 3:109, 3:116, 3:167, 3:220, 3:222, 3:274, 3:306, 3:309, 3:340, 3:349, 3:351, 3:352, 3:383, 3:384, 3:386, 3:387, 3:395, 3:414, 3:445 1:5–25 3:445 1:5–80 3:19 1:15 3:9, 3:445 1:16–17 3:374, 3:376 1:17 3:78, 3:374, 3:376 1:27 2:436 1:32 1:xxx, 1:117, 1:xxx, 2:85, 2:436 1:35 1:xxx, 1:117 1:46 2:445 1:46–47 2:445 1:46–55 2:445 1:47 2:445

675

1:47a 2:445 1:48 2:445 1:48a 2:445 1:48b 2:445 1:48f 2:445 1:49 2:445 1:49a 2:445 1:49b 2:445 1:49f 2:445 1:50 2:445 1:50a 2:445 1:50b 2:445 1:51 2:445 1:51a 2:445 1:51b 2:445 1:52 2:445 1:52a–b 2:445 1:53 2:445 1:53a–b 2:445 1:53h 2:445 1:54 2:445 1:54a 2:445 1:54b 2:445 1:55 2:445 1:55a 2:445 1:55b 2:445 1:67 3:28 1:69 2:436 1:72 3:222 1:80 3:10, 3:19, 3:32, 3:445 2:4 2:436 2:11 2:436 2:14 2:244 2:21 3:78 3:1–20 3:14 3:3 3:6, 3:8, 3:34 3:4 3:6, 3:89 3:4–6 3:448 3:7 3:9, 3:447 3:7–9 3:7, 3:29, 3:33, 3:34, 3:445 3:8 3:31 3:9 3:9, 3:33, 3:447, 3:448 3:9–11 3:13 3:10–14 3:22, 3:27, 3:93, 3:375, 3:377 3:11 3:12, 3:32 3:15–18 3:29 3:16 3:28 3:16–17 3:374, 3:376 3:17 3:33

676

B IBLICAL I NDEX 3:31 2:436 4 3:94 4:16–19 3:352, 3:353 4:16–30 3:95 4:18–19 3:220 4:25–26 3:95 4:27 3:95 6 3:306 6:20–26 3:93, 3:352 6:20–49 3:44, 3:55, 3:60 6:24–26 3:352 6:27 3:183, 3:184 6:27–36 3:50, 3:51, 3:305 6:27–38 3:306 6:30 3:352 6:35 3:183, 3:184 6:37–42 3:352 7:16–26 3:386, 3:388 7:18–23 3:352 7:18–28 3:42 7:21–22 3:42 7:22–23 2:269 7:27 3:90 7:29–30 3:90, 3:375, 3:377 7:46 2:414 8:1–3 3:93 8:10 3:79, 3:80 9:51–55 3:351 10:2–16 3:50 10:10–12 3:351 10:13–15 3:351 10:21 3:60, 3:78 10:22 3:78 10:25–37 3:305, 3:306 10:27 2:68 11:29–32 3:42, 3:351 11:33–36 3:297 11:37–52 3:55 11:47–48 3:351 11:49–51 3:351 11:52 1:34 12:2 3:77 12:20 3:371, 3:373 12:22–31 3:50 12:32–34 3:352 12:33 3:93 12:49–50 3:374, 3:376 12:51 3:274 12:58–59 3:352 13:30 3:352 13:34–35 3:49, 3:55, 3:351

14 3:352 14:11 3:78 14:11–24 3:352 14:15–24 3:94 14:26 3:274 14:34–35 3:374, 3:376 15:14 2:337 15:18–19 3:375, 3:377 16:8 3:42, 3:117, 3:309 16:9–10 3:349 16:9–13 3:352 16:18 3:44, 3:45 16:19–26 3:352 16:19–31 3:93 17:3–4 3:340, 3:352 18:13 3:361, 3:363, 3:375, 3:377 18:14 3:78, 3:352 18:24–30 3:352 18:34 3:79 18:38–39 2:436 19:8 3:93 19:9 3:93 19:42 3:79 20:21 3:90 20:41–44 2:436 21:7 3:387, 3:389, 3:392, 3:394 22–23 3:386, 3:388 22:3 1:206 22:19 3:169 22:20 3:222 22:24–30 3:352 22:29–30 3:351 22:30 3:351 22:69 3:388 23:22 3:389 23:40–41 3:375, 3:377 23:42 3:387, 3:389, 3:394 24 3:386, 3:388 24:44 1:248, 2:463 John 1:xvi, 1:xviii, 1:xix, 1:xx, 1:xxi, 1:xxvii, 1:xxviii, 1:7, 1:11, 1:18, 1:19, 1:20, 1:21, 1:22, 1:38, 1:61, 1:68, 1:71, 1:75, 1:125, 1:128, 1:158, 1:226, 1:276, 1:304, 2:v, 2:6, 2:73, 2:75, 2:77, 2:79, 2:81, 2:82, 2:83, 2:85, 2:87, 2:89, 2:91, 2:108, 2:111, 2:128, 2:129, 2:152, 2:169, 2:171, 2:172, 2:173, 2:175, 2:177, 2:179, 2:181, 2:183, 2:185, 2:187, 2:189,

B IBLICAL I NDEX 2:191, 2:193, 2:237, 2:245, 2:304, 2:318, 2:319, 2:323, 2:330, 2:342, 2:354, 2:357, 2:358, 2:389, 2:394, 2:399, 2:417, 2:418, 2:419, 2:420, 2:429, 2:440, 3:v, 3:37, 3:41, 3:53, 3:56, 3:62, 3:69, 3:70, 3:86, 3:87, 3:88, 3:155, 3:165, 3:175, 3:187, 3:188, 3:189, 3:203, 3:204, 3:205, 3:212, 3:216, 3:230, 3:237, 3:240, 3:245, 3:251, 3:256, 3:257, 3:258, 3:259, 3:262, 3:263, 3:265, 3:266, 3:269, 3:270, 3:273, 3:274, 3:275, 3:278, 3:348, 3:351, 3:362, 3:364, 3:370, 3:371, 3:372, 3:374, 3:375, 3:389 1 3:124 3 3:115 4 3:123 6 3:67, 3:144 7 3:121, 3:122 8 3:121, 3:122, 3:284 9 3:121 11 3:123 12 3:70 14 3:125 15 3:125, 3:126 17 3:126, 3:140 18 3:125 21 3:102, 3:124, 3:145 Acts 1:xv, 1:xvii, 1:xxix, 1:11, 1:21, 1:27, 1:69, 1:161, 1:162, 1:177, 1:180, 1:197, 1:208, 1:209, 1:211, 1:214, 1:222, 1:259, 2:65, 2:101, 2:102, 2:104, 2:171, 2:201, 2:225, 2:266, 2:268, 2:269, 2:310, 2:413, 2:439, 3:18, 3:20, 3:42, 3:55, 3:62, 3:63, 3:64, 3:89, 3:90, 3:92, 3:93, 3:94, 3:99, 3:108, 3:109, 3:130, 3:169, 3:170, 3:193, 3:206, 3:212, 3:222, 3:274, 3:289, 3:293, 3:299, 3:326, 3:332, 3:333, 3:353, 3:354, 3:368, 3:377, 3:402, 3:413, 3:434, 3:437, 3:455 1–12 3:109 1:9–11 3:386, 3:388 2:29–31 2:436 2:29–36 3:212 2:41–47 3:353 2:44 3:354 2:44–45 3:51, 3:353 2:44–47 3:93, 3:353

677

2:46 3:48, 3:353 3:11 3:48 3:14 3:386, 3:388 3:25 3:222 4:1–4 3:109 4:32 3:353 4:32–35 3:353 4:32–37 3:51, 3:93 4:32–5 3:353 4:32–5:11 3:353 4:34 3:353 4:35–37 3:353 4:36 3:110 5 3:354 5:1–2 3:353 5:1–11 3:51, 3:93 5:2–3 3:354 5:3–4 3:354 5:4 3:354 5:12–16 3:48, 3:353 5:17 3:109 5:36 3:58 6:1 3:353 6:1–6 3:94, 3:353 6:5 2:434 6:7 1:21, 3:108, 3:109, 3:434, 3:437 6:13–14 3:49 7 3:383, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:391, 3:392 7:2–53 3:381, 3:382, 3:383, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386 7:8 3:222 7:50–52 3:384, 3:386 7:51 1:199 7:52 3:381, 3:382, 3:383, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:387, 3:388, 3:389, 3:390, 3:391, 3:392, 3:393, 3:394, 3:395, 3:396, 3:397 7:52–56 3:386, 3:388 7:56 3:386, 3:388 9:2 3:90, 3:91, 3:109 11:26 3:92 11:28 2:337 13 3:383, 3:385 13:10 3:90 13:15 3:206 13:17–25 3:382, 3:384 13:22–23 2:436 13:23 2:438

678

B IBLICAL I NDEX

13:34 2:436 15 3:66 15:29 2:422 16:17 3:91 18:25–26 3:91 19:1–7 2:101 19:9 3:91 19:23 3:91 21:25 2:422 22:3 3:451, 3:455 22:4 3:91, 3:109 22:14 3:385, 3:387 23:6 2:434 23:6–8 2:261 23:8 2:430 24:14 3:91 24:22 3:91 26:23 2:281 28:22 3:63 Romans 1:xvii, 1:5, 1:7, 1:185, 1:223, 1:226, 1:281, 2:242, 2:243, 2:244, 2:245, 2:246, 2:382, 2:384, 2:414, 2:439, 2:441, 3:41, 3:45, 3:110, 3:134, 3:155, 3:157, 3:158, 3:161, 3:169, 3:172, 3:176, 3:177, 3:178, 3:179, 3:180, 3:182, 3:183, 3:188, 3:197, 3:420, 3:425, 3:440, 3:451, 3:454 1 3:350 1–8 3:454 1:3 2:437 1:3–4 3:134 1:4 3:212 1:16–17 3:158, 3:172 1:17 3:157, 3:171, 3:226, 3:452 1:20 3:159 3:5 3:452 3:10 3:178, 3:179 3:20 3:174, 3:179, 3:188, 3:451 3:21 3:157, 3:158, 3:452 3:21–22 3:171 3:21–31 3:158 3:22 3:452 3:23 3:178, 3:179 3:23–26 3:454 3:24 3:179 3:25 3:362, 3:364, 3:366 3:27 3:180 3:28 3:174, 3:179, 3:188, 3:451

3:31 3:399 4:3 3:172, 3:176 4:5 3:454 6:10 3:375, 3:377 6:16–19 3:182 6:19 3:182 7 2:414 8:2 3:180 8:2–8 3:180 8:3 3:177, 3:178, 3:179, 3:180, 3:372, 3:374 8:4 3:180 8:5 3:178 8:5–8 3:454 8:5–9 3:454 8:7 3:180 8:8 3:180 8:18–25 3:266 8:24 3:161 8:28–30 2:242, 3:169, 3:170 8:29 3:169 8:29–30 3:170 8:30 2:242, 3:169, 3:170 8:39 3:159 9 3:169 9–11 2:242, 2:243 9–12 2:242 9:10–13 2:243 9:10–29 3:169 9:14 2:243 9:17–18 2:237 9:18 2:243 9:20–29 3:170 9:22 3:169 9:22–23 3:170 9:23 3:169, 3:170 10:3 3:452 10:13–17 2:243 11:11–36 3:404 11:25 1:34 12–13 3:184 12:1 3:372, 3:374 12:9 3:350 12:9–21 3:305 12:12 3:350 12:14 3:350 12:17–20 3:183, 3:184, 3:350 12:17–21 3:183, 3:184, 3:345 12:18 3:350 12:19–21 3:346 12:20 3:183, 3:401

B IBLICAL I NDEX 12:21 3:183 13:11–14 3:183, 3:184 13:12 3:181, 3:183, 3:184, 3:453 15:12 2:438 15:20 3:162 15:26 3:349 16:25 1:34 1 Corinthians 1:xv, 3:153, 3:414 2:1 1:34 3:5–9 3:162 3:9 2:356, 3:161, 3:162 3:10–12 3:162 3:10–17 2:356 3:16 3:161 3:16–17 3:161, 3:162 3:17 3:161 4:1 1:34 4:12 3:350 4:12–13 3:305, 3:350 4:14–21 2:359 5 3:414 5–6 3:352 5:9–13 3:352 5:12–6:3 3:346 6:1–8 3:350 6:11 2:389 6:19 3:162 7:29–31 3:65 8–10 3:66 8:1–10 3:270 8:10 2:422, 3:66 10:19 3:270 10:21 2:422 11 3:144 11:10 2:227 11:23–26 3:167 11:24 3:167 11:24–25 3:169 11:25 3:44, 3:165, 3:166, 3:167, 3:221 11:26 3:43, 3:167, 3:169 13:4–5 3:350 14:16 2:313 15:20 2:281 16:9 3:162 2 Corinthians 3:65, 3:155 2:7–10 3:350 3 3:182 3:6 3:165, 3:166, 3:221 3:9 3:182

679

3:14 3:165, 3:166, 3:221 5:14–15 3:372, 3:374 5:17 3:158, 3:159 5:21 3:178, 3:452 6 3:413 6:4 3:350 6:6 3:350 6:11–13 2:359 6:14–7 3:110, 3:149, 3:164, 3:165, 3:170 6:14–7:1 2:243, 3:110, 3:149, 3:164, 3:170 11:1–3 2:359 11:15 3:182 11:20 3:350 12:7 1:206 12:14–18 2:359 13:1–2 3:352 Galatians 1:xxviii, 3:v, 3:110, 3:153, 3:155, 3:175, 3:176, 3:177, 3:182, 3:187, 3:188, 3:190, 3:191, 3:192, 3:194, 3:195, 3:196, 3:197, 3:198, 3:199, 3:200, 3:201, 3:226, 3:451, 3:452, 3:454 1 3:352 1:15 3:190 2 3:66 2–3 3:66 2:1–10 3:194 2:10 3:349 2:11–14 3:197, 3:198 2:11–15 3:195 2:12 3:175, 3:190, 3:198 2:15–16 3:199 2:16 3:174, 3:179, 3:188, 3:194, 3:196, 3:199, 3:451 3:1–3 3:199, 3:200 3:1–4 3:226 3:2 3:174, 3:188, 3:199, 3:451 3:5 3:174, 3:188, 3:451 3:6 3:172, 3:173, 3:176, 3:196 3:6–9 3:196 3:8–9 3:192 3:8–14 3:192 3:9 3:196 3:9–10 3:176 3:10 3:174, 3:188, 3:191, 3:451 3:11 3:171, 3:226 3:13 3:173 3:13–14 3:174, 3:176

680

B IBLICAL I NDEX

3:14 3:192 3:15 3:221 3:17 3:221 3:22 3:172, 3:178, 3:179 4:10 3:177, 3:198 4:19 2:359 4:19–20 2:360 4:24–25 3:165 5 3:182 5:16 3:181 5:16–18 3:181 5:16–23 3:182 5:16–26 3:181 5:17 3:454 5:19 3:181 5:19–21 3:181 5:20 3:350 5:21 3:181 5:22 3:181, 3:350 5:22–23 3:181 5:23 3:181 5:24–26 3:181 6:1–5 3:352 6:11 3:159 6:11–18 3:159 6:14–15 3:159 6:16 3:192 Ephesians 1:21, 2:390, 3:65, 3:110, 3:149 1:9 2:390 4:25–26 3:352 5:8 3:117, 3:309 Philippians 3:155, 3:392 2:6–11 3:212 2:10 3:208 2:13–14 2:243 3:5 2:434, 3:451 4:5 3:350 6:3 3:396 67 3:313 78 3:389, 3:396 106 3:313 126 3:313 Colossians 3:65 1:18 2:281 1 Thessalonians 2:359, 3:153, 3:155 2 2:360 2:1–12 2:360 2:5 2:359 2:7 2:359 2:7–12 2:352, 2:359

2:8 2:359 2:11 2:359 2:12 2:359 2:19 3:388, 3:390 3:12 3:350 4:16–17 2:270 5:2 3:165 5:3 2:389 5:4 3:163 5:4–5 3:165 5:4–8 3:165 5:4–9 3:163, 3:165, 3:170 5:5 3:117, 3:163, 3:309, 3:452 5:9 3:163, 3:169, 3:170 5:13–14 3:350 5:15 3:305, 3:345, 3:350 5:24 3:170 7–12 2:360 2 Thessalonians 2:439 2:8 2:437, 2:438 1 Timothy 3:427, 3:429 2 3:364, 3:366 2:6 3:363, 3:364, 3:365, 3:366 2:8 2:437 3:16–4:3 3:427 Titus 1:15, 3:299 Philemon 3:155 5 3:172 Hebrews 1:xvii, 1:11, 1:70, 2:87, 2:102, 2:103, 3:v, 3:99, 3:110, 3:204, 3:205, 3:217, 3:282, 3:295, 3:362, 3:369, 3:370 1:1 3:205, 3:217, 3:228, 3:229 1:1–3 3:212 1:1–4 3:207 1:2 3:230 1:3 3:205, 3:211, 3:220 1:5 3:65, 3:207, 3:212, 3:214, 3:220 1:5–13 3:207, 3:212 1:6 3:208 1:7 3:204 1:8 3:214, 3:220 1:8–9 3:212 1:10–12 3:214 1:12 3:204 1:13 3:205, 3:214, 3:229 1:14 3:206 2:1–4 3:204 2:6 3:388 2:8–9 3:229

B IBLICAL I NDEX 2:9 3:204, 3:364, 3:366 2:10–11 3:205 2:12–13 3:229 2:14 3:364, 3:366 2:17 3:361, 3:363, 3:364, 3:366 3:1 3:204, 3:207 3:1–6 3:217 4:1 3:206 4:1–2 3:204 4:3–5 3:204 4:4–10 3:229 4:11 3:204, 3:220, 3:229 4:14 3:204, 3:207 4:14–16 3:204 4:15–5 3:220 4:15–5:2 3:220 5:3 3:224 5:6 3:229 6:1–8 2:103 6:4 3:204 6:4–8 3:204 6:9–12 3:204, 3:226 6:13–20 3:206 6:17 3:229 6:19 3:209 6:19–20 3:371 7 3:221 7:2 3:229 7:7 3:229 7:8 3:221 7:11–12 3:217 7:11–19 3:216 7:13 3:221 7:13–14 3:218 7:22 3:206, 3:220 7:25 3:220 7:27 3:225 8–10 3:205, 3:218 8:1 3:205, 3:210, 3:229 8:1–7 2:87 8:4–5 3:209 8:7 3:217, 3:221 8:7–13 3:205 8:8 3:166 8:8–12 3:229 8:10 3:217 8:13 3:217 9 2:99 9:5 3:224, 3:362, 3:364 9:7 3:225

681

9:9 3:224 9:10 3:225 9:11–12 3:209 9:11–14 3:211 9:12 3:225 9:13 2:99 9:14 3:205, 3:220, 3:221, 3:224 9:15 3:206 9:16–17 3:206 9:19 2:99 9:23–27 3:206 9:24 3:209 9:25 3:225 10:1 3:224, 3:229 10:1–4 3:217 10:1–10 3:205 10:5–7 3:229 10:8–10 3:206 10:10 3:211 10:12 3:205, 3:229 10:14 3:224 10:16 3:217 10:16–17 3:229 10:19 3:206 10:19–20 3:211 10:19–25 3:204 10:20 3:209, 3:371 10:22 3:220 10:23 3:207 10:25 3:203, 3:204, 3:220, 3:225 10:26–31 3:204 10:27–31 3:220 10:29 3:224 10:32 3:204 10:32–34 3:203 10:32–35 3:227 10:35–36 3:226 10:37 3:225 10:37–38 3:225 10:39 3:203 11 3:206 11:1 3:204 11:1–12 3:204 11:5–6 2:366 11:10 3:226 11:16 3:226 11:17–22 3:206 11:23–31 3:217 11:26 3:217, 3:226

682

B IBLICAL I NDEX

11:32 3:217 11:37–38 3:445 12:1–2 3:226 12:1–3 3:203, 3:206 12:1–4 3:217 12:2 3:205, 3:226 12:2–3 3:217 12:11–14 3:224 12:12–17 3:204 12:22 3:209, 3:226 12:22–24 3:227 12:23 3:220 12:24 3:220 12:25–29 3:204, 3:225 13:9 3:225 13:13 3:203, 3:227 13:14 3:226, 3:228 13:15 3:209 13:22 3:206 James 1:iv, 1:xvi, 1:xviii, 1:xix, 1:xx, 1:xxi, 1:xxiv, 1:xxv, 1:xxvii, 1:xxix, 1:xxxi, 1:3, 1:5, 1:7, 1:9, 1:11, 1:13, 1:15, 1:17, 1:18, 1:19, 1:20, 1:21, 1:23, 1:27, 1:28, 1:29, 1:31, 1:33, 1:35, 1:275, 2:iv, 2:327, 2:398, 2:420, 2:428, 2:429, 2:432, 2:440, 2:454, 2:471, 2:473, 2:475, 2:477, 2:479, 2:481, 2:483, 2:485, 2:487, 2:489, 2:491, 3:iv, 3:3, 3:4, 3:5, 3:6, 3:7, 3:9, 3:11, 3:13, 3:15, 3:17, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, 3:23, 3:25, 3:27, 3:29, 3:31, 3:33, 3:35, 3:38, 3:44, 3:51, 3:63, 3:76, 3:89, 3:94, 3:97, 3:98, 3:99, 3:101, 3:102, 3:103, 3:105, 3:107, 3:108, 3:109, 3:110, 3:111, 3:112, 3:113, 3:115, 3:117, 3:119, 3:121, 3:123, 3:125, 3:126, 3:127, 3:129, 3:130, 3:131, 3:133, 3:134, 3:135, 3:137, 3:138, 3:139, 3:141, 3:143, 3:144, 3:145, 3:147, 3:149, 3:150, 3:151, 3:152, 3:154, 3:166, 3:174, 3:175, 3:176, 3:187, 3:188, 3:189, 3:191, 3:192, 3:193, 3:194, 3:195, 3:197, 3:198, 3:199, 3:201, 3:205, 3:212, 3:214, 3:229, 3:244, 3:257, 3:263, 3:275, 3:277, 3:281, 3:285, 3:286, 3:287, 3:289, 3:290, 3:291, 3:292, 3:295, 3:301, 3:303, 3:305, 3:310, 3:311, 3:314, 3:317, 3:320, 3:343, 3:349, 3:350, 3:351, 3:352, 3:381, 3:389, 3:397, 3:401,

3:407, 3:408, 3:410, 3:413, 3:415, 3:416, 3:417, 3:418, 3:424, 3:425, 3:437, 3:443, 3:444, 3:445, 3:449, 3:452, 3:454 2:18–24 3:197 2:24 3:179 1 Peter 3:138, 3:266 2:3 2:361 2:4–8 3:267 3:22 3:208 2 Peter 3:13 3:266 1 John 1:21, 3:119, 3:123, 3:124, 3:129, 3:142, 3:152, 3:303, 3:307, 3:308 1:5 3:119 1:5–7 3:297, 3:307 1:6 3:119 1:7 3:364, 3:366 2:2 3:308, 3:362, 3:364 2:7–11 3:297, 3:307 2:8 3:307 2:9 3:307 2:9–11 3:305 2:11 3:307 2:15–17 3:306 2:18–25 3:129 2:19 3:123 3:7–10 3:302, 3:303 3:8 3:303 3:9 3:303 3:14 3:129 3:14–15 3:305 4:6 3:132 4:10 3:362, 3:364, 3:366 4:10–11 3:372, 3:374 4:14 3:308 4:19 3:372, 3:374 3 John 3:150 Jude 1:xvi, 2:384 10:5 2:413 14–15 2:366 Revelation 1:xvi, 1:11, 1:184, 1:204, 1:206, 1:207, 1:208, 2:71, 2:86, 2:92, 2:95, 2:287, 2:318, 2:326, 2:335, 2:340, 2:381, 2:393, 2:394, 2:439, 2:440, 2:441, 2:464, 2:465, 3:151, 3:206, 3:251, 3:253, 3:254, 3:255, 3:256, 3:258, 3:259, 3:260, 3:261, 3:262, 3:263, 3:264, 3:265, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:269, 3:270, 3:271,

B IBLICAL I NDEX 3:273, 3:274, 3:275, 3:276, 3:277, 3:286, 3:346, 3:357, 3:460 1–5 3:256, 3:261 1:1 3:273 1:2 3:273 1:3 3:269 1:4 3:273 1:5 3:273, 3:372, 3:374 1:5b 3:276 1:6 3:275, 3:277 1:9 3:273 1:13 3:269, 3:388 1:16 2:438 1:17 2:281 1:20 3:264 2–3 1:183, 1:187, 1:204, 3:151, 3:268, 3:270, 3:279 2:2 1:204, 1:205, 1:205, 3:268, 3:269, 3:273 2:5 3:268 2:6 1:205, 3:268, 3:273, 3:274 2:7 3:251 2:9–10 1:205 2:9 1:204, 1:205, 1:206, 1:206, 3:273 2:10 1:205, 3:275 2:12 2:438 2:13 3:273 2:14 1:205, 1:208, 1:208, 2:422, 3:270, 3:273 2:15 1:205 2:16 2:438 2:17 3:251, 3:252 2:19 3:268, 3:269, 3:273 2:20–23 1:207 2:20 1:204, 1:207, 1:208, 1:208, 2:422, 3:270, 3:273 2:21–22 1:208 2:21 1:207 2:22 1:207, 3:268 2:23 1:207, 1:208, 3:268 2:26–27 3:251, 3:252 2:26 3:268 2:27 2:440 2:28 3:252 3:1 3:268, 3:269 3:2 3:268 3:4–5 3:269 3:4 3:275 3:5 3:252, 3:275 3:7 2:437

683

3:8 3:268, 3:269 3:9 1:204, 1:205, 1:205, 3:273 4:10 3:275 3:11 3:275 3:12 3:251, 3:252, 3:266, 3:273 3:15 3:268, 3:269 3:18 3:269, 3:275 3:19 3:270 3:21 3:252, 3:276, 3:276f 4–5 3:276, 3:277, 3:276f 4:4 3:269, 3:275 5:5 2:437, 2:438, 2:438, 3:272 5:6 3:277 5:9–10 2:445 5:9 2:446 5:10 2:446, 3:275, 3:277 5:10a 2:446 6–16 3:261 6:6 2:413 6:9 3:252 6:11 3:269, 3:275 6:12–17 3:274 7 3:252 7:4–8 3:269 7:9–17 3:252 7:9 3:269, 3:275 7:13–14 3:252, 3:269 7:13 3:275 7:14 3:275 7:15 3:252 7:15c 3:252 7:17b 3:252 7:17c 3:252 8:3 3:252 8:7–12 3:274 9:13 3:252 9:20 3:268 11:1–2 3:268 11:1 3:268 11:19 3:252 12 3:276, 3:276f 12:5 2:440 12:11 3:275, 3:276, 3:276f 12:17 3:269, 3:273 13:10 3:273, 3:278 13:11 3:275 14:4 1:206 14:12 3:269, 3:273 14:13 3:268 14:14 3:388

684

B IBLICAL I NDEX 14:15 3:252 14:17 3:252 14:18 3:252 15:3 3:268 15:5–6 3:252 15:6 3:269 15:8 3:252 16:1 3:252 16:7 3:252 16:11 3:268 16:15 3:269 16:17 3:252 17–18 1:207 17–22 3:261 17:4 3:269 17:6 3:273 17:9–12 3:264 17:15 3:264 17:18 3:264 18:8 2:337 18:16 3:269 19 2:441 19:8 3:269, 3:275, 3:276, 3:276f 19:10 3:273 19:11–16 2:92 19:11 2:438, 2:441 19:13 3:269 19:14 3:275 19:15 2:438, 2:440 19:16 3:269 19:21 2:438 20:4 3:273, 3:275 20:6 3:251, 3:275, 3:277 20:6b 3:252 20:12–13 3:269 20:13 3:268

20:14–15 3:251 20:15 3:252 21–22 3:253, 3:267 21:1–22 3:264 21:2 3:266, 3:268 21:3 3:267 21:3b–c 3:252 21:4 3:252 21:6 3:138 21:6c 3:252 21:8 3:251 21:9–10 3:253 21:10–14 3:226 21:12–14 3:267 21:15–17 3:253 21:19–21 3:253 21:10 3:252 21:11 3:253 21:12 3:252 21:14 3:252 21:16 3:253, 3:267 21:22 3:252, 3:267 22:1 3:138, 3:253, 3:268 22:2 3:251, 3:253 22:5 3:275 22:5b 3:252 22:7 3:269 22:8 3:273 22:9 3:26922:12 3:268, 3:269 22:14 3:269, 3:275 22:15 3:273 22:16 2:437, 2:438, 3:273 22:17 3:138 22:20–21 3:273 22:20 3:65

NON-BIBLICAL INDEX

EARLY CHRISTIAN Acts of Philip 78 3:394 137 3:390 Acts of Thomas 28 3:394 28:23 3:389 Ahiqar 2:470, 2:480, 3:345 Apocalypse of Abraham 2:369, 2:423 9:7 2:413, 2:423 10 2:369 15–29 2:369 Apocalypse of Adam 3:2, 3:15 Apocalypse of Baruch 3:387 Apocalypse of Elijah, Hebrew 1:5–6 3:390, 3:393 Apocalypse of Moses 1 2:369 40:1 2:370 43:4 2:369 Apocalypse of Sedrach 3:387 Against Apion 1:37–41 1:68 1:37–43 1:133 1:42 1:68 Aristides, Oratio 42:4 1:xxix Barnabus 6:8–19 2:412 8:1 2:96 2 Baruch 2:71, 2:83, 2:84, 2:193, 2:480, 3:210, 3:346, 3:370 4:2–6 3:210 29:8 3:251 30:1 3:392, 3:394 4 Baruch 3:8 3:390, 3:391, 3:393 3:11 3:391, 3:393

1–2 Clement 13:4 3:184 17:1 3:389, 3:394, 3:396, 3:445 Didache 1:3 3:184 9–10 2:423, 3:44 10:8 2:423 13:5–6 2:413 Enoch, Books of 1:xxvi, 1:39, 1:40, 1:41, 1:42, 1:43, 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:50, 1:51, 1:54, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:101, 1:102, 1:107, 1:115, 1:117, 1:126, 1:130, 1:131, 1:147, 1:221, 1:306, 2:37, 2:46, 2:52, 2:53, 2:55, 2:58, 2:77, 2:204, 2:205, 2:218, 2:219, 2:220, 2:240, 2:241, 2:260, 2:263, 2:270, 2:366, 2:368, 2:370, 2:371, 2:382, 2:383, 2:434, 2:449, 2:463, 2:465, 2:466, 2:481, 2:482, 2:484, 2:485, 2:486, 2:487, 3:123, 3:131, 3:144, 3:246, 3:248, Enoch, Dream Visions 1:44, 1:48, 1:57, 1:64, 1:108, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393 Enoch, Hebrew Apocalypse of 2:367, 2:369 1 Enoch 1:6, 1:8, 1:17, 1:38, 1:40, 1:43, 1:61, 1:62, 1:63, 1:64, 1:65, 1:98, 1:101, 1:102, 1:103, 1:133, 1:145, 1:198, 1:250, 2:35, 2:36, 2:37, 2:39, 2:40, 2:41, 2:42, 2:52, 2:53, 2:151, 2:152, 2:204, 2:209, 2:210, 2:211, 2:215, 2:240, 2:151, 2:260, 2:263, 2:268, 2:270, 2:280, 2:364, 2:379, 2:380, 2:381, 2:383, 2:386, 2:390, 2:397, 2:403, 2:447, 2:448,

685

686

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

2:451, 2:457, 2:480, 2:481, 2:490, 3:40, 3:109, 3:144, 3:197, 3:210, 3:248, 3:249, 3:261, 3:322, 3:323, 3:346, 3:381, 3:383, 3:384, 3:385, 3:386, 3:387, 3:390, 3:393, 3:429, 3:439 1–36 1:102, 2:48, 3:395 1 2:481 1:6 3:448 1:9 2:366 6–11 1:42 6–16 1:43, 1:61 6–36 1:57 7–8 1:108 7:1–8:3 1:126 9:6 3:81 10:1–16 1:126 10:3–4 3:395 10:7–8 3:81 10:21 3:395 14 2:223 14:10–20 3:210 14:19–20 1:111 14:19–22 1:108 14:22 1:111 15:8–10 1:41 15:9d 3:430 16:3 3:81 18:14–16 2:210, 2:211 22 2:248, 2:257, 2:266, 2:272 25:4–5 2:278 37–71 1:55, 1:63, 1:102, 2:71, 2:84, 2:382, 2:399, 3:123, 3:388 38:1 1:56 39:5 2:257 40:9 2:368 41:8–9 3:156 42:1–3 1:56 45:4–5 2:260 46:4 1:55 46:6 1:55 46:7–8 1:56 48 2:387 48:3 2:378, 2:387 48:6 2:390 48:7 2:389 48:8 1:55 49:2 2:387 49:3–4 1:56 49:4 2:390

51:3 1:56, 3:389 53:6–7 1:56 55:4 1:55 56.1 3:342 56:5–7 2:381, 2:382, 2:384 58:2–6 2:274 58:6 1:55 61:5 3:389 61:11 2:393 62:4 2:389 62:7 3:389 62:7–8 1:56 65:6–8 2:393 69:8–11 2:393 70–71 3:386 71:3 2:368 71:5–10 3:210 71:14 2:377 72–82 1:57, 1:102, 2:34, 2:53, 2:54, 2:205, 2:309, 2:311, 2:451, 2:481 72:1 2:311 72:32 2:35, 2:209 72:37 2:51 73–82 1:57 74 2:309 74:10 2:35 74:12 2:35, 2:209 74:17 2:35 75:2 2:35 80:2 2:210 80:2–8 2:210, 2:211 81:1–10 1:45 81:2 1:45 82:1–7 2:54 82:4–6 2:35 82:4–7 3:198 82:16–19 2:41 83–90 1:44, 1:57, 1:102, 2:481, 3:388 83:2 2:391 84:4 2:392 85–90 1:44, 1:102, 1:115, 3:248, 3:249, 3:346, 3:392 85:3 2:391 85:3–90:38 3:384 86:1 2:310 86:3 2:310 87:3 3:248 88:1 2:310 89 3:385, 3:392

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 89–90 3:46 89:10–53 3:386 89:29–33 1:44 89:32–33 1:117 89:36 1:44, 2:393, 3:248, 3:250 89:40 3:249 89:50 1:44, 3:248, 3:249, 3:250 89:50–52 3:386 89:52 3:384, 3:387, 3:388, 3:389, 3:392, 3:395 89:54 1:117 89:59–72 1:44 89:66–67 3:249, 3:250 89:73 1:44, 3:250 89:74 1:117 90 1:112 90:7 1:117 90:14 1:112 90:19 1:118, 1:220 90:20 1:108, 1:112 90:24 1:112 90:26 1:117 90:28–29 3:250, 3:266 90:28–33 1:44 90:29 3:250 90:34 1:118 90:37 2:78 91–93 3:346 91–98 3:346 91–105 1:102 91–107 2:481, 3:323 91:1–94:5 1:48, 1:57 91:7 2:392 91:10 2:268, 3:395 91:11–17 1:124, 2:457 91:12 1:118 91:12–17 1:56, 1:102, 3:392 91:16 2:260 92–104 3:47 92:1 3:395 92:3 2:268 93:1–10 1:56, 1:102, 1:124, 2:457 93:2 1:114, 3:395 93:5 1:48 93:9 1:48 93:10 1:114 94:6–11 3:323 94:6–106:6 1:58

687

95:4 3:323 95:5 3:345 95:7 3:323 96:4 2:392 96:4–8 3:323 96:5 2:392 96:6–104:6 1:51 96:7 2:392 97:8 2:392 97:8–10 3:323 98:4 1:51, 1:52, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393 98:6 3:323 98:11 2:392 98:12 2:392 99:10 1:53 99:11–13 2:392 99:13–15 3:323 100:6 3:323 101:5 3:323 102:9 3:323 103:2 3:82 103:5 3:323 103:9–15 3:323 104 1:127 104:1–2 2:255 104:1–4 1:127 104:6 1:127, 2:255, 3:323 104:7–105:2 1:48, 1:57 104:12–13 3:82 106–7 1:102, 2:484 108:11 3:164 2 Enoch 1:17, 2:393, 3:210, 3:221 2 3:210 22:8 2:370 50:2–4 3:345 53:2 2:368, 2:371 55:2 3:210 71–72 3:221 3 Enoch 2:71, 2:366, 2:367, 2:369, 2:370, 2:372, 2:373, 2:374 3–15 2:374 4 2:372 4:10 2:373 10:3–6 2:369 12:5 2:369 16 2:374 16:1 2:369, 2:372 48C:7 2:369 48D:1 2:369 48D:1[90] 2:369

688

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

Enochic Pentateuch 2:484 Epistle of Enoch 1:48, 1:51, 1:52, 1:54, 1:55, 1:57, 1:58, 1:64, 1:102, 1:127, 2:260, 2:390, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393, 2:482, 2:483, 3:323, Ethiopic Apocalypse 3:385 4 Ezra 2:71, 2:83, 2:84, 2:86, 2:440, 2:441, 2:480 Gospel of Thomas 6 3:311 11 3:297 12 3:310 13 3:311 14 3:311 24 3:297 49–50 3:297 50 3:297, 3:313 52 3:311 61 3:297 67 3:313 77 3:297, 3:298, 3:299, 3:300 83 3:312, 3:313 83–84 3:312, 3:313 Joseph and Aseneth 2:397, 2:399, 2:400, 2:401, 2:402, 2:403, 2:404, 2:405, 2:406, 2:407, 2:408, 2:409, 2:410, 2:411, 2:412, 2:413, 2:414, 2:415, 2:421, 2:422, 2:423, 2:424, 2:425, 3:159 1:4–6 2:408 2:1 2:408 4:7 2:408 4:11 2:408 5:5 2:407 7:1 2:404, 2:406, 2:410, 2:412, 2:413, 2:414 7:4–8 2:408 8:1 2:408 8:5 2:406, 2:410, 2:411 8:5–7 2:404, 2:405, 2:408, 2:409, 2:410 8:9 2:410, 2:412 8:11 2:410 8:15 2:412 10:10–13 2:409 14–17 2:412 14:12 2:406 14:12–15 2:407 15:4 2:410 15:5 2:410 16.8 2:412

16:14 2:412, 2:413 16:14–16 2:404 16:16 2:410, 2:411 18:5–6 2:409 18:8–10 2:406 19:5 2:410, 2:411 20:5 2:406 20:6 2:409 21 2:408 21:1 2:406, 2:409 21:1–9 2:408 21:8 2:406, 2:409 21:13–14 2:411 21:21 2:410, 2:411 22:13 2:406 23:8 2:406 23:9 2:409, 3:345 23:9–12 2:406 23:10 2:409 23:12 2:409 26:6 2:406 28:5 3:345 28:5–7 2:406, 2:409 28:10–11 3:345 28:14 3:345 28:15–17 2:406 29:3 2:406, 2:409, 3:345 Jubilees 1:xxvii, 1:8, 1:38, 1:45, 1:46, 1:47, 1:48, 1:51, 1:52, 1:57, 1:64, 1:98, 1:101, 1:115, 1:125, 1:126, 1:131, 1:133, 1:134, 1:136, 1:138, 1:139, 1:140, 1:142, 1:143, 1:144, 1:145, 1:146, 1:147, 1:198, 1:250, 1:288, 1:301, 1:308, 1:309, 2:34, 2:36, 2:37, 2:39, 2:42, 2:52, 2:53, 2:54, 2:55, 2:212, 2:223, 2:308, 2:309, 2:365, 2:448, 2:151, 2:452, 2:454, 2:465, 3:131, 3:144, 3:196, 3:197, 3:219, 3:244, 3:266, 3:322, 3:369, 3:393, 2:397, 2:403, 2:422, 3:439 1:4 2:54 1:5 1:48 1:12–14 2:36 1:17 3:244, 3:266 1:23 2:101 1:24–25 2:356 1:26 1:45 1:26–29 2:54 1:27 1:139, 2:369, 3:244 1:27–28 3:266

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 1:29 1:45, 3:244, 3:245 2:1 1:139, 2:369 2:8–9 2:47 2:9 2:209, 2:211, 2:212 2:17–18 2:223 2:17–33 2:223 2:19–20 2:223 2:21 1:46, 2:223 2:25 2:223 2:28 2:224 2:30a 2:223 2:30b 2:223 3:8–14 2:489 4 2:365 4:16 2:366 4:17–19 2:52 4:22 2:366 4:23 2:368, 2:371 5:27 2:489 5:28 1:115 6:17–18 2:57 6:23–25 2:41 6:30–32 2:35, 2:209, 2:211 6:32–35 1:47, 3:198 6:32–38 2:38, 2:52, 2:308 6:35 2:51 6.36–38 2:36, 2:212 7:1 1:115 7:38 2:366 7:39 2:366 10:17 2:366 12:25–26 2:465 13:13 1:139 13:26 2:413 15:11 1:46 15:26 1:46 16 1:139 16:6b–20 2:229 16:26 3:268 16:28 2:224 19:24 2:366 19:29 2:356 21:10 2:366 22:16 1:47 22:16–18 2:414 23 3:346 23:11 2:488 23:12 3:323 23:21 3:323 23:21–23 2:452 23:30–31 2:452

689

27 1:142, 2:366 27:14 1:142 30 3:196 30–32 2:490 30:7–17 1:47 30:17 3:196 30:20–22 2:252 32:10–15 2:422 32:12 2:413 45:15 1:45 50:1–13 2:223 50:9–10 2:223 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 2:180, 2:398, 2:399, 3:384 19:5 2:412 23:10 3:394 60:1–2 2:180 Life of Adam of Eve 28:3–29:2 2:370 32:1–2 2:369 41:1 2:370 43:1–2 2:370 45:1 2:370 51:9 3:394, 3:397 Letter of Aristeas 2:467, 2:480 9 2:467 29–32 2:467 128–42 2:467 142 2:414 308–11 2:467 Lives of the Prophets 3:388, 3:391, 3:392 p. 6, lines 10–11 3:394 p. 7, lines 12–13 3:394 p. 11, lines 18–20 3:394 p. 12, lines 6–7 3:394 p. 21, line 22 3:394 3 Maccabees 5:7 2:356 6:3 2:356 6:8 2:356 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 2:398 3:13 3:394 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 6-11 3:13 3:390, 3:393 Noah 2:454 Odes of Solomon 3:126, 3:127, 3:147, 3:150, 3:305 19:1–4 2:352, 2:360, 2:361

690

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

Parables of Enoch. See Similitudes of Enoch. Polycarp, To the Phillipians 6.3 3:394, 3:389 Prayer of Azariah 3:372 Psalms of Solomon 2:333, 2:428, 2:430, 2:432, 2:434, 2:436, 2:438, 2:440, 2:442, 2:444, 2:446, 3:346 1:7–8 2:435 1:8 2:428 2 2:427, 2:428 2:3 2:428, 3:47 2:11–13 2:435 2:26–28 2:79 2:32 2:429 2:33 2:428 2:34–35 2:429 3:3 2:428 3:12 2:429 4:1 2:428 4:8 2:428, 2:429 4:20 2:428 4:23 2:428 5:3–4 2:429, 2:431, 2:433 6 2:444 6:1ab 2:445 6:2ab 2:445 6:3ab 2:445 6:4ab 2:445 6:5a 2:445 6:5b–6a 2:445 6:6b 2:445 7:3–10 2:435 8 3:323 8:4–26 2:429 8:9–14 2:435 8:12 2:428 8:22 2:428, 2:435 9:3 2:428 9:4 2:429, 2:433 9:9–11 2:435 10:6 2:428 11:1 2:428 12:1 2:428 12:4 2:428 12:5 2:428 13:3 2:432 14:2 2:429 14:3 2:432 14:4 2:432 14:6 2:428

15:3 2:432 17 2:428, 2:435, 2:436, 2:440, 2:441, 2:442, 3:59 17:1–6 2:79 17:5–8 2:435 17:6 2:428 17:16–18 2:432, 2:433 17:19–20 2:435 17:20 2:428 17:21 2:435, 2:436 17:21–43 2:429 17:21–46 2:80 17:22 2:81 17:22–24 2:440 17:22–25 2:435 17:23b–24 2:441 17:23b–24b 2:440 17:24b 2:438 17:25 2:435 17:26 2:435 17:26–27 2:435 17:28 2:435 17:29 2:435, 2:438 17:30 2:435 17:30–31 2:435 17:31 2:435 17:32 2:435, 3:396 17:33 2:399, 2:435 17:33–34 2:441 17:34 2:435 17:35a 2:438 17:35–37 2:435 17:37b 2:438 17:37–39 2:435 17:38–39 2:441 17:39a 2:438 17:40b 2:438 17:40–41 2:435 17:42 2:435 17:43 2:90, 2:435 17:49 2:429 18:5 2:435 18:6–8 2:80 18:7–8 2:435 Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 3.1 2:180 3.2 2:180 3.4 2:180 5.1.2a 2:180 5.1.3–4 2:180 5.2.8 2:180

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 6.2.1 2:180 Sibylline Oracles 3:251 Similitudes of Enoch 1:55, 1:56, 1:63, 1:64, 1:102, 2:73, 2:84, 2:274, 2:377, 2:378, 2:379, 2:380, 2:381, 2:382, 2:383, 2:384, 2:385, 2:386, 2:387, 2:390, 2:391, 2:392, 2:393, 2:394, 2:399, 2:440. See also 1 Enoch 37–71. Slavonic Apocalypse 3:221 Syriac Apocalypse 2:381, 2:394, 3:392 30:1 3:390 Testament of Abraham 1:9, 2:398, 3:388, 3:391, 3:392 13:4 3:390, 3:394 13:6 3:390, 3:394 16:7 3:390, 3:393 Testament of Asher 1:3ff. 2:181 Testament of Benjamin 3:4 1:55 3:6 3:345 4:3–4 3:321 6:1 2:181 8:1–2 3:345 9:1 2:366 10:6 2:366 Testament of Gad 4:2–3 3:345 4.7 2:181 5:2–3 3:345 6:3–4 3:340 6:3–7 1:55 6:3–7:7 3:321 6:7 3:345 7:4–5 3:345 Testament of Issachar 3:6–5:3 1:55 7:6–7 1:55 Testament of Job 29 2:398, 3:390, 3:393 Testament of Judah 9:8 2:413 22:3 3:390 Testament of Levi 2:3 2:100

691

3:2–4 3:210 4:3 2:311 8 3:215 8:4–5 2:423 8:11 3:394 8:14 3:390 10:5 3:249 10:52 2:366 14:1–6 3:323 14:5–8 3:324 16:1 2:366 16:1–2 3:47 17:11 3:47 18:3–4 2:311 18:12–13 1:54 Testament of Moses 3:346 5:4 3:47 6:1 3:323 7:3–10 3:47 10:4 3:448 10:12 3:394 Testament of Naphtali 4:1 2:366 Testament of Reuben 1:9–10 1:55 2:1–2 1:54 2:8 1:54 4:1 1:55 Testament of Simeon 2:13 1:55 4:4–7 3:345 5:4 2:366 6:2–7 2:250 Testament of Solomon 13:8 3:390 Testament of Zebulun 8:4–6 3:345 8:5 3:345 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 1:53, 1:54, 1:55, 1:57, 1:58, 1:64, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:250, 2:397, 2:448, 2:480, 2:490, 2:491, 3:111, 3:117, 3:131, 3:146, 3:387

692

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX OTHER

De Abrahamo 235 3:221 Avesta, Yasna 30.3–5 2:173 30.8 2:175 30.10 2:175 31.2 2:174, 2:175 31.3 2:175 31.19 2:174 43.5 2:175 43.8 2:175 43.12 2:175 43.15 2:175 44.2 2:174 44.15 2:175 45.2 2:173 46.6 2:175 47 2:173, 2:174 47.6 2:175 50.5 2:174 51.9 2:175 De baptismo contra Donatistas 15.2 2:102 15.3 2:103 De Congressu eruditionis gratia 99 3:221 In Ctesiphonem 3.109–111 2:62 De culta feminarum 3.1 2:384 De decalogo 45 2:99 Diodorus Siculus 15.93.6 2:412 Dorothei Recensio (D) 28:3 3:394 35:6 3:394 De ebrietate 9 3:204 Epistulae ad Trajanum 10.96 2:118 Eusebius, Historiae ecclesiastica 2.1.2–5 3:310 De exsecrationibus 165 2:257 Geographica 1.1.5 1:9 3.2.13 1:9

De gigantibus 17c–d 1:111 De haeresibus 1.2 3:389 9.14 2:416 9.23 3:342, 3:351 9.27 2:261 Herodotus, Historiae 1.198 2:412 3.26 1:9 Historiae. See Herodotus, Historiae Historiae ecclesiastica. See Eusebius, Historiae ecclesiastica Hypothetica 11.8 3:26 11.10 3:332, 3:354 11.10–14 3:329 De Iosepho 246 3:345 261 3:345 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2 3:394 Jewish Antiquities 1:79 1.281 3:393 1.287 3:393 1.315 3:180 2.20 3:393 3.16 2:412 4.68 2:414 4.68–75 3:323 4.73 3:323 4.218 2:87 5.16–20 1:86 5.201 note c 1:79 5.330–31 note a 1:79 5.425 note c 1:79 5.433 note a 1:79 6.51 1:15 6.68–70 1:176 6.129 1:178 6.152 1:178 6.171 1:178 9.82–83 3:8, 3:341 12.3.1 2:420 12.4.1–2 2:23 12.387–88 2:20 13.10–14.3 2:428 13.62–73 2:20

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 13.171 1:7 13.171–73 2:236 13.172–73 2:433 13.172–173 3:304 13.299–300 2:82 13.301 2:78 13.311–13 3:446 13.372–383 2:82 13.380–83 3:174 13.398 1:200 14.4 2:428 14.74 2:412 14.324 2:382 14.359 2:382 14.363 2:382 15 3:393 15.88ff. 3:393 15.121–47 3:431 15.373–78 3:431 15.373–79 3:446 17.41–42 3:435 17.345–48 3:446 18.12–17 2:429 18.18 2:236, 2:261 18.19 3:47 18.20 3:329, 3:435 18.22 3:329, 3:354 18.116 3:446 18.116–19 3:22 18.116–118 3:376 18.116–119 3:446 18.117 2:102, 3:8, 3:22 18.117–18 3:27 18.118 2:102 18.172 3:25 19.339 3:393 20.97–98 3:58 20.169–71 3:58 20.179–81 3:47 20.200–203 3:425 20.205–7 3:47 20.213 3:47 20.236 2:20 Jewish War 1 2:382 1.7 2:428 1.15.6 2:413 1.78–80 3:446 1.97–98 3:174 1.113 3:174 1.248 2:382

693

1.252 2:382 1.370–80 3:431 2.7 2:407 2.8.3 2:407, 2:416, 2:419 2.8.5 2:308 2.8.5–8 2:404 2.8.7 2:405, 2:419 2.8.10 2:405, 2:419 2.21.2 2:419 2.113 3:446 2.119 2:260, 3:51 2.120 3:19 2.122 3:51, 3:329, 3:330, 3:333 2.123 1:201, 3:13 2.124 3:431 2.124–25 3:50 2.127 3:329 2.129 2:102 2.135 3:341, 3:343 2.137 3:13 2.137–38 3:330 2.137–39 3:330 2.138 2:103 2.138–42 3:320 2.139 2:66, 3:25, 3:341, 3:342 2.141 2:69, 3:331, 3:332, 3:436, 3:456 2.142 3:341 2.143 3:25, 3:445 2.145 2:358, 3:339 2.150 2:100, 3:11 2.151–158 2:261 2.159 2:100 2.162–65 2:429 3.351 3:82 5 3:384, 3:385 5.145 3:432 6.301–6 3:49 7.8.4 2:413 Josephus, Vita (Life) 11 3:447 13 2:420 416–18 1:15 Legum allegoriae 3.79–82 3:221 Life. See Josephus, Vita (Life) De vita Mosis 2.214 3:341 Naturales quaestiones 2.10 1:xxix

694

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

2.14 1:xxix Olympionikai 2.68–72 1:9 Opera et dies 159–60 1:9 P.Oxy. 1.23–30 3:298 1.26–27 3:298 Panarion 30.13.6 3:19 Phaedo 109b 1:9 111b 1:9 111c 1:9 Philo, Mos. 2.25–44 2:467 Plutarch, Agesilaus 40.3 2:412 Quis rerm divinarum heres sit 174 3:225 Quod omnis probus liber sit 75 3:47, 3:435 76–78 3:346 76–79 3:329 84 3:341 85–86 3:329

91

3:329

Quran 19.57 2:366 21.85 2:366 Sefer Zerubbabel 2:370 De specialibus legibus 1.291 3:26 3.91 3:341 3.96 3:341 De viris illustribus 2 3:310 Vita. See Josephus, Vita (Life) De vita contemplativa 1.2 2:409 2.13 2:409 2.18 2:409 3.25–29 2:409 3.30 2:408 3.32–33 2:408 4.34–35 2:409 4.37–38 2:409 8.67 2:408 9.68 2:408 9.68–69 2:408 9.73–74 2:409 13 2:407

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

695

QUMRAN 1Q3 2:135 1Q3 paleo 2:135 1Q10 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:253, 1:268, 1:269 19.1–18 2:455 1Q11 1:235, 1:236, 1:244, 1:253, 1:270 1Q12 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:266 1Q14 2:161, 2:277, 2:324, 3:272 10.3–9 2:277 frags. 8–10 line 8 3:272 1Q15 2:161, 2:324 1Q16 1:267, 2:324 1Q17 2:451, 2:486 1Q18 2:451, 2:486 1Q19 2:452, 2:486 1Q19a 2:452, 2:486 frags. 1, 3, and 8 1:102 1Q19bis 2:452 1Q20 1:145, 2:457 col. 12 2:457 20 12.13 1:115 20.28–29 3:342, 3:351 1Q21 2:452, 2:464, 2:490 1Q22 2:453, 3:222, 3:334 2.8 3:109, 3:222 2.11–3.7 3:334 3.2 3:334 4.2 3:222 1Q23 2:458 1Q23–24 1:102, 2:458, 2:485 1Q24 2:458 1Q26 2:265, 3:456, 3:457 1Q27 2:235, 2:239, 2:240, 2:463, 3:158, 3:275, 3:304, 3:328, 3:336 frags. 1–6, line 20 2:307 frag. 1 1.5–8 3:275 frag. 1 1.6–7 3:158 frag. 1 1.10–12 3:336 frag. 1 col. 2 3:336 frag. 1 2.5 3:328 frag. 11, line 3 2:307 frag. 13, line 1 2:307 frags. 21–22, line 1 2:307 frags. 29–32, line 8 2:307 frags. 33–34, col. 1, line 4 2:307 frags. 33–34, col. 1, line 21 2:307

frags. 37–38, line 5 2:307 frags. 51–55, line 9 2:307 frags. 51–55, line 13 2:307 frags. 51–55, line 18 2:307 frag. 64 2:307 frag. 69 2:307 frag. 70–71 2:307 frag. 76 2:307 frag. 81 2:307 1Q28 2:228, 3:215 2.12–20 3:215 1Q28a 2:26, 2:85, 2:204, 2:227, 2:228, 2:284, 2:286, 2:287, 2:288, 2:289, 2:290, 2:292, 2:293, 2:295, 2:296, 2:297, 2:298, 2:404, 2:405, 2:439, 3:43, 3:94, 3:109, 3:128, 3:167, 3:360, 3:365, 3:380, 3:168 1.1 2:228, 2:287, 2:290, 3:228 1.2 2:290, 2:293 1.3 2:290, 3:362, 3:367, 3:382 1.4 2:292 1.6 2:290 1.9 2:287, 2:288, 2:293 1.12–13 2:287, 2:288 1.14 2:290 1.14–15 2:292 1.15 2:293, 2:295 1.15–16 2:292, 2:293 1.17 2:287 1.19–22 3:337 1.20 2:287, 2:290 1.21 2:228, 2:293, 3:346 1.22b–25 2:298 1.23 2:287, 2:293, 2:298 1.23–24 2:295, 2:297 1.24 2:293, 2:295, 2:298 1.25 2:288, 2:295 1.25–26 2:287 1.25a and b 2:228 1.25b–27 2:228 1.26 2:228, 2:286, 2:287, 3:346 1.27 2:286 1.28 3:109 1.29–2.1 2:292, 2:295 2 3:43 2.1 2:293

696

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

2.2 2:286, 2:291 2.3–9 2:227 2.3–10 2:227, 3:208 2.4 2:288 2.5 2:287 2.5–22 3:94 2.7 2:287 2.8 2:287 2.8–9 1:127, 2:229, 3:208, 3:228 2.10 2:287 2.11 2:286, 2:287, 2:296 2.11–22 2:228, 2:404 2.12 2:287, 2:290 2.12–17 2:287 2.13 2:293 2.15 2:289 2.15–16 2:295 2.17 2:286 2.17–21 2:287 2.17–22 3:167 2.18 2:286 2.21 2:286, 2:287 1Q28b 2:26, 2:82, 2:85, 2:87, 2:228, 2:293, 2:294, 2:311, 2:439, 3:128, 3:269, 3:272, 3:423 1.1 2:293, 2:294 3.6 1:127 3.22 2:293, 2:294 3.23–24 2:87 4.26 1:127, 2:222 4.27 2:311 5.20 2:293, 2:294 5.23–27 1:310 5.24–25 2:439 5.24–29 3:423 5.25 2:439 5.25–26 2:439, 3:269 5.27 3:272 5.29 3:272 1Q29 2:453 1Q30 3:109 4.2 3:222 1Q32 2:458, 2:459, 3:264 1Q33 2:26, 2:48, 2:191, 2:192, 2:204, 2:225, 2:228, 2:230, 2:231, 2:232, 2:235, 2:274, 2:275, 2:280, 2:289, 2:353, 2:417 1 1:225, 1:226, 2:191 1.15–19 1:225 2 1:224

2–10 1:225 3–4 1:224 5.1–7.7 1:224 7–9 1:224 10–14 1:224 13–14 2:275 14 1:225 15–19 1:224, 1:225 1Q34 2:41, 2:305, 3:165, 3:166, 3:363, 3:365, 3:367, 3:380 frag. 3 1.4–6 3:365, 3:369, 3:382 1Q34–1Q34bis 2:301, 2:303, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:312, 2:314 frags. 1–3, col. 1 2:304 frags. 1–3, col. 1, line 2 2:312 frags. 1–3, col. 1, line 5 2:304 frags. 1–3, col. 1, line 6 2:312 frags. 1–3, col. 1, line 7 2:312 frags. 3–5, col. 2 2:304 frags. 3–5, col. 2, line 8 2:312 frags. 131–132 2:306 1Q34bis 2:7, 2:41, 2:305, 3:165, 3:166 1Q36 7.2 3:222 frag. 1 line 3 1:127 1Q54 1.2 3:222 1Q71 2:8 1QapGen 3:351 2 1:145 19–22 1:145 19.14–21 1:146 20.28–29 3:342 1QH (Sukenik) 1:275, 1:276, 1:293, 1:300, 1:301, 1:311, 2:26, 2:38, 2:86, 2:101, 2:178, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:189, 2:190, 2:192, 2:204, 2:217, 2:222, 2:233, 2:235, 2:265, 2:271, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:280, 2:293, 2:305, 2:321, 2:327, 2:328, 2:333, 2:341, 2:351, 2:352, 2:353, 2:354, 2:355, 2:356, 2:357, 2:358, 2:359, 2:360, 2:407, 2:413, 2:432, 2:443, 2:444, 3:52, 3:78, 3:83, 3:128, 3:156, 3:158, 3:170, 3:178, 3:179, 3:272, 3:275, 3:276, 3:335, 3:336, 3:360, 3:365, 3:379, 3:409 1.7b–8a (Sukenik) 2:217 1.20–21 2:238

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 1.23–24 2:237 1.24–25 2:38 1.26 3:193 2.1–19 2:354 2.31–39 2:354 3 3:9 3.19–23 2:407 3.19–36 (Sukenik) 2:273 3.21 (Sukenik) 2:273 3.22 3:208 4 3:138, 3:360, 3:365, 3:379 4.2–16 2:187 4.5–5.4 2:354 4.11b 2:354 4 (= 17 Sukenik).12 3:362, 3:367, 3:381 4.13 3:274 4.21 3:306 4.21–27 2:273 4.23 3:119 4.25 2:187 4.26 2:354 4.31 3:193 4.32–33 2:244 5 2:273 5.5–19 2:354 5.20–7.5 (Sukenik) 2:273 5.20–7.5 2:354 5.21–22 2:186 6.2 3:304 6.9 3:193 6.10–11 3:306 6.12 3:119, 3:140 6.14 3:140 6.20 3:338 6.23–27 3:269 6.24–30 (Sukenik) 1:275 6.25b 2:354 6.25b–27 3:275 6.25–27 3:306 7 2:189 7.8–10 (Sukenik) 1:275 7.16–17 2:189 7.25 2:189 7.28 (= 15.24) 3:381 7.28 3:379 8.4–11 2:327, 2:355, 3:138 8.4–40 2:354 8.7 3:119, 3:138 8.16 3:119, 3:138 8.18–19 3:306

697

8.19–20 2:190 8.21 2:101 9 2:432 9.1 3:82 9.7b–8 2:217 9.7b–8a 2:217 9.8–9 2:189 9.23 3:82 9.35 3:119 9.36 3:85 10 2:443 10.3–5 (Sukenik) 2:272 10.13 2:354, 3:83 10.13–14 3:304 10.20 3:119 10.24 2:413 10.29 3:119 10.31c–32a 2:444 10.31–33 3:85 10.32 3:85 10.34d–e 2:444 11 3:373 11.3–14 2:407 11.7 2:359, 3:276f 11.7b–18 3:276 11.11–12 (Sukenik) 2:222 11.20–37 2:273 11.22 2:273, 3:208 11.29 2:86 11 (= 3).29–36 3:375 11.31 2:86 11.34–36 3:274 12 2:432, 3:365, 3:368, 3:379 12.2–3(Sukenik) 3:210 12.4 3:92 12 (= 4).8–9 3:370 12 (= 4).37 3:367, 3:381 12.11 2:293 12.15 3:140 12.22 3:140 12.24–31 (Sukenik) 2:272 12.30 3:140 13 (Sukenik) 2:273 13 2:432 13.22–15.8 2:273 14 3:303, 3:373 14.9–39 2:273 14.11–12 2:190 14 (= 6).17–19 3:375 14.24–30 1:275 14.27 3:274

698

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

14.27b–37 3:274 15 2:358 15.6–8 2:188 15.6–25 2:353, 2:354 15.8–10 1:275 15.18 2:355 15.18b–19a 2:355 15.19–22a 2:351, 2:354, 2:355 15.21 2:356, 2:357 15.21–22 2:192 15.22 2:357 16 2:432, 3:145, 3:268 16 (= 8 Sukenik).4–11 3:268 16.4–11a 2:356 16.9 3:140 16.26–17.9 2:328 17 3:375 17 (= 9).9–10 3:377 17.9–15 (Sukenik) 2:273 17.10 3:273 17.29b–32a 2:356 17.31 2:357 17.35–36 2:356 17.36 2:356, 2:357 18.5–7 2:272 18.22–23 3:338 19.11–12 2:222 20 3:210 20.2–3 3:210 20.11–12 2:190 20.13 3:83 20.27–34 2:272 23 frag. 2 line 13 3:367, 3:381 25.3–16 2:272 frag. 16 3.3 3:272 frag. 53 2:274 frag. 55 lines 1–2 3:78 1QH III. See 1QH 3 1QHa 1.21–27 3:179 1.26–27 (Sukenik) 3:458 2.26–27 (Sukenik) 2:265 3.19–36 3:160 3.20–21 3:159, 3:161 4.29 3:179 4.29–30 (Sukenik) 3:454 4.38 3:169 5.26–27 2:265 5.30 3:458 5.30–33 3:454 5.33 3:179

5.33–34 3:179 6.3–4 3:335 6.4 3:346 6.8–22 3:346 6.17–21 3:330 6.19 3:346 6.21 3:346 6.33–34 3:157 7.25–26 3:338 7.27–34 3:169 7.30 3:160 7.33–34 3:170 7.34 3:179 7.34–35 3:169, 3:454 8.4–18 (Sukenik) 1:294 9.14–15 3:179 9.23–29 3:179 9.28–29 2:265, 3:458 10.27–28 (Sukenik) 2:265, 3:458 10.32 3:335 10.34 3:335 11.10 3:345 11.13 3:160 11.13–14 3:159 11.20–37 3:160 11.21–22 3:159, 3:161 11.21–23 1:127 11.25 3:335 12 1:311 12.8 1:311 12.22–23 1:311 12.30 3:179 12.30–31 3:454 12.39 3:169 13.9–10 (Sukenik) 2:265 13.13 3:335 13.13 (Sukenik) 3:458 13.13–16 (Sukenik) 3:454 13.14 3:335 13.16 3:179, 3:335 13.16–17 3:179 13.18 3:335 13.20 3:335 13.21–22 3:336 14.13 1:127 14.15–16 3:157 14.18–19 3:346 14.29–33 3:346 15 3:170 15.14–21 3:169

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 15.17 3:160 15.18–19 3:345 15.19–22a 2:357 15.20–21 3:170 15.21 3:179 15.21 (Sukenik) 3:454 15.22–23 3:346 15.37–38 3:169 16.4–18 1:294 16.17–20 3:346 17.14–15 3:179 17.15 3:345 17.23–26 3:345 18.22–23 3:338 18.22–24 3:345 18.24–30 3:338 18.29–30 2:265, 3:458 19 3:160 19.11–14 1:127 19.16 3:160 19.16–17 3:159 19.20 3:345 23 [top] 1.10 3:336 23 [top] 1.14–15 3:336 23 frag. 2 lines 1–3 1:127 23 frag. 2 lines 10 1:127 23 frag. 2 lines 14 1:127 25 frag. 5 line 3 1:127 26.1–2 3:336 26.27 3:160 frag. 7 2.2 3:160 frag. 7 col. 1 line 11 1:127 frag. 10 lines 4 1:127 frag. 10 lines 6–7 1:127 frag. 16 3.3 3:335 1QHodayot. See 1QH. 1QIsaa 2:143, 2:253. See 1Q28a 1QIsab 2:130 1QJN. See 1Q32 1QJuba 2:451 1QM 2:26, 2:191, 2:192, 2:208, 2:217, 2:227, 2:228, 2:231, 2:232, 2:274, 2:275, 2:289, 2:297, 2:417, 2:444, 3:41, 3:128, 3:163, 3:178, 3:182, 3:259, 3:271, 3:278, 3:336, 3:345, 3:346, 3:347, 3:409, 3:438 1 1:130, 3:164 1–2 2:231 1 end–9 end 2:231 1.1 2:231, 3:117, 3:163, 3:271, 3:272, 3:304, 3:307

699

1.1–end 2:231 1.2 1:129, 2:231 1.2–4 1:281 1.3 3:117, 3:163, 3:304, 3:307 1.4 1:128, 1:129, 3:272 1.4–5 1:129 1.5–7 1:129 1.6 1:129 1.7 3:304 1.8 1:129, 3:87, 3:163 1.8–9 2:38, 2:231 1.9 1:129, 3:117, 3:163, 3:304, 3:307 1.9–10 2:231 1.10–11 2:231 1.11 3:117, 3:163, 3:307 1.11–12 1:129 1.12 1:129 1.13 3:117, 3:163, 3:307 1.14–15 1:127 1.16 3:304 2–9 1:227, 2:231 2.1–2 2:48, 2:208 2.5 3:365, 3:367, 3:379, 3:381 2.8 2:217 2.14.13 2:217 3.4 2:289 3.6 3:304 3.9 3:304 4.2–3 3:177 4.6 3:452 4.9 2:289 5.1 1:227, 1:228 6.5–6 3:346 6.6 3:345 7–9 1:229 7.1 2:289 7.3 2:289 7.3–6 2:227, 2:228 7.4–5 3:94 7.6 1:127, 1:227, 2:231, 3:208 7.7 2:289 9–14 2:231 9 end–14 end 2:231 9.8–9 2:417 9.15–16 2:231 10 1:228 10–14 1:228 10.1–5 2:232 10.10–11 2:231 11 1:228

700

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 11.1 1:228 11.5 1:228 11.6–7 2:83 11.8–9 3:337 11.9 1:201 11.13 1:201, 3:345 11.13–14 3:337 12 1:228, 1:229 12.1–2 1:127 12.4–5 1:127, 2:275 12.6 2:232, 2:275 12.7 2:232 12.7–9 1:127 12.7–16 2:232 12.8–9 2:232 12.9 1:228 12.10ab–11a 2:444 12.10–15 2:444 12.11bc 2:444 12.11–12 3:177 12.11d–12a 2:444 12.12b–c 2:444 12.12d–e 2:444 12.13abc 2:444 12.14b–c–15a 2:444 12.15b–c 2:444 12.16 2:232 13 1:228 13.1 2:297 13.5 3:182 13.10 1:127, 1:128, 1:228, 2:231, 2:275, 3:87 13.11–12 2:231 13.12–14 3:337 13.13–14 1:201 13.14–15 2:275 13.15 1:228 13.15–16 2:275 13.16 3:163, 3:304 13.16–18 3:346 14 1:228 14 end–20 (?) 2:231 14.2 2:289 14.2–3 3:276, 3:276f 14.3–4 1:228 14.7 3:337 14.9 1:229 14.14 2:275, 3:160 14.15 1:229 14.16 2:275 14.17 1:229, 3:304

15–19 1:229, 1:230, 2:231 15.1 1:129 15.4–5 2:231 16.3–6 2:232 16.11 3:304 16.15–17.9 1:229 17 1:227 17.1 2:275 17.2 1:228 17.6 1:127, 2:275 17.6–7 1:128 17.8–9 1:227 17.17–18 2:275 18 1:229 18.1 1:229 18.1–3 2:275 18.6 1:229 18.10–11 2:275 19 1:228, 2:232 19.1 1:229, 2:232 19.4 1:229, 3:177 1QpHab 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:23, 2:24, 2:26, 2:37, 2:38, 2:55, 2:57, 2:130, 2:161, 2:213, 2:218, 2:312, 2:326, 2:327, 2:348, 2:351, 2:355, 2:357, 3:226, 3:272, 3:275, 3:333, 3:409, 3:438 1.3 3:47 1.12–13 3:87 1.13 1:190, 1:203, 2:351, 3:389, 3:391 1.16–2 3:68 1.16–2.10 3:68 2.1 1:193 2.1–2 1:203 2.1–4 2:357 2.3 2:358, 3:165, 3:166, 3:223, 3:420 2.4 3:44 2.5 3:228 2.7–9 3:216 2.12 3:272 2.14 3:272 5.3–6 3:346 5.10 3:391 6.12b–7.8 3:263 7 2:348, 3:31, 3:108, 3:128, 3:135 7.1–5 3:83 7.3–5 1:298 7.3–8 3:225

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 7.3–8.3 3:225 7.3–17 2:355 7.4 3:391 7.4–5 1:317, 2:327, 3:422 7.5 3:42 7:5–14 2:238 7.10 3:304 7.12–13 2:38 7.12–14 2:218 7.13–14 2:238 8.1–2 3:65, 3:176 8.1–3 3:171 8.1–7 2:357 8.2 3:273 8.3 3:391 8.3–13 1:191, 1:193 8.8 1:190, 1:191, 3:272 8.8–9 1:203 8.8–12 2:23, 3:47 8:8–13 2:19 8.9 1:200, 2:24 8.9–11 3:47 8.10 1:193 8.10–12 3:337 8.13 1:193 8.13–9.3 1:193, 1:195 8.16 1:190, 1:191 9 3:31 9.4–5 3:47 9.4–7 3:337 9.5–12 3:47 9.7 1:203 9.7–11 1:196, 1:203 9.7–12 1:195 9:8–12 2:20, 2:22 9.9 1:190, 1:191 9.9–10 1:190, 2:351 9.10 1:195, 3:391 9.12–10.1 1:196, 3:337 9.16 1:190, 1:191 10.1 3:47 10.4–5 1:196 10.9 1:191 11.1 3:119 11.1–8 2:312 11.2 1:198 11.2–8 1:196, 1:198, 2:21, 3:423 11.3 1:303 11.4 1:190, 1:191, 1:197, 3:47 11.4–5 1:190, 3:85

701

11.4–8 1:197, 2:55, 2:213, 3:31, 3:425 11.4–17 2:351 11.5 1:200, 3:391 11.6 1:303 11.7 1:200 11.8–15 1:199, 1:200 11.12 1:190, 1:191, 1:199 11.13–14 1:199 11.14 1:199 11.16–12.10 1:200, 1:202 12 1:197 12.2 1:190, 1:191 12.2–3 3:345 12.2–5 3:332, 3:337 12.3–4 3:266 12.4 3:272 12.5–6 3:337 12.6–10 3:47 12.8 1:190, 1:191 12.8–9 3:323 12.9–10 3:337 12.14–13.4 1:313 1QpMic. See 1Q14 1QpPs. See 1Q16 1QPr Fetes. See 1Q34–1Q34bis frag. 3 2.6 3:166 1QPsa 2:455 1QPsb 2:455 1QpZeph. See 1Q15 1QS 1:21, 2:18, 2:26, 2:27, 2:37, 2:38, 2:40, 2:42, 2:57, 2:59, 2:63, 2:65, 2:66, 2:67, 2:68, 2:69, 2:81, 2:85, 2:87, 2:89, 2:95, 2:98, 2:100, 2:101, 2:149, 2:159, 2:169, 2:170, 2:172, 2:173, 2:174, 2:175, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:179, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 2:189, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 2:194, 2:195, 2:197, 2:199, 2:200, 2:201, 2:204, 2:207, 2:213, 2:214, 2:216, 2:217, 2:218, 2:219, 2:220, 2:221, 2:222, 2:226, 2:227, 2:228, 2:229, 2:230, 2:231, 2:235, 2:237, 2:240, 2:265, 2:271, 2:274, 2:275, 2:277, 2:280, 2:283, 2:284, 2:285, 2:287, 2:288, 2:289, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:293, 2:294, 2:295, 2:296, 2:297, 2:298, 2:299, 2:309, 2:311, 2:313, 2:314, 2:318, 2:321, 2:322, 2:324, 2:325, 2:327,

702

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

2:331, 2:332, 2:335, 2:336, 2:339, 2:346, 2:353, 2:357, 2:391, 2:402, 2:404, 2:405, 2:407, 2:418, 2:419, 2:431, 2:432, 3:7, 3:20, 3:24, 3:43, 3:48, 3:52, 3:69, 3:107, 3:128, 3:139, 3:163, 3:164, 3:167, 3:178, 3:182, 3:270, 3:271, 3:278, 3:306, 3:320, 3:321, 3:324, 3:326, 3:328, 3:329, 3:332, 3:334, 3:337, 3:338, 3:340, 3:341, 3:342, 3:343, 3:344, 3:345, 3:346, 3:347, 3:348, 3:349, 3:350, 3:351, 3:352, 3:353, 3:354, 3:409, 3:410, 3:418, 3:438, 3:453 1–2 2:331 1–4 3:142, 3:156 1.1 3:272 1.1–15 3:270 1.2.22 2:222 1.3.10 2:217 1.3 1:295 1.3–4 2:66, 3:305 1.3–10 3:303 1.4 3:342 1.5 3:86, 3:119 1.8 1:295, 2:288, 2:289, 3:329 1.9 2:217, 3:116, 3:163, 3:305, 3:307 1.9–10 3:304 1.9–11 3:346, 3:453 1.10 3:116, 3:272, 3:305 1.10–11 2:66, 3:329, 3:331, 3:344 1.11 2:327 1.11–12 2:67 1.11–13 3:93, 3:326, 3:329 1.12 1:295, 2:222, 2:286 1.12–13 2:67, 3:85 1.13b–15a 2:214 1.14–15 3:198 1.16 3:30 1.16–20 3:26 1.16–2.18 2:294 1.18 2:292 1.19 2:293 1.20 2:357 1.21–25 3:20 1.22 2:293 1.23–24 3:11 1.24–25 2:40 2 3:192 2.1–4 3:21

2.2 2:288 2.2–4 1:295 2.3 2:311 2.4 2:293 2.4–10 3:22, 3:331, 3:447 2.4–18 3:329, 3:344 2.4–25 3:163 2.6–7 3:342, 3:345 2.7 3:25 2.7–8 3:25 2.8 3:379, 3:381 2.10 2:357, 3:24 2.11 2:293 2.11–18 3:24, 3:331, 3:447 2.12–17 2:63 2.16 3:116, 3:163, 3:304, 3:307 2.18 2:357 2.19 2:292 2.19–25 2:291, 2:313 2.20 2:293 2.21–22 2:292 2.22 2:286, 2:290 2.24 2:286, 3:343 2.25–3.5 1:58 2.25–3.6 3:344 2.25–3.12 3:329, 3:331, 3:450 3 1:xxix, 3:133 3–4 1:12, 2:173, 2:176, 2:177, 2:178, 2:179, 2:180, 2:181, 2:182, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:187, 2:188, 2:189, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193, 3:34, 3:41, 3:108, 3:115, 3:119, 3:182, 3:457 3.2–3 3:329 3.3 3:116 3.3–9 3:225 3.4 2:419 3.4–12 2:314 3.4.16 2:221 3.5 2:419 3.6 2:286 3.6–8 3:365, 3:367, 3:379, 3:381 3.6–12 3:180 3.7 2:101, 3:119, 3:132 3.7–9 2:98, 2:100, 3:8 3.8 3:163, 3:180 3.8–9 2:102, 3:163 3.9 2:288, 2:419, 3:180

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 3.9–11 2:213, 2:214 3.11 3:44 3.11–12 2:289 3.12 2:226, 2:286 3.13 2:226, 2:293, 3:107, 3:111, 3:116, 3:132, 3:163, 3:271, 3:304, 3:307 3.13–4 2:265, 3:28, 3:150, 3:156, 3:164, 3:170, 3:181 3.13–4.6 2:178 3.13–4.14 2:191, 2:192, 3:116, 3:150 3.13–4.26 1:9, 2:169, 2:170, 2:173, 2:174, 2:183, 2:184, 2:185, 2:186, 2:189, 2:191, 2:192, 2:222, 2:226, 2:237, 2:407, 3:28, 3:116, 3:156, 3:163, 3:164, 3:170, 3:181, 3:301, 3:413, 3:440, 3:457 3.13–15 1:12, 3:346 3.14 2:178, 2:179, 2:180 3.14–15 2:178 3.15 2:219, 2:321, 2:391, 3:107 3.15–16 2:237, 2:431, 3:303, 3:307 3.15–18 3:303 3.15–19 2:176 3.15–4.19 2:176 3.15b–4.1 2:194 3.15b–16a 2:217, 2:218 3.16 2:190, 2:192, 3:25, 3:140 3.17 2:220 3.17–19 2:192 3.17–88 3:303 3.18 2:173, 2:178, 2:179, 2:180, 2:183, 2:185, 2:222 3.18–19 2:178, 2:180, 2:183, 2:184, 2:186, 2:187, 2:188, 3:132, 3:136 3.19 2:173 3.19–21 2:175 3.19–23 3:69 3.20 2:231, 2:293 3.20–21 2:220, 2:226 3.20–25 2:191, 2:192, 2:195, 3:112 3.21 2:173, 3:111, 3:118, 3:132 3.22 2:176, 2:222, 2:293, 3:116

703

3.23 2:178, 2:221, 2:222 3.24 2:177, 2:181, 2:191, 3:116, 3:163 3.24–25 2:174, 3:111, 3:132, 3:163, 3:304, 3:307 3.25 2:183, 3:116, 3:132 3.25–26 3:307 3.25–4 3:181 3.25–4.14 3:181 3.25ab–4.1 3:181 3.26–4.1 3:306 4 3:9 4.1 3:25 4.2 2:174, 2:222 4.2–3 3:133 4.2–6 2:188 4.2–14 2:178, 2:194 4.2ab–3aa 3:181 4.3 2:181, 2:222 4.3ab–6 3:181 4.4 3:119, 3:133 4.4–5 2:181 4.5 3:133 4.5–6 3:436 4.6 2:174, 2:222, 3:82, 3:181 4.6b–8 3:181 4.7 2:222, 3:275 4.7–8 3:115 4.8 3:276f 4.9 2:180 4.9aa 3:181 4.9–10 3:182 4.9–11 2:188 4.9ab–11ba 3:181 4.10 2:181 4.11 3:111, 3:118, 3:132, 3:133 4.11b–14 3:274 4.11bb–14 3:181 4.12 3:115 4.12–13 3:115 4.15–16 2:175 4.15–18 2:174 4.15–26 2:192, 2:194 4.16–7 2:222 4.16–17 3:25 4.16–26 2:226 4.17–18 2:179 4.18 2:175, 2:222, 3:140 4.18–19 2:226 4.18–22 2:178

704

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 4.18–25 3:42 4.19 2:222 4.20 2:188, 2:271, 3:345 4.20–21 2:101, 2:177 4.20–23 2:176, 2:188 4.21 2:177, 2:184, 2:419, 3:132, 3:136 4.22 3:44, 3:91, 3:163, 3:208 4.23 2:176, 2:177, 2:179, 2:181, 2:184, 3:132, 3:136, 3:345 4.24–25 2:190 4.25 2:38, 2:271, 3:159 4.26 3:345 5 2:229, 2:298 5.1 3:344 5.1–2 3:24, 3:329 5.1–6 3:9, 3:26, 3:29 5.1–6.8 3:9 5.1–6.23 3:29 5.2 3:329 5.2–3 2:292, 2:297, 2:298, 3:329 5.3 3:119 5.3–4 3:343 5.4–5 2:181 5.5 2:289, 2:290 5.5–6 2:298, 3:44, 3:365, 3:367, 3:379, 3:381 5.6 2:290, 3:27, 3:329, 3:339 5.7 2:287, 2:296, 2:297, 3:25 5.7–10 2:229 5.7–11 2:229, 3:330 5.7–20 1:295, 2:296 5.8 2:230, 2:289, 2:299, 3:44, 3:329 5.8–9 2:69 5.8–10 2:229, 2:230 5.9 2:230 5.9–10 2:297, 2:298 5.10 3:329, 3:344 5.10–11 3:331 5.10–20 3:354 5.11–13 3:346 5.12 3:344 5.12–13 3:274 5.13 2:103, 3:8, 3:304 5.13–14 3:331 5.13–20 3:344 5.14 2:98, 3:331 5.14–20 3:329 5.15–16 3:331

5.15–17 3:25 5.16 3:25, 3:27 5.16–17 3:327, 3:331, 3:445 5.18 3:25, 3:304, 3:331 5.19–20 3:331 5.20 2:222, 2:288, 3:331 5.20–22 2:298 5.20–23 3:329 5.21 2:293, 3:193, 3:452 5.22 2:289, 3:329 5.23 3:193 5.23–6 3:305 5.23–24 2:405 5.24–6 3:270 5.24–6.1 3:343 5.25 3:343 6 2:294, 3:43, 3:129, 3:167 6.1 2:346, 3:339 6.2 2:69, 2:405, 3:156, 3:328, 3:329 6.2–3 2:149, 3:329 6.2–5 2:405 6.2–6 3:320, 3:333 6.2–23 2:404 6.3 2:297, 3:337 6.4–5 2:292, 3:167 6.4–6 3:167 6.5–6 3:167 6.6–7 1:91 6.6–8 1:295 6.7 2:346 6.7–8 2:332, 3:329 6.8 2:295, 2:296, 2:297, 2:346 6.8–10 2:296 6.8–11 2:405 6.8–13 2:291, 2:296 6.9 2:346 6.10 2:296, 2:335 6.11 2:346 6.12 2:294, 2:346 6.13 2:287, 2:290, 2:296, 2:346 6.13–16 3:327 6.13–17 3:330 6.13–22 2:418 6.13–23 2:296, 2:404, 2:405, 3:26, 3:225, 3:330, 3:354 6.14 1:295, 2:297, 2:346 6.14–15 2:294 6.14–20 3:108 6.15 2:69, 2:295, 2:346

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 6.16 2:297, 2:346 6.16–23 3:93 6.17 2:346, 3:329, 3:330 6.18 2:287, 2:296, 2:346, 3:193, 3:452 6.19 2:69 6.19–20 3:330, 3:332, 3:355 6.19–23 3:13 6.20 2:294, 2:346 6.20–22 3:330 6.21 3:19, 3:447 6.22 2:335, 2:405, 3:51, 3:329 6.23 2:287, 2:296 6.24 3:339 6.24–7.25 2:239, 3:330, 3:343 6.24–25 3:94, 3:328, 3:330, 3:343, 3:354 6.25 2:295, 3:328 6.25–27 3:341, 3:343, 3:344 7.1–2 3:23 7.2 2:297 7.2–10 3:343 7.6 2:201 7.6–8 3:330, 3:332, 3:343 7.8 3:340 7.8–9 3:344 7.9–10 2:239 7.10 3:11 7.15 3:346 7.15–18 3:343 7.15–20 3:225 7.16 2:295 7.16–17 3:23 7.17 3:23 7.18–21 2:404, 2:405, 3:330 7.18–25 3:343 7.21–22 2:418 7.22 2:297, 3:337 7.22–25 3:23 7.22–27 3:331 7.24 2:297, 3:337 7.24–25 3:25, 3:93, 3:343, 3:344 8 2:18, 2:277 8–9 2:313, 3:354 8.1 2:292, 3:337 8.1–4 3:59 8.2 3:86, 3:119, 3:343 8.4 3:268, 3:346 8.4–5 3:273 8.4–7 3:367, 3:382

705

8.4–10 3:238 8.4b–10a 3:266, 3:268 8.5 2:290, 2:432, 3:162, 3:337 8.5–6 3:162 8.5–7 3:47, 3:345 8.6 3:27, 3:115, 3:362 8.6–7 3:346 8.6–21 3:7 8.8 3:162 8.8–9 3:162 8.9 2:288, 2:290 8.10 2:288, 3:27, 3:47, 3:115, 3:346, 3:362, 3:367, 3:382 8.11 2:290, 3:180 8.11–12 3:331 8.12–14 2:432, 3:346 8.12–16 1:51, 2:318 8.13 3:7 8.13–14 3:7, 3:43, 3:92, 3:333, 3:449 8.14 3:7, 3:448 8.14–16 3:449 8.15–16 2:95 8.15–17 2:336 8.16 2:101 8.16–9.2 3:343 8.16–17 2:289 8.16–19 2:404, 2:405, 3:330, 3:339 8.16b–9.2 3:270 8.17 3:304 8.18 2:288, 3:331 8.19 2:295 8.20 2:288, 3:304 8.21 2:288 8.21–24 2:200 8.23 3:304 8.23–24 3:331 8.24–9.2 3:339 9 2:200, 2:201, 3:123 9–10 2:57 9.2 2:286, 2:288, 2:295 9.3–5 2:314, 3:47, 3:322 9.3–6 3:238, 3:365, 3:367, 3:380, 3:382 9.3–9 3:330 9.4 3:27, 3:115, 3:362 9.4–5 3:209 9.5 2:288 9.5–11 2:197 9.6 2:288

706

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 1:192, 2:292, 2:293, 3:163, 3:329 9.8 2:288, 3:304 9.8–9 3:331 9.8–10 3:344 9.9 2:288 9.9–11 3:214 9.11 2:89, 3:217, 3:275, 3:391, 3:423 9.12 2:293, 3:345, 3:346 9.13–14 3:346 9.14 2:293, 2:298, 3:87 9.14–23 3:346 9.15–16 2:190, 3:305 9.16 3:346 9.16–17 3:331, 3:344, 3:437, 3:456 9.16–22 3:92 9.16–23 3:344 9.18–21 3:346 9.19 2:288, 3:109 9.19–20 3:333, 3:448 9.19–21 3:346 9.19–23 3:346 9.21 3:109 9.21–22 3:184, 3:305, 3:331, 3:346, 3:401 9.21–23 3:344 9.22 3:332 9.22–23 3:331, 3:332, 3:338, 3:346, 3:355 9.23 3:331, 3:346 9.25 3:346 9.26–28 2:214 10 2:40, 3:184, 3:401 10.5–6 3:209 10.6 2:42 10.8–11.2 3:320, 3:321 10.8–11.2a 3:344 10.8–17 3:321 10.9–11.22 3:321 10.10 2:309, 3:44 10.11–12 3:375, 3:377 10.17–11.2 3:321, 3:332, 3:344 10.17–18 3:345 10.17–19 3:342 10.17–20 3:321, 3:344, 3:350 10.17–21 3:183, 3:184, 3:346 10.17–21a 3:321 3:332 9.7

10.18b–19a 10.18–20 3:331 10.19–20 3:331, 3:342, 3:346 10.20 3:343 10.20–21 3:27, 3:92 10.21 2:177 10.21b–24a 3:321 10.23–24 3:377 10.24b–11.2a 3:321 10.24–25 3:331, 3:436, 3:456 10.25 3:85, 3:452 10.25–26 3:346 10.26 3:343 10.26–11.2 3:346 11 2:271 11.1–2 3:321, 3:331, 3:332, 3:338, 3:344, 3:346 11.2 3:345 11.2–5 3:401 11.3 3:458 11.3–9 3:82 11.8 1:127, 3:162, 3:208, 3:228 11.9 3:177, 3:178, 3:179, 3:454 11.9–10 3:453 11.9–12 3:454 11.9–15 3:375, 3:377 11.11 2:217, 3:109 11.11–15 3:453 11.12 3:163, 3:452, 3:454 11.14 3:360, 3:362, 3:365, 3:367, 3:380, 3:382 11.16 3:163 11.17 3:92 11.21–22 2:187 14 2:177 15.4–5 2:407 16.16 2:407 20 2:180 col. 3, line 3–col. 4 2:271 cols. 5–9 2:292, 2:295 col. 8 2:200 col. 9 2:201 frag. 3, line 13–frag. 4, line 26 2:295 frag. 6, line 12 2:294 frag. 6, line 14 2:294 frag. 9, line 14 2:295 frag. 9, lines 16–20 2:295 frag. 9, lines 17–18 2:295 1QSa. See 1Q28a

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 2. See 1Q28a 2.3–10. See 1Q28a 2.5–22. See 1Q28a 2.8–9. See 1Q28a 2.17–18 3:168 1QSb. See 1Q28b 5.27. See 1Q28b 5.29. See 1Q28b 1QTemple cols. 1–5 1:135 2Q3 2:161 frag. 2 2:161 frag. 7 2:161 frag. 8 2:161 2Q4 3:226 frag. 4 3:226 frag. 8 3:226 2Q13 1:248 2Q14 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:268 2Q16 2:165 2Q17 2:165 2Q18 2:241, 2:450, 2:474, 2:475, 2:476 frag. 1 2:475 frag. 2 line 6 2:476 frag. 2 2:475, 2:476 2Q19 2:451, 2:486 2Q20 2:451, 2:486 2Q21 2:453 2Q22 2:456 2Q24 2:18, 2:47, 2:58, 2:339, 2:458, 2:459, 2:472, 3:264 2Q26 1:102, 2:458, 2:485 2QExodb. See 2Q3 2QJN. See 2Q24 2QRutha. See 2Q16 2QRuthb. See 2Q17 3Q1 2:164 3Q2 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:264 3Q3 2:165 3Q5 2:451, 2:486 3Q7 2:452, 2:457, 2:490 22:2 3:393 3Q15 3:104 11.12 3:104 3QLam. See 3Q3 4papSc 3.9–14 3:180 4Q1 2:140 4Q4 2:165 4Q6 2:166

4Q7 4Q9 4Q11

707

2:166 2:166 2:140 frag. 1 2:140 4Q13 2:456 4Q15 2:109, 2:113, 2:114, 2:121, 2:122, 2:135, 2:148, 2:161 4Q15–16 2:130 4Q16 2:109, 2:114, 2:115, 2:162 4Q17 2:135, 2:140, 2:266, 2:320 frag. 1, col. 1, lines 14–16 2:266 4Q22 1:248, 2:113, 2:119, 2:138 4Q23 2:135, 2:140 4Q27 2:119, 2:138 4Q28 2:135 4Q29 2:115 4Q30 2:115 4Q31 2:115 4Q32 2:115, 2:166 4Q35 2:115 4Q36 2:115 4Q37 1:248, 2:109, 2:110, 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:116, 2:117, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:123, 2:130, 2:132, 2:140, 2:149, 2:162 frags. 1–7 2:112 frag. 8 2:112, 2:113 frags. 9–10 2:112 frag. 11, line 1 2:112 frags. 11–13 2:112 frag. 14 2:112 frag. 27 2:112 4Q37–38 3:208 32:43 3:208 4Q38 2:109, 2:110, 2:112, 2:114, 2:116, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:130, 2:149, 2:162 4Q41 2:109, 2:110, 2:112, 2:113, 2:114, 2:115, 2:116, 2:117, 2:118, 2:119, 2:120, 2:121, 2:122, 2:123, 2:128, 2:130, 2:132, 2:149, 2:162 col. 1 2:113 cols. 2–6 2:113 4Q44 2:109, 2:110, 2:113, 2:114, 2:118, 2:119, 2:121, 2:130, 2:149, 2:150, 2:162 4Q45 2:115 4Q46 2:135 4Q47 2:138 4Q48 2:166 4Q51 1:79, 2:139

708

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

4Q53 2:166 4Q57 2:161 4Q58 2:166 4Q70 1:248, 2:138 4Q71 1:248, 2:138 4Q72 1:248, 2:138, 2:166 4Q72a 2:138 4Q73 2:114, 2:116, 2:126, 2:150, 2:163 4Q74 2:165 4Q76 2:166 4Q83 1:234, 1:236, 1:251, 1:253, 1:264, 1:266, 1:267, 2:155, 2:164 frags. 1–10, 3.15–16 2:333 frags. 1–10, col. 3, line 15 2:327 frags. 1–10, col. 3, line 19 2:327 frags. 1–10, col. 4 line 8 2:327 4Q84 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:240, 1:244, 1:253, 1:268, 1:269, 2:115, 2:121, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:163, 2:164 frag. 5 2:163 frag. 25 col. 2 2:163 4Q85 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:240, 1:244, 1:253, 1:265, 1:266, 1:267 4Q86 1:236, 1:244, 1:253, 1:268, 1:269, 1:271, 2:155, 2:164, 2:166 4Q87 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:238, 1:243, 1:249, 1:251, 1:253, 1:267, 1:268, 1:269, 1:270, 1:271, 2:121, 2:154, 2:156, 2:164 4Q88 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:238, 1:240, 1:244, 1:245, 1:252, 1:253, 1:254, 1:265, 1:269, 1:271, 1:272, 2:121, 2:155, 2:164, 2:455 1–15 1:262 7–8 2:455 9.1–15 2:455 10.4–15 1:261, 2:455 4Q89 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:253, 1:270, 2:113, 2:118, 2:123, 2:150, 2:155, 2:157, 2:163 4Q90 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:253, 1:269, 2:113, 2:118, 2:123, 2:150, 2:155, 2:157, 2:163 4Q91 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:266, 1:267 4Q92 1:235, 1:236, 1:244, 1:253, 1:264, 1:268, 1:270, 2:155, 2:164 4Q93 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:268 4Q94 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:268

4Q95 1:235, 1:236, 1:244, 1:253, 1:270, 2:113, 2:114, 2:121, 2:155, 2:163, 2:164 frag. 1 2:113 frags. 2–3 2:113 4Q96 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:269 4Q97 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:271 4Q98 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:266, 2:121, 2:155, 2:164 4Q98a 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:266 4Q98b 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:264, 1:268 4Q98c 1:236, 1:253, 1:266 4Q98d 1:236, 1:253, 1:268 4Q98e 1:236, 1:253, 1:265 4Q98f 1:235, 1:236, 1:253, 1:269 4Q98g 1:253, 1:268, 2:163 4Q104 2:165 4Q105 2:165 frags. 1–3 2:165 frag. 4 2:165 4Q106 2:114, 2:121, 2:125, 2:126, 2:128, 2:140, 2:141, 2:142, 2:150, 2:163, 2:164 frag. 2 col. 2 2:125 4Q106–107 2:114, 2:138 4Q107 2:114, 2:120, 2:121, 2:125, 2:126, 2:128, 2:140, 2:141, 2:142, 2:150, 2:163, 2:164 frag. 1 2:125 4Q108 2:164 4Q109 2:125, 2:165 4Q110 2:165 4Q111 2:165 4Q112 1:121, 2:166 frag. 5 2.9 1:122 4Q113 1:121, 2:166 4Q116 2:164, 2:166 4Q117 3:155 4Q119–122 2:466 4Q123 2:454 4Q126 2:467 4Q127 2:467 4Q128 2:149 4Q129 2:149 4Q134 2:119, 2:149 4Q135 2:149 4Q137 2:149 4Q139 2:119, 2:149 4Q140 2:149 4Q141 2:109

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 4Q142 2:149 4Q156 2:167 4Q157 2:112, 2:167 4Q158 2:21, 2:134, 2:135, 2:139, 2:160, 2:216, 2:217, 2:238, 2:453 frag. 6 2:160 frag. 14 2:139 4Q158–186 2:134, 2:319, 2:453, 2:454, 2:486 4Q159 1:258, 2:111, 2:152, 3:49, 3:52, 3:326 2.6–8 3:49 4Q160 2:454 4Q161 2:83, 2:84, 2:323, 2:438, 2:439, 3:216, 3:389, 3:394, 3:423 2.11–17 2:438 2.18–25 2:438 frags. 8–10 3.11–21 3:391, 3:396 frags. 8–10 3.21–22 3:423 frags. 8–10 3.22–25 2:84 frags. 8–10 3.25 3:216 4Q161–165 2:324 4Q162 2:95 2.1–10 3:338 2.6–7 1:278 col. 2 2:95 4Q163 2:95 23 2:95 4Q164 3:239, 3:265, 3:268 lines 1–7 3:239 4Q166 2:323 4Q166–167 2:324 4Q167 3:272 frag. 2 line 2 3:272 frag. 2 line 3 1:194 4Q168 2:303, 3:162 394 2:45 4Q169 2:121, 2:202, 2:326, 3:173, 3:271, 3:272, 3:337 1.11 3:47 2.2 3:272 2.9 2:406 4.1 2:202 frags. 3–4 1.2 1:113, 3:271 frags. 3–4 1.2–3 1:188 frags. 3–4 1.3 3:271 frags. 3–4 1.6–8 1:194, 3:173 frags. 3–4 1.9–12 3:337 frags. 3–4 2.2–10 3:272 4Q170 2:324

709

4Q171 1:266, 1:267, 1:269, 2:21, 2:88, 2:216, 2:277, 2:287, 2:317, 2:320, 2:322, 2:323, 2:324, 2:325, 2:326, 2:327, 2:328, 2:329, 2:330, 2:331, 2:332, 2:333, 2:334, 2:335, 2:336, 2:337, 2:338, 2:339, 2:340, 2:342, 2:343, 2:344, 2:345, 2:347, 2:348, 2:349, 3:216, 3:245, 3:272, 3:338, 3:422 1 frags. 1–10, 3.15–16 2:327 1–10 2.11 2:326 1–10 4.19 2:326 1–10, cols. 2–4 2:277 1–10, col. 2, lines 1–2 2:277 1–10, col. 4, line 19 2:287 2.2–3 2:348 2.3 2:348 2.5 2:348 2.9–13 3:337 2.10 2:348 2.18–19 1:197 3.1–2 3:245 3.4–5 2:324 3.5a 1:303 3.7 2:216 3.7–8 3:338 3.8–10 3:337 3.10 3:272 3.10–11 3:246 3.14–17 3:216 3.15 1:188, 1:197, 3:422 3.15–16 2:21 4.7–10 1:202, 1:203, 2:22 4.9 3:345 4.15 2:88 cols. 2–3 2:334 frags. 1–10, col. 3.5 2:324 frags. 1–10, 1.26 2:344, 2:347 frags. 1–10, 1.27 2:340, 2:342, 2:344, 2:347 frags. 1–10, 2.1–5a 2:338 frags. 1–10, 2.2–3 2:344 frags. 1–10, 2.3 2:344 frags. 1–10 2.4 2:330 frags. 1–10, 2.4 2:344 frags. 1–10, 2.5 2:342, 2:344, 2:348, 2:349 frags. 1–10, 2.7 2:324 frags. 1–10, 2.7–8 2:348 frags. 1–10 2.8 2:330 frags. 1–10 2.9 2:330

710

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

frags. 1–10, 2.9–11 2:330 frags. 1–10, 2.10 2:344, 2:348 frags. 1–10 2.11 2:330 frags. 1–10, 2.11 2:348 frags. 1–10, 2.14 2:344 frags. 1–10, 2.15 2:344, 2:345 frags. 1–10, 2.16–20 2:324 frags. 1–10, 2.18 2:344, 2:348 frags. 1–10, 2.23 2:344 frags. 1–10, 3.3 2:337 frags. 1–10, 3.4–5 2:324 frags. 1–10, 3.7–8 2:343, 2:344 frags. 1–10 3.9 2:330 frags. 1–10, 3.10–11 2:340 frags. 1–10, 3.11 2:343 frags. 1–10, 3.11–12 2:324 frags. 1–10, 3.12 2:344 frags. 1–10, 3.12–12 2:344 frags. 1–10, 3.15–16 2:342 frags. 1–10, 3.16 2:340, 2:348 frags. 1–10 4.2 2:330 frags. 1–10, 4.7 2:328 frags. 1–10, 4.8 2:327, 2:347 frags. 1–10, 4.8–10 2:328 frags. 1–10 4.11 2:330 frags. 1–10, 4.11–12 2:343 frags. 1–10, 4.14 2:344 frags. 1–10, 4.19 2:345 frags. 1–10, 4.27 2:327, 2:340 frags. 1–10, 5.27 2:324 4Q173 1:269, 1:270, 2:324 4Q174 1:122, 1:252, 1:264, 2:83, 2:85, 2:87, 2:88, 2:109, 2:111, 2:128, 2:150, 2:155, 2:277, 2:324, 2:406, 2:436, 3:47, 3:61, 3:65, 3:117, 3:155, 3:163, 3:164, 3:175, 3:193, 3:195, 3:207, 3:217, 3:228, 3:245, 3:246, 3:266, 3:307, 3:389, 3:394, 3:452 1.1–13 3:245, 3:254 1.1–19 3:207 1.2–7 3:47 1.3 3:246 1.4 2:406 1.6 3:246 1.7 3:193, 3:195 1.7–10 3:207 1.12 3:228 2.3–4 1:122 3.7 3:175, 3:452 3.8–9 3:307 3.14 1:294

column 2 lines 3–4 1:123 frags. 1–2 2:128 frags. 1–2 1.7 3:175 frags.1–2 1.8 3:163 frags. 1–2 1.8–9 3:163, 3:307 frags. 1–3 1.4 1:127 frags. 1–3 1.6 3:266 frags. 1–3, col. 1, lines 10–13 2:436 frags. 1–3 1.11 3:396 frags. 1–3 1.11–12 2:88, 3:391 frags. 1–3 2.1–3 3:452 frag. 1 1.1–9 3:117 frag. 21 1.1–19 2:128 4Q174+177 2:277 4Q175 2:81, 2:85, 2:87, 2:114, 2:116, 2:121, 2:122, 2:123, 2:128, 2:129, 2:150, 2:159, 2:160, 2:161, 2:162, 3:207, 3:216, 3:217, 3:275 16–20 3:216 4Q176 1:264, 1:267, 2:111, 2:112, 2:128, 2:129, 2:451, 2:486, 3:160 19–21 2:451 frags. 1–2 1.1–3, 4b 2:129 frags. 4 and 5 line 5 2:129 frags. 8–11 lines 13–17 2:129 frag. 14 lines 1–7 2:129 frags. 16–18, 22–23, 51 and 53 lines 1–9 2:129 frags. 19–21 2:486 frags. 24–32 2:129 frags. 34–41 2:129 frags. 43–50 2:129 frag. 52 2:129 frags. 54–57 2:129 4Q177 1:252, 1:264, 1:265, 2:111, 2:128, 3:117, 3:163, 3:452 frags. 10–11 line 7 3:163 frags. 12–13 1.7 3:163 frags. 12–13 1.11 3:163 frag. 12 1.7 3:117 frag. 12 1.11 3:117 4Q178 2:111 4Q180 2:204, 2:205, 2:215, 2:216, 2:217, 2:219, 2:220, 2:486 frag. 1 1:126, 2:216, 2:217 frag. 1, line 1 2:215, 2:216 frag. 1, lines 1, 7 2:216 frag. 1, lines 1–5 2:219 frag. 1, lines 2–3 2:219 frag. 1, lines 4–5 2:220

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX frag. 1, line 5 2:216 frag. 1, line 7 2:220 frag. 1, lines 7–8 2:216 frag. 1, lines 7–10 2:220 frag. 1, line 8 2:216 frag. 1, lines 8–9 2:220 frag. 1, line 9 2:215, 2:216 frag. 1, lines 9–10 2:215 frags. 2–4 2.4ff. 2:220 frags. 2–4 2.5 2:216 frags. 2–4 2.5–7 2:216 frags. 2–4 2.8, 9 2:216 frags. 2–4 2.10b 2:219 4Q180–181 2:216, 2:217, 2:220 4Q181 2:204, 2:205, 2:215, 2:216, 2:219, 2:220, 2:222, 2:276, 3:52 1, col. 2, lines 1–6 2:276 1, col. 2, lines 5–6 2:277 frag. 1 lines 3–4 1:127 frag. 1 lines 4 1:127 frag. 1 2.1 2:222 frag. 1 2.1–6 2:220 frag. 1 2.2–3 2:222 frag. 1 2.3 2:222 frag. 1 2.4 2:222 frag. 1 2.5 2:222 frag. 1 2.6 2:222 frag. 1, col. 2.1–2 2:222 frag. 1, col. 2.1–6 2:220 frag. 1, col. 2.3–4 2:222 frag. 1, col. 2.4, 6 2:222 frag. 2 2:216 frag. 2, line 1 2:220 frag. 2, lines 1–2 2:216 frag. 2, line 2 2:216 frag. 2, lines 2ff. 2:220 frag. 2 line 3 1:125 frag. 2, line 3 [5 ca. Milik] 2:219 frag. 2 2.3–4 2:222 frag. 2, lines 4ff. 2:215 frag. 2, line 5 2:216 frag. 2, line 9 2:216 4Q182 2:111, 2:128 4Q183 2:111 4Q184 3:263 4Q185 3.3 3:222 4Q186 2:21, 2:134, 2:193, 2:216, 2:217, 2:238, 2:239, 2:346, 3:18, 3:25, 3:34, 3:128 lines 5–9 2:239

711

4Q196 2:450, 2:470, 2:471, 2:473, 2:474 2.2 2:473 4.3 2:473 5.2 2:473 6.4 2:473 14.2 2:473 18.13 2:474 frag. 7, col. 1, line 2 2:473 4Q196–199 2:471 4Q196–200 2:470 4Q197 2:450 4Q198 2:450, 2:471, 2:473 4Q199 2:450, 2:471 4Q200 2:450, 2:472 1.22 2:473 4.4 2:473 5.9 2:473 6.4 2:473 6.11 2:473 10.8 2:473 11.10–11 2:473 13.4 2:473 13.10 2:473 13.15 2:473 14.6 2:473 4Q201 1:102, 2:451, 2:482, 2:484 4Q201–202 2:204, 2:481 4Q202 1:102, 2:451 4Q203 1:102, 2:458, 2:483, 2:484, 2:485 1 2:458 2–13 2:458 4Q204 1:102, 2:451, 2:482, 2:483, 2:484 1.9 2:483 36.4 2:483 frag. n 2:483 4Q204–207 2:481 4Q204–212 2:204 4Q205 1:102, 2:451 4Q206 1:102, 2:451, 2:458 2–3 2:458 4Q206a 1:102 4Q207 1:102, 2:451 4Q208 1:102, 2:451, 2:465, 2:482, 2:484 4Q208–209 2:451 4Q208–211 2:53, 2:54, 2:481 4Q209 1:102, 2:451, 2:484, 2:485 4Q210 1:102, 2:451

712

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

4Q210–211 2:451 4Q211 1:102, 2:451 4Q212 1:102, 2:451, 2:481, 2:484 4Q213 2:100, 2:452, 2:485 frag. 4 line 2 2:485 4Q213–214 2:464 4Q213a 2:452 4Q213b 2:452 4Q214 2:452 4Q214a 2:452 4Q214b 2:452 4Q215 2:452, 2:464, 2:490, 2:491, 3:182, 3:389, 3:390, 3:393, 3:394 1:6–8 2:491 frag. 1 2.9 3:182 frag. 2 2.4–11 3:391, 3:392, 3:395 frag. 2 2.9–10 3:396 4Q215a frag. 1 2.9 3:182 4Q216 2:212, 2:451, 2:486 6.7–8 2:212 4Q217 2:451, 2:486 4Q218 2:451 4Q218–22 2:486 4Q219 2:451 4Q220 2:451 4Q221 2:451, 2:489 3 lines 2–4 2:489 4Q222 2:451 4Q223 2:451 4Q223–24 2:486 4Q224 2:451 4Q225 2:454, 2:488, 3:172 frag. 1 line 6 2:488 frag. 2 1.5–7 2:488 frag. 2 1.8 3:172 frag. 2 1.11–13 2:488 frags. 1–2 2:488 4Q225–227 2:487, 2:488 4Q226 2:451, 2:454, 2:488 1 line 3 2:488 4Q227 2:53, 2:454, 2:486, 2:488 1 line 2 2:488 frag. 2 2:486 4Q228 2:152, 2:489 frag. 1 1.1 2:489 frag. 1 1.9 2:152, 2:489 4Q229 1:297 4Q232 3:246 4Q236 1:268, 2:163

4Q239 2:50 4Q239a 2:50 4Q242 2:458, 2:459 frag. 1 line 1 1:105 frag. 1 line 2 1:105 frag. 1 line 4 1:105 frag. 1 line 5 1:105 frag. 1 lines 6–7 1:105 4Q243 2:458, 3:271 frags. 1–2 1:113 frags. 1–3 1:113 frag. 2 1:113 frag. 5 1:113 frags. 5–6 1:113 frag. 9 1:114 frag. 10 1:115 frag. 13 1:113, 1:114 frag. 16 1:113 frag. 19 1:113 frag. 21 1:113 frag. 21, line 2 3:271 frag. 24 lines 1–2 1:114 frags. 24–26 1:113 frag. 28 line 1 1:116 frag. 33 1:113 4Q244 2:458 frag. 1 1:113 frags. 1–4 1:113 frag. 4 1:113 frag. 8 1:115 frag. 9 1:115 frag. 12 1:113, 1:114 4Q245 2:458 frag. 1 1.3 1:116 frag. 1 1.5 1:116 frag. 1 1.5–10 1:116 frag. 2 line 3 1:116 frag. 2 line 4 1:116 frag. 2 lines 11–12 1:116 4Q246 1:xxix, 2:72, 2:85, 2:86, 2:90, 2:458, 3:113, 3:114, 3:213, 3:214, 3:342 col. 2 2:85 2.1 1:117 2.1–8 3:213 2 1.1–2 1:118 4Q247 2:457 4Q248 2:457 4Q249f 3:167 4Q249g 3:167 4Q249h 3:167

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 4Q251 2:413, 2:416 4Q252 2:83, 2:121, 2:128, 2:436, 2:489, 3:381, 3:382, 3:390, 3:393, 3:395 1.1–3 3:391 1.1–14 1:309 4.3–7 1:313 5.1–4 2:436 5.1–7 3:389, 3:391 5.3 3:384, 3:389, 3:390, 3:391, 3:392, 3:394, 3:396 5.3–4 3:394, 3:396 5.5 1:308 frag. 1 col. 1 lines 7–10 2:489 4Q253a 2:128 4Q254 2:84, 2:128 42 2:84 frag.4 line 2 2:84 4Q254a 2:128 4Q255 2:101, 2:214, 3:156, 3:180 2.1 2:101 frag. 2 lines 1–9 3:180 4Q255–264 2:284 4Q256 2:229, 2:296, 3:156, 3:183, 3:345 9.3 2:297 9.5 2:298 9.6 2:299 9.9 2:297 4Q257 2:226, 3:156, 3:180, 3:181 3.9–14 3:180 5–6 3:156 frag. 2 col. 1 2:226 4Q258 2:296, 3:156, 3:167, 3:183, 3:306, 3:328, 3:449 1.2 2:297 1.4 2:298 1.5–6 2:299 1.7 2:297 2.1–2 2:298 2.6 3:156 2.9–10 3:167 2.10 3:167 8.6–7 3:331 frag. 1 1.3 3:328 frag. 2 1.6–7 3:449 frag. 2 3.1 3:306 frag. 2 3.6 3:306 frag. 4 lines 3–6 1:23 4Q259 2:207, 2:229, 2:240, 2:298, 3:156, 3:162, 3:268, 3:449

713

2.11–16 3:268 2.13–14 3:162 2.14 3:162 3.5–6 3:449 3.10 2:298 frag. 1 3.4 3:7 4Q260 3:183, 3:345 5.1 3:184 frag. 1 4.5 3:345 4Q261 3:167, 3:328 frag. 2 line 3 3:328 frag. 2a–c lines 4–5 3:167 4Q262 3:156 4Q263 3:328 frag. 1 line 3 3:328 4Q265 2:284, 2:489, 3:162 frag. 7 col. 2 lines 11–17 2:489 frag. 7 line 8 3:162 4Q266 2:196, 2:227, 2:229, 2:288, 2:290, 2:293, 2:295, 3:163, 3:169, 3:192, 3:321, 3:324, 3:326, 3:340 col. 1 1:117 col. 2 1:117 3.2 3:321 11 1.8 (2x) 2:295 11.5–18 2:196 11.17 3:321 16–17 3:306 frag. 1 line 4 3:324 frag. 1 a–b line 1 3:163 frag. 2 2.13–22 1:306 frag. 3 3, line 11.22 2:288 frag. 3 3, line 12.6 2:288 frag. 3 3.13.14 2:290 frag. 3 3, line 18 2:288 frag. 3 3.19.14 2:290 frag. 3 3.20.25 2:290 frag. 3 3.24 2:290 frag. 5 1.16 2:293 frag. 5 2.5 2:293 frag. 5 2.8 2:293 frag. 5 2.12 2:293 frag. 6 3–4 3:326 frag. 6 2.13 2:293 frag. 8 1.1 2:229 frag. 8 1.7–9 2:227 frag. 10 1.6 2:295 frag. 10 1.11 2:288 frag. 10 1.15.4 2:295 frag. 10 2.1–2 3:340 frag. 11 12–13 3:324

714

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

4Q266–273 2:26, 2:227, 2:228, 2:286 4Q267 (4QDb) 2:45, 2:291, 3:368 2 2:291 11 2:291 frag. 17 2.8–9 1:127 frag. 18 3.11–13 3:370 4Q268 2:291, 2:293 1 2:291 2.1 2:293 10.5 2:291, 2:293 14 2:291 4Q269 2:288, 2:291, 2:456, 3:165, 3:169, 3:326 frag. 4 2.1 3:165 frag. 8 lines 1–2 3:326 frag. 11, col. 1, line 1 2:288 frag. 11, col. 1, line 2 2:291 4Q270 2:227, 2:286, 2:287, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:293, 2:295, 3:321, 3:326 frag. 1 1.1–3 1:306 frag. 2, col. 1, line 18 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 2 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 4.1 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 5.21 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 6 2:292, 2:293 frag. 2, col. 2, line 13 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 16 2:292 frag. 2, col. 2, line 17 2:292 frag. 3 cols. 2–3 3:326 frag. 3, col. 3, line 19 2:286 frag. 6, col. 2.8–9 2:227 frag. 6, col. 3, line 8.1 2:290 frag. 6, col. 3, line 17 2:290 frag. 6, col. 4, line 13 2:295 frag. 6, col. 4, line 14.13 2:295 frag. 6, col. 4, line 15 2:287, 2:295 frag. 6, col. 4, lines 15–16 2:287 frag. 6, col. 4, line 16 2:291, 2:293 frag. 6, col. 4, line 18 2:287 frag. 7 2.11 3:321 frag. 7, col. 1, line 11 2:295 frag. 7, col. 1, line 13 2:292 frag. 10 5.3–4 1:305 4Q271 2:288, 2:292, 3:326 frag. 2 3:326 frag. 4 2.4 2:230 frag. 5, col. 1, line 14.18 2:288

frag. 5, col. 1, line 16.10–12 2:292 frag. 5, col. 1, line 17 2:292 frag. 5, col. 1, line 19.3 2:292 frag. 5, col. 1, line 21 2:288 4Q272 2:293 frag. 1, col. 2, line 2 2:293 4Q274 2:419 frag. 3.1–2 2:419 4Q274–279 2:152 4Q275 2:284 4Q277 2:98 4Q279 2:284 4Q280 3:163, 3:164 4Q281–283 2:152 4Q284 2:104 4Q284a 2:417, 2:418, 2:419, 3:326 frag. 1 2:417, 2:418 frags. 1–2 2:419 4Q285 2:72, 2:83, 2:439, 3:89, 3:216, 3:370, 3:423 frag. 5.1–2 2:439 frag. 5 1.1–6 3:372 frag. 5.3–6 2:439 frag. 5 line 4 3:423 4Q298 2:116, 2:149, 2:164, 2:165 4Q299 3:84, 3:336 frag. 1 lines 1–3 3:336 frag. 2 3:336 frag. 8 line 7 3:84 4Q299–301 2:463, 3:304 4Q300 3:158, 3:336, 3:343 frag. 5 line 5 3:336 frag. 7, line 7 3:343 4Q301 3:456 3 3:456 5 3:458 53 3:458 4Q313 1:xx, 2:95, 2:204, 2:206, 2:207, 2:214, 2:325, 2:398, 2:418, 2:422 4Q317 2:37, 3:128 4Q318 2:40, 2:205 4.9 2:40 7.4 2:40 8.1 2:40 4Q319 2:57, 2:207 4Q320 2:41, 2:47, 2:49, 2:50, 2:54 frag. 1 cols. 1–2 2:50 frag. 1 cols. 1–3 2:47, 2:54 frag. 1 col. 1 lines 3–5 2:47

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX frag. 3 col. 1 line 12 2:47 frag. 3 col. 2 lines 11–14 2:41 frag. 3 col. 2–frag. 4 col. 1 2:49 frag. 4 col. 1 lines 11–14 2:41 frag. 4 col. 3 2:49 4Q320–330 2:37 4Q321 2:41, 2:44, 2:50, 2:208, 3:198 1.1–2 2:50 4 frag. 4.9 2:44 4Q321a 2:41, 2:50 4Q322 3:271 frag. 2 line 4 3:271 frag. 2 line 6 3:271 4Q322–324 2:205 4Q324 2:205, 2:206 4Q324a 3:271 frag. 2 line 8 3:271 4Q324a–c 2:205 4Q324b 3:271 frag. 1 1.5 3:271 frag. 1 2.7 3:271 4Q324c 2:206 4Q325 2:45, 2:46, 2:49 1.3 2:45 frag. 2.7 2:46 4Q326 2:44 1.2 2:45 4Q327 2:206, 2:207 4Q328 2:49 4Q329 2:49 4Q332 2:40 4Q335–337 2:37 4Q337 2:41, 3:473 4Q364 2:134, 2:135, 2:139, 2:140 frag. 3 1.1–6 1:142 4Q364–367 2:134, 2:139, 2:453 4Q365 2:135, 2:139, 2:140 frag. 6 1:141 frag. 6a col. 2 2:139 frag. 6c 2:139 frag. 23 1:143, 1:144, 1:145 4Q366 2:135 frag. 4 col. 1 1:140 4Q367 2:135 4Q368 2:453 4Q370 2:456 7 3:222 4Q371 2:456 4Q372 2:456 4Q373 2:456 4Q373a 2:456

715

4Q374 2:456 4Q375 2:453 4Q375–376 2:453 4Q376 2:453 4Q377 2:453 4Q378 2:454 4Q379 2:454 frag. 22 2.7–14 2:160, 2:162 4Q380 1:252, 2:460 4Q381 1:252, 3:222 frag. 69, 5–8 3:222 4Q382 2:454 4Q383 2:455 4Q385 2:264, 2:455 2 2:264 4 2:264 4Q385a 2:455 4Q385b 2:455 4Q385c 2:455 4Q385–388 2:264 4Q386 2:455 4Q387 2:455 4Q388 2:455 4Q388a 2:455 4Q389 2:455 4Q390 2:23, 2:36, 2:455, 3:47 frag. 1, lines 8–10 2:36 4Q391 2:455 4Q394 1:248, 1:249, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:37, 2:45, 2:46, 2:55, 2:56, 2:57, 2:121, 2:152, 2:204, 2:206, 2:207, 2:214, 2:235, 2:325, 2:398, 2:418, 2:422, 3:177, 3:227, 3:228 1–2 2:45 1.10 3:174 2.4 3:172 3–7i 2:54 14–17 1.5–8 3:176 67–69 3:228 100.7–8 2:56 cols. 7–8 2:214 lines 14–21 1:307 frag. 1 2:207 frag. 1 1–5 3:227 frags. 1–2 col. 2 lines 6–11 2:46 frags. 1–2 col. 5 line 9 2:45 frags. 1–2 cols. 1–5 2:45, 2:56 frags. 1–2, 3–7 col. 1 2:206 frags. 1–2 2:46, 2:206, 2:207 frag. 1 1.6–8 2:422

716

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

frag. 1 1.10–11 3:452 frag. 1 2.4 3:87 frag. 1 2.13–18 3:227 frag. 1 3.5–7 3:228 frag. 2 2.2–3 (= C26–27) 3:451 frags. 3–7 lines 1–3 2:46 frags. 3a–4, col. 1, line 3 2:207 frags. 3a–4, col. 1 2:207 frags. 3a–4, line 4 2:207 frags. 3a–4, lines 1–3 2:207 frags. 3a–4 2:207 frag. 3.5–8 2:418 frag. 3 14–16 3:228 frags. 7–8 line 10 1:132 frags. 7–8 lines 10–11 1:301 frags. 7–9 2:206 frags. 14–17 1.11–13 1:307 frags. 14–17 col. 2 1:307 frags. 14–17, 2.1–8 3:199 frags. 14–17 2.2–3 3:174 frag. 14–17 2.6–7 3:176 frags. 14–17 2.7 3:87, 3:172 frags. 14–21 C lines 9–10 1:248 frags. 14–21 lines 12–14 3:176 4Q394 C 9–11 2:152 12–16 3:176 26–27 3:174 30–31 3:176 4Q394–4Q399 2:19, 2:95, 2:206, 2:207, 2:214, 2:324, 2:325, 2:398, 3:3, 3:52, 3:141, 3:187, 3:227, 3:249, 3:250, 3:269, 3:272, 3:278, 3:452 4Q395 2:207 4Q396 2:418, 3:228 frag. 1.2.6–9 2:418 4Q397 2:418, 2:463, 3:175, 3:176, 3:227, 3:269 14–21 2:463 frags. 3–4.1–2 2:418 4Q398 3:87, 3:172, 3:174, 3:176, 3:199, 3:451 4Q399 2:214, 3:87, 3:172, 3:174, 3:201, 3:452 4Q400 2:204, 2:209, 3:209, 3:263, 3:359, 3:360, 3:365, 3:376, 3:377, 3:380 2.5–9 1:127 frag. 1 1.14–16 3:362, 3:367, 3:378, 3:382 frag. 1 1.16 3:209

4Q400–407 2:37, 2:204, 2:372, 3:65, 3:209, 3:276 4Q401 3:220 frag. 11 1.3 3:220 4Q402 frag. 4, lines 12–13 2:217 4Q403 3:209, 3:210, 3:252 1.30–31 3:209 1.43 3:209 2.7–16 3:210 2.18 3:209 2.22–23 3:209 frag. 1 1.30–46 3:252 frag. 1 1.40–45 3:252 4Q404 3:209 frag. 4 3:209 4Q405 3:209, 3:210 frag. 8 3:209 frags. 20–22.7–9 3:210 4Q407 2:204, 3:263 4Q408 2:310, 2:453 4Q409 2:313 4Q410 2:457 4Q414 2:101, 2:104 10.7 2:101 4Q415 2:463, 3:457 4Q415–418 2:239, 2:265, 3:304, 3:393, 3:395, 3:456 4Q416 2:265, 2:268, 3:275, 3:334, 3:335, 3:457 1 2:265 frag. 1 3:335 frag. 1 lines 12–13 3:457 frag. 2 col. 2 3:335 frag. 2 2.6–7 3:335 frag. 2 2.17–18 3:335 frag. 2 2.18 3:335 frag. 2 2.19–20 3:335 frag. 2 3.8–9 3:335 frag. 2 3.12–15 3:335 4Q417 2:265, 2:266, 3:334, 3:335, 3:343, 3:457 1, col. 1, line 8 2:265 1, col. 1, lines 6–8 2:266 1, col. 1, lines 7–8 2:265 2 3:458 2 1.8 3:458 5 2:266 frag. 1 col. 1 3:335 frag. 1 1.1–16 3:343 frag. 1 1.15–18 3:457

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX frag. 1 1.17–2.25 3:335 frag. 1 2.8 3:335 frag. 1 2.21 3:335 frag. 1 2.23 3:335 frag. 1 2.25 3:335 frag. 2 1.15–18 3:457 4Q418 2:263, 2:265, 2:266, 2:268, 3:84, 3:178, 3:329, 3:334, 3:343, 3:456 43 11–12 2:266 55 10 3:458 55.10 2:265 69, col. 2 + 60 2:266 229+1–2c+212 2:265 frag. 81 lines 1–2 3:456 frag. 8 line 9 3:329 frag. 81 line 10 3:343 frag. 81 line 15 3:334 frag. 103 line 2 3:334 4Q418a 3:457 4Q418c 3:457 4Q422 2:453 4Q423 2:239, 2:265, 3:456, 3:457 4Q424 3:324, 3:335 frag. 1 lines 10–12 3:335 frag. 3 lines 8–10 3:324 frag. 3 lines 9–11 3:335 4Q427 3:77, 3:78, 3:160, 3:336 frag. 7 1.18–19 3:77, 3:78 frag. 7 2.7–8 3:336 frag. 7 2.8 3:160 4Q428 3:169, 3:170, 3:304 frag. 7 line 1 3:304 frag. 10 line 1 3:169 4Q431 3:160 4Q434 3:83 1.1 3:336 frag. 1 1.3–4 3:83 4Q435 3:343 frag. 1 1.3–4 3:343 4Q436 3:84, 3:336, 3:343 frag. 1 1.1 3:336 frag. 1 2.2 3:336 frag. 1 2.2–3 3:343 4Q444 2:149 4Q448 2:82, 3:271 4Q464 2:216, 2:465 3 6–9 2:465 frag. 3 2.7 2:216 4Q464a 2:216 4Q464b 2:216

717

4Q470 2:454 4Q471 3:270 4Q471b 3:212 4Q472a 3:275 4Q477 2:284, 3:23, 3:270, 3:271, 3:341 4Q478 2:470 4Q481a 2:454 4Q482 2:38, 2:233, 3:212 4Q482–520 2:301, 2:303 4Q484 2:451, 2:452, 2:490 4Q488 A 3:336 4Q491 2:222, 2:231, 2:232, 2:233, 2:234, 2:417, 3:160, 3:212, 3:213, 3:216, 3:219, 3:304 3.5 2:417 frags. 1–3 line 10 1:127, 2:231 frags. 8–10 1.12 3:160 frags. 8–10 1.14 3:304 frag. 11 3:212 frag. 11 1 2:232 frag. 11 1.12 3:212 frag. 11 1.13 2:233 frag. 11 1.13–15 3:213 frag. 11 1.14 2:222, 2:233 frag. 11 1.16–18 3:213 frag. 11 1.18 2:233 frag. 11 2 2:232 frag. 17 line 4 1:248 4Q492 2:232 frag. 1 2:232 4Q496 3:304 frag. 3 1.7 3:304 4Q497 3:222 1.5 3:222 4Q500 3:349 4Q501 2:149 4Q503 2:301, 2:302, 2:306, 2:307, 2:308, 2:309, 2:314, 2:315, 3:222 col. 3 2:302 frags. 2 and 3 2:302 frag. 3 2.13 3:222 frags. 15–16 2:306 frags. 15–16, line 5 2:306 frags. 15–16, line 18 2:306 frag. 26, line 3 2:306 frag. 39, line 2 2:309 frag. 51–55, line 14 2:309 frags. 29–32, line 10 2:309 frags. 29–32, line 11 2:309 frags. 29–32, line 21 2:315

718

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

frags. 33–34, line 20 2:307 4Q504 2:101, 2:263, 2:302, 2:303, 2:310, 2:311, 2:315, 3:138, 3:210, 3:365, 3:373, 3:380 1–2, col. 6, lines 14–15 2:263 1–2, line 15 2:101 frags. 1–2 2:302, 2:303 frags. 1–2 1.1–7.3 2:303 frags. 1–2 2.9–10 3:367, 3:375, 3:382 frags. 1–2 7.4 2:303 frag. 2 4.2–12 3:210 frag. 3, col. 2, lines 5 2:303 frag. 3, col. 2, lines 13 2:303 frag. 5, col. 2, line 4 2:315 frag. 8 2:302, 2:310 4Q504–506 2:301, 2:302, 2:303, 2:306, 2:310, 2:314, 3:372 4Q505 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:311 4Q506 2:302, 2:303, 2:304, 2:311 4Q507 2:301, 2:305, 2:313 frag. 1 2:305 frags. 2–3 2:305 frag. 3 2:305 frag. 3, line 2 2:313 4Q507–509 2:301, 2:303, 2:304, 2:312, 2:315 4Q508 2:301, 2:305, 2:312, 2:313, 2:314, 3:380 frag. 1 2:305 frag. 1 1.1 3:382 frag. 2 line 4 2:312 frag. 3 2:305 frag. 4 line 2 2:305 frag. 7 2:305 frag. 9, line 1 2:305, 2:314 frag. 13 line 3 2:305, 2:314 frag. 15, col. 1, line 1 2:313 frag. 15, line 1 2:305 frag. 15, line 17 2:305 frag. 20, line 1 2:313 frag. 30 2:305 frags. 39–41 2:305 4Q509 2:301, 2:306, 2:312, 2:313 frag. 3, lines 2–9 2:306 frag. 3 line 7 2:306 frag. 4, line 4 2:313 frag. 18, line 2 2:312 frags. 97–98, line 1 2:306 frags. 131–132, col. 2, line 3 frag. 212, line 1 2:312

2:313 4Q510 2:149, 2:184, 2:293, 2:294, 3:163 1 2:184 6 2:184 11.7 3:117 frag. 1 line 4 2:293 frag. 1 line 9 3:163 4Q510–511 3:164 4Q511 2:294, 2:310, 3:163, 3:209, 3:223 frag. 2 line 8 1:127 frag. 8 line 9 1:127 frag. 35 3–4 3:209 frags. 63–64, 3.1–4 3:223 4Q512 2:104, 3:52 1–6 col. 12 2:104 29–32 7.8 2:104 34 col. 5 2:104 36–38 3.17 2:104 4Q513 2:417, 2:418 frag. 12.1 2:417 frag. 13.4 2:417 frag. 13.4–6 2:418 4Q513–514 2:111, 3:52 4Q520 2:38, 2:233, 3:212 4Q521 1:xxx, 2:72, 2:85, 2:86, 2:89, 2:90, 2:268, 2:269, 2:274, 2:280, 2:456, 3:43, 3:114, 3:124, 3:214, 3:220, 3:336, 3:349 2.2 2:269 2.7 3:214 5+7 2.7 2:456 7+5 col. 2 2:274 7+5 col. 2.1–15 2:269 7+5 col. 2.11 2:270 7+5 col. 2.12ff. 2:270 frag. 2 2.6, 12 3:336 frag. 2 2.12 3:220 4Q521–528 2:454, 2:456 4Q522 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:253, 2:454 4Q524 2:26, 2:456, 3:173, 3:239 4Q525 2:266, 2:456 4Q529 2:372, 2:458, 2:459 4Q529–549 2:263, 2:457, 2:458, 2:459, 2:461, 2:466 4Q530 1:102, 2:458 2.9 1:108 2.16 [9] 1:110 2.16–20 1:108, 1:111

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 2.16a–20 1:108 2.17a 1:110 2.17b 1:110 2.17c–d 1:110 2.17c–18a 1:112 2.18b 1:110 2.18c 1:110 2.18c–19 1:111 2.20 1:110 col. 2 1:106, 1:130 frag. 2 cols. 1 + 8–11 + 12? lines 16a–20 1:106 frag. 2 cols. 2 + 6–7 1:106 4Q530–532 2:485 4Q530–533 2:458 4Q531 1:102, 2:458 frag. 1 1:108 4Q532 1:102, 2:458, 3:455 frags. 1–6 2.2–5 3:455 4Q533 1:102, 2:458, 2:485 4Q534 2:458, 2:459, 3:18, 3:25, 3:34, 3:113 4Q535 2:458, 2:459 4Q536 2:458, 2:459 4Q537 2:458 4Q538 2:452, 2:457, 2:464 4Q539 2:457, 2:464 frags. 2–3 2:457 4Q540 2:458 4Q541 2:87, 2:458, 3:365, 3:368, 3:380 frag. 2 2.6 3:370 frag. 2 2.7 3:370 frag. 7 3:370 frag. 7 1.1–2 3:370 frag. 9 1.2 3:367, 3:370, 3:382 frag. 9 1.3 3:370 frag. 9 1.5–6 3:370 4Q542 2:263, 2:458 1 col. 2 2:263 4Q543 2:458, 2:465, 3:164, 3:215 4Q543–548 3:164 4Q544 2:458, 2:465, 3:164, 3:220 4Q545 2:458, 3:215 4Q546 2:458 4Q547 2:458, 2:465, 3:215 4Q548 2:263, 2:458, 2:461, 3:164, 3:304 1–2, col. 2, lines 12–16 2:263 frag. 1 lines 10–11 3:304 4Q549 2:458

719

4Q550 2:458, 2:459 4Q550a 2:458 4Q550b 2:458 4Q550c 2:458 4Q550d 2:458 4Q551 2:458, 2:459 4Q552 2:458, 2:459 frag. 1 1.8 1:120 frag. 1 1.10 1:120 frag. 1 2.4 1:120 frag. 1 2.6 1:120 4Q553 2:458, 2:459 frag. 6 2.4 1:120 4Q554–555 3:264 4Q554 2:47, 2:458, 2:459, 3:226, 3:247, 3:267 frag. 1 2.12–22 3:247 frag. 1 2.18–22 3:247 frag. 2 2.14–16 3:247 4Q554a 2:458, 2:459 4Q555 2:47, 2:458, 2:459, 3:226 4Q556 2:458, 2:459 4Q557 2:458, 2:459 4Q558 2:91, 2:458, 2:459 4Q559 2:41 4Q561 2:372 4Q576–579 2:454, 2:456 4QAhA. See 4Q541 frag. 9 1.2 3:367, 3:370, 3:382 4QapocrJoshc 1:236 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah A. See 4Q383 4QApocryphon of Mosesa. See 2Q21 4QApocryphon of Mosesc. See 2Q21 4QCalendrical Documents 2:309 4QCanta. See 4Q106 4QCanta,b. See 4Q106–107 4QCanta–c. See 4Q106–108 4QCantb. See 4Q106–108 4QCata. See 4Q177 4QCriptique. See 4Q186 4QCrypa. See 4Q186 4QCrypa 2:238 4QD MSS. See 4Q258 4QD 2:152, 2:227, 2:286, 2:293 4QDa. See 4Q266 4QDb 9.8 2:295. See also 4Q267 4QDc. See 4Q268

720

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

4QDd. See 4Q269 4QDe. See 4Q270 4QDf. See 4Q271 4QDg. See 4Q272 4QDana. See 4Q112 4QDanb. See 4Q113 4QDanc. See 4Q116 4QDane. See 4Q116 4QDeut 32:43 3:208 4QDeute. See 4Q32 4QDeutj. See 4Q37 4QDeutn. See 4Q41 4QDeutn 2:130 4QDeutq. See 4Q44 4QDeutero–Eze 2:264 4QDeutero–Ezechiel. See 4Q385 4QDibHam. See 4Q504–506 4QDibHama. See 4Q504 frags. 1–2 2.9–10 3:367, 3:375, 3:382 4QDibHama–c. See 4Q504–506 4QEn. See 4Q202 4QEna–g. See 4Q202–207 4QEna. See 4Q201–202 4QEnc. See 4Q204 4QEng. See 4Q203 4QEnastra. See 4Q208 4QEnastra–d. See 4Q208–211 4QEnastrb. See 4Q209 4QEnGiantsa. See 4Q203 4QExodd. See 4Q15 4QEzeka. See 4Q73 4QEzekb. See 4Q74 4QFestival Prayersc frags. 97–98 1.8 3:166 4QFlorilegium. See 4Q174 1.2–7. See 4Q174 1.7 3:194. See 4Q174 frags. 1–2 1.7 3:175 4QGend. See 4Q4 4QGenf. See 4Q6 4QGeng. See 4Q7 4QGenj. See 4Q9 4QHa frag. 7 2.8 3:160. See also 4Q427 4QHb frag. 10 line 1 3:169. See also 4Q428 4QHe. See 4Q431

4QHalakah A See 4Q251 5, frag. 2 2:413 frag. 2 2:416 4QHistorical Text A. See 4Q248 4QInstruction 2:263 4QIsab. See 4Q226 4QIsac. See 4Q57 4QIsad. See 4Q58 4QJerc. See 4Q72 4QJNa. See 4Q554 4QJNb. See 4Q555 4QJosha. See 4Q47 4QJoshb. See 4Q48 4QJuba. See 4Q216 4QJubilésj. See 4Q484 4QLam. See 4Q111 4QLevia ar. See 4Q213 4QM. 2:232. See also 4Q491 4QM1 2:227. See also 4Q491 4QM2. See 4Q492 4QM5. See 4Q495 frag. 2, line 4 2:231 4QMa. See 4Q491 frags. 8–10 1.12 3:160 4QMess. See 4Q534 4QMessianic Apocalypse. See 4Q521 4QMidrEschata 3.8–9. See 4Q174 4QMMT. See 4Q394–399 67–69. See 4Q394–396 4QMMTa. See 4Q394 4QMMTc 7. See 4Q396 8. See 4Q396 12–16. See 4Q396 26–27. See 4Q396 30–31. See 4Q396 31. See 4Q398 4QMMTd. See 4Q397 frags. 14–21 lines 12–14 3:176 lines 95–96 1:301 lines 100–12 1:307 4QMMTe frag. 2 2.2–3 (= C26–27) 3:451 4QMMTf. See 4Q399 1.10 3:174 2.4 3:172 frag. 1 1.10–11 3:452 4QMystb. See 4Q300 4QMystc. See 4Q301

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 4QNaph 2:452 4QNumb. See 4Q27 4QOrda. See 4Q159 4QOrda,b,c 2:111 4QOrdinancesb. See 4Q513 4QOtot 2:57 4QpaleoExodm. See 4Q22 4Qpap4QMMTe 14–17 1.5–8 3:176 frag. 14–17 2.6–7 3:176 frags. 14–17 2.2–3 3:174 frags. 14–17 2.7 3:172 4Qpap509 frags. 97–98 1.8 3:166 4QpapSa 3:156. See 4Q255 frag. 2 lines 1–9 3:180 4QpapSc. See 4Q257 5–6 3:156 4QpapTobita. See 4Q196 4QpapTobita ar. See 4Q196 4QPatriarchal Blessings. See 4Q252 1.1–3. See 4Q252 4QpGen. See 4Q252 4QpHab 2:324 9.4–7 3:337 12.9 3:337 4QpHos. See 4Q167 4QpHosa. See 4Q166–167 4QPhyl. See 4Q141 4QPhyl A and I 2:112 4QpIsa. See 4Q161 frags. 8–10 3.11–21 3:391 4QpIsaa. See 4Q161–163 4QpIsab. See 4Q162 4QpIsac. See 4Q163 4QpIsad frag. 1 lines 1–3 3:238 frag. 1 lines 3–6 3:239 frag. 1 lines 6–7 3:239 4QpNah. See 4Q169 1.11. See 4Q169 4QPP. See 4QReworked Pentateuch 4QpPs. 4Q394–399. See 4Q171 4QpPsa. See 4Q68, 4Q171 1.26 1:203 3.10–11. See 4Q171 3.15 1:203. See 4Q171 4.8 1:203 4.14 1:203 4.26 1:203

721

5.20c 3:337 4QpPsa,b. See 4Q171,173 4QprQuot. See 4Q503 4QPsa. 4Q83, See 4Q68 4QPsb. See 4Q84 4QPsd. See 4Q86 4QPse. See 4Q87 4QPsf. See 4Q88 4QPsg. See 4Q89 4QPsg,h. See 4Q89–90 4QPsh. See 4Q90 4QPsk. See 4Q92 4QPsn. See 4Q95 4QPsq. See 4Q98 4QPsx 2:163. See 4Q92 4QPs89 2:163 4QPsApa 2:121 4Qpseudo–Jubilees. See 4Q225 4QPsJuba 3:172 frag. 2 1.8 3:172 4QpZeph. See 4Q170 4QQoha. See 4Q109 4QQohb. See 4Q110 4QReworked Pentateuch. See 4Q364–367 4QReworked Pentateucha. See 4Q158 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e. See 4Q158 4QRP 2:140, 2:161. See 4Q158 4QRPa. See 4Q158 4QRPb. See 4Q158 4QRPc. See 4Q158 4QRPd. See 4Q158 4QRPe. See 4Q158 4QRutha. See 4Q104 4QRuthb. See 4Q105 4QS 2:214, 2:226, 2:229, 3:418. See 4Q255–264 8.13 2:318 4QS MS B. See 4Q256 4QS MSS B and D 2:229 4QS MS C. See 4Q257 4QS MS D. See 4Q258 4QS MS E. See 4Q259 4QS MS F. See 4Q260 4QS MS G. See 4Q261 4QS MS H. See 4Q262 4QS MS I. See 4Q263 4QS MS J. See 4Q264 4QSb. See 4Q256

722

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

4QSb,d 2:297, 2:298. See 4Q256 4Q258 4QSd. 4Q265, See 4Q258 4QSe 3:168. See 4Q255, 4Q259 2.11–16. See 4Q259 2.14. See 4Q259 4QSf. See 4Q260 5.1. See 4Q260 4QSg. See 4Q261 4QSh 3:156 4QSamc. See 4Q53 4QSap A 2:240 4QSapiential Work A 3:395. See also 4Q415–418 4QShira. See 4Q510 See 4Q511 4QShirb. 4QShirShabb 4 3:107. See 4Q400–407 4QShirShabba frag. 1 1.16 3:209 4QShirShabba–h. See 4Q400–407 4QShirShabbd. See 4Q403 1.30–31 3:209 1.43 3:209 2.7–16 3:210 2.18 3:209 2.22–23 3:209 4QShirShabbf. See 4Q405 frags. 20–22.7–9 3:210 4QTanh. See 4Q176 4QTempleb. See 4Q524 4QTest. See 4Q175 4QTestimonia. See 4Q175 4QtgJob. See 4Q157 4QtgLev. See 4Q156 4QTime of Righteousness frag. 1 2.9 3:182 4QTNaph. See 4Q215 frag. 1 2.9 3:182 4QToba ar. See 4Q196 4QTobb–d ar. See 4Q196 4QTobc. See 4Q197 4QTobd. See 4Q199 4QTobe. 4Q200, See 4Q196 4QTohorot. 4Q281–283, See 4Q274–279 4QXIIa. See 4Q76 5/6H[ ev 1b 1:234, 1:236, 1:237, 1:244, 1:254, 1:265, 1:266 5/6H[ evPs 1:234, 1:236

5Q1 2:114, 2:115, 2:130, 2:135, 2:162 frags. 2–5 2:162 5Q5 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:253, 1:270, 2:113, 2:118, 2:123, 2:150, 2:155, 2:157, 2:163 5Q6 2:165 5Q7 2:165 5Q9 2:454 5Q10 2:128 5Q13 3:53 5Q14 2:59, 2:60, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63, 2:64, 2:149, 2:312 19c 1:307 5Q15 2:458, 2:459, 3:226, 3:264. 5QJN. See 5Q15 5QLama. See 5Q6 5QLamb. See 5Q7 5QPs. See 5Q5 6Q1 2:135 6Q5 1:235, 1:254, 1:267 6Q6 2:164 6Q8 1:102, 2:458, 2:485 frag. 26 1:115 6Q9 2:454 6Q15 4 3:321 6Q17 2:37, 2:41 6Q18 2:222 frag. 2, line 5 2:222 6QCant. See 6Q6 7Q1 3:427 7Q2 2:450, 2:479, 2:480, 3:427 lines 3–4 2:480 lines 3–5 2:480 7Q4 2:451, 3:427, 3:429 7Q5 3:427, 3:428, 3:429, 3:430 frag. 76 3:429 7Q8 2:451 7Q11 2:451 8Q2 1:235, 1:236, 1:254, 1:265 8Q3 2:119 11Q2–18 2:47, 2:154, 2:452, 2:455, 2:456, 2:487 11Q5 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:238, 1:239, 1:240, 1:243, 1:244, 1:245, 1:246, 1:247, 1:248, 1:249, 1:250, 1:251, 1:252, 1:254, 2:37, 2:121, 2:138, 2:152, 2:153, 2:154, 2:155, 2:156, 2:157, 2:161, 2:164,

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 2:205, 2:206, 2:319, 2:321, 2:329, 2:450, 2:455, 2:476, 2:478 col. 2 1:271 col. 3 1:270 col. 4 1:270 col. 5 1:270 col. 6 1:270 cols. 6–14 1:269 cols. 14–15 1:270 cols. 15–16 1:270 col. 16 1:255 cols. 16–17 1:271 16, lines 1–6 1:261 col. 17 1:264 col. 18 1:271 18.1–16 2:450 18, lines 1–16 1:257 18, lines 13–14 1:256 18.17 3:336 col. 19 1:272 19.1–18 2:154 19, lines 1–18 1:263 col. 20 1:270 cols. 20–21 1:270 col. 21 1:270 cols. 21–22 1:271 21.11–17 2:476 21.11–18 2:450 21, lines 11–18 to 22.1 1:256 col. 22 1:268, 1:272 22.1 2:450, 2:476 22.1–15 2:455 22, lines 1–15 1:260 col. 23 1:270, 1:271 cols. 23–24 1:271 col. 24 1:271 24, lines 3–17 1:257 col. 25 1:271 col. 26 1:271, 1:272 26, lines 9–15 1:262 26.4–8 2:478 26.9–15 2:455 26.27 2:455 col. 27 1:245, 1:270, 1:271, 1:272 27, line 1 1:255 27.2–11 2:205, 2:455 27, lines 2–11 1:262 27.3–11 2:329 27.4–5 2:321 27.6–7 1:249

723

27.9–10 1:249 27.11 1:249 col. 28 1:270, 1:271 28, lines 3–12 1:255 col. 28.3–14 2:47814.3–17 2:450 28.3–14 2:450 frag. a 1:268 frag. b 1:268 frag. c 1 1:268 frag. c 2 1:268 frag. d 1:269 frag. e 1 1:269 frag. e 1–2 1:268 frag. e 3–col. 1 1:269 frag. e 1:247 frags. e 1–3 cols. 1–2 1:247 frags. e 2–3 1:271 11Q5–6 1:254 11Q5 A 28.5–6 2:479 28.13–14 2:479 col. 28.3–12 2:478 11Q5 Catena col. 16 1:247 11Q6 1:234, 1:235, 1:236, 1:237, 1:238, 1:243, 1:249, 1:251, 1:254, 1:267, 1:269, 1:270, 1:271, 1:272, 2:154, 2:156, 2:164, 2:455 4–5 2:455 6 2:455 col. 16 1:269 frags. a–b 2:154 11Q7 1:235, 1:236, 1:254, 1:264, 1:265, 1:266 11Q8 1:235, 1:236, 1:238, 1:254, 1:264, 1:265, 1:266, 1:267, 1:268, 1:269 11Q9 1:254, 1:267 11Q10 2:167 11.8 3:328 11Q11 1:234, 1:236, 1:237, 1:244, 1:254, 1:268, 1:271, 2:155, 2:164, 2:455 1, lines 2–4.3 1:258 1, lines 2–11 1:258 1–6 2:455 2.2 2:455 2, lines 2–5.3 1:258 4, lines 4–5.3 1:259 5, lines 4–6.3 1:259

724

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

11Q12 2:451, 2:486 11Q13 1:252, 1:265, 1:267, 2:75, 2:89, 2:111, 2:128, 2:129, 2:149, 2:276, 2:324, 2:372, 2:387, 2:403, 2:447, 3:164, 3:208, 3:218, 3:238, 3:363, 3:365, 3:369, 3:370, 3:380 2.2–3 3:218 2.4–8 3:365, 3:367, 3:371, 3:382 2.4–20 3:371 2.6 3:219 2.6–8 3:219 2.6–9 1:126 2.8 3:163 2.13–14 3:219 2.15–18 3:219 2.18 1:123, 1:126 2.20 3:219 2.23–24 3:219, 3:223, 3:238 2.24–25 3:219 10 3:208 18 3:219 11Q14 1.6–13 1:127 11Q17 2:37, 2:204, 3:220, 3:263, 3:276 2.5 3:209 col. 2 frag. 3 line 7 3:220 11Q18 2:47, 2:458, 2:459, 3:226, 3:247, 3:264 frags. 1–3, 11–13 3:226 frag. 22 line 7 3:247 frag. 24 lines 1 3:247 11Q19 2:42, 2:44, 2:84, 2:140, 2:151, 2:358, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:422, 2:456, 2:462, 3:109, 3:173, 3:224, 3:239, 3:240, 3:241, 3:245, 3:247, 3:250, 3:267, 3:347, 3:362, 3:365, 3:433 4 3:267 7.10–12 3:224 14.11 3:367 15.15–17 3:224 16.14 3:367 16.16–17 3:224 17.6–11 2:44 19.5–6 3:243 19.11–23.9 2:413 22.15–16 2:416 23.11–14 3:225 25.2–3 2:42

25.9–16 3:225 25.16–26 3:224 29.2–10 1:47 29.6–10 3:241, 3:245, 3:254 29.7–9 3:267 32.10–12 3:243 37.8–14 3:243 38–41 3:247 38.12–39 3:243 38.12–39.11 3:243 39.11–13 3:267 40.5–6 3:243 44.5 1:135 45.7–18 3:250 45.11–12 1:47 45.12–13 1:47 45.16 3:138 46:5–12 3:244 46.13–16 3:250, 3:433 46.16–18 3:250 47.3 3:241 47.3–6 1:47 47.3–7 3:225 47.3–11 3:242 47.5–13 2:417 47.5–14 2:422 47.8 3:241 47.15–17 3:241 48.13–15 3:241 49.4 3:241 49.5–13 2:416, 2:418 49.6–9 2:418 50.10–19 3:104 51.12–13 3:335 51.15 3:84 54.17 3:109 55.2 3:241 55.7–9 3:241 56.3 1:297 56.15–18 2:399 57 3:44 57–63 3:347 57.5 3:241 57.9 3:335 57.19–20 3:335 58.11 3:241 58.18–21 2:84 64.6–13 3:173 64.9–16 3:173 11Q19–20 2:26, 2:37, 3:188, 3:224, 3:241

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 11Q20 1:269, 2:456, 3:224, 3:239 40.8 3:243 frag. 1 1.11–13 3:224 11Q20–31 2:47, 2:154, 2:452, 2:455, 2:456, 2:487 11Q21 2:456 11QapPsa 2:329. See 11Q11 11QApocryphal Psalms. See 4Q522 11QJN. See 11Q18 11QJubilees. See 11Q17 11QMelch. See 11Q13 11QPs 15:11–12 2:241 43:6–7 2:241 51:13–17 2:241 11QPsb. See 11Q6 11QPsalmsa. See 11Q5 11QPsApa. See 11Q11 11QT See 11Q19 11QTa. See 11Q19 11QTb. See 11Q20 11QTc. See 11Q21 11QTemple 2:339. See 11Q19–20 1.46–70 1:137 1.71–88 1:137 29.6–10. See 11Q19–20 45.11–12 1:136 46.13–16 1:136 66.16–17 1:136 col. 2 1:135 cols. 3–12 1:135 cols. 13–29 1:135 cols. 15–16 2:13 cols. 15–18 2:10 col. 16 2:13, 2:14 col. 16, line 6 2:13 cols. 16–17 2:14 col. 17 2:11, 2:12, 2:13, 2:14 cols. 17–18 2:13 cols. 23–24, lines 1, 2, and 3 1:144 cols. 30–44 1:135 cols. 45–47 1:135 cols. 48–51.10 1:135 col. 50 1:11 cols. 51.11–56.11 1:135 cols. 56.12–59.21 1:135 cols. 60–67 1:135 11QTemplea. See 11Q19 15.15–17. See 11Q19 16.16–17. See 11Q19

725

25.9–16. See 11Q19 47.3–7. See 11Q19 11QTempleb. See 11Q20 11QTemplec 2:456 11QtgJob. See 11Q10 12 Prophets 2:167 1QapGen 2:457 Admonition Based on the Flood. See 4Q370 An Aramaic Apocalypse ar. See 4Q246 Angelic Liturgy 1:10, 3:65, 3:107, 3:145, 3:209, 3:263, 3:277. See 4Q400–407, Mask Apocalypse of Weeks 1:56, 1:64, 1:102, 1:114, 1:118, 1:124, 1:126. See 1 Enoch Apocryphal Pentateuch A. See 4Q368 Apocryphal Pentateuch B. See 4Q377 Apocryphal Psalms. 4Q522. See 11Q5 Apocryphal Weeks 2:457. See 4Q247 Apocryphon of Elisa. See 4Q481a Apocryphon of Jacob ar. See 4Q537 Apocryphon of Jeremiah. See 4Q383 Apocryphon of Jeremiah A. See 4Q383 Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. See 4Q385a Apocryphon of Joseph 1:132. See also 4Q371–373, 2Q22, and Prayer of Joseph Apocryphon of Joshua. See 4Q378 Apocryphon of Levi ar. See 4Q540 Apocryphon of Moses. See 2Q21 Aramaic Apocalypse 1:xxix, 3:213, 3:342. See 4Q246 Aramaic Fragments. See 4Q535 Aramaic Levi 1:54, 1:132, 2:464. See 1Q21 Astronomical Book 1:40, 1:45, 1:57, 1:102 Ben Sira. See Ecclesiasticus Biblical Chronology. See 4Q559 Book of Giants. 2Q26, See 1Q23 Book of Giants ar 2:381. See 1Q23 Book of Mysteries. See 1Q27 Book of the Mysteries. See 1Q27 Books of Enoch. 4Q204, See 4Q201

726

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

Cairo Damascus Document. See CD CD 1:252, 2:18, 2:20, 2:21, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 2:37, 2:38, 2:52, 2:53, 2:55, 2:56, 2:57, 2:69, 2:83, 2:85, 2:87, 2:88, 2:93, 2:96, 2:100, 2:152, 2:187, 2:191, 2:195, 2:196, 2:198, 2:199, 2:201, 2:204, 2:205, 2:213, 2:218, 2:223, 2:227, 2:228, 2:229, 2:230, 2:235, 2:418, 2:275, 2:276, 2:284, 2:286, 2:287, 2:288, 2:289, 2:290, 2:291, 2:292, 2:293, 2:294, 2:295, 2:296, 2:297, 2:324, 2:342, 2:357, 2:405, 2:406, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:488, 3:26, 3:52, 3:57, 3:88, 3:156, 3:163, 3:165, 3:166, 3:222, 3:223, 3:270, 3:272, 3:278, 3:320, 3:321, 3:322, 3:323, 3:324, 3:325, 3:326, 3:328, 3:332, 3:333, 3:334, 3:338, 3:339, 3:340, 3:341, 3:342, 3:343, 3:345, 3:347, 3:348, 3:349, 3:353, 3:354. See 4Q201 1 2:18, 3:367 1.1 3:87 1.1–11 2:27 1.4 3:342 1.5–8 1:125, 3:191 1.5–11 3:272 1.7 2:291 1.8–11 1:125, 2:342 1.9 1:117 1.9–11 2:21 1.10 2:20 1.11 2:21, 3:87 1.14–15 1:117 1.16 3:324 1.17 3:342 1.17–18 3:342 1.18–21 3:85 1.21 3:85 1.21–2.1 3:342 1–8 1:300, 1:306, 3:165, 3:325 2.2 2:290 2.2–13 3:169 2.4–5 3:365, 3:367, 3:378, 3:380 2.5 3:360, 3:362 2.5–7 3:342 2.6 1:117, 3:91, 3:342 2.7 3:170 2.8 3:342 2.9–10 3:346

2.13 1:117, 3:342 2.14–16 1:49 2.14–3.3 1:306 2.15 2:66, 3:342 2.16 1:117 2.17–18 1:49 2.21 3:342 3.1 1:117 3.4 1:117 3.8 3:342 3.10–11 3:342 3.13 2:290 3.14 1:117 3.14–15 3:176, 3:198 3.17–18 3:324, 3:365, 3:367, 3:378, 3:380 3.17–18a 3:324 3.18 3:360, 3:362 3.18–4 3:162 3.18–4.4 1:295 3.18–4.10 3:162, 3:245 3.19 3:162 3.20 2:276, 3:245 3.21 2:293 4.1 1:117 4.4 1:51 4.4–10 1:50 4.6 3:380 4:6 3:367, 3:378 4.6–9 3:362 4.7 3:389, 3:391 4.9 3:367, 3:378, 3:380 4.10–12 2:56, 2:57 4.11–12 1:49 4.12–19 3:11 4.12–6.18 2:276 4.13–5.15 3:322, 3:324 4.13–21 3:44, 3:45 4.15 2:152, 3:324 4.15–17 1:49, 1:301 4.17 3:324 4.17–18 3:11, 3:13, 3:322 4.18 2:57, 3:47 4.18–20 3:324 4.20–5.2 1:292 4.21 2:292, 2:293 4.21–5.2 1:304 5–7 3:189 5.4 2:297 5.6–15 3:324 5.7–11 2:100

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 5.8–11 1:136 5.10 2:292 5.11–12 2:187 5.16 3:342 5.18 1:49 6.3–8 1:292 6.4–11 3:264 6.5 2:291 6.6 3:47 6.10–11 3:87 6.11 2:88, 3:47, 3:217, 3:320 6.11–7.4 3:320, 3:321, 3:338 6.11–13 1:292, 3:322 6.11–14 2:57 6.11–19 2:38 6.12–20 3:210 6.15 3:324 6.15–16 3:47 6.15–19 1:49 6.15b–17a 3:322 6.16–18 3:325 6.17–20 2:57 6.19 2:25, 2:55, 2:290, 3:44, 3:165, 3:420 6.20 3:322 6.20–7.1 3:324 6.20–7.3 3:338 6.20–21 3:306, 3:338 6.20b–21a 3:322 6.20b–7.1a 3:322 6.21–7.1 3:338 7.1–2 3:338 7.2–3 3:338, 3:343 7.3–4 2:100, 2:187 7.5 3:85 7.5–6 2:276 7.6 1:50, 2:276, 2:289 7.6–7 1:50 7.7–8 2:292 7.9 2:276, 3:345 7.9–10 2:273 7.13 3:342 7.14–21 3:264, 3:266 7.17 2:288 7.18–20 2:85, 3:217 7.19–20 2:83 7.20 2:287 7.20–21 3:342 8.1 3:342 8.2 3:342 8.2–11 3:338

727

8.2c–12a 3:323 8.3–4 2:276 8.4 3:47 8.5 3:322, 3:323, 3:324 8.5–6 3:339 8.6 3:322, 3:325, 3:326 8.7 3:47, 3:322, 3:323 8.11 3:342 8.13 2:287 8.16 2:291 8.17–18 2:290 8.18 3:342 8.21 2:290, 3:44, 3:165, 3:420 8.29 2:25 9–16 2:295 9.1 3:339 9.1–10.10 3:339 9.2 3:306 9.2–3 3:340 9.2–4 3:341 9.2–5 3:339, 3:340 9.2–5 3:339, 3:340 9.2–8 3:270, 3:341, 3:343, 3:345 9.2–10 3:343 9.3 2:290, 3:339 9.4 2:297 9.5 3:340, 3:342 9.6 3:343 9.6–8 3:339 9.7–8 3:306 9.8–9 2:152, 3:341 9.8–10 3:340, 3:341 9.9–16 3:166, 3:341 9.10 2:295 9.10–16 1:50, 3:326 9.11 2:69, 2:289, 3:326 9.16–22 3:166, 3:339 9.22–23 3:326, 3:328 10 2:93 10–11 3:52 10.1 2:295 10.1–2 3:339 10.4 2:287, 2:295 10.5 2:287 10.7–10 2:488 10.8 2:287 10.8–10 1:139 10.14–15 1:295 10.15 2:293 10.16–20 1:305

728

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 10.17 1:305 10.18 1:305, 3:326, 3:327 10.18–19 3:327 10.20 3:327 10.23 1:50, 2:289 11.2 3:325, 3:326, 3:327 11.5 3:326 11.12 3:326, 3:327 11.13 3:326 11.15 3:327 11.18–12.1 3:322 12.1 2:292 12.1–2 1:50, 1:136 12.2–3 1:295 12.3–6 3:343 12.6–8 3:327, 3:341 12.8 2:291 12.8–11 3:327 12.10 2:69, 3:326 12.10–11 3:325 12.11 2:187, 2:290 12.11–15 3:445 12.12 3:26 12.14–15 3:26 12.15–17 2:416, 2:418 12.17–21 1:50 12.19 1:50 12.21–22 3:346 12.22 2:291 12.22–13:1 2:96 12.23 2:289, 3:215 12.23–13.1 2:276, 2:291 13.1–2 2:292 13.2 2:289 13.2–3 1:295 13.3 2:293 13.5–7 3:339 13.7 2:295, 2:296 13.9 2:357 13.10 2:287, 3:326, 3:327 13.11 2:67, 2:287, 3:326 13.11–13 3:327 13.13 2:289, 2:292 13.14–15 3:331 13.14–16 3:327 13.18 3:340 14 2:96 14.3 2:289, 2:293, 2:296 14.3–6 2:291, 2:296 14.4–5 2:293 14.4–6 2:406

14.5 2:293 14.5–6 3:325 14.6 2:293 14.7 2:295 14.9–12 3:339 14.10 2:287 14.12 2:295 14.12–13 3:326 14.12–17 1:50, 3:327, 3:332 14.13 3:326 14.13–16 3:94 14.14 3:325 14.14–17 3:327 14.18–19 2:276, 3:367, 3:370, 3:381 14.19 2:87, 2:291, 3:215, 3:362, 3:364 14.20–21 3:328, 3:354 14.22 3:340 15.1–5 3:341 15.4–16 3:330 15.5 2:290, 2:291 15.5–6 1:50 15.5–16.9 3:341 15.7–15 2:296, 2:405 15.8 2:69, 2:294, 2:295 15.10–11 3:331, 3:337 15.12–13 2:196 15.13–14 2:201 15.13–17 3:325 15.15–17 1:127 15.18 2:290 15.19 2:290 16.1 3:323 16.1–2 1:295 16.1–4 2:37, 2:52 16.2–4 1:125, 2:488, 3:346 16.3–4 1:125, 1:139, 1:301 16.4–6 2:195 16.10 2:152 16.10–12 3:341 16.13–14 1:50 16.13–19 3:322 18–19 2:96 19–20 1:300, 3:165, 3:325 19.1 2:200, 2:276 19.1–2 2:290 19.2 1:50, 2:289 19.5–6 2:276 19.7 2:200 19.10 2:276

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 19.10–11 2:273, 3:215 19.11 2:291 19.15 2:276 19.26 2:287 19.29 2:291 19.29–31 2:290 19.33 2:290 19.33–34 3:165, 3:420 19.33b–34 3:44 19.34 3:119 20.1 2:286, 2:291, 3:215 20.2 2:287, 3:304 20.4–5 3:304 20.6 3:175 20.7a 3:304 20.10 2:276 20.12 2:290, 3:165, 3:420 20.13 2:276 20.13–15 1:125 20.14 2:286 20.15 3:272 20.18 3:91 20.20 3:158, 3:391 20.20–25 2:198 20.23 3:47 20.32 2:286 20.34 3:362, 3:367, 3:379, 3:381 frag. 13, lines 7–11 2:294 CD MS A 1–8 3:321 2.9–10 2:218 2.17–21 2:205 6.14–21 3:222 7.20–21 3:337 8.2c–12a 3:322 8.20 3:223 8.21 1:16 9–14 3:321, 3:326 10.14–11.18 2:223 11.13–14 1:20 11.17–18 2:213 15–16 3:321, 3:326 15.1–6a 2:229 15.5–6 2:229 15.6 2:229, 2:230 15.6a–b 2:229 15.6b–7 2:229 15.6b–15a 2:229 15.6b–16.6a 2:229 15.7 2:229

729

15.9 2:229 15.9–10 2:229 15.10 2:229 15.12 2:229 15.13–15 2:230 15.15–17 2:227, 2:229 15.15–18 2:227 15.15b–19 2:229 16.1 2:230 16.1–2 2:229 16.1–5 2:230 16.1–6a 2:229 16.4 2:230 16.4–5 2:229 cols. 15–16 2:229 CD MS B 19–20 3:321 19.6 3:345 19.9 3:337 19.10 3:342 19.10–13 3:342 19.15–16 3:324 19.15–24a 3:322, 3:323 19.16–21 3:323 19.24 3:342 19.26 3:342 19.31 3:342 19.33–20.1 3:223 19.33–34 1:16 20.1–8 3:331 20.10–13 3:223 20.15–16 3:342 20.17–28 3:339 20.18 2:213 20.25 3:324 20.32 2:292 29.14 3:342 Commentary on Genesis A 1:308, 1:309, 1:312, 1:313 Copper Scroll 3:104, 3:131. See 3Q15 Cryptic. See 4Q317 Daily Prayers 2:308, 2:309. See 4Q503 Damascus Document. See 4Q400–407, 1Q33, 1QM, 4Q491, 6Q15, CD Dame Folly and Lady Wisdom 3:263. See 4Q184 Daniel–Susannah. See 4Q551 Dead Sea Scrolls 1:101

730

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

Decrees. See 4Q477 Didactic Tale. See 4Q550 Discourse on the Exodus. See 4Q374 Enastrb. See 4Q209 Elect of God Text ar. 4Q536. See 4Q534 Florilegium 1:123, 1:294, 2:85, 2:87, 2:88, 2:109, 2:111, 2:112, 2:128, 2:150, 2:277, 3:48, 3:61, 3:65, 3:207, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:254, 3:266. See 4Q174 Four Kingdoms 1:120, 1:124. See 4Q552 Four Kingdomsa–b ar. See 4Q552–553 Fragment de Calendrier. See 4Q337 Fragment Mentioning Zedekiah. See 4Q470 Genesis Apocryphon ar. See 4Q227, 6Q8, IQapGen Habakkuk Commentary 1:183, 2:17, 2:235, 2:238, 3:89, 3:409, 3:422 Habakkuk Pesher. See 1QpHab Halakhic Letter 3:227 Harvesting 2:417, 2:418. See 4Q284a Hodayot See 1QH. Horoscope ar. See 4Q561 Horoscopes 3:135. See 4Q186 Hosea Pesher See 4Q167 Instruction on the two spirits 3:169 Isaiah Pesher. See 4Q164, 4QpIsaa 2. See 4Q162 3. See 4Q163 Jubilees. See 1Q17, 4Q176, 4Q216, 4Q267, 11Q12, CD Letter of Jeremiah. 2:397. See 7Q2 A Liturgy for Healing the Stricken. See 11Q11 Mase 1:235, 1:236, 1:254, 1:265, 1:267 Mask 2:37, 2:204, 2:204. See CD 1.3 1.6 2:225 1.3 1.10 2:225 1.3 1.13 2:225 1.3 1.14 2:225 1.3 2:217 MasShirShabb 1.2 3:107

Melchizedek 1:xxx, 1:123, 2:73, 2:75, 2:89, 2:276, 2:372, 2:387, 2:394, 2:403, 2:407, 3:95, 3:163, 3:164, 3:218, 3:219, 3:221. See 11Q13 Micah Pesher 1. See 1Q14 Miscellaneous Rules. See 4Q265 Mysteries 3:158, 3:275, 3:304, 3:336, 3:456. See 1Q27, 4Q299–301 Moses Apocryphon. See 4Q375 Nabatean letter 1:9 Nahum Pesher. See 4Q169 Narrative and Poetic Composition. See 2Q22 New Jerusalem 2:47, 2:339, 2:459, 2:465, 2Q24, 3:259, 3:264, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268. See 1Q32, 4Q232, 4Q554 New Jerusalem ar. See 1Q32 Noah Apocryphon. See 1Q19 Non–Masoretic Psalms. 11Q5–11Q6. See 4Q88 On Resurrection 1:xxx, 2:72, 2:268, 2:280, 3:43, 3:109, 3:114, 3:123, 3:291, 3:293, 3:336. See 4Q521 Otot. See 4Q319 pap4QpIsac frags. 6–7 2.3 1:280 frags. 6–7 lines 10–11 1:280 frags. 6–7 lines 14–15 1:281 frag. 25 lines 1–3 1:280 Paraphrase of Genesis. See 4Q422 Paraphrase of Kings. See 4Q382 Pesharim. See 4Q180 Pesher Habakkuk. See 1QpHab Pesher Nahum. See 4Q169 Pesher on Apocalypse of Weeks 2:457. See also 4Q247 Plea for Deliverance 1:234, 1:238, 1:263, 1:272, 2:154, 2:455, 3:455 Polemical. See 4Q471 Prayer of Joseph 3:131. See 4Q371–373 Prayer of Nabonidus. See 4Q242 Prayers for Festivals 2:301, 2:304, 2:305, 2:306, 2:307, 2:312, 2:313, 3:165. See 4Q507–509 Psalm 151A 1:234, 1:238 151B 1:234, 1:238 154 1:234

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX 155 1:234 Psalm Pesher 1. See 4Q171 Psalms Scroll. See 11Q5 Pseudepigrapha, Qumran. See 4Q380–381 pseudepigraphic works. See 4Q229 Pseudo–Daniel 1:113, 1:115, 1:116, 1:117, 1:132. See 4Q243–245 Pseudo–Daniel ar. See 4Q243–245 Pseudo–Enoch ar. See 6Q8 Pseudo–Ezekiel 1:132. See also 4Q385 Pseudo–Jubilees. See 4Q225 Pseudo–Moses. See 4Q390 Q34 frag. 3 1.4–6 3:367 Q554 frag. 1 1.9–2.10 3:267 QDibHama frag. 2 4.2–12 3:210 Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms. See 4Q380–381 Qumranic Pseudepigrapha. See 4Q380–381 Reworked Pentateuch 1:88, 1:314. See 4Q158, 4Q364–367 Rule of the Community 2:57. See 1QS, 4Q255, 4Q258, 4Q259 3–4. See 1QS Rule of the Congregation. See 1QS, 1Q28a Rules 2:417, 2:418 Sabbath Song 4 1:121 5 2:225, 2:226 7 2:225 Samuel–Kings Apocryphon. See 6Q9 Sapiential Work(s) 2:239, 2:265, 2:274, 2:280, 3:304, 3:334, 3:457, 3:456. See 4Q415–418 Sayings of Moses. See 1Q22 Sibor 3 3:346 3.243 2:413 3.745 2:413 4 3:15 5:414–433 3:251 5:420–27 3:251, 3:266 frag. 3.34–35 2:412

731

frag. 3.46–49 2:412 Some Works of the Torah. See 4Q313, 4Q394–399 Songs of the Master (Maskil). See 4Q510–511 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 1:127, 3:209, 3:210, 3:107. See 4Q400, 4QShirShabb Temple Scroll 1:6, 1:11, 1:29, 1:38, 1:47, 1:48, 1:50, 1:57, 1:64, 1:98, 1:134, 1:135, 1:136, 1:137, 1:138, 1:143, 1:144, 1:145, 1:147, 1:250, 1:290, 1:293, 1:295, 1:297, 1:298, 1:304, 1:309, 1:314, 2:9, 2:10, 2:11, 2:12, 2:13, 2:14, 2:15, 2:18, 2:26, 2:37, 2:44, 2:47, 2:57, 2:84, 2:152, 2:235, 2:332, 2:339, 2:351, 2:399, 2:400, 2:413, 2:416, 2:417, 2:418, 2:422, 2:423, 2:456, 2:462, 3:19, 3:44, 3:48, 3:57, 3:104, 3:110, 3:131, 3:151, 3:167, 3:173, 3:188, 3:224, 3:225, 3:235, 3:239, 3:240, 3:241, 3:242, 3:243, 3:244, 3:245, 3:246, 3:247, 3:248, 3:250, 3:254, 3:258, 3:263, 3:264, 3:266, 3:267, 3:268, 3:335, 3:362, 3:365, 3:366, 3:416, 3:433. See 11Q19–20, 4Q524 Testament of Amram 3:215. See also Visions of Amram Testament of Joseph 2:457, 2:464. See 4Q539 Testament of Judah. See 3Q7, 4Q538 Testament of Levi. See 1Q21, 4Q213, 4Q540–541 Testament of Naphtali 2:452, 3:390. See also 4Q215 Testament of Qahat ar. See 4Q542 Testimonia. See 4Q175 Text about Naphtali. See 4Q215 Thanksgiving Hymns 1:xxvii, 1:10, 1:18, 1:293, 2:96, 2:101, 2:204, 2:217, 2:233, 2:265, 2:272, 2:273, 2:274, 2:275, 2:280, 2:352, 2:353, 2:354, 2:355, 2:356, 2:357, 2:360, 2:443, 2:444. 3:457, 3:97, 3:119, 3:136, 3:138, 3:143, 3:150, 3:263, 3:269, 3:272, 3:409, 3:438, 3:439, 3:453, 3:454, 3:458. See 1QH, 4Q427 Tobit. See 4Q196–199 TohorotA–D. See 4Q275

732

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX

Vision and Its Interpretation. See 4Q410 The Vision of Michael. See 4Q529 Vision of Samuel. See 4Q160 Visiona,b,c. See 4Q556–558 Visions of Amram 1:132, 2:193, 2:263, 2:280, 2:458, 2:461, 2:463, 2:465, 2:466, 3:164, 3:215. See 4Q543–548 Visions of Amrama ar. See 4Q543 Visions of Amramc ar. See 4Q545 Visions of Amrame ar. See 4Q547 Visions of Amramf ar 3:164. See also 4Q548 War 2.134 3:332

War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness 1:225 War Scroll. See 1QM, 1Q33, 4Q491 Wicked and Holy. See 4Q180–181 Words of Benjamin. See 4Q529 Words of Benjamin ar. See 4Q538 Words of Joseph ar. See 4Q539, Testament of Joseph Words of Michael ar. See 4Q529 Words of Moses 1:132. See also 1Q22, 4Q251 Words of the Lights. See 4Q504–506 XQpapEnoch 2:451 Zadokite Work 6.11 3:324

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX RABBINIC (Abodah Zarah 2:6 2:421, 2:422, 2:423 2:8 2:421 2:41d 2:421 3b 2:374 3b 2:371 4:1–2 2:413 4:8–11 2:421 35b–36b 2:421, 2:422 35b–37a 2:421 36a 2:423 36b 2:423 m. )Abot 1:1 1:7 Baba Batra 3b 2:412 14a 2:115, 2:140 14b 1:27, 1:70 b. Berakot 17b 1:xxix Berakot 2:68 5:1 2:68 5:4 2:313 8:8 2:313 9:5 2:68 38 3:34 42a 2:415 43b 2:423 44a 2:118 52a 2:417 53b 2:415 55a 2:414 62a 2:420 Baba Mes[i(a 2:132 2:374 2:498 2:370 22a–b 2:418 Deuteronomy Rabbah 4:11 3:448 11:6 2:369 (Eduyyot 4:6 2:418, 2:421 (Erubin 21c 2:45 Exodus Rabbah 18:5 2:369 Genesis Rabbah 5:24 2:365

28:3 2:250 H9 agigah 12b 2:370 H9 ullin 36a–b 2:417 36b 2:418 60a 2:371 Kerithot 1:7 3:47 Ketubbot 50 3:34 Leviticus Rabbah 1:14 3:448 Maks ]irin 2:418 Megillah 3:6 2:118 4:8 3:77 18b 2:120 74b 2:118 Menah9ot 3:47 13:1 2:68 110a 2:370 m. Middot 2:5 2:423 Numbers Rabbah 14:4 3:77 15:22 3:77 Parah 3:1 2:97 3:2 2:97 8:5 2:417 8:5–7 2:417 Pe)ah 57a 3:47 Pesiqta Rabbati 3:2 3:77 29 3:448 30 3:448 33 3:448 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 26 2:371 Qiddus ]in 59b 2:418 Ros ] Has ]sanah 31a 2:155 m. Ros] Has]sanah 2:8–9 2:32

733

734 t. Ros ] Has ]sanah 2:1 2:33 y. Ros ] Has ]sanah 1:56d 2:40 Sa0 bbat 17a 2:423 17b 2:418, 2:423 21b 2:421 Sanhedrin 10:1 3:77 33b 2:201 38b 2:369, 2:374 94a 2:371 100 3:77 Se0 bi(it 6:1 2:417 10:2 3:194 Semah 9ot 8 2:398 11 2:399 18 2:398 23 2:398 43–44 2:47, 3:264 Soperim 18:4 2:155 Sukkah 4:9 3:122 5:2 3:122 20a 1:72 Ta(anit 68d 2:34 Ta(anit Wa)ethanan 6 2:370

NON-B IBLICAL I NDEX Tamid 7:4 2:155 T9 eharot 1:5 2:417 2:6 2:417 3:1 2:417 3:1–2 2:417, 2:420 9 2:418 9–10 2:420 Tepillin 9 2:116 Terumot 6:1 2:413 7:1 2:413 Targum Yerus ]almi 2:371 Targum Yerus ]almi I 2:370 Yadayim 3:5 1:69, 1:167 4:6 1:167 Yalqut 9 1 2:371 Yalqut 9 Genesis 5:24 2:365 Yoma 8 2:103, 2:105 9 2:103, 2:105 m. Zebah 9ahim 8:4 3:177 14:13 3:177 Zebah9im 11:16–17 3:47 62a 2:370